not sure the jmfcst fits in the GOP.

[Emperor SJoyce]

Haven't you been insisting for ages that you are the perfect proxy for "Generic Republican Voter"(tm), and that's why the party always nominates the candidate who you like?  So then how did you so quickly become un-representative of the party?

I am not out of sync with GOP voters, rather the GOP pols are out of sync with GOP voters.

GOP pols are now less pragmatic than GOP voters.

You don't even need to specify GOP on that, it's true for everybody.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The problem is avalanche style politics.

Once you get it started it is hard to direct or control it. So low tax, becames no tax.

Even Mr. Grover "Tax Pledge" Norquist left the door open to a potential tax increase provided that the cuts were somehow guarranteed to occur and not end up like 86, 91 or 93 type deals where the tax hikes occured, but the spending cuts did not.

The problem is that even he can't guarrantee the type of political security necesssary to make such deal as that even possible. He has already set off the dynamite, and know there is no stopping or controlling it.

[Mr. Morden]

Haven't you been insisting for ages that you are the perfect proxy for "Generic Republican Voter"(tm), and that's why the party always nominates the candidate who you like?  So then how did you so quickly become un-representative of the party?

I am not out of sync with GOP voters, rather the GOP pols are out of sync with GOP voters.

GOP pols are now less pragmatic than GOP voters.

Have you ever considered that maybe, just maybe, GOP pols are out of sync with you because GOP voters are out of sync with you?

[All life is a blur of Republicans and meat.]

GOP voters nominated Romney.

[BigSkyBob]

I can't really find anyone in the GOP with whom I agree.

Is there anyone in the GOP willing to publically declare they would trade $10 in budget cuts for $1 in tax increases?

Is there anyone in the GOP willing to publically admit that Bush43 was very naive to believe we could bring democracy to the Muslims by overthrowing their regimes?  Is there anyone in the GOP willing to publically declare we should pull out of Afghanistan?

Bush 43 was worse than naive in believing he was the savior of mankind.

We should bail on Afghanistan.

$10 in tax cuts simply isn't on the table, only the $1 in tax increases. What is called a "cut" is really a reduction in the rate of increase. Noone has advocated actually cuts, save Ron Paul.

Government increasing with the size of economy to fullfill it's obligations is status quo. So it is a cut.

Sorry, the cost of defending three hundred million Americans from foreign invasion is the same as the cost of defending two hundred million, or four hundred million. It is the same if the GDP is 5 trillion, 15 trillion, or 50 trillion.

While spending more just because the GNP expands might be the "status quo," it doesn't alter the fact that such outlays are an increase in spending.

[ModerateCoward]

I can't really find anyone in the GOP with whom I agree.

Is there anyone in the GOP willing to publically declare they would trade $10 in budget cuts for $1 in tax increases?

Is there anyone in the GOP willing to publically admit that Bush43 was very naive to believe we could bring democracy to the Muslims by overthrowing their regimes?  Is there anyone in the GOP willing to publically declare we should pull out of Afghanistan?

Bush 43 was worse than naive in believing he was the savior of mankind.

We should bail on Afghanistan.

$10 in tax cuts simply isn't on the table, only the $1 in tax increases. What is called a "cut" is really a reduction in the rate of increase. Noone has advocated actually cuts, save Ron Paul.

Government increasing with the size of economy to fullfill it's obligations is status quo. So it is a cut.

Sorry, the cost of defending three hundred million Americans from foreign invasion is the same as the cost of defending two hundred million, or four hundred million. It is the same if the GDP is 5 trillion, 15 trillion, or 50 trillion.

While spending more just because the GNP expands might be the "status quo," it doesn't alter the fact that such outlays are an increase in spending.

We are talking about actual useful functions of the government like welfare of it's citizens,  not imperialistic adventures.

[BigSkyBob]

I can't really find anyone in the GOP with whom I agree.

Is there anyone in the GOP willing to publically declare they would trade $10 in budget cuts for $1 in tax increases?

Is there anyone in the GOP willing to publically admit that Bush43 was very naive to believe we could bring democracy to the Muslims by overthrowing their regimes?  Is there anyone in the GOP willing to publically declare we should pull out of Afghanistan?

Bush 43 was worse than naive in believing he was the savior of mankind.

We should bail on Afghanistan.

$10 in tax cuts simply isn't on the table, only the $1 in tax increases. What is called a "cut" is really a reduction in the rate of increase. Noone has advocated actually cuts, save Ron Paul.

Government increasing with the size of economy to fullfill it's obligations is status quo. So it is a cut.

Sorry, the cost of defending three hundred million Americans from foreign invasion is the same as the cost of defending two hundred million, or four hundred million. It is the same if the GDP is 5 trillion, 15 trillion, or 50 trillion.

While spending more just because the GNP expands might be the "status quo," it doesn't alter the fact that such outlays are an increase in spending.

We are talking about actual useful functions of the government like welfare of it's citizens,  not imperialistic adventures.

We are talking about total spending, which includes military spending as much as "welfare."

[Senator Snowstalker]

[ModerateCoward]

He wouldn't be able to stand all the browns, jmfcst is a racist fella.

[They Played The Wardrum Out Of Time]

Only one solution:

[Senator Snowstalker]

He wouldn't be able to stand all the browns, jmfcst is a racist fella.

Meh, a vote is a vote.

[shua]

He wouldn't be able to stand all the browns, jmfcst is a racist fella.

Jmfsct is many things, but racist is not one of them.

[ModerateCoward]

He wouldn't be able to stand all the browns, jmfcst is a racist fella.

Jmfsct is many things, but racist is not one of them.

You must have missed the episode where he talked about having guns to shoot the Mexicans and/or Blacks.