August 14, 2011
Chapter Two - Undreaming America [ArthurK]
— Open Blogger The theme for most of this chapter is The Govt. Is The Biggest Monopoly Of All - And They're Not Worried About Trust-Busters.
Optimism is a disease, After America is the cure! OMG, Rick Perry just slapped me silly for saying that!
P46 - The western nanny state doesn't tyrannize - it enervates. For example, consider the war against lemonade stands.
P47 - The govt. is really into monopolizing stuff. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac took over the home mortgage biz, student loans are all govt. now. Kodak was seen as a dangerous monopoly in 1969. The market solved that problem all by itself.
P49 - In the 1950s, 1 in 20 workers needed govt. permission (licensing, certification). Today that's 1 in 3!
P51 - Where's the wealth? 7 of the 10 wealthiest counties in the US are in the D.C. commuter belt!
P52 - The most important monopoly for any western govt. is health care.
In most western nations the right-wing may be in office from time to time but they are never in charge. They just administer the super-state set up by the left. Just because a right-wing govt. is elected in Britain, they have no way to dismantle the health system in one term. It just keeps on going.Musings - In the rest of the world, the state used to be like an all terrain vehicle. Now it's a train. The engineer can speed it up or slow it down but can't change direction. In America, we're still deciding.
P53-57 - Govt. by Technocrats. They're so arrogant that they don't even acknowledge that they have a worldview. A view implies that there could be another view. They have the truth and are confused that anybody could disagree. Consider Al Gore and how he talks about Global Warming skeptics.
It's not a ruling class, it's a ruling mono-culture. Some come in the Dem flavor, some in R flavor.P58 - The technocrats go to Harvard and Yale. Palin's colleges are abhorrent! This is a new attitude. Truman didn't have a degree! FDR got the technocrat ball rolling with his brain trusts.
P60-62 - These technocrats love talking and planning. Doing - not so much. Bloomberg can regulate transfats but he's not so good at snow removal.
P63 - Princes thought they were destined to rule. Technocrats think they deserve to rule.
Dem politicians believe in two things and demand that belief in others. Diversity and Rights. But they've gotten Orwellian with those words.Rights = Entitlements only. You deserve a check, you may not have a gun.
Diversity = Diversity in race, sex, sexual orientation and more except thought.
P66 - It's not just lefty words that get the Orwell treatment. "Small Govt.", "Individual Liberty" = Racist Codewords!
P67 - Liberal Debate = "Shut up", he explained.
P67-68 - For a govt. that wants control, ideological enforcement is job one. Example - Katrina 2005. Rescue workers headed to New Orleans had to go Atlanta first. For diversity and sexual harassment training. (note that this is before Obama. The rot has been in the system for a long time)
P69-70 - The Real Two Americas. A1 is the nanny state and it's subjects. A2 are productive citizens. The two groups make for a sharp divide in America but in most of the rest of the world the matter is settled - it's mostly the first category. In America, we're still deciding.
P73 - "It is never a good idea to send the message, as the political class now does consistently, that there are no democratic means by which the people can restrain their rulers." That's pre-revolutionary talk.
P79 - Rep. Conyers didn't need to read the health care bill because he is no longer a maker of law. Law rests on the principle of equality before it. But Obamacare was just a collection of special favors for the special few. UAW bosses - yes. Coal miners and their "cadillac plans" - no. McDonalds gets a waiver as do most anybody in Pelosi's district. Conyers didn't have to worry about how Obamacare affected the average citizen, he just had to make sure his supporters were covered.
P80 - Judges. The US is the only nation in which the rulers invoke the constitution for the purpose of overriding it.
P82 - Regulations and Agencies. "In such a world, there is no 'law' - in the sense of (a) you the citizen being found by (b) a jury of your peers to be in breach of (c) a statute passed by (d) your elected representatives. Instead, unknown, unnamed, unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats determine transgressions, prosecute infractions and levy fines for behavioral rules they themselves craft and which, thanks to the ever more tangled spaghetti of preferences, subsidies, entitlements and incentives, apply to different citizens unequally." Steyn goes on to give many examples.
P87-89 The War against lemonade stands and bake sales.
The rest of the chapter is mostly economics. Important but nothing really grabbed me like the earlier stuff so you'll just have to read it yourself!
Posted by: Open Blogger at
12:55 AM
| Comments (141)
Post contains 900 words, total size 6 kb.
When Thomas Jefferson took over after the most continuous election in history in an effort to undo part of this he refused to appoint some of these judges. Marbury wsa one of these. Of course one of the appointments that was made was John Marshall who was one of the most political and actually crooked justices of all time.
He then issued his infamous ruling that grabbed total power to the federal government Marbury vs Madison. This case was actually a conspiracy by he and Adams because he was the who set it up to begin with.
This set the precedent that a branch of the federal government was the sole and final arbiter of what its own power under the Constitution was. At the time, NONE of the other founders agreed with this and most of them, including Jefferson, simply ignored it.
Jefferson, and most of the other founders of the day, all thought that the final arbiter of the Consitution was the States since it was the States who had made the binding agreement contract called the Constitution.
That is everyone continued along that line until Jackson and then later Lincoln decided that the federal government would be all powerful and the States were simply SOL.
Since 1861 all power has gravitated toward Washington. At first it was an oligarchy of corrupt officials under The American System and then when the progressives took power in the early 1900s it shifted towards socialism. Now were are becoming a communist state with no freedoms at all.
As I stated in one of the other threads last week. For an economy to be robust it must have three things
Freedom from government interference and control
Absolute private property rights
Enforcement of laws and contracts
We no longer have any of that.
Posted by: Vic at August 14, 2011 01:41 AM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: GHD at August 14, 2011 02:11 AM (UDaJ+)
Posted by: GHD at August 14, 2011 02:16 AM (UDaJ+)
Posted by: Joffen at August 14, 2011 03:03 AM (20Ylc)
It is time to start weeding the field.
Posted by: Vic at August 14, 2011 03:33 AM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: sTevo at August 14, 2011 03:36 AM (VMcEw)
Posted by: Joffen at August 14, 2011 03:41 AM (EPcuy)
Posted by: Vic at August 14, 2011 03:45 AM (M9Ie6)
In a somewhat related vein, I think that human nature is responsible for part of this rot in government. Obviously, we have the super-elites that believe they deserve to rule, and we have the petty tyrants/bureaucrats that believe they must rule. But, there is also a much larger class of functionaries that have achieved a job position of writing rules and regulations. These functionaries believe in their hearts that they are "good" people with "good" intentions and that since their stated job is to write rules and regulations, by George, they are going to do just that. So, eventually we wind up with regulations on lemonade stands, and officials stupid enough to enforce them.
As I see it them, there is a lot of true evil at the top of the government tree, but a lot of good intentions, but run amok, among the roots. Put them both together, and you have the ratcheting liberal nanny state that only knows how to hasten the DOOM that eventually befalls all attempts at civilization.
Posted by: Hrothgar at August 14, 2011 03:47 AM (yrGif)
his rabid supporters always come in and bomb straw polls
I'll bet most of them aren't from Clear Lake, Texas either. They like him in his home district for his ability to bring federal funds. Policy positions? Meh.
Posted by: Mr. Dave at August 14, 2011 03:48 AM (nFPVd)
Posted by: sTevo at August 14, 2011 03:49 AM (VMcEw)
We should never have passed the 24th amendment and we should have kept the right to vote contingent on paying taxes.
Posted by: Vic at August 14, 2011 03:49 AM (M9Ie6)
LOL, Debra Saunders writes a column about my old town in CA.
They are talking about "redevelopment". The last I heard it has gotten too expensive to live there. My old neighborhood of 50s era track houses that sold for around 20K in the late 60s and early 70s is now going for $550/ft2, or average of half a million dollars for a 1000ft2 house on a postage stamp lot. .They don't need redevelopment. Hell, I could no longer afford to live there.
Posted by: Vic at August 14, 2011 03:56 AM (M9Ie6)
P49 - In the 1950s, 1 in 20 workers needed govt. permission (licensing, certification). Today that's 1 in 3!
P53-57 - Govt. by Technocrats.
It's not a ruling class, it's a ruling mono-culture...
P58 - The technocrats go to Harvard and Yale...
All part and parcel of the same phenomenon.
In order to be able to extract the "rent" of
[4 years] X [$50,000/yr tuition & fees] = $200,000
per American high-school graduate, there has to be some licensing requirement [CPA, "certified" financial advisor, MBA, RN, PharmD, "Criminal Justice" major to become a police officer, even "licensed" contractor] which mandates the four years of tuition & fee "rent".
Just one more way that the elites are re-instituting a very ugly [frankly nihilistic] neo-feudalism in the post-modern world.
And there is no better way to become just unimaginably [surrealistically] wealthy than to be an established, entrenched, unavoidable rent-extractor: just ask Carlos Slim, De Beers [Rothschilds/Oppenheimers], Goldman-Sachs, the Sandlers [Golden West], George Soros, etc etc etc.
Posted by: Unreconstructed Palecon at August 14, 2011 03:59 AM (nfn9A)
Also, really outstanding post above, by "Vic", on Marbury-v-Madison as "Original Sin".
None of our problems are going to go away until we can confront the truly profound evil which is M-v-M.
Posted by: Unreconstructed Palecon at August 14, 2011 04:02 AM (nfn9A)
Posted by: Vic at August 14, 2011 04:02 AM (M9Ie6)
I never understood (ok I really do understand the liberal theology supporting letting the wolves and sheep vote on what's for dinner) how a poll tax could be considered unConstitutional. If you can't contribute anything to the government (even a "voting management fee" as a current lib would term it if it suited his purpose), then why should you be able to vote so that you can take from the government. This is especially true when the only source of government funds are taxes extorted from your fellow citizens that do contribute a substantial portion of their income to that same government. This was the cleverest slippery slope into socialism that has been foisted upon us.
Posted by: Hrothgar at August 14, 2011 04:03 AM (yrGif)
Posted by: Joffen at August 14, 2011 04:07 AM (EPcuy)
Posted by: Velvet Ambition at August 14, 2011 04:08 AM (0OJd9)
The poll tax, as it was implemented in most places, (and that wasn't just in the South contrary to the MFM) was used to prevent minorities from voting. Since that was contrary to the 15th amendment it was unconstitutional.
There really was no need for the 24th amendment. But it was voted in and ratified complete with that odious wording at the end "or other tax".
What we should have had is something similar to what we originally had where you could not register to vote unless you paid property taxes. Except that I would make it income taxes now since property taxes have been superseded.
You should have some stake in the system before being given the authority to control it.
Posted by: Vic at August 14, 2011 04:10 AM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: dogfish as Solomon at August 14, 2011 04:13 AM (N2yhW)
Posted by: Joffen at August 14, 2011 04:13 AM (EPcuy)
Posted by: dogfish late again to the party at August 14, 2011 04:16 AM (N2yhW)
Posted by: Unreconstructed Palecon at August 14, 2011 08:02 AM (nfn9A)
ThanksOn the "licensing" front I am one of those people who used to be licensed. There are a lot of professions that should be licensed to assure the people who are doing it know what they are doing.
But there are a whole lot more that currently require a license that shouldn't. And the requirement comes straight from the lobbyists from those professions who want to control the competition and raise their own pay.
There is no reason why beauticians should be licensed but there is an entire bank of regulations here in SC (and elsewhere) on licensing and education of people who fix your hair. That is just one example.
Posted by: Vic at August 14, 2011 04:20 AM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: Vic at August 14, 2011 04:22 AM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: Joffen at August 14, 2011 04:30 AM (EPcuy)
Posted by: Hrothgar at August 14, 2011 04:33 AM (yrGif)
From what I understand most States have this provision to prevent "spoiler candidates" from determining the election. We should be able to do something like that on the national stage.
Keep in mind that Bill Clinton won both of his elections with less than 50% of the votes, thanks to Ross Asshole Perot.
Posted by: Vic at August 14, 2011 04:34 AM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: Hrothgar at August 14, 2011 04:34 AM (yrGif)
The electoral college should fix this if it were properly used, but...
Posted by: Hrothgar at August 14, 2011 04:36 AM (yrGif)
Posted by: Joffen at August 14, 2011 04:37 AM (EPcuy)
Posted by: Hrothgar at August 14, 2011 04:37 AM (yrGif)
Posted by: De' Debil Hisself at August 14, 2011 04:37 AM (lpWVn)
Posted by: Hrothgar at August 14, 2011 08:36 AM (yrGif)
I don't know how you could fix it with the electoral college. What happens there is you take a close battleground State like FL and a 3rd party candidate and he siphons off enough votes to cause the more popular candidate to lose in that State.
Nader did that to Gore. (so that time it was good) Bush got all the electoral votes for FL putting him over the top.
Posted by: Vic at August 14, 2011 04:39 AM (M9Ie6)
Not unconstitutional and the "parties" need not have anything to do with it. It could be worded that simply says if no candidate gets > 50% of the vote a run-off election is held with the top 2 candidates.
Posted by: Vic at August 14, 2011 04:42 AM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: Joffen at August 14, 2011 04:42 AM (EPcuy)
It's not a matter of "need". This
is what the GOP leadership is daring to happen - is inviting - as they
refuse to carry out their mandate and prove themselves more and more
worthless every day.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 14, 2011 08:33 AM (G/MYk)
The GOP will demonstrate to us yet another historical truth, namely that the people in charge "know" that things will go on unchanged just like they "always" have. The point the GOP elites (and the Dem rulers as well) have forgotten is that at some unpredictable point suddenly things don't work the same way anymore. If we are lucky when this happens, most things will continue to function. If we are unlucky, we will be in uncharted waters, but the historical record of transition events is generally not pretty.
Posted by: Hrothgar at August 14, 2011 04:45 AM (yrGif)
Posted by: De' Debil Hisself at August 14, 2011 08:37 AM (lpWVn)
There were two others after that, but there is already enough deathless prose on this thread so I guess it was a server glitch somewhere along the line. Thanks for the check.
Posted by: Hrothgar at August 14, 2011 04:47 AM (yrGif)
You get people like those illustrated as The Hepburn Family.
Mrs Hepburn: Then how did you make all that money? - We don't care about money here.
Howard Hughes: Well, that's because you have it.
Mrs Hepburn: Would you repeat that?
Howard Hughes: You don't care about money because you've always had it.
Mrs Hepburn: How did you make all that...?
Howard Hughes: Excuse me, I'm speaking. - Okay. - Thank you. All right. Some of us choose to work for a living. Speaking of which, I have more of that airplane guff to attend to. Excuse me.
Mr Hepburn: Well,.... seems a rather high-strung chap.
Posted by: De' Debil Hisself at August 14, 2011 04:48 AM (lpWVn)
Posted by: De' Debil Hisself at August 14, 2011 04:50 AM (lpWVn)
Posted by: USA at August 14, 2011 04:50 AM (6Cjut)
Posted by: Joffen at August 14, 2011 04:50 AM (EPcuy)
Posted by: Hrothgar at August 14, 2011 04:52 AM (yrGif)
Posted by: kelley in virginia at August 14, 2011 04:52 AM (VIqi1)
Posted by: Joffen at August 14, 2011 04:52 AM (EPcuy)
Faux News just confirmed Pawlenty out.
Posted by: Hrothgar at August 14, 2011 04:53 AM (yrGif)
Posted by: kelley in virginia at August 14, 2011 04:54 AM (VIqi1)
Posted by: Hrothgar at August 14, 2011 04:55 AM (yrGif)
Posted by: Joffen at August 14, 2011 04:58 AM (EPcuy)
But, ultimately, it was about money. He must've got the word that a third place finish would only get him the Ginsu knives.
Posted by: nickless at August 14, 2011 04:58 AM (MMC8r)
Romney will also start to sink here very soon. We also need a lot of others to drop out and the no-name people to quit signing on.
Posted by: Vic at August 14, 2011 05:00 AM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: Joffen at August 14, 2011 05:01 AM (EPcuy)
Posted by: Vic at August 14, 2011 05:04 AM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: Joffen at August 14, 2011 05:05 AM (EPcuy)
Posted by: kelley in virginia at August 14, 2011 05:06 AM (VIqi1)
Posted by: sTevo at August 14, 2011 05:06 AM (hiMsy)
Posted by: Princess Lay-me at August 14, 2011 05:06 AM (MMC8r)
Posted by: Joffen at August 14, 2011 05:07 AM (EPcuy)
Posted by: rickl at August 14, 2011 05:10 AM (1CfwK)
Posted by: kelley in virginia at August 14, 2011 05:11 AM (VIqi1)
Posted by: Vic at August 14, 2011 05:12 AM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: kelley in virginia at August 14, 2011 05:12 AM (VIqi1)
Posted by: Charlie Gibson and a shitload of other people at August 14, 2011 05:13 AM (QBQcg)
Posted by: Joffen at August 14, 2011 05:13 AM (EPcuy)
Posted by: kelley in virginia at August 14, 2011 05:14 AM (VIqi1)
Posted by: Vic at August 14, 2011 05:14 AM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: kelley in virginia at August 14, 2011 05:15 AM (VIqi1)
Because he is an asshole and he doesn't need money from contributors. The only person he hurts though is Romney.
Posted by: Vic at August 14, 2011 05:16 AM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: kelley in virginia at August 14, 2011 05:16 AM (VIqi1)
Posted by: Vic at August 14, 2011 05:17 AM (M9Ie6)
vic, maybe Huntsman is staying in because he, while Obama's appt to China, went over to dark side & he is trying to hurt what may be the front-runner. you might be on to something
Posted by: kelley in virginia at August 14, 2011 05:18 AM (VIqi1)
Posted by: Joffen at August 14, 2011 05:18 AM (EPcuy)
Posted by: SurferDoc at August 14, 2011 05:18 AM (STdkO)
CR could stand for Commie Retread...
So TPaw is done. I actually got to meet him recently. Nice enough guy, said the right stuff, but not all that energizing. Going after Bachmann at the GOP debate was a huge mistake, too. It will be interesting to see who drops out next.
Posted by: Insomniac at August 14, 2011 05:19 AM (jOl1s)
Posted by: Joffen at August 14, 2011 05:19 AM (EPcuy)
In my experience most people on welfare don't bother to vote anyway.
Exactly where DO you think Obama's 52% came from????
Posted by: MrObvious at August 14, 2011 05:22 AM (qwhLZ)
Posted by: kelley in virginia at August 14, 2011 05:22 AM (VIqi1)
I still think Rubio or even Romney would be a better running mate for Perry, but at least now I could consider Pawlenty as an option. If he had hung on and siphoned votes off of Rick, I'd be much less inclined to accept him.
How long will Bachmann stay in? My recollection from when she entered is that many felt this was just a way for her to boost her profile and influence in the GOP. If that is true (which I think it is because she is not ready to be POTUS), then I hope she doesn't drag this out too long. There's enough work to be done in Congress for her to continue to push the Tea Party agenda. She doesn't need a POTUS run to do that.
I'd like the GOP voters/donors to not spend butt loads of dough on the primary. We'll need every penny to unseat Obama.
Posted by: Y-not at August 14, 2011 05:24 AM (5H6zj)
right, Mr. Obvious: those welfare people got free Social Services cell phones. they get the texts to vote or carry people to the polls or whatever else the OFA wants them to do.
some local candidates here going door-to-door have stumbled upon some very low economic, entitlement dependent people who have told them that they ONLY vote for president. just what president would that be you figure?
Posted by: kelley in virginia at August 14, 2011 05:24 AM (VIqi1)
That was asshole Wallace provoking that. Candidates are going to have to learn how to deal with him and his shit.
Posted by: Vic at August 14, 2011 05:24 AM (M9Ie6)
You know his name is Jon, right?
I think he's in to (1) try to derail Mitt and (2) audition for the VP slot. He'll accomplish neither. Mitt is derailing himself by running too far to the left, as if he had the primary sewn up, and no sane Republican will accept Huntsman as the next in line for POTUS.
Posted by: Y-not at August 14, 2011 05:26 AM (5H6zj)
I think this is one time an endorsement means something and one time the Republican establishment candidate who's turn it is is not going to get a free ride in SC.
SC will not vote for a liberal gun grabber.
Posted by: Vic at August 14, 2011 05:27 AM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: Old grizzled gym coach at August 14, 2011 05:29 AM (QBQcg)
Posted by: Joffen at August 14, 2011 05:34 AM (EPcuy)
Posted by: Jimmah at August 14, 2011 05:34 AM (TfRqk)
Yeah, Bachmann and Cain stay in it through SC. I would hope SC will go for Rick.
Although I know there's a benefit to having serious competition for our nominee - and I do think Bachmann is that (even though I don't think she's ready for the top job) - I don't want a long, expensive, bloody primary. Plus, if Bachmann is so critical to the Tea Party, it seems to me she'll need to get back to work in Congress before too long.
OTOH, if the non-starter one-dimensional candidates (Cain, Santorum, Newt) drop out -- and if Palin does not get into the race -- I guess there are worse things than seeing Perry stand up in a debate next to Huntsman, Bachmann, and Ron Paul. I have been impressed by Michelle's campaigning - after some initial gaffes - and like that she has been mostly positive in how she's approached things. I just don't want Perry standing there on a stage of 8 candidates. Those debates are a waste of time and make all of the candidates look less presidential.
But if Palin gets in, Bachmann should drop out immediately.
Posted by: Y-not at August 14, 2011 05:35 AM (5H6zj)
Do you really think she has the right experience and achievements to be POTUS next year?
Posted by: Y-not at August 14, 2011 05:37 AM (5H6zj)
One thing I find funny is a lot of folks don't want us to lose someone like Marco Rubio or Paul Ryan from Congress because we need them there, but I never hear that about Bachmann.
Posted by: Y-not at August 14, 2011 05:39 AM (5H6zj)
He ain't the sharpest tool in the shed. That's for sure. Mike's more like a leaky plunger. It's a shame because his father seems quite intelligent and a decent guy.
It's Jon Huntsman
Posted by: beedubya at August 14, 2011 05:39 AM (AnTyA)
Posted by: rickl at August 14, 2011 05:40 AM (1CfwK)
Posted by: Joffen at August 14, 2011 05:42 AM (EPcuy)
Posted by: sonnyspats at August 14, 2011 05:43 AM (I/MzF)
Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 14, 2011 09:37 AM (G/MYk)
I see what you did there.
Posted by: Osama bin Truck Monkey, TEArrorist at August 14, 2011 05:43 AM (jucos)
Posted by: Vic at August 14, 2011 09:24 AM (M9Ie6)
I was just watching the clip, and I didn't view the question as all that provocative. A bit silly with the "Minnesota nice" thing, but I didn't think bringing up Pawlenty's press shots at Bachmann was out of bounds. Now, I think this "debate" format with media hacks asking the questions is garbage to begin with and shouldn't be engaged in. I also think GOP candidates need to learn better how not to form the proverbial circular firing squad when presented with the opportunity.
Posted by: Insomniac at August 14, 2011 05:43 AM (jOl1s)
Posted by: rickl at August 14, 2011 05:45 AM (1CfwK)
I never understood (ok I really do understand the liberal theology supporting letting the wolves and sheep vote on what's for dinner) how a poll tax could be considered unConstitutional. If you can't contribute anything to the government (even a "voting management fee" as a current lib would term it if it suited his purpose), then why should you be able to vote so that you can take from the government. This is especially true when the only source of government funds are taxes extorted from your fellow citizens that do contribute a substantial portion of their income to that same government. This was the cleverest slippery slope into socialism that has been foisted upon us.
And the GOP has never really come to grips with the "Original Sin" of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments [especially as amplified by e.g. the various Civil Rights Acts and Voting Rights Acts].
Some folk just weren't meant to be citizens in a free republic founded on ideals of limited government and the rule of law.
Those are ideals which they simply will never "grok", much less strive for, or, God forbid, actually achieve.
Posted by: Unreconstructed Palecon at August 14, 2011 05:46 AM (nfn9A)
I credit Bachmann with enough self-awareness that she knows she is not ready to be president.
Apparently, you lack that awareness.
Posted by: Y-not at August 14, 2011 05:47 AM (5H6zj)
Here in Texico, we call him Chino Blanco
Posted by: Beto Ochoa at August 14, 2011 05:49 AM (lpWVn)
Posted by: Joffen at August 14, 2011 09:30 AM (EPcuy)
Yes, and so does Huntsman. The two most outspoken opponents of the scam are Bachmann and Perry.
Posted by: Vic at August 14, 2011 05:49 AM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: sonnyspats at August 14, 2011 05:50 AM (I/MzF)
"the mother of all repeal bills" starting with the EPA.
Posted by: Vic at August 14, 2011 05:51 AM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: Vic at August 14, 2011 05:53 AM (M9Ie6)
Unbelievable. I wonder how many joined O's team because they wanted to be part of "history"
What's wrong with that?
Posted by: Captain of the HMS Titanic at August 14, 2011 05:54 AM (jOl1s)
Posted by: Vic at August 14, 2011 09:53 AM (M9Ie6)
More commonly known around these parts as DOOM!!!
Posted by: Insomniac at August 14, 2011 05:54 AM (jOl1s)
Posted by: Mister Christopher at August 14, 2011 06:11 AM (cjGZv)
Posted by: Insomniac at August 14, 2011 06:25 AM (ODjP9)
Posted by: mike huntsman at August 14, 2011 06:50 AM (oUG6f)
You might be able to start a revolution as a reaction to the Boston Massacre; starting one as the reaction to being denied a permit to build a deck? that's "crazy". But like being swarmed by army ants, it isn't any one bite that's fatal or even all that painful...
Posted by: SDN at August 14, 2011 07:36 AM (qlyqX)
Sometimes the troika was just barely faster than the wolves.
Posted by: comatus at August 14, 2011 07:42 AM (W5ilH)
That reminds me of the time that fucking Hollywood genius Ben Affleck was speechifying for John Kerry back in '04 and said that Kerry needs to "enervate the base"
.....heh!..guess Horseface took his advice
Posted by: beedubya at August 14, 2011 07:47 AM (AnTyA)
Feel dumb yet? no? wait til we show our economic shows with the 'democratic strategist' on the panel! We try to shove as much stupid in as possible! (but why not! everyone knows econ 101 says you give free shit to everyone! tell me were i'm wrong!)
Fair and Balanced ...... with stupid
Posted by: Jaimie Colby, the happy sunday facelift host who delivers news of death and trajedy with a laughter at August 14, 2011 07:57 AM (eXQfZ)
Posted by: Vic at August 14, 2011 08:17 AM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: For the Love of Physics AudioBook at August 14, 2011 03:55 PM (c6hKN)
Posted by: corsets at August 14, 2011 06:12 PM (v5qDv)
I am certainly thankful to you for providing us with this invaluable information. Intimately, the article is actually the sweetest on this deserving topic. I agree with your conclusions and will thirstily look forward to your upcoming updates.
Posted by: watches forum at August 14, 2011 10:50 PM (ZwWgA)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2285 seconds, 269 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Posted by: Joffen at August 14, 2011 01:34 AM (20Ylc)