Don’t Buy the Lies

Just in case any of you out there are getting skittish – a few words to the wise.  First off,  here’s a headline from September, 1980:

“Campaign Kickoff; Has Reagan Dropped the Ball?” – U.S. News and World Report, 9/9/1980

In what shapes up as a tight contest for the White House, even associates of Ronald Reagan conceded that the Republican nominee got off to a sputtering start in his attempt to replace President Jimmy Carter…

Reagan, of course, went on to win by 10.

Coming out of the convention what Obama wants – and thus the MSM will do – is play up every negative aspect for the GOP and every positive aspect for Obama (even if they have to make up things to fit both narratives).  Remember, 90% of the MSM is in the tank for Obama – always has been, always will be.  They will not tell the truth.  Now, readers here know that I’ve been confident of a Romney victory:  I remain confident.  Can Obama win?  Sure he can.  Lots of things can happen in an election – maybe the American people in a majority will want to continue Obama’s destructive rule.  So be it.

But I don’t think it will happen – if it does happen it just means that we’ve allowed socialism to go too far and it will have to get massively worse before a majority are fully awake to the necessary revolution.  Fortunately – if I may use that word – the re-election of Obama will make things rapidly get massively worse so we’ll have a good shot of winning in 2016 if not in 2012.  But I don’t believe a majority of my fellow Americans are that far gone – at least 40% of them are (and thus that is the ultimate floor for the Obama vote – when he shouldn’t get more than 10%, representing the people who really profit of our corrupt system) – but not a majority.  November 6th will either prove or disprove my view – but my view of where the majority is doesn’t depend on polls (hasn’t at all this election cycle) because the polls are simply over-sampling Democrats.  My view is based upon cold, hard, facts on the ground – and all of those (such as, for instance, Romney’s 22 campaign offices in Michigan – a State Obama won by more than 16 percentage points) show, at a minimum, that Romney is even with Obama, and I think he’s actually ahead.

UPDATE:  Hot Air reports on a new poll showing Obama up by 7 over Romney in New Jersey.  Yes, New Jersey.  The State Obama won by 15 points in 2008.

Does it stand to reason that Obama can lose that much support in heavily blue New Jersey and yet not lose it in purple Ohio and Florida?  I’m telling ya – any State that Obama won by less than 5 is gone, any State won by less than 10 is “tossup”.

80 thoughts on “Don’t Buy the Lies

  1. bardolf September 10, 2012 / 12:56 am

    “the re-election of Obama will make things rapidly get massively worse so we’ll have a good shot of winning in 2016 if not in 2012.” – Mark

    The loss by Romney would essentially seal Roe v. Wade forever. Obama will be able to stack the courts for 20 years, fixing it as the law of the land for 60 years or 3 score.

    The loss by Romney will allow 4 more years of war in Afghanistan, close to the double of Vietnam.

    The loss by Romney will continue the unfair ‘Free Trade Agreements’ signed under Clinton, escalated by Bush and put into overdrive by Obama.

    Unemployment stands at 8.2% officially and much more unofficially. Obama won’t win re-election as much as Romney will fail to be elected. He will have failed to convince the American voters, many who have family members who have been out of work for years that he can be trusted more than an empty chair.

    • neocon1 September 10, 2012 / 6:09 am


      He will have failed to convince the American voters, many who have family members who have been out of work for years that he can be trusted more than an empty chair.

      “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.”
      ― Alexis de Tocqueville

      We have arrived..except the well is almost dry.

      • neocon1 September 10, 2012 / 7:21 am


    • Amazona September 10, 2012 / 9:39 am

      dolf, what would be the effect of overturning Roe v Wade?

      • bardolf September 10, 2012 / 1:15 pm

        Some states would outlaw the taking of the most innocent of lives. Result lives saved. Not my life or your life, but important lives.
        The balance won’t be 100% since some will take to the back alleys but overall lives saved.

        What would be the result of ending the Afghan War?
        Lives saved, not my life or your life but important lives. The balance won’t be 100% since some Afghan citizens will be killed, but overall lives saved.

        What would be the result of legalizing drugs?
        Lives saved from prison. Not my life or your life, but important lives. Some will overdose like they do with alcohol, but on balance many more lives saved from needless prison terms than lost in OD.

        What would be the result of overturning NAFTA type agreements?
        Lives saved. Not everyone benefits of course, but a level playing field would increase the value of American labor

      • Amazona September 10, 2012 / 1:24 pm

        Yeah, but I only asked about Roe vs Wade, and you actually gave a correct answer.

        The shrill hysteria on the Left seems to be based on a belief that if this decision were to be overturned, it would mean abortion would be automatically outlawed, but in fact all it would do would be to re-establish state sovereignty with regard to being able to make their own laws.

        The forkers claim to want “self determination” yet they demand that the federal government impose the opposite of self determination upon everyone in the nation, and deprive citizens of the ability to determine the laws of their own states.

        BTW, I agree on drug legalization and if we are not going to handle Afghanistan properly we should just leave. Tomorrow. I’m a hard-ass on drugs. The War on Drugs has been a miserable, expensive, failure and waste of money and energy. If people are bound and determined to destroy themselves, they will, and as far as I am concerned, if this is their goal I want them to do it before they contribute to the gene pool.

        NAFTA is a little more complicated and I don’t know about lives saved but I do object strenuously to the current practices around entry of cargo trucks into the US from Mexico.

  2. Cluster September 10, 2012 / 7:43 am

    Roe v Wade is already established law and is not going anywhere, besides the war to combat the slaughter of the unborn is through education, parenting, and socially stigmatizing the practice.

    Dick Morris joined Bill Clinton following the Democrats 1994 loss of the Congress as his pollster, and masterfully guided him to the center and a 1996 reelection. He knows of which he speaks, and definitely knows how to poll. Here are his results:

    • bardolf September 10, 2012 / 1:23 pm

      “Roe v Wade is already established law and is not going anywhere, besides the war to combat the slaughter of the unborn is through education, parenting, and socially stigmatizing the practice.”- Clueless

      Gotcha, through EDUCATION and STIGMATIZING. That doesn’t even work when the individual’s health is concerned e.g. eating too many carbs and blowing up like a balloon. Yep, public education of parents has cured so many problems.

      Do you really think SLAUGHTER can be curbed by education? Education didn’t work for civil rights or slavery or the interment of Japanese during WW2.

      • Cluster September 10, 2012 / 2:11 pm

        Well I can tell you that promoting and championing abortion as a “choice” hasn’t worked too well has it? How about if expect more from parents? How about if we as a society stop calling abortion a “choice” and start calling it manslaughter as it is? You ok with that?

  3. Cluster September 10, 2012 / 7:58 am

    Well she certainly didn’t get there because of her intellect:

    In a 1994 interview, then-Harvard Law School dean Richard Clark said his institution was actively applying an affirmative action policy to hiring female faculty, The Daily Caller has learned. The famed law school first offered Massachusetts Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren a professorship in 1992 and granted her tenure in 1995.

    I wonder how much influence the high cheek bones had. She’s just another liberal fraud people, nothing to see here.

    Read more:

  4. Cluster September 10, 2012 / 10:37 am

    This current lead in the polls by Obama isn’t all bad. We need a very energized and mobilized conservative vote this time around and the prospects of an Obama win, should do it. Besides, we can never under estimate the large number of stupid people walking this country who will cast a completely uninformed vote for Obama, or the selfish union vote who vote purely for the candidate who will increase their entitlements.

    • dbschmidt September 10, 2012 / 11:54 am

      That is the one poll that has the Dems scared–the internal polls showing the Conservative base of LV (Likely voters) is 2 to 3 times more likely to vote. Most responding to the question of “how likely?” the Conservatives constantly respond with an 8,9, or 10 on a scale of 10 while Liberals are responding with 2,3, or 4.

    • Retired Spook September 10, 2012 / 12:25 pm

      Cluster, I don’t have time to look for a link this morning, but a poll came out last week that indicated registered voters who favor Romney are twice as likely to actually vote as registered voters who favor Obama. So any lead that Obama has among registered voters is irrelevant.

  5. Kolob Bob September 10, 2012 / 11:00 am

    No one likes or trusts Romney. Did you see on MTP that he is starting to embrace Obamacare now? This is just what was predicted for etch a sketch Mitt.

    • Cluster September 10, 2012 / 11:44 am

      No one? Wow, what insight.

      You may consider that Romney crafted STATE enacted health care before Obama, and while Obama was suing banks for not giving mortgages to low income people. Of course you may not consider that either, considering your comment exposes you as just another unthinking liberal.

      Have a nice day

      • Kolob Bob September 10, 2012 / 1:55 pm

        Ok, then you’re the only Republican I’ve talked to who approves of Romneycare/Obamacare. But you have to admit that you’re in the minority.

      • Cluster September 10, 2012 / 2:52 pm

        No I am not. Most conservatives see healthcare as a state issue, and oppose Obamacare mainly on those grounds. In fact most states already have state run healthcare for low income people, and most of them are pretty good.

    • Amazona September 10, 2012 / 12:58 pm

      Yeah, NO ONE likes or trusts Romney!!!!

      No one in the Dem Echo Chamber, anyway, where KB seems to reside, under whatever name he is using today.

      I think they will feel better if they just don’t vote for him.

      BTW, my liberal teacher cousin from California was here last week—-voting for Romney.

    • Amazona September 10, 2012 / 1:00 pm

      KB, what is it about the actual POLITICS of Romney you find bad for the nation?

      So far all we have gotten from you is fixation on fluff. Surely you do not pick a president based just on how much you LIKE him.

      Surely not.

      That would be so….stupid

      • Kolob Bob September 10, 2012 / 1:42 pm

        I think it’s a mistake to take away the mortgage interest deduction in order to pay for another round of tax cuts for the wealthy, for one. The “vouchercare” plan would likewise be awful for the country, as would his promise to keep everything about Obamacare (aka Romneycare) except for the mandate, which is the only way these provisions can be paid for. Romney was a horrible Governor, #47 in job creation of all states, etc, etc.

        To be brief, he wants to go back to the GW Bush policies which bankrupted our country. Except he also wants health care reform without a mandate, which would cost trillions unlike Obamacare which actually reduces the deficit over 10 years.

      • Cluster September 10, 2012 / 2:03 pm


        Thank you for proving my point that you are an unthinking liberal.You just parroted nearly every falsehood about Romney, obviously without looking deeper into any of those issues. Allow me to help.

        Mass. was 47% in job creation in Romney’s final year as Governor BECAUSE unemployment was already at 5%. It’s pretty hard to create jobs when you already have full employment.

        The tax cuts for the wealthy, first of all include tax cuts for everyone, but also eliminate a lot of loop holes and deductions for the “rich”, making the plan revenue neutral.

        The “voucher” plan is OPTIONAL and only effects those people 54 years old and younger.

        Romney’s plan is nothing like Bush’s. Please do some reading.

      • Kolob Bob September 10, 2012 / 2:11 pm

        Here’s what George Will says about Romneys “secret tax plan”:

        “There is uncertainty surrounding the Romney-Ryan tax cut plan, because they have not specified the deductions that will be closed,” Will said. “And we know where the big money is: mortgage interest deductions, charitable deductions, taxing that’s compensation, which it is, employee-provided health insurance, and state and local taxes. All of those, you either hit only the rich, in which case you don’t get much money, or you hit the middle class.”

      • Cluster September 10, 2012 / 2:12 pm

        So now you let George Will do your thinking? Tell you what Bob, when you have something relevant to say, get back to us.

      • Kolob Bob September 10, 2012 / 6:49 pm


        Hey, since Romney and Lying Ryan won’t answer. . How about you enlighten me? They want to cut about 7 trillion in “loopholes” but won’t say which ones. According to something called “math”, there are very few deductions that add up to that enormous figure, so which tax loopholes are they referring to?

      • Kolob Bob September 10, 2012 / 6:50 pm

        Religious bigotry is not allowed here. You have had many bigoted posts deleted without comment. Now there is comment. They will not be allowed and if you repeat your bigotry you will be put on the spam list and all your posts will be removed. //Moderator

      • Kolob Bob September 10, 2012 / 6:51 pm

        7 *billion*

      • Cluster September 10, 2012 / 7:58 pm

        You know Bob this conversation with you would be easier if you knew what in the hell you we’re talking about and didn’t rely MSNBC for your talking points. Outside of the child tax deduction and mortgage interest deduction, which the “rich” don’t have a lot of anyway, nearly every other deduction for those in the upper income brackets will be eliminated. This increases their AGI and simplifies the process which also will help eliminate fraud and avoidance. But again, that is just part of the plan. Read more – please:

        Re: his religion. I believe in separation of church and state. You should try it.

      • bozo September 11, 2012 / 11:47 am

        Hey, cool. Us on the left are also for the separation of church and state. Let’s eliminate that favorable-tax-collusion churches currently enjoy. How about it? Common ground?

  6. Joe September 10, 2012 / 1:02 pm

    Question for everyone here…

    IF Obama does win on Nov 6 AND the Dems keep the Senate, do you believe the GOP congressfolk should accept the results and stop blocking everything the President is asking to get done? Maybe not as many filibusters, etc? Maybe start to work across the aisle?

    If not, what IF the Dems happen to close the gap significantly in the House as well (never mind taking a majority). Would that lead to more cooperation on the GOP side?

    If not, a common GOP talking point is that “Obama never learned from the 2010 election results” and he didn’t reach across the aisle.
    If that is the case, did the GOP not learn from the 2008 election results when they proceeded to proclaim that they would do nothing to help Obama despite the Dems winning the White House, House and 60 seats in the Senate?

    • Amazona September 10, 2012 / 1:19 pm

      Joe, let me rephrase your questions so they make sense.

      If Obama wins this election, should conservatives completely abandon their principles and support policies and actions they believe are not only not in the best interest of the United States and/or its citizens but which may actually be in violation of the law of the land, the United States Constitution?

      Should conservatives consider losing an election a mandate to support and engage in activities which contradict every deeply and sincerely held belief about how the country must be governed?

      If conservatives are now withholding support for policies and agendas they believe are antithetical to the ideals upon which this nation was founded, ideals codified in our Constitution as the governing laws of the land, should they actively promote and support legislation which they believe undermines or subverts the Constitution and goes against not only the ideals of the Founders but of the laws they put in place?

      If Obama wins in 2012, will HE start to reach “across the aisle” instead of instructing Constitutionalists they will have to sit in the back of the bus?

      If Obama wins in 2012, will he moderate his radical and rigid Leftist policies and agendas to make compromise possible without making it dependent on conservatives having to abandon basic principles of Constitutional governance?

      How far can the Constitution be bent before it breaks? How far should conservatives be willing to erode Constitutional law for the sake of “compromise”?

      Conservatives have taken the position that we all want the same thing, and the disagreements lie in how to achieve them. Obama and Biden are lecturing us, over and over, that both sides do NOT want the same thing, that we have “starkly different VALUES” and that those of the Left are “starkly different” in that they are all about fairness and clean air and feeding the poor. How would you bridge this invented gap between VALUES if the position of the Left is that there is no middle ground, that the problem is not one of how to solve a problem but of what is considered a problem?

      • James September 10, 2012 / 2:00 pm

        You do have different values!

        Conservatives fundamentally believe in different ways of governing which is the antitheses of what Democrats believe. Period.

        When you believe that states should determine issues like healthcare, abortion, gay marriage, education, etc. you are in direct conflict with Democrats.

        When the President wins this election, and the Democrats make some gains in the House and keep the Senate. There will be no compromise with your ideology.

        If you’d like to meet in the MIDDLE. Fair. But there will be no compromise with your ilk.

      • Cluster September 10, 2012 / 2:04 pm

        Fair enough James. And if conservatives win, you can expect the same.

      • Joe September 10, 2012 / 2:22 pm

        If Obama wins this election, should conservatives completely abandon their principles and support policies and actions they believe are not only not in the best interest of the United States and/or its citizens but which may actually be in violation of the law of the land, the United States Constitution?
        But in 2010, you are claiming that Democrats should abandon their policies and principles just because you won an election. Why the double standard?
        And what exactly is in violation OF THE LAW???

        Should conservatives consider losing an election a mandate to support and engage in activities which contradict every deeply and sincerely held belief about how the country must be governed?
        Why then is the GOP talking point that the Dems didn’t learn from the 2010 election? If you are never… ever… willing to meet in the middle, there is something seriously wrong with you and everyone with that belief.

        …should they actively promote and support legislation which they believe undermines or subverts the Constitution and goes against not only the ideals of the Founders but of the laws they put in place?

        Subverts the Constitution? Stop being such a drama queen. What exactly has subverted the Constitution?

        I would continue debtating point by point… but it only gets crazier the more you type.

        To comment on your “starkly different values” comment… the difference is not in values, but in policies. If you can’t find a common ground in policy, then there are much bigger issues with our elected officials. Nobody wants you to compromise on values, we want you to compromise on policy. You see that as one in the same, but you couldn’t be further from the truth.

      • Amazona September 10, 2012 / 8:44 pm

        “But in 2010, you are claiming that Democrats should abandon their policies and principles just because you won an election”
        I am claiming no such thing. What is it with you people just inventing things like this? It is very weird.

        But, as you are clearly quite confused by the concept of a coherent political philosophy which guides political decisions, let’s look at that.

        A Conservative states that he cannot in good conscience vote for a measure which demands federal expenditures for purposes not delegated in the Constitution. He states a coherent political principal which dictates his actions.

        What is the coherent political philosophy that supports a Democrat’s refusal to cooperate with Republicans?

        You see, this is where you guys always run into trouble, from the Senate all the way down to this blog. Because you know that if you are candid, and admit that what you want, what you insist on, is not consistent with the Constitution but you want it anyway, you will be admitting that your intent is to subvert the Constitution. If you vote to uphold the Constitution, you will be voting with the Right.

        When a Conservative asks a Liberal to cross the aisle, he is, of course, asking him to step back from his wish list. But the Liberal will not define that wish list, will not explain it, and certainly will not admit that it involves bypassing Constitutional restrictions on size, scope and power of the federal government. Therefore it is hard to refer to his position as one of principle, as he won’t define or defend that principle, and will just insist it is a good thing to do without any foundation.

        So the guy on the Right is standing on principle, and explaining it and defining it and defending it, while the guy on the Left is standing by what HE believes is right, but trying to avoid defining it, describing it, or defending it on anything like compliance with the Constitution.

        You seem to define compromise as capitulation. We have, in the past, been more able to “meet in the middle” because we agreed that we shared the same basic goals for the country and disagreed only on how to achieve them. Now the Left has moved the bar, claiming that we not only do not have the same goals for the country, but that the goals of the Left are good and noble and those of the Right are selfish, greedy, and indifferent to suffering.

        As long as you insist on this false paradigm, there is no “middle” ground where we can meet, because with this kind of attitude it is clear that the goal is not to solve any of the problems but to create a false illusion of a demonized Other that can then be attacked on anything BUT ideological grounds.

        I don’t know if you are truly as ignorant of the Constitution and the many distortions of it that mark our more recent legislation as you post makes you sound, or if you just like to call names, but in either case your comment is very misguided.

        Rather than go into detail, which I am sure you would dismiss anyway, I suggest that you examine the 17 enumerated duties of the federal government, review the 10th Amendment, and then go through the laws you like the most to see how and if they comport with the law of the land.

        I’ll start you off: Find an enumerated duty that allows the federal government to legally force private lending institutions to lend money to people who do not have jobs or good credit histories. Ditto for the law that allows the federal government to intercede in and eventually control health care. That’s just two.

        If you are serious about discussing this, I know of a some posters who would love to join us in a serious and legitimate debate on the duties and limitations of federal power.

        If all you want to do is dismiss facts by calling me a drama queen, there there is no reason for us to waste our time.

      • Amazona September 10, 2012 / 8:45 pm

        “…the difference is not in values, …”

        Not according to Biden and Obama, who continually harp on their new theme that while Romney, et al, are “decent enough people” there is a “stark difference” in our values, that they do not share Leftist values etc etc.

    • Mark Edward Noonan September 10, 2012 / 11:58 pm

      If the people choose to be governed by fools that does not make folly in to wisdom. So, no, we won’t give in to Obama should he win…no more than Reid or Pelosi will give in to us if we win.

  7. Diane Valencen, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H [Journ.], ArF J., M.F. September 10, 2012 / 5:10 pm

    1. It’s not 1980.
    2. Reagan’s dead.
    3. There will be no “revolution” because Americans have to much to throw it away on politics.
    4. See 1 & 2.

    • neocon1 September 10, 2012 / 5:39 pm

      duane vaseline

      tell the innercity drones that if al Ubama loses.

      • neocon1 September 10, 2012 / 5:44 pm

        we DONT intend to compromise on

        Murdering the young unborn
        attempts to normalize sodomy and homosexual perversion
        support the 47% who PAY NO federal taxes yet DEMAND the 53% pay mote for their ill begotten gains
        hate America
        hate the military
        support the rise of islam
        support the rise of communist marxism
        support the downfall of capitalism

        and many many more
        when are you donks going to compromise??? on any of the above?

      • neocon1 September 10, 2012 / 5:53 pm

        Ahhhhhhhh OPM and the plantation…… aint AmeriKa grand?

      • neocon1 September 10, 2012 / 5:55 pm


        forgot this DOH!!


      • neocon1 September 10, 2012 / 5:59 pm


        THIS one is for you,
        92 today

      • Jeremiah September 10, 2012 / 7:37 pm

        Are you tryin’ to make me go blind or something? lol

    • Mark Edward Noonan September 10, 2012 / 11:59 pm

      1. Its not 2008.
      2. Obama and Biden are not the sharpest knives in the drawer.
      3. There will be a revolution.
      4. We get to win no matter what happens.

  8. Jack in Chicago September 10, 2012 / 7:41 pm


    Man, is this great. Obama’s convention bounce is getting bigger and Romney is in the tank. Loving this.

    You guys are toast.

    • Cluster September 10, 2012 / 7:48 pm


      What accomplishment of Obama’s do you like the most?

      • Jack in Chicago September 10, 2012 / 7:55 pm

        Hard to say. There are so many. The Affordable Care Act, killing bin Laden, Wall Street reform, ending the war in Iraq, saving the auto industry, helping to crush Quaddafi, repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” getting rid of Bush’s torture policies, raising fuel efficiency standards…I could really go on and on and on.

        Let’s turn it around: What accomplishments of Bush did you like the most? Got a similar list?

      • Cluster September 10, 2012 / 8:06 pm

        I will address your list – the affordable care act will raise your taxes and is opposed by the majority of Americans and has resulted in nearly 83% of doctors thinking of leaving the practice. Health insurance doesn’t equate to health care.

        – Obama ended the war in Iraq on Bush’s original timeline.

        – GM is not saved. Private bond holders lost everything, Delphi non union pension holders lost everything, the Chevy volt is discontinued, and GM still owes tax payers over $42 billion and are still in bankruptcy. Do you ever read?

        – France crushed Qaddafi. Remember? Leading from behind ring a bell? Besides, Qaddafi was no imminent threat to Amercia which use to be a liberal standard.

        – Bush used enhanced interrogation three times and it did help lead to UBL’ s killing. So I find this one deliciously ironic.

        – Raising fuel efficiency standards? the CAFE standards weren’t enough? And what could possibly be the benefit of that?

        – Don’t ask, don’t tell – that was put in place by a democrat to begin with.

        Pretty weak list my friend.

      • Amazona September 10, 2012 / 8:59 pm

        What a joke your list is. The “Affordable Care Act” will do nothing to make “care” more “affordable”, the much-vaunted “Wall Street Reform” is nothing more than reams of new regulations designed to shut off credit to small business while letting Barry’s Wall Street buddies continue doing what they want to do, whatever enhanced interrogation went on under Bush is still going on, as is Gitmo and sending captives to other countries without much in the way of protection for them, the “raised fuel efficiency standards” are making cars more expensive and more dangerous at the same time, and the parts of the auto industry that are saved did so on their own, while GM got taken over, its investors stripped of their investments in the company, and the unions handed a nice big reward for their delivery of the election to Obama—-and then GM went ahead and did what it should have done in the first place, and declared bankruptcy anyway, still owing the country billions.

      • Jack in Chicago September 10, 2012 / 11:29 pm

        Yawn. “Obama sucks. This is what his policies really will do. They aren’t now, but they will. Talking point, talking point, talking point.” Double yawn.

        We win in November. Again. You lose. Again.

        Can’t wait.

    • Jeremiah September 10, 2012 / 7:58 pm

      Keep loving Obama’s surge in the polls, keep loving his re-election, but most of all keep loving it when the tax money runs out. I hope you’ve got a place to hide.

      • Jack in Chicago September 10, 2012 / 7:59 pm

        “A place to hide”? What does that mean, Jerry?

      • Jeremiah September 10, 2012 / 8:05 pm

        Just picture in your mind a ration lines, skeletons lying about, people drinking from dirty streams and ponds, that sort of thing. B

        But you won’t understand until you’ve experienced it. Which I hope you don’t. But keep voting Obama and watch happens.

      • Jack in Chicago September 10, 2012 / 8:07 pm

        Wow. You’re betting on Armaggedon following an Obama win, are you? Not exaggerating, just a tiny bit, right? That’s REALLY going to happen in the next four years: Starving people, skeletons strewn about, dirty-pond drinkers. That’s the prediction?

        My, my. How did we ever survive the Clinton years?

        You people need therapy. Seriously.

      • Jeremiah September 10, 2012 / 8:10 pm

        It’s going to be worse than Armageddon.

      • Jack in Chicago September 10, 2012 / 8:24 pm

        “Worse than Armageddon.” You don’t say. Tell me, aside from all the pond-drinking and skeleton clean-up issues, what else will occur if Barack Obama is re-elected? Nuclear war? Domestic and international terrorist acts? Dogs and cats cohabitating?

        I’m truly curious. What is “worse than Armageddon”?

      • Cluster September 10, 2012 / 8:32 pm

        Hey Jack, knowing that Obama’s foreign policy impresses you, I am curious what you think about this:

        The Government Accountability Institute, a new conservative investigative research organization, examined President Obama’s schedule from the day he took office until mid-June 2012, to see how often he attended his Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) — the meeting at which he is briefed on the most critical intelligence threats to the country. During his first 1,225 days in office, Obama attended his PDB just 536 times — or 43.8 percent of the time. During 2011 and the first half of 2012, his attendance became even less frequent — falling to just over 38 percent. By contrast, Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush almost never missed his daily intelligence meeting.

      • Jeremiah September 10, 2012 / 8:34 pm

        I’m truly curious. What is “worse than Armageddon”?

        Tell me, aside from all the pond-drinking and skeleton clean-up issues, what else will occur if Barack Obama is re-elected? Nuclear war?

        That’s it.

        Have you ever seen parents that ate their own children? Or vice-versa?

        Armageddon is a spiritual battle. And has nothing to do with what Obama has in store for America. Though there will likely be State entities who will try to re-educate or brainwash people.

      • 6206j September 10, 2012 / 8:51 pm


        That Thiessen piece is a joke. W went to all his briefings yet 9/11 happened on his watch and he got us into a war on bad intel. Tough couple of days huh? It will get better soon don’t worry.

      • Amazona September 10, 2012 / 8:53 pm

        Jack, quit goading Jeremiah and quit pretending he is a typical conservative. That’s like saying the Hive Lady from another galaxy is a typical Lefty.

        You are whining that Obama has not done enough to clean up Bush’s mess. Yet you have no idea what “Bush’s mess” IS, or is supposed to be. You saw some things happen during a time he was president, you got off on the BDS, and you spew the talking points.

        But there WERE legislative issues that set up the financial crash, so why don’t you look them up, trace the problems back to their root cause, and then tell us just which of these legislative disasters/social engineering experiments have been repealed under Obama?

        Why don’t you explain to us why every single law that led to the problem is still in place?

        Why don’t you tell us why, if you know what it was that Bush did that caused the problem, it has not been corrected? Why, instead of FIXING THE PROBLEM all Barry and the Boyz have done is throw OPM at it?

      • Jeremiah September 10, 2012 / 9:16 pm

        quit pretending he is a typical conservative.

        Bahahahaha ROTFL!!

      • tiredoflibbs September 10, 2012 / 9:48 pm

        drone 6206j, those dumbed down talking points you regurgitated have been debunked several times here and other places. Too bad the 9/11 commission does not back up those ASSertions you present.

        Give it up…no matter how many times you repeat them they will not become true in any reality (only to weak minded drones such as yourself).

      • 6206j September 10, 2012 / 10:48 pm


        Why don’t you stop talking right now. What I said about W is factually true. 9/11 happened while he was President and we went to Iraq thinking there were WMD and there were none. That is all I am saying.

      • Mark Edward Noonan September 11, 2012 / 12:02 am

        No, Jack – Jeremiah just understands that if Obama wins nothing will be done to fix the debt problem so we will have an economic collapse. We’re already back in recession and this one will be much worse and of much longer duration than the last one (in case you don’t think we are, I advise that the last recession began in 2007 but no one noticed it until late 2008). Obama not only doesn’t have a plan to fix what actually ails us, he doesn’t even see that we have a problem. But unless we fix the problem there will come a day when we can’t borrow a red cent on the global markets and our choices will be default or to print money so fast that we have hyper-inflation. Either way, we’re economically doomed…and the government checks will cease to flow. This is not at some point distant, either…it could come as early as 2015 if we don’t get our act together.

      • Jeremiah September 11, 2012 / 2:04 am

        See you after November

        Let’s roll!!

      • Jeremiah September 11, 2012 / 2:46 am

        we will have an economic collapse

        Yes, a global one.

      • tiredoflibbs September 11, 2012 / 8:15 am

        No drone6206j, the only thing true about your statement was the fact that Bush was President during that time. The rest as I said was FACTUALLY debunked.

        I guess you never heard about the 700 TONS of yellowcake and unrefined uranium, medical radioisotopes and other radioactive materials? Plus all the other assorted WMDs found? Probably not, since you only care about the crap is that you mindlessly regurgitate. The UN still maintains that Iraq had tons of WMDs still unaccounted for.

        Why we still have to argue about this with you drones is beyond me. I guess you all are still stuck on stupid.

  9. Mark Edward Noonan September 11, 2012 / 12:08 am

    Pondering this for the past 24 hours, I’m actually more confident of a Romney win than I was yesterday. As I always say, look at what people do rather than what they say. What are Obama’s people doing? They (and their allies in the lapdog media) are trying to depress GOP turnout. “Its all over; Obama’s won – just give it up Republicans!” – that is the meme we’ve had since Friday morning. Why would they do this? I can only presume because their internal polling data is confirming what my own analysis long ago figured out – there is a huge surge of GOPers heading towards the polls on November 6th. Probably the largest GOP turnout in terms of percentage of voters since the 1924 election. It isn’t a matter of winning Independents in 2012 – its a matter of trying to keep GOP turnout down; that is the only way Obama can survive.

    He won’t. He’s doomed. Mrs. Romney should start measuring for Oval Office drapes.

  10. Jeremiah September 11, 2012 / 2:02 am

    If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny. – Thomas Jefferson

    • Amazona September 11, 2012 / 11:28 am

      I understand that the Left is also putting together a huge ad campaign accusing Romney of being soft on animal abuse, because he did not address this in his convention speech.

      MADD is planning an anti-Romney campaign based on his apparent approval of drunk driving, as he did not discuss this at the convention.

      And the enviro-Nazis are out in full force with attack ads based on Romney’s evident commitment to dumping arsenic in our drinking water, following his failure to address old mine tailings when he spoke in Tampa.

      more shrill hysteria to follow, no doubt……

      //sarc off

      • bozo September 11, 2012 / 11:59 am

        Problem, ammo, is that Romney isn’t running for PETA president. He’s not running for MADD director. He’s running for Commander In Chief of the U.S. military and had no kind words for those currently risking their lives, giving virtually their all for our nation. Not a word. Kinda like running for Santa Clause without mentioning Christmas.

        Personally, I think it hints that Romney views the military as a taxpayer funding mechanism for independent contractors, and would finish the complete privatization of it as begun under Bush.

        I also don’t believe you are ever //sarc off.

      • Amazona September 11, 2012 / 2:58 pm

        freakzo, do you think the military felt dissed by Romney’s failure to politicize their efforts, sacrifices and duty?

        Do you think they believe this means he has no respect for them?

        Do you think they, or anyone not on the far fringes of the Loony Left, actually believe that he “…views the military as a taxpayer funding mechanism for independent contractors…” ? You say you believe it, but then you would say anything that might cast an ugly light on him.

        It is so interesting to see the sour, cynical, hateful comments from the Left about the Right and the military, and the total disconnect from reality those comments indicate. It is traditionally the Right that has had the greatest support for and respect for the military, and the military has reciprocated, yet you constantly slander and libel the Right by claiming it uses the military as mere cannon fodder for the enrichment of cronies.

        It is a foul, vile and despicable claim, yet you seem to feel quite bonded to it. I find the Left to be quite attracted to such evilness in thought and word, and wonder what it is about some people that they/you have such a need to invent ugliness where you cannot find it. When we can force ourselves to really examine the level of depravity in what you say, it is really disturbing to realize that there is a segment of the population craving this kind of vicious, vile, and despicable personal attack, this kind of deplorable Politics of Personal Destruction.

        When I, for one, see this kind of ghoulish glee in spewing such sewage, I find myself actively loathing the kind of person who does it. This is why I have gone from seeing casper as a mere annoyance to a spineless despicable weasel, as he has descended to the kind of vitriolic and lying rhetoric you just exhibited when you accused Romney of thinking of our military as nothing more than a conduit to riches for cronies.

        This goes far beyond simple ideological differences. It is legitimate political conflict to have opposing ideas of how best to govern a nation. But this is pathological in its depravity, and what it says about you as a person is indelible.

  11. Amazona September 11, 2012 / 3:20 pm

    I am moving this to the bottom of the queue because I don’t want it buried in the middle, where a direct response to James would normally be found. He says:

    “You do have different values!

    Conservatives fundamentally believe in different ways of governing which is the antitheses of what Democrats believe. Period.”

    OK, this is pretty definitive. DIFFERENT WAYS OF GOVERNING. The ANTITHESIS OF WHAT DEMOCRATS BELIEVE. Got it. No waffling, no ambiguity, just a clear and definite declaration.

    And then he explains this difference. (Emphasis mine.)

    “When you believe that states should determine issues like healthcare, abortion, gay marriage, education, etc. you are in direct conflict with Democrats.”

    FINALLY a Lib who is willing to explain his political philosophy!

    Now let’s look at what James has so definitely and emphatically stated as his political philosophy, which he also says is that of all Democrats.

    It is a defiance of the very wording, as well as intent, of the Constitution of the United States. It is a clear and uncompromising statement that Democrats do not agree that the federal government must be limited to its enumerated powers, to its delegated duties. It is a firm and resounding declaration that the 10th Amendment is of no interest, no value, and no authority.

    It is a statement that for Democrats the Constitution itself has no legal authority.

    FINALLY an admission of what we have suspected, from observation, for quite some time.

    Because we know that health care, the killing of unborn children, and homosexuals calling their unions “marriage” are not enumerated duties of the federal government. They simply do not exist as delegated responsibilities of the nation.

    And we know that the 10th Amendment states that if something is NOT a delegated duty of the federal government in the Constitution, and not prohibited by the Constitution, is can only be addressed by the States, or by the People.

    Therefore, we finally have a clear, concise and unambiguous statement by a Liberal that for Democrats the Constitution has no legal authority.

    He goes on to state, equally firmly, that: “When the President wins this election, and the Democrats make some gains in the House and keep the Senate. (sic) There will be no compromise with your ideology.

    That is, there will no willingness to move in the direction of Constitutional governance, but that only Leftist, anti-constitutional, government will be acceptable.

    I think we owe James a thank you for being the first Liberal willing to explain his ideology.

    I know that he has not been officially appointed as a spokesman for the Democrat Party, but he seems quite confident that he speaks for Dems. I wonder if any of the resident Libs disagree with him.

  12. Amazona September 11, 2012 / 3:26 pm

    The enumerated powers (duties) of the Federal Government:

    The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

    To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

    To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

    To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

    To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

    To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

    To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

    To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

    To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

    To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

    To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

    To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

    To provide and maintain a Navy;

    To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

    To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

    To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;


    To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

    The 10th Amendment to the Constitution: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

    • neocon1 September 11, 2012 / 5:02 pm

      the new donk’s are marxists, muslims, anti Semites, and radical homosexuals. glad to see so many drooling dumbed down useful idiots carrying their water sad day for America.
      we are on the verge of being Germany just before hitler took power.
      This Nov will tell.

      • neocon1 September 11, 2012 / 7:58 pm

        Haaaaaaa ha ha ha ha

        A number of Obama supporters gathered in New York City over the weekend to fundraise for Obama in a rather unconventional fashion.

        Congregating in what the Washington Post described as a “grungy gay bar” in Manhattan’s East Village, patrons paid a $100 cover charge before entering into a world of scantily clad dancers and Obama paraphernalia.

        According to the New York Post, the bar is co-owned by Anderson Cooper’s boyfriend, but the CNN host did not make an

Comments are closed.