So you don't care if the Bush tax cuts are extended or not. You said it right there. You want Giannoulias to win and you don't care if taxes go up.
And YOU hold yourself up as a better conservative than anybody else??? Don't make me laugh. You are just a petulant child who, if he doesn't get 100% of what he wants, takes his ball and goes home.
Ronaldus Magnus was a lot more mature than you are -- thank God. He knew he needed Mark Kirk-type Republicans to make a Republican majority and he campaigned for plenty of them. If Ronaldus Magnus were alive today, he would tell you you should be ashamed of yourself.
“So you don’t care if the Bush tax cuts are extended or not. You said it right there. You want Giannoulias to win and you don’t care if taxes go up.”
To most conservatives (yourself excluded) the lives of babies are FAR more important than money. LIFE, LIBERTY and the pursuit of happiness. The first and BY FAR most important of these values is LIFE. I am sorry if that pains you. Wait, no I’m not.
“So you don’t care if the Bush tax cuts are extended or not. You said it right there. You want Giannoulias to win and you don’t care if taxes go up.”
To most conservatives (yourself excluded) the lives of babies are FAR more important than money. LIFE, LIBERTY and the pursuit of happiness. The first and BY FAR most important of these values is LIFE. I am sorry if that pains you. Wait, no I’m not.
LMAO!!! I knew this argument had to come up sooner or later. It's on the standard talking points memo of every Kirk supporter. We explain to you that we oppose Kirk because he agrees with Democrats on the MAJORITY of issues, and you come back and argue we're against Kirk because we only support Republicans who agree with us 100% of the time.
How do you explain the fact I supported Scott Brown then? Or Norm Coleman? Or Mike Dewine? How about the FACT I only voted for McCain for President in 2008, but campaign for him (check the FR achieves) if you don't believe me. How about the fact I've been rooting for Joseph Cao in Louisiana? Do you think I agree with all those people "100%" of the time? More strawman arguements. Why must Kirk supporters always resort to lies in order to promote Mark Kirk?
Again, let me remind you the only one demanding "100% purity" is Kirk supporters. Kirk supporters resort to demonizing conservative activists who routinely support 90% of the Republicans on the ballot. But that's not good enough for you, is it? You demand we support 100% of the Republican nominees, and if you refuse to do so you spread a smear campaign that we're all Democrat moles, traitors, Harry Reid supporters, etc., etc.
It's interesting how you so richly represent the very thing you accuse other people of being. If you want to see a narrow-minded Republican who demands 100% purity from other Republicans, look in the mirror.
You are hardly the spokesman for what Ronald Reagan would do. Reagan's words speak for themselves. Here is Ronald Reagan's answer to you about Kirk-style "Republicans" wanting our support:
=================================================
“We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support. Turning the Party over to the so-called moderates wouldn’t make any sense at all.”
—Ronald Reagan
Laugh all you like. They say it's good for your heart and circulation. Cackle if you wish. I don't hold myself to be a better conservative than anybody else. If I am, I am and if I'm not, I'm not. I am, however, a better conservative than many and certainly a better conservative than those who would inflict baby-killing lavender queen "GOP" senators on this state and nation in order to grub a few more pennies for themselves and themselves alone out of tax cuts on the skyscraper share of your income. As I previously posted, you (on that portion of your income alone) have already reaped a massive tax cut courtesy of social conservatives supporting Reagan and not caring a whit about your money-grubbing obsessions nor benefiting from those obsessions or your tax breaks. The babies continue to be sliced, diced and hamburgerized, thanks to ideological traitors to Republicanism like Nancyboy and you who provide Queen Nancyboy with knee-jerk support and adulation.
Cutting taxes on families of modest means should come first. Virtually the entire Congress, Demonrat and Republican agree on those cuts. If the GOP is genuinely stupid enough to risk the loss of the overwhelming outrage of the public to take care of spoiled overfed whiny crybabies like you, then the GOP (and the nation) will pay the price in 2012 and Comrade Obamao will probably get four more years to nominate social revolutionaries and baby-killers to SCOTUS and to bring an end to our civilization and the finest country this world has ever seen.
You post as though there is something wrong with strategically electing Giannoulias instead of hypocritically making believe that Nancyboy is some kind of Republican. If Nancyboy is a Republican so is George McGovern. Giannouilias is a lightweight and easily disposed of in many ways BUT NOT BY KIRK or anything like him. In Illinois, the first order of business is destroying the Combine, its marionettes like Nancyboy and their willing windtunnel servants. (Oh, Muffy, those conservatives are just awwwwful! They don't mind electing Democrats so they can take OUR political party away from US! AND, they don't care about OUR tax cuts! AND they care about babies and guns, Oh, ick!, Muffer, they just make my head hurt!) Then and only then will Illinois have a Republican Party. Then and only then can Illinois do its part for America. Conservatives cannot and will not trade the lives of any more babies for tax cuts for the impossibly and relentlessly greedy at the top.
"You are just a petulant child who, if he doesn't get 100% of what he wants, takes his ball and goes home." I don't understand the technology of computers well enough to insert your quotes but you need to get back on your meds if that sentence has any meaning to you. Or you need to get back to the mental hospital for a tuneup. Everyone will benefit if the Bush tax cuts are extended at $250,000 income or less. You just don't get that delicious maraschino cherry on top of your sundae and for guys like you the ice cream and chocolate sauce and whipped cream are just not enough as they should be for mere mortals whose income is less than yours. You want your taxes cut. If the babies must keep being slaughtered, who cares, right? If marriage, as an institution, is destroyed by perversion posing as "marriage", so what, right? If guns are grabbed and the peasants disarmed, it's only sensible, right? If wars are lost and military are killed, well that doesn't effect you so why should you care and, besides, it might allow for further tax cuts for the spoiled and greedy, right, saving all that money by letting our enemies run wild and unobstructed? That's Nancyboy's foreign policy too. You want those damned upper bracket tax cuts as passionately as Princess Lisa Mookowski wants HER hereditary senate seat. Her Daddy used to have it. He appointed her to it and, gosh darn it, its hers, HERS!!! do we understand! WHO is a petulant child??? You can have the ball and puhleeeeeze just go home but we are taking the senate seat back the hard way. Lieberman was a great replacement for trash like Lowell Weicker. We took Weicker's senate seat from him and Nancyboy isn't getting one to begin with. Somehow, I do not remember Ronaldus Maximus campaigning for Weicker after 1968 when Weicker ran for Congress as a conservative (probable former Bircher) on the genuinely conservative money of Gordon Reed, the Milbanks and the Middendorfs. Weicker stabbed all of those guys in the back. They raised or gave $600,000 to Reagan's 1966 campaign for California governor. He came to Connecticut simply because those guys asked him to come. Planned Barrenhood Goldwater came to Connecticut pleading for Weicker in his hour of need as did Orrin Hatch and we told them both to go home and mind their own business.
I don't claim to be a better conservative than you are. That comparative does not apply since you are not a conservative at all. Nor is Nancyboy Kirk and he does not know what goes where on top of his sorry voting record and life. I am and have been a conservative activist for more than fifty years on a wide range of issues (in which context, your level of taxation on your marginal income is near the bottom of any sensible list of ideological priorities) and I have the resume to show for it. You don't have one which is why you dare not try to post one.
And stop the rank dishonesty about "extending the Bush tax cuts." The only Bush tax cuts in question are those which apply on income over $250,000 per year. The only other cuts in jeopardy would be the end of the marriage penalty which IS a war worth fighting because the marriage penalty frosts the cookies of the anti-marriage set. OTOH, lavender hoopla posing as marriage has NO right to favorable tax treatment as though it were somehow equivalent to marriage. Somehow neither you nor Nancyboy seem to understand that. I can formulate my own positions far more accurately than you can formulate them for me. I care very much about the taxes of Americans. I care but much less in comparison as to what YOU have to pay on income above $250,000 per year. People who think that conservatism exists to lower your taxes on that high income to the exclusion of far more important issues like guns, babies, marriage, military, etc., are parasites on the conservative body politic. Depriving them of that desire may become necessary to teach them some manners and remind them of real world priorities. They are all hat and no cattle, as they say in Texas.