On Grover Norquist

[Toddsterpatriot]

Well, I hate to be vulgar, but he's a sick fuck. Seriously.

Why's that? Seriously.
Be specific.

Well, if you want to build a corporatocracy/ plutocracy, Grover's your man.

George W. Bush did a great job of persuading a gullible press and the American public that the big threat to American democracy is big government. Well, yeah, big government is a threat ultimately, but it is dwarfed by the threat of excessive corporate power and the corrosive impact that has on our democracy. And you know, as I said, you look at all the great political leaders in this country and the central theme is that we have to be cautious about, we have to avoid, the domination of our government by corporate power.

Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican, said that America would never be destroyed by a foreign power but he warned that our political institutions, our democratic institutions, would be subverted by malefactors of great wealth, who would erode them from within. Dwight Eisenhower, another Republican, in his most famous speech, warned America against domination by the military industrial complex.

Abraham Lincoln, the greatest Republican in our history, said during the height of the Civil War "I have the South in front of me and I have the bankers behind me. And for my country, I fear the bankers more." Franklin Roosevelt said during World War II that the domination of government by corporate power is "the essence of fascism" and Benito Mussolini -- who had an insider's view of that process -- said the same thing. Essentially, he complained that fascism should not be called fascism. It should be called corporatism because it was the merger of state and corporate power. And what we have to understand as Americans is that the domination of business by government is called communism. The domination of government by business is called fascism. And our job is to walk that narrow trail in between, which is free-market capitalism and democracy. And keep big government at bay with our right hand and corporate power at bay with our left.

RFK Jr

Well, if you want to build a corporatocracy/ plutocracy, Grover's your man.

Yeah, keeping taxes from rising is just awful.

I have the South in front of me and I have the bankers behind me. And for my country, I fear the bankers more"

Sounds like one of those fake quotes. When did he say it?

And just how many divisions does B of A have?
More than Citigroup?

 

[bripat9643]

You're delusional if you think people opposed to tax increases are ever going to disappear.

There’s no issue with advocates of a responsible revenue and allocation policy; there is a problem with naïve, unrealistic reactionaries advocating an inane and radical policy of ‘drowning the government in a bathtub.’ Not the mention the fact state and local government are just as irresponsible with spending, but we don’t hear the ‘drown the government’ extremists complaining about that.

What the hell is "responsible revenue allocation?" You mean it's not being allocated responsibly already? The fact is that libturds in Congress have opposed every spending cut that has ever been proposed. And none or their allies in this forum have objected. Your definition of "responsible" is "none."

That will happen only after Obama opens his gulags and puts us all away.

It’s idiocy such as this that undermines the credibility of you and other conservatives.

That's hilarious considering the fact that the turd who started this thread is accusing Grover Norquist of treason simply because he opposes tax increases. If libturds got what they dreamed of in their hearts, I have no doubt that anyone who opposed the Obama agenda would find himself in a reeducation camp. That evaluation of the facts is entirely credible.

 

[daveman]

Grover will lose all of his power in December of 2012 when the Bush tax cuts expire.

He will be remembers as a treasonous man who hurt America.

Making leftist wet their pants is not treason, dumbass.

 

[daveman]

There’s no issue with advocates of a responsible revenue and allocation policy; there is a problem with naïve, unrealistic reactionaries advocating an inane and radical policy of ‘drowning the government in a bathtub.’

For a bunch of people who like to whine about context, you sure don't mind leaving it out when it suits you.

"SMALL ENOUGH TO drown in a bathtub". You always leave that out. Very dishonest.

But then, leftism can't survive honesty.

 

[Liability]

You're delusional if you think people opposed to tax increases are ever going to disappear.

There’s no issue with advocates of a responsible revenue and allocation policy; there is a problem with naïve, unrealistic reactionaries advocating an inane and radical policy of ‘drowning the government in a bathtub.’ Not the mention the fact state and local government are just as irresponsible with spending, but we don’t hear the ‘drown the government’ extremists complaining about that.

That will happen only after Obama opens his gulags and puts us all away.

It’s idiocy such as this that undermines the credibility of you and other conservatives.

Drowning the Nazi government wouldn't have been bad, would it.

Drowning governments may be horrible or it might be commendable.

Either way, the POINT is that what Mr. Norquiet ACTUALLY said was that he wanted to cut the size of government down to the point where it COULD be drowned in a bathtub.

In otherwords, Adam_Clayton_Powell, he did NOT say diddly shit about wanting to drown our government.

What he DID say was that he wanted to reduce it in size s o that it COULD be drowned in a bathtub.

You can't drown a fucking whale, a LEVIATHAN, in a bathtub.

But if you get our government DOWN to its intended size, that threat could exist.

Aren't you the whining candy-ass motherfuckers who always whine, bitch, moan and groan about how dangerous the government is? Don't you fucking libs WANT to have the government susceptible to your will?

Or are you pissants finally admitting that you WANT to live in a STATIST state?