Boehner to Step Down from Congress

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

A few thoughts.

  1. I am not little.[/quote]

Oh…you thought I meant that you were “physically” little–no, no not at all.

Specifics? I see, you disagree with my analysis. Fine, but it is far from “uninformed”. But you would actually have to know more than you do (obviously) to appreciate it.

Not true. Many times I have said that the republican philosophy suits me well. BUT, I’ve also said a number of times (if you actually paid attention like you pretend to do) that the republicans in power often get it wrong. As for the current democratic party they have moved so far left there is little to like. But others have said that too. Hopefully you can see that, if not you have more problems than simply disagreeing with my (mostly good) analysis.

First of all I have said many times (please go back and check) that Trump is far from my first choice. I have in the past called him a big mouth and a bragger…is that slobbering over his greatness? You really need to start paying attention BEFORE you open your uninformed mouth. However, I was and still am impressed with his business success whether he was running for President or not. You are not…fine. As for his Presidential prowess he looks mighty good when compared to socialist Sanders, dishonest Hillary and two time loser and career politician Biden. Oh my…I forgot you like Biden. You’d send him right in to negotiate a deal according to another thread…Yeah you are all kinds of smart for saying that WOW.

As for the final comment, “best field ever” yes it certainly is. Name another Presidential year where we have had so many successful former Governors, Senators and business people running for President? Can’t can you? That’s okay just put that on your list of things that you learned from Zeb.

I know you are not well versed in Presidential politics and probably have no memory of previous elections. So, Google the previous Presidential elections and compare. Once you do, if you have an ounce of fairness in your argument you will have to give me this one. They are a great field any of 12-14 of them would certainly be qualified to hold the highest office in the land. When was the last time a GOP field had that many highly qualified candidates? And yes all of them (barring one perhaps) would be better than Hillary! And would be better than your great negotiator Joe Biden. Ha ha Joe Biden really TB? You are slipping my man. (I don’t want to make you mad like I did with the “little” comment. So, if you are actually a woman (honestly I don’t really know) forgive me. Thanks.

I walk around with far more knowledge of Presidential politics than you TB. You don’t like reading that but from reading your many posts regarding that very topic I am correct. You can call it Kool-Aid no problem. But I wonder what you are thinking?

You trash Trump on a regular basis, fine there is a lot to trash there, yet I don’t remember reading many of your posts attacking Obama. You have a soft spot for the naÃ??Ã?¯ve left wing President TB? I understand…maybe you can talk to some people about that problem, or if you really want to shut me up tell me why he has not been a total disaster, and why you have not mentioned it more if that’s the case? Are you up for it? Come on TB give me a nice long list of Obama’s accomplishments. For that matter why don’t you list all of the many accomplishments of the three stooges that are running on the democratic side. I am really looking forward to your response on this one–don’t dodge the question TB.

[quote]3. If your reading comprehension was up to par, you’d realize I have predicted a GOP win. There would be nothing on which to internet wager, if such wagers weren’t dumb.
[/quote]

Reading comprehension huh? That’s an odd thing for someone who has not brought any evidence of me being wrong in my political analysis. Yet, you charge me with “uninformed analysis”. Didn’t you read my previous post correctly? I want specifics and you don’t have any. “slobbering over Trump”? when I’m not doing that is hardly proof of uninformed analysis. What else you go big fella (that makes up for calling you small right?) No evidence? Odd for someone who considers themselves so very smart. You don’t like my style, you call me a cheerleader for the GOP. Yet, where have I been factually wrong? You don’t like my approach? Okay well I have a cure for that, don’t read my posts anymore I obviously irritate you (and smh:)

by the way, I read your recent prediction of Bush over Hillary. I think you said it was a 60/40 chance. Not a bad call…

If, Hillary is the candidate for the democrats instead of fighting for her freedom vs. the federal government.

And …

if Jeb Bush can continue to raise money and somehow can turn a strong debate performance into poll points. He couldn’t do that after the most recent debate. I thought he ate Trump’s lunch (slobbering?) yet it did not equate to any appreciable support. That would worry some people who actually know what the hell they’re talking about.

Post back soon with that nice long list of Obama’s great accomplishments and also what qualifies either Curly, Larry and Moe to President. Critical analysis if I am wrong about the GOP then the democrats really have something going right?

[/quote]

These forums are very right leaning and not bashing dems or not praising republicans doesn’t mean you have a soft spot for Obama, it just means you don’t want to waste time repeating what everyone else says. You can come across as a cheerleader because you do the opposite of this more than everyone else. Not necessarily anything wrong with this, it sets the tone of the forum.

122

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

Nowhere in there did I say that I won’t be laughing at you when you deserve it. I simply have learned not to care about arguing against you, because I gain nothing from it. Anyway, totally understandable if you don’t want to deal with my occasional (and surely negative) remarks – you’re free to block me.[/quote]

smh, honestly from the bottom of my heart I don’t really care what you say, or how you say it to me or to anyone else. It’s about perspective, this is the Internet after all so fire away if.

Anyway, I generally laugh at most of your posts when I do read them. And it’s not so much what you say it’s the incredibly arrogant way that you say it. But that’s your style I have no problem with it. You fill a role here on T Nation. It’s all good. I never could muster up much hate or even dislike for faceless nameless Internet folk who apparently don’t like what I have to say–I just don’t care, sorry.

So, you can pop in and comment on anything that I write I don’t care one way or the other. If it somehow makes you feel better to attack me have at it. It’s fun stuff for both of us and really the cheapest entertainment possible if you think about it.

Have a nice weekend.

Zeb

123

[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:
I thought it was cute how Boehner postponed the election after Mcarthy dropped out. Talk about some back handed slime-ball shit.[/quote]

Spoty on my friend!

124

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Zeb,

  1. I wasn’t mad about you calling me little - I was merely correcting an erroneous fact.[/quote]

Well, I only apologized because I thought you took it the wrong way and I meant no offense to your physical stature.

Yes it was delightful and so very, very spot on!

Oh man I’m sorry my point flew right over your head. You see calling me a cheerleader is claiming that I am not fair in my analysis. And you claim I am not fair because I do not promote the left wing candidates. I was asking you to point out for me exactly why there would be anyone to get exited about on the democratic side. This was your chance to tout all of Hillary’s successes. But, I guess you have nothing in that department to share and who can blame you? As I said my beliefs fall in line with the republican philosophy…Don’t like that huh? That’s okay you will somehow get over it, or you’ll stop reading my posts. Now do you really think it matters one way or the other to me?

But I still enjoy writing them so I guess I’ll keep doing it Lord TB. Ha ha…some of you guys take this whole thing far, far too seriously.

Smile TB, learn that you will never be able to control what others write, certainly not me. And just because you are a smart guy (and you are) doesn’t mean that you know everything. You do have your strong areas but you have your weaker ones as well.

Your Friend

Zeb

125

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

Nowhere in there did I say that I won’t be laughing at you when you deserve it. I simply have learned not to care about arguing against you, because I gain nothing from it. Anyway, totally understandable if you don’t want to deal with my occasional (and surely negative) remarks – you’re free to block me.[/quote]

smh, honestly from the bottom of my heart I don’t really care what you say, or how you say it to me or to anyone else. It’s about perspective, this is the Internet after all so fire away if.

Anyway, I generally laugh at most of your posts when I do read them. And it’s not so much what you say it’s the incredibly arrogant way that you say it. But that’s your style I have no problem with it. You fill a role here on T Nation. It’s all good. I never could muster up much hate or even dislike for faceless nameless Internet folk who apparently don’t like what I have to say–I just don’t care, sorry.

So, you can pop in and comment on anything that I write I don’t care one way or the other. If it somehow makes you feel better to attack me have at it. It’s fun stuff for both of us and really the cheapest entertainment possible if you think about it.

Have a nice weekend.

Zeb[/quote]

We are saying the same thing: it does make me feel better to pick something up and throw it at you from time to time, and vice versa. As you say, it’s fun (but not exactly fruitful) stuff for both of us. I think we can agree that our actual arguments are a waste of time (though we would surely disagree on the reasons), which is what I meant in the original quote.

126

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

Nowhere in there did I say that I won’t be laughing at you when you deserve it. I simply have learned not to care about arguing against you, because I gain nothing from it. Anyway, totally understandable if you don’t want to deal with my occasional (and surely negative) remarks – you’re free to block me.[/quote]

smh, honestly from the bottom of my heart I don’t really care what you say, or how you say it to me or to anyone else. It’s about perspective, this is the Internet after all so fire away if.

Anyway, I generally laugh at most of your posts when I do read them. And it’s not so much what you say it’s the incredibly arrogant way that you say it. But that’s your style I have no problem with it. You fill a role here on T Nation. It’s all good. I never could muster up much hate or even dislike for faceless nameless Internet folk who apparently don’t like what I have to say–I just don’t care, sorry.

So, you can pop in and comment on anything that I write I don’t care one way or the other. If it somehow makes you feel better to attack me have at it. It’s fun stuff for both of us and really the cheapest entertainment possible if you think about it.

Have a nice weekend.

Zeb[/quote]

We are saying the same thing: it does make me feel better to pick something up and throw it at you from time to time, and vice versa. As you say, it’s fun (but not exactly fruitful) stuff for both of us. I think we can agree that our actual arguments are a waste of time (though we would surely disagree on the reasons), which is what I meant in the original quote.[/quote]

I wonder exactly what a “waste of time” really is. There are a whole lot of posts flying around between all of us. What is supposed to be accomplished be all of this? I suppose each gets something different from the experience. Some come on here to actually try to learn and understand the opinions of others. Some to sharpen up their thinking and writing perhaps. I mostly view this as plenty of good entertainment. But, quite honestly I have learned in the process.

The personal sniping is an extra bonus. Some may not like it but to me it really is fun. You are who you are and I respect that. You have a certain view of the world and while it is different than mine, as are our experiences, occasionally there must be a clash. Again, this is one of the things that I actually enjoy. It could be because I learned a long time ago not to take things (in and out off the Internet) too seriously.

I’ve seen some horrible things in my own life, some would call tragedies. And when I see some people getting really upset over a post I really have to step back and laugh. I mean other than the natural inclination to respond I look at this as some seriously good entertainment and fully enjoy the exchange with people like you, TB and many others.

If you knew how little hate that I have in me toward those who think quite differently than I do you’d probably be shocked.

Take Care,

Zeb

131

[quote] ZEB wrote:

And you claim I am not fair because I do not promote the left wing candidates. I was asking you to point out for me exactly why there would be anyone to get exited about on the democratic side. [/quote]

Here is the microcosm of the problem. Just dumb. Where did I claim that you weren’t fair because you don’t promote left wing candidates?

I am going to type this slowly, as it appears color-by-numbers is required.

A candidate can agree with you on 10 out of 10 ideological positions - and still be, wait for it, a bad candidate. A GOP lawmaker may agree with you on 100% of the issues, but they can still make bad strategic decisions that hurt the party’s chances of bigger electoral gains.

Criticizing such candidates isn’t tantamount to attacking them “from the Left”, and criticizing someone like you - who remains willfully blind to their weaknesses - isn’t a demand that you support left wing candidates. Good Lord.

You can be a card-carrying, dyed-in-the-wool conservative Republican and still be objective, capable of self-awareness and self-criticism with respect to the party. Can. So can a left liberal. I like and respect these types.

You are not. You are more like a partisan hack. And that is where my criticism lies. And that’s why I derive little value from your posts, other than the entertainment value of reading you attempt to talk trash.

Hope this helps clarify.

132

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
ZEB wrote:

And you claim I am not fair because I do not promote the left wing candidates. I was asking you to point out for me exactly why there would be anyone to get exited about on the democratic side.

Where did I claim that you weren’t fair because you don’t promote left wing candidates?[/quote]

Well, here’s the thing TB, when you say that I am a cheerleader for the GOP that pretty much precludes me saying anything good about democrats.

Now you’re just being silly it doesn’t matter how fast you type it. You sure are a jokester in your own right.

Well certainly I never said otherwise. What you state can most assuredly happen, and has in the past.

Again, obviously.

I like that you brought God into this…you know us right wing conservatives we love God…yep

You just described me! And if you had really been paying attention (I never mentioned “reading comprehension” once because that’s just mean) you would have seen that I have already criticized most of the GOP.

This is what I mean about you merely “pretending” to pay attention to my posts. You are smart but you still have to read and drop your natural bias against me for the truth to get through.

Here you go just for you (and I wouldn’t repeat myself for just anyone).

I’ve said the following in previous posts:

Rubio looks too young which is a liability. He is a first term senator which will also hurt him because we just had a bad experience with well…you know.

Cruz does not have the persona nor actual looks to win.

Trump is a blowhard and a bragger who wears thin. He’s also liberal on health care and he’s off base with his view of Russia (Russia comment is new). I’ve also predicted he will NOT be the nominee at least 3 times.

Carson gives off the impression that he has no energy. I’ve stated on a few occasions that I don’t want him to be the GOP’s nominee. And if I recall correctly I said he puts me to sleep.

Bush’s name hurts him and he is a common core supporter which will hurt him in the primary.

Fiorina has baggage as she failed not once but twice as a CEO. If you are going to run on a business record it should be a good one. (I actually just said that recently)

Rand Paul is out of his mind at least when it comes to foreign affairs. His positions,(isolationism) not unlike Obama’s (I had to make that comparison to Obama…dang sorry TB,am I a hack?) will get us into trouble more often than not.

Huckabee looks too old and is far too preachy.

When he was still around I stated that Gov. Walker looked too goofy to win. You know he just has a very strange look…yeah that’s how I put it if I recall correctly.

Kasich holds some very liberal positions on welfare etc. Too liberal to win the GOP nomination.

Christi hugged Obama and drove a knife through Romney’s back as he talked about himself at the convention for 20 minutes and only mentioned Romney twice. He also stated tht he wants the wealthy to forgoe collecting Social Security benefits even though they too paid into the system all of their lives, that seems wrong to me.

Who is left? Anyway you get the point I’m sure.

Yeah, it’s a shame you were not paying attention and could not read through your bias against me as I said all of the things above in various posts this year over the past several months.

But, even with all of their problems each is better than the three stooges that the democrats are putting up. Yeah, I know you remember that line. Funny how we remember what we want and disregard the rest because of certin preconcieved notions. But I said the others as well please go back and check.

Sometimes people, even smart ones have blind spots.

Well next time read more carefully as I have pointed out each candidates weaknesses more often and far better than say…YOU!

[quote]Hope this helps clarify.
[/quote]

TB, I have nothing but respect for you my friend. The fact that when it comes to my posts you have a bit of a blind spot will in no way prevent me from continuing to write them, especially about the Presidential race. If you question each comment that I noted above regarding GOP candidates take a few minutes and go back and read them again. Drop the bias you have against me and really take a look. Many of them do criticize the GOP field quite often,

Glad we cleared this up!

If you have any other complaints please move to the left and step up to the window to your right.

Have a nice evening.

Zeb

133

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Understanding that your new boogeyman appears to be “moderates”, I am not sure that a situation that has GOP lawmakers weeping on the floor and has party mandarins begging people who clearly do not want the job is any sign of a party or faction’s “health”, and certainly not with an election looming. [/quote]

More on this: yes, the “moderates” may very well be the boogeymen. Who really are they? They’re the Washington cartel, members of both parties who’ve held the reins of power for generations and see the Tea Party, Cruz, Lee, Brat, et al, as dangerous threats to their entrenchment.[/quote]

There’s nothing inherently “moderate” about this crowd - and quite a few moderates stand against the K Street monopoly on government. That’s also evidenced by the Tea Party’s support for the swaps push change that passed - a sop to big banks that helps promote the continuing privatization of profits, socialization of risks theme the K Street banks continue to get their way on. Tea Party votes helped get that done, and they aren’t “moderates”.

134

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

  1. House Republicans torment and cannibalize Boehner, and he steps down.

  2. McCarthy, his likely replacement, bows out at the last second, throwing the House into a leadership crisis and fracturing the party.

[/quote]

This is the standard line from the moderates. “Fracturing” and “cannibalism” and such. Maybe it’s just good ol’ fashioned politics that is actually healthy for the party in this instance.

There is a strong conservative faction, a movement that is sorely needed to pull the GOP back from its drift toward continuing to be a rather bland, tasteless, watery beer – “Democrat Lite.”

The question is whether the timing is right.
[/quote]

Politics are inherently about compromise. A middle road must be found. By adopting maximalist positions and electing maximalist representatives, the GOP is condemning itself to become an anachronism. It must evolve with the domestic and international mileu, or it will die. [/quote]

The Founders built a system where compromise was the designed feature, not a bug.

Tea Partiers don’t know much about history.

Also, on this point, I’d like to reiterate a point I’ve made for years - Tea Partiers are not all that different from Obama. They are merely opposite sides of the same coin.
[/quote]

I agree BUT they’re the RIGHT, the correct, side of the coin. Let’s not lose sight of the reality of “right” and “wrong,” Senor Lukewarm Pontificator.

Don’t ever forget the (Push) maxim, “Straddling a fence is hard on your balls.”[/quote]

Sure, and Tea Party Jacobins are exactly the kind of faction the Founders built a system to protect against - those that, like the Obamabots, are positive they are “right!” and as a result of their ideological certainty they are entitled to an Ends Justifies the Means approach.

The Founders were concerned about such zealots, and that is precisely why we have a government designed to frustrate their uncompromising mission to bring the Truth to millions of Americans who believe in no such Truth.

135

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

The Founders built a system where compromise was the designed feature, not a bug.

[/quote]

Maybe, but not in the sense of parties although that was the inevitable consequence. The Founders were strongly anti-party and if you need quotes to that effect I can supply them. In fact, at the time of the writing and ratification of the Constitution there was only one party.

Looks to me like some folks who are anti-tea party don’t know as much about history as they crow.

Or should I say, “Cockadoodle doo?”
[/quote]

  1. No, not maybe, it’s true, and it isn’t subject to Postmodern Push’s histoeical revisionism based on “I read it in a free download of ‘Unintended Consequences’!”.

  2. The Founders weren’t proponents of parties, factions, etc., but they knew they were inevitable and designed a system to pit interest against interest and to frustrate political monopoly. Thus, compromise is a feature - in fact, THE feature, and the genius - of our constitutional system.

If Tea Partiers can’t find their way into a public library to learn basic American civics and history, it’s not my problem to fix.