On Grover Norquist

[Wry Catcher]

I've been following Norquist for quite some time..when he was just considered a loon with his "Starve the Beast" crappola until now when he's got over 200 traitors to the United States Constitution signed up to his pledge sitting in congress.

Grover Norquist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He's never really done anything to acquire wealth..he was born into it. And he supports generational wealth..and generational poverty.

In other words...he's into Plutocracy..or Conservatism.

The hyperbole is thick here.

"traitors to the . . . Constitution" ???

Oh brother.

So signing a pledge that circumvents one of the duties of congress, outlined in the United States Constitution..is what..a good thing?

Sorry dude. I don't want anyone on either side of the aisle signing any screwy pledges.

Their obligation is to uphold and protect the Constitution.

LIEability is an arrogant twit. Members of Congress have a duty to the Constitution and a duty to represent their constituents - supporting GN and his extreme agenda is wrong.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I've been following Norquist for quite some time..when he was just considered a loon with his "Starve the Beast" crappola until now when he's got over 200 traitors to the United States Constitution signed up to his pledge sitting in congress.

Grover Norquist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He's never really done anything to acquire wealth..he was born into it. And he supports generational wealth..and generational poverty.

In other words...he's into Plutocracy..or Conservatism.

The hyperbole is thick here.

"traitors to the . . . Constitution" ???

Oh brother.

So signing a pledge that circumvents one of the duties of congress, outlined in the United States Constitution..is what..a good thing?

Sorry dude. I don't want anyone on either side of the aisle signing any screwy pledges.

Their obligation is to uphold and protect the Constitution.

Circumvents a duty? That's funny.

 

[Liability]

I've been following Norquist for quite some time..when he was just considered a loon with his "Starve the Beast" crappola until now when he's got over 200 traitors to the United States Constitution signed up to his pledge sitting in congress.

Grover Norquist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He's never really done anything to acquire wealth..he was born into it. And he supports generational wealth..and generational poverty.

In other words...he's into Plutocracy..or Conservatism.

The hyperbole is thick here.

"traitors to the . . . Constitution" ???

Oh brother.

So signing a pledge that circumvents one of the duties of congress, outlined in the United States Constitution..is what..a good thing?

Sorry dude. I don't want anyone on either side of the aisle signing any screwy pledges.

Their obligation is to uphold and protect the Constitution.

Except, of course, the pledge does NOT circumvent the duties of Congress.

 

[Sallow]

The hyperbole is thick here.

"traitors to the . . . Constitution" ???

Oh brother.

So signing a pledge that circumvents one of the duties of congress, outlined in the United States Constitution..is what..a good thing?

Sorry dude. I don't want anyone on either side of the aisle signing any screwy pledges.

Their obligation is to uphold and protect the Constitution.

LIEability is an arrogant twit. Members of Congress have a duty to the Constitution and a duty to represent their constituents - supporting GN and his extreme agenda is wrong.

Yeah..but he's not a dope. I don't mind arrogance as much as I mind stupidity.

And the dude is definitely not stupid.

 

[editec]

No government with a standing military of 1.4 million, and certainly no government with over 800,000 people holding "TOP secret Security clearance" is every apt ot be small enough to drown in a bathtub.

When the GOP gets real about reducing the military and intelligence services, then and ONLY then will I believe that the GOP really wants a SMALLER government.

Last time we cut back on Intelligence was under Clinton.....then we had to rely on foreign intell, then 9-11 happened.

Oh.....that was nearly 10 years ago...my bad.

So then you do not believe that destroying this nation by eliminating the government is a good idea?

Glad to read it.

 

[Liability]

The hyperbole is thick here.

"traitors to the . . . Constitution" ???

Oh brother.

So signing a pledge that circumvents one of the duties of congress, outlined in the United States Constitution..is what..a good thing?

Sorry dude. I don't want anyone on either side of the aisle signing any screwy pledges.

Their obligation is to uphold and protect the Constitution.

LIEability is an arrogant twit. Members of Congress have a duty to the Constitution and a duty to represent their constituents - supporting GN and his extreme agenda is wrong.

In his always circular form of "reasoning," the always ignorant and generally dishonest Fly Catcher cannot honestly articulate his syllogism, so he -- circumvents that little problem.

Even that complete asshole, Fly Catcher, can grasp that Members of Congress "have a duty to the Constitution and a duty to represent their constituents." So far so good.

But the dishonest moron is incapable of articulating how (or in what fashion) the pledge he speaks of somehow abrogates those duties. This is why he doesn't even attempt to make the case.

Tell us, dipshit. HOW does that pledge in ANY WAY violate the duties of Congresscritters to the Constitution or their constituents?

Be specific.

 

[Liability]

The Pledge itself only amounts to Norquist (and his supporters) petitioning Congress and the Government in general for the redress of grievances.

Insofar as it goes, it calls upon Congressmen, Senators, Governors and the President and candidates for those offices to bind themselves by a pledge to oppose increased taxation.

Wouldn't that amount to nothing more than a campaign promise to their constituents in HOW they intend to perform the duties if elected?

And isn't that something they can do as Congressmen (etc) as their manner of upholding their oaths TO the Constitution?



For those keeping score at home, here is the version which Congressional candidates are called upon to agree:

Taxpayer Protection Pledge

I, _______________, pledge to the taxpayers of the _____ district
of the state of__________, and to the American people that I will:

ONE, oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax
rates for individuals and/or businesses; and

TWO, oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and
credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates.

http://www.atr.org/userfiles/Congressional_pledge(1).pdf

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The Pledge itself only amounts to Norquist (and his supporters) petitioning Congress and the Government in general for the redress of grievances.

Insofar as it goes, it calls upon Congressmen, Senators, Governors and the President and candidates for those offices to bind themselves by a pledge to oppose increased taxation.

Wouldn't that amount to nothing more than a campaign promise to their constituents in HOW they intend to perform the duties if elected?

And isn't that something they can do as Congressmen (etc) as their manner of upholding their oaths TO the Constitution?



For those keeping score at home, here is the version which Congressional candidates are called upon to agree:

Taxpayer Protection Pledge

I, _______________, pledge to the taxpayers of the _____ district
of the state of__________, and to the American people that I will:

ONE, oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax
rates for individuals and/or businesses; and

TWO, oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and
credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates.

http://www.atr.org/userfiles/Congressional_pledge(1).pdf

Wow! That sure looks like treason to me /s

 

[Liability]

The Pledge itself only amounts to Norquist (and his supporters) petitioning Congress and the Government in general for the redress of grievances.

Insofar as it goes, it calls upon Congressmen, Senators, Governors and the President and candidates for those offices to bind themselves by a pledge to oppose increased taxation.

Wouldn't that amount to nothing more than a campaign promise to their constituents in HOW they intend to perform the duties if elected?

And isn't that something they can do as Congressmen (etc) as their manner of upholding their oaths TO the Constitution?



For those keeping score at home, here is the version which Congressional candidates are called upon to agree:

Taxpayer Protection Pledge

I, _______________, pledge to the taxpayers of the _____ district
of the state of__________, and to the American people that I will:

ONE, oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax
rates for individuals and/or businesses; and

TWO, oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and
credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates.

http://www.atr.org/userfiles/Congressional_pledge(1).pdf

Wow! That sure looks like treason to me /s

Maybe our dictionary is out of date.

trea·son
   [tree-zuhn] Show IPA
–noun
1.
the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
2.
a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.
3.
the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.

Treason | Define Treason at Dictionary.com

Nope. Still not seeing how the Pledge amounts to "treason."

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The Pledge itself only amounts to Norquist (and his supporters) petitioning Congress and the Government in general for the redress of grievances.

Insofar as it goes, it calls upon Congressmen, Senators, Governors and the President and candidates for those offices to bind themselves by a pledge to oppose increased taxation.

Wouldn't that amount to nothing more than a campaign promise to their constituents in HOW they intend to perform the duties if elected?

And isn't that something they can do as Congressmen (etc) as their manner of upholding their oaths TO the Constitution?



For those keeping score at home, here is the version which Congressional candidates are called upon to agree:

http://www.atr.org/userfiles/Congressional_pledge(1).pdf

Wow! That sure looks like treason to me /s

Maybe our dictionary is out of date.

trea·son
   [tree-zuhn] Show IPA
–noun
1.
the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
2.
a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.
3.
the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.

Treason | Define Treason at Dictionary.com

Nope. Still not seeing how the Pledge amounts to "treason."

Yeah, that was sarcasm.

 

[Liability]

Wow! That sure looks like treason to me /s

Maybe our dictionary is out of date.

trea·son
   [tree-zuhn] Show IPA
–noun
1.
the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
2.
a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.
3.
the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.

Treason | Define Treason at Dictionary.com

Nope. Still not seeing how the Pledge amounts to "treason."

Yeah, that was sarcasm.

I know. That's why I said "our" dictionary and also why I "thanked" you for your post and "repped" ya.



And I look forward with eager anticipation to seeing how Sallow or Fly Catcher make the case that the signing of THAT pledge amounts to "treason" against the Constitution (or treason in any other form).

 

[Sallow]

The Pledge itself only amounts to Norquist (and his supporters) petitioning Congress and the Government in general for the redress of grievances.

Insofar as it goes, it calls upon Congressmen, Senators, Governors and the President and candidates for those offices to bind themselves by a pledge to oppose increased taxation.

Wouldn't that amount to nothing more than a campaign promise to their constituents in HOW they intend to perform the duties if elected?

And isn't that something they can do as Congressmen (etc) as their manner of upholding their oaths TO the Constitution?



For those keeping score at home, here is the version which Congressional candidates are called upon to agree:

Taxpayer Protection Pledge

I, _______________, pledge to the taxpayers of the _____ district
of the state of__________, and to the American people that I will:

ONE, oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax
rates for individuals and/or businesses; and

TWO, oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and
credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates.

http://www.atr.org/userfiles/Congressional_pledge(1).pdf

I know what it says..and it adds a restriction on the ability of congress to tax. Like it or not that's a major source of revenue for this country. And like it or not..along with all the goodies the last administration larded on Americans..it also saddled this nation with two full wars with no way to pay for them. That's why Paygo was done away with. I'm not even counting the debt..which no one addresses at all. At some point the principle has to be addressed. Letting people starve or not educating them or not providing health care; just can't be the answer.

Seriously..Bush could have proposed a "patriot tax" to fund both Afghanistan or Iraq. He didn't. He could have come up with a better way to fund the new entitlement. He didn't. Some where some time down the line..someone has got to say..don't add shit..or fund it.

And the Norquist plan does neither. And no congress person should be signing pledges anyway.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Maybe our dictionary is out of date.

Treason | Define Treason at Dictionary.com

Nope. Still not seeing how the Pledge amounts to "treason."

Yeah, that was sarcasm.

I know. That's why I said "our" dictionary and also why I "thanked" you for your post and "repped" ya.



And I look forward with eager anticipation to seeing how Sallow or Fly Catcher make the case that the signing of THAT pledge amounts to "treason" against the Constitution (or treason in any other form).

Thanks! After dealing with these idiot libs all day, sometimes stuff gets lost in translation.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The Pledge itself only amounts to Norquist (and his supporters) petitioning Congress and the Government in general for the redress of grievances.

Insofar as it goes, it calls upon Congressmen, Senators, Governors and the President and candidates for those offices to bind themselves by a pledge to oppose increased taxation.

Wouldn't that amount to nothing more than a campaign promise to their constituents in HOW they intend to perform the duties if elected?

And isn't that something they can do as Congressmen (etc) as their manner of upholding their oaths TO the Constitution?



For those keeping score at home, here is the version which Congressional candidates are called upon to agree:

Taxpayer Protection Pledge

I, _______________, pledge to the taxpayers of the _____ district
of the state of__________, and to the American people that I will:

ONE, oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax
rates for individuals and/or businesses; and

TWO, oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and
credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates.

http://www.atr.org/userfiles/Congressional_pledge(1).pdf

I know what it says..and it adds a restriction on the ability of congress to tax. Like it or not that's a major source of revenue for this country. And like it or not..along with all the goodies the last administration larded on Americans..it also saddled this nation with two full wars with no way to pay for them. That's why Paygo was done away with. I'm not even counting the debt..which no one addresses at all. At some point the principle has to be addressed. Letting people starve or not educating them or not providing health care; just can't be the answer.

Seriously..Bush could have proposed a "patriot tax" to fund both Afghanistan or Iraq. He didn't. He could have come up with a better way to fund the new entitlement. He didn't. Some where some time down the line..someone has got to say..don't add shit..or fund it.

And the Norquist plan does neither. And no congress person should be signing pledges anyway.

That pledge doesn't restrict the ability of Congress to tax.

 

[Sallow]

The Pledge itself only amounts to Norquist (and his supporters) petitioning Congress and the Government in general for the redress of grievances.

Insofar as it goes, it calls upon Congressmen, Senators, Governors and the President and candidates for those offices to bind themselves by a pledge to oppose increased taxation.

Wouldn't that amount to nothing more than a campaign promise to their constituents in HOW they intend to perform the duties if elected?

And isn't that something they can do as Congressmen (etc) as their manner of upholding their oaths TO the Constitution?



For those keeping score at home, here is the version which Congressional candidates are called upon to agree:

http://www.atr.org/userfiles/Congressional_pledge(1).pdf

I know what it says..and it adds a restriction on the ability of congress to tax. Like it or not that's a major source of revenue for this country. And like it or not..along with all the goodies the last administration larded on Americans..it also saddled this nation with two full wars with no way to pay for them. That's why Paygo was done away with. I'm not even counting the debt..which no one addresses at all. At some point the principle has to be addressed. Letting people starve or not educating them or not providing health care; just can't be the answer.

Seriously..Bush could have proposed a "patriot tax" to fund both Afghanistan or Iraq. He didn't. He could have come up with a better way to fund the new entitlement. He didn't. Some where some time down the line..someone has got to say..don't add shit..or fund it.

And the Norquist plan does neither. And no congress person should be signing pledges anyway.

That pledge doesn't restrict the ability of Congress to tax.

Sure it does.

Read it.

 

[Sallow]

Maybe our dictionary is out of date.

Treason | Define Treason at Dictionary.com

Nope. Still not seeing how the Pledge amounts to "treason."

Yeah, that was sarcasm.

I know. That's why I said "our" dictionary and also why I "thanked" you for your post and "repped" ya.



And I look forward with eager anticipation to seeing how Sallow or Fly Catcher make the case that the signing of THAT pledge amounts to "treason" against the Constitution (or treason in any other form).

They are betraying a cause or a trust..

It is their solemn pledge to uphold the constitution..and the Norquist pledge restricts their ability to fulfill that pledge.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I know what it says..and it adds a restriction on the ability of congress to tax. Like it or not that's a major source of revenue for this country. And like it or not..along with all the goodies the last administration larded on Americans..it also saddled this nation with two full wars with no way to pay for them. That's why Paygo was done away with. I'm not even counting the debt..which no one addresses at all. At some point the principle has to be addressed. Letting people starve or not educating them or not providing health care; just can't be the answer.

Seriously..Bush could have proposed a "patriot tax" to fund both Afghanistan or Iraq. He didn't. He could have come up with a better way to fund the new entitlement. He didn't. Some where some time down the line..someone has got to say..don't add shit..or fund it.

And the Norquist plan does neither. And no congress person should be signing pledges anyway.

That pledge doesn't restrict the ability of Congress to tax.

Sure it does.

Read it.

No it doesn't.

I did read it.

Everyone who signed the pledge could vote to raise taxes right now.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yeah, that was sarcasm.

I know. That's why I said "our" dictionary and also why I "thanked" you for your post and "repped" ya.



And I look forward with eager anticipation to seeing how Sallow or Fly Catcher make the case that the signing of THAT pledge amounts to "treason" against the Constitution (or treason in any other form).

They are betraying a cause or a trust..

It is their solemn pledge to uphold the constitution..and the Norquist pledge restricts their ability to fulfill that pledge.

Many of their constituents trust them to not raise taxes.
Is it now unconstitutional to not raise taxes?

 

[Sallow]

I know. That's why I said "our" dictionary and also why I "thanked" you for your post and "repped" ya.



And I look forward with eager anticipation to seeing how Sallow or Fly Catcher make the case that the signing of THAT pledge amounts to "treason" against the Constitution (or treason in any other form).

They are betraying a cause or a trust..

It is their solemn pledge to uphold the constitution..and the Norquist pledge restricts their ability to fulfill that pledge.

Many of their constituents trust them to not raise taxes.
Is it now unconstitutional to not raise taxes?

It is Unconstitutional not to pay America's debts. It is Unconstitional not to make sure that we are a fiscally sound country. The Constitution provides for ways to do both. One is to raise taxes.

If you are restricted by this..or restricted by the ability to close loopholes, then you are circumventing your pledge to unhold the Constitution.

And sometimes that's going to make your constituents mad.

But then again..constituents seem to like Federal Money when it helps their districts and not so much when it helps other districts. That's why we hire professional politicians. They are supposed to look at every side of an issue and make an informed decision so the rest of us can continue living our lives and be productive.

 

[Neotrotsky]

I hear you

Those bastards need to pay!
Oh wait, he didn't mean them below....



Reid, Pelosi Sign “Live Earth Pledge” created by former Vice President Al Gore

Pledge Calls On Individuals to Fight Climate Change at Home and Work

WASHINGTON: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi were proud to be among the first to sign the "Live Earth Pledge,"
created by former Vice President Al Gore. The pledge is in conjunction with the global "Live Earth" event to be held on every continent on July 7 (7-7-07). ​

"I am proud to sign this pledge to do my part to solve the climate crisis," said Reid.