Paul Revere by Cyrus Dallin, North End, Boston

~~~

~~~

Wednesday, March 13, 2013

PAUL RYAN STILL DOESN'T UNDERSTAND THAT HE AND MITT LOST THE ELECTION

During the campaign, Ryan claimed that the election would be a choice between two fundamentally different visions for America, and the American people fundamentally REJECTED Ryan's and Romney's visions.  In fact, Ryan's own home town and home state rejected him, and every one of Romney's home states, Michigan, Massachusetts, and California, REJECTED him.  What don't they understand about this total rejection by the American people?

During the campaign, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops called the Ryan budget "immoral."  Ryan loves to talk about his devotion to his religion, and yet he appears not to know the fundamentals of his savior, Jesus's, message.  The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops called him out on his merciless budget plan that would comfort the already comfortable and afflict the already afflicted.

From Andrew Sullivan's blog "The Daily Dish:"
"...Ryan's budget is as notable for what it cuts as for what it doesn’t cut. Social Security, defense, and Medicare — together making up about half of the federal budget — would scarcely be cut at all. After all, it’s hard to win a Republican election if you abandon old voters and the defense industry. 

As for health care and cash support for the poor? That’s where the hammer hits. Jon Cohn adds: The report’s distinct treatment of defense and non-defense spending is actually a great window into Ryan’s fundamental philosophy. The section on defense spending has long passages about the importance of national security and the dangers of intemperate cuts. Rooting out waste is important, the document says, but it must be done carefully. 

The section on the social safety net has virtually no similar language. A reader unfamiliar with the reality of American life would have no idea that millions of Americans live in poverty—that they struggle, every day, to pay for bare necessities like gas, rent, and food. Of course, if “The Path to Prosperity” mentioned those things, readers might want to know what Ryan proposed to do about them. But Ryan doesn’t propose meaningful substitutes for the support he’d take away. Instead, he puts his faith in the strength of individuals and communities to help those who struggle. 

The absence of defense cuts reveals that this is not about fiscal conservatism; it’s about a society that celebrates soaring inequality while attempting to remain the sole global hegemon. It’s almost a parody of a document of how a democracy perishes – because its social contract ends with two utterly separate nations of “hyper-rich” and “always-struggling”, it delegitimizes capitalism by rewarding and even celebrating its abusers, and because its premature austerity could well increase the long-term debt, rather than lower it. It’s a high school term paper of utopianism. 

And it’s all Paul Ryan knows." 



Here's Ryan in his own words:


"This to us is something that we're not going to give up on, because we're not going to give up on destroying the health care system for the American people."

There it is people.  What could be plainer than that?

America's very own zombie-eyed granny starver, but he loves Jesus!

Ayn Rand would be so proud. Not to mention that she died while living off public assistance and receiving Medicare because she smoked herself to death. And Ryan himself used publicly financed student loans to get through school just in time to cut the same programs for everyone else. 


Paul Ryan has not worked a single day in his adult life outside of government.  He IS government.  The kind that likes to tell people how EEEEvul and liberty-killing it is while taking all of its benefits and working to keep them away from everyone else.   








57 comments:

Nancy Reagan's dress said...

Eeeeeew! What a creep!

Jerry Critter said...

Those who do not learn from history are bound to repeat it.

Republicans are repeating the same budget, and they will get the same results in the 2014 elections.

Dave Miller said...

Again, I seem to remember a whole lot of GOP partisans saying explicitly after the 2010 elections that America had spoken and politicians had to respect the will of the people.

A certain Malcontented former blogger even went so far as to say politicians had a duty to follow the will of the people.

As we scratch our Noggins, we regularly see comments that tell us that not following the will of the people, expressed in elections and polling is downright un American.

Except of course when the GOP does it. Then it is leadership.

I find it stunning that Ryan continues to be taken seriously about his "budget" when it has no chance of passage because of its call to repeal Obamacare.

You cannot call your budget balanced, as he does, if it relies on solutions and proposals that have no chance of passage.

He calls the recently enacted tax hikes settled law, yet for some reason he is unable to accept that regarding Obamacare.

What hubris from this political hack.

Infidel753 said...

It's not a budget -- Ryan & co. know it has no chance of being enacted. It's a manifesto. It's intended to show what they would do if they got back into power. We should consider ourselves warned.

Oh, and Republicans' "devotion to their religion" is only to the "God hates fags" part and the stuff about keeping women in their place. As for Jesus, they'd probably say he only told individuals to help the poor, not the state. Never mind that only the state can be counted on to do it consistently and in a non-discriminatory fashion.

And respecting the will of the people only applies when they vote the way they're supposed to.

Les Carpenter said...

A 5% margin of victory is not a real landslide, IMNHO, it is a majority. What seems to be overlooked is minorities have "rights" as well. Which is why we are a Republic rather than a true democracy. The founders were brilliant. The obvious notwithstanding.

As much as one may approve or disapprove of the President's policies ompromise is the way to effective governance. Reagan and Clinton understood this, do did key lawmakers. Both were successful presidencies and the level of pure partisanship was not as pronounced.

Perhaps all concerned on the Hill and the WH ought to consider this. A strong principaled yet reasonable 3'rd party would help.

Ain't gonna hold my breath tha's for sure.

dmarks said...

Not getting the overall logic that the political opposition should "get the message" and entirely abandon its opposition to the policies of the winners if its side loses a big election.

Shaw, were you consistent on this, and in, say 2005, did you criticize Democrats for daring to oppose Bush's policies after Bush won the 2004 election?

Infidel: the state does indeed do this "help" in a discriminatory fashion.

Shaw Kenawe said...

RN: "A 5% margin of victory is not a real landslide, IMNHO, it is a majority. What seems to be overlooked is minorities have "rights" as well. Which is why we are a Republic rather than a true democracy. The founders were brilliant. The obvious notwithstanding."

If you go back and read my post, there is nothing in it about a "landslide." Also, there is nothing about ignoring minority rights.

My post is about how Ryan proposed his crazy budget for the THIRD time, and during the election claimed that the election was about a FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE between the two parties' vision for America. And I pointed out that Americans chose Mr. Obama, therefore, they chose President Obama's FUNDAMENTAL vision.

It is Mr. Ryan who keeps telling whomever will listen to him that the American people desire his vision. They don't.

You comment overlooks the fact that President Obama has reached out time and again to compromise with the GOP, and they have said themselves there will be NO compromise.

It is they, not the president who doesn't understand the meaning of "the will of the people."

In 2010, as Dave Miller points out again and again, it was the GOP, who attained a majority in the House who crowed to the entire nation that their election was an indication of the will of the people.

I wonder if you and dmarks and other conservatives went running over to conservative blogs telling those who agreed with the GOPers in the House that they must respect the rights of the minority?

IOKIYAR?

Shaw Kenawe said...

dmarks,

In 2003, 2004, and 2005, when I protested the Iraqi war, the GOPers called me and other "traitors."

See my answer to RN to understand what my post is about.

You and your conservative friends seem to forget how GWB governed while his party had control of the executive and legislative branches of government from 2001 to 2006.

Go back and read about how the Medicare Part D was passed.

You guys have conveniently short memories--especially when liberals expect to govern the country after an election.

Silverfiddle said...

It's called democracy, Shaw.

We still live in a constitutional republic, not a dictatorship.

Losers are not sent to the gulags. They remain free to enjoy lesser elected positions and speak freely.

I know this leave progressive statists vexed and miffed, but here we are...

skudrunner said...

Much like swift boat, after a loss he returns to his roots and tries to represent his base.

Even with all of the scare tactics about the sequester, the sky has not fallen. Of course the leader believes printing more money causes no problems.

Shaw Kenawe said...

BTW, GOPers are wrong, wrong, wrong about President Obama not wanting to make a deal. He does, and he has offered one. It is the GOP who refuse to compromise with him.

SEE HERE.

skudrunner said...

"You and your conservative friends seem to forget how GWB governed while his party had control of the executive and legislative branches of government from 2001 to 2006."

Very good point and I totally agree. During that time, unemployment was low, the economy was robust and the attitude was positive. Move to 2009 when the democrats took control of both sides and everything turned for the worse.

I know even though the democrats were in control it was still the republicans fault.

Shaw Kenawe said...

I think certain conservative deliberately like to misread my posts so that they can feel aggrieved and self-satisfied.

My post is about A FUNDAMENTAL VISION that the American people chose in the last election.

They chose Mr. Obama's vision for America, for deficits, for gun control, for foreign policy, etc.

It is up to the GOP to work with him to achieve what is best for the American people while addressing the fact that the American people chose Mr. Obama's politics and policies over the GOP's.

What don't you get about that?

Remember, it was the GOP who, after the election of 2008, got toether with all their big-wigs and promised to block every single piece of legislation Mr. Obama proposed and to NOT COOPERATE with the newly elected president.

The GOP is still doing that. For example: 91% of the American people want background checks on gun purchases. 91%!!!!

NOT A SINGLE REPUBLICAN in the Senate voted in favor of something as innocuous as background checks so that crazy people don't get hold of guns and shoot up elementary school children.

NOT ONE REPUBLICAN in the Senate. They ignored the will of the people again. Why? Because PRESIDENT OBAMA!

IMHO, the GOP has become the most destructive force in America; and frankly, I don't care if their tender feelings are hurt because they can't get their way in all things political.

The fact that Chris Christie, a very popular conservative in a liberal state, was not invited to the CPAC this weekend, and a colossal jackass like Donald Trump was and has been given time to speak, shows that the GOP is truly a party of nincompoops driven solely by its hatreds and feelings of entitlement to the presidency even when it is rejected.

Shaw Kenawe said...

skudrunner: "Much like swift boat, after a loss he returns to his roots and tries to represent his base."

Really? Can you explain to us how President Obama is like a boat.

Shaw Kenawe said...

EJ Dionne:

"Paul Ryan’s budget could prove to be a perversely useful document.
Thanks to this plan, nobody can take the House Budget Committee chairman seriously anymore as a policy wonk or a true deficit hawk. His budget is the work of an ideologue. It’s a bargaining ploy that even Ryan concedes is merely 'a vision.'”



And it's a vision the American people REJECTED last November.

Conservatives have a difficult time understanding that simple fact.

Mr. Obama respects the rights of the minority by offering to work with them. It is THEY not the president who is trampling on the minority by refusing to work with the president to achieve a compromise.

A compromise does not mean "my way or no way."

Shaw Kenawe said...

South Carolina conservative speaks candidly about why the GOP doesn't cooperate with President Obama:

South Carolina GOPer Calls Opposition To ‘The Black Guy In The White House’ Good Politics
(TPM) Rep. Kris Crawford, a Republican from Florence and also an emergency room doctor, supports the expansion but expects the Republican caucus to vote as a block against the Medicaid expansion.

“It is good politics to oppose the black guy in the White House right now, especially for the Republican Party,” State Legislator, Kris Crawford said.

Yes, Mr. Crawford, we know. We've been telling your somewhat naive conservative friends that opposing President Obama on everything is the GOP's vision for America.

Anonymous said...

After GB was appointed president by the Supreme Court, he came out and said he had a mandate.
Jefferson said, while the majority should prevail, they are not to oppress the minority. Are Republicans oppressed by the Democrats?
If elections do not have consequences, then we do not have a Democracy, or a Republic.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Anonymous, it was in 2004 when GWBush said he had "political capital" after he won the presidency by a smaller margin than President Obama won his second term. But your point is well taken.

Elections DO have consequences, but in a GOPer's mind, only when they win the presidency.

skudrunner, we can always count on your silly comments to give us a laugh.

Yeah. Right. GWB's presidency was a wonderful time in our country's history. Just ask the 7,000+ Americans who died on his watch--9/11 happened during his presidency, remember? And he took the country to war under false pretenses.

Oh, and that little storm called Katrina?

And that nasty financial catastrophe that started in 2007 and caused the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression?

You are a very silly person.

dmarks said...

Anonymous: Bush won the election in 2000 by winning enough states to win the Electoral College. It is no more true to say that the Supreme Court "appointed" him than it is to say the Obama was born in Kenya.

dmarks said...

So in other words you aren't consistent. Its OK to go against the winning side in an election, Shaw, if you personally disagree with the views of the winners.

dmarks said...

RN: Also overlooked is that the people chose to send mostly Republicans to the US House. Ryan is reprsenting a majority vote.

Shaw Kenawe said...

dmarks, you're WRONG:

House Democrats got more votes than House Republicans. Yet Boehner says he’s got a mandate?

Speaker John Boehner says he doesn’t. “Listen, our majority is going to get reelected,” he said the day before the election. “We’ll have as much of a mandate as he [President Obama] will … to not raise taxes.”

Boehner’s logic is, on its face, sound. House Republicans have been as clear in their opposition to new taxes on the rich as Obama has been in his support for them. And House Republicans were reelected. They have as much right to claim a popular mandate as the president does.
Or they would if they’d actually won more votes. But they didn’t. House Republicans did the equivalent of winning the electoral college while losing the popular vote.
It can be a bit difficult to tally up the popular vote in House elections because you have to go ballot by ballot, and many incumbents run unopposed. But The Washington Post’s Dan Keating did the work and found that Democrats got 54,301,095 votes while Republicans got 53,822,442. That’s a close election — 48.8%-48.5% –but it’s still a popular vote win for the Democrats."


You can have your own opinion, dmarks, but not your own facts.

In the 2000 election, Al Gore won the popular vote. It was close to be sure, but more Americans voted for him than voted for Bush. We don't elect presidents by popular vote, it is true. But that doesn't change the fact that Al Gore was the choice by popular vote over Bush.

And Gore would have won the electoral college but for the shenanigans in Florida.

In any event, GWB's presidency is nothing to brag about. It was a good as his recent paintings, which are sad little attempts at art that fail miserably.

LOL Anonymous said...

"...the American people just finished litigating these very issues in a hard-fought election that pitted a slightly left-of-center agenda against libertarian plutocracy.

Libertarian plutocracy lost. Paul Ryan lost. Republican Senators lost. And yes, Republicans would have lost the House as well but for particularly devious gerrymandering.

Republicans also know that the country isn't getting any closer to their worldview. The country is moving away from it. So why keep on pressing?"

Shaw Kenawe said...

Also for skudrunner who thought the GWBush presidency was just peachy, a new study has revealed:

Iraq war costs U.S. more than $2 TRILLION.

Interest payments could swell cost to more than $6 TRILLION.

Estimates at least 134,000 Iraqi civilians killed.

Huge increase in spending on U.S. veterans in past two years.

STORY HERE


Anonymous said...

shaw...this is what that link reported...skudrunner/dmarks...still hawking the lie that the iraqi war was a good thing...?

The report concluded the United States gained little from the war while Iraq was traumatized by it. The war reinvigorated radical Islamist militants in the region, set back women's rights, and weakened an already precarious healthcare system, the report said. Meanwhile, the $212 billion reconstruction effort was largely a failure with most of that money spent on security or lost to waste and fraud, it said.

"Former President George W. Bush's administration cited its belief that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's government held weapons of mass destruction to justify the decision to go to war. U.S. and allied forces later found that such stockpiles did not exist."

Les Carpenter said...

"IMHO, the GOP has become the most destructive force in America; and frankly, I don't care if their tender feelings are hurt because they can't get their way in all things political."

Well Shaw, there is a significant number of individuals in the nation that apparently do not agree with your sentiment as millions voted for the rEpublican candidate. Having said that I agree the rEpublicans need to be willing to cross the aisle just as the democrats should, with sincere offers of compromise. President Obama has not worked for compromise as effectively as past presidents have.

"The fact that Chris Christie, a very popular conservative in a liberal state, was not invited to the CPAC this weekend, and a colossal jackass like Donald Trump was and has been given time to speak, shows that the GOP is truly a party of nincompoops driven solely by its hatreds and feelings of entitlement to the presidency even when it is rejected."

Now Shaw, I thought you didn't take cheap potshots as respected flesh in the GOP. But I must join you on this one. Trump the buffoon is laughing stock. I'll watch the dude simply because you can't help but laugh at the buffoonery he emits when he gets on a roll.

Jerry Critter said...

RN - "President Obama has not worked for compromise as effectively as past presidents have."

I agree that he has not be as effective at achieving compromise as past presidents, BUT a large part of that has to be due to republicans refusal to compromise. Both sides have to be willing to give to achieve a compromise. It certainly appears to me, although I am bias, that the Democrats have been far more willing to compromise than the republicans, and therein lies the problem.

skudrunner said...

As the leader says, to hell with the American people, it's just politics and I am the leader.

Shaw Kenawe said...

skudrunner, if I remember correctly, GWBush didn't say that. He said "I'm the decider."

He also said [and FAUX NOOZ is great at this]: "You Have To Keep Repeating Things To Catapult The Propaganda"

Dave Miller said...

And today we get word that the BS budget proposal would slash govt spending to 1948 levels.

How on earth will this cover road maintenance, keep National Parks open, "save" Medicare and stimulate the economy?

Once the GOP gets done taking money out of the economy and we lose even more Govt jobs, the GOP will then blame Pres Obama for a riding Unemployment rate...

Dave Miller said...

Shaw... nice catch on the quote you posted above...

Maybe some of your more conservative commenters, who say that opposition to Pres Obama is not rooted in race can explain it...

Les Carpenter said...

"Democrats have been far more willing to compromise than the republicans, and therein lies the problem."

Sorry Jerry, I just see the effort by Obama for a sincere compromise. I grant you he is a masterful politician, and the rEpublicans have not been willing to put out a bigger carrot during whatever negotiation has occurred.

Personally Jerry I now believe beyond a doubt the people in Washington up on the HILL are all
acting like grade school kids.

The leader is who he is. Five years into his presidency and we still have gridlock.

Costa Rica is looking better all the time.

Shaw Kenawe said...

"The leader is who he is. Five years into his presidency and we still have gridlock." --RN

Let's do a little thought experiment, RN. How would you characterize a party that promised to filibuster or block any initiative a new president made--and how about learning that the party promised to be this obstructive on the evening of that president's first inauguration?

You blithely ignore this fact.

And then you try to convince yourself and others that "both parties do it."

The fact is that is not true:

"The notion that both sides share in the blame is an easy line for commentators to repeat, but it isn’t true.

Time and time again, the only thing preventing an agreement on long-term deficit reduction has been the Republicans’ absolute refusal to consider any tax increases on high-income households as part of the solution.

Here is a timeline of major events in the past of deficit talks:

February 14, 2011: President Barack Obama submits budget for 2012 with about $2 trillion in deficit reduction, half of which come from spending cuts.

April 15, 2011: House passes Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) budget, which includes $5.8 trillion in spending cuts along with tax cuts for the richest Americans.

May 5, 2011: Vice President Joe Biden begins debt talks.

May 11, 2011: Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) says he will not raise debt limit without spending cuts that match how much the limit is raised.

June 23, 2011: Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) walks away from debt ceiling talks with Biden after refusing to consider any tax increases. The administration had offered $2.4 trillion in spending cuts for $400 billion in taxes, an 83:17 split.

July 7, 2011: Obama and Boehner begin debt-ceiling negotiations.

July 9, 2011: Boehner walks away from Obama’s “grand bargain”: $4 trillion in debt reduction comprised of $1 trillion in revenue and $3 trillion in spending cuts, including entitlement reforms.

July 22, 2011: Again, Boehner walks away from negotiations after Obama offers $1.2 trillion in revenues and $1.6 trillion in spending cuts, including entitlements.


Shaw Kenawe said...

July 31, 2011: Debt ceiling agreement is reached, cutting $1 trillion in spending immediately and establishing the super committee to reduce deficits by at least an additional $1.2 trillion.


October 26, 2011: Democrats first super committee offer is $3 trillion in deficit reduction comprised of about $1.3 trillion in revenues and $1.7 trillion in spending cuts, including cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. Republicans immediately reject it.


November 8, 2011: Republicans’ second super committee offer is $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction. It does include $300 billion in new tax revenue, but in exchange for extending the Bush tax cuts and lowering the top tax rate. The plan would ultimately cut taxes for the wealthy and raise them for everyone else.

November 10, 2011: Democrats’ second offer is $2.3 trillion in deficit reduction, consisting of $1.3 trillion in spending cuts and $1 trillion in revenue. The revenue would be split between $350 billion in concrete measures and $650 billion in future tax reform. Republicans reject it.

November 11, 2011: Democrats agree to Republicans’ top lines including just $400 billion in revenues and $875 billion in spending cuts, but refuse to accept the GOP’s tax cut for the rich. Republicans reject it.

What this timeline shows is just how much Democrats have been willing to bend, only to have Republicans reject very generous offers.

In June of 2011, Democrats reportedly offered a mere $400 billion in tax increases as part of a $2.4 trillion deficit reduction package — a 83:17 ratio of spending cuts to tax increases. Republicans said no."


skudrunner said...

"Maybe some of your more conservative commenters, who say that opposition to Pres Obama is not rooted in race can explain it."

It does seem that that liberals are more obsessed with race than the conservatives. It is the liberals who refer to BHO as the first black president, conservatives just say he is incompetent.

Obama won because of his race, twice, so it isn't much of an issue except to liberals.

Jerry Critter said...

Excellent list, Shaw. Now, I would like to see a similar list from our republican friends of when the Democrats said "No", or walked away from negotiations like the republicans have. After all, don't they say both sides do it?

Les Carpenter said...

No Shaw I am not blissfully ignorant of this issue. Perhaps you are ignorant of anyhing beyond your very limited ability to think beyond or outside of your dyed in the wool progressive box. For an intelligent women you sure as hell haven't a clue about individual thought or the ability to recognize the value of any thought that doesn't fit your progressive template.

And Shaw, If you are upset with my comments, oh well. Since you in all your progressive delusional feelings of superiority chose to refer to me as "blissfully ignorant" you have chosen the low road. You are now fair game.

Shaw Kenawe said...

skudrunner:
"It does seem that that liberals are more obsessed with race than the conservatives"

Yeah. Right. And do you suppose it is the liberals who send racist cartoons around the internet in emails? Were they the ones who pictured Mr. and Mrs. Obama as apes? Or the White House with watermelons on the lawn. Or Mr. Obama as a witch doctor with a bone through his nose?

Or even as recent as this week, the South Carolina conservative who referred to the president as "the black guy in the White House?"

Or Roger Ailes calling the president "lazy?" Do you remember any GOPer calling the last Democratic presidents, Bill Clinton, "lazy?" Jimmy Carter?

How many recent presidents had their birth certificates questioned? Their citizenship questioned?

Here's the answer: NONE.

Why do you suppose, skudrunner, that this particular president's citizenship was called into question when the state of Hawaii and both the Democratic AND REPUBLICAN governors unqualifiedly stated that the birth certificate Mr. Obama produced was authentic proof of his birth in the USA?

And why, skudrunner, do you suppose the Republican Party tolerates jackasses like Donald Trump who continue to bray about the president's citizenship? Why do you suppose they don't tell him to shut his ugly maw about the president's birth certificate?

I'll give you a hint: The GOP likes to keep a certain segment of its knuckle-dragging, low-information voters by suggesting that "the black guy in the White House" is not American.

That suggestion gives them a pass to continue to mock and hate him--and his wife and family.

And no, skudrunner, the President Obama didn't win "because of his race" twice. He won twice because the GOP has become a political party that embraces the crazy and the extreme over everything else.

Dave Miller said...

Skud, maybe you missed the quote from the GOP Rep who said "It's good politics to oppose the black guy."

As for who elected Obama, let's remember that in recent times, the Dems have traditionally received over 90% of the black vote.

President Obama was no more elected twice by the black vote than was Bill Clinton. And let's also remember that GW won twice while Dems got over 90% of the black vote.

Clearly the facts and polling data show that the support for President Obama crossed all color lines and demographic groups, except for older white males.

You also chose not to even address the question i raised vis a vis the quote Shaw presented. Is it unreasonable to assume, in light of this inexplicable honest remark from the Congressman, that other GOP people are in fact opposing Pres Obama simply because he is black?

Or is the Congressman lying?

Dave Miller said...

RN, you are wrong on the facts. The Dems have supported cuts in spending to the tune of over 4 trillion, close to the amount suggested by Simpson Bowles...

Why is the GOP not willing to come up with anywhere close to the new tax levels suggested by SB?

Remember, it was the GOP candidates who said "No" to a 10 to 1 ration of cuts to tax increases.

Is that compromise or even an attitude of desiring to work together?

Shaw Kenawe said...

RN, I didn't call you "blissfully ignorant."


Go back and read it. You're wrong.


I wrote that you "blithely ignore," which means you happily disregard.

That is not an insult; that is merely an observation.

Chill out, man.


Anonymous said...

shaw...the conservatives and libertarians go looking for a reason to be...hurt...even when it doesn't exist...professional cry babies...

Anonymous said...

The president is not responsible for the gridlock on the Hill. The Republicans have majority and do little, that's why they are the do nothing Congress with an approval rating lower than any Congress ever (in the single digits before the election). But Republicans continue to blame Obama! Republicans have House majority, and with the resignations of Democratic Senators, will probably have majority in the Senate. Republicans, do something besides blame Obama!

Les Carpenter said...

Shaw..."You blithely ignore this fact.

And then you try to convince yourself and others that "both parties do it."


Yep, you inferred I am ignorant, no matter how your progressive evasion and feeling of self superiority might have blissfully pass it of as something else.

Cheerio old chap...

Shaw Kenawe said...

RN,
Here is the definition of ignorant:

Adjective
Lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.
Lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular: "ignorant of astronomy".
Synonyms
illiterate - nescient - unlettered - unlearned

Here is the definition of the verb "to ignore," WHICH IS THE WORD I USED in the sentence "blithely ignored."


ig·nore
/igˈnôr/
Verb
Refuse to take notice of or acknowledge; disregard intentionally: "he ignored her question".
Fail to consider (something significant): "satellite broadcasting ignores national boundaries".
Synonyms
disregard - neglect - slight

I did NOT call you ignorant. I wrote that you blithely IGNORED something, which, in other words, means you lightheartedly disregarded something.

Now those are the FACTS. If you need to feel aggrieved over something I did not write, I can't stop you.

But DO NOT claim I wrote something about you that I plainly did not.

Ignorant and ignore are two different words with two different meanings.

Ignorant is an adjective. I did NOT use that word.

I used the verb "ignore" with the adverb, "blithely."

I accept your apology for calling me out on something YOU got wrong.






Les Carpenter said...

As progressives always do you wrote as you say however the implication is clear AND intended.


At any rate as they say it is what it is.

Cheerio...

Les Carpenter said...

And aNon, take a very long walk off a very short pier and...

Shaw Kenawe said...

Look, RN, you're having a bad night.

Don't blame me for your inability to distinguish the meaning of words. And please don't tell ME what I intended; you don't live in my head.

It appears you're determined to get your anger on, no matter what I say and what the facts are.

Have at it. Things will be clearer in the morning.

Les Carpenter said...

Things are perfectly clear now.

For the record I had a marvelously productive day which I topped off with a very invigorating workout.

Cheerio...

Anonymous said...

RN just came here to spread his insults to top off his idea of a perfect day.

Dave Miller said...

Shaw, I love when people tell us what our words mean instead of just taking the words at face value... I've found overly sensitive people of all political stripes read into words wrong assumptions and implications...

Les Carpenter said...

aNon, it I you who regularly go out of your way to insult. One of your stronger tendencies is projection. Have a wonderful fun filled day.

Anonymous said...

Anyone who believes there is equal blame for both parties, for our financial mess, is ignorant.

Les Carpenter said...

Righto aNon live your ignorant partisan delusions.

Cheerio old sap.

Anonymous said...

Bury your head in the sand from the facts.Look up the facts, don't be ignorant on purpose

Les Carpenter said...

Righto aNon, you're hilarious! Thanks for the laughs.

I guess for you living in ignorance is bliss. Keep on trucking, perhaps one day you'll find your calling. Oh, that's right, you already have.

Anonymous said...

Ιncrеdible stoгy therе. What hapрened after?
Good luсk! rippln reviews - ripples arlington
- Cheap Hotels In Broad Ripple Indiana