« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Paul Ryan shames the Wisconsin fleebaggers

By: Dan Spencer (Diary)  |  February 25th, 2011 at 01:06 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Congressman Paul Ryan gets it exactly right concerning the Wisconsin legislators fleeing the state to avoid their duty to vote.

I didn’t like the legislation that was moving through Washington the last two years — I didn’t like cap and trade, I didn’t like ObamaCare, I didn’t like the stimulus. But I didn’t walk out. We stayed and did our jobs. We voted, we tried to amend, we made our debates . . . Elections have consequences. They won, we lost. That’s the way it works. So I just don’t understand this lack of respect for the rule of law.” — Congressman Paul Ryan

Congressman Ryan went on to talk about how achieving fiscal responsibility does not have to be a partisan issue.

Watch the video:

As Erick has also pointed out, the Obamacrats are making a huge mistake here. They are taking another very unpopular stand just like they did with ObamaCare.

Tags: , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • throwback59

    democrats don’t like a piece of legislation they will walk out to stop the process, as in Wisconsin, or stop defending it in the courts, as Obama is doing with DOMA.
    How undemocratic of the democrats.

    • writeblock

      The ones who should be ashamed are the Republicans. Pelosi and her tribe have guts. They know when to get mad. They understand the high stakes. They frame the issues to their benefit. They win even when they lose elections. So I’d put it the other way–how come, Congressman, you’re not shamed that they will do what our guys would never do, sacrifice even their careers for what they believe? How come they have the passion to do what they do–and we lack it, even when our masses have rallied in your streets?

      • azred

        machine at your back. One that rarely questions actions, motives and quite honestly reality. Without the ‘tools’ of the Progressive State Media, the persistent cheerleading and whitewashing would be missing, and the ‘guts’ you speak of would be on full display.

        The double standard that the worthy Republicans have to live up to makes the task doubly difficult. Add to the fact that so many can’t/won’t be held to a conservative standard, and the odds get longer.

      • msctex

        . . .pulling the man nearest him beneath the water to save his own life does not exhibit “guts.” It is rather the basest desperation. And the only thing Pelosi and her ilk are “sacrificing” is any vestige of their own dignity and sense of honor, as they do anything not just to win but to remain at all viable in the political arena.

        I am all for playing dirty, when confronted by those who not only deserve it, but demand it. But “framing the issues to their benefit” is itself an innocuous framing of “lying through their teeth.” And how you could think they “won” anything after the pounding they took in the last election is beyond me, unless you are willing to take the spin of shameless professional liars seriously.

        • writeblock

          Look at Ryan. I grant he’s a fine man, he’s smart as a whip, he serves us well in what he does–but he’s no warrior. He’s not shaming the left at all–he’s just showing his own weakness. My question to him is, Yeah, Congressman, you’d never walk away from a quorum the way they do–and that’s just the problem–why not? Especially when our entire future is at stake! Why does our side never dream of doing what the left will do? We’ve got a propaganda machine as well as they do–with talk radio, with think tanks, with the internet. We’ve got the Tea Party at our back. It hired them in 2010 to shake things up–and still they’re gutless. The fact is the party lacks a warrior spirit. We need to go for the jugular. It’s a war we’re in. The left knows it and is fighting accordingly–do we?

          • throwback59

            debate, at best they would have delayed, not stopped it. It may have cost them control of the House in 2010, and with it any chance of repeal.
            Plus, do you really want to set a precedent where the losing side always walks out to delay a final vote?
            In the end the Fugitive 14 will have to come back and they will lose.
            To rework an old saying: “He who fights and runs away will lose his seat election day.”

          • writeblock

            could shut down the Senate, tie it up in procedural knots, etc. Yet when the chips were down with the health bill, they were unable to stop the Democrats. Why? They have quorum rules also. So does the House. And YES I’d like them to start fighting nasty. A walkout would have worked–since the bill just squeaked through a narrow open window of time.

            Occasionally I’d like our side to show some indignation and anger instead of nobility and high-mindedness. Boehner’s answer to Pelosi’s ruthlessness was to propose new fairness rules for the opposition. It’s that kind of wimpishness that has me worried.The left has been in our face for years.

            Juan Williams had to get fired for our side to even attempt to shut down NPR–which should have been done years ago when we were in charge. Ditto for Planned Parenthood. Ditto for so much else. Bush rolled over when he could have pressed charges against the publisher and editor of the NYTimes under the Espionage Act. This is no way to fight a war. McCain refused to hit Obama hard on his connections with terrorists and radicals.

            When are we going to realize we’re in a war for the soul of America. It’s a struggle to the death. Being nice is for losers.

          • throwback59

            the dems using Senate & House rules, filibusters ect. Our side definitly needs to play hardball. My only quarrel is that running & hiding is not the way to do it.

          • msctex

            We can debate playing nice and playing dirty all day. There is one thing and one thing only which matters in the end: what functions. What works. And anyone taking a long, hard look at the Left cannot help but conclude that while they can claim the occasional victory in individual battles, they never win the War because what they have to offer does not function when put to practice. Their ultimate goal is what “Should” be, with no acknowledgement of what Can be. It is a sentimental, childlike worldview which panders to the weaker aspects of human nature.

            Were we to insist that the rules and laws be followed EQUALLY by both sides, we could not help but win. An example of this would be a reformation of our Presidential voting system, which any Progressive instinctively fears. They KNOW were we actually on a level playing field, they would never stand a chance. So it isn’t a matter of being nice, mean, dirty or anything else. It is a matter of insisting that Laws be equally and impartially enforced, and that both sides of arguments be heard. If we can bring this about, they will blow away like leaves in the wind.

            (I will be the first to acknowledge it is occasionally fun to give them a taste of their own medicine. But that won’t be the way to deliver a knockout blow, once and for all.)

          • writeblock

            but I despise our timidity and I’m sick to death of gentlemen like Ryan. He says he doesn’t understand the Dems’ walking out. Well I do! They don’t like the anti-union bill and they’re doing something about it. It’s as simple as that. What they’re doing is legal–so why not? It may not be what our side thinks is nice–but so what?

          • msctex

            really, honestly think, that running away from a problem is a solution? Do you believe that the majority of the American People do not recognize this behavior, as it is not without precedent, as childish, amateurish grandstanding? Apparently you feel differently, but I am very much more comfortable on the side which is above such things, and I would scream longest and loudest if our side ever chose to behave in such a manner.

            It is what I tried to get across above: we have the priceless luxury of being RIGHT, and demonstrably so. What we offer WORKS, when put to practice, and they cannot say that. We do not need to ignore the rules of the game; they are rather our greatest strength so long as the game is worth playing. And since the game, to paraphrase Noel Coward, is only Western Civilization, it is more than likely worth staying on the field.

            You don’t sacrifice your dignity. EVER.

          • writeblock

            if they stop a bill that would kill their corrupt system of funding their party through forced membership in unions. They understand the bottom line. It’s about power ultimately. If we don’t follow through, we lose big time. My point is–if the shoe were on the other foot, however, and if our power were threatened the way theirs is now–do you think our guys would be ready to respond with anything drastic? No.

          • msctex

            It is ultimately about Function. It is about what works. All the power in the world cannot make a car engine run on water. And as insane as it may be, that is the mindset we now face: people who honestly expect something to happen for no reason other than the fact they want it to happen. In the Unions’ case, they expect money to be accessible without being earned, and eternally, no less. Power has its limits, and it ceases to matter at the precise moment it encounters an impossibility. What is left is essentially the same mindset of a willful seven-year-old in a toy store, pitching a fit.

            And again: your notion of “drastic” is here a melodramatic, shameful road trip which has only lowered the public opinion of the Democratic party all the more. I truly fail to see how you can wring anything positive, from the Dem perspective, from this experience. And I again can only sincerely hope that our guys would be above this sort of nonsense. We’re supposed to be the smart ones, remember?

            And this isn’t “war.” That’s a word which should be reserved for a far uglier scenario than this. These are just the death throes of a dying ideology, with its adherents scrambling to justify their existence in a world which has passed them by.

          • writeblock

            It’s about power. You may think it’s about function–but childish temper tantrums work if the other side is ineffectual, if the parent–in this case the GOP–won’t impose some sharp disciplines other than asking the child to stand in the corner for five minutes after he or she sets fire to the kitchen–if they try to be reasonable and nice to the child instead of whacking his or her behind. Let’s see some real justifiable anger on our part!

          • msctex

            . . .if any of their actions actually bore fruit. But the election of Obama was the last positive event, from the Progressive perspective. Everything since — and I mean everything — can only be judged as to its degree of failure.

            How can it be about Power? The Pelosi Congress and Obama Administration combine to prove otherwise. They had both Houses of Congress by a large margin as well as the Presidency, as well as fairly strong public mandate to work their magic and a Media which was essentially a PR firm. The result has been. . .nothing. Less than nothing. A runaway debt, the Middle East is in turmoil, rampant unemployment, an ailing economy; Congress was lost in a historic watershed. . .and that is just the top of the list. So what exactly is it I am supposed to be angry about? I’m watching my enemy self-destruct before my eyes, as it does every 30 years or so. I get angry when the President tests the waters of ignoring the Law completely, but I imagine Gingrich has already reined that horse back in with the specter of completely justified impeachment.

            So disgust, sure. But anger. . .The pathos of it all eliminates the possibility for me. And the word “pathetic” is being used more and more regarding all this, as the months go by.

          • writeblock

            The economy is in the tank big-time, we’re desperately broke and hocking the future–and you think it hasn’t borne fruit? Not to speak of its cultural inroads. Of course it’s borne fruit. What do you think caused the housing market crash?

          • writeblock

            Just today a well-respected lefty on the LATimes, Ron Brownstein, called it a war. Obama called us “the enemy.” They’re attacking the free enterprise system, Judeo-Christian principles, the Constitution itself. And the sides are radically divided. If that’s not a war–what is?

          • msctex

            . . .on this site who’ve had bullets pulled from their bodies, more qualified to explain the answer in detail.

          • writeblock

            It’s a cold war–not unlike the one we had with the Soviets. Only this time the Soviets are within. They still want to “bury us.”

          • msctex

            . . .that I would acknowledge it as a Cold War. In fact, I believe all this represents the end of the original Cold War. That war was with totalitarian collectivist philosophy, not just the USSR, and Obama embodies a watered-down, neutered version of Stalin and Mao, whether he knows it or not.

            That said, it’s still a term to use judiciously, especially with gunships strafing civilians in Tripoli.

          • writeblock

            Are we to stop using the term? These are momentous historical clashes involving profound principles. When one side has a gun to our head–figuratively speaking–and threatens to destroy our traditions and institutions, you bet we’re in a war. The only way to respond is to fight back.

            I would grant that there’s still a broad middle that hasn’t been sucked into the conflict. But that middle ground is fast eroding. People will be forced to choose sides because one side is being overly aggressive–and has been so for over fifty years.

            I would also concede that we can wonder where this will end. Because our hot Civil War was based on a clash of principles. We were a house divided. Now that house is divided again–but in a different way. But the collectivist society and our constitutionally devised freedoms can’t coexist. One or the other system must prevail. The sooner we wake up to this the better.

          • msctex

            But I find no small amount of comfort in the fact that nothing they do ever works. Nothing. What we’re watching now with the Unions was inevitable, like an unfed well finally going dry. And their hysterical, enraged confused reaction to it all only further convinces the unconvinced of the weakness of whatever argument they try to make.

            I just don’t feel a gun to my head. I feel very fortunate to have read Rand when I did, as she illustrates beautifully the ultimate futility of Collectivism, and that it is only a matter of time before it all falls apart. They have had their moment, and it is already over. Pelosi’s Congress and BO’s Presidency should prove the last convulsions of a dying, disproven movement. (With Greece providing the stuff of your worst fears, just in case.) It is good and necessary to remain vigilant (see Barry’s attempt to ignore the law re the Defense of Marriage Act), but in the end I wouldn’t lose much sleep. Intellectually and otherwise, the enemy waves clubs at sniper rifles.

            If you haven’t read Atlas Shrugged, I couldn’t recommend it more. Living through these times and feeling as you obviously do without having read it is similar to being a professing Christian who has never read the Gospels.

          • writeblock

            It”’ take another fifty years to undo the damage. We’re just starting to wake up to the immensity of this. It took that long for Europe to start seeing the light–and I’m not so sure they can fix things over there. In our own country we’ll all be bilingual before you know it. That didn’t happen by accident–it was a deliberate attempt to change the ground rules and the culture–in the Democrats’ favor. Same with public employee unions. They have an incredibly efficient ground operation in all elections, plus they have money pouring in by unions AND the big corporations. They are not defeated by any means. Nor is it just a difference in ideology. The left wants the destruction of the U.S. as a major power. It wants us crippled–and if it has to wreck our economy to do it, so be it. If they lose elections–well, then they’ll move through the court system to get what they want. They never take no for an answer.

          • writeblock

            I don’t appreciate Dan Spencer’s approval of Ryan. He claims Ryan gets it “exactly right.” and he approves of Ryan’s talk about this not being a “partisan issue.” OF COURSE IT’S PARTISAN! The division between the parties couldn’t be more blatant. This is war, Congressman. You don’t get it. Neither does Spencer apparently. He admires Ryan’s decency, his niceness. But where’s the anger, the indignation? They want to subvert an election–and we’re calling for them to play nice? They need to start getting nasty–passing bills the Dems absolutely hate–and do it quick. Voter ID. Immigration. Union-busting bills separated out from the budget. etc.

          • renny

            as they had majorities in both houses. Unfortunately, Snowe of MN voted to bring the stupid issue to the floor so it could be debated (that vote was gratuitous), and Lieberman, atho’ he said he opposed it, also voted for floor debate and that was all it took to be off and running in the Sen.

            But I do believe McConnell had some parliamentarian way of stopping public business in the Senate if all the Republicans refused to sit, and I am not sure that might not have been a good idea. Even if O’care is repealed or found unconstitutional in the courts, its impact already on ins. companies, automatic reporting med. info to DC, Medicare changes, and the increase in IRS agents, yadda, will be felt for years, if not decades.

          • Spiral

            Notice how reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac got blocked by the filibuster rule in 2005 but TARP sailed through the US Congress in 2008?

            Yep. You hear a lot of talk about how the filibuster has saved the United States from becoming a socialist country on the brink of bankrupcty.

            Oh, wait……

      • ohiohistorian

        Why is deserting your post more heroic than what the Republicans did? I agree they may lose their careers by doing this. They should be voted out en masse by the voters of Wisconsin, but probably won’t be because Wisconsin is still relatively blue.

        The same thing is true for the teachers. They are out there getting fake “sick” excuses from willing accomplices. They are not standing up for their position by risking firing.

        The real risk-takers are the Republicans who refused to push through the legislation that they could instead of waiting for the Democrats to catch up. My hat is off to the Republican committeewoman who would not accept a phone vote in committee from the AWOL Democrat.

        • writeblock

          to lose your career for a principle. The Dems clearly put principle first, and we don’t. We’re forever checking the polls and worrying about consequences. Watch the House leadership…it’s already backtracking even after an historic victory in 2010.

  • silvermoon

    Good Lord!! If the country goes down & the D.C. budget is not passed next week, we can blame those democrats who ran from their responsibilies.

    As he said, Wisconsin sent these politicians to do a job & then they run. Only 7% of Americans are even union members. What about the other 93% of us?

    Need to read this book out ( www.booksbyoliver.com ) where Americans do take a stand. We see demonstrations (not Egypt, but here in America) by a small minority that is vocal & a president who is encouraging this division of Americans.

    Thanks for the video cause he tells it the way it is. Let us not be divided by our own govt. We need to protect our country from our own govt.

    • writeblock

      is all on the left. They are outraged we dare to touch their sacred cow. But they routinely attack ours–and have for decades–with impunity. Gay marriage? No problem. Christian-bashing? No problem. Taking over the health industry? No problem. Immigration? No problem. Bad-mouthing America? No problem. This has been going on for decades–and our side responds pretty much like Ryan: Oh, you’re not being nice! You’re not being dutiful! You need to be more cooperative!

      When are we gonna kick some a$$?

  • Goldwater_Conservative

    He is at the top of my list of conservatives. Yes there may be others that are more conservative than he is, but his potential is off the charts.

    • Diogenes314

      Or is he still supposedly a RINO/turncoat/big spender for not cutting enough from the budget to suit the voices of ideological purity?

      • Goldwater_Conservative

        I’m one of those crazy SOB’s who has like him all along and has not changed.

        • Diogenes314

          I never mind being in the minority, but the whole ‘voice in the wilderness’ thing is really overrated.

    • writeblock

      Yeah, he’s smart. But that’s about it. He’s not tough enough for the times. He is a wimp–like Boehner and Cantor–and Bush. He is no leader.

      • writeblock

        He says, “This doesn’t have to be between Republicans and Democrats,”—Yes, it does! Obama called us “the enemy.” He understands we’re in a war. He’s ready to destroy us. Does Ryan even begin to understand this? He says. “I don’t understand them.” Well, I do. They want to stop us any way they can. They don’t give a damn about rules. They want to keep their corrupt system in place because it works–it gives them the power to do what they do–which is to dismantle this country’s heritage bit by bit. They’ve been doing it for decades–and for decades our side has sounded gentlemanly–just like Ryan. Ryan’s a nice guy–but he doesn’t understand warfare.

        • treeofliberty

          I agree 100% that this is political warfare, the Dems know it and it’s about time out side knows it too. This is indeed for the very heart and soul of this great nation.

          While I may take issue with walking out as a tactic I would be in complete favor of doing anything within the House/Senate rules to have blocked Obamacare. Now as far as Wisconsin is concerned, for the life of me I cannot understand why the state GOP isn’t trying to pass bills the Dems hate – it’s a win win situation: either the bills get passed (which is good obviously) or the Dems come back with their tail between their legs.

          The time for nice-nice and nobility is long over; we need a leader to show up and drain the swamp for good.

      • Goldwater_Conservative

        but I think you are 100% dead wrong and suffer from a koolaid sugar rush.

        • writeblock

          but he’s no leader. He’s intelligent, he knows the fiscal problem. We need him to do what he’s doing. But for us to elevate him to hero status when he gives a speech like this is ridiculous. He hasn’t a clue about how to fight the opposition. Christie’s way is the only way. He gets down and dirty. He’s despised by the left–but nasty is exactly the way to go!

      • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

        Wow, get educated, son.

        • writeblock

          he was too noble, too high-minded. The left successfully demonized him and Bush let them get away with it. Obama had a huge victory consequently. He may not be a wimp, but he’s a gentleman–which means we pretty much get the same results.

          • Goldwater_Conservative

            why let the lack of class on one side of the isle cause the other to lose theirs? You are saying if the other side is a bunch of classless clowns to do nothing but hurl low ball insults at us, we must then sink to their level tactics in order to win?

          • writeblock

            You win them by being like General Patton, ruthless. War is about killing the other guy before he kills you. You don’t politely ask for permission to shoot him.

          • Goldwater_Conservative

            like General Robert E. Lee, or wage it like the warlords in Somalia. You can wage and win the war while maintaining your class and dignity in the process.

          • writeblock

            If a guy is both a gentleman and a fighter, I have no quarrel with him. But I am tired of gentlemanly Republicans who just want to get along with the opposition. My quarrel on this thread is with those who want to elevate Ryan to hero status because he asked the Dems to be nice. Yet even now our side in the House is pulling its punches. We’re too ready to find heroes in guys like Pence and Ryan and Walker. Walker has potential–but he hasn’t won his fight yet, he’s just in the midst of it. So far pretty good. But if he doesn’t start landing blows victory will leak away and our situation will be worse than when we started. It’s a must win fight. I just hope our side knows this. It makes me nervous when guys like Ryan talk about playing nice. I hope they play some hardball and have some real tough-dealing strategy in mind. If they’re just hoping the Dems will come to their senses and be a bunch of nice guys like themselves–they can forget it. They need to land some blows.

  • carolina

    Thank goodness we have him in the House.

    • writeblock

      He’s a wimp–and sounds it.

      • redcometchar2010

        When you don’t have leadership support and you know the other side will demagogue it to death. Wimps propose major reforms to entitlements when the “safe” play would be to let the dems implode and ride into a new majority. Yes, wimps do that Write. Write, I know you’re angry, probably about a lot of things. I know the stakes are high. Our country, our very way of life is at stake and all you can see is elected officials who supposedly represent our side look meek. I know what you want, you want somebody up there as mad as you are and say it directly. However, these reps are looking to convince you, when it comes to budget cutting or entitlement reforms, they have you. They’re after the vast middle that doesn’t really follow the issues. They get 30 second soundbites every other day. Our reps are after them and yelling and screaming is not going to bring those people to our side. I believe that you are so fulled with inconsolable rage that you don’t care who we alienate, just as long as were right and we say so. I’m not saying dump our principles, but I am saying that tone and perception matter, and they matter a lot. We have to play this game twice as better than the other side, so before you start calling people wimps, remember, cowardice and prudence are not the same thing.

        • writeblock

          but he lacks a fighting spirit–and lacking that, he won’t succeed in a war. Neither will Boehner. Neither will Walker and Fitzgerald if they don’t follow through with some tough votes in both chambers.

        • writeblock

          But you’ve got to understand there’s a time for anger. If somebody wants to attack my wife or my children, I get angry. The left is attacking the country, its viability, our freedoms, our prosperity, our ability to defend western values, the free market, our Judeo-Christian heritage–all this is on the line. If now is not the time to get angry–when do we start? Why are we afraid to get angry when they point a gun at our head?

      • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

        Horrible non-arguments like these just make Ryan look good at your expense.

        So keep it up.

        • writeblock

          don’t discredit what I say. Our side is too damn polite. I don’t see how you lcan say I discredit myself for pointing this out. It needs to understand the stakes. It’s not just about balancing budgets, it’s about war on a hundred fronts–from DADT to health care. To all of this Ryan is virtually saying, Can’t we all just get along. No, we can’t. And he needs to know this! And you need to start using reason instead of insult in your posts.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
          • writeblock

            Look at Erick’s thread. Most people there are pretty much expressing what I’ve been saying. It’s not going to make me look bad if I make sense and you don’t.

          • powertothepeople

            is that Neil has made sense for many years now. You on the other hand have done nothing but repeat nonsense and belittle everyone on the front line when you yourself have offered nothing. We can say many things about you, making sense or even making credible arguments is not one of them.

            And you really need to work on your reading comprehension, most are not agreeing with you on anything.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            You’re the guy in the back of the room yelling schoolyard taunts at the men who stand up and fight.

            Nobody respects that.

          • writeblock

            you’re the one with the schoolyard taunts. Ditto for your buddy.

          • powertothepeople

            Moron is defined as

            ?noun
            1.
            a person who is notably stupid or lacking in good judgment.
            2.
            Psychology . a person of borderline intelligence in a former classification of mental retardation, having an intelligence quotient of 50 to 69.

            Other similar words that come to mind are changeling, cretin, half-wit, idiot, imbecile. Now since I have promised the site, specifically Bill S, to refrain from calling anyone a moron even when it fits them perfectly, I must simply ask you to read between the lines and accept the definition you have so earned.

            And there is not a soul on this site and on many others who would chose your best nonsense over Neil’s weakest argument. Just a fact and one you can not attempt to redefine as you have tried with so many other things.

          • http://slcliberty.blogivists.com randy streu

            “I know you are, but what am I?”

            Really?

            How about a little “I’m rubber, you’re glue” to cap it off?

          • writeblock

            People who get off attacking others without adding to the dialogue are pathetic.

          • http://slcliberty.blogivists.com randy streu

            that’s basically the problem with your responses here. you haven’t once substantiated what, exactly, your problem is. The comments are full of snark and vaguery, with no real substance.

          • writeblock

            Here are the points made:

            Our side lacks the urgency and fire in the belly the Democrats always seem to muster up. That’s a matter of record. What’s not substantive about that. It goes to the heart of politics. The guy who’s willing to do what’s necessary wins. Pelosi did what was necessary to get health care passed. We didn’t do what was necessary to block it. Where’s that famous “close-down-the;Senate” tactic we’ve been hearing about for years. When the chips were down, we folded–to get home for Christmas.

            The GOP not only lacks feistiness, but it suffers from a syndrome of too much high-mindedness. Bush never fought back. Neither does Boehner. The first thing he did as speaker was show what a nice guy he was to loosen the stranglehold on the opposition. So yeah, we’re nicer–but they do what’s necessary–and they’ve been doing it for fifty years without much opposition. Ryan’s telling the WI democrats that the GOP would never do such a thing to prevent a quorum shouldn’t be praised–because it’s dumb. All he’s saying is they’re not nice. But they don’t give a damn about being nice–they just want to stop a bill from being passed–and so far they’re doing pretty well at that.

            Is this enough substance for you or shall I go on? What do you want me to substantiate? Isn’t it a fact Bush never fought back? Karl Rove told us as much. He had the Espionage Act he might have used to nail the NYTimes for releasing state secrets. Why didn’t he? Boehner made a public pledge to be nicer to the opposition than it was to our guys. That’s not a fact? Ryan made this wimpy speech. That’s not a fact? The GOP might have shut down the Senate by tying it up in procedural knots. That’s not a fact?

            All the rest is pretty much my answering others’ response to my points. We argue about terms, about perspectives, about semantics. That’s how it goes in any discussion. But then there are those who simply want to attack me personally. That’s too obvious to even bother pointing out since their posts offer nothing by way of ideas whatsoever. I don’t care if they’ve been around a long time, or if they have some official capacity–it’s not the way to do things around here. Why attack another conservative like that? One guy even calls me a moron, etc.–which is in itself pretty stupid. Why isn’t he garnering criticism? Why do you pile on–why not go after him instead?

          • http://slcliberty.blogivists.com randy streu

            nt.

          • http://slcliberty.blogivists.com randy streu

            I’ve had it to … er… here (darned cyberspace) with non-arguments that are couched and defended AS arguments with little more than “Uh-HUH!” and “Nuh-UH!”

            That’s also the reason I don’t go after the others for calling you names. You were given the chance to clarify, and failed to do so. They lack patience to continue dealing with it.

            Sadly, I’m annoyed right now, and was looking for something to distract me. Your schoolyard response to being called out for schoolyard antics was hilarious, so I used it as my distraction. Unfortunate crossfire, I suppose, but I can’t apologize for it, because, regardless of my personal reasons for jumping in, you’re still in the wrong on this, IMO, and they are still justified in calling you out.

          • writeblock

            So you stuck your nose into this. Now you’re siding with guys who were clearly out of line. You think they’re justified in calling me out. On what grounds–that I’m a moron? Really? How insightful. Or maybe it’s that I discredited myself? But how can that be–you just admitted my points make sense. So what’s your deal–other than you want somebody to distract you. If you’re bored, go watch some television.

          • http://slcliberty.blogivists.com randy streu

            There’s a difference.

            The thread is about Paul Ryan, who stood up and said what needed to be said. Your response was that HE’s a wimp. I disagree, and you haven’t demonstrated how that is so, other than by invoking others who you think are wimps.

            Now, if you want to argue that the Republican Party in general lacks the will to fight, THAT is a different argument. But the thread wasn’t about them. It was about Ryan.

            You want to argue that Bush was a wimp. I disagree, but that’s a different argument. The thread wasn’t about Bush. It was about Ryan.

            You set up strawmen, and you knocked them down, without really dealing with the gist of the thread: That Paul Ryan said what needed to be said, and that you called him a wimp.

            Of course, ultimately you DID spell out your complaint more clearly when you said he was saying “can’t we all just get along?” But by then, you’d managed to annoy those with whom you were arguing by setting up your strawmen.

            For the record, I disagree. He’s calling these jerks out, and he’s calling out the partisan liberals. He’s not saying, “Hey, let’s all be friends,” or even, “Hey, look! A Unicorn!” He’s saying, if you want economic growth, we have the way to do it. The People want our way of doing it (elections have consequences.) You don’t have to disagree with sensible legislation just because you’re a democrat. Buck the system! Do what’s RIGHT, instead of what’s partisan.

            There’s nothing wimpy about those statements at all.

            Now, should you have been called a moron? That’s for Neil and others to decide (they, whose job it is to hold up the “be respectful” part of the rules here). I suspect the poster was trying to offend you into standing up and making a damned argument instead of just knocking down those straw men.

          • writeblock

            why I responded as I did throughout this thread. I profoundly disagree Ryan was standing up and saying what had to be said. All he said was that he wouldn’t have done what the Democrats do–and I call that ridiculous. The Dems don’t particularly care if he was too gentlemanly to do what they did. They wanted to stop the bill by any means necessary, even if it made them look bad, even if it wasn’t proper and nice, as long as it was legal. And they succeeded! That you and others think Ryan is somehow scoring points by coming out as he does is part of the problem. You don’t get pissed enough! You’re too grateful for ANY kind of opposition to the Dems–even if it’s limp-wristed and weak. I say to hell with that. Here’s something that appeared in American Spectator today on how Calvin Coolidge responded to cops going on strike:

            http://spectator.org/blog/2011/02/18/calvin-coolidges-advice-for-go

            “Samuel Gompers, the head of the American Federation of Labor, jumped into the middle of the dispute and issued the police an AFL charter as a union. The police went on strike.,,

            “Governor Calvin Coolidge was furious.”

            Got it? He was FURIOUS. And that fury elevated him to the presidency. Remember how Reagan got pissed when his mic was disconnected? How about some of that anger, that indignation, the justifiable fury? Instead we get Ryan lecturing the Dems on doing the dutiful thing, etc. Give me a break!

          • writeblock

            and this too was in the opening posts above–Ryan makes the comment that , ?This doesn?t have to be between Republicans and Democrats,? I rejoined, it most certainly IS between Republicans and Democrats. They’re out to destroy everything we value–the free enterprise system, the Constitution, Judeo-Christian morality–and he thinks this? We’re at war, but some people in the GOP still don’t get it. Ryan then says, “I don’t understand why they did this.” Well, I do! They want to stop the bill and they’re willing to do what may not be nice or dutiful according to Ryan–but looks pretty good for the Dems when they don’t have the votes. That may be pure rhetoric on his part to you–but it’s laughably weak. They’re dancing rings around guys like Ryan and Boehner. Pelosi eats them alive for breakfast.

            Now my third point–your claim I set up straw men. Really? You think Ryan’s not part of a syndrome? Well, I beg to differ. The GOP establishment is rife with this type of politician. Our 2008 contender thought it too impolite to bring up Obama’s radical connections to terrorists and communists during his campaign. He preferred politeness. McCain reserved his venom for fellow Republicans. I’ve had it up to here with that type. Why do you think the Tea Party happened? It was because millions of other Americans think as I do. They’re not nice, they’re not complacent like Ryan. They’re furious.

          • writeblock

            Start with my first. Then check the other posts. They are pretty much simply rebuttals to points made by other posters. It’s a back-and-forth sort of thing.