How Much Stupid is There?

Well, let’s wander ’round the ‘net and see:

The mayor of Houston – a bit of a commie island in a sea of pure Texas, as it were – rammed through an ordinance essentially making Houston restrooms non-gender.  Anyone can wander into whatever room depending, I guess, on how they feel about their gender at any given time.  Everyone who thinks – which means ever non-liberal out there – knows what will happen: guys who want to ogle women while they are in the rest room will claim they “felt” rather female that day…and the result will be civil lawsuits by the ogled women.  Its just a monumental bit of liberal stupidity, and its now the law in Houston.

UPDATE: A bit more from Texas:

“I’m at the breaking point,” said Gretchin Gardner, an Austin artist who bought a 1930s bungalow in the Bouldin neighborhood just south of downtown in 1991 and has watched her property tax bill soar to $8500 this year.

“It’s not because I don’t like paying taxes,” said Gardner, who attended both meetings [of “irate homeowners”]. “I have voted for every park, every library, all the school improvements, for light rail, for anything that will make this city better. But now I can’t afford to live here anymore.”

And she can’t put two and two together, it would seem…

Coal-fired power plants came to the rescue of freezing Americans this past winter.  Naturally, Obama’s response to this is to cook up more EPA regulations which will close coal-fired power plants. Enjoy your igloo, fellow Americans in the north.  And please note that red-State Democrats pretty much have White House blessing to run against the President’s new rules.

Of late our liberals are fretful that a bit of ice appearing to melt in Antarctica will cause sea levels to rise by 3 feet by 2100.  Trouble is, none of them appear to have checked the math.  Someone did and found for this to happen, ice-melt would have to be nearly 7 times as rapid as the warmists claim.

Obama apparently thought that the most credible person he could put out there on the Sunday talk shows to explain the Bergdahl prisoner-swap was Susan Rice.  Well, nothing like a new foreign policy issue and possible Obama illegality to at least get the VA scandal off the front pages.

Pinkos in Seattle vote to jack up the minimum wage to $15 an hour.  Businesses start to close or seek means of using fewer employees.  Pinkos are stunned – they really couldn’t see this coming.  After all, every liberal economist they can find tells them that raising the minimum wage increases employment.

The UK will start counting the illegal drug trade and prostitution in its GDP numbers. You know, I’ve always thought that all GDP numbers are BS, anyways – so, adding ladies of the evening and your local crack dealer to the mix is really no more than doubling down on stupid. I don’t want to know a bunch of quack economic numbers – I want to know real things: how much steel did we produce?  How many transport-truck miles were driven? How many loaves of bread were sold?  You tell me that and if I can compare it to past activity, I’ll really know if the economy is up or down.

Democrats promise they’ll have to really good slogans for the 2014 election any day now.

Someone has noticed that all the health food trends have one thing in common – they are usually found to be wrong over time.

 

Advertisements

125 thoughts on “How Much Stupid is There?

  1. Retired Spook June 2, 2014 / 2:01 pm

    Mark,

    Of all the things you’ve listed, the ramped up war on coal has to be one of the stupidest. If we were not in a seemingly never-ending recession, and/or if we had some renewable energy alternatives that were at the cost point of replacing coal, or even at the point of being able to stand alone with minimal federal subsidies, then phasing out coal sooner rather than later might make some sense. And eventually coal WILL be phased out, but not for several decades at a minimum. The burden that this is going to put on folks in states where (like Indiana) 70-80% of our electricity is produced in coal-fired plants is going to be substantial. I can’t wait for one of my local Liberals to complain when his/her electric bill doubles. I’m going to relish responding “just what the hell did you think Obama meant when he said his “cap and trade policy would necessarily make energy costs skyrocket?”

    • M. Noonan June 2, 2014 / 2:20 pm

      Spook,

      In the other book I’m writing, I get into that a bit – projections I’ve read indicate that in coming decades coal will still provide 30% or more of our electricity while “renewable” will only rise to 10% or so…but if Obama shuts down coal, where is the gap filled? We’re already subsidizing “renewable” to heck and gone and its still only going to get to 10% of our energy needs. It is just stupid – and done merely at the behest of coastal, liberal elites who haven’t a notion of how electricity is generated (and, as Victor Davis Hanson repeatedly notes, the coastal elites don’t need as much electricity for either heating or cooling – living in a coastal climate, their weather is moderated by the sea…the liberals there don’t understand that while they don’t need to run the AC all summer long, the poor people who mow their lawns and build their houses live in Fresno, where they do need the AC all summer…).

    • Retired Spook June 2, 2014 / 4:37 pm

      Speaking of coal.

      It’s unlikely that the Obama administration would essentially undercut its new carbon emission standards by granting widespread exceptions, said Bill Becker, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, which represents air pollution control agencies in 42 states and 116 metropolitan areas.

      If a state doesn’t comply with EPA guidelines, the federal agency can create its own plan for the state.

      “This is not a standard that a state then can willy-nilly ignore,” Becker said. “It’s going to have to achieve at least that standard or more. Period.”

      So what happens if a state DOES “willy-nilly ignore” an EPA plan? Will the EPA sic their SWAT Team on the governor? And, does the use of the word “period” in this instance mean the same thing as when Obama said, You can keep your health plan — PERIOD! You can keep your doctor — PERIOD? Interesting times ahead.

      • Cluster June 2, 2014 / 8:44 pm

        These new EPA regulations are job killers, economy killers in an economy that is on life support anyways, but on the bright side – Obama may have just handed the Senate to the GOP

  2. Retired Spook June 2, 2014 / 2:35 pm

    I posted this at the end of the “How Do You Want To Be Remembered” thread, but those comments will be closed very soon, and I think these are valid questions.

    I’ve been thinking for a couple days about Watson’s fear that there will be a line that, when crossed, where I and people who share my views will start shooting people like him. First of all, I have trouble just wrapping my head around that kind of paranoia, but the longer I thought about it the more I realized that, should things really go south during the remainder of Obama’s term, just how will people who were vocal about supporting him be treated by the rest of us. How do Watson and other vocal Obama supporters believe they should be treated if things really fall apart because of Obama’s policies? Can people like Watson be assured that people like me will say, “you know what; I realize your heart is in the right place; you meant well, and I forgive you.” Or will people who supported the fundamental transformation of this country be ostracized, maybe forced to wear a symbol, like the Jews in 1930′s Germany, identifying them as being responsible for the dire straits in which most people find themselves? I think there’s a good chance we’ll find out, and probably sooner rather than later. If we end up where I think we might, shooting may be too easy an out for enablers like Watson. Personally I don’t think there’s a hot enough corner of hell for people who would destroy our Republic in the name of fairness and equality.

    • GMB June 2, 2014 / 9:47 pm

      “I don’t think there’s a hot enough corner of hell for people who would destroy our Republic in the name of fairness and equality.”

      I think that Christian forgiveness should apply to all. However that being said if a collapse should happen and I believe that is barkus dorkus ultimate goal anyway, those that enabled the collapse should never be allowed anywhere near the Halls of Power again. Those that cooperated with the enables like mccain and graham should have the same fate.

      Two classes. Tax payer and citizen. The citizen will never again be allowed to tell the Tax payer how much opm he will receive. barky wants a Gleiwitz moment even if he has to create one himself.

      • Retired Spook June 2, 2014 / 10:46 pm

        Those that cooperated with the enables like mccain and graham should have the same fate.

        I don’t think you’ll get much argument from anyone I know.

    • watsonthethird June 3, 2014 / 1:33 am

      Spook, if you really think I’m afraid of you, then obviously we have had a communications failure, and I will accept the blame for not expressing myself clearly enough.

      First off, no, I’m not afraid of you. I’m not afraid that you’re going to shoot me. That said, while it is true that we live in different states separated by 2000 miles or so–as you pointed out–I _have_ been in Indiana six of the last seven years, so it’s not out of the realm of possibility that our paths have crossed. lol

      But I would also point out that I’m not the one preparing for the possibility that I will have to take up arms against other Americans. You are. Am I wrong here? You seem to never come right out and say so, but you talk about preparing for how you have “have full confidence in Progressives that they will eventually step over a line where the majority will say, OK, that’s enough.” You also said:

      Eventually, just like when the British came for the colonist’s arms at Lexington and Concord, there will be a violent confrontation. It’s not a matter of if, but when, and once that happens, I think the floodgates will open.

      So, in all seriousness, it seems very clear that you are preparing for the possibility that you will have to take up arms against other Americans. And not only do you take such possibilities seriously, you believe it is inevitable. You said above, “eventually … there will be a violent confrontation.” If anyone has a fear of things like that happening, it is you, not me. I say that respectfully, and I believe that deep down you do have good judgement and wouldn’t fire on another American without justifiable cause. But you _are_ admittedly preparing for exactly that possibility. Am I wrong here?

      To step back from you specifically, we have these self-organized militias in this country that are loosely organized, at best, and also well armed. While I may trust your judgement, I don’t trust the collective judgement of folks like this. Frankly, I think groups like Oath Keepers and these other self-proclaimed militia groups are a bunch of immature people who are angry that they aren’t getting their way. They’re angry that they can’t get their way through the political process–it isn’t clear they are even trying–so they’re playing army with real guns and real bullets. You’re absolutely right that this isn’t going to end well.

      Now, the chances of me being involved in any such violent confrontation is virtually nil. I don’t live in fear of it, much as I don’t live in fear of getting killed in an airplane crash, even though the latter is much more likely than the former. I just don’t live my life in fear of things, especially things that have a negligible chances of happening.

      If you look more deeply at the Bundy protest, you will find that the Oath Keepers and other groups at the Bundy ranch came within a hair of shooting at each other. Why should I trust such people to know when to shoot at anyone else when they can barely keep from firing upon themselves? They also engaged in all sorts of clownish behavior such as intimidating the nearby residents. To what purpose? See this article for an overview of their behavior (and follow the links for more details.)

      It’s also clear that a lot of these so-called militia types were just itching to shoot at someone. Here’s an excerpt from an article posted by a Las Vegas television news team:

      Shuttling back and forth between the Bundy forces and BLM was Assistant Sheriff Joe Lombardo, who’d been left in charge by Sheriff Doug Gillespie. He was trying to keep everyone calm.

      “The bottom line is, bloodshed over cattle, unacceptable. Nobody wanted to go in that direction,” Lombardo said.

      But the police were to learn, some in the crowd did want to go in that direction. Even Lombardo was on the receiving end.

      “It was a scary point in itself. They were in my face yelling profanities and pointing weapons. The Bundy son himself, that I was negotiating with, Dave, he did not do that, but all the associated people around him did do that,” Lombardo said.

      Metro officers deal with large crowds all the time, but nothing like this. The crowd included former military men and ex-cops, people with various motives, their fingers poised just above the triggers of powerful weapons. With so much firepower in so many hands, a small incident could have set off a bloodbath and left nearly two dozen officers dead.

      Assist. Sheriff Joe Lombardo:”We were outgunned, outmanned and there would not have been a good result from it.”

      I-Team reporter George Knapp: “A lot of scenarios could have played out that would have left a lot of dead officers.”

      Assist. Sheriff Joe Lombardo: “If you just have a backfire, somebody pops a firecracker, then it’s over. We’re done. We are going to lose that battle that day.”

      Metro pointedly did not allow officers to put on helmets or protective gear for fear it might be seen as a provocation. At the urging of Cliven Bundy, the crowd moved toward the BLM compound. Rhetoric grew more heated, and guns were pointed at officers.

      One Bundy supporter summed it up, “Had to happen sometime, might as well happen now, right?”

      “Some of them, there’s no doubt from talking to me, want it, to get a chance that day to fire upon a police officer or authority period. I don’t think it mattered if it was BLM or us,” Jenkins said.

      As the crowd closed in on the BLM compound, and tensions approached critical mass, Lombardo made the call to release the cattle and diffuse the situation.

      “Sometimes in public safety, it is hard to back down. We are not trained to operate that way, but they took the better route, and it was the right way to go,” Lombardo said. “It’s all about lives. I mean, what is the better route to go? To be right or to be effective? ”

      If one tiny mistake had been made, the community might be attending funerals for slain police officers, law enforcement officials said. Dozens of people could have been killed if shooting had broken out.

      The I-Team has learned that those who were involved in threatening the lives of officers are not off the hook, even if it takes a year or more to resolve.

      • Retired Spook June 3, 2014 / 7:06 am

        Very thoughtful post, Watson, and you said very little that I would take issue with. Even the Salon article was pretty accurate, based on the daily briefings I received from Oathkeepers, although it didn’t tell the whole story of why Oathkeepers were there. Oathkeepers is not a militia organization. They were there primarily to act as mediators and peace keepers, and to coordinate the visits and speeches of several county sheriffs from around the country, one of whom was from the Indiana county just to the west of me. The militia leader, Ryan Payne (named in the Salon article), who claimed to be a former army ranger, was found later to be a complete fraud. It was he who tried to instigate a violent confrontation with the President of Oathkeepers and several others. When it appeared that that might happen, Oathkeepers packed up and left.

        So, in all seriousness, it seems very clear that you are preparing for the possibility that you will have to take up arms against other Americans. And not only do you take such possibilities seriously, you believe it is inevitable. You said above, “eventually … there will be a violent confrontation.” If anyone has a fear of things like that happening, it is you, not me. I say that respectfully, and I believe that deep down you do have good judgement and wouldn’t fire on another American without justifiable cause. But you _are_ admittedly preparing for exactly that possibility. Am I wrong here?

        Fair question, and no, you’re not wrong, other than the fact that I don’t live in fear of it happening. And I’m only one of literally tens of millions who have made similar preparations. The one statement I can make with confidence is that only one of us is right. I sincerely hope it’s you, but, as we found out with “hope and change”, “hope” is not a strategy.

        I would like you to answer the one question from my previous post. As someone who I believe supports much of what Obama has done and is doing, how do you think you should be treated by those of us who firmly support the Constitution and the rule of law if it really does go all to hell?

      • Cluster June 3, 2014 / 8:31 am

        Watson,

        I think you’re using the wrong examples of how something of this nature might begin. Think of the aftermath of the Rodney King trial, or the Watt’s riot, or when a team wins a national championship. There’s a large contingent in this society who simply don’t give a shit, and consider themselves victims of society, which is a thought process embedded in them over many years of Democratic campaigns. If a trial, or national championship gives them reason to riot, burn cars, destroy shops, etc., what do you think a substantial rise in the cost of food and shelter will do? What do you think a large drop in the valuation of the dollar will do? And we are on the cusp of experiencing both of these economic issues.

      • Cluster June 3, 2014 / 10:27 am

        Consider these headlines from just today:

        One Third of 18-34 Year Olds Live With Parents…

        Teen Unemployment in Major Cities Tops 50%…

        One in Four Americans on Gov’t Food Assistance…

        These are “progressive” recipes that could lead to disaster.

      • Retired Spook June 3, 2014 / 10:31 am

        I think you’re using the wrong examples of how something of this nature might begin.

        Cluster, I think Watson was just following what I said. IMO, your scenario is also a strong possibility. Either scenario would almost certainly be the result of the policies of this administration, and I fully expect people like Watson to defend those in power right up to the bitter end. He says, just like most of the Conservatives here disagreed with some things that Bush did and said, he doesn’t support everything that Obama does and says. But I have yet to hear him engage in any specific criticism. The real irony is that people on his side of the aisle back in the 70’s theorized that they might have to kill as many as 25 million Americans who couldn’t be re-educated to come around to their way of thinking. Now Lefties like Watson get their panties in a wad when we suggest that we are prepared to defend ourselves against such people. Kind of mind-blowing when you think about it.

      • Retired Spook June 3, 2014 / 10:42 am

        But I would also point out that I’m not the one preparing for the possibility that I will have to take up arms against other Americans. You are. Am I wrong here? You seem to never come right out and say so

        Au Contraire, I think I’ve said so on numerous occasions. I think there’s a strong possibility that I may have to defend my life, my wife’s life, and my property in the foreseeable future. You don’t believe that’s more than the remotest of possibilities. I respect your position; I’m not sure why you can’t respect mine. Like I said, I’m glad I’m not likely to be in a position where I have to defend YOU, because, quite frankly, that would be a moral dilemma for me.

      • watsonthethird June 3, 2014 / 12:47 pm

        I would like you to answer the one question from my previous post.

        Spook, I have been traveling (not in Indiana 🙂 and Internet usage has not been a high priority. I will respond to that question, but I can’t do it immediately. I’ll try to do it tonight.

      • tiredoflibbs June 3, 2014 / 1:52 pm

        Spook, another scenario deals with people who are totally dependent upon government assistance. I am not talking about retirees. I am talking about those who know nothing else other than waiting for the monthly government assistance check to come in the mail. These are people with hardly any skills. When the bottom falls out of the government programs, which has been predicted by government agencies, what will these people do? They need to eat. This will be another reason to riot in the streets. We saw a small snapshot of this during some of the Occupy movement protests. These individuals felt that they were owed something and were prepare for civil disobedience when they did not get it. There are those that feel they are entitled to these “benefits” (again, not retirees) and know nothing else of supporting themselves.

        These types are what many are preparing for. Sad to say that progressive government is responsible for making and then EXPANDING the DEPENDENCE to the point that these people are incapable of supporting themselves or even surviving outside of government care.

      • watsonthethird June 3, 2014 / 2:36 pm

        Au Contraire, I think I’ve said so on numerous occasions.

        When I say, “You seem to never come right out and say so,” I just mean that you don’t come right out and say, explicitly, that you are preparing for the possibility of having to kill other Americans. That’s all. My comment wasn’t meant do disrespect your position. I was just trying to make sure that I truly understood exactly what you are preparing for. That’s all.

      • Cluster June 3, 2014 / 3:04 pm

        Watson, I am prepared to take out anyone that would pose a danger to me, or threaten me, be it American or otherwise. I live in drug corridor where home invasions are not unheard of, and should anyone invade my home – I will not ask questions and I will not ask them what nationality they are.

        You can now drop the hyper sensitive pretense and go about living in your alternate progressive universe.

      • watsonthethird June 3, 2014 / 2:38 pm

        Cluster said, I think you’re using the wrong examples of how something of this nature might begin.

        Which examples are you referring to? I quoted Spook from his previous posts.

      • Cluster June 3, 2014 / 2:58 pm

        These were your words, not Spooks:

        If you look more deeply at the Bundy protest, you will find that the Oath Keepers and other groups at the Bundy ranch came within a hair of shooting at each other.

        It’s much more likely that the civil disobedience, resulting in outright violence will originate from groups like Occupy Wall Street, and the groups of people that protest World Bank Meetings and national championships than it will from the Oath Keepers. It seems as though these people are not happy even when they do get their way.

      • Retired Spook June 3, 2014 / 2:56 pm

        When I say, “You seem to never come right out and say so,” I just mean that you don’t come right out and say, explicitly, that you are preparing for the possibility of having to kill other Americans. That’s all. My comment wasn’t meant do disrespect your position. I was just trying to make sure that I truly understood exactly what you are preparing for. That’s all.

        I suppose it’s possible in a time of societal unrest that I might be threatened by someone other than “other Americans”, but not likely. It’s certainly not a situation I wish for — just the opposite, in fact. Just as I imagine you wouldn’t go on a cruise and wish for your ship to sink, but you also wouldn’t go on a cruise ship without lifeboats.

      • watsonthethird June 3, 2014 / 3:04 pm

        These were your words, not Spooks:

        If you look more deeply at the Bundy protest, you will find that the Oath Keepers and other groups at the Bundy ranch came within a hair of shooting at each other.

        And they did come within a hair of shooting each other. That is established fact at this point. My point was, as I said, why should I trust such people to know when to shoot at anyone else when they can barely keep from firing upon themselves?

      • Cluster June 3, 2014 / 3:07 pm

        No Watson, they did not come within a hair of shooting each other. Are you always this skiddish?

      • watsonthethird June 3, 2014 / 3:15 pm

        No Watson, they did not come within a hair of shooting each other. Are you always this skid dish?

        Actually, they did, as they explained it themselves.

        RHODES: And this is the tip of the iceberg of the cluster out there. One of our guys from Montana, Rick Delap, who was there from the beginning — he’s been out there for two weeks in the dirt – the day of this confrontation, I come to find out he had to draw on somebody. Two of the Mountain Men guys came up to him — were aggressing on him. Then one of them ran back to his vehicle and grabbed an AR and came back with an AR in his hand and Rick had to draw on him. And those two ran off. That was this close from Rick having to shoot that ding-a-ling. If that guy had raised his barrel, Rick would have had no choice but to shoot him.

        I already explained that I’m not skittish or fearful of these people I just think they have poor judgement and sooner or later they will start shooting each other, or others, for what will turn out to be no good reason.

      • Cluster June 3, 2014 / 3:19 pm

        So one opinionated account has you convinced that the shooting was imminent? I will remind you that it was the federal government that actually opened fire on the folks at Ruby Ridge, and Waco – so I think you should be more fearful of the government than a bunch of rednecks.

      • Retired Spook June 3, 2014 / 3:21 pm

        No Watson, they did not come within a hair of shooting each other.

        Cluster, actually, according to the final hour and a half long video debrief for OK members, the leaders, including the OK President, did confirm that Ryan Payne and several members of his militia group came very close to drawing on them. There were some real nut jobs there.

      • Cluster June 3, 2014 / 3:24 pm

        I don’t buy it considering the accounts I have read. Were they prepared? Hell yes, but I know rednecks having grown up in Montana and it was mostly just bluster. Bluster that usually scares people like Watson.

      • Retired Spook June 3, 2014 / 3:26 pm

        RHODES: And this is the tip of the iceberg of the cluster out there.

        Just a clarification — [Stewart] Rhodes is the President of OathKeepers.

      • watsonthethird June 3, 2014 / 3:26 pm

        In addition to what Spook said, the quote was from Stewart Rhodes, founder and president of Oath Keepers. It wasn’t merely “one opinionated account.”

        And Spook and I are in total agreement that there were “some real nut jobs there.” And you want me to trust these people’s judgement? I don’t think so.

      • Cluster June 3, 2014 / 3:30 pm

        I trust rednecks judgements much more so than progressives like you.

      • Cluster June 3, 2014 / 3:35 pm

        And just a clarification – I don’t think rednecks would put us $17 trillion in debt, or expand the welfare state beyond recognition, or approve of abortion on demand with no consequences towards the father, or enforce regulations that “necessarily sky rocket the price of energy”, or pump billions of printed money into a system that inflate the financial wealth of stock brokers and hedge fund managers. Hence, I prefer their judgement.

      • watsonthethird June 3, 2014 / 3:27 pm

        Just a clarification — [Stewart] Rhodes is the President of OathKeepers.

        Cluster would have known that if he had bothered to read any of the material to which I provided a link.

      • watsonthethird June 3, 2014 / 3:31 pm

        I trust rednecks judgements much more so than progressives like you.

        Ah, okay. Now you’re just lowering the level of this place to juvenile taunts. It’s so like you!

      • Cluster June 3, 2014 / 3:37 pm

        Not at all. Rednecks usually have much better judgement than hyper sensitive progressives.

      • Amazona June 3, 2014 / 3:58 pm

        “…And you want me to trust these people’s judgement? I don’t think so.”

        Who, exactly, said he DID want anyone to “trust these people’s (sic) judgement (sic)”? No one I have seen. I guess if the event had attracted some SEIU types or some New Black Panthers we would have seen some real bloodshed.

        There is a danger any time there is a confrontation between different beliefs and opinions. I have seen many more close calls and near-violence in Occupy events than did-not-but-maybe-might-have here. There was bluster, but there were no rocks thrown, no cars overturned, no fires set, no stores looted, no windows broken, no tear gas needed, no blood spilled. As Cluster pointed out, the actual violence was nonexistent, unlike “celebrations” of sports victories. This too-too scary confrontation between a government agency run amok and citizens objecting to it turned out to be far less scary than a European soccer match—-and with far fewer casualties. (Meaning: none)

        We can compare this with Ruby Ridge, with Waco, with any Occupy event, with any WTO protest, with any Leftist event at all. I don’t even think there was a lot of trash left around for someone else to pick up.

      • Amazona June 3, 2014 / 4:01 pm

        I think what really has watson so twitchy is that the Bundy event, or non-event, showed that Americans are not going to sit back and watch their government bring out the heavy artillery and threaten American citizens over petty money squabbles.

        I think this message has a lot of his fellow travelers nervous, too.

        Maybe if the feds had sent snipers and armored vehicles to collect the million-plus owed to the government by government-sanctioned media personality and race pimp Al Sharpton, the reaction to the Bundy affair would have been more restrained.

      • Amazona June 3, 2014 / 4:06 pm

        “It’s also clear that a lot of these so-called militia types were just itching to shoot at someone”

        So? I didn’t see you freaking out when “a lot of these (black militant types) were just itching to shoot at someone” after the invented Zimmerman kefluffle. And THEY were serious—serious enough to post Wanted Dead Or Alive posters and offer a cash bounty for Zimmerman’s murder.

      • tiredoflibbs June 3, 2014 / 8:47 pm

        Cluster, watty get holier than thou: “Ah, okay. Now you’re just lowering the level of this place to juvenile taunts. It’s so like you!” – another one of those entries in the “you can’t make this sh!t up” file.

        Uh, considering which blog he comes from, he has no room to talk! Mitchie, crusty, meursalt (spelling who cares!), himself and even casper participate in their own “juvenille taunts”. That is 90% of what goes on there at “left is right” (snort!) blog where the topics have been “tweet of the day” from one nutcase or another.

        It is one of the many reasons that got them banned from here to begin with.

  3. GMB June 3, 2014 / 3:18 am

    “But I would also point out that I’m not the one preparing for the possibility that I will have to take up arms against other Americans.”

    That would be correct, for now. However to achieve progtardia you will use every “legal” means at your disposal.

    Laws and rules and regulations that are designed on purpose to make more and more people submit to the will of government. OPM for the liv masses to make them dependent on the government.uncontrolled foreign immigration to dilute the base of the population you wish to control.

    To someone like you, government is your religion. It is your only true devotion. The state is all and all for the state.

    Progress means going forward right?

    You want some nazi/communist/fascist propaganda posters from the 1930’s to hang in your kitchen? Their collectable but since I am a capitalist I want some money for them. You got my email let me know.

    • Retired Spook June 3, 2014 / 8:09 am

      GMB,

      Could you elaborate on the word “progtardia”?

      • GMB June 3, 2014 / 9:37 am

        progtard. A progressive retard. This is a self imposed condition. progtard for short. A utopian.
        progtardia. utopia for the progtards.

        If you follow the same literary convention that I do, neither word should ever be capitalized.

        Grüß Gott Spook.

        🙂

      • Retired Spook June 3, 2014 / 10:34 am

        progtard. A progressive retard.

        LOL!!

      • Amazona June 3, 2014 / 3:44 pm

        “…I would also point out that I’m not the one preparing for the possibility that I will have to take up arms against other Americans.””

        You, personally, don’t need to “take up arms against other Americans.”

        You have the full force of the Unites States government thuggocracy to do that for you. So far it is just using distortion and subversion of the law as its weapons, but we do not forget or overlook the times people have been physically threatened, by violence ranging all the way from a beating to actual murder, that have been condoned by the top law enforcement office of the United States government because they were propagated by black people with white people as the intended victims. We do not forget or overlook the statements of the president of the United States and his wife, lending their voices to those intent on stirring up and maintaining racial anger and resentment, with the accompanying message from the Department of Justice that such violence will not be met with government response.

        You and your kind can sit back in your onsies and sip chamomile tea while others do the actual dirty work for you, but no matter what you may try to convince yourself, this does not convey plausible deniability. You support these people, you elect these people, you do not speak out against these people, and you spend a lot of your time (which may be personal time or paid time) to seeking out opposition to these people and attacking them/us.

        No one thinks YOU are arming yourself. If you decide to do so, I recommend a course to educate you, starting with “the ouchie thing comes out the pointy end”, because I am pretty sure this is your level of understanding of firearms. Or maybe by “arms” you just mean raising your elbows to a horizontal position while you flap your hands around.

      • Amazona June 3, 2014 / 3:47 pm

        GMB, because the Left has hijacked certain words because of the general positive feeling they convey, such as “liberal” and “progressive”, when using them in reference to the Left I do capitalize them to set them apart from the dictionary definition of the words and their true meaning.

        I am a very liberal person, but I am by no means a Liberal. I am quite progressive, but in no way do I resemble a Progressive. When capitalized, those words are linked to a repressive Leftist political model, and in no way related to liberalism or progress.

      • tiredoflibbs June 3, 2014 / 8:52 pm

        Ama, at one time to be a “liberal” meant that the individual believed in liberty, freedom, low taxes, small government, power with the states, etc. etc. As you said, the Left has hijacked terms to suit their needs and convince the low information voters to give them their support.

      • M. Noonan June 4, 2014 / 12:57 am

        More and more fascist all the time – they seriously want the 1st Amendment gone…to protect us, of course.

    • watsonthethird June 3, 2014 / 2:40 pm

      To someone like you, government is your religion. It is your only true devotion. The state is all and all for the state.

      GMB, please. That is just a ridiculous statement. Are you really that paranoid?

      • J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) June 3, 2014 / 3:00 pm

        GMB, please. That is just a ridiculous statement. Are you really that paranoid?

        Count me paranoid as well then, Watson. That’s exactly how you come across on this blog. I’ve never seen you criticize government — well, except when Bush was President, and I’ve never seen you say anything good about the private sector.

      • Amazona June 3, 2014 / 3:33 pm

        Actually, watson, for most Lefties the State IS their religion. You/they don’t like that terminology because you are so proud of having no religion, but if you define religion as the belief in a power greater than you and allegiance to that power, then the placement of government as the ultimate authority, in the minds of Lefties, does qualify your belief system as a form of religion.

        Take yourself out of the equation and just look at Leftism in general. Its first moves toward establishing the State as the sole authority is to start undermining the traditional sources of authority and loyalty for most people—that is, family and God. We have extensively discussed the undermining of the family as a rival for the authority and power of the State in this blog and in many other places. From telling girls barely into their teens that they can’t risk telling their parents they are pregnant because the parents will have such a negative reaction they should just turn to their teachers for help in killing their babies to trying to get children to turn in their parents for statements unkind to the State, the pattern is very clear. We have education sticking its nose into this, telling parents that they should not be able to have a say in government decisions to make pornography mandatory reading for children, and other intrusions into what has always been parental authority.

        As for the attacks on God and religion, there is not enough room here to even begin to address the Left’s multiple efforts, ranging from getting the very word GOD out of public discourse to stopping the erection of roadside crosses to honor traffic deaths to removing crosses from established memorials, and so on, ad nauseum.

        The goal of Leftism is to replace these icons of authority and loyalty with the State, and your kind is in the vanguard of this effort. So fret all you want about the words used, work up a nice froth of faux outrage, try to divert attention away from the facts by mounting a counterattack (“you are just paranoid”) and play the tricks from your Lefty handbook. The facts are established in history as the pattern of the Left whenever it has gotten its little rodent’s nose through a crack in a system, and we have been watching it develop here. You can call it a belief system, if you will, but it is a religion, as it is based on faith just as other religions are.

      • watsonthethird June 3, 2014 / 3:52 pm

        J.R. Babcock said:

        Count me paranoid as well then, Watson. That’s exactly how you come across on this blog. I’ve never seen you criticize government — well, except when Bush was President, and I’ve never seen you say anything good about the private sector.

        Fair enough. Take a topic that came up recently and comes up here on a recurring basis: The collapse of the housing and mortgage industry near the end of President Bush’s term. When this comes up, you are absolutely right that I usually point out how President Bush supported low or negligible down payments, etc., in the name of his Ownership Society. I do that simply to counter the one-sided notion that the rest of you convey. I don’t believe the collapse was solely Bush’s fault, solely Republicans’ fault, or solely Democrats’ fault. But some of you _do_ believe it was entirely the fault of the Democrats. That’s why I counter it.

  4. Amazona June 3, 2014 / 11:03 am

    I think watson is extending his wishful-thinking approach to the world to wishing that people will just ignore those who have put the nation in this mess—-that is, him and people like him—when the results of their follies start to pile up.

    He is merely being consistent, in the Progressive form of the word, in not wanting any accountability.

    I don’t propose any actual penalty for these people, other than the scorn of those who tried to talk to them about the reality of their agenda only to be met with personal attacks on our characters and intelligence. We have been called vile names like “racist”, we have been vulgarly referred to as teabaggers, smugly called deniers of science, subjected to just about every kind of verbal abuse known, and many of us have been threatened with physical harm as well. We knew all along that this was not because of their sincere, well-understood belief in an alternate political system, but was always just emoting the most hateful and nasty emotions just because these people need to feel good and being hateful is their way of feeling good.

    The problem is, this pathology, this resistance to reason because the emotional gratification of feeling smug trumps everything, has led them to the voting booth where they have not voted FOR an understood and chosen political model but just AGAINST the wide array of invented Others set up by their minders. Really—-did ANYONE actually, deep down, believe that the Right was engaged in a War On Women !!! ? Of course not. No one is that stupid. But it was a hook, upon which they could hang their support for whoever was against this invented Other, which they had been told was badbadbad, and that fighting them would mean they are goodgoodgood. And this has led to the establishment of a government which is destroying the country.

    I have no use for these people. This doesn’t mean I want to shoot them, and I won’t, unless they pose more than the kind of threat they do now. But it also means they will be at the bottom of the list if I am ever called on to defend anyone, or shelter anyone, or feed anyone, because it all comes back to accountability, and justice says that the consequences of their actions should fall upon them first.

    watson wants us to overlook his role in the disintegration of the country, his and the role of his kind. I don’t blame him. If I had been not only that stupid but that determined to be stupid, and downright nasty about it, I’d also want people to forget it when the excrement hits the ventilator. I think he sees the results of his actions, and of his kind, coming to fruition, and now that it is clear the end result is not going to be good but is already becoming very very bad he is engaging in preemptive whining about being named as a collaborator in the disaster.

    His way of doing this is, of course, to try to make those who have such disdain for him out to be kinda crazy, kinda irrational, unpredictable, scary. But I think deep down he knows, just as the War On Women !!! followers know, this is all BS. I think he realizes that if we were anything like those on his side, we WOULD be pretty scary, maybe even putting up wanted posters for him and offering a bounty on his head, roaming the streets and mounting violent protests in front of RRL leaders’ homes, scaring their wives and children, sabotaging their businesses with flash mobs, throwing rocks and setting fires and sh****ng on their cars, throwing Molotov cocktails, etc.

    In other words, watson is afraid we are going to act like his side, or at least bleating that he is afraid of this.

    This is also why the Left is constantly trying to set up bogus scenarios in which conservatives act like the Left: They have infiltrators holding up racist signs at TEA Party gatherings for a few minutes when cameras are rolling, they plant an agitator in the crowd at the Bundy home, they try to create stories of vigilantes on the Right while their Complicit Agenda Media cover up the Leftist vigilantes in Florida. This is why every nut who shoots someone is immediately branded as a conservative, and why, when the truth comes out about rooms full of Leftist literature or internet search histories about Leftist themes this same Complicit Agenda Media becomes silent and moves on.

    Nice try, watty…………..

    • Amazona June 3, 2014 / 11:09 am

      Remember the hysteria when Republicans stood their ground in the Florida recount during the Dems’ election-stealing effort, and walked into the counting room? I thought the poor Dems were going to swoon away in panic, given the squealing about the (gasp!!) MOBS of Republicans, blah blah blah blah blah.

      No rocks thrown, no chairs through windows, no one hurt, no one hit or pushed. But the very SIGHT of pissed-off Republicans standing up for their rights had so many Dem panties bunched up, the whole party waddled for a week, while bleating about how terrifying this allegedly out of control alleged mob was.

      Of course, it was all on tape, and that effort didn’t go anywhere when all it showed was a bunch of guys in white shirts and neckties shoving through a door into a room. But to hear the squalling and the squealing and the accusations of mob violence, and the quavering voices fretting about it, you would think they had been carrying Uzis and pulling pins from grenades with their teeth.

      Lost in the hysteria was the fact that all they wanted to do was make sure the votes were counted property. The arrogant bastids. Who did they think they were? Americans?

      • Retired Spook June 3, 2014 / 11:27 am

        Amazona,

        I believe you’re referring to the “Brooks Brothers Riot”. I once had a Lib cite that as an example of right wing violence when I challenged him to prove that political violence wasn’t a virtually exclusive tenet of the Left. YCMTSU!

  5. Retired Spook June 3, 2014 / 2:05 pm

    Coal-fired power plants came to the rescue of freezing Americans this past winter. Naturally, Obama’s response to this is to cook up more EPA regulations which will close coal-fired power plants. Enjoy your igloo, fellow Americans in the north.

    The winter of 2013/14 pushed our electricity generation to very near 100%.

    EPA policies, such as the Mercury and Air Toxics rule and the Section 316 Cooling Water Rule, are forcing the closure of many coal-fired plants, which provided 39 percent of US electricity last year. American Electric Power, a provider of about ten percent of the electricity to eastern states, will close almost one-quarter of the firm’s coal-fired generating plants in the next fourteen months. Eighty-nine percent of the power scheduled for closure was needed to meet electricity demand in January. Not all of this capacity has replacement plans.

    This past winter we missed an all-time snow-fall record by 2″, and had 19 days below zero, half of which were double-digits below zero. I’m certainly not wishing for a repeat next winter, but maybe massive blackouts are what we need to wake enough people up.

    • Amazona June 3, 2014 / 2:14 pm

      Yeah, but they will have to come before the first week in November or they will be forgotten by 2016.

      You are talking about needing electric heat for homes because propane costs have gone up so much —-gee, looks like time for some big outside money to hit the petroleum-producing states to ban fracking, eh?—–and then cutting down on electricity production, which is already close to maxed out even before plants are taken off-line to reduce something that has not even been proved to be a pollutant, while also telling people to pay almost twice as much for electric cars that will not only suck up a lot of that increasingly rare electricity but be useless for resale because they will be needing new batteries that cost almost as much as an entire gas-powered car would have.

      And we want people to use electricity for their transportation needs to SAVE THE PLANET, although the production of those batteries is more harmful to the environment than the coal powered power plants they want to get rid of, in spite of the fact that then there will be less electricity for the electric cars and it will cost twice as much and it will be needed to keep warm because of the War On Oil.

      That about sum it up?

  6. watsonthethird June 3, 2014 / 3:47 pm

    Spook said:

    I would like you to answer the one question from my previous post. As someone who I believe supports much of what Obama has done and is doing, how do you think you should be treated by those of us who firmly support the Constitution and the rule of law if it really does go all to hell?

    Well, first you pose a kind of false dichotomy, suggesting that you (collectively) are the ones that “firmly support the Constitution,” and the rest of us don’t. That’s just so you can frame the debate in your own black and white, but false, terms. We went on at length in a previous thread about the fact that there is clearly more than one valid way to interpret the Constitution. Your side seems to think that if you’re interpretation doesn’t “win,” then it’s time to threaten the rest of us with armed militias. It’s just intimidation, plain and simple.

    Maybe I support the Constitution and the rule of law more than you do. This country as survived for well over 200 years based on the Constitution and the rule of law, and I fully expect that to continue. I have a lot more faith in the inherent checks and balances of our system that you seem to have. If the pendulum swings too far to the left, then Americans will elect different representatives. If the left goes too far in trying to enact unconstitutional laws, then they will eventually be overturned in court. If you don’t like the direction of this country, then work through the mechanisms of the Constitution and the rule of law. Vote. Work to elect different representatives. Roving militias threatening armed violence is antithetical to that.

    That said, the problem for folks that feel similarly as you is that the country is indeed changing, and they don’t like it. To paraphrase Patrick Buchanan, this was once your country and you sense that you are losing it. I believe that will continue; it’s just a demographic fact. But some people don’t like it so much that they are organizing is self-appointed militias, planning to take matters into their own hands.

    • Cluster June 3, 2014 / 3:56 pm

      Maybe I support the Constitution and the rule of law more than you do. – Watson

      Well as Amazona just said, the ideology you vote for, endorse, support, and rarely criticize is really not in strong support:

      ‘We are in the midst of a constitutional crisis’ – Nationally acclaimed constitutional scholar Professor Jonathan Turley of the George Washington University Law School

      Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/02/we-are-in-the-midst-of-a-constitutional-crisis/#BsslTe8AxwzmreAi.99

    • Amazona June 3, 2014 / 4:19 pm

      “We went on at length in a previous thread about the fact that there is clearly more than one valid way to interpret the Constitution.”

      No, we went on at length about your OPINION that the Constitution can be “interpreted” in a way that is contrary to the stated and explained intent of those who wrote it.

      “Your side seems to think that if you’re (sic) interpretation doesn’t “win,” then it’s time to threaten the rest of us with armed militias.”

      Wow. It sure didn’t take long to fall back on the old lying routine. This comment, while absolute bullshit, is of value in that it tells us that when reading what you write, we have two ways to look at it.

      (1) That you really are so screwed up that everything going through your mental filters comes out so distorted it is either not accurate or is the opposite of fact.
      (2) That you lie

      And the two are not mutually exclusive.

      Seen any “threats” from “armed militias” about Roe v Wade? About the insanity of calling a penalty a mere “tax”? Name a time when there has been a threat by an “armed militia” about any ruling on the Constitution. This is, in case you have ever wondered, why you are held in such contempt here. That comment was not only a vicious lie, it was a disgusting lie, and a very unpleasant peek into a very disturbed pathology.

      “Maybe I support the Constitution and the rule of law more than you do”

      Yeah, and maybe I just had to duck a flying pig. Interesting, though, to watch you hit the slick slope from lying to just plain delusional.

      “Roving militias threatening armed violence is antithetical to that.”

      Aside from the doubling down on the vicious lie that “armed militias” pose a threat to anyone based on their preference for Leftist governance, you might try applying that little gem of wisdom to the SEIU, the NBP, the rioting mobs in Los Angeles, the ATF, the BLM, and the entire Occupy movement, and keep it in mind the next time the mobs gather to have temper tantrums about the WTO or some other phantom enemy.

      ” But some people don’t like it so much that they are organizing is (sic) self-appointed militias, planning to take matters into their own hands.”

      Again, the lie. Still vicious, still delusional, still an effort to paint the Right with the same bloody brush that has defined the Left for so long, and still an effort to deflect attention away from what is really going on.

      However, thanks for pointing out that you can never be taken seriously, ever, on anything.

      • watsonthethird June 3, 2014 / 4:29 pm

        You know, I asked you on the previous thread, if you were this easily manipulated in real life. It wasn’t a rhetorical question.

      • Amazona June 3, 2014 / 4:39 pm

        So what if it wasn’t “rhetorical”? It is still stupid.

        You may, or may not, believe the crap you write. But it doesn’t matter, because crap is crap. You have never backed up any of your contentions about the expandability of the Constitution with words of those who wrote it, and when you cite Supreme Court rulings you misstate their meaning. You lie, you spin, you distort, and then you lie some more.

        You come here with some cockamamie claim, and when it is disproved you just come back and state that it was proved. No, we have the whole thread here to examine. You just misstate (what we call “lie”) what was said. You don’t even try to come up with believable lies. For example, you follow up post after post in which I quote and refer to source after source to support my contention with the claim that I only depend on my own opinion. You can’t even avoid stupid lies.

        I think you are just ticked off to learn that I am impervious to your efforts to manipulate—-to manipulate the truth, or me. Just as you are impervious to fact, even when you have had your nose rubbed in it.

      • watsonthethird June 3, 2014 / 4:44 pm

        I think you are just ticked off to learn that I am impervious to your efforts to manipulate—-to manipulate the truth, or me.

        Haha. Yeah, that’s it.

      • Amazona June 3, 2014 / 4:47 pm

        The wattle reminds me of the Outback Steakhouse ad, featuring one of the guys from Flight of the Conchords. He explains that he is a vegetarian. Well, he does eat fish. And chicken. And some meat.

        That is like the wattle explaining that he really does believe in the Constitution. Well, not this part, or that part, but those can be “interpreted”. He wishes the Constitution said this or that, but when it doesn’t, if an activist Court says they found a hint of a penumbra of an emanation of an unstated “right” (which he doesn’t seem to understand is not the same as an “implied power”) then he’s fine with adding that in, without bothering with that cumbersome amendment process. He picks and chooses what he likes and doesn’t like, and when challenged he says that really, the Constitution is not the law of the land at all, but just a “framework” in which people can make up their own laws.

        The guy in the ad admits he is just “semi-veg” but the wattle does not have the integrity to admit he is just a semi-Constitutionalist.

        I wonder if he applies the same loosey-goosey definition of terms to the rest of his life, too—-marital vows are really just a “framework” in which details can be changed to meet the moment’s urges, contracts can be “interpreted” at will, laws are just suggestions about what might be done if someone is so inclined. He sure applies this kind of squishiness to telling the truth.

    • Retired Spook June 3, 2014 / 6:00 pm

      Well, first you pose a kind of false dichotomy, suggesting that you (collectively) are the ones that “firmly support the Constitution,” and the rest of us don’t.

      Watson, when you have liberal law professors saying Obama’s lawlessness is creating a constitutional crisis, and you support Obama, then I suggest that you don’t support the Constitution or the rule of law — certainly not any portion of it that is contrary to your own “interpretation”. So let me re-phrase the question. Let’s say that we do have some sort of financial and/or societal collapse, and even key leaders on the Left admit that Obama’s policies are largely, if not solely responsible. Do you personally feel ANY responsibility?

      • watsonthethird June 3, 2014 / 6:32 pm

        The same liberal law professor said “The trend has existed for decades, and President George W. Bush showed equal contempt for the separation of powers.” So I guess all of you Bush supporters don’t support the Constitution or rule of law, either.

        Let’s say that we do have some sort of financial and/or societal collapse, and even key leaders on the Left admit that Obama’s policies are largely, if not solely responsible. Do you personally feel ANY responsibility?

        Sure, if your hypothetical was to actually come to pass, as you described it, then I would feel some responsibility.

        But, Spook, we had a financial collapse in 2008. Pretty much all of you here at B4V (formerly BlogsForBush) have argued ad nauseam ever since that it was the fault of everyone but President Bush and his policies.

        Spook, President Bush sent Americans to armed conflict in an undeclared war in Iraq for reasons that turned out to be false, if not fraudulent. Thousands of Americans died. Hundreds of thousands of civilians died. Do you personally feel ANY responsibility for these deaths?

      • Cluster June 3, 2014 / 7:11 pm

        Good Lord Watson, are you at all embarrassed? You should be. It’s amazing how “progressives” can be so “regressive” when trying to engage their brain.

      • Amazona June 3, 2014 / 6:53 pm

        BUSHBUSHBUSHBUSHBUSHBUSHBUSHBUSHBUSH !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        Waaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhh !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      • watsonthethird June 3, 2014 / 7:07 pm

        Yet another mature, intelligent reply from Amazona. What were you saying, J.R., about comments devolving through the course of the thread? Now Amazona’s not even using words. Just… blithering.

      • Cluster June 3, 2014 / 7:09 pm

        You know I was going to bring up Jonathan Turley and his concerns with how the Constitution is being abused by the Obama admin., but Watson will simply ignore it, as he does anything else that moves the conversation in an uncomfortable direction. Notice how he doesn’t even acknowledge the real violence from leftist darlings like the World Bank protestors, but put a redneck with a gun on TV and he is convinced there is going to be trouble.

      • watsonthethird June 3, 2014 / 7:21 pm

        You know I was going to bring up Jonathan Turley and his concerns with how the Constitution is being abused by the Obama admin., but Watson will simply ignore it, as he does anything else that moves the conversation in an uncomfortable direction.

        That’s funny, because I quoted Jonathan Turley in my comment above. It comes from his article, “The Constitutional Tipping Point.” The point being that we didn’t suddenly get to this place with the election of President Obama.

      • Cluster June 3, 2014 / 7:29 pm

        I know I saw that afterwards, but you still just gloss over the fact that Turley, an Obama supporter, has written extensively on Obama’s continued, if not unprecedented abuse of executive power putting the country on the verge of what Turley described as a “constitutional crisis”. Furthermore, Obama campaigned in 2008 against Bush’s concentration of executive power, and promised to reverse that precedent, which is yet just another broken promise. So forgive me for being unimpressed.

      • watsonthethird June 3, 2014 / 7:43 pm

        Furthermore, Obama campaigned in 2008 against Bush’s concentration of executive power, and promised to reverse that precedent, which is yet just another broken promise.

        Yes, and I don’t like that, either. But it’s silly to go from there to, say, eminent martial law, as the email from Patriot Survival Plan warned me about just a few days ago.

        Martial law has gotten dangerously close.

        Right now, we’re literally one step from having feds knock down our doors.

        Almost all the steps leading to martial law are now completed… all it takes is one more
        spark to ignite the disaster.

        And the match has just been lit.

        Now, if this wasn’t enough, here’s something that will REALLY make your blood boil:

        Everything’s been planned and implemented with taxpayer money. YOUR money.

        They forced you to build this nazi tyranny for them.

        Oh my!

      • Cluster June 3, 2014 / 10:00 pm

        Oh you don’t like that either? Who the F cares what you think? You change the subject every time you’re called out. Patriot Survival Plan??? Man up and just address the subject at hand. Squishy little progressives like you will soon be insignificant and laughed at, if you aren’t already.

      • Amazona June 3, 2014 / 9:06 pm

        How too too kind of you, wattle, to point out that referring to your own post is “blithering”. Thanks for picking up on that—it really is the best way to describe your descent into BDS, though I tried a more humorous approach.

        You are doing the blog version of jumping the shark—-we can tell when even YOU know you haven’t got anything but still feel compelled to try to use up bandwidth. That is when you get in your Wayback Machine and start invoking GW.

        Well, we are well into the 5th year of the reign of The One We Have All Been Waiting For, and while it seems to get you guys all worked up to revisit the past, and someday we might all have a little chat about what did happen then and what didn’t this is, right now, ABOUT “right now”.

        You are out of gas and everyone knows it. So bow out, as gracefully as you can with your feet in your mouth and your tail between your legs and your head up your ass, and simply go away. You are, to paraphrase a great old song, one lie over the line. You managed to hang on longer than usual, before disintegrating, so take solace in that. Someday, if you keep studying your playbook, you might even become an effective blog vandal. For all we know, there are blogs where you get away with your crap.

        It’s just not this blog. Your citations, such as McCulloch vs Maryland, just happened to not mean what you claimed they mean, you are using the wrong words because you don’t know what any of them mean, you are all tangled up in your own lies, you are trying to spout what sounded pretty good to you when your favorite talking head said it on TV but you never understood it well enough to carry it off so you ended up (started off ??!!) looking like a fool.

        Stick a fork in watson—he’s done.

      • Amazona June 3, 2014 / 9:09 pm

        Speaking of jumping the shark—quoting a ridiculously nutty allegedly Right-wing screed is supposed to prove something? All it proves is that the wattle is hard up, desperate, and scrabbling for something—–ANYTHING—–that might let him scurry off for something very very important with the pretense that he had the last word.

        Yeah, like that’s gonna happen!

      • Amazona June 3, 2014 / 9:13 pm

        “redneck”—nasty little bigot, isn’t he? Kind of telling, though, when a fella’s only claim to superiority is a pasty-looking nape.

        But hey, he’s got that to brag about—-it had better be enough.

      • watsonthethird June 3, 2014 / 9:28 pm

        “redneck”—nasty little bigot, isn’t he? Kind of telling, though, when a fella’s only claim to superiority is a pasty-looking nape.

        What _are_ you talking about? The only person to use the term “redneck” in this thread was Cluster. It was in one of my comments because I quoted him; hence the boldface. Are you calling Cluster a “nasty little bigot”?

        Anyway, Amazona, rest assured that no one ever expects to get the last word with you.

        Oh and by the way, the only reason I responded to this thread is because Spook specifically asked me to. You do some backchannel chatting with Spook if you don’t like it.

      • Cluster June 3, 2014 / 10:58 pm

        Watson, this issue right here clearly shows your regard, or lack thereof for the constitution. It also shows us that you have unwavering support for a President that lies to get elected, and an ideology that shows disdain for the constitution and the American Congress.

      • Amazona June 3, 2014 / 10:15 pm

        Oh, I see now. wattle’s tactic is not to actually jump the shark but just flop around on top of it, bleating about how he is only here because someone ASKED him to be here (yeah, like THAT’S ever happened, or will………….unless they need someone to keep the flies off the coleslaw) and it’s not HIS fault he can’t get the last word and waaaaa waaaaa waaaaa.

        Come back, Junior, when you have something to say and the wit to say it.

      • Cluster June 4, 2014 / 8:28 am

        Watson, you are the one that dodges. Every single time. Your thinking is transparent, and your responses are predictable, that’s why I don’t give a F*** what you think, and can alway predict what you do. It is shown that Obama abuses executive power, you blame Bush. It is shown that Obama campaigned on the abuse of executive power and promised to be “the more constitutional” president, and you bring up Patriots Survival Plan. It is shown that Bush clearly gave strong warnings about the capitalization of the GSE’s and you breeze right on by it, not ever wanting to mention key players at that point in the crisis namely Barney Frank or Maxine Waters.

        You will never man up and admit the failure of your ideology which is happening all around you. And re: the redneck word. A progressive from CA really doesn’t even know what that word means and it can only come off as disparaging when you do use it. Much like the word macho. That word also just doesn’t fit.

      • Retired Spook June 4, 2014 / 9:10 am

        Sure, if your hypothetical was to actually come to pass, as you described it, then I would feel some responsibility.

        But, Spook, we had a financial collapse in 2008. Pretty much all of you here at B4V (formerly BlogsForBush) have argued ad nauseam ever since that it was the fault of everyone but President Bush and his policies.

        If Bush’s policies were even marginally responsible, then, having voted for him, I WOULD feel a certain sense of responsibility, but they weren’t, so I don’t.

        Spook, President Bush sent Americans to armed conflict in an undeclared war in Iraq for reasons that turned out to be false, if not fraudulent. Thousands of Americans died. Hundreds of thousands of civilians died. Do you personally feel ANY responsibility for these deaths?

        There’s at least a little gray area on this one. As the congressional authorization for the use of force in Iraq was a bi-partisan effort (unlike ObamaCare, for example, that passed without a single Republican vote), I think we should all bear a bit of responsibility for the military and civilian deaths in Iraq. I note that you couldn’t help yourself and added the phrase, “if not fraudulent”. There is much more evidence of fraud in the passage of ObamaCare than there ever was in the lead-up to Iraq. In fact, “fraud” has actually become a regularly used tool of this administration.

      • Cluster June 4, 2014 / 9:29 am

        If in fact fraud was a concern of Watson’s, he would be much more critical of this administration but we all know he just uses that issue as a club.

        Speaking of Iraqi deaths and I know I may be in the minority here, but I just watched “Lone Survivor” last night, and we have to change our rules of engagement when in war. We have to quit worrying about how many people die, and which people die, and just put an end to the conflict as soon as possible. I would have shot those three goat herders in a heartbeat and prevented them from compromising my position so that the senior Taliban target could have been taken out. As it turned out, letting those three goat herders go, resulted in numerous American deaths and the senior Taliban target was never taken out.

        I really don’t understand that.

      • watsonthethird June 4, 2014 / 1:13 pm

        It is shown that Obama campaigned on the abuse of executive power and promised to be “the more constitutional” president, and you bring up Patriots Survival Plan.

        No, Cluster, you missed the point entirely. We’ve been talking about how something is going to happen soon in which ordinary Americans such as Spook will be compelled to take up arms against other ordinary Americans. I’m pretty sure Spook has said in the past that he fully expected the United States to get to this point while Obama is president.

        It is the same kind of thinking that leads people to believe that martial law is eminent. It was amusing to me that on the very day we are trying to understand what Spook is preparing for, I received an email from a so-called patriot group warning me of eminent martial law.

        I read an article today that said, in part: “I understand that frightened people become more and more irrational, especially when they are allowed, encouraged, to feed incestuously on each other’s fear.”

        Indeed.

      • Cluster June 4, 2014 / 1:25 pm

        No moron. In this particular instance, we were talking about abuse of executive power as described by Jonathan Turley, to which you claimed that Bush did it to. I then made my response. Do you have ADD??

      • Retired Spook June 4, 2014 / 1:21 pm

        Watson,

        I don’t even begin to know where to begin with your 6/4/14 12:52 post. It’s pretty clear you’re running out of gas.

        Okay… Not even marginally responsible? That’s just partisan, wishful thinking. Sorry.

        Well, unless you consider touting an ownership society in a few speeches as being marginally responsible, then no, not even marginally responsible. You’ve been asked numerous times to cite legislation or initiatives supported by Bush that contributed to the financial collapse. To the best of my knowledge you’ve failed to produce anything of substance.

        I’d say there is a difference between fraud regarding ObamaCare and fraud with respect to sending the country to war, don’t you think?

        There is a difference, but you haven’t been able to offer any proof of fraud in the lead-up to the Iraq war. If Bush did, indeed, knowingly use false information (fraud) to obtain congressional approval, why didn’t the Democrats, with near veto-proof majorities in both houses in 2007, impeach him? Surely starting a war under false pretenses would be an impeachable offense.

        Spook, if you’re going to demand that I take responsibility for anything President Obama has done, then you need to man up and do the same.

        Well, except I never “DEMANDED” that you take responsibility. I simply asked if you thought you shared any responsibility. In fact, I actually appealed to your emotions, since that’s what seems to drive your political position more than actual fact. My exact words were: Do you personally feel ANY responsibility? Not sure how you got “demanded” out of that.

        But we now know that the so-called intelligence was incorrect, if not fraudulent.

        To quote my favorite President, “there you go again.”

        I think it’s time you observed the 1st rule of holes and cut your losses, Watson.

      • Retired Spook June 4, 2014 / 3:12 pm

        Feel free to read the rest. I gave you the link.

        Well, I certainly have to yield to that non-partisan, premier purveyor of fact, the New York Times. I accept a level of responsibility commensurate with Bush’s contribution to the meltdown. Sue me for whatever you lost as a result.

        As for the word fraud, you made the completely unsubstantiated claim, “There is much more evidence of fraud in the passage of ObamaCare than there ever was in the lead-up to Iraq.”

        You are proving yourself to be a partisan who can’t conceive of anything your side has done that could have had any negative consequences on anything. You are unwilling to admit that there might have been any deception regarding the rationale for war with Iraq. At the same time, you attempt to pin the exact same partisan label on Obama supporters. That’s hypocritical.

        Enough with the lies, Watson. Your propensity to put words in people’s mouths is getting really tiresome. I never said I was unwilling to admit there might have been deception regarding the rationale for the Iraq War. I simply challenged you to back up your claims — and you haven’t. Nice try, though. As for ObamaCare fraud, Andy McCarthy wrote an excellent article at National Review last summer in which he discusses just the constitutional fraud involved. He doesn’t even address the political bribes without which it never would have passed the senate.

      • tiredoflibbs June 4, 2014 / 6:59 pm

        Spook, we had this discussion two weeks ago about the mortgage collapse. Watty was quick to blame Bush. He will not acknowledge the Democrats’ contributions, starting with the Community Reinvestment Act, Clinton’s expansion of it for home ownership, the Democrats’ protection of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the FHA expansions for home ownership, their risky loans. Bush comes along and adds to fire but attempts to reign in the unregulated GSEs and in watty’s world of dumbed down talking points gets the full blame. Throughout the whole discussion, watty just keeps repeating the favored slogan of the Left – “it’s Bush’s fault” (talk about a useful idiot). Never once admitting the GREATER contribution and expansion by the Democrats.

  7. watsonthethird June 3, 2014 / 3:58 pm

    I can’t wait for one of my local Liberals to complain when his/her electric bill doubles.

    Yes, that will probably happen. But it turns out that “[a] lopsided and bipartisan majority of Americans support federal limits on greenhouse gas emissions, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll that also finds most are willing to stomach a higher energy bill to pay for it.”

    Fully 70 percent say the federal government should require limits to greenhouse gases from existing power plants, the focus of a new rule announced Monday by the Environmental Protection Agency. An identical 70 percent supports requiring states to limit the amount of greenhouse gas emissions within their borders.

    Democrats and Republicans are in rare agreement on the issue. Fifty-seven percent of Republicans, 76 percent among independents and 79 percent of Democrats support state-level limits on greenhouse gas emissions. Strong tea party supporters are most resistant to limits on emissions by states and power plants; 50 percent say the federal government should impose caps, while 45 percent say they should not.

    The cross-party agreement extends to a willingness to pay for such limits with higher energy bills, a flashpoint for debate and a key area of uncertainty in new regulations. Asked whether Washington should still go forward with limits if they “significantly lowered greenhouse gases but raised your monthly energy expenses by 20 dollars a month,” 63 percent of respondents say yes, including 51 percent of Republicans, 64 percent of independents and 71 percent of Democrats.

    Americans living in coal-heavy states are supportive of limiting greenhouse gas emissions in the poll, even as their states will be forced to make bigger adjustments to meet the EPA’s new emissions targets. Among those in states where a majority of electricity is produced by burning coal, 69 percent say the government should place limits on greenhouse gas emissions. Support is a similar 71 percent in states where less than half of electricity comes from coal.*

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/06/02/a-huge-majority-of-americans-support-regulating-carbon-from-power-plants-and-theyre-even-willing-to-pay-for-it/

    • Amazona June 3, 2014 / 4:30 pm

      Hmmmm. Fascinating poll. I wonder how many of these mental giants bothered to ask if there is anything but speculation about the possible effect of these “greenhouse gases” on—-well, on much of anything.

      It reminds me of the hysteria about reducing the allowable arsenic levels in water. Sure, there was never a determination of what would be a safe level, or a safer level. There was no proof, or even evidence, that arsenic in drinking water was a problem. No one even seemed to know if there WAS arsenic in our drinking water. For eight years of Clinton presidency, the acceptable levels of arsenic in drinking water were, well, acceptable. But when it came to a smear campaign to stir up the LIV and terminally gullible, the Left proposed lowering the acceptable levels of arsenic in drinking water, and President Bush rightly vetoed the bill. He was smart enough and honest enough to realize that it was not only not a problem, the new regulations would have bankrupted small water treatment plants all across the country as they would have to adapt to the new, stringent, policy—even though there was nothing to back it up.

      As smear campaigns went, it was brilliant, and now it has a new incarnation in the hysteria about lowering “greenhouse gases”.

      I have a feeling the results of this poll are pretty similar to the one asking people if they would vote to ban dihydrogen monoxide. By the way, there is an excellent web site devoted to educating people about the terrible effects of this compound. SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!!!

      http://www.dhmo.org

      • J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) June 3, 2014 / 5:03 pm

        Amazona,

        It is fascinating to see how the comments by Watson devolve through the course of a thread. It’s sort of like he’s trapped in a vehicle that only turns left, and sometimes, when a right turn is called for, his on-board computer blares out “BOING, BOING, BOING — DOES NOT COMPUTE — DOES NOT COMPUTE, PRESS RESET NOW.”

      • watsonthethird June 3, 2014 / 5:12 pm

        Yeah, J.R., saying that I support the Constitution and the rule of law, and have faith in the process that has guided this country for over 200 years, that’s some radical stuff. Yikes!

      • Amazona June 3, 2014 / 6:19 pm

        No, no one says that any of your claims are, or make you, “radical”. You really do need to stop listening to those voices in your head. Or at least stop quoting them.

        What is crazy, not radical, is claiming that you truly do believe that your political philosophy is based on “…support(ing) the Constitution and the rule of law, and hav(ing) faith in the process that has guided this country for over 200 years..” when you have stated that you do not believe that the Constitution IS the law of the land but merely a framework, and that you “have faith in” some misunderstanding of the process that, as you repeatedly say, “..has guided this country for over 200 years..”

        As I said, out of one side of your mouth you claim to have this respect for the Constitution and the process that “has guided this country for over 200 years..” out of the other you say that well, yeah, you respect the distorted restatement of the Constitution that appeals to you, no matter what was said by those who actually wrote it and the justices who have ruled on it, and you have faith in what you think some rulings mean even when you clearly don’t understand them.

        This is what happens when you parrot things and try to pass them off as ideas, without knowing the ideas that you would have to have to make them make any sense. For example, you use the term “health care” when you are really talking about a legal contract between a person and a company to pay for health care—two very different things, but conflated by the Liberal minders to befuddle you sheeple. Now you seem to be conflating the terms “implied powers” with invented “rights”—not the same thing, but that is way over your head.

        And to try to lay claim to participation in discussions about things like that, you have to fall back on lie after lie after lie, such as claiming that I denied there is any such thing as “implied powers” when I was really talking about expansion of Constitutional power well beyond enumerated powers and the implied powers necessary to implement them. When I have quoted people about this, including quoting the man who actually WROTE the Necessary and Proper Clause, you lied again and claimed I depended solely on my own interpretation of the Constitution. And on and on—you are such a muddle of dishonesty, cluelessness and general incompetence, you really need another assignment because you have botched this one.

      • Amazona June 3, 2014 / 6:20 pm

        And now all you can do is smirk and come up with inane nonsense and try to make light of your idiocy.

      • dbschmidt June 4, 2014 / 8:44 pm

        Well Hell,

        Watson is for the dismantling of the EPA, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and any number of other government agencies that violate his beloved Constitution including the ACA. Never thought I would live to see the day.

  8. Cluster June 4, 2014 / 8:31 am

    Watson is so vile and disparaging on so many occasions that it is natural to assume he was there as well. But as I said, a squishy progressive from CA really doesn’t know what that word means.

  9. tiredoflibbs June 4, 2014 / 5:36 pm

    How much is stupid?

    From the blog where the low information trolls went:
    “Last POW Returns”which concerns the UNLAWFUL trade of SGT Bergdahl for FIVE “officers” of the Taliban. According to these drones, any non-proggy that criticized obame for the trade would have left this soldier there to rot. They puff up their chests and scream about how “you don’t leave a soldier behind”. And “Obama took the necessary steps to make sure there was not one person unaccounted for when the last plane leaves.”

    From there, one can read the many vulgar attacks against anyone who dares criticize the “one we have been waiting for”. Never mind, obame broke the law. Never mind, he set a precedence of trading dangerous terrorists for Americans. Never mind, obame lied about his non-notification of Congress as a “simple oversight” regardless of his attitude in his signing statement that he FELT (there’s that word again) the notification was unconstitutional.

    I asked the simple question to these drones, if we “don’t leave anyone behind, then why did obama and his state department left those in Benghazi out to dry”?

    Of course, my question was ignored and quickly deleted. I guess these drones have a different opinion when it comes to ambassadors and those with prior military experience. To them, that incident was nothing – just more attacks on obame during his pResidency.

    Yep, you can’t fix stupid.

    • dbschmidt June 4, 2014 / 8:48 pm

      Obama did not seem to mind as he slept (best guess) as our folks died in Benghazi. Didn’t miss a meal while Boarder patrol and ICE agents were killed with his untraceable guns. Nope, and I am not even sure you can call this one a POW as it is not a nation-state but that apparently doesn’t matter either.

  10. GMB June 4, 2014 / 6:41 pm

    I have a proposal to make, and here it is.

    Lets load up a C-130 with eight crates. Eight random crates from a undisclosed location that has fifty crates . Among these fifty crates are ten crates of regular old dumb bombs and one crate loaded with a single red pill. The rest of the crates have nothing but helium balloons in them.

    It’s a crap shoot on witch crates will get loaded. There is no way to tell what gets loaded.

    We have to drop them on Watson’s house to find out what’s inside.

    Wonder how piglosi would vote on this bill.

  11. bozo June 4, 2014 / 11:40 pm

    I don’t understand why anyone supports coal anymore. It’s like you want to spend more money while belching crap into the air. I am now 16 months in to my solar experiment at home. I have a modest 3.4 kwatt array on my roof. The neighbors can’t see it from the street. It was no big deal. And in 16 months, my meter has been crawling backwards despite running a/c, computers and lights the same as I ever have. I have a “solar bank” with my utility that’s growing every day.

    Actually, I am a coal miner. I am absorbing sunlight, burying it underground for millions of years, digging it up, railroading it to power plants, burning it, transmitting it over miles and miles of infrastructure, and routing it through my fuze box to freeze ice cubes in the fridge. Except for everything between “sunlight” and “to freeze.”

    Why do people cheerlead for stupid? Let’s hear from the cheerleaders 🙂

    • M. Noonan June 5, 2014 / 12:34 am

      No one “supports” coal – in fact, such phrasing is absurd. But the fact of the matter is that we get a very large portion of our electricity from coal and it is a process of many, many decades to replace it…Obama proposes to just do away with it, without the slightest thought to the massive dislocation it will cause in the lives of the American people.

      • tiredoflibbs June 5, 2014 / 5:42 am

        Mark, what greenie-weenies, like the creepy clown, do not understand is that the “grid” needs a constant reserve of electrical power when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow. The reserve power are generators in low generation mode that can take up the demand almost instantaneously.

        What are the power sources of these generators?

        Why, they are GASP! Natural gas, nuclear and (double GASP!!) coal! We know the greenie-weenies revulsion to nuclear generation is out, so fossil fuels will have to be the source.

        What is worse, these generators running in low power mode are less efficient and put more “crap into the air” for the power generated than when running at demand speeds. So, unreliable solar and wind actually put more “crap into the air” than normal power generation. I know it will be a difficult concept for these simpletons to understand but why would they consider facts over feel good ideology.

        Yeah, let’s cheer for stupid – those who wish to replace conventional energy production with those that are less efficient, more unreliable, more expensive than more efficient, more reliable and less expensive power generation.

        Perhaps, when green technology get more efficient, more reliable and less expensive….. But that is just logic talking.

      • tiredoflibbs June 6, 2014 / 12:23 pm

        “Go cheerleaders! Rah rah…”

        Keep cheering…. you deserve it.

        Put your money where your mouth is. Cut yourself off completely from fossil fuel and nuclear power generation. You won’t because you can’t.

    • Cluster June 5, 2014 / 7:40 am

      The average investment to purchase residential solar is approx. $20K to $30K, the ROI is about 10 to 12 years. How many $10.10 employees can afford that? Secondly, if you leased the panels, you will have to factor in your approx. $200/mo payment, in addition to the fact that if you ever sell your home, the new buyer will have to qualify with the solar company to take over the payments and one recent example that I know of is the solar company required a minimum 720 FICO score. That can present a big obstacle to selling your home.

      Solar is a natural way to go especially for us in the southwest, but costs have to come down.

      • bozo June 6, 2014 / 12:01 am

        Mine before tax rebates was $17,000.00 all in, $9,000 after rebates. Even at $17,000, it completely eliminates what used to be a $150/month bill, which is over 10% annual return. Where can YOU put $17,000 that will pay you a TEN PERCENT return, guaranteed for twenty five years (the warranty period on my Bosch panels)? You can barely remodel a kitchen for that price. If I move, I take them with or sell them to the new owner, shaving $150/month off their mortgage payments. Remember Franklin’s “penny saved is a penny earned?” That’s wrong. A penny saved is 1.25 pennies earned since you don’t pay taxes on pennies saved.

        You just can’t help it. It looks liberal, so it MUST be bad. Suit yourselves.

      • Cluster June 6, 2014 / 9:19 am

        Your total investment is a little less than what we have here in AZ, but you also need to factor in maintenance and any possible damage. That being said, you are still looking at a minimum 5 year ROI after rebates, and a total out of pocket investment of $17K. How many $10.10 employees can afford $17K. Keep in mind to that California’s home ownership rate is not exactly robust and has been on the decline since 2006. Also keep in mind that those rebates came from other California tax payers.

        You’re lucky that you are in the top % of California wage earners and can afford solar. Most Californians can not.

      • Retired Spook June 6, 2014 / 10:19 am

        Mine before tax rebates was $17,000.00 all in, $9,000 after rebates. Even at $17,000, it completely eliminates what used to be a $150/month bill, which is over 10% annual return.

        I think you may be using Common Core math. $9,000 invested at 10% for 25 years would yield a future value of $97,512. 25 years (300 months) @150.00/month will save you $45,000 over 25 years, and I’m betting the panels won’t be worth $9,000 at that point. Just sayin’.

      • tiredoflibbs June 6, 2014 / 12:20 pm

        I would still like to see creepy clown completely cut himself off from fossil fuel generated power. He knows he can’t until the technology becomes more robust and cost effective. Until then, he can brag all he wants, but the fact remains not everyone can use solar or wind power for one reason or another.

        For example, the Seattle area might have sunshine for a few short weeks out of the entire year. Solar won’t work. But in creepy’s little world, those exceptions don’t exist and the argument is not about those people.

    • Retired Spook June 5, 2014 / 9:55 am

      I don’t understand why anyone supports coal anymore.

      Bozo, I don’t think it’s “support” for coal (except maybe from coal miners) so much as it is the recognition of reality that it accounts for roughly 40% of our electricity generation, and there’s no reliable, renewable source of energy to replace that 40% that’s even on the horizon. You’re fortunate that you live in an area where solar is cost effective. I live in a woods, and also in an area where we don’t see sunshine for days, sometimes weeks at a time in December and January. Now, on the flip side, my electric rate is probably less than half of yours, and my cost of living is, I would bet, waaaaaaay less than half of yours — so the fact that your electric meter is spinning backward is somewhat relative. But given your posts over the years, I certainly understand why you don’t understand it.

      • Retired Spook June 6, 2014 / 12:18 pm

        Oh, you have trees. Never mind. The whole idea is crazy, then.

        It’s just after noon here, and bright and sunny. There’s a small corner of my roof that is not in the shade — maybe 40 square feet. I thought about cutting down the trees and burning them, but that seemed counterproductive, especially when they serve to keep the house cool on hot days.

        Is it solipsistic in here, or is it just all about you?

        That’s hilarious that you, in particular, would ask that question. It reminds me of one of my favorite Jeff Foxworthy quotes from his show, “Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader?”

        “It’s like your brain is a sailboat, and there just isn’t any wind”

    • Amazona June 5, 2014 / 12:29 pm

      Actually, bozo’s own post IS hearing from the cheerleaders for stupid, or at least one of them. Remember, he self-identifies as a mere bozo, and his choice of how he sees himself is pretty much a screeching statement of his pride in his own stupidity..

      Naturally he has to spout the old whines about coal “belching crap into the air”. (Which is pretty funny coming from someone who belches crap into the air every time he talks, if his verbal communications have anything in common with his blog crap.)

      Of course he just ignores the environmental cost of making those solar panels, he pretty much admits they are butt ugly or he wouldn’t brag that they are out of sight of the neighbors, and as tired pointed out he still depends on a grid as backup and to give him that warm fuzzy feel-good “ain’t I special” glow he gets from his little experiment.

      And, as usual, his mental meanderings are all over the place. Let’s give him the benefit of the doubt and credit him for knowing that coal itself is inert and belches nothing, anywhere, and that what he is inarticulately trying to convey is his belief that coal-fired electrical generation plants do the actual belching of the actual crap. We don’t need to extend that benefit of that doubt to credit him for knowing anything about what constitutes that belched “crap” as we know he just heard someone who gets paid for belching crap into the air, like Ed Schultz or Rachel Madow, say this is what happens.

      From here he lurches into a sanctimonious little lecture on how too too special he is for having solar panels. Again, without factoring in the environmental damage of making the things, or the need for an established grid to back them up, or the cost of buying or leasing them, and the environmental impact of having millions of homes covered with reflective panels—–and all of this is based his assumption that anyone who objects to the politically motivated actions of the watermelons is really saying they prefer coal, forever, ad infinitum, to anything else.

      This is what Leftist discourse is like—random brain farts presented as thoughts, isolated from fact and dependent on shoring up some sense of moral superiority.

  12. tiredoflibbs June 5, 2014 / 6:59 pm

    talk about stupid……

    “obAMATEUR is the EXECUTIVE. EVERYTHING THAT HAS HAPPENED SINCE TAKING OFFICE IS HIS RESPONSIBILITY!!!

    Of course, that only applies to Democratic presidents. Got it.”

    Uh, no. Watty, AGAIN, you are cherry picking quotes again. As I stated in the original thread, the DEMOCRATS hold non-Democrat Presidents responsible for everything that happens under their watch regardless of the circumstances. I stated the above when I said I was using the Democrats talking points against their “one they have been waiting for”. But naturally, mindless proggies are not consistent in their reasons and blame.

    You took it out of context then, and you continue to take it out of context now. You are not interested in facts. You just want to spew your fiction.

    • tiredoflibbs June 6, 2014 / 5:51 am

      Again, Watty proves “you can’t fix stupid”. He claims:

      “Nothing there about claiming you were just using Democratic talking points against Obama. You were very clear. But nice try.”

      He pastes my original post with the quote above. But leaves out other posts further down the thread where I did make the claim. To dumb it down for you Watty, you’re cherry-picking facts again.

      This is too easy. I grow bored dealing with useful idiots.

      • tiredoflibbs June 6, 2014 / 12:12 pm

        “Further down the thread? That was you furiously backpedaling when it was pointed out to you that you refused to apply the same standard to President Bush. But again, nice try.”

        Hardly watty. I actually showed you the difference between two administrations – one taking the responsibility and trying to fix a situation created by another administration and maintained by another party, while the other does nothing and blames the prior administration. Guess which one obame is and guess who constantly repeats “It’s Bush’s fault!” at every turn.

        I showed you that the progressives and their mindless drones had two approaches and two different standards. I applied the standard set by the Democrats to obame. You did not like it. It was hardly backpedaling when you kept trying to change the argument and deflect from the core topic. But you need to revise what was actually said in order not to appear the simple-minded buffoon. You placed yourself in a corner and was caught yet again cherry-picking and lying about what was actually said.

        Typical and pathetic.

        If you don’t want to be made the fool, then stop making it so easy for us.

  13. 02casper June 5, 2014 / 9:52 pm

    Tired,
    Just one little problem, the U.S. never invaded Libya and the Libyan civil war in 2011 ended without U.S. loses.

    • Cluster June 5, 2014 / 10:25 pm

      Was the US instrumental in deposing the leader of Libya? Was Libya an imminent threat to the US? Is Libya a sovereign country?

    • tiredoflibbs June 6, 2014 / 5:29 am

      Cappy, there weren’t “boots on the ground” in the conventional sense. Though there were some personnel in country. Obame attacked a sovereign nation, who did not attack us and was not a threat.

      Obame’s unprovoked attack flew in the face of Democrat and mindless drone talking points. You and your fellow drones gave him a pass just like any other time.

Comments are closed.