Friday, August 1, 2008
Breaking News / Immigration / Kotz / Law and Order / Politics Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn's Latest Commercial, Uncut
Posted by Pete Kotz on Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 12:05 PM
Comments (28)
Showing 1-28 of 28
This commercial would be so much more effective with the "Battle Without Honor or Humanity" music from Kill Bill.
like
dislike
This on the heels of The Tennessean's front page story of conflicts-of-interest within the Blackburn Family.
For the record, I went to high school with her son-in-law. We used to siphon gas out of cars to cruise around town smoking cigarettes and listening to The Cure. He was about 80lbs lighter then and had his hair dyed black. Sort of a post-Goth look. Expert chameleon, that one.
As for the comment above about lefty smirking: When it comes to the Blackburns I don't think we're dealing with actual Republicans. They'd bend over for the highest bidder. If they were relocated after testifying against their oldest friends to get off the hook for their gross mishandling of power, they'd simply pop up somewhere in Rhode Island with big a 'D' next to their last names.
And that's really the point, isn't it? Or was The Tennessean's front page item on July 20, 2008 simply reporting 'business as usual'?
http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080720/NEWS01/807200409
Enjoy voting for your bald eagle in November, O Philistine (TN-R).
"Gilbert, why do you like Marsha? Do you view her as a fiscal conservative?"
I like Marsha because she doesn't want to raise MY taxes.
That's the single most important thing any politician can do - refrain from raising MY taxes. The second most important thing is to start cutting MY taxes.
As for being a "fiscal consevative" , I doubt you know the meaining of that term. When liberals refer to a "fiscal conservative", it usually means somebody who thinks their job is to be a tax collector for the welfare state.
A fiscal conservative is someone who belives the government should not be spending money on any activity that is not pursuant to any ennumerated power in the Constitution - as is required by the 10th Amendment - or collecting any taxes to finance those activities either.
I think a fiscal conservative is someone who doesn't run up huge deficits--and doesn't vote for costly, unwinnable wars. I also think a fiscal conservative is someone who knows how to keep track of the money coming into her campaign.
But that's just me.
You're no more of an authority on what is or isn't an "unwinnable war" than you are as to what a "fiscal conservative" is.
By the way, since you're so "concerned" about the war being so costly, here's some info on some far more costly government activities:
The 2008 Social Security and Medicare Trustee's reports shows that the combined unfunded liabilty for those two programs combined is
$101.7 TRILLION dollars.
I won't hold my breath waiting for you to denounce these far more costly programs as being fiscally irresponsible.
Well, let's see: 1.5 million Iraqis have fled their own country while tens of thousands of innocent civilians have perished. American casualties are at 4,000 and counting-- to say nothing of all the troops who are coming home maimed or scarred for life. And all to attack a country that was never a threat. That doesn't sound conservative to me--it sounds reckless.
But forget about that for a second: What kind of conservative supports a foreign policy that believes one country, more or less acting alone, can import democracy across the world. I thought conservatives were supposed to be skeptical about people's ability to change?
Gilbert, you and I are not going to agree on a lot of things and that's fine. Maybe you're right on most of this stuff, who knows? But how I don't get how you can consider Marsha a conservative on the mere point that she votes to reduce your taxes.
"Well, let's see: 1.5 million Iraqis have fled their own country while tens of thousands of innocent civilians have perished"
55 million people died in WW2 and we won that war.
" And all to attack a country that was never a threat. "
Merely your opinion - not a fact.
" But how I don't get how you can consider Marsha a conservative on the mere point that she votes to reduce your taxes. "
She's a conservative because she has a conservative voting record - something you would know if you'd ever bothered to look it up.
The tax cutting part is just the one that's most important to me.
Here are some examples of her voting record:
• Voted NO on tax incentives for energy production and conservation. (Jun 2008)
• Voted NO on tax incentives for renewable energy. (Feb 2008)
• Voted NO on investing in homegrown biofuel. (Aug 2007)
• Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007)
• Voted NO on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore. (Jun 2006)
• Voted YES on scheduling permitting for new oil refinieries. (Jun 2006)
• Voted YES on authorizing construction of new oil refineries. (Oct 2005)
• Voted YES on passage of the Bush Administration national energy policy. (Jun 2004)
• Voted YES on implementing Bush-Cheney national energy policy. (Nov 2003)
• Voted NO on additional $10.2B for federal education & HHS projects. (Nov 2007)
Voted NO on $84 million in grants for Black and Hispanic colleges. (Mar 2006) Rated 17% by the NEA, indicating anti-public education votes. (Dec 2003)
• Voted YES on promoting free trade with Peru. (Nov 2007)
• Voted NO on assisting workers who lose jobs due to globalization. (Oct 2007)
• Voted YES on implementing CAFTA, Central America Free Trade. (Jul 2005)
• Voted YES on implementing US-Australia Free Trade Agreement. (Jul 2004)
• Voted YES on implementing US-Singapore free trade agreement. (Jul 2003)
• Voted YES on implementing free trade agreement with Chile. (Jul 2003)
• Voted YES on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations. (May 2007)
• Voted NO on granting Washington DC an Electoral vote & vote in Congress. (Apr 2007)
• Voted YES on prohibiting lawsuits about obesity against food providers. (Oct 2005)
• Voted YES on limiting attorney's fees in class action lawsuits. (Feb 2005)
• Voted YES on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends. (Dec 2005)
• Voted YES on providing tax relief and simplification. (Sep 2004)
Rated 0% by the CTJ, indicating opposition to progressive taxation. (Dec 2006)
She's not a true conservative--she just votes the way the leadership tells her to vote, right? Or why else would she have voted for the ($400 billion?) prescription drug bill?
if you don't think your taxes are going to go up when she's voting against keeping jobs here and against relief for affected US workers, you're probably right. everything else will be expensive. your gas (since she's voting against renewable energy policies), your food, your quality of life (re: lost jobs) will all become more expensive, as they are right now. but hey, who's worrying about that when your taxes stay the same?
How daft do you have to be to compare WWII and the current Iraq conflict?
You undermined any amount of possible credibilty with that asinine statement. And I am a conservative so don't start that liberal labelling bullshit on me.
"if you don't think your taxes are going to go up when she's voting against keeping jobs here and against relief for affected US workers, you're probably right. everything else will be expensive. your gas (since she's voting against renewable energy policies), your food, your quality of life (re: lost jobs) will all become more expensive, as they are right now. but hey, who's worrying about that when your taxes stay the same?"
I don't accept the economic premise of anything you've said - so that's that.
"How daft do you have to be to compare WWII and the current Iraq conflict?
You undermined any amount of possible credibilty with that asinine statement. And I am a conservative so don't start that liberal labelling bullshit on me."
Try to guess how little I care what you think is or isn't credible.
"She's not a true conservative--she just votes the way the leadership tells her to vote, right? Or why else would she have voted for the ($400 billion?) prescription drug bill?"
You won't find anyone up in Washington who is 100% on anything. That game can be played with just about anybody up there.
Joe Lieberman votes the liberal line on just about everyhting - except the Iraq war. So I suppose that means he isn't a true liberal and is merely taking his marching orders from Harry Reid.
This is typical. Gilbert is right because he says so. Anything you suggest (like, I dunno, the fact that WWII and the Iraq war have absolutely nothing in common and cannot be viewed in the same manner) is hogwash, because he refuses to even acknowledge someone else's opinion. He simply trots out statistics in an attempt to seem relevant.
I'm giving you one more chance, Mr. Martin. Explain why WWII can be compared to the Iraq war. Don't just shrug off my request. I'm holding you accountable for that comment and I want a good reason for it.
Maybe Gilbert thinks that Iraq was behind 9-11....and was on the verge of conquering an entire continent.
"I'm holding you accountable for that comment ..."
Really.
And just how do plan on enforcing that?
LOL
"Maybe Gilbert thinks that Iraq was behind 9-11....and was on the verge of conquering an entire continent."
What I think is that you offered up casualty figures as "proof" of your contention that the Iraq war was "unwinnable" and I responded by citing the much larger casualty numbers of a war that we did win.
Thereby demonstrating that citing casualty figures do not constitute proof of whether a war can be won or not.
I think people are willing to accept a heavy loss of human life for a war that had to be waged--as opposed to a discretionary one.
Casualty numbers have nothing to do with the 'unwinnable' status of the Iraq conflict.
It is unwinnable because of the nature of the occupation, and the fact that we are not fighting a sovereign entity, but rather, a continuous stream of ideologically motivated rouge fighters. Since it is impossible to defeat an idea, then we cannot 'win' the conflict. And as the world's leading democracy, why would we want to defeat an idea in the first place?
Gilbert, I call bullshit. You cited a rough estimate of total global deaths (on both sides) as a result of a fucking World War which involved nuclear weapons! To hold the current piss-party in even the same breath as that epic conflict is a really classless move on your part, and it reveals a shallow kind of desperation. Perhaps the fact that we are having this culture divide is more exciting to you than what is actually at stake. It is this kind of hollow logic and taunting that give the conservative contingent such a bad rap, and I won't tolerate it. People are dying and we have the ability to make that stop, at least in the capacity of what we started.
Either contribute something worthwhile to the discussion or take your ass back to O'Reilly. I don't have to enforce a thing, and I certainly would never wish you any harm or even discomfort. But you're completely full of shit on this one.
Blow it out your ass, punk.
I'll do whatever I damn well please.
You don't have to enforce a thing?
You aren't CAPABLE of enforcing a thing in here or anywhere else.
Being quite the Mexican food enthusiast, I often do just that, Gilbert.
Enforcing things "in here" is impossible because this place doesn't technically exist, and I'm not the moderator. But I feel like I made my point. And your response seems to REINFORCE the fact that you're full of shit.
Yeah, blow it out your ass, punk! Vote God-fearing Republican and not communist Democrat! See in you church on goddam Sunday! I'm filled with the love of the Lord. Are you, punk-ass?!
"Enforcing things "in here" is impossible because this place doesn't technically exist, and I'm not the moderator."
For you , enforcing things anywhere is impossible.
"And your response seems to REINFORCE the fact that you're full of shit."
No it only demostrated that I was tired of your melodramatic squawking and attempting to give me orders.
My remark about WW2 was perfectly legitimate in the context in which I used it and nothing you have said proves the case is otherwise.
There is nothing you ever could say that would prove the case is otherwise.
It is physically impossible for anyone to prove the case is otherwise.
And that's that.
