• Announcements

    • UnderDawg

      A Few Simple Rules   05/22/2017

      Sailing Anarchy is a very lightly moderated site. This is by design, to afford a more free atmosphere for discussion. There are plenty of sailing forums you can go to where swearing isn't allowed, confrontation is squelched and, and you can have a moderator finger-wag at you for your attitude. SA tries to avoid that and allow for more adult behavior without moderators editing your posts and whacking knuckles with rulers. We don't have a long list of published "thou shalt nots" either, and this is by design. Too many absolute rules paints us into too many corners. So check the Terms of Service - there IS language there about certain types of behavior that is not permitted. We interpret that lightly and permit a lot of latitude, but we DO reserve the right to take action when something is too extreme to tolerate (too racist, graphic, violent, misogynistic, etc.). Yes, that is subjective, but it allows us discretion. Avoiding a laundry list of rules allows for freedom; don't abuse it. However there ARE a few basic rules that will earn you a suspension, and apparently a brief refresher is in order. 1) Allegations of pedophilia - there is no tolerance for this. So if you make allegations, jokes, innuendo or suggestions about child molestation, child pornography, abuse or inappropriate behavior with minors etc. about someone on this board you will get a time out. This is pretty much automatic; this behavior can have real world effect and is not acceptable. Obviously the subject is not banned when discussion of it is apropos, e.g. talking about an item in the news for instance. But allegations or references directed at or about another poster is verboten. 2) Outing people - providing real world identifiable information about users on the forums who prefer to remain anonymous. Yes, some of us post with our real names - not a problem to use them. However many do NOT, and if you find out someone's name keep it to yourself, first or last. This also goes for other identifying information too - employer information etc. You don't need too many pieces of data to figure out who someone really is these days. Depending on severity you might get anything from a scolding to a suspension - so don't do it. I know it can be confusing sometimes for newcomers, as SA has been around almost twenty years and there are some people that throw their real names around and their current Display Name may not match the name they have out in the public. But if in doubt, you don't want to accidentally out some one so use caution, even if it's a personal friend of yours in real life. 3) Posting While Suspended - If you've earned a timeout (these are fairly rare and hard to get), please observe the suspension. If you create a new account (a "Sock Puppet") and return to the forums to post with it before your suspension is up you WILL get more time added to your original suspension and lose your Socks. This behavior may result a permanent ban, since it shows you have zero respect for the few rules we have and the moderating team that is tasked with supporting them. Check the Terms of Service you agreed to; they apply to the individual agreeing, not the account you created, so don't try to Sea Lawyer us if you get caught. Just don't do it. Those are the three that will almost certainly get you into some trouble. IF YOU SEE SOMEONE DO ONE OF THESE THINGS, please do the following: Refrain from quoting the offending text, it makes the thread cleanup a pain in the rear Press the Report button; it is by far the best way to notify Admins as we will get e-mails. Calling out for Admins in the middle of threads, sending us PM's, etc. - there is no guarantee we will get those in a timely fashion. There are multiple Moderators in multiple time zones around the world, and anyone one of us can handle the Report and all of us will be notified about it. But if you PM one Mod directly and he's off line, the problem will get dealt with much more slowly. Other behaviors that you might want to think twice before doing include: Intentionally disrupting threads and discussions repeatedly. Off topic/content free trolling in threads to disrupt dialog Stalking users around the forums with the intent to disrupt content and discussion Repeated posting of overly graphic or scatological porn content. There are plenty web sites for you to get your freak on, don't do it here. And a brief note to Newbies... No, we will not ban people or censor them for dropping F-bombs on you, using foul language, etc. so please don't report it when one of our members gives you a greeting you may find shocking. We do our best not to censor content here and playing swearword police is not in our job descriptions. Sailing Anarchy is more like a bar than a classroom, so handle it like you would meeting someone a little coarse - don't look for the teacher. Thanks.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Mark K

Open rebellion against Norquist?

18 posts in this topic

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/13/avlon-jeb-bush-grover-norquist/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

 

(CNN) -- This is what happens when politics starts looking like a cult: Jeb Bush gets attacked for being a traitor to the conservative cause.

 

The former Florida governor has been speaking with the freedom of someone not running for office, saying that both his father and Ronald Reagan would have had a hard time in today's hard-right GOP and questioning the wisdom of Grover Norquist's absolutist anti-tax pledge.

 

That set off a fascinating public fight between Bush and Norquist, two faces of competing factions within Republican Party. It is the latest evidence of a growing GOP backlash against the ideological straitjacket Norquist has attempted to impose on governing in the United States.

 

Snip.....

 

Here was his response to Jeb Bush on this front: "There's a guy who watched his father throw away his presidency on a 2:1 (ratio of spending cuts to tax increases) promise. ... And he thinks he's sophisticated by saying that he'd take a 10:1 promise. He doesn't understand -- he's just agreed to walk down the same alley his dad did with the same gang. And he thinks he's smart. You walk down that alley, you don't come out."

 

The angry defensiveness of the statement, the thinly veiled threats and thuggish imagery, has all the signs of someone who worries that he might be losing a rational argument.

 

As it turns out, Norquist has reason to be concerned. It's not just Jeb Bush. A growing number of Republicans are rejecting his pledge. Oklahoma conservative Sen. Tom Coburn called the pledge's effective veto of deficit reduction plans "ridiculous" when talking with Erin Burnett on "OutFront."

 

Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina on Tuesday declared his independence from the pledge, saying, "We're so far in debt, that if you don't give up some ideological ground, the country sinks."

 

Add to those voices seven other Republican U.S. senators -- from Maine's Susan Collins to Iowa's Chuck Grassley to Wyoming's John Barrasso -- and 11 Republican House members, ranging from centrist New Yorker Richard Hanna to tea party Floridian Allen West.

 

The bottom line is that a growing number of Republicans are deciding to throw off the ideological straitjacket to get serious about actually reducing the deficit and the debt. It is a courageous move at a time when cultlike group-think dictates that the pledge must be signed or your political career is dead in the water.

 

The choice between Bush's and Norquist's vision of the Republican Party is ultimately no contest at all. It's the difference between responsible governance and agitated activism, a growing party or a shrinking one. And of course in the end the only pledge that really matters is the Pledge of Allegiance.

 

This inconvenient fact is often denied by Norquist and other activists because it is their prime objection to attempts to find a "grand bargain" on deficits and debt, along the lines of the recommendations of the Bowles-Simpson commission.

 

 

Worth reading in full. Norquist might be losing his grip on the GOP. I thought the Tea Party freshmen would begin to make sense once they had to get their heads wrapped around practical solutions. These guys are not Teahadists, but that they feel safe enough to speak open heresy such as this indicates the pitchforks may be shouldered...or maybe even at parade rest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its tough when you paint yourself into a hopeless corner like a pledge to never raise taxes.

Sucks to be republican. Grover will take the GOP down. I like him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What they say in opposition and what they do in government hardly ever match.........

 

FTFY ;)

 

what they say in opposition and what they do in government dont always match.........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact is that Norquist and Gang's notions about shrinking the size of government through "starving the beast" on the revenue side, has ONLY resulted in the utter fiscal mis-management of a system that has high-enough fixed costs to make that indirect approach as ridiculous in actuality as it appeared in principle two decades ago when it started getting serious play by the 'thugs.

 

They should have been more straight-forward, saying: we want to dismantle all aspects of the social safety net including all of the obligations undertaken with every living American, take the US off the world's stage as the pre-eminent military power, let the transportation and regulatory infrastructure go to hell, and oh, by the way, the heck with education too. That is the only way they *could* accomplish their *stated* objective. Of course, most conservative supporters of this half-baked fart of an idea couldn't be bothered to try figure that out ... they heard 'lower taxes' and thought 'fine'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please note: when right-wingers dance, there is no touching.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact is that Norquist and Gang's notions about shrinking the size of government through "starving the beast" on the revenue side, has ONLY resulted in the utter fiscal mis-management of a system that has high-enough fixed costs to make that indirect approach as ridiculous in actuality as it appeared in principle two decades ago when it started getting serious play by the 'thugs.

 

They should have been more straight-forward, saying: we want to dismantle all aspects of the social safety net including all of the obligations undertaken with every living American, take the US off the world's stage as the pre-eminent military power, let the transportation and regulatory infrastructure go to hell, and oh, by the way, the heck with education too. That is the only way they *could* accomplish their *stated* objective. Of course, most conservative supporters of this half-baked fart of an idea couldn't be bothered to try figure that out ... they heard 'lower taxes' and thought 'fine'.

Agreed, “starve the beast” indeed, it’s so naïve… imagine this government curtailing spending just because it doesn’t have the money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a registered republican, consider myself conservative and I can assure you Grover Norquist does not speak for me. I look to Lincoln and TR for leadership.

 

I will not be voting for Mitt Romney. I may sit home on election day but Romney is out of the question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact is that Norquist and Gang's notions about shrinking the size of government through "starving the beast" on the revenue side, has ONLY resulted in the utter fiscal mis-management of a system that has high-enough fixed costs to make that indirect approach as ridiculous in actuality as it appeared in principle two decades ago when it started getting serious play by the 'thugs.

 

They should have been more straight-forward, saying: we want to dismantle all aspects of the social safety net including all of the obligations undertaken with every living American, take the US off the world's stage as the pre-eminent military power, let the transportation and regulatory infrastructure go to hell, and oh, by the way, the heck with education too. That is the only way they *could* accomplish their *stated* objective. Of course, most conservative supporters of this half-baked fart of an idea couldn't be bothered to try figure that out ... they heard 'lower taxes' and thought 'fine'.

Agreed, “starve the beast” indeed, it’s so naïve… imagine this government curtailing spending just because it doesn’t have the money.

 

Especially when there's money to be made for your friends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact is that Norquist and Gang's notions about shrinking the size of government through "starving the beast" on the revenue side, has ONLY resulted in the utter fiscal mis-management of a system that has high-enough fixed costs to make that indirect approach as ridiculous in actuality as it appeared in principle two decades ago when it started getting serious play by the 'thugs.

 

They should have been more straight-forward, saying: we want to dismantle all aspects of the social safety net including all of the obligations undertaken with every living American, take the US off the world's stage as the pre-eminent military power, let the transportation and regulatory infrastructure go to hell, and oh, by the way, the heck with education too. That is the only way they *could* accomplish their *stated* objective. Of course, most conservative supporters of this half-baked fart of an idea couldn't be bothered to try figure that out ... they heard 'lower taxes' and thought 'fine'.

Agreed, “starve the beast” indeed, it’s so naïve… imagine this government curtailing spending just because it doesn’t have the money.

 

It fed the politicians natural inclination to offer tax cuts yet say the benefits wouldn't be cut. Given that ours is the worlds reserve currency, indeed, that could result in a lot of printed money.

 

If you want people to give up their bene's, bill them for them. Norquist arc may resemble that of many a dictator, the fall can be quite sudden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer candidates whose pledge is to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. I do not wish to have their official duties constrained by any other pledges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You aren't quite getting the long game.

It isn't that programs would be cut TODAY. The idea is to run up so much debt that eventually you CAN'T fund all the various government agencies no matter how much you want to. Of course the assumption is the Rs will be in power at that point and cut everything they don't like. Risky assumption IMHO.

 

The fact is that Norquist and Gang's notions about shrinking the size of government through "starving the beast" on the revenue side, has ONLY resulted in the utter fiscal mis-management of a system that has high-enough fixed costs to make that indirect approach as ridiculous in actuality as it appeared in principle two decades ago when it started getting serious play by the 'thugs.

 

They should have been more straight-forward, saying: we want to dismantle all aspects of the social safety net including all of the obligations undertaken with every living American, take the US off the world's stage as the pre-eminent military power, let the transportation and regulatory infrastructure go to hell, and oh, by the way, the heck with education too. That is the only way they *could* accomplish their *stated* objective. Of course, most conservative supporters of this half-baked fart of an idea couldn't be bothered to try figure that out ... they heard 'lower taxes' and thought 'fine'.

Agreed, “starve the beast” indeed, it’s so naïve… imagine this government curtailing spending just because it doesn’t have the money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer candidates whose pledge is to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. I do not wish to have their official duties constrained by any other pledges.

 

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a registered republican, consider myself conservative and I can assure you Grover Norquist does not speak for me. I look to Lincoln and TR for leadership.

 

I will not be voting for Mitt Romney. I may sit home on election day but Romney is out of the question.

 

Sorry, your silly notions about economics (greenbacks, disbanding lending, etc) disqualifies you as a conservative. You and Grover can go eat ice cream together because your about as relevant to real economics as the ice cream is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, who is Grover Norquist and why do I care. More importantly, why does he have any power to make people take a pledge to his ideas? I agree with Sol, my only pledge is to the constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, who is Grover Norquist and why do I care. More importantly, why does he have any power to make people take a pledge to his ideas? I agree with Sol, my only pledge is to the constitution.

Let Me Google That For You

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, who is Grover Norquist and why do I care. More importantly, why does he have any power to make people take a pledge to his ideas? I agree with Sol, my only pledge is to the constitution.

Let Me Google That For You

 

Can you google rhetorical question too?

 

Speaking of google:

epic-google-tits-funny-sexy.jpg

 

 

Well played gentlemen, well played.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, who is Grover Norquist and why do I care. More importantly, why does he have any power to make people take a pledge to his ideas? I agree with Sol, my only pledge is to the constitution.

Let Me Google That For You

 

Can you google rhetorical question too?

 

Speaking of google:

epic-google-tits-funny-sexy.jpg

 

 

Well played gentlemen, well played.

Outstanding.

 

Romney could get my attention by declaring that the oath of office would be the only pledge constraining his decisions in office. He could also get my attention by talking this guy into being his running mate.

 

 

google.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites