Obama’s Re-election Strategy

Is Obama trying to lose the election?  The current disconnect with reality and desire to pander to every far left cause has me wondering if Obama is trying to lose, is he just this clueless, or, as Rush noted recently, is he simply confident that he has bought enough votes to assure his re-election?

The keystone pipeline was a no brainer, and could have boosted consumer confidence to a new level resulting in higher approval numbers for Obama, not to mention bringing unemployment down, creating good paying jobs, and stimulating the local economy of many towns along the way, but Obama chooses to pander instead to environmental extremists.

The recent constitutional over reach with respect to religious liberties was another bone-headed move and not very well thought out, although it appears the move may be the first broadside in an effort to shift the political conversation away from abortion to “the GOP wants to ban contraception”.  I guess we’ll find out in a few months if that’s a viable strategy.

The fact that Obama is talking out of both sides of his mouth with respect to the individual mandate in Obamacare, on one hand calling it a tax, and on the other calling it a fine, depending on the audience, was largely overlooked by the MSM. But then his budget director got caught on camera saying this.  So either the OMB Director committed perjury before Congress or the Solicitor General will be perjuring himself before the Supreme Court.  Either way, it should be interesting.

Obama’s allegiance to AG Holder and turning a blind eye to Fast and Furious, would be a huge controversy were it not for complicity of the MSM. To date, no one has been fired, much less prosecuted.

The recent call for significant nuclear disarmament at a time when the threat level is at a post-Cold War high, and the continued indifference to the action in Egypt, Syria, etc., may pander to the far Left, but the majority of Americans have to see these actions as detrimental to America’s future.

Obama proves once again that he is not a serious president by submitting a budget with a deficit that adds another 1.3 trillion of debt, when it was just 4 years ago while campaigning he called Bush unpatriotic for much smaller deficits. When the GOP finally lands on a nominee, the conversation will be about Obama, and not only can he not defend his record, his own words will be used against him to a point that everyone will finally realize that he is not a serious president.

America is slipping into a malaise of mediocrity under his guidance and if he is reelected, we may have federal school officials checking our kids’ lunch boxes for the proper nutrition ……… Oh wait.

This president has abdicated leadership and is the most partisan president this country has ever had. The only things Obama has improved in the last three years are his bank account and golf game.

Thanks to Cluster for most of the content for this post.//RS

246 thoughts on “Obama’s Re-election Strategy

  1. Bob February 16, 2012 / 1:19 pm

    Why isn’t there anyone in this country with enough courage and authority to initiate steps to have Barack Obama impeached or at least removed from any ballots as a possible candidate for the office of President of these United States?

    • Amazona February 16, 2012 / 8:22 pm

      Bob, at this late date I think such an action would be counterproductive. Letting Barry play the Victim Card as well as the Race Card is not going to help much, and it would take us far beyond November to get it resolved.

      Let’s just let him shoot himself in the foot for the next few months, get a good candidate, support whoever we nominate, and deal with him that way.

      I suggest that we have Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal figure out the best tribunal for determining, once and for all, the legal definition of “natural born citizen” and if they end up being disqualified, well, so be it. This would also have the effect of pointing out that this is what responsible political parties DO—they vet their potential candidates, and they resolve issues before getting people elected and engaging in activities for which they may not be legally qualified.

      But we can’t unring the Obama bell. We are stuck with it.

      • Bob February 16, 2012 / 9:11 pm

        All that it might take is one election board in one state to force the Democratic party to prove that Barack Obama is a legitimate candidate for the office of President. Other candidates in the process are being asked to submit tax reports and other papers to strengthen their claims to the nomination of the Republican party for this office. Why isn’t Barack Obama being forced to do the same by the Democratic party? If they allow his questionable credentials to go unchallenged in this important matter, I’m afraid that the “rule of law” in this country has been “trumped” by the practice of popular “power politics”, which means that our country will become subject to the “rule” of those who are “popular” enough to be elected to positions of “power” from which they can set the policies that will govern us all.

  2. Green Mountain Boy February 16, 2012 / 1:21 pm

    “America is slipping into a malaise of mediocrity under his guidance” Spook.

    This is exactly as intended. He has been very successful in this. Where was the opposition? Oh wait, they went right along with it.

    Let the excuses fly.

    • James February 16, 2012 / 2:45 pm

      What slipping are you talking about? He inherited a mess and is trying to clean it up.

      If anything, America slipped in this malaise under Bush and is now just starting to recover.

      • Amazona February 16, 2012 / 8:29 pm


        Don’t you guys ever get tired of this old whine and snivel routine?

        Bush inherited a recession from Clinton, and instead of pitching a pity party he just went to work fixing it.

        He also inherited a disasterous social engineering scheme foisted upon the American people by a bunch of Leftists determined to interfere in the marketplace by the use of legislation, and predicted the mess it was inevitably going to create.. That was the source of the recession in the first place, and you guys just ignore that and focus on this sniveling about how poor poor Barry just INHERITED this economic turndown.

        Well, you know what? It was in play before he was elected, and he knew it, and he said he could fix it. He could have backed off and left the field open to someone with a little economic sense, but no, he had to try out even more cockamamie Leftist schemes, and only made it worse.

      • J. R. Babcock February 16, 2012 / 9:13 pm

        Bush inherited a recession from Clinton, and instead of pitching a pity party he just went to work fixing it.

        Our LIbs obviously don’t remember that between the 2000 primaries and Bush’s inauguration, the NASDAQ dropped nearly 50%. The joke of the day was that 401Ks had become 201Ks. Then, just about the time it looked like things were recovering, 9/11 hit. Then after that, it was Katrina. Obama hasn’t had any of the adversity that Bush was confronted with, and still the best he can do it blame Bush.

  3. doug February 16, 2012 / 2:25 pm

    Guaranteed election strategy winner for Obama: Run gas prices up to $5 a gallon by August first. Give speech to American people that that is not acceptable and he will do everything he can to lower the prices and stop the gauging by the evil oil companies…..then miraculously have the gas prices drop to $1.50 a gallon by October (through behind the scenes manipulation and threats).

    Really, he doesn’t have to do anything more than that.

    • RetiredSpook February 16, 2012 / 9:18 pm

      Yeah, Doug, that strategy worked so well for McCain. Bush recinded the Clinton-era executive order banning new off-shore drilling, and, between June, 2008 and November, 2008, the price of gas dropped from around $4/gal. to $1.50. Still, I wouldn’t put it past BHOzo to try something like that.

    • carltonpryor February 17, 2012 / 5:19 pm

      Clearly, Doug, you know very little of how the petroleum markets work or anything about supply and demand.

      • neocon1 February 17, 2012 / 6:13 pm


        nor do you forker……how is fantasy islend treating you lately?
        A bit slow? maybe that is why you turds are landing here?

  4. James February 16, 2012 / 2:37 pm


    Did you see his approval numbers? Did you see the unemployment claims today? Have you seen his head to head against Santorum and Romney?

    Have you not noticed the reduced turnout for the GOP in all states since Florida?

    Talk about living in a bubble….keep on believing what you want, when we get him reelected to 4 more years, and take back the House….you’ll be left wondering why the American people tossed you aside.

    • Cluster February 16, 2012 / 2:46 pm

      James, james, james,

      Once the GOP nominee is selected, the narrative will be all about Obama and his record, which is abysmal. In addition to that, the GOP will make sure that Fast & Furious becomes widely known, and that alone could sink Obama. If it weren’t for the complicit media, Holder would have already resigned over an agenda driven covert operation that resulted in the death of a border guard and 1400 weapons still in the hands of narco terrorists, resulting in tens of thousands of deaths in Mexico.

    • James February 16, 2012 / 2:46 pm

      Also, you never mentioned what level the stock market was at the day Obama took office and where it’s at today?

      Can you please dig up those numbers for us?

      • Cluster February 16, 2012 / 3:44 pm

        Interesting you should note the stock market – I clearly remember liberals claiming that the stock market only benefited the rich when Bush was in office and the dow climbed to over 13,000. Do you remember that James? What changed? I would be interested to know.

        Here’s some more numbers to dig up – what was the debt in January 2009?

        Barack Obama, July 2008 – The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents — #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.

      • James February 16, 2012 / 3:49 pm

        maybe you like being an idiot, but in general, about 50% of the people in this country have some sort of stake in the stock market.

        not to mention, the market is a leading indicator…while unemployment is a lagging indicator of the economy.

        you talk about debt in 2009 as if that’s Obama’s fault. He came into office while the economy was crashing and on the verge of depression.

        You’re welcome, he saved you and the nation, and now we are on the way back to prosperity.

        You’re welcome sport.

      • Cluster February 16, 2012 / 3:58 pm

        James throws out the pejoratives – typical of liberals who are usually emotionally unstable and quick to anger.

        So James, are you denying that liberals used the rich angle in terms of the down back when Bush was president? Or are you now admitting the truth? It can only be one or the other. And if 50% of Americans are in the stock market, isn’t that unfair to the other 50%?

        And unemployment is a lagging indicator? How long is the lag James? 4 years? 5 years? I remember in 2009 when this line was used, so just curious as to how long the lag is. And should we count everyone? Or just those that are still looking?

        Do you think Obama was lying when he scolded Bush on the debt? Or was he pandering? Because again, it can only be one or the other.

        Or maybe Obama is just a complete idiot – my guess is the latter. Of course I know you think Obama is a genius and savior – which certainly doesn’t speak well for you.

      • tiredoflibbs February 16, 2012 / 3:59 pm

        Tommy-boy: “50% of the people in this country have some sort of stake in the stock market. ”

        So obAMATEUR and the rest of the liberal looters lied when they said the stock market only benefited the rich.

        Thanks for acknowledging that.

      • James February 16, 2012 / 4:07 pm

        has it ever occurred to you that if you have a mutual fund, 401k, 403b, or IRA…you’re in the stock market…

        you don’t have to be rich to be in the market….but rich people do benefit from the stock market more….that’s a fact.

        again, thanks for your built in excuse after you lose the election!

      • Cluster February 16, 2012 / 4:10 pm

        you don’t have to be rich to be in the market….but rich people do benefit from the stock market more….that’s a fact. – James

        Then why the glee over the stock market?? How many poor people are those rich people screwing to get their profits? You are being very inconsistent here James. Of course inconsistency is part and parcel to the liberal agenda.

      • James February 16, 2012 / 4:20 pm

        Have fun losing the election clueless.

        I like how you twist and squeeze yourself into a position that’s completely untenable and wrong. But hey, to each his own.

        I am sure this President will win reelection. I am ready for one to toss people like you, neostupid, spook and libbs aside.

        Make way for a new generation!

      • Cluster February 16, 2012 / 4:32 pm

        Make way for a new generation!

        You got that right!

        Marco Rubio – VP 2012
        POTUS 2016

      • Amazona February 16, 2012 / 8:34 pm

        And once again, allow me to point out yet another hysterical litany of sourness and spite from a Liberal, which somehow manages to completely avoid politics in favor of just wallowing in irrational hatred of —-well, of something.

        With Libs, you’re never quite sure. Bush is usually in there somewhere, and “conservatives” though this category goes undefined, as a definition would require actual thought and even some degree of understanding of political systems.

        James is just another of those social misfits who has found a home on the Left, where his hostility and general personality disorders are validated, encouraged, and praised, where he can pretend he is a political commentator instead of just nasty. But there is never any actual POLITICS in his rants.

      • carltonpryor February 17, 2012 / 5:29 pm

        Cluster so you will not misspeak because of ignorance of matters economic:

        Leading indicators:

        Average weekly jobless claims
        Manufacturers’ new orders for good or materials
        Vendor performance
        Manufacturers’ new orders for non-defense capital goods
        Average weeklymanufacturing hours
        Money Supply

        Lagging indicators:

        The average duration of unemployment
        The value of outstanding commercial and industrial loans
        The ratio of consumer credit outstanding to personal income

        Unemployment rate is a coincident indicator meaning it’s change is a real time indicator of the economy.

      • neocon1 February 17, 2012 / 6:15 pm


        manipulated data BFD
        now….back to HELL with ya RP

      • tiredoflibbs February 17, 2012 / 11:33 pm

        Forker: “Unemployment rate is a coincident indicator meaning it’s change is a real time indicator of the economy.”

        Not when the calculus for unemployment ignores millions of people who are no longer looking for work because they have given up due to lack of jobs. What better way to decrease unemployment by not counting ALL of the unemployed.

        The CBO calculates real unemployment at 15%. So those facts indicate the economy is not doing as well as the obAMATEUR says, but it makes the mindless proggies feel good.

    • tiredoflibbs February 16, 2012 / 3:52 pm

      Tommy-boy: “you’ll be left wondering why the American people tossed you aside.”

      That is what happens when 51% of the population have their vote purchased by the vote-buying schemes offered by the Democrats known as entitlements or “rights” (right to own a home, right to health care, right to a low cost college education, right to “whatever the hell you want to get elected”, etc. etc.).

      De Tocqueville said it best while writing of Democracy the Great experiment: Liberty and Democracy lasts only as long as the majority of the population does not realize they can vote themselves the largess of the public treasury.”

      With 47% of Americans who pay little or no federal taxes, many Americans receiving free benefits from the government teat, and with politicians telling them that the opposition will vote to raise their taxes, we are approaching that magical number of which De Tocqueville spoke.

      • James February 16, 2012 / 4:00 pm

        In other words….you have a built in excuse for when you lose the election! Congrats on at least preparing yourself for it.

      • tiredoflibbs February 16, 2012 / 4:57 pm

        In fact, Tommy-boy, your conclusions are as baseless and factless as your dumbed down talking points.

        Way to go, drone.

      • tiredoflibbs February 16, 2012 / 11:36 pm

        Xavier: “It is well established that “Red States” are far more dependent on Federal Support than Blue States.”

        Uh, you are aware that the references you provide show monies received on a PER CAPITA basis and not in TOTAL FEDERAL DOLLARS received. But hey, it makes for good talking points for those who are most like to vote Democrat.

        Most Red States do not have the TOTAL POPULATION that the blue states have. Therefore while the federal dollars received on a per capita basis is shown to be higher in most red states, the total federal dollars received by large populous blues states such as New York and California will be more. Are you seriously convinced that states like Alaska or Mississippi or North Dakota etc receive more in federal money, than say New York or California???

        If so, I have some prime water front real estate, for sale in the New Orleans area.

        While your provided references appear to back up your assertion the way the “facts” are used is dishonest. You are comparing apples to oranges and does not invalidate my earlier post.

  5. ItsJo February 16, 2012 / 2:48 pm

    Obama WILL do anything and everything to insure ‘another win’. What he is DELIBERATELY doing to bringing America, the Arrogant(arrogant-his words) down, is because he is continuing his own parents’ hatreds of our Republic. He wants to make the USA into a third world nation, that is answerable to the U.N. and International Law. It is already happening (also what Hillary wanted all along) as we have a “creeping of Sharia Law into OUR Constitution(being set aside) and laws of our land”. This IS the objective, and Obama IS succeeding, as progressives/anti-America crowds of the 60’s are in place, and have forwarded his agenda-along w/Soros who wanted to bring America down for over 40 yrs. They have set in place, the Acorn groups, etal that will “set out to register and have voter fraud run rampant in all areas because it IS the Chicago Way of stealing elections-JUST as Obama did to become Jr. Senator”.

    • James February 16, 2012 / 2:58 pm

      Obama WILL do anything and everything to insure ‘another win’.

      Any President would do this…given that it is legal.

      What he is DELIBERATELY doing to bringing America, the Arrogant(arrogant-his words) down, is because he is continuing his own parents’ hatreds of our Republic.

      I didn’t know his parents hated the US? can you provide a source for that?

      He wants to make the USA into a third world nation, that is answerable to the U.N. and International Law.

      Again, do you have any sources for this? And how can we be a third world nation when we have so much wealth? how exactly is he trying to accomplish this?

      It is already happening (also what Hillary wanted all along) as we have a “creeping of Sharia Law into OUR Constitution(being set aside) and laws of our land”.

      Sharia law fear again huh? can you name ONE thing that has been decided by Sharia law in this nation?

      This IS the objective, and Obama IS succeeding, as progressives/anti-America crowds of the 60′s are in place, and have forwarded his agenda-along w/Soros who wanted to bring America down for over 40 yrs.

      Again, any sources? links? evidence? or is this just your scary fantasy? maybe that’s why you cling to your bible and guns?

      They have set in place, the Acorn groups, etal that will “set out to register and have voter fraud run rampant in all areas because it IS the Chicago Way of stealing elections-JUST as Obama did to become Jr. Senator”.

      There is only so much bs i can stand in one post.

      Try again you wacky conservative!

    • Xavier Cugat February 16, 2012 / 4:53 pm

      Obama won his Senate election by over a 2:1 margin. He won by over 2M votes. He won in the Republican collar counties. He won in downstate Illinois. You could have removed Chicago completely from the results, and he still would have won.

      It is laughable that you think he stole the election. Or sad. I can’t decide.

      And, with your reference to Sharia law, I presume you’re a Christian. Isn’t there something in the bible about “bearing false witness”?

      • neocon1 February 16, 2012 / 6:28 pm

        X cougar

        he ran UNOPPOSED you Fn MORON!!

      • Xavier Cugat February 16, 2012 / 6:37 pm


        Wait, guys, what is it?

        Did he steal an election? Or was he unopposed?

        Or did he steal an election in which he ran unopposed. And if so, why?

        And dearest Neocon, before you cast aspersions to my intelligence, don’t make claims that are so damned easily refuted.

        The GOP nominees he ran against were Jack Ryan (who dropped out due to a scandal) and then Alan Keyes.

        Now, with that said, who’s the moron?

      • neocon1 February 16, 2012 / 8:04 pm

        a last minute stand in with NO backing, NO money, NO organized campaign = UnOpposed you AssHat.

      • Xavier Cugat February 16, 2012 / 8:39 pm


        That’s not really “unopposed”, is it? I’m sorry, maybe I need to cut you some slack. Is english your second language?

        In any case, despite your rage, I’ll accept your definition of “unopposed”.

        And if that was the case, if he was unopposed, why and how would he steal the election, as ItsJo asserted?

        (While I await the inevitably rude reply, I’ll further ponder its source. Maybe it’s more than an inner-liberal I’m sensing. With your constant obsession with gays, maybe there’s another inner conflict fueling your rage.)

      • neocon1 February 16, 2012 / 9:00 pm

        X catgut

        they “stole” the election by stealing court sealed documents then releasing them at the 11 th hour, and old donk chicago dirty trick.
        So yes the election was in a sense stolen.

        “obsession” of homosexuals ? LOL
        camon jr the alinsky 101 accuse the accusey dont fly here, keep it with the pimply faced drones at KO’s.

        However as all you donks and your love of homosexuality it is like the elephant turd in the elevator, kind of hard to miss and ignore.

      • neocon1 February 16, 2012 / 9:56 pm


        Isn’t there something in the bible about “bearing false witness”?

        HUH?………Xavier Cugat??
        you must ask?
        PS love the tan.

      • dbschmidt February 17, 2012 / 11:44 am

        “In his first race for office, seeking a state Senate seat on Chicago’s gritty South Side in 1996, Obama effectively used election rules to eliminate his Democratic competition.

        As a community organizer, he had helped register thousands of voters. But when it came time to run for office, he employed Chicago rules to invalidate the voting petition signatures of three of his challengers.

        The move denied each of them, including incumbent Alice Palmer, a longtime Chicago activist, a place on the ballot. It cleared the way for Obama to run unopposed on the Democratic ticket in a heavily Democrat district.”

        Same with the divorce records (sealed) of Jack & Jeri Ryan–so the usurper ran unopposed after stealing the choice of candidates from the voting population both Democrat & Republican. This is common from his first through his last election cycle–do some research and don’t be blinded by his arrogance.


      • carltonpryor February 17, 2012 / 5:38 pm

        Wrong again Neocon1 Obama ran against Alan Keyes in 2004.

      • neocon1 February 17, 2012 / 6:22 pm


        can you Fn read you MORON?
        I KNOW your understanding of matters is that of a turd.

        @ X-cougar
        a last minute stand in with NO backing, NO money, NO organized campaign = UnOpposed you AssHat.

    • hesindnile February 17, 2012 / 10:30 am

      ItsJo – that is one of the STUPIDEST rants I have ever read. Why on earth would Obama want the US to be a 3rd world nation. You are an idiot. Are you related to Neo?

      • tiredoflibbs February 17, 2012 / 11:02 am

        Awww, looks like sunny/velma has created a new persona.

        Actually you should change your name to SHEsindnile.

      • RetiredSpook February 17, 2012 / 5:54 pm

        Coming from the queen of “stupid rants”, that’s hysterical, Velma.

    • carltonpryor February 17, 2012 / 5:33 pm

      ItsJo, that is simply not true. The US Constitution is so difficult to change that it would be impossible to get 39 states to do anything to change it much less to get two thirds of the House and Senate to pass Sharia Laws. America is already subject to a mulitiplicity of International Laws and has been for more than 200 years.

      • neocon1 February 17, 2012 / 6:24 pm


        REALLY Mr Know it all??
        those silly amendments you know……..

      • Amazona February 19, 2012 / 1:56 pm

        Yep, it’s sure impossible to amend the Constitution.

        Good to know. We need more of this intellectual observation on the blog. We tend to be distracted by the sheer numbers of successful amendments, and forget that another change would be “impossible”.

        BTW, anyone know of any of the “multiplicity of International Laws” to which the United States is “subject”? Now now, laws which mirror US law don’t count. What “International Laws” supersede US law?

        “Subject to”? I don’t think so, at least not till this latest bunch of radical Constitution-hating Lefty Supreme Court appointees.

    • amazona February 19, 2012 / 12:41 pm

      Did you notice that James could not rebut one single comment? The sum total of his response was “huh-UH!!!!”. When he doesn’t like what he sees he just tries to drown it out with meaningless noise——-a phrase which, by the way, sums up his posts in general.

  6. Cluster February 16, 2012 / 3:51 pm

    James certainly has his knee pads firmly in place today in defense of The One We Have All Been Waiting For. I guess that is to be expected. What I find unusual is the move to the far left just in the last 6 months of behalf of the idiot in the white house, completely ignoring the message voters sent in 2010. The 2010 vote was a direct referendum on the Obama statist brand of governance, and yet he has since then accelerated the control of the federal government. It’s truly bizarre, but evidently the Obama regime must think that there are enough dependent and clueless James’s in the country to get him reelected – we shall see.

    • James February 16, 2012 / 4:03 pm

      So you don’t believe the new polls pitting Obama against Santorum? or Romney?

      Do you not believe the approval ratings?

      Do you not believe the economy is improving month by month?

      what bubble do you live in? 2010 was a farce, a completely predictable loss of seats for the party in power. It wasn’t the firs time this happened….

      remember, Clinton lost seats in his midterm, and came roaring back.

      me being dependent on the government? Ill take my 122k in come and my 3500 tax refund thank you very much!

      • Cluster February 16, 2012 / 4:18 pm

        The polls taken now do not factor in the beating Obama will take once it’s a one on one match, and trust me, Obama will be bruised badly.

        The economy in some sectors is showing life, but that has nothing to do with what Obama has done. All economies peak and valley in all conditions, the problem is that this slight uptick is not on solid footing. I don’t know if you will understand that.

        Clinton was a vastly superior politician and tacked to the center, thanks to Newt. Obama has not been as astute.

        And if you do receive a tax refund, that means that you are dependent on someone else to pay your wage, dependent on someone else to employ you, dependent on someone else to pay part of your healthcare, and dependent on someone else to pay your matching SS contribution. You are a dependent James. Sorry.

      • James February 16, 2012 / 4:32 pm


        let’s go point by point.

        The polls taken now do not factor in the beating Obama will take once it’s a one on one match, and trust me, Obama will be bruised badly.

        Actually, they do. They match him up head to head against Romney and Santorum. Good try though. I know its hard to be upbeat about your candidates….

        Also, do you want to guarantee another GOP victory this year? How did that work out for you last time around?

        The economy in some sectors is showing life, but that has nothing to do with what Obama has done.

        So, its his fault things are bad, but not his doing when things are good? Really? You want to sell that to the American people? really? Presidents get the credit and the blame.

        All economies peak and valley in all conditions, the problem is that this slight uptick is not on solid footing. I don;t know if you will understand that.

        And you say that why? on what facts? on what numbers? Oh, that’s right i forgot…you like tired think all the numbers are fudged and fake.

        Clinton was a vastly superior politician and tacked to the center, thanks to Newt. Obama has not been as astute.

        Underestimating an opponent is the first step to defeat.

        And if you do receive a tax refund, that means that you are dependent on someone else to pay your wage, dependent on someone else to employ you, dependent on someone else to pay part of your healthcare, and dependent on someone else to pay your matching SS contribution. You are a dependent James. Sorry.

        So what, i work for a multinational corporation, get a great salary, great benefits, and great 401k benefits. The company pays for my healthcare, gave me a company car, and gas card….and in return they get my services.

        Sucks to be you. me on the other hand, ill take my tax refund and by myself a nice Omega watch.

      • Cluster February 16, 2012 / 4:39 pm

        You’re hilarious James – your mind is so clouded that you simply can’t see the forest through the trees. You exemplify the Churchill expression – “if you’re not a liberal in your twenties, you have no heart, but if you’re not a conservative in your forties, you have no brain”

        Currently you must be tweener, with a yet fully developed brain. Enjoy the bliss.

      • Cluster February 16, 2012 / 4:43 pm

        They match him up head to head against Romney and Santorum. Good try though. – James

        I don’t think you fully understood what I said, of course it wouldn’t be the first time. NO ONE is taking shots at Obama, or exposing his idiocy and hypocrisy at the moment. Once the nominee is selected, the narrative then becomes all about Obama insincerity and incompetence which will be a joy to watch unfold.

      • Xavier Cugat February 16, 2012 / 6:25 pm


        “NO ONE is taking shots at Obama, or exposing his idiocy and hypocrisy at the moment.”

        I really should visit here more often. You folks are really good for a laugh.

        That’s all the GOP is doing. With a few exceptions, none of them are talking about anything but Obama. They’re all trying to top one another is how hyperbolic they can be in their hatred of our President.

        Ain’t much different than this blog, now that I think about it.

      • RetiredSpook February 16, 2012 / 6:58 pm

        2010 was a farce, a completely predictable loss of seats for the party in power. It wasn’t the firs time this happened….

        Nice deflection, James, but it was the largest gain of House seats by either party in a mid-term election since 1938. As historic as that was, the GOP gain of nearly 700 state legislative seats in 2010 was even more impressive.

      • Cluster February 16, 2012 / 7:21 pm


        Try and stay with me here – there is not currently an opposing candidate that is running against Obama, and once there is, the campaign narrative will be all about Obama. This election will be a referendum on Obama and his top down governance, and if 2010 is any indication, it will not turn out well for democrats.

      • neocon1 February 16, 2012 / 8:06 pm

        really X cugat?

        I really should visit here more often. You folks are really good for a laugh.

        try looking in a mirror if you want a real laugh.

      • Amazona February 17, 2012 / 2:20 pm

        These blog vandals are so clueless they can’t even grasp the fact that as of now, none of the GOP hopefuls is running against Obama, but against each other.


        And even with no opposition, Barry is barely ahead of anyone, when he is ahead at all. Jes’ standin’ out there waitin’ for someone to come after him, to point out his failures, to run against his record, he is barely hangin’ on.

        But this, to the dupes and drones, is VICTORY.

        Funny, isn’t it, how not a single one of them is willing (or able) to explain a political philosophy which is supposed to be better than the 21st Century American Conservative model. Not one. They don’t even try.

        They just wallow in their Tabloid Politics, regurgitate tired old Lefty talking points, and flash their spite and malice. They can fuss and fret about personalities, about events, about singularities, but they are hopeless and inept when it comes to explaining why any political system is better or worse than any other.

        Lazy? Stupid? Smart enough to realize that the Leftist model simply CANNOT be defended so it is best left ignored in favor of sniping and spitting and strident personal attacks?

  7. Xavier Cugat February 16, 2012 / 4:39 pm

    Oh, this is delightfully absurd.

    The only strategy that Obama needs is to sit back and enjoy as the GOP Clown Car swerves erratically from one “winning issue” to the next, leaving in its wake a solidified Democratic base, and a bloc of Independent Voters scared to death of how insane the Right has become.

    Take your “Attack on Religious Freedom” battle. It’s backfiring. Look at the polling. You will not have gained a single vote because you already had the votes of everyone who thinks Obama is a Godless Muslim. And in return, the longer you flog this issue, you lose more and more independent women voters because to them (like Spook notes) the issue is contraceptives.

    And there is the added benefit that it has strengthened Santorum at the cost of Romney (who had a similar contraceptive mandate in Romneycare). Who among you doubts that Obama would prefer to run against Santorum than Romney?

    Do I expect any of you to get this? Of course not, because you’re the ones who chew up these “winning issues”, thinking everyone else thinks like you do. It should be obvious, but they don’t.

    • Cluster February 16, 2012 / 4:44 pm


      Aside from the juvenile, ill informed rantings – did you have anything you wanted to add to the thread?

      • Xavier Cugat February 16, 2012 / 5:19 pm

        Oh, Cluster, really? Juvenile? Ill-informed?

        Since it slipped through your steel trap of a mind, I’ll type more slowly this time.

        Like James notes, all the Republican candidates are down significantly in head-to-head polling to Obama. What’s worse is that the same polling reveals that the more one of the Republican candidates is exposed to the public, the less they like him (with the exception of Ron Paul).

        To gain traction, therefore, the GOP must create and float a series of controversies that they think will demonstrate to the public how extreme/liberal/muslim Obama is. But in a hilarious series of events, the GOP is creating “controversies” where they are on the wrong side of public opinion. The issue cited by both Spook and I (contraceptives) was supposed to cause left-leaning Catholics to separate from Obama. And it has not, with Catholics supporting Obama’s position in greater numbers than the general population.

        Spook opens his posting with the question “Is Obama trying to lose re-election?” And the point I’m adding to the thread is that with enemies like the modern-day GOP, he doesn’t need friends or a re-election strategy.

      • Cluster February 16, 2012 / 7:05 pm

        Like James notes, all the Republican candidates are down significantly in head-to-head polling to Obama.

        Xavier, may I call you Xavier?

        No one is running against Obama yet? And once the spot light gets turned on Obama, the hypocrisy and incompetence will frighten everyone. And we don’t have to paint Obama as incompetent or hypocrite, his own words do a better job of that then anyone.

        You are also another liberal who has constructed a false and cartoonish image of who your opponents are. You can only hope that conservatives are racist homophobes as that is the only chance you have to win. Unfortunately for you, most conservatives are very clear thinking, rational adults, and that doesn’t bode well for your candidate.

        Aside from that, you not only have a cartoonish view of your opponents, you also have a very distorted view of your statist ideology – which has historically failed every single time, and is currently imploding in Greece. You might want to rethink your entire world view.

      • Pepito the Little Dancing Dog February 16, 2012 / 7:08 pm

        I’ll bet real money that the polls are great predictors;

        February 1980~
        Carter 64%
        Reagan 32%

        February 1992~
        Bush 78%
        Clinton 5%

        February 1996~
        Dole 54%
        Clinton 42%

        Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt.

      • Xavier Cugat February 16, 2012 / 7:35 pm

        Yes, Cluster, you can call me Xavier. With this cordiality, how is it you would like to be addressed?

        I will respectfully rebut that you too have a “cartoonish image of who your opponents are”. After all, what do you really know about me? All you know is that I support Obama, and with that, you assume a whole bunch of things.

        Be fair — you know you do.

        Like, for example, your presumptions about my “statist ideology”?

        Here’s my “statist ideology” so you won’t have to guess, or construct strawmen. I believe that both Democrats and Republicans like Big Government. They just like it BIG in different places. You guys like an absurdly large military (which we can no longer afford), and you like using it recklessly. You also don’t want to pay for it.

        Look at the charts that Bloody Penguin posted. Like it or not, those are the facts. The deficit we’re wallowing in today was caused primarily by 1) The Bush Tax Cuts, 2) Iraq/Afghanistan, and 3) the financial collapse.

        And, being a financial conservative, I look at those 3 things and (at least) two of them are the fault of the Republicans. No matter which Republican gets in office, you can count on financial and military recklessness.

        That’s the reality. And now it’s my turn to ask: Why don’t you rethink your worldview instead of asking me to change mine to fit your “facts”.

      • neocon1 February 16, 2012 / 8:09 pm

        X cubed

        All you know is that I support Obama

        that is all I have to know to see you are a Fn idiot.
        wesley is dat you?

      • Amazona February 16, 2012 / 8:41 pm

        Type as slowly as you want, but it will not disguise the fact that your posts are totally politics-deficient.

        Oh, you carry on about personalities, and polls, and such, but you offer not one single word to explain or defend a political ideal, or to attack one.

        It’s all silly, superficial, Identity Politics at its worst, nothing more than strident bleatings of hostile punks who don’t even know why they are hostile.

        Come back with a political thought, for a change, OK?

        What do you think is the best political system for governing the United States? Why do you favor this system? What are its strengths? Does it have weaknesses? Who best represents the best way to implement this system in this country? Why? What do you think the results would be? Do you have a historical reference for prior successes of this system when it has been in place?

        What do you dislike about the opposing political system? Why?

        Or are you two just going to keep up your mindless blather about personalities, polls, scandals and other trivialities?

  8. Cluster February 16, 2012 / 4:46 pm

    James and Xavier,

    Maybe you can tell me why liberals oppose teaching Creation in the class room, but yet in real life, choose not to live by Darwin’s theory and instead embrace the benevolent teachings of the Church.

    Why is that?

    • Xavier Cugat February 16, 2012 / 5:55 pm

      This, Cluster, is another laugher. And it’s wildly off-topic, but I’ll respond anyway.

      No one gets to “choose” to live by or not live by Darwin’s theory, any more than you get to choose whether to live by “gravity”. It’s a theory that seeks to describe a natural process through the scientific method.

      The teachings of a church are another matter. To embrace that is a choice.

      And, I note, those two aren’t mutually exclusive. Why, I live down the road from an Evangelical college. They have a theology department. And they have a biology department. And in that biology department they teach evolution. And they have inter-disciplinary studies with the biology and theological departments that try to reconcile the bible with the wonders of nature as it is revealed to scientists.

      Isn’t that cool?

      • Cluster February 16, 2012 / 7:12 pm

        No one gets to “choose” to live by or not live by Darwin’s theory, any more than you get to choose whether to live by “gravity”

        Well that again is not correct. We can choose to be a humane society or not. We can choose to let Darwin’s theory shape our society and live by “survival of the fittest” and let the weak die out, or we can choose to live in a society that follows the teachings of the Church and protects and cares for those in need. Ironically, liberals are those who fully embrace embrace the teachings of the Church in real life, but bend over backwards to disregard those teachings in school. I have never understood that.

      • Xavier Cugat February 16, 2012 / 8:27 pm


        Now I get where your question is coming from.

        Like I said: Accepting Natural Selection as reliable explanation of how life evolved, and how one lives their life are two wholly different things. I know that evolution is responsible for the species, but that doesn’t enter at all into my thinking in how I treat my fellow man. And further, one doesn’t have to be Christian to act that way.

        Let me try this: You can accept the theory of gravity, but that doesn’t mean you have to resign yourself to constantly dropping things.

      • amazona February 19, 2012 / 12:52 pm

        “evolution is responsible for the species”

        Yeah, aren’t we all lucky that some random mutation followed by billions of other random mutations resulted in “the species” that can post on blogs instead of hatching out of eggs in the rainforest?

        I also note the determined effort to pretend that failure to believe in this randomness means a rejection of any and all evolution. No matter how often the Lefties are told that we believe in evolution WITHIN species, this doesn’t fit with their preferred image, so they lie, and invent wholly imaginary arguments which they then attack with glee.

        Cutie is so clueless that he actually admits the acceptance of evolution WITHIN species in his example, ponting out the obvious fact that he has no real pont at all.

  9. neocon1 February 16, 2012 / 6:33 pm

    The forkers are making a comeback here,
    media matters and the TROLLS are terrified that despite all the lies, cheating, buying,that the union thugs and the marxist, muslim, usurper ubomba Ochimpy will get crushed this fall.

    Pop corn please!

    • Green Mountain Boy February 17, 2012 / 7:54 am

      Neo, they are a lost cause. They can see the writing on the wall plainer than anyomoe else. It will only get worse as the election gets closer.

      Look back to 1980. Remeber the look of outright dejection on Ted Koppels face as it became appearent that his jimmuh was toast?

      Get ready for the war. The proggies won’t go peacefully.

      • neocon1 February 17, 2012 / 9:36 am


        Well prepared, REPORTING for duty Sir!!

        the donks flying monkeys are being fed ex lax as we speak…mad maxine watters comes to mind…the hate, vitriol, lies, and attacks both verbal and physical will hit new highs.
        The commies and brown shirts have been practicing for this for 2 years.
        Think “flash mobs,” mc D’s beat downs, and the “occupy” cult of SHIITEbags and anarchists.

      • neocon1 February 17, 2012 / 10:54 am


        Inflation rises…

        Dollar Getting No Respect…

        CBO: Longest Period Of High Unemployment Since Great Depression…

        USA will hit debt limit before election day…

      • neocon1 February 17, 2012 / 10:58 am


        Mother Of Fallen Marine Offended By Half-Staff Flags For Singer, drug addled, G trash.

        are you listening Fat boy?

      • neocon1 February 17, 2012 / 11:00 am

        The FALL of our nation, and we stand by and watch.
        Germany 1939

        Teen Atheist Wins Big: School District Won’t Appeal Ruling to Take Down Prayer Banner

      • James February 17, 2012 / 11:59 am

        atta boy! get the religious right out of our schools!

      • tiredoflibbs February 17, 2012 / 12:38 pm

        Yeah tommy-boy, violate the rights of the other students for just one non-believer – First Amendment be damned!!!

      • James February 17, 2012 / 1:13 pm

        Tyranny of the majority.

        Read up on it. Maybe it will light up that hollow brain of yours.

      • Cluster February 17, 2012 / 1:37 pm

        Tyranny of the majority sure didn’t seem to be a concern when Pelosi and the democrats were cramming health care down everyone throats. Remember – “we have to pass it to find out what’s in it”?

      • Count d'Haricots February 17, 2012 / 8:23 pm

        How ironic the intellectual pygmy would bring up the tyranny of the majority in reference to a religion engaged in that freedom and free exercise (thereof). Let’s look at where in our History that expression was given definition;

        All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression. Let us, then, fellow-citizens, unite with one heart and one mind. Let us restore to social intercourse that harmony and affection without which liberty and even life itself are but dreary things. And let us reflect that, having banished from our land that religious intolerance under which mankind so long bled and suffered, we have yet gained little if we countenance a political intolerance as despotic, as wicked, and capable of as bitter and bloody persecutions.

        Jefferson’s Inaugural Address speaks of “equal rights” of the minority and not of special rights, nor does he speak of curbing the rights of the majority but of protecting the rights of the minority. Btw, “minority” in Jefferson’s world was a minority of opinion, not a perpetual “offended” class.

      • Count d'Haricots February 17, 2012 / 8:24 pm

        Why are my responses always showing up at the bottom of the page?

        Who’s in charge here?

      • Green Mountain Boy February 17, 2012 / 8:39 pm

        Majic disappearing post syndrome. It would seem that the Shadow has been very active on this thread.

      • watsonredux February 17, 2012 / 10:59 pm

        More evidence that President Obama is intentionally throwing the election and is “disconnected from reality”…

        According to a new CBS News/New York Times poll, 61 percent of Americans support federally-mandated contraception coverage for religiously-affiliated employers; 31 percent oppose such coverage. This week, voter approval of Obama’s handling of the economy reached its highest level since December. And this week’s polls show Obama not only beating every Republican contender, but increasing his lead over each of them over the last month.

      • Green Mountain Boy February 17, 2012 / 11:01 pm

        You will get those kind of results when thats the kind of results you want to get.

        Keep believing them though. It will make november all the more sweeter.

        It will be sore/loserman redux. Appropriate no?

      • watsonredux February 17, 2012 / 11:11 pm

        More evidence that President Obama is doing everything he can to ensure his own defeat because, you know, he’s just tired of it all…

        Today Congress passed legislation extending the payroll tax cut for 160 million workers through December and continuing long-term jobless benefits, handing President Barack Obama a major victory in this election year.

        You would think he would have just given up on this in the hopes of sustaining a devastating defeat.

      • Green Mountain Boy February 17, 2012 / 11:17 pm

        You mean more funds that were designated to pay social security benifits will not be collected putting that ponzi scheme even further into debt?

        If the opposition had any courage at all this would have been a non negotiable issue. The answer would have been a firn. No. I don’t see why you are all that scared of a repub president. I don’t think the repubs have any courage left in them any more. They just want someone with a (r) after thier name to mange the plantation.

        The plantation will keep on producing progressivism, just at a slightly reduced rate.

        Keep up the good work though. You are a model progressive.

      • watsonredux February 17, 2012 / 11:21 pm

        I’m not scared of any of the Republican candidates, although it’s hard to take any of them seriously at this point. I’m not talking about all Republicans, just the ones that have run for president this year. It’s a pretty sorry lot, in my opinion.

      • watsonredux February 17, 2012 / 11:24 pm

        I probably should clarify. When I say it’s hard to take then seriously, I don’t mean to say that I don’t think they can win. Of course the eventual Republican candidate can win. The economy could tank later this year, attacks ads could work, who knows. What I mean is, to me none of them have demonstrated to me that they are anything more than political hacks. They are all very flawed candidates.

      • Green Mountain Boy February 17, 2012 / 11:41 pm

        You claim to have no political ideology. I claim to be very much a social conservative. Yet I attack the the repubs worse than I do the donkyrats. I have never seen you post a critical word about anything the donkys do.

        Interesting yes?

      • RetiredSpook February 18, 2012 / 12:40 am

        GMB, I’m not sure “interesting” is the word I’d use. I’d say “revealing”.

      • Green Mountain Boy February 18, 2012 / 12:57 am

        And what does it reveal? In just your opinion that is Sir?

      • Cluster February 18, 2012 / 9:22 am

        I would think it reveals watsons allegiance to the liberal progressive movement and thought that was pretty evident in Spook’s comment.

        Question for you GMB – you say that money is no issue to you, so would you be agreeable to a 50% income tax, or higher, in return for winning on all social issues?

      • RetiredSpook February 18, 2012 / 10:54 am


        You don’t have to call me “sir”. Commander would be fine – heh.

        Cluster beat me to it. Watson claims to be a moderate who used to be a Republican. Most of his comments “reveal” that to be a lie, or maybe just wishful thinking on his part.

      • Green Mountain Boy February 17, 2012 / 11:49 pm

        I don’t take any but Santorum serious either. In my Opinion Santorum is least likely to take more of our freedoms away. BHO is sure to take away, Romney is sure to take them away, The Fig? Who the heck knows.

        Yes I know all about Santorums big government tendencies but those tend to be on the monetary side of the coin.

        Render unto Ceasar what is His. Money is not an issue for me.

      • Amazona February 18, 2012 / 10:51 am

        Awww—“flawed candidates”—. Not perfect, flawless, experienced, thoroughly vetted, open-book, full-disclosure candidates like, for instance, Barack Obama.

        The wattle is doing what the wattle, and his kind, always do—duck and dodge the actual ideology of a candidate, and by extension that candidate’s party, and focus on the only things they can understand—-personality, scandal, polls, popularity, etc. Tabloid Politics.

        So what about the political philosophy of any GOP hopeful is “flawed”?

        Not any of their actions, or histories—their POLITICAL PHILOSOPHIES.

        None of them has ever been President of the United States, so anything any of them has done in the past has been in a completely different context, under completely different circumstances. So just skip past that and tell us, what about the political model represented by any of the hopefuls do you feel is the wrong way to govern the nation?

        Go for it, and compare what you don’t like about their political models with what you feel is better in the Leftist model, as represented by Barack Obama.

        And BTW, there IS no “candidate” yet.

      • RetiredSpook February 18, 2012 / 11:00 am

        The wattle is doing what the wattle, and his kind, always do—duck and dodge the actual ideology of a candidate, and by extension that candidate’s party, and focus on the only things they can understand—-personality, scandal, polls, popularity, etc. Tabloid Politics.


        I think that comes from always being told what to think and never learning “how” to think. I actually do know a couple Conservatives who have fallen into that rut, but the vast majority of people I know who fit that mold are left of center.

      • tiredoflibbs February 18, 2012 / 12:57 pm

        Amazona is that a new participle, “wattling”? You know like “waffling”?

        wattling – to duck and dodge issues and facts while remaining ignorant of one’s political ideology while claiming otherwise.

        Call Oxford or Webster.

      • RetiredSpook February 18, 2012 / 1:06 pm

        I think you’re on to something, Tired. “Wattling” — has a nice ring to it, and your definition is spot on.

      • Amazona February 19, 2012 / 1:41 pm

        Yeah, I’ll go along with that.

        “to wattle”——to use many words to say absolutely nothing of political content

      • Amazona February 18, 2012 / 10:53 am

        Tell us, wattle, about the political capital he gained by first rejecting the extension when it was proposed by Republicans.

        Do you think all Lefties are as easily gulled as you are? Do you think all moderates and independents will be as easily distracted by the transparent effort to take credit for something the opposition tried to pass last year?

      • watsonredux February 17, 2012 / 11:16 pm

        GMB, who knows what will happen in November. The point is that as of today, when cluster is trying to tell us the President Obama is either intentionally trying to lose, or is so bone-headed that he can’t help himself, his standing with the voting public is rising. That would seem to refute cluster’s premise, but you can interpret it anyway you want.

        I have a question for you, though, if you’re willing to entertain it. We hear from various folks here on B4V that they are forced onto government health care when they get old. I don’t agree with that. I don’t see why they couldn’t take care of their own health care needs if they were really willing to live up to the convictions.

        From things you’ve said in the past, I believe that you and members of your family do not rely on the government for any kind of health care assistance. Is that true? If so, how do you avoid being “forced” onto the government dole? (And if it is true, I give you props for walking the walk.)

        I’m really not trying to be flippant, just trying to understand how it works for you.

      • Green Mountain Boy February 17, 2012 / 11:37 pm

        Well, I grew up in a mennonite family. Mennonites were one of the most vocal opponets of social security when it was founded. As background the vast majority of mennonites do not even possess a social security number.

        Mennonites were also very vocal opponents of the so called great society and all of its intendant? programs. Insurance is gambling. You are paying hard cash for something that may never occur. Gambling is one of the biggest social sins a mennonite can commit. So no insurance if you are true to your beliefs.

        As far as paying for health care. Ask your providers. I will tell you a doctor or hospital would rather take 40% of thier bill in cash than 100% of the bill in insurance claim

        Why? Not a fact here just my opinion. With the 40% of the bill paid in cash, it is the cost plus profit of thier services.The rest is nothing but overhead in the insurance system There can be no other explnation that makes sense to me.

        40 percent is just a ball park figure here. My neighbor who does not use the doctor/hospital usually ends up paying arond 50% for his familys medical care.

        Negotiate. Ask. See what discounts for cash you doctor or hospital will take.

        Greenbacks = very little paperwork. Insuance claims = reems of it.

      • watsonredux February 18, 2012 / 2:26 pm

        Thanks, GMB.

      • watsonredux February 18, 2012 / 2:27 pm

        I guess this thread has gone haywire. I was responding to your explanation of Mennonites.

      • watsonredux February 18, 2012 / 2:43 pm

        cluster said, “The very few folks who post on this unknown, backwater blog believe rather than think and trust rather than question. – watson”

        The only problem with that, dear cluster, is that I didn’t say it.

        Once again, your lack of reading comprehension gets you in trouble. Go back and review the thread. There is this handy find function in your browser.

      • watsonredux February 18, 2012 / 2:47 pm

        Let’s try again and maybe this will be posted at the bottom of the thread…

        Dear Amasnorta,

        There’s no doubt I’m left of center of the B4V crowd, but you all are to the right of 90% of America. As for dodging facts, I have presented facts on this thread a number of times, only to be criticized for being mean to spook or dodging the facts. As for not criticizing Democrats, this is conservative blog. I typically react to what you guys say, like claiming President Obama is just tired of being president and is trying to throw the election. As for the Republican candidates vying for the presidency, I don’t think they are even appealing to you guys, so why would I find them so?

        Romney? Was for abortion, now he’s against it. Was for a health care mandate, now he’s against it. Will take any position that he thinks will help him get elected. He stands for nothing. The only reason someone would vote for him would be to vote against Obama.

        Gingrich? There’s the old Bob Dole joke about the three file cabinets in his office. The first big one contains Newt Gingrich ideas. The second big one contains more Gingrich ideas. And that last little one contains Newt’s good ideas. Now the former ultimate Washington insider claims to be the ultimate outsider. Matt bought it hook, line and sinker. Amy probably does, too. He’s about himself, nothing more.

        Santorum. His social policies are a non-starter for me. Would never get my vote for anything.

        Then there are the has-beens who thoroughly embarrassed the Republican party.

        Cain. Former pizza salesman who is now… a pizza salesman. 9-9-9 was a national joke.

        Perry. A complete failure to grasp any facts. Apparently thought his oozing charm would win the day.

        Trump. Stifle the laughter.

        Huntsman. A true conservative, so far as I can tell, but made the fatal mistake of being an ambassador during the Obama administration. Also, the fact that he can speak another language pretty much rules him out for conservatives. To learned.

        And then there is Sarah Palin, who just this week said she would serve if called. Former half-term governor and now a B-list celebrity.

      • neocon1 February 18, 2012 / 7:05 pm


        you rail against all the failings of GOP candidates, yet you Kneepad for the worst racist, liar, marxist, LOSER NEVER was, cult joining, mobster befriending, doper, homosexual, muslim AA POS ever elected to anything in the history of this country.

        Why is that?
        brain damage at birth? or to many drugs?

      • Canadian Observer February 18, 2012 / 7:48 pm

        ‘you Kneepad for the worst racist, liar, marxist, LOSER NEVER was, cult joining, mobster befriending, doper, homosexual, muslim AA POS ever elected to anything in the history of this country’…neocompoop
        Why should anyone give credence to the ravings of a lunatic? If you actually believe everything you wrote here, well then, you’ve completely lost touch with reality and you sure are letting your friend, Amazona, down when you post garbage like that. She insists that all the Right Wing posters who comment here always give their political philosophy to back up their points and forego making personal attack remarks, that being only a Liberal trait.

        Honestly, the hatred you show toward the President is alarming in its intensity. Perhaps you need to take a break for a bit. Goodness knows what will happen to whatever sanity you have may left when he is elected for another term.

      • bagni February 18, 2012 / 8:56 pm

        hey matt observer
        please leave matt/zona-neo alone
        they’re not the droids you’re looking for…..

      • Amazona February 19, 2012 / 12:53 am

        Is it even remotely possible for you emotion-driven Lefties to understand that basing opinions on emotions such as ‘hatred’ is pretty much limited to the Left?

        I guess if you make all your political decisions based on emotion, you are going to assume others do, too.


      • Canadian Observer February 19, 2012 / 11:06 am

        Are you saying that neocon1 a leftist, Amazona?

        If calling the President of the United States and leader of the free world “the worst racist, liar, marxist, LOSER NEVER was, cult joining, mobster befriending, doper, homosexual, muslim AA POS ever elected to anything in the history of this country” is not based on emotion, I don’t know what you would call it; certainly not a political philosophy.

        It surprises and disappoints me that while you rail against Liberals for using emotion in political discourse, you turn a blind eye to one of your own doing the same thing, time after time. Why in the world would a supposedly smart person like yourself, Amazona, think such vile & disgusting remarks of a personal nature would be acceptable language for a so-called Christian to make? You must realize that embracing this type of hyperbolic garbage diminishes your credibility.

      • Amazona February 19, 2012 / 1:38 pm

        I agree, this litany of accusations is NOT political philosophy, but merely a reaction to various aspects of Obama’s history, career and character that neo finds objectionable. It’s also quite stupid of you to try to drag Christianity into this, just another transparent effort to go after religion and people of faith but totally irrelevant to what is said.

        So what is so “vile and disgusting” about the comments?

        Being accused of being a homosexual? But according to you guys, there is absolutely nothing wrong with being a homosexual.

        Being accused of being a Muslim is now “vile and disgusting”? How too too intolerant of you. I thought Islam is the only acceptable religion, the only one that can never be attacked, and now a Lefty is calling it “vile and disgusting”? For shame.

        Are you calling “the President of the United States and leader of the free world” a liar? Because it is his own words, in books he claims to have written, books he has identified as his “autobiographies” and books he himself has read for the audio book versions, which outline his attraction to Marxism.

        (There is also the simple fact that after his election he continued to surround himself with Marxists and others of various Leftist sub-categories, putting them in positions of power and influence.)

        The same comment can be made regarding the “doper” comment. After all, Obama himself made many references to his drug use—again, are you calling “the President of the United States and leader of the free world” a liar?

        How vile and disgusting of you.

        Then of course you are in the position of doing the same thing a third time, as the racist beliefs of Obama are outlined in his own books, as well as supported by his choice of a ‘religion’ with which to identify. Do you accuse “the President of the United States and leader of the free world” of lying when he says, with such feeling, that he wept when he heard the words “white men’s greed in a world in need” and was so moved by them that he immediately knew he had found a spiritual home? (That “spiritual home” thing is a paraphrase, by the way—his own phrase was that this is what led him to this church.)

        Is Marxism in and of itself “vile and disgusting”? What is it about this ideology you find so offensive? This would actually be an interesting and relevant post from you, for a change.

        As you PL types keep referring to religion as a “cult” don’t you find the reference to Black Liberation Theology as a “cult” to be appropriate? Especially as it is a strange offshoot of traditional Christianity, one which justifies racial hatred by the wholly unfounded claim that Jesus was a black man, persecuted tortured and killed for racial reasons by white Europeans?

        Go ahead and try to justify this as not a cult but just as a mainstream Christian church if you want. It would be an interesting defense.

        You may have something of a point on the “mobster befriending” part, as there doesn’t seem to be much evidence that Obama’s criminal friends and associates, ranging from white collar criminals to actual murdering domestic terrorists, were ever part of what we tend to think of as “the Mob”. My own opinion is that the Weather Underground WAS a mob of violent murdering thugs, but if you want to split hairs, I’ll give you that when speaking of Chicago criminals “the Mob” usually refers to the Mafioso.

        The Affirmative Action comment is supported mostly by early reports from Harvard alumni from the time Obama was given the editor of the Law Review job that the intent, clearly stated at the time, was that it was time to have a black person in the position. As there are no writings, articles or opinions of Obama’s to support his elevation to the post, which is usually given to people of accomplishment, the AA comment does have an element of believablilty.

        There is also the question of how he got into these prestigious schools in the first place, given his admittedly poor performance in high school.

        So your lament seems to boil down to the statement that Obama is the WORST liar, racist, etc. “…ever elected to anything in the history of this country” .

        I agree—that is pretty hyperbolic. After all, we can easily remember worst racists elected to office “in the history of this country”. Robert Byrd comes to mind. And as for blatant liars elected to office, it would be hard to top the multi-decade lying of John F’n Kerry, who is still elected whenever he runs for office.

        One question does remain—-when and where have I “embraced” comments like these? Was it a casual arm-across-the-shoulder “atta boy” kind of semi-hug, or a full two-armed embrace, complete with back-slapping and congrats?

        In other words, you are full of it. You are smarmy, unctuous and oozing fake piety and concern (surprised and, with a quaver in your voice, soooo DISAPPOINTED !!) but your claim that I am involved in what some other person says is simply a complete lie.

      • RetiredSpook February 19, 2012 / 2:01 pm

        Wow — Amazona; talk about a cyber connection.

      • neocon1 February 19, 2012 / 2:38 pm

        Thank you Ama and Spook
        I lack the eloquence and tact of you two 🙂 but both of your synopsizes were dead on.

        (Must be the ole Grunt in me take no prisoners) LOL.

        Not that I EVER say anything for affect to make the un-duct taped heads the libs explode of course…….LOL

        If you do not like larry sinclairs book where he openly accuses O of not only being a homosexual but a coke user SUE him OR refute him in your own book.
        Funny though, zerO has spent MILLIONS hiding his past and BC yet he NEVER has sued larry sinclair himself about his accusations……WHY is dat?


        I LOVE the fact you wrap your self in the good old RWB and defend the virtue of the President of the US and the title of leader of the free world….

        BUT……..WHERE were YOU a mere 3 years ago??? Hmmmmmmmm?


      • Canadian Observer February 19, 2012 / 2:41 pm

        If the President were gay, Amazona, I would have no problem with that, but it is quite evident that he is very happily married to someone of the opposite sex and is the devoted father of two beautiful girls. I would have no problem either if he were a practicing Muslim but it appears, contrary to what you may believe, that he is a member of the Christian faith. If today he still held Marxist ideals, how in the he** could he instigate them with such strong Republican opposition? I’m sure you must be aware that the Progressives argue that President Obama tries too hard to appease the GOP and accuse him of not being liberal enough. What I do find vile & disgusting is neocon1’s inaccurate depiction of the President. Why would he deliberately mischaracterize the man if not through pure ignorance & hatred? It’s your option to support this kind of rhetoric, but thinking folks can see it for what it is.

      • neocon1 February 19, 2012 / 3:07 pm


        read his books for your self,
        read larry sinclairs book., right after reading arguing with idiots.
        EVERYTHING I posted about the POtuS are his OWN admissions or first hand accounts by others.

        Remember old slic willy was “HAPPILY MARRIED” with a (ahem) lovely wife and a “beautiful” child also.
        So you do not think a $350. K position that was created for the Mooch as soon as Ubamba was cheated into the Senate and abolished as soon as she left it was not an AA job? Maybe not, maybe it was FRAUD and theft of tax payers money.
        Seems we forget that CHAAAAAA CHING the $$$$500,000.00 book DEAL the POS got the day before being sworn in for a book YET to be written……

      • Amazona February 20, 2012 / 2:39 pm

        So you are not denying the accuracy of what neo said, just whining that you think it is mean to notice things like this. It’s not the substance you object to, but the style.

        That’s what I figured. You people are all about style and oblivious to substance.

        If today he still held Marxist ideals, how in the he** could he instigate them with such strong Republican opposition?

        Well, let’s see—there is Obamacare, the “stimulus” redistribution of OPM, the government takeover of private industry (GM), the government interference in private industry (handing over unlimited and unsupervised power to the EPA, shutting down offshore drilling, etc.)—just a few of the Marxist-inspired government acts since Barry and the Boyz took over.

        Are you really claiming you don’t know of any of these things?

        Now that Republicans have more power in the House, his reckless pursuit of Marxist goals has been slowed, thank God.

        You really do need to pay more attention.

      • RetiredSpook February 19, 2012 / 1:58 pm


        Neocon uses words that I wouldn’t use, but the only one he uses in your quote from his post that has some element of doubt is “homosexual”.

        Let’s look at them one by one:

        “the worst racist” – OK, maybe not the “worst” racist, but clearly one of the most racist individuals ever to inhabit the White House. He’s even formed a coalition, “African Americans for Obama”. Can you imagine the outrage if Santorum formed a group called “Caucasians for Santorum”? Obama has done more to pit race against race than any President since Wilson.

        “Liar” – Matt doesn’t have enough bandwidth to list all the lies this guy has told. Just Google “Obama Lies”.

        “Marxist” – By Obama’s own admission, his mentor as a young man was an avowed Marxist, Frank Marshall Davis. In his book, Obama describes how he sought out Marxist professors and other radicals in college, and there’s little doubt that Obama’s pastor of 20 years is a Marxist. He’s also appointed Marxists and Marxist sympathizers to Czar and staff positions.

        “Loser Never Was” – I’m not exactly sure what this means. Perhaps Neocon can elaborate. Although I guess if the Majority Leader of the Senate could publicly call George Bush a “loser”, then an anonymous individual on a blog can certainly call Obama a loser. Hopefully, come November 7th, we can all call him “loser”.

        “Cult Joining” – I’m not sure what else you’d call Black Liberation Theology” except a cult. It’s clearly not a mainstream Christian sect.

        “Mobster befriending” – absolutely true, in fact Tony Rezko, Obama’s friend and neighbor was convicted of 16 charges of public corruption, influence peddling and fraud, and is currently serving a 10-1/2 year prison term.

        “Doper and homosexual” – There’s absolutely no doubt about the doper part as he readily admits drug use in his book. The homosexual part has never been proved.

        “Muslim” – All you have to do is listen to his own words in numerous speeches, coupled together with his education and upbringing to conclude that this claim has validity. More people believe Obama is a Muslim than admit to being liberal in the U.S..

        “AA” – Certainly a plausible explanation of how he got into Harvard and became the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review, given his own description of what a mediocre student he was at Occidental and Columbia, and given that he never wrote anything for the Narvard Law Review.

        “POS” – again, not a description I’d use, but I think you’d be stunned at the number of Americans who share that view.

      • Canadian Observer February 19, 2012 / 2:58 pm

        “POS” – again, not a description I’d use, but I think you’d be stunned at the number of Americans who share that view.

        If that is true, Spook, it is truly a sad state of affairs. I suppose there will always be a segment of the population who cannot see beyond their own fears & prejudices. Hopefully, the majority of Americans are not blinded by this type of ignorance and do not share that view.

      • neocon1 February 19, 2012 / 3:14 pm


        LOL LOL LOL

        . I suppose there will always be a segment of the population who cannot see beyond their own fears & prejudices. Hopefully, the majority of Americans are not blinded by this type of ignorance and do not share that view.

        HUH??? WTF…….

      • neocon1 February 19, 2012 / 3:16 pm

        My My My

        some of Ubambas voters and supporters

      • neocon1 February 19, 2012 / 3:25 pm

        Here are some wonderful Ubamba supporters…..

      • neocon1 February 19, 2012 / 3:41 pm

        HellOOOOOOOOO (echo)

        cOOOOOOOOOOO ?

        answer the question FOOL

        your feigned, faux, “outrage” is laughable. I could post non stop for the next 48 hours of vile, venom, hate filled lunacy from the left.

        maxine waters any body??

        EH ?

      • Canadian Observer February 19, 2012 / 5:27 pm

        Since I don’t possess a masochistic nature, neocompoop, continuing to ‘debate’ in the manner you have chosen would be pointless; an exercise in futility. It would be another matter if you had the ability to mount reasonable and sane arguments but that doesn’t seem to be your forte. I have nothing but respect & admiration for President Obama and you have said nothing here that will change my opinion; so, carry on with your insane rants if you must but don’t expect further response from me.

      • neocon1 February 20, 2012 / 10:03 am


        like I said frogazz you cant answer the question.
        Im glad you like and respect a man of such low moral standings and NO accomplishments.
        Proves to me you libs are all the same.

      • neocon1 February 20, 2012 / 11:40 am

        cO ribit

        ROTFLMAO……….reminds me of you

      • Amazona February 20, 2012 / 2:45 pm

        No, darlin’, it was Americans blinded by ignorance who put Obama IN the White House, and is Americans whose blinders have fallen away who are seeing him for what he is now.

        But you just keep dismissing these observations of the guy as “fears and prejudices” if that’s what it takes to make you feel better.

        You probably wouldn’t understand this, being a foreigner and all, but there are millions of Americans who DO “fear” the ‘fundamental transformation’ of our country into one that is contrary to the rule of law that once made us so great. You can titter and snicker about that if you like, but I consider it a prudent concern.

        And “prejudice” against lying, corruption and distortion of American Constitutional values is hardly something to be ashamed of.

        Yes, I know, you are trying to find a new way to play the race card, using the word “prejudice” as you did, but it’s a sad, silly, stupid tactic that does nothing but reflect on the inherent dishonesty of the accuser. You really are a shameful creature, so deeply invested in your blind kneepad allegiance to a man if not to an ideology that you find such antics acceptable.

      • Amazona February 19, 2012 / 12:51 am

        Just more of the Same Old Same Old Identity Politics. What is so funny is that you clearly don’t even understand that this is all you can grasp, all that interests you. You claim to have posted “facts” but they have been “facts” about personalities, scandals, events and so on.

        Sorry you can’t comprehend the FACT that politics is not about personality, identity, etc. POLITICS is the blueprint for how best to govern the nation. In this country there are two opposing political models, each of them clearly defined. You don’t seem to be up to the task of identifying which of these models you support and believe to be the best system for governance of the United States, much less explaining it or defending it.

        Your comfort zone is clearly one of tabloid politics, of focus on the trivial while maintaining ignorance of the significant. And you’re so deeply invested in this shallow and superficial view of politics you don’t even realize how shallow and superficial it is.

      • Cluster February 18, 2012 / 8:45 pm


        My apologies for attributing that quote to you, but honestly you’re interchangeable with James, Xavier, etc. so any of you could of said it. Didn’t you find that quote amusing though? For people who bought into the hope and change thing and then accusing other of believing and not thinking – priceless.

      • Amazona February 19, 2012 / 1:47 pm

        wattle, are you saying that after having earnings confiscated for decades, and put into a fund to help pay medical expenses, someone should be expected to just walk away from that? Just take the loss with a philosophical shrug of the shoulders and write it off?

        BTW, PLEASE try to avoid lying to make one of your silly non-points. No one has ever claimed to have been “…FORCED onto the government dole”.

        Not to mention that “the government dole” is welfare, not a return of some of the money paid in over so many years.

        You really are a wonderful example of the endlessly bewildered Left, ignorant as you are of the ideology of the system you support. If you can’t even keep the terminology straight, it makes sense that the rest of your “thinking” is equally chaotic.

      • Amazona February 18, 2012 / 10:55 am

        a perpetual “offended” class.

        I love it.

      • tiredoflibbs February 17, 2012 / 2:34 pm

        Tyranny of the majority? Tommy-boy?

        What is this? a Democracy?

        We don’t have a Democracy or majority rule or mob rule or whatever “politically acceptable” phrase you want.

        We have a Representative Republic. Learn it.

        BTW, the decision was not a “tyranny of the majority” as you put it. It was a decision of a small group of school administrators.

        I also remember when the Republicans had the White House, the House and the Senate and libbies and proggies were crying about the “rights of the minority”.

        How quickly you mindless drones forget the past talking points. Well it is understandable. You are spoonfed the crap you regurgitate like wally. He’s the mouth-piece for the Hag from Haight Ashbury.

      • neocon1 February 17, 2012 / 3:56 pm


        right after reading your 2 fave…mao’s lol red book, and rules for radical communists.

      • neocon1 February 17, 2012 / 12:39 pm


        get the religious right out of our schools!

        define “OUR” schools.
        and replace it with leftist debauchery, racism, hate, class envy,?
        or better yet islam, who will teach their children to KILL….YOU!

      • Cluster February 17, 2012 / 1:41 pm


        I pay taxes too – so what if I want a prayer banner in school? Are your opinions more important than mine? And since you are in full support of the teachings of the Church in terms of helping those who can’t help themselves, why do you object so much to a prayer banner in the school?

      • RetiredSpook February 17, 2012 / 1:53 pm


        I’d venture to say that James is against it because you (a Conservative) are for it. It’s not any more complicated than that.

      • neocon1 February 17, 2012 / 4:13 pm


        I have seen MANY MANY young arrogant turds get buried, YOU may be in for the SURPRISE of your “life” some day soon who knows?

        King James Bible
        Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.

        New American Standard Bible
        20“But God said to him, ‘You fool! This very night your soul is required of you; and now who will own what you have prepared?’ 21“So is the man who stores up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God.”

        15 What is crooked cannot be straightened;
        what is lacking cannot be counted.

        16 I said to myself, “Look, I have increased in wisdom more than anyone who has ruled over Jerusalem before me; I have experienced much of wisdom and knowledge.” 17 Then I applied myself to the understanding of wisdom, and also of madness and folly, but I learned that this, too, is a chasing after the wind.

        18 For with much wisdom comes much sorrow;
        the more knowledge, the more grief.

      • Amazona February 18, 2012 / 10:41 am

        Well, it didn’t take long for Punk James to surface, did it?

        Is the new Psuedo Left really comprised of punks whose only claim to any kind of superiority is fewer years on the planet? We run into this every now and then, the odd arrogance based on lack of age, and the ghoulish glee of anticipation of the deaths of others.

        The Jameses seem to gloat over the fact that they will be the ones left running things, but they don’t seem to understand that to do this, they will have to actually LEARN something.

        I have been predicting a gradual return to an almost feudal type of society, as the public school system churns out increasingly uneducated morons and the only truly educated people, those who can actually RUN things, become a smaller and smaller demographic, which is the group that will be in charge.

        Hopefully this will be in a Constitutional model of government, and not a collectivist Leftist model—hopeful for the Jameses of the world, who as an undereducated, underskilled underclass will do far better if they are not at the mercy of the Leftist ruling elite types we have seen in the past.

      • Green Mountain Boy February 17, 2012 / 6:43 pm

        So, you are in favor of ridding the classrooms of humanistic religions like darwinisms too. After all if it is a belief system that can’t be proven it should qualify as a religion right?

      • Amazona February 18, 2012 / 10:57 am

        Yeah, ’cause the only people who believe in God are on the Right!!!

        You betcha!!!

        Let’s keep this idea fresh for the election cycle, when Barry puts on his pious act and starts campaigning in churches. Let’s remember it when Catholics start to wonder if they want to stay on the Left or fight for religious freedom.

      • RetiredSpook February 17, 2012 / 11:01 am


        Ann Barnhardt (sorry, no permalink in her blog) had a great piece yesterday about the effects of the Fed’s zero interest rate policy.

        Now back to interest rates. Now that we know what money actually is, namely an exchangeable, fungible representation of man’s capacity to create and produce, we can easily understand what the TIME VALUE OF MONEY is.

        If you are going to let someone else use your money for a period of time, you will, by definition, NOT get to use that money yourself. Thus, you are giving up something very real in loaning your money out, and you need to be reasonably compensated for what you are giving up. This is the TIME VALUE OF MONEY, or “interest”.

        Let’s take some of my cattlemen clients. They know how to generate a consistent return on their money by trading cattle. For the sake of simplicity, let’s call that rate of return 10% per year (my yound Jedi Padawan in Nebraska who has seen a triple-digit return over the last year is laughing his Jedi keister off right now). If they would loan their money to a bank in the form of a certificate of deposit, they would be losing a fortune. Why? Because the bank would only pay 1% on a one-year CD, and my guys could make 10%. They would be squandering the TIME VALUE of their money.

        So, what ZIRP, or zero interest rate policy, which is what the evil Federal Reserve has done since 2008, is to effectively declare that our money is worthless – completely independent of the whole gold standard/fiat currency argument. That isn’t even what we’re talking about here. Money has no time value. Think about that. Your human capacity to produce has no time value. Loan someone all of the money that you earned working for the last year. Let them use that money for a year. When it is time to pay it back, you will get exactly what you started with back, MINUS ONE YEAR OF YOUR LIFE and all of the productivity and innovation that could have happened in that year. This is intentional. The objective of ZIRP is NOT to stimulate the economy. The objective of ZIRP is to grind the economy to a halt so that there is no private investment or entrepreneurship – only fascistic government raping of the public coffers and exponentially increasing public dependence on the government. Hello? What do you think all of this solar panel bee-ess is about? Do you think that has ANYTHING to do with energy production or “global warming?” Give me a break. It is looting – pure, unadulterated LOOTING.

      • Count d'Haricots February 17, 2012 / 1:59 pm

        Japan circa 1990s
        . ~

      • Count d'Haricots February 17, 2012 / 2:00 pm

        Wait … what? That was a response to your Barnhardt post.

      • RetiredSpook February 17, 2012 / 2:43 pm

        Yeah, I knew what you meant.

      • neocon1 February 17, 2012 / 4:26 pm

        Give em HELL Rick

        Double Standard’: Santorum Uses Rev. Wright to Slam CBS During Interview

        “defended him against someone who he sat in a church for”

      • Green Mountain Boy February 17, 2012 / 7:35 pm

        Just for shits and giggles here, I think I’ll list all of barky accomplishments here.


      • Canadian Observer February 18, 2012 / 11:22 am

        Give em HELL Rick…neocon1

        Hahaha, Romney & Santorum’s showdown…

  10. bloodypenquinstump February 16, 2012 / 6:34 pm
    • neocon1 February 16, 2012 / 6:38 pm

      bloody Pump

      l You really have no idea how stupid you are

      lets compare it to the gold standard of stupidity…YOU. with YOU being a 10.

      cluster = .000000000000000000001

      YOU win bPumP

      • Xavier Cugat February 16, 2012 / 6:46 pm


        You’re not helping Cluster’s cause. It’s supposed to be us liberals who are emotionally unstable and quick to anger.

        Wait, could it be? Maybe all that rage spilling out from you is … your inner liberal speaking?

        Kinda makes sense.

      • neocon1 February 16, 2012 / 8:14 pm

        X cubegut

        Rage ? ROTFLMAO
        no more thanat a dog pooping on the floor, that is what you Trolls are, dogs S#!TTING on the web. Try the huff po stooge, or the fork where you live.

        outside mutt!

      • Amazona February 16, 2012 / 8:47 pm

        Well, neo, at least there is an admission that rage is pretty much what DEFINES a Liberal.

        What’s funny is the projection that others are also slaves to their emotions, or are equally negative.

      • neocon1 February 16, 2012 / 9:10 pm


        out of their own lips…LOL

  11. neocon1 February 16, 2012 / 6:35 pm


    l the news of constant child rape coverups and endless corruption.

    Yeah all those HOMOSEXUAL men should have worked for NAMBLA then you would have LOVED them.
    In fact Ochimpy would have mandated the CC to hire them.

  12. bloodypenquinstump February 16, 2012 / 6:38 pm
  13. bloodypenquinstump February 16, 2012 / 6:58 pm
    • Cluster February 16, 2012 / 7:16 pm

      We had a free market health care in the 30’s, 40’s 50’s, and most of the 60’s, and everyone still received excellent care, and costs were much lower. In fact, you could walk into your neighborhood doctors office, be seen right away, and actually make payments if needed – directly to him/her. No middle man. It’s only when government got involved in the 60’s is when costs started to explode. See if you can follow the popcorn trail on that one.

  14. bloodypenquinstump February 16, 2012 / 7:24 pm
  15. bloodypenquinstump February 16, 2012 / 7:31 pm
    • mitchethekid February 16, 2012 / 7:47 pm

      You and Xavier are wasting your time focusing on reality. The very few folks who post on this unknown, backwater blog believe rather than think and trust rather than question. The have an ideology that has atrophied and completely insane convictions about the president and any viewpoint that deviates from their paranoid dogma. They are, in word, authoritarians who fear modernity and mainline Fox “News”.

      • Xavier Cugat February 16, 2012 / 8:48 pm

        Gawd, I know. I don’t know why I do this.

      • tiredoflibbs February 16, 2012 / 11:03 pm

        Project much mitchie?

    • amazona February 19, 2012 / 12:55 pm

      Stumpy, are you claiming there is no scientific basis for the claim that women who do not have sex do not get pregnant?

      Maybe you should entertain us with YOUR ‘understanding of science’.

  16. bloodypenquinstump February 16, 2012 / 7:48 pm
    • neocon1 February 16, 2012 / 8:17 pm

      The call from media matters has gone out and the whole flying monkey brigade including the forkers have flapped in.
      Fun times ahead!!
      riots and mayhem soon to follow.

      • J. R. Babcock February 16, 2012 / 9:37 pm


        It appears all they brought with them is their “D” game, though.

      • neocon1 February 16, 2012 / 9:52 pm



    • neocon1 February 16, 2012 / 8:20 pm


      bwany fwank, is here?
      by the donk standards it is YOU, janet (both), hillary, bwany, barry, hell half the donk party do not how sex works.

      it aint a BJ with larry sinclair

      • mitchethekid February 16, 2012 / 9:41 pm

        You know what fckstick? Go screw yourself you encephalitic moron. Do you carry a tissue to wipe the droll from your face? Larry Sinclair. Is he your secret lover? You have been talking about this guy for yrs now. You are the most incredibly stupid person I have ever come across. Although with using the word “come” you probably think about your buddy Larry..

      • neocon1 February 16, 2012 / 9:50 pm


        Duct tape, it works wonders for libtard exploding heads.

        Refute the first “hand” testimony by larry sinclair.
        Oh; and wright, faracan arent rasists,
        the dope barry snorted and smoked which he bragged about in his book was a lie,
        his BC is **real** Pfffftttt
        and he isnt a muzzi.

        I have this property……….

    • neocon1 February 16, 2012 / 8:23 pm


      Obama’s Catholic Church Gambit: Lessons from American Communists
      By Paul Kengor

      A fascinating theory has been advanced by Dick Morris, which, in turn, is being considered by Rush Limbaugh and other leading conservatives. Morris speculates that the Obama HHS mandate on contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients is a fight with the Catholic Church that Team Obama wants — and with the focus based narrowly on contraception, not abortifacients.

      Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/obamas_catholic_church_gambit_lessons_from_american_communists.html#ixzz1matLU0PV

      • neocon1 February 16, 2012 / 8:25 pm


        The End of the Race Card?
        By Vaughan Starr

        Does the race card work? There can be no doubt that it is played an awful lot these days. In fact, in the age of the Obama, one could be forgiven for thinking that the left had discarded every other card in their deck.

        But is it effective in its aim to cow those critical of a socialist policy that vacillates almost daily between comically inept and extremely dangerous?

        Once, certainly, the charge of racist was something to be feared. And those so accused knew they were for the pyre — even as they frantically pleaded their innocence before self-appointed witchfinders general.

        Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/the_end_of_the_race_card.html#ixzz1matmy8jk

      • neocon1 February 16, 2012 / 8:26 pm

        IMAGINE THAT !!

        Now consider, instead, reality.

        The Science. The results are in: contraception availability does not reduce unintended pregnancies.

        Many adolescent males will wholeheartedly affirm a connection between the availability of contraception and sexual activity, and scientific data supports the link. Studies have shown that contraception increases sexual activity — i.e., that more contraception means more sex.

        One study, based on Centers for Disease Control data, established clear links between birth control and increases in sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). STD increases are a very reliable indicator of increased sexual activity and show that contraception is wrongly perceived as low-cost insurance — a perception that motivates increased sexual activity.

        And more sex means more pregnancies. Why? Because contraception is far from 100% effective, and with mass distribution of contraception comes a commensurate increase in sexual activity. More pregnancies will result because contraception fails in predictable percentages.

        It is noteworthy that failure rates are highest in Planned Parenthood’s customer base:

        Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/the_false_promise_of_contraception.html#ixzz1mauF1wjH

      • neocon1 February 16, 2012 / 8:32 pm

        Could this be the sudden uptick and resurgence of the attack Trolls?

        The Obama campaign is today beginning a new effort to enlist and educate at least 2 million supporters for a “grassroots communications team” they’re calling the Truth Team.

        “The goal is to ensure that when Republicans attack President Obama’s record, grassroots supporters can take ownership of the campaign and share the facts with the undecided voters in their lives,” the campaign said in a statement.

        Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/the_ministry_of_propoganda.html#ixzz1mavPLi7G

      • neocon1 February 16, 2012 / 8:47 pm

        THE…VOICE of the donk partayyyyyy

        and we thought the Mooch was MAD ?

        Rep. Maxine Waters Unhinged: Boehner and Cantor Are ‘Demons!’

        “Don’t ever let me see again in life those Republicans in our hall, on our screens, talking about anything.”

        same back at ya aunt ester.

    • Amazona February 16, 2012 / 8:45 pm

      stumpy, you really are a strange and hostile little creature, aren’t you? Sometimes I look at the mindless vitriol that you spew and wonder just what kind of a sick mind can generate such oddly irrelevant and meaningless spite and malice—-and get such pleasure from it.

      • neocon1 February 16, 2012 / 8:49 pm


        she is the kind who MURDER their own children and call it choice.
        They are really quite ugly when the curtain gets drawn back for a peek.

      • neocon1 February 16, 2012 / 9:17 pm


        you can’t think of a conspiracy theory about Obama you don’t believe.

        really? but these I do NOT believe
        he is not kenyan,
        he is not homosexual
        he is not a doper
        he is not a muslim
        he is not a communist
        he is not a racist
        he is not a liar
        he is not a POS

    • Amazona February 17, 2012 / 2:23 pm

      “scared of the pill”???

      Just when I think you can’t get any dumber, you come up with something like this.

  17. bloodypenquinstump February 16, 2012 / 9:04 pm


    • neocon1 February 16, 2012 / 9:14 pm


      SHOW us ANY girls molested by a catholic priest.
      You scream daily about the RAPE of boys by HOMOSEXUAL predator “priests”, the very homosexuals you love, push, promote, and have as pillars of your party.

      why is that?

    • Amazona February 17, 2012 / 2:29 pm

      And yet again the old Lefty lie about “Catholic pedophiles”.

      Why should they care that pedophilia is about sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children, while the Church scandals were about homosexual predators preying on post-pubescent young males? Why should fact be allowed to diminish their glee at spreading this silly lie?

      Of course, the lie is necessary, as one of the beloved Lefty claims is that of course gay men are not interested in children, of course they would never focus on molesting young boys, of course they are only interested in adults who are also gay, of course of course of course. The ugly truth that in fact many many gay men are predators who DO use positions of trust to enable them to prey on young people is something they have to try to hide at all costs.

      These men did not molest young boys because they were priests. They molested young boys because the Catholic Church, in a period of foolish liberalization, made the priesthood a haven for predatory gay men, who suddenly “found” a calling to the priesthood, where protected access to vulnerable boys was guaranteed.

  18. bloodypenquinstump February 16, 2012 / 11:05 pm
    • neocon1 February 17, 2012 / 10:51 am


      so out of a BILLION Catholics you can maybe find a couple of examples.
      Pulllllease post us the convictions, places, and times of those allegations.

  19. bagni February 17, 2012 / 1:16 am

    great reading in the comments tonite
    your posts inspire the bfv’ers to write such lovely prose and deep thoughts

    • neocon1 February 17, 2012 / 10:30 am

      nanu nanu dork

      when wrestling with pigs one must get dirty. Too bad you dont know who the pigs are. Must be you are one of them.

  20. watsonredux February 17, 2012 / 3:06 am

    Do you really buy into this article, spook, or did you post it as a courtesy to cluster? If Obama is trying to intentionally lose the election, he’s doing a pretty bad job of it. Head to head polls against any Republican candidate show him ahead. His approval rating has been steadily climbing and is over 50%, and independents have a net positive view of Obama. Of course, it could be in spite of Obama’s performance, given the buffoonish behavior of the Republican candidates in general. And I know these are statistics and all, which you conservatives don’t believe in, but still… I’d love to hear your explanation, spook.

    • RetiredSpook February 17, 2012 / 10:45 am

      Sorry, Watson; engaging you in conversation is counter-productive — piss off.

      • neocon1 February 17, 2012 / 10:52 am



      • RetiredSpook February 17, 2012 / 10:55 am


        I’m just sick of the intellectual dishonesty of people like Watson. You can continue to smack him around if you want. Personally, I don’t think he’s worth the effort.

      • neocon1 February 17, 2012 / 3:45 pm


        Must be the Jarhead in me LOL

        but it’s kind of like shining the lazer on the floor and watching the cat try to catch it

  21. Jeremiah February 17, 2012 / 4:15 am

    Xavier Cugat wrote: “evolution is responsible for the species”


    I’ll clue you in, dude!

    Evolution had nothing to do with the origin of the species!! But “evolution” had everything to do with the murder of millions, if not billions of precious people. Hitler, Margaret Sanger, Stalin, all those mass murderers adopted Darwin’s theory. And did you know that Darwin is the one that gave Sanger, and millions more the idea that blacks were an inferior race? Yeah!

    Here is a tid-bit from an excerpt of his … “the gorilla and the Neanderthal man” have a close biological affinity to “a large number of the living African blacks”

    Would you agree that you have a “close affinity” to a “gorilla” or a “neanderthal”? As if there were such a thing as a “neanderthal” man.

    Let me tell ya, Darwin is sitting in hell right now wishing with all of his being that he had given God a second thought before he made the terrible mistake of coming up with the absurd idea of “evolution.” I can guarantee you that. Cause I can guarantee you he knows there’s a God now. He knew there was a God the split second that the mouth of hell opened, and he got swallowed up, and all those who followed after him.

    Like the African honeybee experiment; “evolution” was an idea gone horribly wrong.

  22. Jeremiah February 17, 2012 / 6:22 am

    In fact Ochimpy would have mandated the CC to hire them.

    Well, he’s already doin’ that, Neo. He’s put homosexuals in various positions high up on the ladder/chain of command. He’s disgraced the office of the Presidency more than any other President in the history of the United States.

  23. Jeremiah February 17, 2012 / 6:26 am

    Ochimpy will get crushed this fall.


    Indeed, he will, my friend … indeed he will

  24. Green Mountain Boy February 17, 2012 / 7:38 am

    Darn, I missed the sock puppet show. It is too bad that I have real life intruding. This tread was a fun read.

    Even Darth Flip Flop will beat barky in November. For what that is worth to the rest of us.

Comments are closed.