Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Pledge You, You Motherpledger
I want all the candidates (Presidential and otherwise) to sign MY pledge. What's my pledge, you ask? Simple; DON'T SIGN ANYMORE FRIGGING PLEDGES!!!!! Yeah, that's correct; no more marriage pledges, no more abortion (pro-life OR pro-choice) pledges, no more union pledges, no more tax pledges, nada, zero, nil, bubkas. Enough is enough already!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
41 comments:
Republicans signing pledges is OK with me (except for yours). Because when they do the Left can point out that they are racist, homophobic, anti women's rights, or whatever (depending on the nature of the pledge). They're providing (metaphorical) ammunition that can be used against them. Keep it up I say.
BTW, who signed a pro-choice pledge? Who signed a union pledge?
You're right, wd. It isn't a pledge as much as it is a secret handshake.
Since I am on call this weekend and cannot leave the area I will pledge to have a decent beer buzz going all weekend.
Pledges are stupid. They make you canon fadder for when you break it. Ask Bush Sr.
I have NO problem with your pledge, double b. a) You're not a politician and b) it's hell of a damn good pledge. CHEERS!!
You're right, CDM. Pledges are for dusting only. And, plus, they make you look like such a frigging ass-sniffer.
So is the person signing your pledge breaking it by signing it?
great title Will, titles are very important! As for pledges, they make the signers and pledge writers look like 5th graders! They are STUPID nonsense, but those blind sheeple can't help themselves, they must have a leader show them the way...
This horrible pledge to NEVER raise taxes is killing the Republican Party, how is that good for the Righties?
It would be in their best interests long-term; those pledges are inflexible and don't allow candidates-turned-elected-officials to adapt to changing realities without reneging on their previous promises.
promises schromises, this is not grade school! We are the United States of America and our elected leaders should not be pledging to do or not to do certain things that could mean the fall of our nation and her people!
Lets see Sue,promises like...hmm lets see.
"unemployment will not exceed 8%"
"I will close Gitmo"
"I will end the war's"
"I will end the Bush tax cuts"
Stuff like that? Oh dammit I made fun of Obie and you cant delete it,this is'nt your echo chamber.I heard Eric Cantor bitched slapped your boy yesterday.
Jerry, no, my pledge only pertains to pledges made after my pledge. I had my attorney word it very carefully.............Sue, the Republican party once had a lot of admirable people in it; Ike, Rockefeller, Jacob Javits, Everett Dirksen, Chuck Percy, Ed Brooke, Gerry Ford, Howard Baker, Bill Cohen, Lowell Weicker, Stew McKinney (the McKinney Act - google it), and, more recently, Chuck Hagel. And, yes, I would absolutely welcome anything out there to get it back to sanity.............Well said, Brightenedboy. Sadly, though, most politicians tend to wedge reality to fit their pre-existing version of it/dogma.
Russ, the 8% promise was stupid, no question But, right now, as we speak, Mr. Obama is coming across as significantly more serious, in my opinion. He put forth a proposal that was 3-4:1 in favor of spending cuts all that the Republicans can do is genuflect to Grover Nordquist. We need somebody from that side of the aisle to show some courage and stand up to the Tea Partiers/put the country ahead of any reelection considerations.
I think the 8% was more of an estimate than a promise. I am not so generous on his statements about closing Gitmo, getting out of two wars, and ending the Bush tax cuts.
Will,I'm gonna call B.S.on you about Obama being "serious."
Since you think he's leading the charge,what exactly is his plan?If you know,you are the only one in the country,including Obama.He has been asked time and time again for a specific spending reduction plan and as of today has'nt put one foward.In fact the number he throws out has changed each day.He's called off tomorrow's talks...I'll give you 3-1 he's playing golf.Serious....I think not....clueless....perhaps.
Public debt as a % of GDP
2006-36.9%
2007-36.2%
2008-40.2%
2009-53.6%
2010-62.2%
And Will says this guy is "serious" about reducing spending.Oh,shit I gotta go...there's a Unicorn in my backyard.
Rusty: And Will says this guy is "serious" about reducing spending.
Surprisingly, I agree with Rusty. Barack Obama is not serious about reducing spending. Because that is NOT what we should be doing at this time.
That is what Republicans think we should be doing, but their goal is to drive the economy back into recession. This whole discussion regarding the debt is total BS.
BTW Rusty, the "Public debt as a % of GDP" figures you provided are thanks to George W bush. President Obama is spending now because he must, otherwise the economy will slip back into recession. We need to increase spending on exactly the programs Republicans want to cut.
WD: "Republicans signing pledges is OK with me (except for yours).... anti women's rights"
Hm? How many decades since there has even been an anti-womens rights pledge? If there ever was one?
And we need to reduce spending, a lot. There's so much waste. We can start with the hundreds of billions which are going in "entitlements" to the wealthy and well off. Waste that WD says we need for propaganda purposes, not because those people need the government handouts.
WD pronounces todays public debt problem is a direct result of George Bush.Seeing that this magical pronouncement comes sans facts from someone as brilliant as WD that seals the deal for me.If WD says its Bush's fault thats good enough for Rusty.
In past postings WD also said Bush was on the grassy knoll,Bush planned the 9-11 attack,Bush pushed an iceberg in the path of the Titanic,Bush headed the Roswell cover up,Bush kidnapped the Lindbergh baby and Bush also tried to give Castro an exploding cigar.
At this very moment WD,wearing his tin foil hat,is thinking of other things George Bush is responsible for.
You forgot to add other jokes such as Bush shot JR Ewing, Bush is a war criminal, Bush knocked off a 7-11 in that unexplained robbery in Columbus, Oh in 1997, and Bush stole the lost ark.
Rusty must be either off his meds or high on PCP. How else do you explain fantastical tales of trips to Singapore, unicorns in his backyard, and his insistence that the man who turned a surplus into more than 6 trillion in debt ISN'T responsible for the "debt problem"?
Or perhaps he's just a moron. Because everyone who isn't a moron knows bush is responsible for the lion's share of the national debt. The money spent on the stimulus was to pull us out of the bush recession, so I'd blame him for that too.
And then there are his very expensive tax cuts, which are still around because the Republicans forced Obama to extend them... so guess what, I blame bush for that as well.
As for all the other things you say I'm blaming him for... I never said any of those things.
I suggest you put down the crack pipe and take off YOUR tin foil hat... your delusions are getting so strong it's scary.
dmarks: How many decades since there has even been an anti-women's rights pledge?
It hasn't been decades since the Republicans tried to restrict a woman's right to choose. That's going on RIGHT NOW.
"It hasn't been decades since the Republicans tried to restrict a woman's right to choose. That's going on RIGHT NOW."
The right to choose to kill another human being? For simply being inconvienent?
What about equal rights here WD? If a woman "chooses" to kill her baby the father has no say in the matter. His son or daughter is dead. If the father doesn't want the baby and the mother does he's paying for the next 18 years. He STILL has no say in the matter.
Why is it that even though it takes TWO to make a baby, only the woman decides wether it lives or dies?
Nobody is killing a baby. That is against the law.
Jerry Critter: Nobody is killing a baby. That is against the law.
100 percent agreed.
Also, men should have no say regarding what any woman does with her body. It's a misogynistic position.
signing one of those ridiculous pledges that the wingnuts put their lives on the line for, is much, much, different than a campaign talking point. Situations change and smart presidents know how to change with the times, apparently stupid GOP politicians do not. A pledge before God is a pledge that can NOT BE BROKEN, God-forbid!!
Cantor bitch slapped Obama?? LMAO!! You are a delusional wacko Russ man!!
w is correct about the spending. Obama knows what he's doing, when will the Right wake up and smell our fabulously intelligent president they are so furiously jealous of?? Sorry you have NO smart men on your side of the isle, NO NOT ONE...
Rusty, Cantor didn't walk away from the table because of Mr. Obama's lack of specificity (though, yes, that is in fact a valid criticism). He walked away because Obama refused to take revenues off of the table. I mean, I hate to be so blunt about it here but I don't know any fair-minded individual who thinks that we can meaningfully reduce this deficit via spending cuts alone, especially when a lot of Republicans like Ryan don't even address the bloated military budget and other like Bachmann, Palin, and Blackburn babble incomprehensibly.............Look, Russ, you know that I'm not an Obama water-carrier. But on this one, he's being the statesmen, in my opinion.
I've got good news and bad news, Sue. The good news is that there ARE some intelligent Republicans out there. The bad news that none of them are presently in positions of power. Yes, I'm referring here to people like David Stockman, Bruce Bartlett, David Frum, Alan Simpson, Joe Scarborough, and even Alan Greenspan who recently said that tax cuts don't pay for themselves.
Will: But on this one, he's being the statesmen, in my opinion.
Well, that's one thing to be glad of... I guess. Will has been totally fooled.
Rusty: I heard Eric Cantor bitched slapped your boy yesterday.
I heard that Cantor is "the worst amateur who had ever ascended to a leadership position in Congress".
That's what Lawrence O'Donnell said about him last night on his program. Then he added, "The President has obviously recognized from the start (laughs) that a rank amateur was sitting across the table from him, and the President played Cantor's childish reactions to the Democrat's full advantage".
O'Donnell was referring to the 4 trillion dollar "grand bargain" The President KNEW the Boner and Cantor would never accept... but would make him APPEAR reasonable to Moderates and Independents.
I think that we may have found an area of agreement, wd. Eric Cantor is dull.
Well,I stand corrected,I'm humbled...the three wise one's...WD,Sue and Larry O'Donnell have spoken...the staggering national debt is the fault of George Bush...because everyone who is'nt a moron knows that.Thank you for the economic's lesson.WD and Sue are just whip smart...I mean the two of them remind one of Madame Curie and Louis Pasteur..two gigantic minds melded into one...its all Bush's fault...what an astounding hypothesis.
WD said: "nd his insistence that the man who turned a surplus into more than 6 trillion in debt ISN'T responsible for the "debt problem"?"
The Clinton surplus is as real as unicorns. There were only defificts on his watch. Bush turned a deficit into a higher deficit. Obama did the same thing.
Also, you are confusing debt and deficit. Clinton handed Bush a massive debt that he added $1.6 trillion to, himself. Bush then added $6 trillion to it.
"Or perhaps he's just a moron. Because everyone who isn't a moron knows bush is responsible for the lion's share of the national debt."
Two lions. The amount of debt Bush is reaponsible for is about the same as the amount Obama is responsible for. Only Obama's done this in 3 years and it took Bush 8.
"It hasn't been decades since the Republicans tried to restrict a woman's right to choose."
You mean "restrict abortion". That is what the issue is about. Abortion, yes or no. Not "choice". And actually this is a children's rights matter, not a women's rights matter. Most people oppose abortion, and more women than men oppose it.
WD: "Also, men should have no say regarding what any woman does with her body. It's a misogynistic position."
which has nothing to do with abortion, which is an issue over what is done with a child.
It is as much about restriction what a woman does with her body as rape is about what a man does with his body: such weasel-words are attempts to mask the fact that the issue is abortion: yes or no?".
Also, more victims of abortion are young females than they are young males... more so with sex selection becoming common. It's a misogynistic practice.
WD: "The President KNEW the Boner and Cantor would never accept..."
And this is coming from the same commenter who got bent out of shape over making fun of Weiner's name.
dmarks: And this is coming from the same commenter who got bent out of shape over making fun of Weiner's name.
dmarks, I never said a thing about making fun of the name Weiner. I'd appreciate it if you could limit your criticism of me to things I've actually said, as opposed to things you've imagined I've said. Obviously that's way too much to ask though.
And what's this about you being pro-rape? Do you believe this is a popular position?
dmarks: Most people oppose abortion, and more women than men oppose it.
Sorry dmarks, but the facts disagree with you...
A 2009 CBS News/New York Times poll says, "Strong Support For Abortion Rights". The poll shows that "there are no major differences between mens' and womens' stands on the issue". 80% of men, and 76% of women believe abortion should be legal.
WD: "dmarks, I never said a thing about making fun of the name Weiner."
Actually, you did, when I mocked the conservative radio commentator Michael "Savage" Weiner. You objected to me making fun of his name.
"I'd appreciate it if you could limit your criticism of me to things I've actually said"
What you really mean is that you'd wish that I limit my criticism to not point out embarassing and ridiculous things you have actually said in these discussions. Yes, that is a paraphrasing that is probably rather inaccurate. But it is actually the first from me that is.
"A 2009 CBS News/New York Times poll says, "Strong Support For Abortion Rights".
The headline right there says its bias. The side that favors abortion often uses the term "abortion rights", when it is hardly neutral and the other side is fighting for rights also.
The Gallup poll is much more accurate and uses neutral terms. I was referring to the 2010 poll, in which those who opposed abortion outnumbered those who favor it. I admit I am out of date. The latest poll shows a 49% to 45% split with the larger group now being those who favor abortion. Still, that is a very narrow difference, so "half and half" is an accurate paraphrase.
Note that it actually around 25% who favor abortion to the point that they want it to be legal in any circumstances. A small fringe, really, just like the small fringe that opposes all abortions.
dmarks: Actually, you did, when I mocked the conservative radio commentator Michael "Savage" Weiner. You objected to me making fun of his name.
Here is where dmarks has admitted he is a lying hypocrite. At the time he INSISTED that not using the name the man goes by had absolutely nothing to do with his real name of Weiner being a name that could be made fun of.
dmarks swore up and down the only reason he referred to Michael Savage as "Michael Weiner" was because that was his real name... there was no other motivation.
BTW, I did not "object". Why the hell should I care if you make fun of the name of a conservative douchebag? I only asked why you didn't refer to him as "Savage" -- because I wondered why you thought anyone should know who the hell you were talking about -- since he uses the name "Savage".
I also asked if calling him "Weiner" (to mock him) might be juvenile, and dmarks AGREED! Then he DENIED that he was doing that. NOW he admits it! Which makes him a HYPOCRITE!
btw, is my calling John Boehner "the boner" juvenile? Yes, perhaps it is. I'm not going to lie about it, unlike dmarks! There's nothing wrong with a little juvenile humor now and then.
dmarks: ...just like the small fringe that opposes all abortions.
This was exactly MY point. MOST people are in favor of abortion remaining legal (with SOME restrictions). Obviously -- with your talk of "children's rights" and "killing children" -- YOU are part of the fringe group that believes abortion should be illegal in all cases.
After all, when is it ever OK it kill a child?
I never said I was in favor of abortion being legal in all cases with zero restrictions. I never suggested a majority of Americans do so either. I'm in the mainstream and you're out of it.
WD lied "YOU are part of the fringe group that believes abortion should be illegal in all cases."
Well, if you have no idea on something, might as well make it up, right? This is what you are doing here. How dishonest and unintellectual of you.
"After all, when is it ever OK it kill a child?"
Easy to answer. If OK means legal, then it is OK to kill a child if it is a legal abortion situation.
------------
As for mocking Mr. Weiner the commentator, I was typing too fast. I was using his real name. I was not using weiner jokes. My summary that I mocked him was a mistatement (I meant to say that you bashed me for mocking him). Go back and read it: it's clear I never mocked him.
As for Boehner, Boner is not the man's actual name. Wiener is the conservative commentator's actual name.
dmarks, I didn't lie, I took you at your word that you believe abortion is the same as killing a child. Those were YOUR words! It's NEVER ok to kill a child! Now you say you approve of murder if the law says it's ok?
dmarks: Go back and read it: it's clear I never mocked him.
I don't need to. You JUST SAID you were making fun of him for his name.
WD said: "I took you at your word that you believe abortion is the same as killing a child."
That is not a belief. It is a fact that abortion is in fact killing a child.
It's killing, as a unique living human being does get snuffed. It's a child by definition (wikipedia: "Some English definitions of the word child include the fetus and the unborn.", as and by the fact that a pregnant woman is said to be "with child", not with a future child.
What is controversial and subject to belief assertions is whether or not this is "murder". Some often use that term. I do not.
Now you say "It's NEVER ok to kill a child"
Except when you think it is OK. And actually when I think it is OK also. I accept abortion for reasons of reasonable self-defense, but not for selfish whims or in situations (late term) where there is zero biological difference between the abortion victim and a typical newborn child. You accept it for more reasons than that.
"I don't need to. You JUST SAID you were making fun of him for his name."
If you DID look, all you would find is me using the man's actual name. I did not mock it, despite my hasty miss-worded summary later.
Post a Comment