Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I thought for sure you'd cry Waco. I'd say the bait-and-switch politicking the Republican leadership -- led along by the nose by the Tea Party bloc -- shows intent to shut down the operation of the government, which was successful, and negligence regarding the national credit rating. Yes, I do believe this constitutes treason and that, in these treasonous acts, the Republican leadership demonstrated clear favor of their own prospective political victories over the actual commonweal of our Republic.

At that time, Mitt Romney said the president had the power to end the crisis by adopting spending cuts along with appropriations -- which is exactly what Obama proposed to do, to the tune of John Boehner's initial demands even. Romney also said, while stumping for his candidacy, that Americans should elect someone who doesn't care about re-election ... once again opening his mouth to say nothing. Romney is to American politics what spammers are to internet fora.

Manchu wrote:

biccat wrote:Yours is truly a dazzling mind.

Yes, my ability to correlate facts with intentions must appear quite awesome to you

Distorting others' posts and thinly veiled insults? My god, were you not a MOD I'd think you were a poorly disguised troll.

While you appear to think that Romney is a "corporate-minded weather vane," please don't make the mistake in assuming that I feel the same way.

Not everyone will always agree with you Manchu. This is not a personal insult, it's a fact of life.

Manchu wrote:In the past year, the Republican party actually has sabotaged the operation of the federal government and our national economy.

Wait, what? I had always thought you were above pure partisan hackery. It appears I was mistaken.

Now now, I don;t think we need to throw the "treason" word around.

My only real question for Republicans is if you won the 2010 electiosn promising Jobs, where are the jobs/ Where is your jobs bill?

Oh, you Jobs bill doesn't exist, but you are willing to say the President doesn't have anythign new to offer? I see.

By reading the article, I now know what Romney's Jobs bill looks like. Capital stripping and Outsourcing for everyone!

I thought for sure you'd cry Waco.
***Thats so 1990s, and nothing to do with the current administration, which has proven its own activities.

I'd say the bait-and-switch politicking the Republican leadership -- led along by the nose by the Tea Party bloc -- shows intent to shut down the operation of the government, which was successful, and negligence regarding the national credit rating.
***Or, its malfeasance on the part of the Democratic members of Congress, who refused to put forth a budget during all of the Obama Presidency. Saying "you have to get closer to having an actual budget" is not treason, its prudent financial management. If Treason, then all the families in the USA who don't drive themselves into bankruptcy are similarly traitors. Thats...strained thinking.

Yes, I do believe this constitutes treason and that, in these treasonous acts, the Republican leadership demonstrated clear favor of their own prospective political victories over the actual commonweal of our Republic.
***Enlightened self interest in not treason. Again, every family in the US does this. Further, Reid was offered this opportunity in 2010 to increase the debt ceiling but didn't take it. What you're proposing is effectively criminal as a violation of fiduciary duties if trustees did it. So you're equating NOT doing what would be illegal is Treason?

At that time, Mitt Romney said the president had the power to end the crisis by adopting spending cuts along with appropriations -- which is exactly what Obama proposed to do, to the tune of John Boehner's initial demands even.
***The President could have shut down spending. He didn't I guess he was being a Traitor too. Time for impeachment hearings. Serbia look out - you're going to get bombed again!

Easy E wrote:Oh, you Jobs bill doesn't exist, but you are willing to say the President doesn't have anythign new to offer? I see.

You see?

I particularly enjoyed the part where you accused the Republicans of not having a jobs bill and then attacked Romney's jobs bill. Impressive bit of mental gymnastics.

Frazzled wrote:snip snip snip

Why is it sometimes you know how to use quote tags and other times not?

biccat wrote:Ny god, were you not a MOD I'd think you were a poorly disguised troll.

So, given that you are not a moderator, where does that leave you?

biccat wrote:While you appear to think that Romney is a "corporate-minded weather vane," please don't make the mistake in assuming that I feel the same way.

So how would you describe him? Your answer so far is "conservative or not." I certainly don't ever assume that you'd agree with me and, believe me, your lack of agreement is about the furthest thing from a personal insult that I can imagine. My comment was more to the effect of conservatives seeming to like de facto flip-floppers (which makes sense, given how schizophrenic the contemporary Repbulican party is) but not flip-floppers that look like flip-floppers.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Easy E wrote:By reading the article, I now know what Romney's Jobs bill looks like. Capital stripping and Outsourcing for everyone!

So ... he's right on board with the rest of his party!

Easy E wrote:Now now, I don;t think we need to throw the "treason" word around.

My only real question for Republicans is if you won the 2010 electiosn promising Jobs, where are the jobs/ Where is your jobs bill?

Oh, you Jobs bill doesn't exist, but you are willing to say the President doesn't have anythign new to offer? I see.

By reading the article, I now know what Romney's Jobs bill looks like. Capital stripping and Outsourcing for everyone!

Whether you like or dislike them, several jobs bills were sent to the Senate, and not even allowed to be heard. Evidently Senate Democrats are traitors too. My the Hangman is going to be busy soon.

Also spending bills were similarly sent to the Senate and killed without review. it would appear under the Manchu doctrine that Senate Democrats are the Traitor equivalent of Black Marines. They're so traitorous they're like Traitors X2.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:

Frazzled wrote:snip snip snip

Why is it sometimes you know how to use quote tags and other times not?

I'm incompetent and/or lazy.

Manchu wrote:No, Frazzled, this is another case of knowing the difference between fantasy and reality. In the past year, the Republican party actually has sabotaged the operation of the federal government and our national economy. On the other hand, the notion that Democrats are going to come to your house, seize your guns and your person, and then put you up against the wall (borrowing your old favorite phrase there) is just a fantasy from a fantasy land.

It's odd that you feel that the operation of the government could have any beneficial affect upon the economy. Usually it's government regulations and politically-driven laws hampering the economy. These usually come from democrat controlled congresses.

A blast from the past?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Naked_Communist

Some interesting tidbits:

17.Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
19.Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.
20.Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.
26.Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."
28.Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."
29.Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

Best,

@Frazzled: Mere politicking isn't treasonous. The President showed good faith efforts at compromise and the traditional Republicans responded. They then remembered their balls were tucked safely into Tea Party purses and reneged. This happened more than once. You can use all the analogies you like (family budgets, laws regarding private investments) but you're still not getting to the reality that we're talking about: if the ship won't sail right, the Tea Party will bend real conservatives over the table to make damn sure the thing sinks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phanatik wrote:It's odd that you feel that the operation of the government could have any beneficial affect upon the economy. Usually it's government regulations and politically-driven laws hampering the economy.

I have a book recommendation for you: http://www.amazon.com/Financial-Crisis-Inquiry-Report-Commission/dp/1607963523/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1319648459&sr=1-2

Manchu wrote:

biccat wrote:Ny god, were you not a MOD I'd think you were a poorly disguised troll.

So, given that you are not a moderator, where does that leave you?

Well, I'm not someone who hides behind a veil of authority to take cheap shots at other posters. Not that you are, mind.

Manchu wrote:So how would you describe him? Your answer so far is "conservative or not."

I would describe him as "conservative or not." I'm fairly certain he's not conservative under the standard definition, he's been given ample opportunity to distance himself from his governorship and has failed to do so.

Manchu wrote:I certainly don't ever assume that you'd agree with me

So please refrain from making comments like: "Yes, I agree -- the trouble with Romney is that he appears to be what he is: a corporate-minded weather vane"

Manchu wrote:and, believe me, your lack of agreement is about the furthest thing from a personal insult that I can imagine.

For someone who disdains agreement so much, you seem to go to great lengths to imply others agree with you.

Manchu wrote:My comment was more to the effect of conservatives seeming to like de facto flip-floppers (which makes sense, given how schizophrenic the contemporary Repbulican party is) but not flip-floppers that look like flip-floppers.

While that may be what you intended, your comment was not to that "effect." The effect of your comment was to imply Republican agreement with your distorted view of Gov. Romney.

While you may be able to perform the convoluded mental gymnastics to "correlate facts with intentions" of other posters, please try to tone down the great leaps of blind faith so that the rest of us mere mortals can keep up.

Phanatik wrote:A blast from the past?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Naked_Communist

And here's a Wikipedia article for you to consider, as well.

Manchu wrote:@Frazzled: Mere politicking isn't treasonous. The President showed good faith efforts at compromise and the traditional Republicans responded. They then remembered their balls were tucked safely into Tea Party purses and reneged. This happened more than once. You can use all the analogies you like (family budgets, laws regarding private investments) but you're still not getting to the reality that we're talking about: if the ship won't sail right, the Tea Party will bend real conservatives over the table to make damn sure the thing sinks.

AAAAHHHH I get it. If my side does it, its politicking. If your side does it, its treason.

biccat wrote:Well, I'm not someone who hides behind a veil of authority to take cheap shots at other posters.

That's not my read. Take what you just posted, for example. Or this one:

biccat wrote:While you may be able to perform the convoluded mental gymnastics to "correlate facts with intentions" of other posters, please try to tone down the great leaps of blind faith so that the rest of us mere mortals can keep up.

It's takes no blind leap of faith to see a movement that goes to a lot of trouble to shut down the federal government and force the downgrading of our national credit rating and then conclude: "they must have wanted to do those things."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:AAAAHHHH I get it. If my side does it, its politicking. If your side does it, its treason.

Nope, and no points for effort, either. Back in early August, I really thought the Republican party was finding some footing with John Boehner. "Finally," I said to friends and family, "real conservatism that's really interested in governing the county effectively." Of course, then Eric Cantor stepped in.

Manchu wrote:

Phanatik wrote:A blast from the past?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Naked_Communist

And here's a Wikipedia article for you to consider, as well.

Meh. Here's a better Wikipedia article

Manchu wrote:

Phanatik wrote:A blast from the past?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Naked_Communist

And here's a Wikipedia article for you to consider, as well.

And a counter for you: http://www.amazon.com/Treason-Liberal-Treachery-Cold-Terrorism/dp/1400050308

You see, McCarthy was right...

Best,

I could not in a million years describe your political position more accurately than you just did:

Phanatik wrote:You see, McCarthy was right...

Res ipsa loquitur.

Manchu wrote:That's not my read. Take what you just posted, for example. Or this one:

What exactly are you saying Manchu? Are you disputing my assertion that I'm not hiding behind a veil of authority to take cheap shots at other posters?

Manchu wrote:It's takes no blind leap of faith to see a movement that goes to a lot of trouble to shut down the federal government and force the downgrading of our national credit rating and then conclude: "they must have wanted to do those things."

No, you're correct that such reasoning does not take a blind leap of faith.

But when you attribute those actions to the Tea Party rather than the Democrat Party, that's where the blind leap of faith comes in.

However, as I mentioned in my post (which I would invite you to read again, because, despite your intellectual superiority, you appear to have missed my intention) was that the rest of us cannot divine your intention from your post when the intention is blurred.

Manchu wrote:I could not in a million years describe your political position more accurately than you just did:

Phanatik wrote:You see, McCarthy was right...

Res ipsa loquitur.

Excusare me nosti ipsum dolor sit ubi est?

Manchu wrote:I could not in a million years describe your political position more accurately than you just did:

Phanatik wrote:You see, McCarthy was right...

Res ipsa loquitur.

If you had 5 million years you could not describe me.

So, lets see, ...
1. McCarthy says there are communists in the government
2. There are communists in the government
3. Saying so makes one....what?

a posse ad esse

Phanatik wrote:1. McCarthy says there are communists in the government
2. There are communists in the government
3. Saying so makes one....what?

A violent radical who hates Democracy.

That's what I learned in public school.

Oddly enough, we didn't learn that there were actually Communists in the government.

Veni, vidi, oscitavit.

@biccat: I say that you constantly toe the line and that a great many of your posts are cheap shots. I also say that you cry foul when you perceive others do it to you. I think they call it wanting to have your cake and eat it, too.

biccat wrote:But when you attribute those actions to the Tea Party rather than the Democrat Party, that's where the blind leap of faith comes in.

No, it doesn't. The stated goals of the Tea Party and the actions of the Republican Party leadership during the budgetary crisis plainly correspond.

At least since the 30's:
Thus began Whittaker Chambers’ long, torturous journey: from Communist Party member and activist—to underground espionage agent—to hunted ex-comrade—to Time magazine writer and editor—to reluctant informer—to vilified government witness—to conservative, anticommunist icon. During that journey Chambers also found religion and developed an insight into the competing visions that fueled the titanic struggle between communism and the West.

On August 3, 1948, Chambers, testifying before the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), identified several members of an underground communist network that had infiltrated the United States government in the 1930s and 1940s.

http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/archives_roll/2001_07-09/sempa_chambers/sempa_chambers.html

Phanatik wrote:If you had 5 million years you could not describe me.

Yes, exactly, so thank you for doing it in one post. Let it be remembered that Phanatik is a self-confessed McCarthyist, so let's not try to pin labels on him.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:That's what I learned in public school.

What was that you just criticized me about? This must be either (a) a one-time example of what you claim I do (a "cheap shot") or (b) something you do on a regular basis and then criticize others for doing ...

biccat wrote:

Easy E wrote:Oh, you Jobs bill doesn't exist, but you are willing to say the President doesn't have anythign new to offer? I see.

You see?

I particularly enjoyed the part where you accused the Republicans of not having a jobs bill and then attacked Romney's jobs bill. Impressive bit of mental gymnastics.

Well thanks for that.

Glad to see that the president is only offering more of the same, but the Republicans have some "new" big ideas.

Oh wait...

Looks like everyone is back to the same place we started. It is almost like creating gridlock and ineffectual government is a plan, so you can claim government is ineffectual in order to get elected.

In other news: I can't type worth crap!

Manchu wrote:@biccat: I say that you constantly toe the line and that a great many of your posts are cheap shots. I also say that you cry foul when you perceive others do it to you. I think they call it wanting to have your cake and eat it, too.

That idiom doesn't mean what you think it means. You may be thinking of "You can't have it both ways."

Further comments withheld.

Manchu wrote:The stated goals of the Tea Party and the actions of the Republican Party leadership during the budgetary crisis plainly correspond.

Or, not. I suppose it depends on whether you're looking at objective facts or reading the Daily Kos or other left-wing blogs.

edit:

Manchu wrote:What was that you just criticized me about? This must be either (a) a one-time example of what you claim I do (a "cheap shot") or (b) something you do on a regular basis and then criticize others for doing ...

I believe I criticized you for distorting other people's posts and then claiming you can divine their intent - or what they really meant to post. I don't believe I ever said you take cheap shots.

Note that I do appreciate you clarifying what you think I posted before attacking me. So often posters simply attack something they think I posted without letting me know what they're attacking me for.

@biccat: To put aside all our troubles and differences for just a minute, let me try to get one thing across to you -- whatever opinion you may have formed of me, and however I may have posted to provide you with the evidence to form that opinion, I am not interested in being a liberal for the sake of being a liberal. I'm actually longing for an authentic conservatism and I sincerely believe that the romantic, anti-government view of the Constitution espoused by Tea Partiers is not it. So while you may reasonably believe that I simply don't understand current events, I assure you that I am not just cycling through liberal propaganda points to misinform and evangelize.

And, to tie it back to OP, that's also why I dislike Mitt Romney and would call him a corporate-minded weather vane.

Manchu wrote:@biccat: To put aside all our troubles and differences for just a minute, let me try to get one thing across to you -- whatever opinion you may have formed of me, and however I may have posted to provide you with the evidence to form that opinion, I am not interested in being a liberal for the sake of being a liberal. I'm actually longing for an authentic conservatism and I sincerely believe that the romantic, anti-government view of the Constitution espoused by Tea Partiers is not it. So while you may reasonably believe that I simply don't understand current events, I assure you that I am not just cycling through liberal propaganda points to misinform and evangelize.

And, to tie it back to OP, that's also why I dislike Mitt Romney and would call him a corporate-minded weather vane.

Lets see...I know there's a relevant quote I could include here from one of the distinguished moderators on this site...

ah, here it is:

Manchu wrote:

Particularly relevant, and even includes "substantive information posted as text."

Well, if I was ever going to get you to participate in a dialog in good faith, that was it. And it's come and gone. Thanks for clearing it up, though.