Out and About on a Sunday Morning

Poll:  71% support five year ban on ex-Congresscritters lobbying.  I say, make it 10.

Mark Steyn has penned another of his doom-and-gloom articles about the United States.  I’d like to say he’s wrong, but that would be a lie…if we don’t get our debt under control, we’ll suffer a gigantic collapse, and in just a few years (my guesstimate is in 2015).  The bottom line is that we’d better elect someone in 2012 who will see to it that in 2014 we spend less money than in 2012…and I don’t mean “lower rate of growth” in spending, but an actual reduction.  $500 billion would be best, but even if its a mere dollar, it is a start.

Vogue dresses a 10 year old girl like a harlot and we’re actually having a debate about whether this should be.  A healthy society would flog the photographer and the magazine editor and move on  (did you just say, “flog”, Mark?  Yes, I did.  And I mean it – tie them to a post and lay 20 stripes with a bullwhip across their backs…it would carefully instruct them and provide a good lesson to all and sundry).  Add this to that small – but rapidly growing – list of things I’ll keep saying until everyone agrees with me, because I’m right:  we’re poisoning ourselves.  The filth we allow to flow in to our civilization is killing us.  We can easily call a halt…if we just have the courage to do it.

Over at Breitbart TV, a businesswoman carefully explains what is wrong with Obamunism.

Result of the culture of death – the world is short 163 million women.  Really great that we’ve “protected a woman’s right to choose”, huh?  I mean, we’re certain that birth control and abortion aren’t being used by men to determine what sort of children will be born, right?

Downgrade:  Obama will catch the flack.

From IMAO:  All Obama has proved himself to be during the whole time of his Presidency is lazy, ineffectual, duplicitous, pathologically narcissistic, petulant, inarticulate, and – apparently – nicotine-withdrawal-addled.




74 thoughts on “Out and About on a Sunday Morning

  1. Retired Spook August 7, 2011 / 10:24 am

    The gal on Cavuto’s show hit the nail on the head. What we need is someone who is good at fixing messes instead of someone who complains every day about the horrible mess he inherited.

    • Amazona August 7, 2011 / 10:40 am

      To hear Barry whine, you would think we dragged him, kicking and screaming, out of Illinois and locked him in the White House, where we proceeded to dump all this “inherited” stuff on him.

      To hear Barry whine, you’d never suspect what he had to do to get to the White House, much less that he promised to know what to do to fix the mess once we gave him a chance.

  2. Retired Spook August 7, 2011 / 10:45 am

    The bottom line is that we’d better elect someone in 2012 who will see to it that in 2014 we spend less money than in 2012…and I don’t mean “lower rate of growth” in spending, but an actual reduction.

    That is going to be extremely difficult to do.

    Current Operations: Social Security is currently running a deficit of tax income relative to annual expenditures. One of the headline findings of this year’s report is that this deficit will be a permanent feature of program finances, growing enormously in the future under current law. (Technically the program can no longer run a deficit after its trust fund is ultimately exhausted, but the deficit is permanent in the sense that benefit obligations will forever exceed tax income). This operating deficit emerged last year. Total program costs were $713 billion while $664 billion in tax revenues were collected, for a total deficit of $49 billion.

    This year, dedicated tax revenues will lag a full $151 billion behind payment obligations, meaning that Social Security’s operations will add $151 billion to the federal deficit. This is much bigger than last year’s shortfall primarily because the Social Security payroll tax has been temporarily reduced from 12.4% to 10.4%. That legislation that cut the payroll tax is also transferring $105 billion in (debt-financed) general revenues to the Trust Funds, making up part of the shortfall. The rest of the deficit will be made up with interest payments from the general fund to the Trust Fund.

    — snip —

    The cash deficits the program will experience in the years ahead under current law far exceed anything that Social Security has weathered in the past. Even by 2020, annual shortfalls would be greater than in the so-called “crisis” years of 1977 and 1982, and would yet be followed by still larger deficits.

    — snip —

    And WRT Medicare:

    Trust Fund Exhaustion: Trust Fund exhaustion is only a meaningful concept in Part A (HI) of Medicare, for reasons noted above. Under current projections, Medicare HI would be exhausted by 2024, five years earlier than last year’s report.

    Reasons for Deterioration: Medicare’s worsening is a much more complex story than with Social Security. The first thing to note is that HI Trust Fund Ratios are projected to be quite low for several years prior to exhaustion. Thus, it does not require a qualitative change in annual operations for the exhaustion date to move several years. Even in this year’s report, for example, the Trust Fund Ratio dips below 50 (i.e., holding assets that would fund less than six months of benefits) before the end of 2015, and hovers at low levels for many years before ultimately running out. It would not take great movement in the annual numbers for the exhaustion date to move several years again in the next report.

    Beyond that, the easiest superficial explanation is that with the economic recovery being weaker than expected, nominal Medicare revenues are now lower than previous projections while nominal costs are about the same, producing a net worsening. The real picture is more complex than that; there is an increase in real projected costs relative to the 2010 report as economy-wide compensation growth rates have been adjusted downward, but a full explanation of these factors would exceed the scope of this summary.

    Degree of Certainty: Simply put: Social Security’s future finances are qualitatively quite certain. Medicare’s are not – for several reasons.

    The first reason, noted repeatedly in the Trustees’ Report, is political uncertainty. Like the Congressional Budget Office the Trustees must score current law as it is given to us, whether it appears to be politically sustainable or not. Current law, for example, envisions a 29% reduction in physician payments in early 2012. Recent political history tells us this payment reduction will likely be overridden, but current law must be scored as it is.

    Read the whole thing; it’s pretty interesting.

    • neocon1 August 7, 2011 / 11:24 am

      never employed at a real job, never ran a business, an AA ACORN community agitator, adherent to a racist cult led by an insane fool and we are surprised why?

    • Amazona August 7, 2011 / 11:29 am

      spook, are you saying that prior administrations’ social engineering experiments have created a time bomb for future generations (that is to say, US) by ignoring the 10th Amendment’s restrictions on the scope of federal power and authority. and applying redistributionist philosophies to the national government?

      Did I sense a warning that additional circumventions of the Constitution and additional social engineering experiments, added to the ones you mentioned, will just enlarge the size of that time bomb till it has the capacity to blow up our entire economy ?

      • Retired Spook August 7, 2011 / 11:39 am

        spook, are you saying……….

        Yup, pretty much. As has been previously noted, we aren’t very many years away from the point where Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and interest on the debt will consume the entire budget unless changes are made soon. Clearly the present leadership in Congress (both parties) doesn’t have the moral or political will to make the necessary changes. It remains to be seen if the voters who put them there have the will to kick them out.

    • Mark Noonan August 7, 2011 / 8:57 pm


      The bad news is that we do need a massive reform of the tax code in order to increase revenues…but the problem is that our Democrats will simply never agree to real spending cuts. If we could genuinely get them to reduce spending by $100 billion, it would be very much worth it to have $50 billion in revenues increases….but they’ll never agree to a real cut, so increasing taxes works out to economic suicide.

      • Sunny August 8, 2011 / 11:17 am

        total nonsense. The Democrats will agree to real spending cuts. It is the Republicans who will never agree to increased revenues. Name one Republican who will make such an agreement and remain in office.

  3. Cluster August 7, 2011 / 11:28 am

    I believe the cure to many of our current problems would be to enact tax reform, and employ targeted government wrt to entitlements, ie: means testing. Tax reform will expand the tax base, and eliminate corporate loop holes, which are entirely politically driven and handed out by politicians in return for re election favors. The current tax structure invites corruption. Secondly means testing and targeted, government, at a more local level, that will actually help those who need in a much more meaningful way. By empowering our state and county governments to administer our safety net programs, more people will receive more aid at a reduced cost to the nation. It’s time we rethink our entire approach to governance, and after listening to Obama’s speech from just earlier this week, it’s obvious that the only solution he has is to spend more money and centralize control. This nation can not afford 4 more years of being stuck on stupid

    • Amazona August 7, 2011 / 11:32 am

      Cluster, again I ask for clarification.

      Are you suggesting a return to a Constitutional government in this nation, in which anything not delegated to the federal government is the responsibility of the States? (Or of the people?)

      Interesting idea…….

      • Cluster August 7, 2011 / 11:34 am

        I am advocating that Amazona, but I think someone else thought of it before I did.

      • Amazona August 7, 2011 / 11:43 am

        LOL, cluster. Perhaps you could provide a reference to who first had this idea and where it is formalized, for the edification of our Big Central Government folks.

      • Cluster August 7, 2011 / 11:49 am

        I think we will have to dust that document off Amazona, obviously nobody has read it in a long time.

      • Retired Spook August 7, 2011 / 11:57 am

        I think we will have to dust that document off Amazona, obviously nobody has read it in a long time.

        Nonsense, the Constitution is a “living” document, doncha know? I mean, the amendment process is so 1789. Why, if we relied solely on the actual process the founders put in the Constitution for change, we’d NEVER PROGRESS. Come on — get with the program.//sarc

    • Retired Spook August 7, 2011 / 11:33 am

      Tax reform will expand the tax base, and eliminate corporate loop holes, which are entirely politically driven and handed out by politicians in return for re election favors.

      And you believe that altruism will suddenly overcome those same politicians, and they will realize the error of their ways? Call me cynical, but………….

      No, seriously, I agree, Cluster. I just couldn’t resist taking a shot at the irony of your statement. The desire to get rid of such politicians is one of the driving forces behind the Tea Party movement.

      • neocon1 August 7, 2011 / 11:35 am

        That riot was among one of the most violent in the country’s history. It too was sparked by the death of a local resident after an encounter with the police.

        Journalist and Tottenham resident Rizwana Hamid, who covered the 1985 riots, said Saturday night’s violence was reminiscent of the earlier eruption in Tottenham, an ethnically mixed area which is home to one of London’s largest black communities.

      • Cluster August 7, 2011 / 11:42 am

        I am hoping that we have reached a tipping point in this country and that sensible politicians like Ryan and Rubio will lead the majority of common sense Americans down a new path of smaller, more effective, more local, and more efficient government.

        Ironically the irrational left claims that conservatives hope to bring about anarchy when we oppose their large centrally controlled idea of government and nothing could be further from the truth. Conservatives actually seek a government that works, and a large centralized bureaucracy is incompetent by it’s very definition. Localizing government is the only way to administer effective government.

      • Amazona August 7, 2011 / 12:08 pm

        As I try to explain to Libs, it’s easier to fire a governor than a president, and it’s easier to fire a state senator than a national one.

        Localized government puts the power and control back in the hands of the people, where it belongs.

        Again, I think of Thomas Sowell’s book Conflict of Visions, in which he explains the basic underlying personality differences by which some people see humanity as perfectible and therefore see the possibility of some individuals having such special characteristics that they can govern others, while some see the need for process to keep power from individuals and spread out over the population.

        Our Founding Fathers clearly saw the inherent dangers of the Unconstrained Vision, in which power can and even should be invested in a person or relatively small group of persons, and were just as clearly determined to establish a wide base of power, spread throughout the nation, in which local governments had the most authority and the central government the least.

        It worked great, when we tried it, and when we veered away from it we started to create the problems that are now blossoming as crises.

  4. Amazona August 7, 2011 / 11:41 am

    I’ve heard comments that we need to end lobbying, but I don’t see how that is possible. We are guaranteed access to our elected officials, and lobbying provided that access. However, it has become a monster and a cesspool of corruption, and an adjunct to Congressional abuse of power.

    I agree, no member of Congress, or family member of a member of Congress, should be allowed to work as a lobbyist or FOR a lobbyist or in any way connected with a lobbyist for a period of ten years after leaving Congress.

    Lobbying should be open and transparent. In other words, it can only take place in public, and be recorded. I know that Obama has lobbyists meet with his staff in a building apart from the White House, so there is no record of such meetings in the White House log. This kind of thing has to be made illegal. Lobbying to the President should be strictly limited, anyway, to the few areas in which the President has legal power and authority.

    In a perfect world, I guess I would have a large building with glass cubicles, in which Congresscritters would meet, openly, with lobbyists on certain appointed days at certain appointed times, with each meeting logged as to who was there and the purpose of the meeting. If it’s your job to meet with representatives of your constituency, then you schedule certain days and times to do just that—but only in a designated place.

    No gifts, no trips, no dinners or parties.

    This general kind of approach to lobbying, accompanied by a shift of real power back to the individual states, would solve a lot of the corruption and lobbying problems.

  5. Retired Spook August 7, 2011 / 11:50 am

    An interesting thought from the comments section of the IMAO linked post:

    And now, Seal Team 6, the single object of national pride since this administration took office (just not for Obama, who’s still trying to prosecute the CIA interrogators that got the intel that took out OBL), was just shot out of the sky. It was the most successful attack of its kind the Taliban has had in the entire war, and just happens to be Seal Team 6? Really? All of their missions are classified, and they fly in helicopters with some pretty hefty technology to keep them from getting knocked out of the sky like this. Will there be any type of investigation to figure out exactly how these 4th century toothless morons with almost no effective intelligence regarding our military operations happened to find Seal Team 6 and shoot them out of the sky? I’m guessing not.

    • Cluster August 7, 2011 / 12:43 pm

      ..all that matters is that the seals are dead,

      And who says liberals don’t support our military?

      • Feel the Fang August 7, 2011 / 7:26 pm

        Liberals as we know them now have not supported our military as of September 1, 1945. They have taken every opportunity since to destroy and denigrate American military might.
        Not to mention abaondon our allies. South Vietam anyone. Trust a communist? Yeah I trust em just about as far as I could throw one with my two arms.

  6. Retired Spook August 7, 2011 / 12:00 pm

    So far on this Sunday morning it’s Conservatives 17, trolls 0. They must all be at church. Of course is could just be that Media Matters doesn’t pay overtime.

    • Cluster August 7, 2011 / 12:09 pm

      I consider this thread thus far to be a healthy host body minus the parasites.

    • Amazona August 7, 2011 / 12:10 pm

      Yeah, and that means we can actually have discussions and not have to dodge the steaming piles of mental excrement our resident trolls leave wherever they stomp.

      • Amazona August 7, 2011 / 12:40 pm

        Speaking of steaming piles of mental excrement, here comes Sasan……

        Get a dictionary, Sassy. “misnomers”? I think not.

      • Cluster August 7, 2011 / 12:41 pm

        Well a parasite has latched himself onto the host body. Void of any intellectual response, he will simply try and distract and be a useful idiot for the centralized bureaucracy. Nothing to see here folks

  7. Cluster August 7, 2011 / 12:47 pm

    It’s time you stop acting as if the constitution is a bible. It’s not, it’s an imperfect document written by people which needs to be altered according the will of the people TODAY. – thomas

    Then why even have one at all? Thomas displays the disdain the left has for the document that formed the most civil rights minded, freedom loving country this world has ever seen.

    • thomasg0102 August 7, 2011 / 12:49 pm

      we have one because the constitution is still important. It’s a framework, a guideline, but by no means is it the end all be all of governance.

      and since when did the Europeans not have civil rights or freedom? I could swear my family in Europe has just as much freedom as we do here.

      Conservatives show their true dictatorial nature when they elevate the constitution to a religious level and act as if it’s words are scripture.

      • Cluster August 7, 2011 / 12:50 pm

        Everyone needs to make permanent note of this comment by thomas. He contends that it is dictatorial to want to govern according to the constitution.

        Liberals are truly insane, and must be defeated at all costs.

      • thomasg0102 August 7, 2011 / 12:53 pm

        Comment advocating physical assault on Conservatives deleted//Moderator.

      • Retired Spook August 7, 2011 / 1:50 pm

        Comment advocating physical assault on Conservatives deleted//Moderator.

        This is EXACTLY how we know who you are, Sasan. Regardless of your screen name, your comments ALWAYS devolve into nastiness, and advocating violence against Conservatives. Just like in your down-thread comment aimed at Cluster:

        “you’re backwards and need to be eliminated.”

        In the 7 + years I’ve been here, I can’t recall any commenter who has had such a clear and distinct MO. I’m glad the Moderator isn’t deleting all your comments, though. because you provide a case-study in the mental and verbal sludge that defines modern Leftists.

      • Cluster August 7, 2011 / 2:14 pm

        So from threatening lives to ageism to misogyny- you embody liberalism very well thomas.

      • Retired Spook August 7, 2011 / 3:22 pm

        it doesn’t matter who you think I am.

        Finally, Thomas, you’ve said something truthful and accurate. In the overall scheme of things, you matter very little, and on this blog, even less.

      • Amazona August 7, 2011 / 3:49 pm

        “thomas” states: “..by no means is it the end all be all of governance…”

        No, it is just the “end all and be all of governance” of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

        A law is a law is a law. The Constitution is the law of the land. Sorry you are so ignorant of what the Constitution is, or what it means. Not my problem.

        Now a desire to follow the law of the land is “dictatorial”? Again, too stupid for words. The Constitution a mere “framework”? He is totally stuck on stupid, but more to the point eager to remind us of it every opportunity.

        Did anyone say that Europeans do not have freedom or civil rights? Anyone? Then where is this mindless bleating coming from? Oh, yes, it’s little Sasan, squealing about something no one said, just so he can keep harping on his latest fantasy personality.

        Pocketa pocketa pocketa.

        As for being “adored” by any woman, much less by me, Sasan has proven himself to be delusional and this is just another example. Poor silly sap had to wait till he was in college to get to third base with a woman, and then he had to settle for the town pump. Yeah, like any female COULD “adore” the impotent little weasel. His weird attitude toward women indicates that not even his mommy cared much for him.

      • Amazona August 7, 2011 / 3:53 pm

        Hey, Sasan actually has an accomplishment he can be proud of! Finally!

        It is that through his own efforts and skill, he has managed to spend less time on this planet than other people.

        Wow. Way to go, Sassy!

        So what passes for political commentary from this sad little loser? Ageism, sexism, racism, and the incessant use of the word “filth”. Quite a portrait of our impotent little Persian poseur, isn’t it?

  8. Cluster August 7, 2011 / 12:49 pm

    I almost forgot, do you still contend that seat belts don’t save lives? – thomas

    That entirely depends on the accident. I can prove to you that seat belts have also cost lives. But maybe you can tell us why you support the right of a centralized bureaucracy telling us what we have to do in our own personal cars, on our own personal time.

    • thomasg0102 August 7, 2011 / 12:52 pm

      here we go again. what is it with your inability to admit you are wrong and move on?

      let’s play. go ahead and show me that seat belts do more harm than good. That is to say they cause more deaths than save.

      I really want to read this.

      with your logic, let’s all drink and drive, because it’s your body, your car, and your freedom. like I said. Mogadishu is great this time of year, especially after the islamist rebels withdrew from the capital.

      • Cluster August 7, 2011 / 1:05 pm

        thomas, there really is no more need for you to embarrass yourself here. You are clearly on record as being an advocate for a large centralized bureaucracy that manages your personal life down to the point where they tell you that you must wear a seat belt while driving your own car. If the entire reason is that it saves lives than why not ban smoking, why not ban rock climbing, who not ban scuba diving? All of those activities are risky, and the absence of said activities would surely save lives. I don’t expect you to grasp this argument, because you are a true believer in having a elite bureaucracy “care for your well being”. It’s sad.

      • thomasg0102 August 7, 2011 / 1:11 pm


        maybe in your simplistic mind, if something is dangerous, you simply ban it.

        in the MODERN progressive world, that’s now how it goes. You can do whatever you want in private. the moment you take on certain privileges, you have to follow the law in place.

        For dangerous activities, there is simply a warning. If you smoke, fine, just know that there are dangers associated with it. There is a simple marking on the cigarette box.

        But obviously, you’re to much of an idiot to realize that consumer safety should not be left in the hands of corporations whose goals and sole goal is to make a profit for their shareholders. That’s where the government comes in.

        Using your logic, let’s allow kids at any age to smoke and drink, after all, it’s freedom right?

        pathetic conservative.

      • Cluster August 7, 2011 / 1:16 pm

        Your entire defense of the seat belt law was that it save lives, but you don’t seem to be consistent with that defense as it applies to other public behavior. A lot rock climbing is done in public parks, and accident victims usually cost the tax payers money. Smoking costs lives, and many smokers rely on tax payers to pay for their medical expenses, yet you have yet to apply the same reasoning you do towards the use of seat belts, that is of course until your betters in the central bureaucracy say otherwise.I am sure then you will rush to their defense again.

      • thomasg0102 August 7, 2011 / 1:19 pm

        keep defending the indefensible – Cluster’s MO.

        Like I said before, conservatives like you need to be defeated and relegated to the dustbin of history. It’s far past time.

      • Cluster August 7, 2011 / 1:25 pm

        So you can’t explain your contradictory positions? That’s all you had to say. This hole you find yourself in is entirely self inflicted. Just stop digging ok sport?

      • thomasg0102 August 7, 2011 / 1:28 pm

        only a conservative would think that having seat belts in cars and enforcing it is against his freedom.

        Like I said, talking to you, discussion with you about certain issues is futile. you’re backwards and need to be eliminated.

        and the only person here who is digging is you. Thank god you’re in the minority and your demographic is dying. I couldn’t be happier.

        go out and golf ‘sport’

      • Cluster August 7, 2011 / 1:35 pm

        I sense a little hostility sport, what’s wrong?

      • dvindice August 7, 2011 / 1:39 pm

        With the subject of admitting when your wrong tommy boy, remember when you said that the talk of America’s credit rating being downgraded would never happen? Are you ready to admit you were wrong are are you just going to continue advocating physical assaults on people that disagree with you like the natural born coward that you are?

      • thomasg0102 August 7, 2011 / 1:40 pm


        only one of the three has downgraded the rating. Obviously i thought all three would maintain it, but I was wrong. I have no problem admitting I was wrong.

        Let me ask you this. do you think seat belts save lives and impede on your freedoms?

      • neocon1 August 7, 2011 / 1:43 pm


        poor lil sasan cant take the heat.
        I’ll tell you what sasan take off your turban and cool down a bit.

      • neocon1 August 7, 2011 / 1:45 pm


        advocating physical assaults on people that disagree with you like the natural born coward that you are?

        tommy-sasan and flash mobs??
        who’d a thought

      • thomasg0102 August 7, 2011 / 1:49 pm


        you have any evidence? or are you like amazona and “think” you know who someone is. this delusion is great.

        why don’t you answer a simple question.

        Do seat belts save lives? do you think seat belts impede on your freedom?

      • Cluster August 7, 2011 / 2:01 pm


        as usual you are missing the point of the argument. There are statistics that prove that seat belts save lives, but there are also examples of where they don’t, but that is not the premise of the argument. The premise is that seat belts only endanger the individual, and the government is over reaching in mandating their use.

        “Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves.”
        — Ronald Reagan

      • neocon1 August 7, 2011 / 2:09 pm


        Do seat belts save lives? do you think seat belts impede on your freedom?

        1. sometimes
        2. yes

        do you think flash mobs hurt businesses?
        do they hurt people?
        are they racist?

      • Amazona August 7, 2011 / 3:59 pm

        Sassy does love to snarl about “conservatives”, doesn’t he?

        Yet he has never said a single word to indicate, even just HINT, that he has the slightest idea of what a conservative IS.

        Of course he is equally ignorant of the political system he supports and enables by his incessant flailing at what he seems to think is his enemy, and those who represent it.

        Yep, that’s Sasan for you—-an equal opportunity ignoramus.

      • Dvindice August 7, 2011 / 9:59 pm

        Tommy boy, you not the complete coward I thought you were. Good job.

        Seat belts? Odd distraction but anyway, they help more than they hurt though there are cases where had a person been wearing a seat belt they would have been killed.

        Drinking and driving? futher distractions… ok.

        Not wearing a seat belt only hurts the person not wearing it.
        Drinking and driving hurts more than the drunk driver.


  9. Amazona August 7, 2011 / 4:06 pm

    OK, enough of letting a sociopath drive the thread. We know Sasan is crazy, Sasan knows Sasan is crazy, we know Sasan is thomas, Sasan knows Sasan is thomas, we know Sasan is incapable of posting anything but spite and malice, Sasan knows Sasan is incapable of posting anything but spite and malice. The subject is covered—let’s move on.

    I liked this comment by Mark Steyn: ” “Cutting federal spending by $900 billion over ten years” is Washington-speak for increasing federal spending by $7 trillion over ten years. And, as they’d originally planned to increase it by eight trillion, that counts as a cut. If they’d planned to increase it by $20 trillion and then settled for merely $15 trillion, they could have saved five trillion. See how easy this is?”

    It is an excellent distillation of the farce that is the recent legislation. (Farce, not Farsi—calm down, Sasan.)

    I hope we use this kind of illustration in the upcoming election cycle.

    • Amazona August 7, 2011 / 5:00 pm

      Mark Steyn IS an American, a naturalized American citizen.

      I scorned and despised you, Sasan, even when you were not hiding behind an assumed name. There has never been a time when any aspect of your personality or intellect, such as it is, ever generated anything but contempt. “Admire”? Just another of your foolish fantasies, along with the fantasy that your toxicity can be hidden behind a new name. It oozes from your every word, and is as identifiable as your DNA.

      And your silly ongoing efforts to pretend you have not been caught are equally identifiable, reminding us of your equally fraudulent bleating about not being a Persian, really being Norwegian, having a fiancee, etc.

      You stated on your online job resume that you speak Farsi. What’s the matter, can’t keep up with your lies?

      I have my proofs, and as I have told you, I will not reveal them because I am sure you will try to weasel your way back into this blog under yet another name, with yet another invented personality, and I will need to use my tactics again to lure you into revealing yourself. When a poker player spies a tell, he does not inform the other player that he knows. He just keeps playing, and just keeps winning.

  10. Feel the Fang August 7, 2011 / 5:19 pm

    Rats my sock puppet missed most of fun today.

    • Amazona August 7, 2011 / 5:37 pm

      ..if by “fun” you mean having the blog derailed by a delusional troll. You have undoubtedly noticed his refusal to do anything but hurl what are evidently supposed to be insults (though typically impotent and ineffective) and the inability to discuss the thread topic.

      • Feel the Fang August 7, 2011 / 5:52 pm

        Are you expecting anything more from Thomas? LOL I am surprised he was this “nice”

  11. Cluster August 7, 2011 / 6:13 pm


    Rather than blather on, and hurl insults like a ten yr old, as you always do, how about if you actually argue your case? I will get you started.

    I, thomas, believe that a large, bureaucratic federal government is the best governance for America because….

  12. Feel the Fang August 7, 2011 / 6:44 pm

    I for one petition to have the deleted comments restored. They are an accurate portrayal of the rabid lennist. An example if you will of how they think. If we delete how they really are how can anyone be taught on how not to behave?

    Anyone else?//Moderator

    • Feel the Fang August 7, 2011 / 7:13 pm

      My sock puppet agrees for what it is worth 🙂

    • Amazona August 7, 2011 / 8:39 pm

      Fang, you can get an excellent idea of what the rabid Leninist is all about from just a post or two—you don’t need to have the whole blog hijacked by some loser who is so desperate for attention—-any kind of attention—that he is obsessed with dumping his mental excrement on the blog just to get a reaction.

      As for our resident trolls, they don’t even qualify as Leninists. They are clueless. They are completely ignorant of the ideology of the system they support and enable, and what’s more couldn’t care less. They are equally ignorant of the system they so rabidly attack, and want’s more, they couldn’t care less.

      All they care about is exhibiting their personality disorders, and for some reason seem to think that if they do so on a political blog their insanity will be excused, validated, as political commentary. But they don’t have the slightest clue about politics, and what’s more they couldn’t care less.

      They are simply sad, simple-minded, hate-driven losers, the blog equivalent of flashers on the street, willing to debase themselves over and over again just to get attention.

      if you ever find a web site where the Leftists know,understand and defend the political system they support, let us know. But we haven’t seen it here, and we won’t.

      I say purge the blog of these speed bumps and blog vandals. If any of them ever posts anything worth looking it, reconsider. So far it is obvious that is not likely.

    • Feel the Fang August 7, 2011 / 9:23 pm

      Amazona. Yet who are you to decide who is a blog vandal or not? Thomas/Erik/Sasan/ or whoever he/she/it/is is a perfect example of what consevatives are fighting against. Let him rant , rave , and make a fool of himself all he wants. If you want censorship, and yes I know this us a privately owned blog and the owner or moderators can do as they wish, Please start posting at democratundergound or littlegreen footballs, or firedoglake,or daileykos, I am sure you get the picture.
      Sooner or later the censorship snake comes back and bites it’s own hand. I would council against any censorship by anyone that professes to belive in our Constitution.
      If you want to be no better than them, this is your perogitive. I have a different opinion as is my perogitive.

      • Retired Spook August 7, 2011 / 11:15 pm


        Believe it or not, we (the Conservatives here) welcome people with different views, especially ones who can articulate why they hold the views that they do. We don’t get too many, because support of what I like to call the modern Leftist movement is not easy to articulate without relying substantially on lying and obfuscation. I can respect someone who understands what they believe and why they believe it, even if I don’t agree with them. Believe me when I say Thomas is not such an individual. He’s just a lonely hearts reject who comes here to vent his frustration. If you’ve ever gotten in a verbal argument with an unexamined Liberal, you know that as soon as they run out of talking points, they almost always start calling you names. It’s a pretty standard playbook, and Thomas has it memorized.

      • Green Mountain Boy August 7, 2011 / 11:59 pm

        And what would deleting all of Thomas’s post really accomplish? What would banning him really accomplish? Anything at all? You can hardley ever accuse me of agreeing with anything he says can you?
        If you will to censor him that says a lot about who you really are. What will you be willing to sensor next?
        Me? because I dont agree with you 100% of the time?

        It isn’t about disagreement. It’s about nasty personal attacks, something you rarely, if ever, engage in. Perhaps I should quit and let you be Moderator.//Moderator

      • Green Mountain Boy August 8, 2011 / 1:07 am

        It’s your blog. You can do with it what you want. You want to quit and make me the Moderator? Go ahead. You have my email. Thomas has called me just about everything but a white boy and I don’t believe I have ever called for him to banned or his posts deleted en masse.
        Can’t handle the heat ? Get the hell out of the kitchen.

      • Green Mountain Boy August 8, 2011 / 1:43 am

        And “moderator” just to make it perfectly clear. I am not defending anyone for making personal attacks.

        Would this be considered a personal attack?
        ” Poor silly sap had to wait till he was in college to get to third base with a woman, and then he had to settle for the town pump. Yeah, like any female COULD “adore” the impotent little weasel. His weird attitude toward women indicates that not even his mommy cared much for him.”
        If you would like I will supply you with a plethora(you like that word? I bet you thought i didn’t even know it existed) of comments like that. How does this type of comment add to the discussion?

      • Amazona August 7, 2011 / 11:31 pm

        Hey Fang, chill a little, OK?

        There is a huge difference between a difference of opinion and a litany of racist, ageist, sexist, vulgar, personal attacks.

        Thanks for inviting me out……..but no thanks. You don’t think I get to decide who is a “blog vandal” and I don’t let you decide where I get to post. I will tell you how I define a blog vandal—-it is someone whose posts are designed not to further discourse and move the discussion forward, or to contribute to an exchange of ideas and sharing of philosophies, but merely to stop it in its tracks, derail discourse, and shift the blog into nothing but a sewer of attacks.

        It’s like a bicycle race. Some are riding, some are cheering, some are supporting with water and snacks, and then some lurk looking for a chance to dart out and ram a stick through the spokes of the bikes. The latter are what I call blog vandals. The contribute absolutely nothing but only want to disrupt what others are doing.

        I have been asking Libs on this blog, for over five years now, to explain their political philosophies so we can actually engage in discussions of real politics. One has, only one, over all these years, and after he stated his belief that he thinks big strong central government is good and that states should be subservient to the feds, he went right back to name-calling.

        If all YOU want to read is a litany of mindless attacks on a non-existent Right and imagined conservatives, there are plenty of places where you can find that. Why bother with a blog that tries to sort this out?

      • Green Mountain Boy August 7, 2011 / 11:47 pm

        I have read this blog a lot longer than I posted here.My question would be here is. Why are you even bothering to ask people like Thomas what thier philosophy is? They pretty much just toe the standard donk party line. All you have to do is ask yourself how Thomas would answer your questions. You should know how he would answer by now.
        But even if all Thomas ever posts is nothing but drivel and it is, if you start down the censorship path, it is hard to find your way back. Censorship, even on a blog is in my view the antithesis of what conservatives stand for. The first amendment guarentees us the right to freedom of speech. It does not mean we have to respond to it. The thing that Thomas hates the most is in my view is being ignored. Lets just ignore him some and see what happens.

  13. Cluster August 7, 2011 / 6:47 pm

    Speaking of brain dead liberals

    COKIE ROBERTS: This group of people in New York [Standard and Poor’s] is actually talking about more government rather than less government, Congressman. In fact, the reason they like France and Great Britain is because they’re parliamentary systems where the majority gets what it wants no matter what. And the problem that we have here is the Constitution of the United States of America which actually does require people to come together from different perspectives whether it’s divided government or not. We have divided branches of government under any circumstance.

    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/08/07/cokie-roberts-problem-we-have-here-constitution-united-states-america#ixzz1UNzVXwFQ

  14. Feel the Fang August 7, 2011 / 7:22 pm

    “To each according to thier need and to each according to thier ability”. The first tenent of leftism/marxism/lenninism.
    Thomas do you feel you are qualified to decide what I need and what my ability is? If not you then who? And why?

Comments are closed.