jump to navigation

‘Boots On The Ground’ in Dallas Society August 22, 2010

Posted by Cathy in Economics, Heroes, News, Politics.
trackback

Only 70-some-odd days before November elections. Despite sweltering heat, some focused, genteel, and generous people met in a lovely home in a ritzy neighborhood to welcome two Champions of Liberty (in town for the Hannity Freedom Concert).

Michele Bachmann & Jon Voight with the Ryans, our host & hostess

While waiting for the honored guests, our conversations resembled soldiers struggling with PTSD resulting from the seemingly endless ruthless assaults on liberty, property, truth, and dashed hopes for the future for children, grandchildren and beyond.  How can this be happening in the United States of America?  Will they ever stop attacking us, and taking from us what belongs to us? How bad is it going to get? What are we going to do about it? This did not feel like a typical high society event.  It was about networking, connecting,  exchanging contact information and business cards for future communication and strategies. Even websites and iPhone aps were being suggested to stay informed.   It was a day of giving and receiving in many forms…

This Hunky Gentleman Gives Good Hugs

Jon Voight and Michele Bachmann became good friends quickly after meeting at conservative functions several years ago.  The easy-going attitude and respect they have for each other was evident as  they seamlessly shared the limelight and attention. Jon spoke from the heart and the gut. His message was simple, honest, and profound. Our country is messed up. We gotta fix it and we will.

Future Presidential Material - Presently Nancy Pelosi's #1 Nemisis

Michele is smart, pretty, dedicated, and gifted for our country. We were charmed by the energy and spunk of a woman whose also the Mom! to a pack of kids. She considers herself well suited for her job in Washington because she knows how to stare down a two-year old and stand up to a teen —  a lot like dealing with the Democrats in Washington. Nobody doubted her tenacity. A well- educated and experienced lawyer and tax-law specialist, Michelle, explained the outrageous shenanigans going on in congress, things she has been doing to combat them, and plans that assure us we will get out of this mess. Our nation has been uniquely blessed as no other country in the history of the world.  We all assessed that in general we are better off than our parents or grandparents, but now — for the first time in the history of the nation — we no longer envision that things will be even better for our children or grandchildren.  This has got to change. We must take back our country. But we must stay in this battle through the November elections and not slack off or give in until then.

Washington's Firecracker and an Admirer.

Our gathered troops, the boots on the ground in Dallas, got recharged by true Leadership and Champions of Liberty. We received our marching orders.  Conservative candidates running for office need us to help fight against the Liberal Machine currently in power.  We CAN… Contribute. Campaign. Contact. Communicate. Connect. Cling to Conservative principles.  It’s about the future. It’s about restoring and securing liberty. It’s worth it.

Comments»

1. BrewFan - August 22, 2010

This may be the best poat ever. It has everything. Sound conservative concepts, encouraging rhetoric to keep the movement motivated, and, most importantly, pictures of smokin’ hot conservative babes!

2. GrumpyUnk - August 22, 2010

“Future Presidential Material – Presently Nancy Pelosi’s #1 Nemesis”
+1 on that.

3. lauraw - August 22, 2010

Nice pics and AWESOME meeting, but crap, I miss the Hell out of Cathy now. 😥

4. Retired Geezer - August 22, 2010

Excellent Reportage.

What Brew said too.

5. bananagirl - August 22, 2010

Beats my Saturday afternoon. You look great Sis! Sounds encouraging to all of us concerned about our country. Thanks for all you do.

6. Dave in Texas - August 22, 2010

Wow.

You are my hero. Heroine. Ok something.

7. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere - August 22, 2010

Pie AND Friends in high places.

I’m Jealous (in a good way).

8. MCPO Airdale - August 22, 2010

Cathy – How wonderful that you were able to interact with these two patriotic Americans! Good on you!

P.S. Did you show them your tattoo? 😉

9. MostlyRight - August 22, 2010

Awesome Cathy…you make me feel like getting off my butt and getting more active here in Phoenix. I too know how to stare down a 2 year old.

10. Cathy - August 22, 2010

Did you show them your tattoo? 😉

Nope. Tatoo expose not yet in the conservative strategy playbook.

Thanks for the comments. *Need a group hug. Huddle up.*

My first reaction to the invite was that this was not the place for lil’ me. Then got up the gumption with the help of a gal friend, and called the hostess to r.s.v.p. Her warmth and encouragement was all I needed.

Hey! These folks are Texans. We’re not fancy people. I recall somebody telling me some years back he saw Ed Whitacre (of AT&T and GM fame) get out of an old pickup truck wearing Wrangler jeans like the kind you buy in Wal-Mart. Our George W. wears Carhartt jackets you can get in any Tractor Supply Store. Figger I fit right in wearing my home-made cotton sun dress.

11. Charolette Ragsdale - August 22, 2010

Cathy! Great pictures and appreciate you sharing them with everyone. That is wonderful that you were able to meet and talk with Michele Bachmann and Jon Voight. It looks like you had a great time at the event. Thanks for passing on the words of encouragement for everyone to get more involved in the coming days. We can take back America in November.

12. xbradtc - August 22, 2010

You just know over on Michele’s blog, and Jon’s blog, they’re saying “OMG! I just got to meet the neatest, hawtest chick! Cathy rawks!”

13. Cathy - August 22, 2010

xbrad gets extra pie.

14. Cathy - August 22, 2010

Welcome, Charolette!

Thanks for the visit and all you do with our Tea Party, gal!

15. pajama momma - August 22, 2010

Coolest post! Look how beautiful Cathy is. That other chick is pretty ok too.

16. geoff - August 23, 2010

Coolest post!

Yeah, but the title reminds me of that song by General Larry Platt.

17. Tushar - August 23, 2010

Whoa!

I have just a couple of degrees of separation from Angelina Jolie.

18. Cathy - August 23, 2010

…title reminds me of that song by…

General Larry Platt.

*Sheesh.* Thanks, Geoff*

19. Cathy - August 23, 2010

Oh. Btw. Guess who is Lutheran!

*sits up straight*shoulders back* sticks out chest*

20. Russ from Winterset - August 23, 2010

Well, when your Minnesota congressional delegation includes one Muslim and one Asshole, you NEED at least ONE Lutheran for demographic purposes.

21. nicedeb - August 23, 2010

Yeah, no kidding conservative wimmins are teh hot.

Oh. Btw. Guess who is Lutheran!

Well, DUH! She’s from Minnesoooota.

OMG, Cathy, What a night that must have been!

22. Rutherford - August 23, 2010

Cathy, from the little I’ve been exposed to you, you seem to be a well meaning sweetheart. I find it very hard to understand how you can dismiss some of the utterly nutty things Ms. Bachmann has said over the past 24 months, from investigating un-American members of Congress, to suggesting that the US census is a precursor to putting people in internment camps.

Without knowing much about what Tarryl Clark is FOR, I can wholeheartedly support her because she is against Bachmann. I think it is fair to say Ms. Bachmann spends more time headline grabbing and less time serving the good people of Minnesota. Her presence in Dallas being one good example of this.

All that being said, you did a good job of “reporting” on the event. Most of us bloggers just spout off our opinions, You did some actual field work. Bravo!

23. wiserbud - August 23, 2010

Without knowing much about what Tarryl Clark is FOR, I can wholeheartedly support her because she is against Bachmann.

And that remark, more than any other comment ever made on this blog or anywhere on the internet, perfectly describes the mindset of the typical “holier than thou” liberal.

“I don’t know what the person on my side is for, but I am against you because you are a right-winger and are therefore, bad.”

Honestly, Rutherford, considering your admission that you only became “politically aware” when Obama’s pretty words enthralled you so, perhaps you should just step back and let those of us who have been paying attention for much, much longer take it from here, ‘k?

24. wiserbud - August 23, 2010

*sits up straight*shoulders back* sticks out chest*

*thud

25. Rutherford - August 23, 2010

Cathy’s been nice enough to me over at BiW’s place that it would be a disservice for me to get into a pissing match here. Just wanted to express an alternate view.

Bud … I’m not against Bachmann because she’s a right-winger. I’m against her because she is a nut job. And as for the length of my political awareness … I’m a pretty fast study and I’m hardly gonna let you “take it from here”. I haven’t read enough of your comments to peg you accurately but I have a feeling that when it comes time to take sides, you’ll be on the side of those who want to set this country back 50 years.

P.S. How much were you paying attention from 2001 – 2007 when your GOP President and Congress pissed away all our money, smart guy?

26. nicedeb - August 23, 2010
27. geoff - August 23, 2010

You know, ND – I really don’t care for that pic. It’s inaccurate and doesn’t support Hoven’s claim that the $3 trillion Iraq war cost is nonsense.

The $3 trillion cost estimate is nonsense, but that chart doesn’t make the case. Unfortunately it’s gone viral.

to suggesting that the US census is a precursor to putting people in internment camps.

I believe she stated that the US census was a precursor to putting people in internment camps.

28. nicedeb - August 24, 2010

Get working on a better chart, then, smart guy.

29. Dave in Texas - August 24, 2010

Rutherford, HI.

30. Rutherford - August 24, 2010

Hi back at ya Dave. Am I correct we met on Sensico’s blog?

31. Rutherford - August 24, 2010

I believe she stated that the US census was a precursor to putting people in internment camps.

Geoff, she said it under the notion that past is prologue.

32. Rutherford - August 24, 2010

BTW, if the Iraq war didn’t cost $3 trillion, anyone venture to guess how much it did cost? Surely we can all agree it wasn’t cheap.

33. Tushar - August 24, 2010

>>BTW, if the Iraq war didn’t cost $3 trillion, anyone venture to guess how much it did cost? Surely we can all agree it wasn’t cheap.

The figures I have heard are $150 billion per year, on an average. Less in last couple of years. So a ballpark of a trillion or less.

34. Tushar - August 24, 2010

>>Geoff, she said it under the notion that past is prologue.

Is that a fact or an opinion? Difficult to say without context.

35. Rutherford - August 24, 2010

Tushar, if Bachmann were my history teacher, I would agree with you. But she’s a politician … she was warning, as she often does, about government overreach.

Let me ask you, do you think she furthers the debate by making references to “gangsta government”? Florida Democrat Alan Grayson says Republicans want people to die. Doesn’t help the debate any. Bachmann is made of the same stuff.

36. PattyAnn - August 24, 2010

“home made cotton sun dress”?

You mean that couture creation?

37. Tushar - August 24, 2010

>>Let me ask you, do you think she furthers the debate by making references to “gangsta government”?

Has the Govt ever behaved like Gangsters? Say, for example interning citizens of Japanese descent, killing innocent (though nutty) people in Waco, Texas, or snatching a small child and throwing him back to Cuba? Then how exactly does avoiding ‘making references to “gangsta government”’ further the debate about Govt overreach?

Methinks you just don’t like the direction in which the debate goes when your ideological opponents express uncomfortable opinions and state inconvenient facts.

*Oh, and I am saying all this without even reading her quote about census in proper context.

38. wiserbud - August 24, 2010

Bud … I’m not against Bachmann because she’s a right-winger. I’m against her because she is a nut job.

My, such a well-thought out analysis of the issues! You certainly present a persuasive case to refute my contention.

but I have a feeling that when it comes time to take sides, you’ll be on the side of those who want to set this country back 50 years.

Actually, you would be wrong.

I’m a conservative.

P.S. How much were you paying attention from 2001 – 2007 when your GOP President and Congress pissed away all our money, smart guy?

heh heh heh. Yeah, they were real spendthrifts, weren’t they? Of course, compared to the current administration, that you support oh so strongly (aren’t Obama’s eyes just dreeeeamy???), they were positively penny-pinchers.

Here ya go, Mr. Quick Study. Put your big-brain to work on this and tell me how much better off we are with the non-nuts currently running the show.

http://tinyurl.com/crslff

39. Tushar - August 24, 2010
40. wiserbud - August 24, 2010

by the way, reading the New Your Times and watching MSNBC does not qualify as “study.”

41. wiserbud - August 24, 2010

A few example of Liberals furthering the debate:

Doesn’t matter, Tush. Even though Rutherford clearly admits he knows NOTHING about Bachmann’s opponent (quite an interesting admission for someone who considers themselves a “quick study”), he supports him sight unseen, because Bachmann says icky things.

Behold that which is considered a “rational decision” in the mind of a liberal

42. Retired Geezer - August 24, 2010

Holy Crap, Wieser, that chart Rocks!

http://tinyurl.com/crslff

43. Tushar - August 24, 2010

RG,

you are seeing that chart for the first time? You are injecting too much horse tranquilizer in yourself, my friend.

44. Retired Geezer - August 24, 2010

Tushar, it’s like you have a camera hidden somewhere in Camp Geezer.

45. Tushar - August 24, 2010

>>Tushar, it’s like you have a camera hidden somewhere in Camp Geezer.

The one near the water trough? No, I didn’t put that up.

46. lauraw - August 24, 2010

Geezer, I love that chart but I wish it would note that the Dems swept Congress in ’06. That chart shows pretty clearly which was the first full year that they had control of the pocketbook (while Bush was still Pres.).

47. Tushar - August 24, 2010

BTW, Geezer, ever wonder why that little heater you have installed by the water trough draws electricity even in summer?

Oops, I have already said too much.

48. geoff - August 24, 2010

Geoff, she said it under the notion that past is prologue.

Not at all. She said it under the notion that past abuses of information could presage future abuses of information. But she specifically said that she wasn’t claiming that there was a threat of internment camps.

49. Dave in Texas - August 24, 2010

>> Hi back at ya Dave. Am I correct we met on Sensico’s blog?

No.

What’s this “furthering the debate” nonsense?

50. Tushar - August 24, 2010

>>What’s this “furthering the debate” nonsense?

It is Libspeak for ‘shut up and agree with me or you are a racist’

51. Cathy - August 24, 2010

“home made cotton sun dress”? You mean that couture creation?

Thanks, Sweet PattyAnn.
And thanks to my IB-Moron friends debating here with Rutherfurd.
You guys rock.
Carry on…

52. TXMarko - August 24, 2010

…but I have a feeling that when it comes time to take sides, you’ll be on the side of those who want to set this country back 50 years.

Actually, that doesn’t sound like such a bad idea.

Can we keep our air conditioning, though?

53. Rutherford - August 24, 2010

he supports him sight unseen, because Bachmann says icky things.

Bud, well I at least know “he’s” a girl. 🙂

As for your deficit graph my immediate answer is sometimes things have to get worse before they can get better. I’d wager you John McCain would have taken a similar course to Obama economically. The economy needed rescue and both Bush and Obama (TARP and stimulus respectively) took the necessary actions.

If you were President would you have gambled on letting the country fall into a Depression?

54. Rutherford - August 24, 2010

It is Libspeak for ‘shut up and agree with me or you are a racist’

Now I see why you guys don’t need libs to visit your blogs. You supply all the lib arguments yourselves.

55. Rutherford - August 24, 2010

>> Hi back at ya Dave. Am I correct we met on Sensico’s blog?
No.
What’s this “furthering the debate” nonsense?

Actually, “meet” might have been the wrong word … but yes, I do remember your challenging Sensico on one of her posts.

As for the “nonsense”, some public figures choose to use divisive language to get the point across and some don’t. I cited two examples, one Dem and one GOP that use divisive language and lose people in the process.

56. wiserbud - August 24, 2010

Bud, well I at least know “he’s” a girl. 🙂

Your google-fu is impressive. You win.

As for your deficit graph my immediate answer is sometimes things have to get worse before they can get better.

Look at the graph again, Mr. Quick-Study. Look more closely at the right side. You call that better? Seriously?

Do you even understand the concept of “trends”? Can you honestly say that you are comfortable with this administration spending this country into bankruptcy?

Besides the fact that the White Houses estimates are being proven wrong even as we speak, notice how it continues to get worse and worse and worse each year after 2012. That’s better how?

If you were President would you have gambled on letting the country fall into a Depression?

As opposed to forcing it into one with out-of-control spending and mind-boggling corruption at the highest level?

Yes.

Because, unlike you, I do not believe the government is the solution to everything. I believe that, in most cases, the economy is far better served if the government would stop trying to control it.

57. wiserbud - August 24, 2010

Now I see why you guys don’t need libs to visit your blogs. You supply all the lib arguments yourselves.

It’s from seeing them used ad nauseum in every single topic of discussion.

See, we can learn stuff too!

58. geoff - August 24, 2010

As for your deficit graph my immediate answer is sometimes things have to get worse before they can get better.

Except that the CBO projects them getting worse, and worse, and worse.

I’d wager you John McCain would have taken a similar course to Obama economically.

I’ll take that bet.

The economy needed rescue and both Bush and Obama (TARP and stimulus respectively) took the necessary actions.

The stimulus was ‘necessary’? Only if you need a big helping of fail in your life. The ARRA has exactly followed conservative predictions.

If you were President would you have gambled on letting the country fall into a Depression?

If I were President I would have long since sent clear signals of long-term support to the business sector. I wouldn’t have rammed through legislation based on hopelessly optimistic cost estimates. I wouldn’t be talking about Cap&Trade. We would already have a decision on the continuation of the Bush tax cuts. I would have funded one year of stimulus, rather than committing to 5. The stimulus for the first year would have been smaller and would not have involved lame one-time tax cuts and incentives.

That’s a start. There’s more. Lots more.

59. geoff - August 24, 2010

…notice how it continues to get worse and worse and worse each year after 2012.

I’m sure he’s already noticed that. He is, after all, a pretty quick study.

60. Rutherford - August 24, 2010

It’s from seeing them used ad nauseum in every single topic of discussion.

Well there we have one thing in common. Every time I see a lib argument I can usually come up with the conservative counterpoint having read threads like this for the past three years.

61. wiserbud - August 24, 2010

Every time I see a lib argument I can usually come up with the conservative counterpoint having read threads like this for the past three years.

Sadly, it doesn’t seem to have sunk it yet though, has it? You still believe the silly “Hope & Change” garbage when reality continues to show how completely inane and ridiculous it is. Can you say “Recovery Summer?”

3 whole years? wow, you really have been paying attention, haven’t you?

Please explain how you can honestly use the “Bush spent like a drunken sailor” argument when you can plainly see how much more this administration is spending and how little it is actually accomplishing.

Please explain how the deficit was going down until the Democrats took control of Congress in ’06, and it began to rise exponentially?

Please explain how, despite the unbelievable amount of money that this administration has spent, unemployment is twice the rate it was under Bush. And the proposed spending continues to increase, to a level that is clearly unsustainable.

Then please explain how this is somehow better.

62. daveintexas - August 24, 2010

>> Actually, “meet” might have been the wrong word … but yes, I do remember your challenging Sensico on one of her posts.

It sounds to me as if you are often wrong, and this is no exception. I don’t know who this person is, I have never visited a blog called “Sensico”, and I doubt I’m any more interested in challenging her than I am you.

That’s kind of boring to me, arguing with leftists and/or statists.

63. Tushar - August 24, 2010

>>It sounds to me as if you are often wrong, and this is no exception.


Stuff Jefferson said.
Third Unabridged edition.

64. wiserbud - August 24, 2010

I love that chart but I wish it would note that the Dems swept Congress in ’06.

What I find fascinating about that chart is, not once, even when using the far more optimistic White House estimates, does this administration’s budget deficit ever drop below the worst year of Bush’s administration, before it begins it never-ending increase to absolutely unbelievable levels.

And the only argument that the average liberal can weakly offer is “Where were you when Bush was spending like a madman, huh??”

Maybe if they had been paying a bit more attention prior to getting all twitterpated over the Lightworker’s dreamy eyes, dulcet tones and pretty but empty words, they would have seen that quite a few of us were not very happy with Bush’s spending habits either.

Of course, most of that was done to appease the loud-mouthed, whiny liberals, for whom too much is never enough. But still, yes, Bush did spend more than I would have liked.

Now let’s take a look at Obama’s numbers, shall we?

65. geoff - August 24, 2010

But still, yes, Bush did spend more than I would have liked.

Amen. His tax cuts should have been accompanied by spending cuts.

66. Tushar - August 24, 2010

Heh

A Texas couple was vacationing in CT when they saw realtime their house being burglarized on their iPhone.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/082510dnmetappburglary.853963b9.html

Michael,Cathy

was that you?

67. geoff - August 24, 2010

Having debunked Rutherford’s claim that Michelle Bachmann was “suggesting that the US census is a precursor to putting people in internment camps,” we turn our attention to his other claim that she called for “investigating un-American members of Congress.” Here’s what she really said:

“What I would say is that the news media should do a penetrating expose and take a look. I wish they would. I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out, are they pro-America or anti-America? I think the American people would love to see an expose like that.”

Yeah, that’s really damning. Libs are really sensitive.

68. wiserbud - August 24, 2010

“What I would say is that the news media should do a penetrating expose and take a look. I wish they would. I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out, are they pro-America or anti-America? I think the American people would love to see an expose like that.”

Gee, what a nut. How DARE she ask that someone look into the motives of the people who are running this country, huh?

69. Cathy - August 24, 2010

Chivalry is not dead.

Thanks gents, for your support for Lady Bachmann.

70. geoff - August 24, 2010

How DARE she ask that someone look into the motives of the people who are running this country, huh?

In context, she wasn’t even really asking – she was musing. She didn’t ask as stridently as, say, Maxine Waters, who outlined exactly what she wanted to see done to Tea Partiers:

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) said that it’s not enough for African-Americans to levy allegations of racism against the right-leaning protesters, and that the media must look into their views

“I want those people talked to; I want them interviewed,” Waters told the liberal Bill Press Radio show in a podcast. “I want journalists to be all over those rallies and the marches with the birthers and the teabaggers.”

And Michelle Bachmann didn’t call for an official investigation, like Nancy Pelosi did with regard to GZ Mosque opponents:

“There is no question there is a concerted effort to make this a political issue by some. And I join those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the mosque being funded.”

71. xbradtc - August 24, 2010

The stimulus for the first year would have been smaller and would not have involved lame one-time tax cuts and incentives.

Well, I supported TARP, though I would have executed it quite differently.

As to the so called Stimulus, it can hardly have any positive impact on the economy when something like 2/3s of the money spent has gone to the states to pay for mandated spending programs. You can argue what the true multiplier effect of govt. spending is, but it for damn sure only has that effect when it is applied to infrastructure, not social spending.

72. Michael - August 24, 2010

Brad, you and I are on the same page.

TARP (signed by President Bush) was a good concept, given the crisis at hand. You just can’t let the world’s reserve currency collapse. That means we go back to a Stone Age economy.

The execution was muffed when we started bailing out UAW pension funds, but it still probably did a lot of good.

Porkulus (signed by President Obama) was a disaster. It dried up the capital markets and kept the bloated public sector afloat that is dragging down the economy.

73. Michael - August 24, 2010

The exact problem with states like Michigan and California is that they can’t afford their public employees and their pension funds. Jobs are fleeing. They thought they could rape the automotive (Michigan) and the high-tech and entertainment (California) industries indefinitely, and they were wrong.

Guess what? This is America. People can move to Texas.

74. Michael - August 24, 2010

Here in Texas, my state income tax is 0%.

We tax consumption, with sales taxes, and property, with property taxes. That’s how we pay for government. Which sorta works out that the rich pay more and the poor pay less.

No penalty on income.

75. geoff - August 24, 2010

You can argue what the true multiplier effect of govt. spending is, but it for damn sure only has that effect when it is applied to infrastructure, not social spending.

The problem is that Mark Zandi told Congress that unemployment benefits had one of the largest multipliers. So Congress has been dutifully pouring money down that drain.

Thanks, Mark!

76. Tushar - August 24, 2010

I wonder, if the tax code is completely wiped off and replaced with this:

IRS will tax consumption instead of income. What appears on your income statement is your income. The amount by which your bank accounts and stock account (inflow only, not capital appreciation) increase if your saving. Rest is consumption. Every family will be allowed 30K of tax-free consumption. Rest will be taxed at 20%. If the commies are really desperate to soak the rich, annual consumption above a certain amount can be taxed at a higher rate. (This will take care of rich fuckers who live in Mass and dock their yacht in Rhode Island)

No other taxes. No sales tax, property tax, corporate tax, capital gains tax or dividend tax. No tax deductions in any shape or form.

If this happens, the economy will boom.

77. Tushar - August 24, 2010

I don’t even mind the Govt cutting a check to families that earn less than 30K so that they can consume 30 K.

78. The Lovely Janis - August 24, 2010

Cathy — I am late to the party here — WOW!!! I am so glad you went — the dress is great and you look great too. You are what I want to be when I grow up 🙂 !

79. wiserbud - August 24, 2010

I should probably apologize for expecting so much from Rutherford. Even though he is in his 40s, he freely admits he only became politically aware a whole 3 years ago, when his little heart skipped a beat over the Lightworker.

Meaning, he has the political acumen of someone around age 20 or 21.

And, as Churchill so eloquently said: “Show me a young Conservative and I’ll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I’ll show you someone with no brains”

And Rutherford is clearly a babe in the woods here. My bad for expecting more from him.

80. geoff - August 24, 2010

I should probably apologize for expecting so much from Rutherford.

Well, he should at least be able to answer for his gross distortions of Ms. Bachmann’s record.

81. wiserbud - August 24, 2010

Well, he should at least be able to answer for his gross distortions of Ms. Bachmann’s record.

heh. yeah, that’ll happen.

I envy you your optimism.

82. Eddie The Bear - August 24, 2010

Rutherford:

Seriously, after all this time, you fail to see how your ideas are failures, and you think you are the smart one?

83. Cathy - August 24, 2010

Thanks, Lovely Janis.

Can I be you someday?

*how does that work?*

84. Michael - August 24, 2010

You are what I want to be when I grow up 🙂 !

Janis, I have had the same thought many times.

I just don’t think it’s going to happen. I have some kind of genetic deficiency.

85. wiserbud - August 24, 2010

I have some kind of genetic deficiency.

damn Y chromosome…

86. Michael - August 24, 2010

damn Y chromosome…

Yeah.

On the other hand, I think that Y chromosome makes us good at barbecue.

That’s something.

87. Michael - August 24, 2010

Really, if you think about it, there is sorta a logical division of labor here.

Women make babies, we make barbecue. Same thing, except we drink beer in the process.

88. wiserbud - August 24, 2010

On the other hand, I think that Y chromosome makes us good at barbecue.

And oil changes. Or.., at least… checking the oil occasionally.

89. wiserbud - August 24, 2010

Same thing, except we drink beer in the process.

as opposed to before the process……

90. Rutherford - August 24, 2010

Well commenting here is tantamount to commenting at The Hostages (same warm reception), but that’s fine.

If you folks don’t see how labeling duly elected members of Congress “anti-America” is divisive and discouraging of any healthy debate then I can’t help you. It’s actually kinda funny. Geoff posts Bachmann’s words as a DEFENSE of her. Clearly we speak different languages.

WiserBud, clearly it does not pay to be honest. I made the comment on The Hostages that I was not particularly politically interested until the 2007/2008 campaign season and you just can’t let it go, can you? I’ve been voting since I was 18 … so I was not politically apathetic. Until 2007, I basically viewed all politicians as …. well … politicians. In 2007, I thought I saw my generation’s Kennedy and it excited me. Honestly, Obama has not been what I expected. I still support him but I’m not entirely pleased.

As for the past three years that you love to minimize, that’s the amount of time I’ve been blogging. My blog almost immediately attracted conservatives telling me how misguided I was. SO, what I was getting at earlier in this thread is that I’ve read every conservative argument imaginable in my blog comments section over the past three years to the extent that I can predict the argument now before even reading it.

Clearly WiserBud, your, what is it, 20, 30 40 years, of political activity hasn’t done much for you in the way of empathy, interest in justice, or giving a rat’s ass about “the little guy”. You live in a nice cozy world where as long as you don’t have to pay a lot of taxes, you’re a happy camper. I’d be really surprised if you gave a damn about anyone other than yourself.

Last but not least …. I came into this echo chamber for one reason only, I encountered Cathy on BiW’s blog and she impressed me as a thoughtful conservative. I was curious what her take was on Bachmann whom I consider a nutjob. I am a bit disappointed that she’s let you yahoo’s carry her water for her. I was hoping to hear HER defense of Bachmann. Looks like I’m not going to get that.

As I said to start with …. kudos to Cathy for on-the-street reporting, something most of the amateur bloggers I read never do.

91. Cathy - August 24, 2010

Babies. Barbecue. Beer.

*ponders relationship between these elements*

When preggers barbecue made me nauseous.

And I couldn’t drink beer.

So Michael’s on to sumpin here.

92. Michael - August 24, 2010

Well commenting here is tantamount to commenting at The Hostages (same warm reception), but that’s fine.

Rutherford, your comments here are not unwelcome. But they will be lost in time, like tears in the rain.

93. geoff - August 24, 2010

I’ve read every conservative argument imaginable in my blog comments section over the past three years to the extent that I can predict the argument now before even reading it.

…and we’ve been dealing with libs for twice that long. Only a couple were worthy of anything but rude dismissal. You, of course, are in the rude dismissal category based on your prior history.

WiserBud, your, what is it, 20, 30 40 years, of political activity hasn’t done much for you in the way of empathy, interest in justice, or giving a rat’s ass about “the little guy”.

That’s the stupidest thing you’ve said in this thread. Even uber-liberal Lakoff debunked that many years ago.

What we don’t believe in is exercising our empathy and sympathy with other people’s money. We don’t believe that one-size-fits-all legislative fixes issued at the federal level will properly address issues with complex regional and personal variations. We don’t believe that a government agency with no natural constraints can avoid growth and sclerosis.

And I personally don’t believe you’ve ever thought any of this through, or you wouldn’t be bleating old canards like that.

94. Cathy - August 24, 2010

Thanks for the lovely visit, Rutherford.

Sorry to disappoint…

Me likes when blogger-buds carry my water & make me bbq.

Pie is my expertise… and sewing that dress, I guess.

95. geoff - August 24, 2010

Rutherford, your comments here are not unwelcome.

They are to me – I can’t stand the guy. He lies, distorts, and can’t read a simple news article without getting it wrong. As far as I can tell he’s also innumerate.

If you guys want him to stick around, I’ll play nice, but personally I’d just as soon he left and never returned. And I’m inclined to escalate in nastiness until that happens.

96. Michael - August 24, 2010

OK, I just can’t stop myself.

If you folks don’t see how labeling duly elected members of Congress “anti-America” is divisive and discouraging of any healthy debate then I can’t help you.

You’re right, you can’t help us, and you can’t debate us. If you don’t see the corruption in D.C. as the problem, then “debate” is not possible.

My blog almost immediately attracted conservatives telling me how misguided I was.

We deserve some credit for not giving up on you.

You [Wiserbud] live in a nice cozy world where as long as you don’t have to pay a lot of taxes, you’re a happy camper.

Wiserbud is unemployed. He is a victim of the current recession. His world is not nice and cozy right now. It’s actually very insecure. He’s not paying taxes. I am.

I’d be really surprised if you gave a damn about anyone other than yourself.

Actually, Wiser cares a lot about people other than himself. Not just his family. He engages in personal acts of charity when he can. I’ve known this guy for years. I’ve met him in real life.

As I said to start with …. kudos to Cathy for on-the-street reporting, something most of the amateur bloggers I read never do.

Thanks for that. My wife is indeed a unique person.

97. Cathy - August 24, 2010

conservative male tough talk = sexy!

Um…

Geoff, did you miss an umlaut up there?

98. geoff - August 25, 2010

If you folks don’t see how labeling duly elected members of Congress “anti-America” is divisive and discouraging of any healthy debate then I can’t help you.

If you don’t think that pro- and anti-Americanism is worth discussing, then you’re awfully close-minded.

And if you can’t see how badly you’ve distorted what she actually said, then the blogosphere really isn’t the best medium for you.

Geoff, did you miss an umlaut up there?

I don’t like bothering looking up the stupid codes. So there.

99. wiserbud - August 25, 2010

Well commenting here is tantamount to commenting at The Hostages (same warm reception), but that’s fine.

Can’t handle a little disagreement with your oh-so-superior opinions? Awwwwwwww, diddums widdle feewings get hurt?

If you folks don’t see how labeling duly elected members of Congress “anti-America” is divisive and discouraging of any healthy debate then I can’t help you.

Okay, you make the call then. The decisions that our duly-elected members of Congress have made since 2006 have been in direct conflict with the Constitution, as well as keeping this country safe and secure. If that is not “anti-American” then it’s total incompetence. Either way, it’s not worked out so well.

Geoff posts Bachmann’s words as a DEFENSE of her.

Well, to be fair, Geoff posted what she actually said, as opposed to your perversion of what she said. All he asks is that you argue with her actual statements, as opposed to fabricating quotes and using those against her. Too much to ask from you, I guess.

WiserBud, clearly it does not pay to be honest. I made the comment on The Hostages that I was not particularly politically interested until the 2007/2008 campaign season and you just can’t let it go, can you?

Oh dear me. Forgive me for using you own words against you. How unfair of me.

In 2007, I thought I saw my generation’s Kennedy and it excited me.

I’m sure it did.

Honestly, Obama has not been what I expected. I still support him but I’m not entirely pleased.

But of course. We all hate to give up on our first love. If only they would understand, they might come back to you!

By the way, maybe he wasn’t what you expected, but he is exactly what we expected. And what we tried to warn you all about. But you were so enthralled with his creased slacks and pretty words that you wouldn’t listen. Yet, you continue to support him. Hmmmm……..

My blog almost immediately attracted conservatives telling me how misguided I was.

And you, being such a quick study and all, still don’t get it. Your ideas don’t work, won’t work, and have never worked. Yet, you resist. My, aren’t you the bright one.

Clearly WiserBud, your, what is it, 20, 30 40 years, of political activity hasn’t done much for you in the way of empathy, interest in justice, or giving a rat’s ass about “the little guy”.

Please… continue to make asinine assumptions such as this. You only continue to prove my previous opinion of you, that of you being a smug, sanctimonious, self-important pseudo-intellectual.

I am one of the little guys, dude. I have worked since I was 15 years old to get to the middle. Yet, you and your oh-so-superior friends think I should be happy to give what I have earned away to those less fortunate, to support your idea of some childish “feel-good” fairness.

Sorry, I disagree. I earned it. You have absolutely no right to take it away from me.

You live in a nice cozy world where as long as you don’t have to pay a lot of taxes, you’re a happy camper. I’d be really surprised if you gave a damn about anyone other than yourself.

Actually, I care about people far more than you do, obviously. Hence the reason I do not want to see everyone become a slave to some Mommy-Government as you seem to. I have great faith in the intelligence and ability of the American people, as long as they are not kept down by an over-intrusive government.

You want to have all of your needs taken care of, from cradle to grave, by people who do not have you best interests at heart, fine by me. Move to Europe. Oh…wait… They are considering doing a complete 180 on that. I wonder why?

If you were such a quick study, you might get that socialism is the most repressive and anti-freedom political ideology ever conceived.

came into this echo chamber for one reason only,

No you didn’t. You came here to insult Michelle Bachmann, insult us and, yet again, attempt to show us all how much smarter than you actually are.

And, as usual, you have failed miserably. What you have achieved is to, yet again, prove that you are an immature and unserious person.

100. Michael - August 25, 2010

You do ampersand, character, “uml” and a semicolon.

In the case of an “a”, you get this: ä

101. Rutherford - August 25, 2010

And I’m inclined to escalate in nastiness until that happens.

Escalate to your heart’s content Geoff. I’ve been well trained by the legendary Tex Taylor to take whatever abuse you’ve got. I’ll leave here when I’m damn good and ready or when Cathy bans me. Believe me … I’m not having a good enough time here to wait to be banned … but my departure will have NOTHING to do with your sorry ass. 👿

102. geoff - August 25, 2010

All right, all right. “über-liberal.” Is that better?

103. wiserbud - August 25, 2010

“show us how much smarter than us……”

damn, I wish I could edit my comments here……

104. wiserbud - August 25, 2010

but my departure will have NOTHING to do with your sorry ass. 👿

ooooooooooooo……. scary……..

105. Michael - August 25, 2010

I mean, I’m just sayin’ that anyone who is qualified to debate with Quick-Study-Rutherford should prolly know how to do an umlaut.

106. Michael - August 25, 2010

I’ll leave here when I’m damn good and ready or when Cathy bans me.

Cathy can’t ban you. I can.

On the other hand, you have scored major points with me by complimenting my wife.

Dave in Texas does the same thing. That’s why he has not been banned.

107. geoff - August 25, 2010

I’ve been well trained by the legendary Tex Taylor to take whatever abuse you’ve got.

You do make a good punching bag.

but my departure will have NOTHING to do with your sorry ass.

I don’t really care why you leave as long as you do. I can’t stand your insipid comments. You are an eyesore wherever you appear. Take your lame little act back to your little fans and have a good life.

Unless you’d care to address even a single criticism raised? I didn’t think so. You don’t even understand the arguments.

108. Cathy - August 25, 2010

All right, all right. “über-liberal.” Is that better?

BBQ. Tough Talk. Umlauts!

What more could conservative wimmins want?!?

*thanks Geoff*

109. Rutherford - August 25, 2010

No you didn’t. You came here to insult Michelle Bachmann, insult us and, yet again, attempt to show us all how much smarter than you actually are.

Bud, you’ll have to take my word for it … you’re not a mind reader after all. I did find Cathy’s dialog on BiW’s blog interesting and less abusive in tone than what I find elsewhere, I was very surprised she’s a Bachmann supporter and wanted to find out why. Besides … I do like to read bloggers who have actually been up close to the subject.

As “unserious” as you find me, I find Michelle Bachmann. Of all the conservative folks in this country, why you would hang your hat on her is beyond me.

We will obviously never agree on this. Such is life. I do wonder one thing … why are you and some others here so damn angry? You’ve worked your way up. That is admirable. I did too. I’ve been underemployed too. Seems to me it’s made you angry.

110. geoff - August 25, 2010

I mean, I’m just sayin’ that anyone who is qualified to debate with Quick-Study-Rutherford should prolly know how to do an umlaut.

Looky here Mr. I’m-So-German-Look-at-My-Effing-Umlauts, I don’t do cedillas or accents either. Why?

They’re un-American is why. Don’t make me wish for a media investigation of your Americanity.

111. geoff - August 25, 2010

Bud, you’ll have to take my word for it…blah, blah, blah

And there you have it. The only point R. will defend is what he was thinking when he visited IB. Unprovable and nobody cares.

But Michelle Bachmann? He’s fine with grossly distorting her actual words and basing his judgment on that distorted view. When challenged he . . . avoids the subject.

112. Michael - August 25, 2010

I can’t stand your insipid comments. You are an eyesore wherever you appear.

Whoa, Geoff, let’s be fair.

Rutherford is far more civil and reasonable than 99% of the statist commenters we encounter. Not smarter, but more civil and reasonable.

113. Michael - August 25, 2010

They’re un-American is why. Don’t make me wish for a media investigation of your Americanity.

See there? You are just in a rage tonight.

Are you huffing paint fumes again?

114. geoff - August 25, 2010

Rutherford is far more civil and reasonable than 99% of the statist commenters we encounter.

I was at his blog maybe 6 months ago when he started lying about the thread. Just flat-out lying. I left immediately, never to return, and I hardly ever went back to BiW’s blog, either. But then he showed up at The Hostages and here.

I was willing to let him lie on his own turf, but not at the places I consider home.

115. wiserbud - August 25, 2010

Bud, you’ll have to take my word for it … you’re not a mind reader after all.

So only you have that right to make assumptions? Interesting.

Of all the conservative folks in this country, why you would hang your hat on her is beyond me.

Maybe because I don’t simply let people like Keith Olberman and Ed Shultz tell me what they think she said and, instead listen to what she ACTUALLY says. Maybe because she is speaking, in very plain language, about what is wrong with the people who are currently running this country. Maybe because I have just a bit more understanding of the points she is trying to make than you do.

Maybe because I am not a mindless little follower who falls for the meaningless platitudes of outrageously corrupt politicians who think they can continue to destroy this country and everything that has made it great by simply spouting pretty little lies that people like you so easily fall for.

why are you and some others here so damn angry?

Because people like you exist.

116. geoff - August 25, 2010

Rutherford is far more civil and reasonable than 99% of the statist commenters we encounter.

They’re all civil until they start losing the argument.

See there? You are just in a rage tonight.

I see you filled out your Census form. Internment camp for you!!

117. wiserbud - August 25, 2010

’ve been underemployed too. Seems to me it’s made you angry.

Gee, I can’t imagine why. Maybe you should work on that with your big brain for a while.

118. Michael - August 25, 2010

Because people like you exist.

Look, Rutherford just does not make me angry.

It’s like talking to my kids. They are both in their mid-twenties. Slowly but surely, they start doing the math and they get the point that they are being screwed. They get a glimpse of the massive inter-generational theft that is being perpetrated. They are starting to realize that their Mom is incensed and going to Tea Party rallies because of them.

You gotta be patient with the kids. They are not stupid. They are just ignorant.

119. wiserbud - August 25, 2010

By the way, Mr. Quick-Study, do you ever plan to address any of the questions I asked you earlier or do you think that if you ignore them, you have “won” something?

Or am I being impolite by asking?

Oh, dearie dearie me, I certainly hope not…..

120. Sean M. - August 25, 2010

You live in a nice cozy world where as long as you don’t have to pay a lot of taxes, you’re a happy camper. I’d be really surprised if you gave a damn about anyone other than yourself.

It’s illustrative that he thinks that paying more taxes = caring about others. I wonder how much Rutherford gives to private charities every year.

121. geoff - August 25, 2010

Because people like you exist.

Look, Rutherford just does not make me angry.

Oh. I thought he meant because Rutherford was from Harvard.

122. geoff - August 25, 2010

It’s illustrative that he thinks that paying more taxes = caring about others.

But he really thinks that making other people pay more taxes = him caring about others.

123. wiserbud - August 25, 2010

It’s like talking to my kids. They are both in their mid-twenties.

But he is easily twice their age. He should know better.

He acts as though his ignorance gives him some sort of moral superiority. WE are the bad guys, because we were right about his beloved Obama all along. He thinks he is better than us because he BELIEVED!!!

That sort of smug self-delusion masquerading as intelligence is frustrating in the extreme.

If only he would respond to a single point that has been made to debunk his childish comments, I would be impressed.

Until then, not so much.

124. Michael - August 25, 2010

Oh. I thought he meant because Rutherford was from Harvard.

Wait a minute, are you saying Rutherford went to Harvard?

OK, now I hate him.

125. wiserbud - August 25, 2010

It’s illustrative that he thinks that paying more taxes = caring about others.

I wonder if Rutherford pays more taxes than he is required to. I mean, it is possible. If he feels so strongly that taxes are not high enough, there is nothing stopping him from paying more than he owes, right?

Ah, but as a good little lib, I’m sure he is more concerned with forcing EVERYONE to pay more. That’s only fair, right?

126. geoff - August 25, 2010

The latest silliness comes from the CBO, who did another guesstimate of how many jobs the ARRA has created. They used pretty much exactly the same methodology that Romer used to make her wildly inaccurate estimates for The Chart. But they have the advantage that there’s no way to tell if their calculations are correct.

But all the headlines are going to tell us how the Stimulus saved 3.3 million jobs.

127. Michael - August 25, 2010

That sort of smug self-delusion masquerading as intelligence is frustrating in the extreme.

No, it’s just funny.

See, a sense of humor is what really makes conservatives different from progressives.

Our best weapon is our ability to point and laugh.

128. geoff - August 25, 2010

OK, now I hate him.

Duh.

129. wiserbud - August 25, 2010

Wait a minute, are you saying Rutherford went to Harvard?

Speaks volumes about the quality of education one receives at such an august university, doesn’t it?

Michael, perhaps the Gateway Community College offer isn’t such a bad deal after all.

130. geoff - August 25, 2010

If only he would respond to a single point that has been made to debunk his childish comments, I would be impressed.

Relatively, anyway.

131. geoff - August 25, 2010

Our best weapon is our ability to point and laugh.

Sure. Until they start lying.

132. Cathy - August 25, 2010

Rutherford presently lives in Connecticut, btw, for the record.

I assume he is telling the truth.

Harvard? Sheesh. Really?

But totally possible.

133. Michael - August 25, 2010

Have you ever noticed that progressives are never funny?

They do angry comedy.

They do obscene comedy.

They never really do any observational comedy with an ounce of wit.

134. geoff - August 25, 2010

Harvard? Sheesh. Really?

I’m pretty sure that I’m remembering that correctly. It explains both the attitude and the lack of logical faculties.

135. wiserbud - August 25, 2010

Have you ever noticed that progressives are never funny?

They think they are.

More’s the pity.

1/2 our country has lost the ability to recognize real funny.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWpU8sX10_4

136. wiserbud - August 25, 2010

Rutherford presently lives in Connecticut, btw, for the record.

Yet one more reason why this state sucks. In a better place, he would be ostracized from polite company.

137. wiserbud - August 25, 2010

Sure. Until they start lying.

Start? Hell, that’s the jumping off point for most liberals.

138. Cathy - August 25, 2010

I gotta walk my doggies. They’ve been patiently waiting for me here for hours. Night all. Love ya.

139. Michael - August 25, 2010

Rutherford presently lives in Connecticut, btw, for the record.

Rutherford, you can drive north from there and get some awesome blueberry pie in Maine right now.

Trust me. I have done this.

140. wiserbud - August 25, 2010

Drive? While others must walk???

you h8er.

141. Michael - August 25, 2010

Seriously, Rutherford, when the bogs in Maine are pumping out the wild blueberries, you should get that pie.

142. Michael - August 25, 2010

Sure. Until they start lying.

Geoff, it’s not really lying. They think they are telling the truth.

The statist fantasy is a fabric of delusions that they really believe in, and cling to. Look at any Paul Krugman article, and you will see what I mean. Against all evidence, that guy assumes there is a “multiplier effect” that justifies endless deficit spending.

He is not lying. He just can’t let go of his religion.

143. Michael - August 25, 2010

Meanwhile, our president, Barack Empty-Suit Obama, is reading Krugman’s crap and he is thinking, “Hey, we both got a Nobel prize from some Scandinavian socialists, so I guess we are both very smart!”

Uh, no Barack, you are not very smart. Michele Bachmann is actually smarter than you. We are about to tell you that in November.

Oh, by the way, President Barack Empty-Suit Obama, we have figured out why you won’t release your college transcripts. You were a mediocre student. You were an affirmative action pass-through, taking stupid courses that you don’t even want to admit to now.

Actually, I took one of those courses at Michigan, even though I was earning a business degree. It was a course in radical economics during the late ’70s. It was an automatic “A” if you just said back to the openly socialist professor what he said to you.

It actually was not such a bad course. I learned some stuff. I learned, for example, that IQ test scores correlate more with class background than eventual success, so the use of these scores by the educational system functions as a class sorting mechanism.

Just sayin’. I’m not ashamed to learn something from a socialist.

My basic point is this: we know your type, Mr. President. You’re basically just an average community organizer who rose way above his station.

We have had enough of your mediocrity.

144. Michael - August 25, 2010

By the way, Mr. President Obama:

I really do feel sorry for you. Aside from inheriting a lame economy, you got Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, two of the dumbest people that God ever invented.

That is more than any president should have to endure.

145. Dave in Texas - August 25, 2010

>> I’ve been underemployed too.

JPL needs guys like you. Those atoms aren’t gonna just split themselves you know.

146. Rutherford - August 25, 2010

If you don’t think that pro- and anti-Americanism is worth discussing, then you’re awfully close-minded.

And if you can’t see how badly you’ve distorted what she actually said, then the blogosphere really isn’t the best medium for you.

A reasonable comment from Geoff that I overlooked last night.

I completely agree that anti-American sentiment is worth discussing. Someone in the thread (maybe you Geoff) suggested Congress is either incompetent or anti-American. Now, assuming I buy into your ideology, which I don’t, I would vote for incompetence. I think conservatives go off track when they start demonizing the opposition and questioning motives. This is exactly why Bachmann’s comment made on MSNBC’s “Hardball” drew such attention. It sounded like McCarthyism. If you find the behavior of Congress stupid to the point of incompetence then fine. But don’t accuse them of wanting to destroy America. If you bothered to read some of my blog, you would see that while I don’t think George W. Bush was good for America, I think he wanted the best for his country. I don’t doubt his patriotism.

I also don’t see the distortion that you claim. I said Bachmann said “unAmerican” She actually said “anti-American”. Wow, big difference. As for the census comment, either you’re wearing rose colored glasses or being disingenuous. In a census year, Michelle Bachmann makes a remark tying census to internment camps in the backdrop of a far-right meme that folks should not participate in the census this year because the government is already way too intrusive. I think Bachmann engages in counter-productive politics using fear-mongering tactics.

As for whether she is a “serious” person or not … she starts a Tea Party caucus in the House (ok so far) but then says it does not represent the views of the Tea Party. WTF?

You’re absolutely right, the choice is incompetence or anti-Americanism. Bachmann IMHO is incompetent.

147. Rutherford - August 25, 2010

Wait a minute, are you saying Rutherford went to Harvard?

OK, now I hate him.

Phew … I’m glad to see a sense of humor in here.

Geoff … you can think what you like of me, but if you had a problem in a comments thread in my blog why didn’t you engage until you got some satisfaction? I vaguely recall your visiting. I don’t know what lies you’re referring to. But the fact is I’ve got at least a half dozen die-hard conservatives who engage on my blog regularly and have a pretty good time of it. We get angry with each other now and then and then move on to the next topic. One thing they see that you couldn’t because your low tolerance level made you flee, is that I am not as predictable as you might assume. I try to be fair on the blog.

I think Bud said that Bachmann is plain-spoken .. or something like that. Sarah Palin gets the same accolade. Why has speaking plainly been allowed to replace speaking intelligently? Newt Gingrich speaks pretty plainly and he sounds intelligent (totally wrong, but intelligent). The mere ability to speak to people at a third grade reading level is highly overrated.

148. daveintexas - August 25, 2010

>> It sounded like McCarthyism

Hey, it was good, yeah, but it wasn’t that good.

149. Retired Geezer - August 25, 2010

Bill Cosby (back in the day) was The Man as far as observational comedy goes.
Insightful looks back at childhood that everyone could relate to.

I think he might be a Conservative.

150. The Lovely Janis - August 25, 2010

Hey Cathy — you can be me by running after a 2 year old that love tractors, water and really big slides!!!

151. geoff - August 25, 2010

In a census year, Michelle Bachmann makes a remark tying census to internment camps in the backdrop of a far-right meme that folks should not participate in the census this year because the government is already way too intrusive.

She made a remark saying that she found the questions too intrusive, that there was a history of abusing census information, and that she was only going to fill out the form to the extent required by law. You said that she was “suggesting that the US census is a precursor to putting people in internment camps.” In fact she said:

“I’m not saying that that’s what the Administration is planning to do, but I am saying that private personal information that was given to the Census Bureau in the 1940s was used against Americans to round them up, in a violation of their constitutional rights, and put the Japanese in internment camps.”

so she specifically denied the words you put in her mouth.

That’s a gross distortion.

152. geoff - August 25, 2010

if you had a problem in a comments thread in my blog why didn’t you engage until you got some satisfaction?

Yeah, it’s my duty to stop you from lying. Look – I didn’t derive any value from your blog. I wasted enough time there dragging you through the correct reading of health care legislation. It didn’t bother me at all to walk away from it. I told you why I was leaving and that I’d never be back, and I was perfectly content with that situation.

Until you started blithering on the blogs where I co-blog.

153. Tushar - August 25, 2010

It is always amusing when liberals give faint praise to one conservative for the purpose of tearing into other conservatives. Thus the compliment to Newt. But he couldn’t resist clawing at Newt either.

Goldwater and Reagan are now good people, We have already seen liberals scaling back on spewing unending Bush-hate. Now Bush will emerge as a reasonable guy and will be used to snipe at the current batch of conservatives. Give it some years, and liberals will fondly remember Palin and Bachmann as reasonable people compared to the vile hateful conservatives of that future era.

154. geoff - August 25, 2010

This is exactly why Bachmann’s comment made on MSNBC’s “Hardball” drew such attention. It sounded like McCarthyism.

This is silly. She says, in essence, “Gee, I wish the media would devote some of their investigatorial prowess to assessing the motivations of our Congresspeople, vis a vis the way they think about America.” And that somehow constitutes McCarthyism.

If that’s true, then what Maxine Waters and Nancy Pelosi said should absolutely terrify you.

155. Rutherford - August 25, 2010

so she specifically denied the words you put in her mouth.

That’s a gross distortion.

Could you then tell me why she felt the need to bring up internment camps in the first place, if not to make her listeners fear misuse of information by our federal government? Was she providing a mere history lesson completely out of context? It’s called the dog whistle Geoff, except this dog whistle was pretty audible by anyone other than staunch Bachmann defenders.

“It’s been said that all women are lousy drivers. I’m not saying that but …” You plant the fear inspiring anecdote, then deny that you’re tying it to a current argument. But the damage has been done. It’s like when Mark Penn repeated several times during an MSNBC interview that Obama “had experimented with cocaine” knowing full well that the average listener would take away from that statement the word “cocaine”. So he successfully associated Obama and cocaine. Similarly, Bachmann successfully associated the census and internment camps.

It’s a rhetorical trick Geoff.

156. Rutherford - August 25, 2010

Tushar, good point. As the Republican party deteriorates, folks who came before look good in comparison.

I’ve listened to enough William F. Buckley to know that Michele Bachmann is no William F. Buckley.

Even though most libs I know are not impressed with him, I’m keeping my eye on Paul Ryan. He seems like one of the smart ones in the current crop.

157. Cathy - August 25, 2010

Michelle Bachmann makes a remark tying census to internment camps in the backdrop of a far-right meme that folks should not participate in the census this year because the government is already way too intrusive. I think Bachmann engages in counter-productive politics using fear-mongering tactics.

Now, Rutherford, who lacks a sense of humor here?

You fear fear-mongering from Michele? Come on. You are making that one up, right? Counter-productive? How so? How can drawing attention to graft and corruption in DC or organizations they fund such as ACORN be counter productive?

Have we forgotten the ACORN video exposes done by James O’Keefe and Hanna Giles? Pretty conclusive stuff. Counter productive for whom? Those who want to continue to illegally influence government to redistribute the hard earned wealth of decent U.S. citizens?

I can tell you Michele does have a sense of humor. She knows how to use it. She brought the census issue into the light to draw attention to this culture of corruption we face in DC and Minnesota. Good for her. If she wants to mention “internment camps” to get folks to seen a possible analogy and focus on an issue, then good for her. It made me smile. Her humor has power. Maybe that is what some people don’t like… a woman who knows she has personal power and is not afraid to use it. Sara Palin and Sharron Angle and other women are criticized for being ‘nutty’ or ‘nut-jobs’ also. I see a pattern.

On the Alan Grayson Nuts scale of 1-10, Michele couldn’t even earn a 2. She stands toe to toe with the other conservative ‘nut-jobs’ against a petulant teenager that thinks he can have whatever he wants whenever. She says no, and so do I. She speaks for me. Isn’t labeling someone a ‘nut’ in the Alinsky play-book? Yeppers. Classic Saul Alinsky. Nut job, Tea-Bagger, Right Wing Conservative. Racist. Someone out there has called me any/all of these, I guess. Why? To shut me up? Maybe, but it won’t work anymore.

I don’t know what else you think she might have said that sounded nutty, but I heard her interviewed several times about the census. Citizens have liberties. Privacy is one of them. Her comments were light hearted and playful, drawing attention to the intrusiveness of government with information. Most of us work hard and simply want to be left alone. She gets that. Maybe you don’t. Too bad. I still kinda like ya, partly because you have remained relatively pleasant with me at BiW, and you got picked on by Dan also this morning. That makes you a bit of a blog-bud, I guess.

And more specifically, to the best of my recollection, Michele did not say not to fill out the census form. She said that she and her family would only give the government information that they are to receive, referencing their enumerated powers in the U.S. Constitution, and suggested that others who were concerned do likewise. The long census form was her major objection, although at the time she made her initial comments, I’m not sure anyone of us had seen the long form. Those of us who resist this redistribution of wealth, have every right to be suspicious of the government intrusion, given they continue to steal and rob and bully us. YES! I SAID IT. (… as Mark Levin frequently yells on his radio program)

You wanna talk about nuts or people inappropriate for representing the people? What about Al Franken? Recent audit shows that he did not win his senate seat without illegitimate votes. But, mainstream media and the attorney general says who cares… move on… nothing to see here. Sheesh. WTF is going on in our country?

Michele is a bright and energetic statesman, and tax-lawyer, who wants to represent the people of her district AND the country. She sees the corruption in the numbers in these bills they keep shoving through. She reads those bills and crunches the numbers because she is smart enough and honest enough and considers it her job! She knows where all this money is going. And she is speaking out. If she sounds nutty, too effin’ bad.

As a Harvard man, hopefully you received enough of the good ole liberal arts edumication to have had to read Plato’s Allegory of the Cave. Maybe, just maybe, my Michele Bachman, has been out of the cave and sees the truth in full living color. Radicals, libs and the media would love to keep us all in that cave. I’ll have none of it. I’ll join nut-jobs who come out to experience living color and a breath of fresh air.

And, yes, she is my congressman too. She not only votes on principle for things that effect all of us, she is also trying her best to influence the votes of other representatives.

Michele Bachmann is a catalyst to a “tipping point” (Malcolm Gladwell’s term) in my view. I’ll give her money to help that tipping point to occur as fast and as decently as possible, before we lose more of our liberties, wealth, and a decent future for our kids, grand-kids and beyond.

Do you like the idea that our government has intruded into our private lives so they might continue to redistribute our wealth and property among themselves and those with an entitlement attitude or those who are out-right criminals? If you do, then who is the nutty one?

158. geoff - August 25, 2010

Could you then tell me why she felt the need to bring up internment camps in the first place, if not to make her listeners fear misuse of information by our federal government?

I absolutely agree that she was trying to warn listeners of the potential for misuse of information by our federal government. Duh. You don’t think prior abuse of Census information is relevant to a discussion of the potential for future abuse? That’s not a rhetorical trick, it’s background info.

It’s like when Mark Penn repeated several times during an MSNBC interview that Obama “had experimented with cocaine” knowing full well that the average listener would take away from that statement the word “cocaine”

Takes me back to the days of vilification of George & Laura Bush.

You know, if you’ve got black marks in your past record, it gets brought up. George’s party days, Laura’s accident, Clinton’s non-inhaling, and Obama’s cocaine. That’s not a rhetorical trick – it’s taking advantage of weak spots. Rhetorical tricks come into play when you juxtapose information that is not directly linked, so you get the impression that it is. So, say, you interject a mention of Hitler into a discussion about Bush.

Not that that would ever happen.

159. wiserbud - August 25, 2010

It’s a rhetorical trick Geoff.

Just for the sake of argument, I will give you this point, only to state that such a rhetorical trick is designed to work on the weak-minded and less informed.

And, considering how you still seem to be confused as to the actual meaning of what Michelle said, I’d say it worked as expected.

160. Cathy - August 25, 2010

Hey Cathy — you can be me by running after a 2 year old that love tractors, water and really big slides!!!

He is delightful. My 58-year old carcass prolly couldn’t keep up, just sayin’ but I’ll give it a try.

161. Cathy - August 25, 2010

Hey you IB-Morons, Hostammages, Ace-O-BabyCakes-Spadies, and NiceDebutantes

Have I told you lately that I lurves you?

162. wiserbud - August 25, 2010

Right back atcha, my pet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWvurnpKjE4

163. Rutherford - August 25, 2010

Bud, in comment 159 you hit the nail on the head at least 50% worth. Her trick is designed to work on the weak-minded. So are a lot of Sarah’s rhetorical tricks. Michele’s got “weak-minded” folks afraid of being put in camps. I happen not to be weak-minded. I know she was full of crap.

Could someone explain this redistribution of wealth thing to me? You see, I thought the progressive tax has existed for quite a while now. Predated Obama for sure. How long have you folks been screaming to kill the progressive tax?

I’d also like to understand why some of you don’t seem to think liberals pay taxes. “Spending other people’s money…” Hey, it’s my money too. I like a tax cut as much as the next guy but I also know taxes fund necessary services.

Cathy, you have personal insight into Bachmann that I don’t have. Who knows? If I met her and got to talk with her for an hour, I might find her charming, intelligent and good humored. And thanks for finally weighing in. I wanted to get a better idea of where you were coming from and now I do.

Thanks also for you and your hubby’s civility. It’s appreciated.

164. Dave in Texas - August 25, 2010

Michelle Bachmann?

… sounds Jewish.

165. wiserbud - August 25, 2010

I happen not to be weak-minded. I know she was full of crap.

Actually, you’ve got it completely backwards. You actually believe that what you think she said is what she said. Those of us with intelligence and common sense know better.

166. wiserbud - August 25, 2010

but I also know taxes fund necessary services.

heh. “essential services”

Like ACORN, et. al.

167. Cathy - August 25, 2010

Michelle Bachmann? … sounds Jewish.

Husband’s family are LEGAL immigrants now CITIZENS from Switzerland. Came over with very little. Bought a small failing farm in Wisconsin, and with hard work and discipline have built it up and created wealth for themselves, family members, and those they employ.

Don’t know about the Jewish. Switzerland has/had Jews, Catholics, other Protestants. Her background is Norwegian Lutheran.

168. wiserbud - August 25, 2010

I’d also like to understand why some of you don’t seem to think liberals pay taxes. “Spending other people’s money…”

See, this is why I do not find you as intelligent as you profess to be. This is a very simple concept.

We believe that we are taxed enough already. (“TEA”. get it?) Liberals do not believe taxes are ever high enough and are always campaigning to get more and more and more out of the producers to turn around and give it to the non-producers or organizations like ACORN in order to buy their continued support and dependence. And they do this while telling us all how wonderful and caring they are, all while using our money to prove that.

In typical liberal fashion, it’s not enough that they want to pay more, they demand that we ALL pay more. And we should simply shut up and go along with that concept or we are branded as uncaring and greedy.

Nice game you have set yup there, libs. Win/win all the way around. Too bad it’s not working any longer.

169. Cathy - August 25, 2010

And thanks for finally weighing in.

I waited on purpose. I prefer ‘listening’ to others. I have a lot to learn. And it helps me if I don’t have to follow too many multiple arguments & discourses going on at one time — especially when they are rather polemic. IYKWIM @ BiW’s place. I’m trying to wash my hands (actually a full scrub down in a hot shower) of all that. Painful for me… I’m not really very good at endurance-polemics. I get worn out. Fast.

170. Enas Yorl - August 25, 2010

I got this in my e-mail a few days ago that neatly presents my position:

“You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.” -Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931

This is what conservatives understand, but liberals seemingly never do.

171. Tushar - August 25, 2010

>>but I also know taxes fund necessary services.

I did not go to Harvard, so I am obviously not as smart as other folks, but I don’t understand how my hard earned money going to third generation welfare recipients is ‘necessary services’. Would it not be better if they got off their fat asses, worked hard like me and earned the money themselves?

Police, Fire Department and defense I am willing to pay tax for, but why should my hard earned money be used for Jointed Goat Grass?

172. daveintexas - August 25, 2010

>> Her background is Norwegian Lutheran.

Really?

It’s worse than I thought.

173. daveintexas - August 25, 2010

For wiserbud.

Via Kevl.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVLAvix-dX0

It’s uncanny. It’s like she had access to transcripts or something.

174. reason - August 25, 2010

“Her background is Norwegian Lutheran.”

So is my father.

So yes, DiT, her very LINEAGE is made of pure fearmongering.

Also, I need a place to go completely off-topic with yous guys. Anyone got a good thread I can do so in?

175. Janeane Garofalo - August 25, 2010

I would like to point out that Rutherford is COMPLETELY RACIST for being anything less than 100% enthused with Obama.

Racism, straight up.

No wonder you’re hanging out here.

176. wiserbud - August 25, 2010

It’s uncanny. It’s like she had access to transcripts or something.

it’s….it’s all coming back to me…. …. the urge to kill…… returning……

Seriously, that was so close to the actual truth it’s truly frightening.

177. Cathy - August 25, 2010

^ Hey Wiser.
Sorry. I could NOT watch to the end of that vid.
Don’t know how you could stand it.
My heart goes out to you.

178. daveintexas - August 25, 2010

When she tipped me to that, you were the first person I thought of (I know, how unsurprising is that?). I even thought it was better than 50 50 odds you had put it together.

She asked me to give you her email address so you could thank her, but I refused. That might have been harsh of me, so here it is:

roy.m@brokeback.com

179. Rutherford - August 25, 2010

Racism, straight up.

No wonder you’re hanging out here. — Janeane Garofalo

LOL … and I love the ironic blog handle.

180. Kevl - August 25, 2010

Did it make you sad Wiser? I’m sorry. It was supposed to give you a little chuckle.

181. Rutherford - August 25, 2010

I noticed that Wiserbud and others did not address the question. Are you against progressive income tax, which by definition implies redistribution of wealth? If so, how long have you been griping about it? During the Bush admin? The Reagan/Bush 41 admins? Or do you limit your tax hostility to the Clinton and Obama admins?

182. daveintexas - August 25, 2010

I’m asking the questions around here Hondo.

Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?

183. Kevl - August 25, 2010

Dave you are a dipshit.

184. daveintexas - August 25, 2010

I’m not getting your point.

185. wiserbud - August 25, 2010

Don’t know how you could stand it.

Cathy, honestly, it was eerie just how accurate that video was. I mean, even down to the condescending tone and the smug “you should want to be a team player” idiocy.

And I had to listen to that on a weekly basis.

186. geoff - August 25, 2010

Are you against progressive income tax, which by definition implies redistribution of wealth?

Of course, in abstract terms. But we’ve long since given up that fight. Now we just want to avoid the inevitable increases that are coming as a result of the current administration’s policies. It is clear, however, that by not including everybody on the tax rolls, the politics of taxation have become terribly distorted. That should be fixed.

187. Rutherford - August 25, 2010

Thanks for the answer Geoff.

And Dave … if that was directed at me (LOL) nope, never been a member of the Communist party. I’m much worse … a Faustian.

188. geoff - August 25, 2010

…and I should say that the progressive taxation situation is a case of dueling moralities. It’s unfair to take a disproportionate amount from someone who’s done no wrong, but it’s unrealistic to take a significant amount from people who have nothing. That’s why most of us approve of a flat tax beyond a subsistence level of income, as Tushar suggested.

189. wiserbud - August 25, 2010

I noticed that Wiserbud and others did not address the question. Are you against progressive income tax, which by definition implies redistribution of wealth? If so, how long have you been griping about it? During the Bush admin? The Reagan/Bush 41 admins? Or do you limit your tax hostility to the Clinton and Obama admins?

Perhaps you have heard of the Flat Tax Initiative? Oh, what am I saying, of course you have. Yer smart and stuff!

How long have you been in support of out of control government spending, R.? Did you support it under Bush? The Reagan/Bush 41 admins? Or do you only save your support for out-of-control spending to Clinton and Obama?

190. wiserbud - August 25, 2010

Did it make you sad Wiser? I’m sorry. It was supposed to give you a little chuckle.

Yeah, it did make me laugh, in one of those uncomfortable “is it like that everywhere?” sort of ways. But it didn’t make me sad. In fact, it may help me when deciding on my next career path.

If it’s like that everywhere, perhaps I don’t want to continue in sales after all.

191. daveintexas - August 25, 2010

>> I’m much worse … a liberal.

I ascribe to the classical definition of a liberal, you don’t sound like one of those to me.

You sound like a retard who’s decided he wants to hang out here because he’s hug-deprived, so shut the fuck up and give me your lunch money, bitch.

192. Tushar - August 25, 2010

Rutherford,

read my tax proposal in comment 76, and then read the addendum in comment 77. And don’t tell me that we conservatives don’t care for the poor. The people we don’t care about are those who get a check from taxpayers, just sit around all day and think of new ways of bilking more money from taxpayers. This group includes most politicians, all government employees(except those who provide truly essential services, like fire, police and military), and people who are chronically on welfare even though they have an able body and a semi-working brain.

193. Cathy - August 25, 2010

…even down to the condescending tone and the smug “you should want to be a team player” idiocy.

Can identify with that bullcrap.

Got that t-shirt.

194. Rutherford - August 25, 2010

I ascribe to the classical definition of a liberal

Mmmm I ascribe to the definition used by most folks nowadays. Maybe your definition impresses at cocktail parties.

By the way, I assume you know Dick … you do a really poor impersonation of him.

[sorry, you get no link privileges here. Unless you can manage one that’s actually interesting. Which I doubt – DiT]

195. Kevl - August 25, 2010

I think it’s like that everywhere Wiser.
I work in post sales implementation, and I hear it from the sales guys all the time.

Maybe that’s a sign you’re ready for a big change. Good luck dear.

Now back to your fisking.

196. daveintexas - August 25, 2010

Rutherford, when I want your opinion I’ll write it on my cock and shove it up your ass.

197. Rutherford - August 25, 2010

Tushar, looking at 76 and 77, do I understand you correctly that you want people taxed on what they spend during the year beyond 30K at a 20% tax rate … leaving the leftovers (i.e. savings) alone? Just out of curiosity … I’m not being coy … what would you do with capital gains?

Your giving 30K to the indigent every year is pretty socialist … but it would also eliminate welfare. Not sure your economic model would support that part of the plan.

I like it. I don’t live or die on the progressive tax. I just brought it up because it has been with us forever and I notice conservatives complain about it only once a Dem is in office. But that is my perception … I could be wrong.

Tushar … quick question … if the average Joe has trouble finding a job in this economy, how much harder do you think it is for the relatively uneducated poor “who sit on their ass” all day?

198. Rutherford - August 25, 2010

Regarding 196 …. much better Dave … you’ve studied Dick better than I gave you credit for

199. daveintexas - August 25, 2010

Your Mom

200. wiserbud - August 25, 2010

But that is my perception … I could be wrong.

{{{GASP!!!}}}

Honest and for true???

201. xbradtc - August 25, 2010

I’ve never understood how a liberal can claim to be for “fairness” and then turn around and support a progressive income tax.

Just because you use the government to take someone’s money and give it to another doesn’t change the fact that it is robbery.

202. geoff - August 25, 2010

Your giving 30K to the indigent every year is pretty socialist … but it would also eliminate welfare.

That’s because he’s all furrin’ ‘n stuff. He hasn’t quite got the hang of capitalism.

203. geoff - August 25, 2010

I notice conservatives complain about it only once a Dem is in office.

Maybe that’s because the Dems try to increase the progressivity (witness today’s debate and Clinton’s increase in taxes on the rich), and the GOP tries to decrease it (witness Bush’s and Reagan’s eeevil tax cuts).

So basically we have nothing to complain about during GOP terms, and plenty during Dem terms. No mystery at all.

204. geoff - August 25, 2010

This is the funniest thing Rutherford has said on this thread:

I think conservatives go off track when they start demonizing the opposition and questioning motives.

He had the gall to say it after he demonized Wiserbud with the all-too-cliché “uncaring Conservative” label.

And apparently he’d never heard of Conservatives being vilified en masse as racists, rednecks, and warmongers. That’s OK, though – a quick perusal of today’s news articles and opinion pieces will let him catch up.

205. Tushar - August 25, 2010

>>That’s because he’s all furrin’ ‘n stuff. He hasn’t quite got the hang of capitalism.

I get it alright. I would rather have full unbridled capitalism, but the liberal’s incessant caterwauling will get on my nerves.

206. beasn - August 25, 2010

Since when does going to Harvard, make you smarter than everyone else?

207. beasn - August 25, 2010

And I don’t like and have never liked the progressive taxes that we have. Everyone needs to have ‘skin in the game’.
If Rutherford wants to pay more taxes he is more than welcome. If Rutherford wants the ‘necessary programs’ or is ‘pro-choice’, by all means let Rutherford reach inside his own pocket and fund whatever programs he wants.

208. wiserbud - August 25, 2010

nice job using the appropriate accent up there, geoff.

209. wiserbud - August 25, 2010

Since when does going to Harvard, make you smarter than everyone else?

It doesn’t. It only makes one think they are.

And really, isn’t that the most important thing?

210. Eddie The Bear - August 25, 2010

Rutherford:

I am generally a very simple person. But I have a trigger in me. And your comments about us not caring about others, blah blah blah, has my angry meter getting pretty close to going from “off” to “Sherman’s March to the Sea” levels of anger.

SO, please don’t make me angry. You won’t like me when I’m angry.

211. Cathy - August 26, 2010

True GENEROSITY can only be defined and measured in terms of the giving that any individual, family, or group WILLINGLY gives to another UNCONDITIONALLY out of their own funds as an act of charity or kindness to others. No strings attached.

Taxes don’t count, since that’s money taken from our pockets by laws, at the point of a gun, or the threat of imprisonment by government.

And STILL Americans are BY FAR the most generous people on earth and have been for many years. The statistics show it. AND CONSERVATIVES are more generous than Liberals, giving larger percentages of their money to charitable organizations.

I’m affiliated with an association of charitable organizations, and sat on the board of directors of one of the largest charities in central Ohio at one time. This charity is part of a Christian denominational association that has collectively touched the lives of ONE out of every FIFTY PEOPLE in the United States through their charitable works… providing funding for charities such as food pantries, homeless shelters, women’s shelters, low income housing, orphanages, homes for the disabled, disaster relief, health clinics for the poor and homeless, crisis centers, senior centers, schools, etc. This is NOT about building up the coffers of church buildings for worship or paying their pastor salaries — but about CHARITY to others outside the church or faith community.

When I hear the accusation about conservatives not being generous or compassionate, I, like my friend Eddie, sorta come unglued. We shouldn’t have to boast or promote ourselves, and most won’t. It would just be nice if there was a level of respect that kept others from lying about us conservative Christians. That is all.

212. Michael - August 26, 2010

I love it when Dave gets involved in a political debate.

I think Dave at #199 is making a subtle reference to the ascendancy of libertarian and Tea Party elements within the conservative movement, as reflected by the kerfuffle over Ann Coulter’s appearance at the HomoCon conference, and the declining influence of the Pat Robertson/James Dobson social conservatives.

Well done, sir.

213. Janeane Garofalo - August 26, 2010

Don’t you laugh at me, Rutherford. I’ll take you and every last one of your teabaggin’ racist friends here DOWN!

*hits up Rosie on speed-dial*

214. reason - August 26, 2010

“If Rutherford wants to pay more taxes he is more than welcome. If Rutherford wants the ‘necessary programs’ or is ‘pro-choice’, by all means let Rutherford reach inside his own pocket and fund whatever programs he wants.”

And this is where everything the liberals want fall apart at the seams. They have learned, time and time again, that there simply isn’t enough support from people for their causes. Relatively few people want ACORN so badly that they’re willing to write a check out specifically for it. All us givin’ folk are usually putting all that money in the collection-plates at our churches instead…who do, you know, churchy things with the money. SURE, it’s a soup kitchen, but it’s a churchy soup kitchen. The soup is probably made with some sort of Christian spice. They say Grace before letting the homeless people eat it.

So what’s the solution? Get the money the liberals need for ACORN out of you without you even noticing, in your taxes. If all goes according to plan, you never know its happening (’til some tart with a Chinchilla coat and a microskirt ruins it…). Better yet, that money comes out of your check FIRST, before you’ve gotten the chance to sit down, pay your bills, and see what’s left to give to your church.

You want an example of what happens with liberal philosophy meets private enterprise? AIR AMERICA.

215. reason - August 26, 2010

Also – Bystanders, srsly. I want to pick your brains on smartphones. I’m gonna put on rubber gloves, go to Hossages, and do it there.

216. Mark in NJ - August 26, 2010

Hi All…haven’t been around for awhile…a few thoughts:

Dave in Tx: dude, you gotta hire some new writers. We’ve all seen that dick-in-ass line before and it’s not getting any funnier. Also, it doesn’t really make sense; I mean, if it’s already Rutherford’s opinion, why does he need it re-inserted via your beef syringe?

For what it’s worth, I don’t agree w/ Rutherford’s characterization of conservatives as lacking compassion. Reading betw the lines of your comments over the yrs, I believe nearly all of you, coming face-to-face with a person down on his/her luck, would be willing to help, as long as you had the money in your pocket. Problem seems to be ideological; i.e., you don’t want to be “forced” to do it. And I respect that ideology (and its purity of essence) but in the hierarchy of what’s most important, your ideology (or mine) is trumped by the imperative to help those less fortunate than ourselves.

After 8 yrs of Reagan, 4 yrs of Bush I and 8 more of Bush II (w/ GOP congress), I haven’t noticed much shrinkage in the entitlement programs you claim to despise. And for a really good reason: everyone knows someone who’s been genuinely helped by them.

And who exactly is in this gigantic cohort of parasites, doing no work and leeching off the govt? Of everyone you’ve met in your lives, what proportion is made up of people who fit that description? In my life, it’s about 0% – and I’ve been around >50 yrs. The “welfare cheat” is the great bete-noire of conservatives, and no doubt spongers do exist (and have always existed), but how much are they really costing you? Probably less than you spend on diet coke each month. Does that really justify scrapping a system that provides a lot of good to a lot of people? Why not accept some abuse of the system as one of the (relatively small) costs of the enterprise – like bad debt.

And face facts: Obama is the hand you’ve been dealt for now. You don’t have to like it, but to continually complain about your cards and refuse to play the game is unseemly and childish. It sucked when the Dems/libs did it under Bush, and it sucks now. We all agree the country has serious problems — it’s time for all of us to put our BS aside and focus on practicable solutions, or we’re doomed…end of sermon.

217. daveintexas - August 26, 2010

Come back Nov 3.

Oh, and fuck you.

Childish? Perhaps, but it’s not a complaint.

218. Rutherford - August 26, 2010

Mark in NJ …how YOU doin?

219. Jazz - August 26, 2010

And I respect that ideology (and its purity of essence) but in the hierarchy of what’s most important, your ideology (or mine) is trumped by the imperative to help those less fortunate than ourselves.

Says who? That’s your moral judgment, not mine. Conclusory statements with no support do nothing to advance your argument.

haven’t noticed much shrinkage in the entitlement programs you claim to despise. And for a really good reason: everyone knows someone who’s been genuinely helped by them.

Non-sequitur. Whether we know people who have been helped by entitlement programs has no bearing on why the programs have not been reduced. The problem is that the leaders we elect on these platforms aren’t as committed to the planks of conservatism in office as they are on the campaign trail. It’s our “conservative” leaders’ fault for being duplicitous in their avowals of fidelity, and it’s our fault as conservatives for not holding their feet to the fire for being remiss in their duties.

And who exactly is in this gigantic cohort of parasites, doing no work and leeching off the govt? Of everyone you’ve met in your lives, what proportion is made up of people who fit that description?

Have you ever even been to an urban setting? Detroit? St. Louis? Atlanta? DC? Baltimore? They’re on display like whores in an Amsterdam windowfront. I have them in my family, and I don’t tolerate them well. I’m not going to give a proportion, but it’s not negligible.

how much are they really costing you? Probably less than you spend on diet coke each month.

What it costs me in monetary terms is only part of the equation. My money is mine. In taking it, the government deprives me of property. It turns the time I used supporting myself into some sort of benefit for the collective good. It infringes on my freedom.

In the aggregate, the sums are enormous. The magnitude of the infringement upon my fisc may not be huge, but that money aggregates for me over my lifetime, too, and takes on a different character when viewed as the sum of 50-60 years (or more) of work, especially when the time value of money is figured in.

Does that really justify scrapping a system that provides a lot of good to a lot of people? Why not accept some abuse of the system as one of the (relatively small) costs of the enterprise – like bad debt.

It also harms a lot of people. And I don’t accept “some abuse of the system” because entitlements are not a system in which the government is supposed to be engaged anyway. You don’t get “a little bit pregnant” – you either are or you aren’t. Likewise, the government is either supposed to do something or it’s not. The fact that a cost might be minimal doesn’t obviate the fact that incurring the cost is wrong.

You don’t have to like it, but to continually complain about your cards and refuse to play the game is unseemly and childish. It sucked when the Dems/libs did it under Bush, and it sucks now. We all agree the country has serious problems — it’s time for all of us to put our BS aside and focus on practicable solutions, or we’re doomed…end of sermon.

Fuck off. You all could have tried that when Bush was in office. You could have tried it after Kennedy vilified Bork. When it comes time for “compromise,” your side only accepts conservative capitulation. Piss up a fucking rope.

220. reason - August 26, 2010

*kicks Mark in NJ in the ass*

That was mostly to make Rutherford happy. Mostly.

If you want criticism of welfare from someone who’se been on the inside, and has active leeches in her family, go look up Afrocity’s blog.

221. Peggy Joseph - August 26, 2010

“And who exactly is in this gigantic cohort of parasites, doing no work and leeching off the govt? Of everyone you’ve met in your lives, what proportion is made up of people who fit that description?”

OBAMA’S GONNA PAY FOR MAH GAS AND MAH MORTGAGE!

222. geoff - August 26, 2010

in the hierarchy of what’s most important, your ideology (or mine) is trumped by the imperative to help those less fortunate than ourselves.

Except that we believe that your ideology perpetuates the problem and damages our ability to provide future help.

After 8 yrs of Reagan, 4 yrs of Bush I and 8 more of Bush II (w/ GOP congress), I haven’t noticed much shrinkage in the entitlement programs you claim to despise.

That is, sadly, true. But you didn’t see the unholy expansion of them, either. Unlike our present circumstances.

The “welfare cheat” is the great bete-noire of conservatives, and no doubt spongers do exist (and have always existed), but how much are they really costing you?

Not exactly true. It’s the welfare cheat, the multigenerational welfare recipients, the welfare cottage industry

You don’t have to like it, but to continually complain about your cards and refuse to play the game is unseemly and childish.

Here you’ve bought into the “Party of ‘No'” spin, which has been nonsense from the start. We have, in fact, tried to play the game. But one has only to look as far as the health care legislation to see how naive that is.

It’s also difficult to play the game when the options are either agreeing to a course of action which is completely opposite to your political philosophy, or disagreeing with it and being steamrolled.

it’s time for all of us to put our BS aside and focus on practicable solutions, or we’re doomed

Absolutely untrue. It is time for Congress and the administration to stop what they’re doing and try to avoid worsening things. Every time they turn around they do more damage to the economy. Please, please don’t let them try any more “solutions.”

223. Detroit Citizen #1 - August 26, 2010

“And who exactly is in this gigantic cohort of parasites, doing no work and leeching off the govt? Of everyone you’ve met in your lives, what proportion is made up of people who fit that description?”

OBAMA BEEN GETTIN’ THE FUNDS FROM….I HAVE NO IDEA, TO TELL YOU THE TRUTH! HE’S THE PRESIDENT.

224. Detroit Citizen #2 - August 26, 2010

“And who exactly is in this gigantic cohort of parasites, doing no work and leeching off the govt? Of everyone you’ve met in your lives, what proportion is made up of people who fit that description?”

I’M HERE TO GET SOME MONEY. OBAMA MONEY! FROM HIS STASH, I DUNNO…I DUNNO WHERE HE GOT IT FROM, BUT HE GIVIN’ IT TO US, TO HELP US, AN’ WE LOOOVE HIM, THAT’S WHY WE VOTED FOR HIM! OBAMA! OBAMA! OBAMA!

225. geoff - August 26, 2010

Not exactly true. It’s the welfare cheat, the multigenerational welfare recipients, the welfare cottage industry…

Oops – let that trail off without finishing it. Lessee:

…the federal, state, county and city government welfare infrastructure, illegal immigrants on welfare, and the notion of a national system to address what ought to be treated as an individual problem. Those are what tick us off about welfare, and they cost quite a bit.

226. Rosetta the Impaler - August 26, 2010

Awesome post, Cathy!! Very well done and I’m jealous. I bet that was a great night.

*SMOOOOOOOOOOOOOCH*

227. pajama momma - August 26, 2010

The government does a crappy job helping families in need. One’s local community does it 100% better without humiliation and degradation and no one is forced to give the help.

I know this first hand. We’ve had to have our Christmas gifts donated to us the past two years.

Our school supplies were given to us. We all wear hand me down clothes donated to us. Clothes so nice, you can’t tell they’re used.
(for those that don’t know, everything I wore in CT, except for my swimsuit and one shirt was used, even most of my shoes)

They give food out by the tons. Every year, the local community feeds Thanksgiving dinner to whoever shows up.

The community would do a lot more to help were there not so many restrictions placed on them.

228. wiserbud - August 26, 2010

It’s also difficult to play the game when the options are either agreeing to a course of action which is completely opposite to your political philosophy, or disagreeing with it and being steamrolled.

Negotiating with the left is like negotiating with someone who says they want to stab you 6 times. You obviously don’t want to get stabbed at all, but then they say you are the difficult one when you refuse to even compromise and allow yourself to be stabbed only 3 times.

229. Jazz - August 26, 2010

And who exactly is in this gigantic cohort of parasites, doing no work and leeching off the govt?

Free money mob at Cobo Center

DETROIT, Mich. (AP) – Scuffles erupted as several thousand Detroit residents jockeyed, pushed and shoved Wednesday to get free money being offered to only 3,500 of the city’s recently or soon to be homeless. . . .

The city distributed more than 50,000 applications for the Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing program over the past several days before running out Wednesday morning. Only 3,500 people who qualify will receive the money — a maximum $3,000 per applicant, Dumas said.

Residents Get Chance At Stimulus Money

230. geoff - August 26, 2010

Mark in NJ … all I can say is thank you.

Way to go, Mark. Now you’ve enabled the liar.

And fuck off, Rutherford. At least until you properly identify “rhetorical tricks.” I can’t believe you malign people based on your lack of comprehension. Well I can – you are evil.

So fuck off.

231. geoff - August 26, 2010

for those that don’t know, everything I wore in CT, except for my swimsuit and one shirt was used, even most of my shoes

I don’t remember you wearing much.

232. pajama momma - August 26, 2010

Also, a big thank you to my sweet internet family who’ve taken such good care of me.

No doubt hoping I’d go away, but yeah, you see how that turned out.

233. pajama momma - August 26, 2010

I don’t remember you wearing much.

That’s cuz you were all feverish and schtuff.

234. wiserbud - August 26, 2010

And who exactly is in this gigantic cohort of parasites, doing no work and leeching off the govt? Of everyone you’ve met in your lives, what proportion is made up of people who fit that description?

I used to do quite a bit of work in the Bronx. In one pharmacy, a woman came in with 5 prescriptions she needed filled, all to be paid for by Medicaid. The pharmacist explained to me that this prescriptions were the least of it.

The state paid for: Her cab ride from her state-funded apartment to the doctor, the doctor visit, the cab ride to the pharmacy, the 5 prescriptions the doctor had written and the cab ride back to her state-funded apartment.

All told, this little excursion for one person came to a total of approx. $400.

Her medical problem that required all of this?

She had poison ivy.

This is not an isolated incident. I personally saw this happen constantly, day after day, for over 25 years. Bronx, Brooklyn, Upper Manhattan, all over the NYC. Millions of otherwise able-bodied people just leeching off the system.

The system is broken and being abused by people who are only called “cheats” because any other, more appropriate term would be considered offensive in polite conversation.

235. geoff - August 26, 2010

And who exactly is in this gigantic cohort of parasites, doing no work and leeching off the govt? Of everyone you’ve met in your lives, what proportion is made up of people who fit that description?

I worked in San Bernardino for 7 years. Welfare there was a way of life, not a helping hand.

236. Hotspur - August 26, 2010

Jazz, good points, but you do not have to go to an urban environment to see the cheating and lying and generational degradation that has occurred as a result of the lost War on Poverty.

Northern lower Michigan and the Upper Peninsula are full to the gills with it.

Just like in urban settings, the women have babies out of wedlock purposely to preserve entitlements. Quite often the daddy, if she even knows who it was, gets off scott free. The alcoholism and drug abuse are rampant. Go into the supermarket and watch the state issued debit cards get whipped out for the food and household items, and the cash get whipped out for the booze and cigarettes. The only advantage those folks have is that they can poach deer. And they do.

237. pajama momma - August 26, 2010

the state issued debit cards get whipped out for the food and household items, and the cash get whipped out for the booze and cigarettes

And that’s the truth. If I smoked, I’d almost go through the government handout process just so I could get cigarettes.
They tax the hell out of them and does it make anyone quit? No, it just makes them more poor.

238. Cathy - August 26, 2010

*sniff*

Love you Morons.

Thanks for visiting and commenting in post.

Pie and hugs all ’round.

239. Cathy - August 26, 2010

Hey PJM. Got some great used clothing stores right around here, many are run by charities. Great stuff sold by decent folks, some desperately trying to kick addictions and get back on their feet. Decent CHRISTIAN folks.

240. pajama momma - August 26, 2010

The Christian Help Center is where our gifts come from and the clothes and the school supplies.

nasty, nasty no good Christians.

241. Jazz - August 26, 2010

Jazz, good points, but you do not have to go to an urban environment to see the cheating and lying and generational degradation that has occurred as a result of the lost War on Poverty.

I agree wholeheartedly. I only used urban environments because you don’t even have to get out of your car to see the effects of the entitlement lifestyle. You can see it on the street corners, at the gas stations, the wash-eterias – all over.

The only advantage those folks have is that they can poach deer. And they do.

Lake County. UP. Alcona County. Etc…. It’s a way of life (and not one I’m inclined to interrupt. I don’t find hunting for sustenance offensive in the least).

242. Jazz - August 26, 2010

Thanks for visiting and commenting in post.

Sorry I sullied your post with profanity, Cathy.

243. pajama momma - August 26, 2010

*winks

Hi Jazz

244. Cathy - August 26, 2010

Wiserbud! Your story ^! Awesome! Iffin you got time, grab yourself a copy of the book “The Tipping Point” by Malcomlm Gladwell and read it cover to cover. (maybe you already have, huh…)Got mine brand new @ Half Price Books for about $7.

You will LOVE it. Guaran-dam-teed, my sweet.

245. Cathy - August 26, 2010

Sorry I sullied your post with profanity, Cathy.

Um. A little well-placed profanity is like spice in cooking. It has healing powers and tastes good. No prob. Too much spice causes distress & indigestion.

Btw. Do you know that ‘jazz’ is a Yoruba word that means ‘orgasm?’ Yep, you prolly already know that. Me learned that one @ university.

246. Michael - August 26, 2010

for those that don’t know, everything I wore in CT, except for my swimsuit and one shirt was used, even most of my shoes

Hey! How come I didn’t get to see you in a swimsuit?

247. Hotspur - August 26, 2010

Hey! How come I didn’t get to see you in a swimsuit?

That little perk was reserved for me, and me alone. Oh, and Probiotic and Carmen Diaz.

Too bad you guys had to leave so soon.

248. wiserbud - August 26, 2010

Iffin you got time,

heh. “if I have time…” Good one…

I will look for it at our used book store, or track it down on-line. Thanks, sweetie!!”

249. agiledog - August 26, 2010

So, I see Rutherford was spreading his ignorance and vapid points here as well. Sorry, Cathy, he is like leaky faucet – annoying as hell and spreads everywhere.

And I agree with geoff & DaveinTexas about Rutherford.

250. Jazz - August 26, 2010

Hi Jazz

Hey, Hotstuff!!! 😉

Do I have toilet paper stuck to my heel?

251. Jazz - August 26, 2010

Btw. Do you know that ‘jazz’ is a Yoruba word that means ‘orgasm?’

Heh – no, Cath, I didn’t. I’ll do my best to live up to my name, though. I so should have gone to college.

252. Christians - August 26, 2010

“nasty, nasty no good Christians.”

We prayed over your stuff, too.

253. Cathy - August 26, 2010

I so should have gone to college.

Yea — think of all the worthless bits you could foist on folks on the intertubes iffin you had gone to college.

254. Cathy - August 26, 2010

^ just saying that college’s usefulness is more about showing an employer with that piece of paper that you know how to learn, submit to direction and authority, and finish something you started.

Employers, I think, want folks who will keep learning, take instructions, and follow orders more than some ‘brilliance’ learned while in those hallowed halls.

255. Hotspur - August 26, 2010

Cathy, we have to unlearn them first. Then re-teach. The university is an echo chamber filled with people that have never held a real job. These are the people we depend upon to “educate?”

Yeah, tell me about it.

256. Tushar - August 26, 2010

>>but how much are they really costing you? Probably less than you spend on diet coke each month.

Are you out of your fcuking mind? My four biggest expenditures over my lifetime are going to be: House, Health, kids education and cars. The Govt will take more than that from me in the form of taxes. And except for Fire, Police, Military and roads it is all wasted on things that do not benefit me.

Take your can of diet coke and shove it up your cokehole.

257. Hotspur - August 26, 2010

*Makes note to never piss off Tushar*

258. geoff - August 26, 2010

*Makes note to wash cans of diet coke after Tushar leaves.

259. Tushar - August 26, 2010

>>*Makes note to wash cans of diet coke after Tushar leaves.

Why take chances? Just throw them away. I would, if I were you.

260. xbradtc - August 26, 2010

You gotta learn to recycle, Tush.

And while I despise welfare, it is a drop in the bucket.

The real killers are Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Here’s something- if private citizen started a business with Social Security as their business model, they’d go to jail for fraud.

261. sandy burger - August 26, 2010

Mark in NJ:

I don’t know about posters here, but most actual Republican voters think that the government should have some role helping the genuinely needy. That’s not the problem.

The problem is the army of government unions and organizations and programs taking huge quantities of government money while providing very little actual value to anyone. It’s cronyism and corruption on a staggering scale, and whenever we object to it, liberals point to some hungry kid or something and say we’re heartless.

I assume the “in NJ” in your handle means New Jersey? Look at what your excellent governor is up against. Look at the problems in your state, and the huge number of government employees making more than the private sector they sponge off of makes. We’re not heartless for wanting to roll this back.

262. geoff - August 26, 2010

And while I despise welfare, it is a drop in the bucket.

Yeah – it’s more a question of moral repugnance than actual fiscal pain, though the objectionable part of the cost is more than just a handful of welfare cheats.

most actual Republican voters think that the government should have some role helping the genuinely needy.

Dirtbag commie.

263. Michael - August 26, 2010

Here’s something- if private citizen started a business with Social Security as their business model, they’d go to jail for fraud.

Yeah, it’s called a Ponzi Scheme, and it’s illegal unless Uncle Sam does it.

264. Michael - August 26, 2010

Yeah – it’s more a question of moral repugnance than actual fiscal pain

The technical term is “moral hazard,” borrowed from the insurance industry. The basic concept is that the more you socialize a risk, the more you get of that risk.

So, near universal fire insurance means more fires. Near universal poverty insurance leads to more poverty. Near universal health insurance will lead to more bad health.

George Gilder had an interesting chapter on moral hazard in Wealth and Poverty, the book that drove the Reagan administration.

265. Michael - August 26, 2010

I’m not saying that socializing a risk is necessarily a bad thing. There is something to be said for a “safety net” that encourages risk-taking behavior in the first place. The bankruptcy laws, for example, are essentially a way to cushion and socialize the consequences of risk-taking for those who bet wrong. Overall, the institution of bankruptcy probably benefits all of us by encouraging capital formation. It’s better than the days when there were debtor’s prisons.

But it is just axiomatic that when you do this, you buy more of the risk than would have occurred otherwise.

266. daveintexas - August 26, 2010

Socializing a risk = not wearing a condom.

267. Cathy - August 26, 2010

“safety net” yea no prob with that.

But when Teletubbies ARE rescued by the net, that dang net is gonna break from the weight, just sayin’…

268. Michael - August 26, 2010

The problem with socialist economies is that they want to socialize all risks out of the system.

“From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.”

When you strip all personal and family responsibility and accountability out of the system, it collapses.

Americans rightly perceive that Obama is taking us in that direction, and fear the consequences. His vision, that of a Chicago community organizer, is a recipe for disaster.

269. Michael - August 26, 2010

Socializing a risk = not wearing a condom.

Exactly. If you subsidize unwed motherhood — guess what? You will get more unwed mothers and fewer fathers.

The consequences are disastrous. Look at any prison population and see if they had meaningful fathers.

270. daveintexas - August 26, 2010

stop fucking up my jokes.

271. Russ from Winterset - August 26, 2010

As an engineering graduate of a big Midwestern State College, there’s one line that I have found always works when I’m having an argument with a graduate of Harvard:

“Excuse me, but I DID ask for onion rings with my chicken sandwich. You know what? I’m done talking to you. Is your manager available?”

272. Mrs. Peel - August 26, 2010

most actual Republican voters think that the government should have some role helping the genuinely needy

Yes, and that role is to stop stealing my money so that I can do more for the people in my community and the various charitable organizations I currently support.

(PS, Mark & Rutherford, I even…gasp!!!…support the arts. !!!!! OMGWTFBBQ!!!)

273. Z - August 26, 2010

I have found always works when I’m having an argument with a graduate of Harvard:

I’ve found the best way to get a Harvard graduate to listen to what you are saying is to take away their crayons.

274. Z - August 26, 2010

the various charitable organizations I currently support.

But there’s the problem. You are supporting the wrong charities. Only THEY know what the right charities are.

You simply are not intelligent enough to be allowed to make your own decisions. It must be left to the super-intellects like Rutherford to be sure the “right” people get your money.

“right” people /= you.

275. Z - August 26, 2010

Exactly. If you subsidize unwed motherhood — guess what? You will get more unwed mothers and fewer fathers.

I do quite a bit of work with unwed mothers.

Ya know, just helping them get their start.

276. Rutherford - August 26, 2010

Mark in NJ …how YOU doin?

Well hopefully, Mark read what I really wrote before the cute edit happened.

It’s been a blast. Cathy and Michael thanks again for the ride.

277. daveintexas - August 26, 2010

I hope so too.

I do.

278. Michael - August 27, 2010

Excuse me, but I DID ask for onion rings with my chicken sandwich.

If you had gone to a real college, you would order the jalapeno poppers with your chicken sandwich.

279. Russ from Winterset - August 27, 2010

*makes mental note to check the diplomas on Michael’s wall for one from Harvard at the IBTSFP*

280. reason - August 27, 2010

“The consequences are disastrous.”

And by “disastrous,” I believe you mean, “intentional.”

Cloward.
Piven.
America.
Some disassembly required.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: