Alan Simpson Takes on Grover Norquist

Alan Simpson Takes on Grover Norquist
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/11/02/alan-simpson-takes-on-grover-no...
Quote:
"Democrats say this pledge is a major roadblock to cutting the deficit, and Mr. Simpson agreed. “If Grover Norquist is now the most powerful man in America, he should run for president,” Mr. Simpson said. “There’s no question about his power. And let me tell you, he has people in thrall. That’s a terrible phrase. Lincoln used it. It means your mind has been captured. You’re in bondage with your soul.”

The Pledge: Grover Norquist's hold on the GOP (60 minutes)
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7389006n&tag=contentMain;cbsCarousel
November 20, 2011 12:31 PM
Steve Kroft takes a look at Grover Norquist, the man many blame for holding up the deficit-reduction process because of the anti-tax pledges he has obtained from nearly all the Republican politicians in Washington.
Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7389006n&tag=contentMain;cbsCarou...

No votes yet

..."Alan Simpson is an idiot" into google, here is one of many results that come up:

http://openleft.com/diary/19153/alan-simpsons-idiot-pseudocertainty

He rarely knows what he is talking about and has been used by BO's administration so that they can say "Republican" after somebody's name, who will serve as a tool for the administration. In addition to idiot (IMHO), he is a RINO - worse than a RINO actually - a Democrat in disguise - which is why so many liberals like him. Quote this goofball until your face turns blue and your tongue hangs out - he's useless and clueless in terms of getting at the truth on any topic. And he's living the good life now, retired on the taxpayer's dime - not Social Security.

There is a really good article online on Simpson that summarizes him quite well, telling the truth about Simpson. When I find it again, I will post. It was excellent, and exposed Simpson so effectively, that in the comments section, Governor Brown of California (a DEMOCRAT, of course) felt led to chime in, in defense of old Alan. You know - one liberal trying to protect another.

At any rate, the pie chart included in the above article is an excellent eye-opener.

The Pledge: Grover Norquist's hold on the GOP
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57327816/the-pledge-grover-norquis...
Quote:
"Simpson gleefully accepts that he is one of Norquist's Republican rat heads in the Coke bottle. He got there by serving as co-chairman of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility, which recommended that some tax increases would be necessary to solve the nation's debt problem. Simpson has no use for Norquist.

Simpson: He may well be the most powerful man in America today. So if that's what he wants, he's got it. You know, he's -- megalomaniac, ego maniac, whatever you want to call him. If that's his goal, he's damn near there. He ought to run for president because that will be his platform: 'No taxes, under any situation, even if your country goes to hell.'

Simpson also wants to know where Norquist and Americans for Tax Reform, with its multimillion dollar budget gets its money.

Simpson: When you get this powerful, and he is, then it's, 'Where do you get your scratch, Grover?' Is it two people? Is it 10 million people? The American people demand to know where you get your money, Grover babe."

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

Grover Norquist studied hypnosis under the auspices of the world famous Great Mephisto. As a pupil Norquist impressed his mentor with the ability to hypnotize a chicken into behaving like a man at the age of 6. Mephisto gave up his lucrative Mephisto's Traveling Circus in order to spend more time training Norquist in the art of mass hypnosis.
Norquist soon was able to hypnotize groups of people as large as 15-20, able to make them vote as a bloc in local elections. When Mephisto died under unusual circumstances Norquist went underground and resurfaced only recently with even greater powers. There are those who say he has now hypnotized and entire wing of the Republican Party and controls them with only small gestures of his hand.
Controversy erupted last year when it was discovered that at one time Mephisto had been employed by the UAW, Teamsters, and other major American unions to speak at their conventions. There has been no proof uncovered though that shows that Mephisto may have hypnotized millions of union workers to vote Democratic. Questions remain about his untimely death after dinner at the Machus Red Fox, the same restaurant James Hoffa was last seen at before his disappearance.

Any statement I make is the opinion of me exercising my first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is generally permitted.

The doofists at WBSPD think its all is caused by workers making too much and we all need to work for less (right-to-work). This line of thinking has our economy in the tank causing federal, state, and local tax revenues to fall in lock step. So the "geniuses" at Speedy think we need more of the same less disposable income more imports from overseas. How stupid is this line of thinking? Our economy is suffering from global trade that has forced the American economy to compete with economic practices of a hundred years ago. No health and safety, no environmental protection, no living wages for the majority, no restriction on child labor, and no large middle class. This is what unregulated free trade has brought to America over the past thirty years. To blame unions is just BS, a diversion by the growing 1% to have total control of ALL Americans. Union influence is dwarfed by the huge money that is being spent to control the political process. Just look at what one man corporate lobbyist G. Norquist has done with his anti tax pledge and our super committee deficit talks. The big money of the 1% won the day which will cause huge problems for all average working Americans.

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

I was against anything resembling NAFTA before NAFTA even existed, and before Perot made the "giant sucking sound" comment (related to jobs disappearing). Bill Clinton was NAFTA's biggest cheerleader and shepherded it through and dumped it on the American public, and if I am not mistaken, still defends those actons today. He also hides behind quoting RINOS when making his defense. Bill Clinton, who would have never seen the presidency but for Ross Perot, ironically. A plurality prez, who to quote David Brinkley: "... never had an original idea in his life". (after which Brinkley was forced to apologize and then retire as tv commentator... so much for free speech).

In future when trying to lay NAFTA, and free trade of any kind at the feet of conservatives in general, be advised that a great majority of us have good memories (or at least know how to use search engines).

Here's the complete list. Hate to be the one to break it to you - SIMPSON VOTED YEA ON NAFTA...
Whereas, real conservatives like Helms and Thurmond voted NO.

http://www.votesmart.org/bill/votes/15621

It's a fascinating list to examine regardless of political persuasion. The Senators in poor states like West Virginia and Ohio all voted no. They didn't dare vote otherwise, Clinton or no Clinton. And then, there is always that "counting of heads" that goes on, where cynical calculations are made as to what House Reps and Senators can go against the prez of the same party on something like NAFTA, so as to protect their seats. In other words, they are allowed to vote against their same-party prez, because he has enough YEA's on a bill he wants to go through. Like Marcy Kaptur frequently does. She is not pressured on many bills, because she has to vote in line with the wishes of her constituency, or lose her seat in congress.

But NAFTA was Bill Clinton's baby, and he got what he wanted. And RINO Simpson voted YEA. And so did John McCain. In the immortal words of Gomer Pyle... surprise surprise surprise.

Farmergal:
Wolfman was never a fan of Bill Clinton. In fact he voted for Ross Perot. NAFTA was cooked up way before Billy came to Washington. Check out the following.

From Wikipedia:
Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1986 among the three nations, the leaders met in San Antonio, Texas, on December 17, 1992, to sign NAFTA. U.S. President George H. W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, ceremonially signed it. The agreement then needed to be ratified by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch.

Before the negotiations were finalized, Bill Clinton came into office in the U.S. and Kim Campbell in Canada, and before the agreement became law, Jean Chrétien had taken office in Canada.

The proposed Canada-U.S.trade agreement had been extremely controversial and divisive in Canada, and the 1988 Canadian election was fought almost exclusively on that issue. In that election more Canadians voted for anti-free trade parties (the Liberals and the New Democrats) but more seats in parliament were won by the pro-free trade Progressive Conservatives (PCs). Mulroney and the PCs had a parliamentary majority and were able to easily pass the Canada-U.S. FTA and NAFTA bills. However, Mulroney himself had become deeply unpopular and resigned on June 25, 1993. He was replaced as Conservative leader and prime minister by Kim Campbell, who then led the PC party into the 1993 election where they were decimated by the Liberal party under Jean Chrétien. Chrétien had campaigned on a promise to renegotiate or abrogate NAFTA, but instead negotiated the two supplemental agreements with the new U.S. president. In the U.S., Bush, who had worked to "fast track" the signing prior to the end of his term, ran out of time and had to pass the required ratification and signing into law to incoming president Bill Clinton. Prior to sending it to the United States Senate, Clinton introduced clauses to protect American workers and allay the concerns of many House members. It also required U.S. partners to adhere to environmental practices and regulations similar to its own. With much consideration and emotional discussion, the House of Representatives approved NAFTA on November 17, 1993, by a vote of 234 to 200. The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. NAFTA passed the Senate 61-38. Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats. Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993; it went into effect on January 1, 1994.[1][2] Clinton while signing the NAFTA bill stated: "...NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't support this agreement."[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

Yeah, because big unions wouldn't spend 30 million dollars to defeat a bill passed by the Ohio legislature elected to office by the people of Ohio.

Political Championship Wrestling- putting politics in proper perspective by presenting it as pro wrestling.

Coming in January, a political satire about the sorry state of American Politics- Jesusland vs. Progressiveville.

but putting the reply to AH's post, so as to put it at the bottom of the list..

First of all, nobody forced Clinton to sign NAFTA into law. Did they? Or did I miss something?

I am well acquainted with the skulduggery connected with leaders of the various countries against their own citizens, with these "free trade" agreements. Henry Lamb has a very good "Timeline to Global Governance" still available on the internet, I'm sure, that demonstrates the stark reality of why (and how) all this economic chaos worldwide is happening. It's why I self-identify as a Christian conservative (not Republican). Both political parties contain both liberals and conservatives. The Democrats, unfortunately, defer almost always to the lefties. In the Republican party, it's currently all-out war between the RINOS - liberal establishment idiots - and conservatives. The 2010 mid-term demonstrated that Americans are ready to try conservatives, as opposed to the liberals and others with the one-world mindset that has destroyed more economies worldwide than just our own.

Neither Bush Sr. nor Bush Jr. are, or ever were, conservatives. Clinton? Just as bad, and by the way, friends with the Bushes. All 3 of them are global governance puppets. I erroneously voted for Dad Bush in 1988. Then I discovered, with very little research actually, who and what he really is. I discovered most of the prominent players in the push to global government actually, with research starting back as far as 1991. It was mind-blowing for someone who used to believe a little bit of what she saw on tv. One of the problems in 1988 being that Mondale was also controlled by the one-world government crowd. Fast forward to present day - so is Romney, in my opinion, based on info that is available all over the internet. I vote strictly conservative, and make absolute certain that I am not taken in by the Clintons, Bushes, Obamas or any other pea-brained globalists poised to give away the sovereignty of the United States of America.

While we may disagree on unions we do agree on global government. Read this, "U.S. Firms Keen to Add Foreign Jobs" http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020371070457705222009693283...

What do you think of Grover Norquist ?

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

Most people aren't too tuned in to what's happening with the one-world govt push.

I know little about Norquist, and don't plan to investigate him. The little I know, he's not as important as you are making him out to be. The Republicans as a group (conservative and establishment idiots) need to come to their senses on 2 topics - the tax cuts for the wealthy need to expire - they are on the wrong side of this argument. However, it is Boehner, a RINO who has latched on to this, in my opinion, because he is trying to look conservative (I guess), but his heart isn't in the REAL conservative issues - Obamacare, and what the media calls social conservative issues.

Secondly, the Republicans are missing the boat on unemployment extensions. These need to be extended. Everybody I know, knows somebody whose unemployment is running out - people seriously on the ropes - people who head households, and vote, and are Republicans just as often as Democrats. This idea that all Republicans have money and jobs, and all Democrats are working class - is ridiculous. It shows how isolated both parties are up there on Capitol Hill.

Americans across the political spectrum feel very strongly that bailing out the banks and auto companies with taxpayer dollars, and then telling the struggling working and middle classes that there is no money left for them (of their own tax dollars), and even Medicare is being cut - is both stupid and evil. But see, this is one of the reasons I can't stand Simpson - he is part of long-time congress people (he being retired now) who created these problems. Him pontificating about ANYTHING is a joke. If - when he was on that fakey hokey pokey "commission" BO put him on - if the first words out of fhis mouth had been something like - the way to start balancing the budget is to cut all foreign aid immediately, then I would be inclined to think he had had some kind of successful mental therapy, and would have listened to what he had to say.

I've heard the word "entitlements", meaning American taxpayer dollars going back to average Americans - to the point of nausea. Of COURSE we are "entitled" to our own money. Egypt - which is erupting again due to a corrupt military that replaced Mubarak - is NOT ENTITLED to $2 BILLION a year in American tax dollars. Simpson, and Newt Gingrich are 2 of the reasons our country is in such a mess. They are incapable of fixing anything. I watched Newt, on C-Span when he was House Speaker, push through a House vote to give $14 BILLION American tax dollars to the IMF. With the Senate being complicit of course. Where did that money go from the IMF - why to countries like Greece where they take to the street and riot nowadays when told they have to maybe retire at a higher age - like 60. Again, this is why one-worlders like Simpson and Gingrich are despicable.

Well, my rants aren't going to alter much. But I know political types read these blogs to find out what the "little people" are thinking, which is why I take the time to begin with.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.