http://news.yahoo.com/two-conservative-republicans-booted-house-budget-panel-154212850--business.html
QuoteTwo of the most conservative Republicans in the House of Representatives have been kicked off the House Budget Committee, a rare move that could make it easier for the panel to advance a deal with Democrats to cut fiscal deficits.
Representatives Tim Huelskamp of Kansas and Justin Amash of Michigan - both favorites of the anti-tax Tea Party movement - are among those Republicans voting most often against House Speaker John Boehner.
Huelskamp and Amash, who both will begin second terms in the House next month, voted against last year's deal to raise the federal debt limit and staunchly oppose any tax increases. Boehner has now included new revenue in his latest offer to avert the "fiscal cliff" of year-end tax hikes and automatic spending cuts. Given their voting records, winning support from Huelskamp and Amash for such a compromise seemed an uphill battle.
Huelskamp released a statement saying the Republican leadership "might think they have silenced conservatives but removing me and others from key committees only confirms our conservative convictions.
"This is clearly a vindictive move and a sure sign that the GOP establishment cannot handle disagreement," he said.
Huelskamp and Amash had said that despite sweeping changes to the Medicare and Medicaid healthcare programs, committee chairman Paul Ryan's budget did not make deep enough cuts to entitlement programs and military spending.
Boehner spokesman Michael Steel declined to be specific on the reasons for their ouster by the House Republican Steering Committee, which occurred Monday in a closed-door meeting.
"The Steering Committee makes decisions based on a range of factors," Steel said.
Huelskamp said he was given "limited explanation" for his removal from the Budget Committee, a move he called "vindictive." A spokesman for Amash could not be immediately reached for comment.
Huelskamp and Amash cast the only House Budget Committee votes against Ryan's budget plan earlier this year.
While there is often wrangling over committee chairmanships just before a new Congress takes office, it is rare for rank-and-file committee members to be stripped of their assignments.
The 34-member Republican steering committee is headed by Boehner and includes members of House leadership, committee chairs and other lawmakers representing different regions of the country.
The same group last week recommended that Ryan, the conservative former Republican vice presidential candidate, be renewed as Budget Committee chairman.
This sounds positive.
Yes, the Speaker is definitely going old school with the Monday Massacre yesterday. :lol: And not just on the Budget Committee.
QuoteGOP ousts lawmakers from plum posts
House Republican leaders on Monday ousted lawmakers from plum committee assignments, sending a clear message that they are demanding more unity from rank-and-file members.
The moves appear in line with Speaker John Boehner's (R-Ohio) effort to tighten his grip on his unruly conference. However, the decisions are already sparking outcry from Republican lawmakers and conservatives off Capitol Hill.
Reps. David Schweikert (R-Ariz.) and Walter Jones (R-N.C.) lost spots on the House Financial Services Committee, which is widely seen as a fundraising power for its oversight of the deep-pocketed financial sector.
Reps. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) and Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.) lost spots on the House Budget Committee, according to an aide. The Hill listed Amash earlier this year as one of the House GOP's most frequent defectors.
Huelskamp told The Hill he also lost his seat on the Agriculture Committee following a Monday meeting of the House Republican Steering Committee.
Huelskamp said that the move, which he saw as an effort to stifle conservative voices in the party, augured poorly for the Republican Party's future.
"It's pretty disappointing, and it's a way of relegating the Republican Party to permanent minority status," he said.
"They like to say they're conservative ... but when you go to Washington and you say, 'You know what, that's what we stand for,' they punish those voices," he said.
In particular, Huelskamp cited a video he recently posted to his congressional website urging Republicans to adhere to the Taxpayer Protection Pledge advocated by Grover Norquist and his Americans for Tax Reform, as something that could have upset party leaders.
"It's clearly meant to punish and penalize in a vindictive manner," he added.
A spokeswoman for Schweikert said the lawmaker was ousted for shirking GOP leadership.
"This morning Congressman Schweikert learned there was a price to be paid for voting based on principle. That price was the removal from the House Financial Services Committee," said spokeswoman Rachel Semmel. "We are obviously disappointed that leadership chose to take this course, but Rep. Schweikert remains committed to fighting for the conservative principles that brought him here."
Schweikert won a second term in Congress after defeating fellow freshman Rep. Ben Quayle (R-Ariz.) in a bruising primary over a newly drawn district.
All four members had had tumultuous relationships with party leaders, bucking the party on votes, and might have rankled their committee leaders.
Jones, for example, sits on the Armed Services Committee, with enough seniority to head a subcommittee panel. But his criticism of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has prevented him from being given a gavel.
"Changes are made for a variety of reasons, most often at the request of committee chairs," said a GOP leadership aide.
Boehner recently shored up his influence on the GOP Steering Committee, where he now has five votes instead of four. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) has three, and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) has two. All others on the committee have a single vote.
"The Steering Committee makes decisions based on a range of factors," said Boehner spokesman Michael Steel.
The free-market group Club for Growth jumped to the defense of many of the lawmakers Monday, calling Amash, Huelskamp and Schweikert "defenders of economic freedom" and praising them for bucking party leadership.
"Congressmen Schweikert, Huelskamp and Amash are now free of the last remnants of establishment leverage against them," said Club for Growth President Chris Chocola. "The dirty little secret in Congress is that while refusing to kowtow to the wishes of party leaders can sometimes cost you some perks in Washington, the taxpayers back home are grateful."
It is unclear if more Republicans will be removed from other committee posts in the coming days.
QuoteHuelskamp released a statement saying the Republican leadership "might think they have silenced conservatives but removing me and others from key committees only confirms our conservative convictions.
"This is clearly a vindictive move and a sure sign that the GOP establishment cannot handle disagreement," he said.
Is it just me, or does this guy sound like a petulant teenager?
Quote from: merithyn on December 04, 2012, 03:10:43 PM
QuoteHuelskamp released a statement saying the Republican leadership "might think they have silenced conservatives but removing me and others from key committees only confirms our conservative convictions.
"This is clearly a vindictive move and a sure sign that the GOP establishment cannot handle disagreement," he said.
Is it just me, or does this guy sound like a petulant teenager?
Well I did read that they were told via the media - not from anyone in the Republican party. Not sure if that's standard but I could see it making a 2nd term congressperson whiny.
At this rate I think a compromise is inevitible. And the GOP will get screwwwwwed.
Quote from: garbon on December 04, 2012, 03:13:27 PM
Well I did read that they were told via the media - not from anyone in the Republican party. Not sure if that's standard but I could see it making a 2nd term congressperson whiny.
That's kind of a dick move, if true.
Quote from: derspiess on December 04, 2012, 04:32:08 PM
At this rate I think a compromise is inevitible. And the GOP will get screwwwwwed.
With some luck, both sides will feel like they got screwed.
Quote from: merithyn on December 04, 2012, 04:40:29 PM
With some luck, both sides will feel like they got screwed.
There are two ways to get screwed in a situation like this. One is to give up more than your thought you had to in order to achieve a deal. The other is to give up something in the present in exchange for a promise of action in the future that never materializes.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 04, 2012, 04:44:57 PM
Quote from: merithyn on December 04, 2012, 04:40:29 PM
With some luck, both sides will feel like they got screwed.
There are two ways to get screwed in a situation like this. One is to give up more than your thought you had to in order to achieve a deal. The other is to give up something in the present in exchange for a promise of action in the future that never materializes.
My point is that if both sides feel as though they got screwed it'll be a good compromise.
Quote from: derspiess on December 04, 2012, 04:32:08 PM
At this rate I think a compromise is inevitible. And the GOP will get screwwwwwed.
Uh yeah. You got screwed in November. The GOP put all their eggs in one basket, the "beat Obama" basket. They could have made a deal two years ago with a much better hand, but risked for chance where they wouldn't have to compromise with anyone. If the Republicans don't make a deal now, they'll be in an even worse position after the Fiscal Cliff. At that point the tax cuts are all already gone and Obama can create new tax cuts where he wants them, and the Republicans have little in the way of bargaining power. They can either vote for tax cuts or they can vote against them. And you know what? They have nobody to blame but themselves. They deserve what they get.
Quote from: merithyn on December 04, 2012, 04:52:10 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 04, 2012, 04:44:57 PM
Quote from: merithyn on December 04, 2012, 04:40:29 PM
With some luck, both sides will feel like they got screwed.
There are two ways to get screwed in a situation like this. One is to give up more than your thought you had to in order to achieve a deal. The other is to give up something in the present in exchange for a promise of action in the future that never materializes.
My point is that if both sides feel as though they got screwed it'll be a good compromise.
That's a lousy way to look at it. Simply because both sides are unhappy with it, doesn't mean it's a good law.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 04, 2012, 06:19:59 PM
That's a lousy way to look at it. Simply because both sides are unhappy with it, doesn't mean it's a good law.
It's usually a pretty damn good indicator when you've got a house divided so badly.
Quote from: derspiess on December 04, 2012, 04:32:08 PM
At this rate I think a compromise is inevitible. And the GOP will get screwwwwwed.
Why, is compromise against the core tenets of the Republican Party?
Why would you think that? If they make a compromise and it causes a recession I doubt anyone would be happy with that.
Quote from: merithyn on December 04, 2012, 04:52:10 PM
My point is that if both sides feel as though they got screwed it'll be a good compromise.
If they agree on exploding a nuclear device in Washington DC, I'm sure both sides would be unhappy with that compromise. That wouldn't make it a good compromise for the country.
:hmm:
Quote from: DGuller on December 04, 2012, 06:24:29 PM
Quote from: merithyn on December 04, 2012, 04:52:10 PM
My point is that if both sides feel as though they got screwed it'll be a good compromise.
If they agree on exploding a nuclear device in Washington DC, I'm sure both sides would be unhappy with that compromise. That wouldn't make it a good compromise for the country.
:hmm:
Perhaps not the best example.
Quote from: Maximus on December 04, 2012, 06:23:02 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 04, 2012, 04:32:08 PM
At this rate I think a compromise is inevitible. And the GOP will get screwwwwwed.
Why, is compromise against the core tenets of the Republican Party?
Not as such, but Republicans tend to dislike compromise more then Democrats. http://www.gallup.com/poll/144359/democrats-republicans-differ-views-compromise.aspx
Quote from: DGuller on December 04, 2012, 06:24:29 PM
Quote from: merithyn on December 04, 2012, 04:52:10 PM
My point is that if both sides feel as though they got screwed it'll be a good compromise.
If they agree on exploding a nuclear device in Washington DC, I'm sure both sides would be unhappy with that compromise. That wouldn't make it a good compromise for the country.
:hmm:
:mellow:
And I'm done.
You could have responded to mine, which has a less retarded scenario. You statement only really works if you hold to an adversarial zero-sum view of the world. On one hand there is the noble American people and on the other evil, corrupt politicians. If the Politicians are unhappy it means they have been thwarted and outcome is bound to be good for the noble American people.
Quote from: DGuller on December 04, 2012, 06:24:29 PM
Quote from: merithyn on December 04, 2012, 04:52:10 PM
My point is that if both sides feel as though they got screwed it'll be a good compromise.
If they agree on exploding a nuclear device in Washington DC, I'm sure both sides would be unhappy with that compromise. That wouldn't make it a good compromise for the country.
:hmm:
Are you sure? :P
Quote from: Razgovory on December 04, 2012, 06:25:55 PM
Not as such, but Republicans tend to dislike compromise more then Democrats. http://www.gallup.com/poll/144359/democrats-republicans-differ-views-compromise.aspx
They are largely of the opinion that their attempts to compromise in the past got them betrayed in the end.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 04, 2012, 06:32:22 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 04, 2012, 06:25:55 PM
Not as such, but Republicans tend to dislike compromise more then Democrats. http://www.gallup.com/poll/144359/democrats-republicans-differ-views-compromise.aspx
They are largely of the opinion that their attempts to compromise in the past got them betrayed in the end.
Who is "they"?
Quote from: Razgovory on December 04, 2012, 06:30:10 PM
You could have responded to mine, which has a less retarded scenario. You statement only really works if you hold to an adversarial zero-sum view of the world. On one hand there is the noble American people and on the other evil, corrupt politicians. If the Politicians are unhappy it means they have been thwarted and outcome is bound to be good for the noble American people.
In general, when you've got two very different, very divisive views on how something should be done, if both sides walk away feeling as though they've given too much, most likely each side has given the right amount.
Quote from: merithyn on December 04, 2012, 06:33:22 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 04, 2012, 06:30:10 PM
You could have responded to mine, which has a less retarded scenario. You statement only really works if you hold to an adversarial zero-sum view of the world. On one hand there is the noble American people and on the other evil, corrupt politicians. If the Politicians are unhappy it means they have been thwarted and outcome is bound to be good for the noble American people.
In general, when you've got two very different, very divisive views on how something should be done, if both sides walk away feeling as though they've given too much, most likely each side has given the right amount.
Why would you think this? Would it not be better if they both came away satisfied?
Quote from: Razgovory on December 04, 2012, 06:36:45 PM
Why would you think this? Would it not be better if they both came away satisfied?
Yes, it would be better, but I do not believe that it will ever happen with the US Congress and Senate. Ever.
They're children who want things their own way, and any other way is just plain wrong. If both the Dems and the Repubs walk away thinking they got screwed, there's a really good chance that the American people might actually win for once.
And yes, I have that poor of an opinion of the US government.
Quote from: merithyn on December 04, 2012, 06:39:34 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 04, 2012, 06:36:45 PM
Why would you think this? Would it not be better if they both came away satisfied?
Yes, it would be better, but I do not believe that it will ever happen with the US Congress and Senate. Ever.
They're children who want things their own way, and any other way is just plain wrong. If both the Dems and the Repubs walk away thinking they got screwed, there's a really good chance that the American people might actually win for once.
And yes, I have that poor of an opinion of the US government.
Ah, well I right then. You have a simplistic zero-sum view of the world where evil politicians are at odds with the noble American people. :mellow: I'm not sure what else to say.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 04, 2012, 06:43:26 PM
Quote from: merithyn on December 04, 2012, 06:39:34 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 04, 2012, 06:36:45 PM
Why would you think this? Would it not be better if they both came away satisfied?
Yes, it would be better, but I do not believe that it will ever happen with the US Congress and Senate. Ever.
They're children who want things their own way, and any other way is just plain wrong. If both the Dems and the Repubs walk away thinking they got screwed, there's a really good chance that the American people might actually win for once.
And yes, I have that poor of an opinion of the US government.
Ah, well I right then. You have a simplistic zero-sum view of the world where evil politicians are at odds with the noble American people. :mellow: I'm not sure what else to say.
You could read it that way. Or you could read it as that I believe that politicians are children, their parties are pushing them into a zero-sum situation, and they cannot be happy unless they get everything they want.
Yeah, that's not really different then the way I read it except the negative attribute is childish rather then evil. It's a sophomoric view.
Raz is onto something. I think our lack of faith in politicians and government is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Rep. Amash is saying that he's yet to get any confirmation that he's been removed from the committee and, in fact, only learned about it because of news stories that people have linked him.
That's a rough way to find out.
Quote from: Habbaku on December 04, 2012, 10:06:44 PM
Rep. Amash is saying that he's yet to get any confirmation that he's been removed from the committee and, in fact, only learned about it because of news stories that people have linked him.
Yes I did already say that. :P
Quote from: DGuller on December 04, 2012, 08:15:31 PM
Raz is onto something. I think our lack of faith in politicians and government is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Well you shouldn't have elected this asshole twice in a row and then maybe I'd have more faith. :angry:
Quote from: garbon on December 04, 2012, 10:17:09 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on December 04, 2012, 10:06:44 PM
Rep. Amash is saying that he's yet to get any confirmation that he's been removed from the committee and, in fact, only learned about it because of news stories that people have linked him.
Yes I did already say that. :P
I think the news that he's yet to actually get confirmation on his removal is distinct from what you posted.
I can't believe I'm agreeing with Raz.
Also, I know Justin Amash very well. Known him since he was in Buster Browns. Close friend of the family. He's way more libertarian than Tea Party, and believe me, if he was your typical subrational Tea Party GOPer, he would not have been elected in the 3rd district the first time, and he certainly would not have been re-elected.
Quote from: garbon on December 04, 2012, 10:17:38 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 04, 2012, 08:15:31 PM
Raz is onto something. I think our lack of faith in politicians and government is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Well you shouldn't have elected this asshole twice in a row and then maybe I'd have more faith. :angry:
What can I say? I'm just really electable.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 04, 2012, 06:32:22 PM
They are largely of the opinion that their attempts to compromise in the past got them betrayed in the end.
I don't buy that. I think it's factually wrong, but I also think it's a bit too rational. My view has always been that most people's opinions, most of the time are irrational instant responses that we later intellectualise and justify - and that's a good thing. That sounds like that sort of justification.
No, that's what they think & I think it's justifiable. You're more partisan than most actual Democrats I know.
Quote from: derspiess on December 05, 2012, 07:55:57 PMNo, that's what they think & I think it's justifiable. You're more partisan than most actual Democrats I know.
What? How was that partisan?
I don't think anyone thinks that way. They feel for or against something based on lots of factors and the thinking is done afterwards to intellectually justify the sentiment.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 05, 2012, 08:17:25 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 05, 2012, 07:55:57 PMNo, that's what they think & I think it's justifiable. You're more partisan than most actual Democrats I know.
What? How was that partisan?
I don't think anyone thinks that way. They feel for or against something based on lots of factors and the thinking is done afterwards to intellectually justify the sentiment.
:yes:
That's why Shelf hates centrists and pragmatists and loves emotionally overwrought wignuts on the far left and far right.
Anyways going back to the substance of the thread, could we see a speakership battle!? :licklips:
http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2012/12/05/could-conservatives-overthrow-boehner-what-history-can-tell-us/
Quote
Could Conservatives Overthrow Boehner? What History Can Tell Us
by John Sides on December 5, 2012 · 1 comment
in Legislative Politics
This is a guest post by Jeffery A. Jenkins of the University of Virginia. Jenkins and Charles Stewart are the authors of the new book Fighting for the Speakership: The House and the Rise of Party Government.
*****
On Monday, the Republican Steering Committee, at the behest of Speaker John Boehner, removed four Republicans from prime committee assignments in advance of the convening of the 113thCongress: Justin Amash (MI) and Tim Huelskamp (KS) from the Budget Committee and Walter B. Jones (NC) and David Schweikert (AZ) from the Financial Services Committee. Reports suggest that these members were ousted because of insufficient support for leadership positions (i.e., low leadership support scores) on a set of key votes in the 112th Congress. See here, here, and here. In addition, three of these individuals (Amash, Huelskamp, and Schweikert) are considered among the more conservative members of the Republican Conference, suggesting that Boehner is trying to rein in the rebellious Tea Party tendencies that were so apparent in the 112th Congress.
This committee "purge" has elicited considerable outrage in conservative circles inside and outside of Washington. The most radical suggestion, offered by Ned Ryun on the conservative blog Red State, is that a small group of Republicans signal their unhappiness with Boehner by voting against him in the speakership vote on the House floor. Ryun argues that if 16 Republicans abstain from voting for Boehner for Speaker, based on the assumption that there will be 233 Republicans in attendance when the 113th House convenes in January, then he will fail to receive a majority – and, in time (assuming repeated, inconclusive speakership balloting), the Republican Conference will be forced to choose a new speakership nominee, one more amenable to the preferences of the dissident faction (and, presumably, conservatives more generally).
(One aside: Ryun argues that dissident members should simply abstain from voting. But the rule for electing Speakers has been interpreted differently over time. At times the requirement has been a majority of all members-elect, and at other times it has been a majority of all members present and voting "for a person by name." The most recent interpretation has been the latter. For example, in the 105thCongress, Newt Gingrich was elected Speaker with 216 votes, which constituted a majority of all members present and voting for a person by name, but not a majority of all members-elect. So Ryun's strategy, to be safe, should direct dissidents to cast their protest votes for one of their own, rather than abstain.)
Is there any precedent for this sort of dissident behavior? As Charles Stewart and I show in our book Fighting for the Speakership, multi-ballot speakership fights on the House floor were fairly common in the antebellum era. And some of these fights were quite protracted and required many ballots – for example, 3 weeks and 63 ballots in 1849, 2 months and 133 ballots in 1855-56, and 2 months and 44 ballots in 1859-60. The cross-cutting issue of slavery drove most of these floor battles, as constituent preferences on slavery (and slavery extension) trumped the bond of party. With the onset of the Civil War, and the elimination of slavery as a wedge issue, however, protracted speakership balloting virtually disappeared. Between 1861 and today, only one speakership election has extended beyond a single ballot. That election, in 1923 at the beginning of the 68th Congress, provides interesting parallels to today.
In the early-1920s, the Republican Party was rent with ideological conflicts, as progressive members from the Midwest often locked horns with the conservative Old Guard. Progressive Republicans sought a liberalization of House rules, so that progressive legislation that was languishing in committees dominated by Republican "regulars" could be brought to the floor. The Republican leadership, comprised of regulars, refused. In response, in 1923, progressive Republicans refused to support the Republican Conference nominee for Speaker, Frederick Gillett (MA), on the floor.
Because the progressives were numerous enough to represent a pivotal coalition between regular Republicans and Democrats, the strategy worked. Twenty progressive Republicans scattered their votes, which led to 8 inconclusive (deadlocked) speakership ballots over 2 days. Finally, the Republican leadership caved and met the progressives' demands, and the progressives swung their votes to Gillett on the ninth ballot and elected him. Two years later, after the regular Republicans added enough members to constitute a majority of the chamber, the Republican leadership, led by new Speaker Nicholas Longworth (OH), punished the progressives by removing them from important committees and/or stripping them of their chairmanships and committee seniority. In time, the progressives were chastened and welcomed back into the fold, but only after agreeing to support the Republican Conference choice for Speaker.
Could 2013 end up resembling 1923? It's unlikely in absolute terms, but still relatively more likely than in a "normal" speakership election year. The Tea Party-inclined conservatives in the GOP are certainly numerous enough to scatter their votes in the speakership election and thereby extend the balloting. And, as Ryun notes, it would only require a fairly small group of them to do this: 16, given certain assumptions.
The parallel to 1923 is a bit strained in that the progressive Republicans were located ideologically between the regular Republicans and the Democrats, while the Tea Party conservatives are located on the extreme end of the Republican distribution. Therefore, there was the possibility that the progressive Republicans could join with the Democrats to elect a Speaker in 1923 (even though this was never seriously considered), while such a joining of conservative Republicans and Democrats in 2013 has no basis in reality.
Nevertheless, the Tea Party-inclined conservatives in the GOP showed their willingness to buck the leadership in the 112th Congress and stand up for what they (and their constituents) believed in. Thus, it is not inconceivable that a group of at least 16 conservatives might value the position-taking benefits of extending the speakership balloting – and, by doing so, fight the good fight against "Czar Boehner" – over the potential sanctions that they might face if and when Boehner is elected. And the probability of such a dissident group forming may increase as January approaches – if the tension and outrage over the committee purge ramps up, for example, and, perhaps more importantly, if Boehner and the bulk of the GOP eventually agree to higher taxes on the wealthy in order to avoid plunging off the fiscal cliff.
I bet you'd like that, lefty.
Quote from: derspiess on December 06, 2012, 07:00:44 PM
I bet you'd like that, lefty.
Those proles need the cool, yet emotional Buckeye watching over them.
Quote from: derspiess on December 06, 2012, 07:00:44 PM
I bet you'd like that, lefty.
:lol:
Voted Bush, Bush, McCain, and Obama/split ticket.
The kneejerk rejection of people like me will only further push the Republican party to the right, and make it more difficult to win elections.
Nobody cares about you.
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 06, 2012, 07:03:29 PM
Nobody cares about you.
His vote still counts :bowler:
... and then there is the issue of Timmy taint :ph34r:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 06, 2012, 06:53:26 PM
:yes:
That's why Shelf hates centrists and pragmatists and loves emotionally overwrought wignuts on the far left and far right.
I hate hacks, whatever side they claim to represent. But I'm one of about six remaining Blairites, so I hardly hate centrists or pragmatists.
I think all people, myself included reason emotionally. Anyone who claims otherwise is talking nonsense. It's the internet equivalent of appealing to authority.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 06, 2012, 07:03:01 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 06, 2012, 07:00:44 PM
I bet you'd like that, lefty.
:lol:
Voted Bush, Bush, McCain, and Obama/split ticket.
The kneejerk rejection of people like me will only further push the Republican party to the right, and make it more difficult to win elections.
You're trending leftward.
Tim has been corrupted by those ladyboys he likes.
Quote from: derspiess on December 06, 2012, 07:25:45 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 06, 2012, 07:03:01 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 06, 2012, 07:00:44 PM
I bet you'd like that, lefty.
:lol:
Voted Bush, Bush, McCain, and Obama/split ticket.
The kneejerk rejection of people like me will only further push the Republican party to the right, and make it more difficult to win elections.
Perhaps you are trending rightward.
You're trending leftward.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 06, 2012, 07:54:20 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 06, 2012, 07:25:45 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 06, 2012, 07:03:01 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 06, 2012, 07:00:44 PM
I bet you'd like that, lefty.
:lol:
Voted Bush, Bush, McCain, and Obama/split ticket.
The kneejerk rejection of people like me will only further push the Republican party to the right, and make it more difficult to win elections.
Perhaps you are trending rightward.
You're trending leftward.
Tim is no longer under my protection.
Quote from: derspiess on December 06, 2012, 07:25:45 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 06, 2012, 07:03:01 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 06, 2012, 07:00:44 PM
I bet you'd like that, lefty.
:lol:
Voted Bush, Bush, McCain, and Obama/split ticket.
The kneejerk rejection of people like me will only further push the Republican party to the right, and make it more difficult to win elections.
You're trending leftward.
My positions have not appreciably changed since the late 90s/early 00s. The republican party has moved significantly rightward since then and many of the positions championed by the GOP then are now put forward by Dems. Just because the letter in front of the people supporting those policies have changed, doesn't mean I will stop supporting them.
Quote from: derspiess on December 06, 2012, 08:05:19 PM
Tim is no longer under my protection.
In the Tim world that is portectoin.
Quote from: PDH on December 06, 2012, 08:37:32 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 06, 2012, 08:05:19 PM
Tim is no longer under my protection.
In the Tim world that is portectoin.
They make toilets out of that stuff.
Quote from: sbr on December 06, 2012, 08:03:49 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 06, 2012, 07:54:20 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 06, 2012, 07:25:45 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 06, 2012, 07:03:01 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 06, 2012, 07:00:44 PM
I bet you'd like that, lefty.
:lol:
Voted Bush, Bush, McCain, and Obama/split ticket.
The kneejerk rejection of people like me will only further push the Republican party to the right, and make it more difficult to win elections.
Perhaps you are trending rightward.
You're trending leftward.
Goddamn it Raz, why do you keep fucking this up? It's not like this is fucking difficult. You are making us both look bad. Christ. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Razgovory on December 06, 2012, 09:31:29 PM
Quote from: sbr on December 06, 2012, 08:03:49 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 06, 2012, 07:54:20 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 06, 2012, 07:25:45 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 06, 2012, 07:03:01 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 06, 2012, 07:00:44 PM
I bet you'd like that, lefty.
:lol:
Voted Bush, Bush, McCain, and Obama/split ticket.
The kneejerk rejection of people like me will only further push the Republican party to the right, and make it more difficult to win elections.
Perhaps you are trending rightward.
You're trending leftward.
Goddamn it Raz, why do you keep fucking this up? It's not like this is fucking difficult. You are making us both look bad. Christ. :rolleyes:
I'm trying the best I can!
Quote from: Razgovory on December 06, 2012, 09:32:49 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 06, 2012, 09:31:29 PM
Quote from: sbr on December 06, 2012, 08:03:49 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 06, 2012, 07:54:20 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 06, 2012, 07:25:45 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 06, 2012, 07:03:01 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 06, 2012, 07:00:44 PM
I bet you'd like that, lefty.
:lol:
Voted Bush, Bush, McCain, and Obama/split ticket.
The kneejerk rejection of people like me will only further push the Republican party to the right, and make it more difficult to win elections.
Perhaps you are trending rightward.
You're trending leftward.
Goddamn it Raz, why do you keep fucking this up? It's not like this is fucking difficult. You are making us both look bad. Christ. :rolleyes:
I'm trying the best I can!
Well try harder you moron. And lose some weight!
Meowtf?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 06, 2012, 08:34:06 PMMy positions have not appreciably changed since the late 90s/early 00s. The republican party has moved significantly rightward since then and many of the positions championed by the GOP then are now put forward by Dems. Just because the letter in front of the people supporting those policies have changed, doesn't mean I will stop supporting them.
So were you a Democrat back during the Clinton years when the GOP was more to the right?
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 06, 2012, 09:35:26 PM
Meowtf?
I have to get on him occasionally cause otherwise that lazy ass just slacks off.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 06, 2012, 10:09:07 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 06, 2012, 08:34:06 PMMy positions have not appreciably changed since the late 90s/early 00s. The republican party has moved significantly rightward since then and many of the positions championed by the GOP then are now put forward by Dems. Just because the letter in front of the people supporting those policies have changed, doesn't mean I will stop supporting them.
So were you a Democrat back during the Clinton years when the GOP was more to the right?
No, I was not. At no point in the 1980-2000 was the Republican party anywhere near as far to the right as it is now.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 06, 2012, 10:59:38 PM
No, I was not. At no point in the 1980-2000 was the Republican party anywhere near as far to the right as it is now.
Now that's a bold statement. I think you're buying into too much of the hype.
I don't think he remembers the Clinton years. They went batshit insane in those days as well.