11.10.2011 10:44 AM

No biggie. His finger would only be on the button, is all.

Moral: don’t support conservatives.  They’re dumber than liberals.

37 Comments

  1. Harith says:

    Him and Cain or the GOP itself must have orchestrated this gaffe to distract from Cain’s abuse allegations.

  2. snip snip: “Starving the beast” is a fiscal-political strategy of some American conservatives to use budget deficits via tax cuts to force future reductions in the size of government. The term “beast” refers to government and the programs it funds, particularly social programs such as welfare, Social Security, and Medicare.

    A well-known proponent of the strategy is activist Grover Norquist who famously said “My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.”

    Some empirical evidence shows that such a strategy may be counterproductive, with lower taxes corresponding to higher spending.

    An October 2007 study by Christina D. Romer and David H. Romer of the National Bureau of Economic Research found: “[…] no support for the hypothesis that tax cuts restrain government spending; indeed, [the findings] suggest that tax cuts may actually increase spending. The results also indicate that the main effect of tax cuts on the government budget is to induce subsequent legislated tax increases.”[10]

    http://www.dominionpaper.ca/weblogs/geordie/2339

    • Jan says:

      Tax cuts certainly didn’t restrain Bush’s spending. Conservatives talk a good game about cutting government but they always fall down in the implementation.

    • Cameron Prymak says:

      On the jobs question -his claims about being responsible for huge jobs growth iand deficit reduction in Texas ignore a important facts.

      His predecessors, including W, generated more jobs.

      He kept taxes down because he used federal $ to offset the state deficit.

      A large proportionof new jobs in Texas resulted from larger state government.

  3. ed says:

    Crime: Boy I don’t know. As a grad in criminology, that is my favorite.

  4. Dan says:

    I don’t know who had the worse night. Perry or Ashton Kutcher

  5. bigcitylib says:

    So after he’s nuked the first two countries, he’ll be open to suggestions.

  6. Ted says:

    President Perry: General, you have my authorization to commence bombing of… um… uh… Iraq.

    General: Iraq, sir?

    PP: Sorry, no. Relay, er, belay, er, cancel that order. General, you have my authorization to commence bombing of… um… uh… Israel?

    General: Israel is an ally, sir.

    PP: India?

    General: No, sir, not India.

    PP: Italy?

    General: No, sir. That’s where the Pope lives.

    PP: Gotcha. Lotta Catholic-y voters in the CPAC. Can’t be bombin’ them. Let’s see. I- I- I- I- Iceland?

    General: No, sir. Iran, sir? Did you mean Iran, sir?

    PP: You got ‘er there, General ol’ buddy. Let’s drop somma them bomb thingies on Eye-ran. There the ones ‘at gave us Celine Dion, hay? Now, by bombin’ them Eye-ran-ans, will the explosion be big enough to take out Moscow? I would sure luv to take out Moscow, too.

    General: No, sir. They are not proximate to each other.

    PP: Blast it, General. No usin’ those high fallutin’ words. If yous mean they ain’t close, just says so. But ja sees how I made one a them puns by sayin’ “blast it”? Get it? We’re talkin’ about bombin’ and I said blast it. Get it?

    General: I got it, sir. Very funny, sir. Shall I proceed to give the order, sir?

    PP: Ya. Go ahead. [Pause.] Do the bombs come with them cameras on? I’d a luv to see the faces of those there Eye-ran-ans as we blow them to bits.

    General: No, sir. There are no cameras on the nuclear bombs. You are thinking of the smart bombs, sir.

    PP: Too bad. Say, why don’t we get some cameras on those nuclear bombs too? Can’t anyone think up smart stuff like that, ‘cept for me? What’s wrong with our learnin’? We got to get the Secretary of Learnin’ onto that. What’s his name, again?

    General: Education, sir? Did you mean Secretary of Education?

    PP: Education, Learnin’. You know what I mean. Don’t be givin’ me no guff. Ya, Secretary of Education. What’s his name?

    General: There is no Secretary or Department of Education, sir. Remember? You got rid of them when you came into office.

    PP: Righto. Forgot ’bout that. No need for no Department of Learnin’ anyway, is there?

    General: Clearly not, sir.

  7. Giovanni says:

    Wow! What an embarrassment!

  8. Finn says:

    The winner last night?

    Obama

  9. frmr disgruntled Con now happy Lib says:

    Weve all had brain farts, but if the idjit didnt have the wherewithal to make a few notes, he doesnt deserve to be the Republican candidate….He probably got further on his looks than his brains….
    Besides, he’s giving gay men a bad name…..lol

    Looks and brains ARE a deadly combination……Mr. Kinsella is living proof…….

  10. Mark McLaughlin says:

    It’s a bit of an overstep to make general stereotypes based on THIS guy. He’s a fool no doubt, but the Conservative movement has no more oratorical idiots than the Progressives.
    Exhibit A – John McCallum
    Exhibit B – Joe Biden

    • Cameron Prymak says:

      for sure, but you have to admit that in this election season the situation on the right is truly unprecedented. each candidate is trying to outdo each other in appealing to the Tea Party and people with actual experience and qualifications like, Jon Huntsman, can’t get any traction.

  11. pomojen says:

    Come on out Gord…I’m waiting for you to say something. I swear, you are half the reason this site is more interesting to me than all those drunk or kid forums. Ex: http://www.forumopolis.com/showthread.php?t=95864

    These are interesting forums Gord. But instead of being sucked into those during coffee break, I am sucked into this non-blog, always wondering at times like these “Now, what will that funny old Gord say now?” And then you come on out, swinging your brain around and saying things I never IMAGINED you would say! It’s fascinating!

    You know what? Someday when people don’t have recent memory to help them figure it out, this could be a Drunk or Kid moment for Perry. Was he Drunk? A Kid? No! He was a (failed) GOP Candidate!

    New game: Drunk or Conservative.

  12. sharonapple88 says:

    Just don’t give him more than two options and Perry will be fine.

  13. steve says:

    The scary part, is even he thinks the Harper crime policy is stupid.
    http://www.avaaz.org/en/stop_harpers_cruel_crime_bill/?cl=1378420300&v=11036

  14. Torgo says:

    Well, he might if the only topics during the debate are alternate history and getting your wife to sign divorce papers while she’s the in the hospital for cancer treatment.

    • Jon Adams says:

      WK should post this:

      “We’re looking for someone with a big-kneed pedigree, significant knowledge of players at Valley Lodge, great taking-care-of-the-place skills, and quavering inflection wouldn’t hurt either. El Paso location.”

    • Dan says:

      Nailed it.

    • Bruce from Etobicoke says:

      That is your most pathetic post yet GT. The lines immediately preceding the quote you posted from Wiki are the part where the woman who was actually involved – Newt’s wife – said he surprised her by asking for a divorce while she was recovering from cancer surgery (note: often you find out it was benign after the surgery, but who wants to get picky with rewrites of history…)

      So you chose to skip over the actual words of the woman who was asked for the divorce while in her hospital bed in order to post the words of the daughter covering for her Dad after the fact. Smooth. Very smooth.

  15. “They’re dumber than liberals.” (WK)

    I wonder if you are applying that liberals are dumb. Da-dum!

  16. smelter rat says:

    “As for conservatives being dumber than liberals – Gingrich would make mincemeat out of Obama in a debate.”

    Careful Gord, you’re edging right up to the batshit looney line.

  17. Philippe says:

    I think you’re right Gord that 80% of the GOP primary voters are looking for someone more conservative than Romney. It’s a “shoot yourself in the foot” strategy, as Romney is clearly the most electable vs Obama (he would appeal to independents). I’ve said it before – the highjacking of the GOP by extreme elements (tea party) may in fact rip them apart. Just now, they’re just itching to nominate an unelectable candidate (that’s not my opinion, it’s the polls). The tea-partyers’ simplistic and uncompromising style is not doing your side any good- I happen to think it will cost you the election. Am I wrong?

  18. Philippe says:

    Jesus Gord, enough with the man of the past. Enough imploding candidates has left you with… Gingrich? Are you being serious…? It’s like diving into an old bin to re-use the old sponge that’s well past it’s useful life. Your only shot at Obama is Romney but your tea-baggers won’t vote for anyone that isn’t on their nutsy tree. It’s a tough situation – all the while Obama is swimming in cash.

  19. Cameron Prymak says:

    It’s beyond ironic to think that a man who has/had a $500K revolving line of credit at a jewelery store somehow aligns with the Tcommon sense/grass roots/populist Tea Party.

    If it’s Gingrich’s turn to be the next anti-Romney saviour you can bet the media scrutiny on him will be brutal.

  20. Derek Pearce says:

    No way. Obama would make Gingrich look like a joke. I’d LOVE to see a debate between those two.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*