Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Get back to us when the GOP is willing to actually cut defense, Social Security, or Medicare/Medicaid, which together with interest payments make up most federal spending. Of the triad, I would have thought that Medicare/Medicaid was the likeliest candidate, but the GOP has actually been using the Democrats' HCR cuts against them.

Every year, it's the same bait and switch from them. They talk about downsizing government, but they have absolutely no thought or willingness to do so. And suckers like you keep voting for it, because you like the idea that they'll cut your taxes, even if they're just shifting the costs of government to future taxpayers. It's the political equivalent of a perpetual motion machine, but suckers like you keep it spinning.

All true, except for the "perpetual" part. The seeds that W sowed are bearing some nasty-ass fruit.

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

Is Ross Perot still alive?

Does anyone have the balls to suggest that we cut defense spending?

I do. We should cut defense spending. I'd toss in the towel on Iraq and Afghanistan now and cut those losses. Also, do we have any military expenditures related to troops in Europe or Korean? If so, cut and cut. Does that save any money?

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

All true, except for the "perpetual" part. The seeds that W sowed are bearing some nasty-ass fruit.

Before I was for W, I was against him. I wish y'all had listened to me then.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Perfectly fairly ridiculed. She didn't do her homework well enough to even know the basis of the wingnut argument she was relying on, and the argument she half remembered and thought she would make is one that is unsupportable by the historical record.

According to Forbes:

"Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" O'Donnell asked, a statement that drew laughter from the audience. When Coons returned to the topic a few minutes later, he said her comment "reveals her fundamental misunderstanding of what our Constitution is."

"The First Amendment establishes the separation, the fact that the federal government shall not establish religion," Coons said.

"The First Amendment does?" O'Donnell interrupted. "You're telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment?"

When Coons summarized the amendment as saying government shall make no law establishing religion, O'Donnell interrupted again: "That's in the First Amendment?"

Up until the last point, she's on solid ground. The First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." It doesn't say that church and state shall be separate.

On the last point, maybe she stepped in it, but it depends on what Coons said, which Forbes doesn't tell you.

I think the real issue here is that a lot of people think the phrase, "the separation of church and state," comes from the Constitution, rather than an 1802 letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association. Do you think Coons wasn't one of them?

eta: I will agree that the exchange shows that O'Donnell gets all of her information from the fringe, and doesn't understand how most people think about the issue, but that doesn't mean the fringe is necessarily wrong here.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

1. Did you not read what I write about the party being splintered (I think I wrote it twice)?

The party isn't splintered. Its politicians uniformly use the notion of cutting spending to get elected, and uniformly don't do anything in real furtherance of the goal once elected. If the party was really splintered, those who really believe in cutting spending would hold the others accountable, but they don't, ever. Those who talk about it are invited to leave the room, a la Bruce Bartlett. If you want to pretend that 20% of the GOP is Bruce Bartlett, you're deluding yourself.

2. I'm a sucker for taking my money now?

You're right -- "sucker" was the wrong word there. You're a sucker if you actually believe what they're selling. If you understand that it's a bait-and-switch but you like your tax cuts and are OK if that's what it takes to get them, you're not a sucker, you're a Republican.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Up until the last point, she's on solid ground. The First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." It doesn't say that church and state shall be separate.

How do church and state get together without Congress making some laws, and without Congress interfering with the free exercise of religion?

(Note that a week ago I might have written, "in the absence of any laws respecting an establishment of religion, church and state have less likelihood of getting together than Adder does of hooking up in a bar in Dublin." But this week, Adder got fucked in the ass, and all things are now possible.)

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

2. I'm a sucker for taking my money now? So if it's invested now and I get a solid return which I then pass on to my kid, I'm nevertheless screwing him? How do you know the money I have now won't yield above the tax costs you project he'll face later? You're usually a pretty logical guy, but really... It's glaringly apparent, You've Never Run Anything.

Please compare the following:

1. What your kid saved, in terms of his share of the national debt once he reaches age 18, in the years after Clinton raised taxes and eliminated the Reagan/Bush I deficits*

with

2. What you earned for your kid by investing your tax savings under W, minus what his share of the W-debt will be.




*And don't give me the "Clinton didn't cut the deficit, the economy did" meme. Any modern R would have slashed taxes from 1996 on. You need only look to the late-80s boom and the accompanying Reagan deficits for proof. Or to everything W said about cutting taxes because the economy was so strong (later changed to cutting taxes because the economy was weak).

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Please compare the following:

1. What your kid saved, in terms of his share of the national debt once he reaches age 18, in the years after Clinton raised taxes and eliminated the Reagan/Bush I deficits*

with

2. What you earned for your kid by investing your tax savings under W, minus what his share of the W-debt will be.


.

How about I earned my kids the opportunity to observe me drinking a higher class of wines at dinner? Is that persuasive?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Penske 2.0

How about I earned my kids the opportunity to observe me drinking a higher class of wines at dinner? Is that persuasive?

I'll grant you that one.

Tried a Croatian wine the other night, that I'd bought on a whim. 2003 Bura. Heavy, but damn good. I may have to buy some more, it'd go well with a serious meat dish (venison, lamb, roadkill, something like that).

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

According to Forbes:



Up until the last point, she's on solid ground. The First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." It doesn't say that church and state shall be separate.

On the last point, maybe she stepped in it, but it depends on what Coons said, which Forbes doesn't tell you.

I think the real issue here is that a lot of people think the phrase, "the separation of church and state," comes from the Constitution, rather than an 1802 letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association. Do you think Coons wasn't one of them?

eta: I will agree that the exchange shows that O'Donnell gets all of her information from the fringe, and doesn't understand how most people think about the issue, but that doesn't mean the fringe is necessarily wrong here.

My favorite comment after the CBS story on odonnel and church and state:

Delaware, if you don't elect Christine O'Donnell your Senator, you'll just be adding to the number of homeless lunattics that walk our city streets in an endless argument with themselves. This women has no hope for meaningful employment if not elected to national office on Nov 2. What employer in the right (or left) mind would take this person on knowing full well what has been brought to light during this campaign. Please...for the love of god (whichever one you prefer...if any???) elect this poor sole to the Senate where she can be cared for by professional psychological experts at Walter Reed...

I'd still fuck her.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

I'll grant you that one.

Tried a Croatian wine the other night, that I'd bought on a whim. 2003 Bura. Heavy, but damn good. I may have to buy some more, it'd go well with a serious meat dish (venison, lamb, roadkill, something like that).

Try a Georgian white sometime.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

How do church and state get together without Congress making some laws, and without Congress interfering with the free exercise of religion?

Suppose the government decides to give grants to community organizations that provide counseling, and most of the grants go to churches. Establishing religion? Perhaps not. Separation of church and state? No. Interference with free exercise? I don't think so.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

According to Forbes:



Up until the last point, she's on solid ground. The First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." It doesn't say that church and state shall be separate.

On the last point, maybe she stepped in it, but it depends on what Coons said, which Forbes doesn't tell you.

I think the real issue here is that a lot of people think the phrase, "the separation of church and state," comes from the Constitution, rather than an 1802 letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association. Do you think Coons wasn't one of them?

eta: I will agree that the exchange shows that O'Donnell gets all of her information from the fringe, and doesn't understand how most people think about the issue, but that doesn't mean the fringe is necessarily wrong here.

You're suggesting that she had an argument about what "establishment" means when it seems that she didn't have a clue that there was an establishment clause. You don't give her stupidity enough credit.

I was flabbergasted but understood when Sebby, for example, defended some of Bush's most idiotic statements.

But Sebby's a tad more conservative than you are and Bush is a tad smarter than O'Donnell.

(Confidential to Hank and Adder: I mean more than just a "tad").

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

I'd still fuck her.

No one's disputing this.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

TM