Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
cribdog

Grover Norquist

Recommended Posts

What are your thoughts on this? Anyone else wonder why we have our representatives signing a pledge to him? I just don't think it's right. I can see and understand the stance that you don't think taxes should raised, but let's leave that out of the equation.

 

The question is should an individual have this power over our elected officials?

 

Let's say Warren Buffet had all the democrats sign a pledge to not allow any new oil drilling anywhere...I would think the republicans would all be saying how unconstitutional that is and why are the dems catering to an individual instead of their constituents.

 

Can anyone defend this pledge to an individual???

 

:dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should stay off the huffpo.

 

The pledge is to the people they represent.

 

http://www.atr.org/userfiles/Senate%20Pledge(2).pdf

 

http://www.atr.org/userfiles/Congressional_pledge(1).pdf

No huffpo for me.

 

So, if the dems signed a no drilling pledge to Mr. Buffet, you wouldn't be ripping them a new one? Not just because of the drilling part, but because they were catering to Buffet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

So, if the dems signed a no drilling pledge to Mr. Buffet,

Since nobody has signed a pledge to Mr. Norquist your example doesn't work.

 

You lost this thread.......early and hard. Go to bed, Kid. :wave:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43754.html

 

More than 200 Democrats have signed onto a pledge to protect Social Security from any interference, amid some Republican calls for partial privatization of the entitlement program.

 

The list includes many candidates in close races, including Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway, and Alexi Giannoulias, who’s running against Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) for the Illinois Senate seat. The pledge states that the candidates won’t privatize Social Security, either partially or fully, or allow the retirement age to go up.

 

The Progressive Change Campaign Committee circulated the petition and set up the web site socialsecurityprotectors.com to promote it.

 

:dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should I be outraged over this? :bench:

Yes. This is not right either. Nobody should sign a pledge that says that they won't negotiate. Everything should always be on the table.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. This is not right either. Nobody should sign a pledge that says that they won't negotiate. Everything should always be on the table.

You have changed the parameters of your outrage. Why not pick a reason to be outraged and stick with it. :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since nobody has signed a pledge to Mr. Norquist your example doesn't work.

 

You lost this thread.......early and hard. Go to bed, Kid. :wave:

See, that is part of the problem right there. It doesn't always have to be about winning and losing. Sometimes there can be discussion.

 

Do you think that it's a good idea to have those guys signing the pledge?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have changed the parameters of your outrage. Why not pick a reason to be outraged and stick with it. :thumbsup:

 

No, it is the same. I don't think it is right anyone sign any pledge to any outside interest. I think I've been pretty consistent on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Do you think that it's a good idea to have those guys signing the pledge?

 

Sure. Why not. Sign away.

 

If someone running for office asks for my vote and signs a pledge the he will do A, B, and C......and won't do X, Y, and Z it gives me information to make an informed choice on said candidate.

 

Lots of folks like that type of thing. We call these folks Republicans.

 

Some folks vote based on catchy stuff like FORWARD!. We call those folks morons.

 

HTH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure. Why not. Sign away.

 

If someone running for office asks for my vote and signs a pledge the he will do A, B, and C......and won't do X, Y, and Z it gives me information to make an informed choice on said candidate.

 

Lots of folks like that type of thing. We call these folks Republicans.

 

Some folks vote based on catchy stuff like FORWARD!. We call those folks morons.

 

HTH

Well I guess that we just have a fundamental difference then. I don't want my elected officials locked in to anything. I think they should always negotiate in the best interest of we the people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Grover Norquist is one of the four unelected pillars of poo in the GOP together with: angry talk show entertainers, evilgelicals, and John Bolton.

 

But he's the worst/most dangerous one of the four because of his addiction to deficits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I guess that we just have a fundamental difference then. I don't want my elected officials locked in to anything. I think they should always negotiate in the best interest of we the people.

 

Really? So if your elected Representatives signed a pledge that they wouldn't kidnap, rape, and dismember 6 year old girls you would be outraged? Because, you know, everything should be on the table and open for negotiation, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? So if your elected Representatives signed a pledge that they wouldn't kidnap, rape, and dismember 6 year old girls you would be outraged? Because, you know, everything should be on the table and open for negotiation, right?

 

Wow, now all you need is a tin man and a cowardly lion there Dorothy. You obviously have a straw man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? So if your elected Representatives signed a pledge that they wouldn't kidnap, rape, and dismember 6 year old girls you would be outraged? Because, you know, everything should be on the table and open for negotiation, right?

 

That's a bit extreme.

 

Unless you live in John Conyers' or Alcee Hastings' districts your elected representative couldn't win re-election if they kidnap, rape, and dismember 6 year old girls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? So if your elected Representatives signed a pledge that they wouldn't kidnap, rape, and dismember 6 year old girls you would be outraged? Because, you know, everything should be on the table and open for negotiation, right?

 

Yup, you are the Moron of the day!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a bit extreme.

 

 

That's the point. The OP is suggesting that there should never be a pledge by a politician that we shouldn't be outraged about. I'm illustrating that clearly such a pledge does exist. If one exists then just because he doesn't believe in the Grover Northquist pledge that many politicians have signed doesn't make it wrong. It's pretty simple actually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, now all you need is a tin man and a cowardly lion there Dorothy. You obviously have a straw man.

 

You should look up the definition of straw man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the point. The OP is suggesting that there should never be a pledge by a politician that we shouldn't be outraged about. I'm illustrating that clearly such a pledge does exist. If one exists then just because he doesn't believe in the Grover Northquist pledge that many politicians have signed doesn't make it wrong. It's pretty simple actually.

 

So I take it that you are perfectly OK with your leaders signing this Norquist pledge? And perfectly OK that they will not negotiate in the best interest of we the people, but instead stand hard lined even if nothing gets accomplished? Seems ridiculous to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I take it that you are perfectly OK with your leaders signing this Norquist pledge? And perfectly OK that they will not negotiate in the best interest of we the people, but instead stand hard lined even if nothing gets accomplished? Seems ridiculous to me.

 

The pledge is not binding. Any politician is free to violate it if they so choose. The point of the pledge is to get them on record on a specific issue so that they can be called out on it by their constituents come election time. Personally, I WANT my politicians on record about specific issues. I don't want them to be able to weasel their way out of things when called out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Grover Norquist is one of the four unelected pillars of poo in the GOP together with: angry talk show entertainers, evilgelicals, and John Bolton.

This is pure and unassailable YENIUS! ( :pointstosky: ) and I intend to cite it liberally. (Get it?)

 

Norquist and his phony BS is nothing but crass and empty-headed populism masquerading as policy, and unfortunately, since the kinds of people who sign such dreck are the equally crass and empty-headed buffoons elected into office by red-state dimwits operating on diets of nothing but 100% Fox News talking points, it tends to carry the weight of policy.

 

These constituents have no idea why the hell one tax level versus another might be good or bad for themselves or the country...they have no idea what the effective tax rates are in history's most forward and successful societies...they have no idea what tax rates have been during the U.S.'s most successful periods...and they have no idea what global sociological factors have allowed progress and growth during low-tax periods in history. And they SURE as hell have no idea about the Econ theory that backs it all up. They know only that "tax = bad" because that's the propaganda they're fed 24/7 on the only media outlet that agrees with them on Jesus, abortion, homos, and Mexicans.

 

These numbskulls then appoint members of their herd into Norquist's brigade of loonies, where they can keep us gridlocked away from progress while their banker overlords skullfock them to death with deregulatory predation that will end up costing them 10x what an effective and sane tax hike would have, while simultaneously cratering the economy yet again.

 

A good tax is your friend. Triply so as long as you're not a Rockefeller nephew. A pledge to avoid them is a pledge to harm the country and its citizens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? So if your elected Representatives signed a pledge that they wouldn't kidnap, rape, and dismember 6 year old girls you would be outraged? Because, you know, everything should be on the table and open for negotiation, right?

 

lol what a stupid analogy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Grover Norquist is one of the four unelected pillars of poo in the GOP together with: angry talk show entertainers, evilgelicals, and John Bolton.

 

But he's the worst/most dangerous one of the four because of his addiction to deficits.

 

How about Democratic pillar Paul Krugman. Is he addicted to deficits?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is pure and unassailable YENIUS! ( :pointstosky: ) and I intend to cite it liberally. (Get it?)

 

Norquist and his phony BS is nothing but crass and empty-headed populism masquerading as policy, and unfortunately, since the kinds of people who sign such dreck are the equally crass and empty-headed buffoons elected into office by red-state dimwits operating on diets of nothing but 100% Fox News talking points, it tends to carry the weight of policy.

 

These constituents have no idea why the hell one tax level versus another might be good or bad for themselves or the country...they have no idea what the effective tax rates are in history's most forward and successful societies...they have no idea what tax rates have been during the U.S.'s most successful periods...and they have no idea what global sociological factors have allowed progress and growth during low-tax periods in history. And they SURE as hell have no idea about the Econ theory that backs it all up. They know only that "tax = bad" because that's the propaganda they're fed 24/7 on the only media outlet that agrees with them on Jesus, abortion, homos, and Mexicans.

 

These numbskulls then appoint members of their herd into Norquist's brigade of loonies, where they can keep us gridlocked away from progress while their banker overlords skullfock them to death with deregulatory predation that will end up costing them 10x what an effective and sane tax hike would have, while simultaneously cratering the economy yet again.

 

A good tax is your friend. Triply so as long as you're not a Rockefeller nephew. A pledge to avoid them is a pledge to harm the country and its citizens.

What deregulatory predation are you talking about that will end up costing them 10x what an effective and sane tax hike would have?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about Democratic pillar Paul Krugman. Is he addicted to deficits?

Sadly, yes.

 

Krugman talks about reducing deficits in the long run but is fully on board with the stimulus crowd. He may very well be one leading that parade. Frankly, I don't know if his long run will ever come. He's a great writer and very persuasive but hopefully he's losing influence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The pledge is not binding. Any politician is free to violate it if they so choose. The point of the pledge is to get them on record on a specific issue so that they can be called out on it by their constituents come election time. Personally, I WANT my politicians on record about specific issues. I don't want them to be able to weasel their way out of things when called out.

 

Non-binding...yeah if you want to forgo major campaign financing and don't mind that money going to your primary opponent, it's completely non-binding.

 

Norquist is the current kingmaker in the GOP and without him a GOP candidate has a very small chance of being elected. Lots about Norquist in this Rolling Stone Article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Non-binding...yeah if you want to forgo major campaign financing and don't mind that money going to your primary opponent, it's completely non-binding.

 

Norquist is the current kingmaker in the GOP and without him a GOP candidate has a very small chance of being elected.

 

Rove was the kingmaker for a while and we see how that's turning out. It's all cyclical. People will start telling Norquist to go fock himself just like they're finally starting to do with the Tea Party crowd.

 

Political compromise is essential, and even though BLS crowd thinks you have to blow this country up to save it, it really is the only way out of this mess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Non-binding...yeah if you want to forgo major campaign financing and don't mind that money going to your primary opponent, it's completely non-binding.

 

Norquist is the current kingmaker in the GOP and without him a GOP candidate has a very small chance of being elected. Lots about Norquist in this Rolling Stone Article

 

Ron Paul is essentially black listed from the GOP. So was Tom Tancredo. Sometimes representing the interests of your constituents is enough. Would be nice if more politicians actually did that instead of pandering for dollars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rove was the kingmaker for a while and we see how that's turning out. It's all cyclical. People will start telling Norquist to go fock himself just like they're finally starting to do with the Tea Party crowd.

 

Political compromise is essential, and even though BLS crowd thinks you have to blow this country up to save it, it really is the only way out of this mess.

There's rumors of cracks in Norquist's armor. I'll beleive it when I see it.

 

It's sink or swim time for the GOP. They've been clamoring for tax cuts and massive military spending and balanced budgets ever since the Bushtard left office. In the past, every time the chips were down, balanced budgets were the first thing tossed out the window. If they can actually deliver on budgets this time, I'm willing to reconsider how repugnant, stupid, and focked up they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly, yes.

 

Krugman talks about reducing deficits in the long run but is fully on board with the stimulus crowd. He may very well be one leading that parade. Frankly, I don't know if his long run will ever come. He's a great writer and very persuasive but hopefully he's losing influence.

 

Krugman is the guy advocating for ever-increasing deficits into the future, which really don't matter in his view because the U.S. can simply print more money to buy more bonds, so that in effect we are simply using our money to pay ourselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×