Breaking up with Norquist

[DJW]

Originally Posted by Lefty

Wake up, it's the signed pledge/oath to a private citizen by an elected official that's the problem. What the pledge concerns is irrelevant, it's the principle that's disgusting. At least you validated my previous post.

Bull Crap. What I validated is your hysterical sentimentality on the subject.

The "pledge" is to the RNC in return for support. Just as a "pledge" not to support anti-gun legislation in return for their support isn't an "OATH" to LaPierre.

How much DNC cash do you think rolls into the pockets of Dems who want to take away federal funding of Planned Parenthood? You think that means Dems made an "OATH" to Wasserman-Shultz?

So freaking predictable.. but ya'all just fall for it every time:
Rules for Radicals #12:

RULE 12: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

[Chief Davis57]

Both parties will preach job creation but can't possibly keep up with rate of layoffs from corporations continuing to out source US jobs. Once the big cuts come together with the military draw down we will have even more unemployed. There is no quick fix but we could attempt to turn things around by producing more goods here and stop buying the same products from China. As it is the consumer pays nearly the same price anyway and the big companies just make a greater profit and the stock holders stay happy. I am in Kuwait on deployment and the waste I see here is obscene... Chief

[Lefty]

Originally Posted by DJW

Bull Crap. What I validated is your hysterical sentimentality on the subject.

The "pledge" is to the RNC in return for support. Just as a "pledge" not to support anti-gun legislation in return for their support isn't an "OATH" to LaPierre.

How much DNC cash do you think rolls into the pockets of Dems who want to take away federal funding of Planned Parenthood? You think that means Dems made an "OATH" to Wasserman-Shultz?

So freaking predictable.. but ya'all just fall for it every time:
Rules for Radicals #12:

At least you're consistent with the bull$hit.




Sent from my iPhone using MO Free

[Scabbydoo]

Originally Posted by DJW

Scabby, with all due respect, that is ridiculous.

Does the NRA require the candidates it gives money to to "pledge' to protect gun rights?

Does Planned Parenthood require candidates it gives money to "pledge" to protect the right to murder your own children?

Does the Oil and Gas industry require candidates it gives money to to "pledge" not to increase lease fees on federal lands?

Of course they do. That's the whole point.

So, does the RNC require the candidates it gives money to to "pledge" not to raise taxes? Isn't that the #1 plank of the RNC for the past 40 years? Lower taxes?

So GN represents the RNC. That's his job. Michael Steele did the same thing 2 years ago. So there's nothing new under the sun besides a concerted effort on the part of the Media to find a goat to blame.

With the same "due respect", there is a cavernous difference between making a commitment (verbally to a group, in a campaign speech/ad/literature) that you will support a given position in reference to the current time and conditions and signing a pledge in perpetuity, stating that you will never vote a certain way on an issue, no matter the situation or circumstances. I stand by my statement that doing so is an abdication of their oath of office.

I was still pretty young and foolish when learned the folly of saying "Never!"

[thrasher]

Originally Posted by Scabbydoo

My only comment on the whole "breaking the pledge" scenario is that I know I didn't and as far as I know, nobody ever voted for Grover Norquist. He holds no office yet holds our government hostage. It's time for this ego centric little troll to be sent packing. As for those that signed the pledge, why would you as one sworn to an oath of office abdicate that responsibility and turn it over to someone that no one elected to anything.

Good post, Scabby.

Originally Posted by Lefty

Do you really think the self- proclaimed protectors of the Constitution, aka wingnuts, will understand your post?


Sent from my iPhone using MO Free

Not likely.

[DJW]

Originally Posted by Scabbydoo

there is a cavernous difference

Cavernous?



If they want to vote against their "pinky-swear" to the RNX there is nothing stopping them.

Except a the cash they won't be getting in their next campaign.

My guess is that's the only cavern they're concerned with.

[Waffen]

While the surfs fight over a piece of paper and the meaning of "is" the politicans are screwing you blind.

[Uncle Salty]

What I find very entertaining is the same people that raised ten kinds of hell for the "Bush tax cuts" now want to keep 98% of them.

[Waffen]

Originally Posted by Uncle Salty

What I find very entertaining is the same people that raised ten kinds of hell for the "Bush tax cuts" now want to keep 98% of them.

Fence sitters. Can't make up their friggen minds who to follow.