Sunday, February 21, 2010

OK I WILL SAY IT SINCE NO ONE ELSE WILL...


Glenn Beck rips the GOP a new one in his pathetic speech at the CPAC convention and now we have Ron Paul winning the straw poll. Am I missing something here? This is so not ok, okay?! Does anybody have a clue in this freaking party? The Republican party is not like the Democratic party Mr. Beck. Stop marrying the two and show some respect. Memo: To: Republicans: Glenn Beck did us no favors at CPAC! Ron Paul is a looney and his constituents are psycho Losertarians or worse Obama flunkies. Ron will attract the extreme left of the Obamakins and the extreme right-winged LOSER-FREAKING-TARIANS. Please Glenn, stop rallying the extreme right-wing nut jobs, this will ensure an Obama win in 2012 and that is NOT COOL WITH ME! Ron Paul is Mr. Magoo on crack and will kill OUR MOMENTUM. Glenn needs to SHUT IT and Republicans need to wake up! Glenn is NOT a Republican for the UMPTEENTH TIME! This just sucks. Glenn gets it DEAD ASS WRONG! This is not the time to rip on the GOP AND make love to Ron. We have the momentum and the last thing the party needs is the crazy Ron Paul peeps showing up in 2012 with a third party candidate if the dude doesn't win the nomination WHICH HE WON'T and if he DOES he WILL LOSE and we will have OBAMA for 4 more years. I know, major run-on, but I am pissed. Nice going Glenn. Now shut the hell up. Don't make me hit you in the street. Your popularity is going to your fat head and you are mucking 2012 all up. BULLOCKS!! Yes I am on the floor kicking and screaming throwing a big tantrum. This is so messed UP! Friggin Ron Paul sucks and so does Glenn at this point. Wake up people. I will re-post my Libertarian rip if I have to...BOTH OF THEM!
*Reaganitis McPain and "True" Conservatism

ON A LIGHTER NOTE:
The cold war is back!! Leave it to the big fat baby Russian figure skaters to throw down the gauntlet after losing to our stud skater dude. I say bring it. Movies have sucked since the cold war was over. Movies can once again have a Russian spy theme. I miss those days. Back in the eighties we hated the Russians and sent sexy spies to kick their asses. I want those days back and I think I got my wish!! Russian skater spies! You sore losers!! USA USA USA USA USA USA!!!

21 comments:

Pedaling said...

i missed some Olympic drama?

no 3rd party,
no ron paul!

but, i do like glenn beck,loved his speech and feel he's just trying- in his own way- to bring the republicans back to their more conservative roots.....you cannot tell me that those like john mccain represent the republican party! even george w.- who you know i love- veered away from the the principles and away from those who voted him in. i remember saying, before i listened to beck, btw- at the end of bush's term- "who did he make a deal with?" "what is going on?" it was frustrating- the immigration things done, or shall i say, not done- very frustrating- abandoning free-market principles, frustrating!.... that is crazy talk....beck is just using his popularity, to get us back on track- back to Regan republican policies....that's all-
chill, nikki, chill- it's all good!

Nikki said...

Pedaling, Let's talk about Reagan...AMNESTY to illegals, a very high deficit and spending spending spending. I love Reagan but he is no Libertarian, he is far more like Bush. Bush just was a lousy communicator where Reagan was fantastic. Reagan ended his Presidency very unpopular because of Irangate but made a rebound recently. Beck is full of crap. The republican party has not forgotten it's conservative roots...it's the whacked out libertarians who want to hijack the party much like liberals have hijacked the democratic party to gain more power in general elections and they are doing a great job and Beck is helping. The party does not need to go further to the right. I can not stress that enough. It's all bad. But I appreciate the disagreement. I disagree PROFOUNDLY! I still love ya...:)N

Conscious Observer said...

You go Girl! I've been wondering where Glenn is heading myself. I don't mind one saying they're conservative and one saying Republican, but the last thing we need is to be fused together as progressives from both sides Mr Beck. And I like ya dude. Don't get stupid though...

And Ron Paul... ugh...I got nothin... BUTT and I got a big one of those, I'm back blogging! Please check out my practice run "I'm Back! Hey Gibbs Read my hand" on Conscious Observer please!

God Bless ya and good to read your passion. Now get off the floor and go after someone else...yer sounding like Obaby : )

Pedaling said...

hmmmm-
a few things:
1. there is no way i can debate you- you will win every time..
2. i'm not looking for a libertarian-
just a good old fashioned conservative republican-like say a sarah palin who can actually win....
3. in your opinion, who might that be?
4. i still give glenn beck the credit for informing and motivating people to do something...to see the frog in the water as it starts to boil-to ask questions and demand answers-and yes, to bring the republicans back to conservative values.

????
help me out here, nikki

i don't agree with beck on the 3rd party issue- but, i did not feel that was what he was pushing for in his cpac speech-

Sandi said...

Glenn Beck is a very odd fellow. He basically says whatever will bring him the most celebrity and money. There are a lot of good people in the GOP, but he is making the whole party look like a bunch of yo-ho's. Time for him to just cry himself to sleep and fade away.

Nikki said...

Pedaling,

1. No one one wins or loses, we are just discussing.
2. Becks ideology is much closer to the Libertarian party than the Republican party. The phants are the bigger and ideologically closer party and actually have a chance at winning the Presidency so taking them further to the right is a must for those with the Beck mentality. A far right candidate or a "true" conservative will not have a chance to win, America is much more moderate. Many will argue and say differently citing Reagan as a true conservative, but he was far from where Beck is fiscally and in immigration further left than Bush. I posted a link on a post I wrote on Reagan.
3. I like Mitt Romney. I think he is a strong conservative with a brain and is independent of the evangelical string pullers in the Republican party. Sarah Palin will be and is a puppet like Obama is. Mitt will actually run the show. But religious bigotry runs amok in the Republican party and that is why they portray him as a RINO, you and I both know Evangelicals hate Mormons because we do not belong to the Worldwide Church Organization and are independent, so we are not "Christians" according to them.
4. The Republicans have never left conservative values. As a matter of fact if you roam the conservative blogs many are abandoning the anti-gay marriage cause and why are they? Because they are adopting a Ron Paul-Glenn Beck philosophy. Libertarians are socially liberal and want the government out of ALL of our affairs. So while the party moves further to the right fiscally, many are moving further to the left socially in the name of less government intrusion. Again Beck is doing us no favors. I can't stress that enough. Notice he never talks about social issues, only fiscal issues. He is on a dangerous road and he doesn't even realize it. Ron Paul is the candidate that fits the Beck agenda...Socially liberal, economically an extreme conservative, he would rid us of most of our military and isolate us from the rest of the world. These are the philosophies of the extreme left and right.
Personally I would like to know what other "conservative" values Beck holds other than fiscal ones. He never says. If he is going to influence for good, then push for social conservatism as well. But he does not because he appeals to many on the extreme left. Who is abandoning what value? Beck has abandoned many core values but so many are blinded by his founding father diatribes that they forget the many faceted ideals that are losing ground.
Thanks for the discussion, not debate. I love a good robust discussion!! ;)N

Nikki said...

CO...Obaby!!! I love it! :)N

Pedaling said...

anyone, who knows me well,
knows
i LOVE MITT ROMNEY!
always have.
he's the one i've donated the most $$ - and the one my husband flew to Massachusetts to campaign and make phone calls ---

oh, and i forgot to say, your post pic is hilarious!

but, you do have to admit- becks point on who the enemy or who's the problem in america ...who's bringing america down....are the progressives.
you agree, yes?
and don't you feel it well, that he is reminding/informing many of our history, so we don't make the same mistakes? i know, i am learning more, getting reminded and enlightened....is this not good?

should i stop now?
i don't mean to bug.
or suck up all your comment space- just trying to understand your point of view.

Nikki said...

Pedaling...if you love Mitt stop listening to Beck because he will rip him a new one come election time. I agree with you, liberals aka progressives are the enemy and Beck is doing a fine job bringing them down. We can agree on that for sure! You are not bugging AT ALL and no such thing as sucking up comment space. Keep supporting Mitt, but pay attention, Beck has little love for him because why? NOT CONSERVATIVE ENOUGH!! Just keeping it real...I wish Beck would. :)N

Pedaling said...

k- one more

i can love mitt and listen to beck- why would i disregard everything, simply because we differ on a few things? i listen, i take from him what i agree with, form my own opinion, and move forward....there are things i agree with him on and things i don't...but, he has time to check facts, report what's happening---and i don't- i don't have a crew working for me investigating all the political happenings- i trust that beck informs accurately - after he spills out facts- then he gives his opinion- most of the time i agree, sometimes i do not. and i don't blindly follow. when glenn hammers on bush- i don't blindly follow- you won't find me in the living room shouting, "yeah, bad bush, bad bush" and it will be the same if it happens with mitt- and yes, it probably will, (though not as harsh) i'll still vote for mitt..again, i can like mitt and glenn, while still disagreeing with either- just like i can like you, while not always agreeing-

beck is a good guy- i feel he is helping- he's smart- he is conservative and i respect his passion and his views-
mitt romney- also a good guy- always the smartest in the room-
i trust him- (crazy, i know, trusting a politician)- but, hey, gotta trust somebody, sometime-
i dig both men!

btw: this was the first time- i've had a discussion like this in the comments- not usually my thing - it's fun. :)

oh, and p.s.-
who you be votin' for in Az?
mccain or hayworth?

Nikki said...

Pedaling, I agree that Beck can be taken with a grain of salt and that his opinions can be sifted through. And I don't dispute the information he brings especially the info about Czars in the Obama administration. I think he is right on about all of that. I think where he goes whacko is with his hyper-focused ideas on American fiscal policy and his stance on the founding fathers is just plain BS. There was much disagreement among the founding fathers and as a history buff, I see no blanket philosophy among any of the declaration signers. One thing he and I agree on is taxes. His government spending mantra is correct but a lot of it is unrealistic in an imperfect world. My personal philosophy when it comes to political entertainers like him is that an opinion without accountability is worthless. They can spout all day long with little consequence or real decision making and I also choose not to listen to hyped up news mostly because I like my own fresh opinion when scouring the news, that's all. I don't want any one person or group influencing my thought process ever.
I prefer McCain only because I hate Joe Arpaio and he endorsed JD who is a crazy mass deportation conservative another RINO issue for me.
These types of discussions are super fun. Especially when we really are not trying to convince one another, just offering understanding. Clarity should always be the goal, not winning an argument! Clarifying our positions breeds an empathetic approach to issues vs. the need to persuade. :)N

Nikki said...

Pedaling...GREAT CHAT GIRL!! :)N

El Cerdo Ignatius said...

Nikki, go back and re-read what I wrote a few months back about Reagan's record. He gave into the 1986 amnesty because he was promised enforcement in the future. That promise never materialized. The spending, spending, spending was a problem, but you might want to check which party controlled Congress most of that time. And the military spending helped sink the Soviet Union anyway - what existential threat are we facing now that requires multi-trillion dollar debt? Bush's spending was not a bit reluctant - he loved all the new domestic programs, whereas they would have made Reagan heave his lunch.

You cannot tie McCain and Reagan together, except that they probably would have the same foreign policy under the same circumstances.

As for Ron Paul, I don't care for the guy, but if there is one thing he knows, it's monetary policy. Had he been in charge of the Fed OR the Department of the Treasury during the last ten years, instead of Alan "Bubble" Greenspan and Ben "Mini Me" Bernanke, there would have been no housing and banking crisis.

Nikki said...

El C, I remember our chat about Reagan and I think the same argument you use for Reagan amnesty could be used for Bush in his immigration proposal. I don't dispute the need under Bush to reel in spending among all the repugs. There wasn't a piece of legislation they didn't love like it was their own child. Bush didn't veto anything for years and Reagan vetoed plenty and rightly so, I understand all of that. But I still think there is NOT a stark difference in governing between Bush and Reagan like some conservatives portray. I think there is very little difference between the two Presidents other than speaking and the veto. And let's not forget that Reagan helped grow the budget by almost 70% and grew the government by about 7% and the deficit exploded. And why would Bush veto his own party? He had a majority for most of his Presidency and gave them much of what they and the democrats wanted. It appears that he got most of the blame among spend happy repugs and democrats and then they turned on him. I think it is shameful. But veto he should have. :)N

El Cerdo Ignatius said...

El C, I remember our chat about Reagan and I think the same argument you use for Reagan amnesty could be used for Bush in his immigration proposal.

The difference is that Bush should bloody well have known better, given what happened 20 years earlier. But he (and McCain, and others) appeared utterly naive about the whole thing.

I don't dispute the need under Bush to reel in spending among all the repugs.

Without perhaps realizing it, you've just hit on the biggest problem in the GOP, and have explained why Libertarians and guys like Glenn Beck have gotten traction the last year or so. When the GOP goes the progressive route, the country goes deeper into the red. Beck, for all the things about him that you find tasteless, understands that the US government is bankrupt and is taking the whole country down. For too long, too few have been willing to call out the Republican Party for its abysmal fiscal record in the 00's. If a reasonable spokesperson or leader is not going to emerge and identify serious problems in the American polity, then we'll end up with ones who are a lot less reasonable.

There wasn't a piece of legislation they didn't love like it was their own child. Bush didn't veto anything for years and Reagan vetoed plenty and rightly so, I understand all of that. But I still think there is NOT a stark difference in governing between Bush and Reagan like some conservatives portray.

Nikki, that IS the stark difference. Reagan couldn't stand how large the federal government was. Bush thought there was no problem at all. This is how we ended up with Obama: the disaster wrought by borrowing and spending huge gobs of money on domestic spending made the voters look elsewhere. They would have voted for Humpty Dumpty if he'd been in a different party that GWB. And there stood Obama.

I think there is very little difference between the two Presidents other than speaking and the veto.

Covered above.

And let's not forget that Reagan helped grow the budget by almost 70% and grew the government by about 7% and the deficit exploded.

Actually, I'll grant you that the budget growth under Reagan was closer to 80%. But thanks to a sensible tax policy, revenues were way up too. The problem, again, was that Reagan's budgets were always DOA at Congress, and the spending was always higher on account of the Democratic Congress. Under Bush, it was his administration and the Republican Congress that initiated and passed the crazy spending. That's a heck of a difference.

And why would Bush veto his own party?

Because they were idiots on fiscal policy? Because they were needlessly adding to the debt? Because they were a bunch of scum-sucking dirtbags who were feeding at the trough and bending over for every lobbyist who came their way? Because they failed to recognized the supremacy of the Constitution, particularly with respect to the 10th Amendment? I could go on and on here.

He had a majority for most of his Presidency and gave them much of what they and the democrats wanted.

Precisely the problem. It was a missed opportunity of gargantuan proportions.

It appears that he got most of the blame among spend happy repugs and democrats and then they turned on him. I think it is shameful.

True, but it was totally predictable. I saw this shaping up back in 2002, but no one listens to obscure foreigners.

But veto he should have. :)N

Agreed, duck, agreed.

Nikki said...

El C, let's not forget there is an argument to be had for deficit spending in a time of recession. The economy had already begun to nose dive during the end of the Clinton Utopian years because of the fraudulent accounting practices of Enron, Worldcomm and other corps. The stock market was inflated and the US was heading for a recession. Then 9/11 happened and the recession was in full swing. No one can argue that Bush did not handle the economy much better than Obama has in this current crisis as the Bush recession following the worst attack on US soil could have been catastrophic to our economy. Many economists, including the World economic forum pushed for deficit spending to curb the dangerous down turn after 9/11. There was a method to the madness and to claim it was fully irresponsible spending is unfair. Bush cut taxes and continued the money flow into the market. The economy did flourish for several years after a very short recession in what could have been a horrific one.
I don't think immigration is naive to 2 politicians from border states whose constituents are a lot of Mexican immigrants. A stupid thing to do would be to lose an election by pissing off a large part of your base.
Revenue under Bush was way up as well.
My biggest issue with Beck is the damage he does in the name of objectivity. His points on spending are well taken, but should not be at the risk of losing republican voters to the Libertarian 3rd party candidate. That would be devastating to our country and a sure win for Obama in 2012. He is pushing many to the Ron Paul's of the party and the result is nothing but bad. While so many stand on principle and vote for a more conservative candidate, we will be left with the current mess and current administration. That to me is counter-productive. IMO Beck should support the GOP no matter who wins the nomination for the mere fact of ridding us of Obamunism. Then the people will and can demand fiscal discipline. No need to duck, I am not throwing anything...HA! Great discussion. :)N

El Cerdo Ignatius said...

Hi Nikki. "Duck" is a British/Canadian term of endearment, not a description of me taking cover. But I'm glad to know I don't need to take cover. Yet.

Deficit spending in a time of recession? There are a number of schools of thought here. Even the most committed Keynesian would agree that if your national debt is already in the trillions of dollars, then you can't afford to run deficits, no matter how good your intentions and no matter how great the fools of the World Economic Forum think it is. And if you want to run a deficit, there is no need to spend a dime in additional money. All you need to do is cut taxes, even temporarily. There is no need to grow the government. There is no excuse for creating new entitlement programs, period.

A huge problem with arguing for the appropriateness of deficit spending in a time of recession is that it gives cover to people like Barack Obama, who use it to meet their goal of turning the government into a huge, Euro-style, tentacled monster.

The Canadian federal government, in the early and mid-1990s, made huge cuts to government spending in order to wipe the deficit out, even though there were calls for continued spending to (at first) fight a recession and (later) to stimulate a weak economy. The result of the government getting its house in order was a huge wave of business investment and consumer confidence that lasted many years. The key difference, though, was that doing it this way did not grow the government, ended up shrinking the national debt, and the economic growth did not die off quickly. The only cost was that it took a little longer (2 to 3 years) to get going.

Nikki said...

El C, I was talking about the Bush deficit spending not the Obama deficit spending which was quadrupled! HA!
Deficit spending is often used as stimulus and is arguably part of the natural economic process for an expanding economy. Money supply should grow with a larger economy some theorize. I do think Obama took it to a gross level and Bush is not innocent, but Bush did have to deal with 9/11 and started the war on terror which was the bulk of his spending. The US really had no choice in my opinion and it was the right thing to do.
It's time to reign in spending and obviously not propose a trillion dollar health care program and I agree with all that. I also think the banks never ever ever should have been bailed out by either President.
But it is arguable that deficit spending early on in the Bush years worked and another attack was prevented under him. The problem is that Presidents are only in for 4 years and their supposed balanced budgets are years down the road and then you get in a spend happy democrat and the deficit explodes and inflation rises and the value of the dollar decreases yadda yadda yadda...:)N

Nikki said...

AND let me just add...4 years is long enough I don't mean "only" as in I want them longer I DON'T. I say all incumbents get the hell out!! :)N

El Cerdo Ignatius said...

Deficit spending is often used as stimulus and is arguably part of the natural economic process for an expanding economy. Money supply should grow with a larger economy some theorize.

Just to clarify - are you tying these two statements together? I.e., are you saying that deficit spending is a way of increasing the money supply?

Nikki said...

Yes, to the peeps...the government keeps the cash flowing even though revenue is down during an economic downturn and it is often sustained by printing money, which deflates the dollar but keeps money floating around. And some argue that as the economy expands the money supply needs to as well and in the end prevents recession. I suppose it's a psychological fix. I have also read that recessions are no cause for panic in the economic cycle and I am not sure I believe in the unseen hand theory either. I think the economy fluctuates and it's a natural occurance depending on our wickedness... haha kidding!! I am not arguing for or against deficit spending just pointing out that some economists disagree with Keynesian theories. I don't know near enough about economics to go into too much depth. I had a class in college on economics and the instructor came to class drunk!! So who knows at this point! :)N