The "Conservative" Party
Dan Bretta
aren't going for "hookers and blow" they're going for lavish parties
in Hawaii. I'm sure all of which is necessary for putting together a
winning game plan in November.
http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2010/04/rnc_spent_340k.php
Dan
CheeseHusker dos
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
Attack, attack, attack! Avoid them issues at all costs!
--
Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. -- Francis Bacon
Dan Bretta
<consta...@duxmail.com> wrote:
> On 2010-04-21, Dan Bretta <nuda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Seriously, aren't you guys getting pissed yet? If your donations
> > aren't going for "hookers and blow" they're going for lavish parties
> > in Hawaii. I'm sure all of which is necessary for putting together a
> > winning game plan in November.
>
>
> Attack, attack, attack! Avoid them issues at all costs!
>
issues at HUGE costs. Aren't you pissed yet?
Dan
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
Not enough to be distracted. And it ain't anywhere near the costs of the
unions funding the Democratic campaign machine with my tax money.
--
Experience is what allows you to recognize a mistake the second time you
make it. -- unknown
Dan Bretta
<consta...@duxmail.com> wrote:
> On 2010-04-21, Dan Bretta <nuda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 21, 10:49 am, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"
> ><consta...@duxmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 2010-04-21, Dan Bretta <nuda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Seriously, aren't you guys getting pissed yet? If your donations
> >> > aren't going for "hookers and blow" they're going for lavish parties
> >> > in Hawaii. I'm sure all of which is necessary for putting together a
> >> > winning game plan in November.
>
> >> >http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2010/04/rnc_spent_3...
>
> >> Attack, attack, attack! Avoid them issues at all costs!
>
> > What? It looks as though the guys running your party are avoiding
> > issues at HUGE costs. Aren't you pissed yet?
>
> Not enough to be distracted. And it ain't anywhere near the costs of the
> unions funding the Democratic campaign machine with my tax money.
>
Dan
Kyle T. Jones
> On 2010-04-21, Dan Bretta <nud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Seriously, aren't you guys getting pissed yet? If your donations
>> aren't going for "hookers and blow" they're going for lavish parties
>> in Hawaii. I'm sure all of which is necessary for putting together a
>> winning game plan in November.
>>
>> http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2010/04/rnc_spent_340k.php
>>
>
> Attack, attack, attack! Avoid them issues at all costs!
>
He's right. There hasn't been a conservative party in America for some
time. Right-leaners get upset about the health care bill - fine, but
isn't this exactly the sort of thing the liberal party promised folks
while campaigning?
Now, ask yourself how well, during the first six years of the Bush
presidency (with majorities in both Congress and the SCOTUS) - the
conservative party represented their patrons? Did they cut spending?
Did they challenge Roe? Did they restrict the interpretation of
interstate commerce?
It's not enough to go on and on about cutting spending - not when I have
such recent evidence that you'll do no such thing - so, how is the
Republican Party addressing *that* disconnect? Are they addressing it
at all?
I will hand this to Bush - he rightly restricted the interpretation of
eminent domain. That was a good, just, *conservative* decision.
If I've said it once, I've said it a million times - there's no use for
y'all pseudoconservative loudmouths to go on and on about what the
liberals are doing - not as long as your own house is in such disarray.
Get that cleaned up a bit (and I'm not talking Palin here, for gosh
sakes), and you'll start attracting moderates again.
JMO.
Cheers.
Emperor Wonko the Sane
> Con Reeder, unhyphenated American wrote:
>
> >> Seriously, aren't you guys getting pissed yet? If your donations
> >> aren't going for "hookers and blow" they're going for lavish parties
> >> in Hawaii. I'm sure all of which is necessary for putting together a
> >> winning game plan in November.
>
>
> > Attack, attack, attack! Avoid them issues at all costs!
>
> He's right. There hasn't been a conservative party in America for some
> time. Right-leaners get upset about the health care bill - fine, but
> isn't this exactly the sort of thing the liberal party promised folks
> while campaigning?
>
> Now, ask yourself how well, during the first six years of the Bush
> presidency (with majorities in both Congress and the SCOTUS) - the
> conservative party represented their patrons? Did they cut spending?
> Did they challenge Roe? Did they restrict the interpretation of
> interstate commerce?
>
> It's not enough to go on and on about cutting spending - not when I have
> such recent evidence that you'll do no such thing - so, how is the
> Republican Party addressing *that* disconnect? Are they addressing it
> at all?
>
You are correct that Bush was bad on fiscal policy. We have to thank
Obumble for proving it could be a LOT worse. I'll take Bush's bad
policy over this insanity every time.
BTW, how is the president supposed to restrict how the Supremes
interpret the interstate commerce clause?
Doug
xyzzy
wrote:
>
> BTW, how is the president supposed to restrict how the Supremes
> interpret the interstate commerce clause?
Push for legislation that narrows the definition of interstate
commerce?
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
Those dues come from somewhere.
--
Alas for those who never sing, but die with all their music in them.
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.
Emperor Wonko the Sane
It's a clause in the constitution. Legislation can't change its
interpretation. The only thing that can change it is amending the
constitution, changing justices or changing the justices minds (see
e.g. FDR's court packing threat).
Doug
Dan Bretta
<consta...@duxmail.com> wrote:
> On 2010-04-21, Dan Bretta <nuda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 21, 11:22 am, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"
> ><consta...@duxmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 2010-04-21, Dan Bretta <nuda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Apr 21, 10:49 am, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"
> >> ><consta...@duxmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> On 2010-04-21, Dan Bretta <nuda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> > Seriously, aren't you guys getting pissed yet? If your donations
> >> >> > aren't going for "hookers and blow" they're going for lavish parties
> >> >> > in Hawaii. I'm sure all of which is necessary for putting together a
> >> >> > winning game plan in November.
>
> >> >> >http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2010/04/rnc_spent_3...
>
> >> >> Attack, attack, attack! Avoid them issues at all costs!
>
> >> > What? It looks as though the guys running your party are avoiding
> >> > issues at HUGE costs. Aren't you pissed yet?
>
> >> Not enough to be distracted. And it ain't anywhere near the costs of the
> >> unions funding the Democratic campaign machine with my tax money.
>
> > How are the Unions using your tax money?
>
> Those dues come from somewhere.
How is the union collecting dues from you?
Dan
xyzzy
>
> Dan
I thought this was going to be a thread about the UK election.
TimV
Both parties are spending the same amount of money on this nonsense if
you look at their disclosure reports.
T
Kyle T. Jones
For one, he can nominate better justices. But, that's almost an
afterthought to my point - I wasn't intending to go after Bush in
particular, I was targeting the entire Republican party.
For instance, you recently had Republican majorities in Congress, which
controls the purse-strings - and that somehow equals more spending.
You've had a Republic supermajority in the SCOTUS (is it still 7/9
seated by Republicans?) - and that somehow equals an *expanded*
interpretation of the ICC, plus (typically) no challenge to Roe.
I'll tell you the truth - I think they'll never bring a challenge to
Roe, because it's been such a consistent GOTV mechanism. Plus, if the
SCOTUS doesn't side with the challenge, how are you going to explain 20
years of "It's all about appointing anti-Roe justices" campaigning?
Cheers.
Unclaimed Mysteries
> On 2010-04-21, Dan Bretta<nud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 21, 10:49 am, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"
>> <consta...@duxmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 2010-04-21, Dan Bretta<nuda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Seriously, aren't you guys getting pissed yet? If your donations
>>>> aren't going for "hookers and blow" they're going for lavish parties
>>>> in Hawaii. I'm sure all of which is necessary for putting together a
>>>> winning game plan in November.
>>>
>>>> http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2010/04/rnc_spent_3...
>>>
>>> Attack, attack, attack! Avoid them issues at all costs!
>>
>> What? It looks as though the guys running your party are avoiding
>> issues at HUGE costs. Aren't you pissed yet?
>
> Not enough to be distracted. And it ain't anywhere near the costs of the
> unions funding the Democratic campaign machine with my tax money.
>
You pay taxes to unions?
-cls
--
It Came From C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net
What Does A Yellow Light Mean?
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net/blog
Dan Bretta
<theLetterKandtheNumeral4-...@unclaimedmysteries.net> wrote:
> On 4/21/2010 11:22 AM, Con Reeder, unhyphenated American wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2010-04-21, Dan Bretta<nuda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Apr 21, 10:49 am, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"
> >> <consta...@duxmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On 2010-04-21, Dan Bretta<nuda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> Seriously, aren't you guys getting pissed yet? If your donations
> >>>> aren't going for "hookers and blow" they're going for lavish parties
> >>>> in Hawaii. I'm sure all of which is necessary for putting together a
> >>>> winning game plan in November.
>
> >>>>http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2010/04/rnc_spent_3...
>
> >>> Attack, attack, attack! Avoid them issues at all costs!
>
> >> What? It looks as though the guys running your party are avoiding
> >> issues at HUGE costs. Aren't you pissed yet?
>
> > Not enough to be distracted. And it ain't anywhere near the costs of the
> > unions funding the Democratic campaign machine with my tax money.
>
> You pay taxes to unions?
>
Dan
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
I pay the salaries of the people who they are collected from. Without
the taxpayers to pay the salary, they couldn't pay the dues. To
contribute to the unions who elect the reps who then give raises to
allow bigger dues and more contributions....
Money is fungible, you know. I know that liberals have a hard time
understanding that, but I thought I would mention it.
--
An amateur practices until he gets it right. A pro
practices until he can't get it wrong. -- unknown
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
Unclaimed Mysteries
Far out.
Dan Bretta
with some of that money. That really pisses me off.
Dan
Kyle T. Jones
Good lord. Congrats - you just proved money moves around. Wait, you
weren't trying to make some point particular to unions and Democrats,
were you?
Read the above - and apply it to your original claim - "And it ain't
anywhere near the costs of the unions funding the Democratic campaign
machine with *my* *tax* *money*".
I added emphasis for ye.
Oh, wait, I get it - you're saying you specifically buy Union stuff with
your tax *return* - that's what you meant by "my tax money". Gotcha.
Cheers.
Eric Kemp
Vetos.
Glen Heiman
"Dan Bretta" <nud...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:96fc4afe-b7f5-4f01...@v20g2000yqv.googlegroups.com...
Give the conservatives a break, they are not experienced in this area.
Eventually, they will learn to charter aircraft, channel funds to their
girlfriends, bring hookers, create new expense account categories, learn to
order Kobe beef and all the other things that liberals tend to excel in.
Heiman
You can't be a liberal and not be a hypocrite.
>
> Dan
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
That didn't go to elect someone who then raised his salary without your
permission.
--
"I find that a great part of the information I have was acquired
by looking up something and finding something else on the way."
-- Franklin Pierce Adams
Dan Bretta
Dan
lein
dumber, he confuses Republicans and Conservatives
Dan Bretta
Are you saying that the GOP doesn't consider themselves to be
conservatives? Did you notice that I put the word in quotes?
Dan
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
Don't be ridiculous.
Put it this way -- if employees contributed money to an outside
individual who then used that money to lobby a slate of people running
for for the board of directors of a company, and then that individual
used his influence to raise the salary of the company employee and
hire *more* employees to fund his empire-building, the shareholders
would go nuts.
As the shareholders of this country, I hope, will go nuts shortly. And
institute rules preventing unions from making political contributions.
Are you opining that the looting of America by public-employee unions
is fair play and should continue?
--
Few blame themselves until they have exhausted all other possibilities.
-- anonymous
Dan Bretta
<consta...@duxmail.com> wrote:
>
> As the shareholders of this country, I hope, will go nuts shortly. And
> institute rules preventing unions from making political contributions.
>
Didn't the Supreme Court just make this the law of the land by a con/
lib split?
> Are you opining that the looting of America by public-employee unions
> is fair play and should continue?
>
Nope, I'm not opining that at all. The looting of America is not
confined to public employee unions.
Dan
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
><consta...@duxmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> As the shareholders of this country, I hope, will go nuts shortly. And
>> institute rules preventing unions from making political contributions.
>
> Didn't the Supreme Court just make this the law of the land by a con/
> lib split?
Not that I am aware of.
As to allowing public employee unions, that dates back to 1958 (New York
politicians seeing it as a way to fund their campaign and guarantee
their election) and the federal rule changes in 1962 and 1966 are yet
another of the atrocities visited upon us by the Kennedy and Johnson
administrations.
>
>> Are you opining that the looting of America by public-employee unions
>> is fair play and should continue?
>
> Nope, I'm not opining that at all. The looting of America is not
> confined to public employee unions.
Of course not. But it is an easily identifiable and is an easy fix.
California is going to *have* to fix it. They will default on their debt
otherwise. The unions are kicking and screaming right now. But
eventually even they are going to have to see reason. I hope not before
75% of their members are fired wholesale.
--
Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. -- Francis Bacon
Dennis J
out loud. Who knows what's happened to his brain? Maybe it's scrambled
his molecules...
and which party is the one that claims to be morally superior? That
God is on their side?
--
"the Democrat and Republican parties are destroying our country right now,
They're destroying our political process." -- Jesse Ventura
"Education is the progressive discovery of our own Ignorance" Will Durant
"One can't have a sense of perspective without a sense of Humor" -- Wayne Thiboux
"the Glass is not only half full, it has been delicious so far!!" -- ME
To reply, SCRAPE off the end bits.
lein
Perhaps, when they are not trying to be the Democrat-LIte party.
> Did you notice that I put the word in quotes?
Yes, your need for attention has no bounds. Might as well have said
The Party of Colin Powell.
lein
> hey, TimV <nos...@nospam.org>'s been through solid matter, for crying
> out loud. Who knows what's happened to his brain? Maybe it's scrambled
> his molecules...
>
> >On 4/21/10 10:38 AM, Dan Bretta wrote:
> >> Seriously, aren't you guys getting pissed yet? If your donations
> >> aren't going for "hookers and blow" they're going for lavish parties
> >> in Hawaii. I'm sure all of which is necessary for putting together a
> >> winning game plan in November.
>
>
> >> Dan
>
> >Both parties are spending the same amount of money on this nonsense if
> >you look at their disclosure reports.
>
> >T
>
> and which party is the one that claims to be morally superior? That
> God is on their side?
The one who's followers say things like Obama's healthcare reform is
the Christian thing to do?