Type to search

This Week In Crazy — March 29th Edition

Memo Pad

This Week In Crazy — March 29th Edition


Welcome to “This Week In Crazy,” The National Memo’s weekly update on the wildest attacks, conspiracy theories, and other loony behavior from the increasingly unhinged right wing. Starting with number five:

5: Shaun McClusky


(Photo by gabriel amadeus/Flickr)

Shaun McClusky has a novel idea for solving Tucson’s crime problem: buying every citizen a shotgun.

McClusky, a Tea Party activist who unsuccessfully ran for mayor of Tucson in 2011, claims to have already raised $12,000 to pay for single-break-action shotguns and background checks for the residents of crime-heavy neighborhoods.

“We need to take back our city, and it needs to come back to the citizens and not the criminals,” McClusky explained. “Right now, the criminal element is winning.”

The plan is part of the Armed Citizens Project, which hopes to test whether more guns actually do reduce crime. This theory has never been scientifically proven, although there is ample evidence suggesting the exact opposite effect.

Of course if the NRA rhetoric that McClusky clearly believes proves correct, it would mean that background checks are essentially useless. Which would mean that McClusky would almost certainly be providing free shotguns for the “criminal element” that he believes is running Tucson. Tucson citizens had better hope that McClusky is about as good at collecting shotguns as he is at collecting signatures.

Henry Decker

Henry Decker was formerly the Managing Editor of The National Memo. He is currently an Online Associate at MRCampaigns.

  • 1


  1. doninsd March 29, 2013

    No week in crazy is complete without Beck. The wonderful thing about him is that he has gone so far over the edge that everything he says is just entertainment. Hell, he can’t even make me angry any more.

  2. Germansmith March 29, 2013

    oh come on !!!!

    Everybody knows this is a foot wash sink. Congress people need this when they spend the few hours a week they actually work knee deep in B___ S__t.
    It is really NICE…..how much taxpayers money is spend for the happiness of their mops?

    1. disqus_CmPS82g3vc March 29, 2013

      Read the article before you rush to respond. This sink has nothing to do with the US congress. But then right-wingers like you never bother to think before they open their mouths.

      1. Germansmith March 30, 2013

        is a joke…..I do not have any wings…and you have NO SENSE OF HUMOR
        I also do not open my mouth when I type….Do you? Be careful that is when you get flies in your brain….

        1. disqus_CmPS82g3vc March 31, 2013

          Show me humor and I’ll respond accordingly. You’re the guy at the party who always has to laugh loudest because nobody else thought his joke was funny or that it was a joke at all.

    2. RobertCHastings March 30, 2013

      In case you missed something, this was found in TENNESSEE, not DC. Congress is NOT a pejorative term inclusive of the Tennessee lagislature.

      1. Germansmith March 30, 2013

        Well, Dog, Canine, Lagislature or Legislature , same dog different collar

  3. Elisabeth Gordon March 29, 2013

    doninsd – I too find these people laughable to the point of distraction….where, in the name of all that is normal, do they come up with this “sheet” ???

  4. stcroixcarp March 29, 2013

    Michelle Bachmann’s district is a meandering entity that was put into place when republicans controlled the legislature and the governorship. It includes upscale Stillwater and redneck Stearns County. an island of ignorance in a progressive state. The Somali’s have mainly settled in Minneapolis and the near in western suburbs, and in St; Paul. (There is a large settlement of Somalis in Barron County Wisconsin who work in the chicken processing plants there.) The Somalis who are in Michelle’s district probably work in the poultry processing plants near St Cloud, and were not placed there by the state department. If the Somalis in her district are filing ethics complaints against Michelle, I say more power to them. Her bigotry and ignorance needs to be stopped. If they succeed they should be awarded the congressional medal of honor for their service to America!

    1. Mulligatonney March 29, 2013

      So – you accuse Bachmann of bigotry in the same paragraph that you use the term “redneck”…

      This leads me to believe you are a Democrat. You know, one of the “moderate” and “tolerant” types who do not practice racism, intolerance or discrimination toward anyone.

      Except, of course if he is different that you, or does not share your opinion..

      Now – I can’t wait for you to explain to me how calling someone a “redneck” is different than calling someone a “wetback” or “spear-chucker” or “diaper-head”

      That is the definition of hypocrisy – I would warrant the people you speak of would rather not be called rednecks. Same as you would most likely rather not be called a pussy, even though your words indicate that is exactly what you are…

      Only the “rednecks” can be intolerant… “Fags” cannot be intolerant according to the Liberal Handbook… Nor can “commies” – like the President. And, of course, the Liberal Handbook automatically excludes liberals from having to practice the same tolerance it demands of others.

      You are a classic, as are many of the writers on this site. You can read all about yourself in Animal Farm. (George Orwell) I think he refers to you elitists as the “Pigs”… Oops! Did I just inadvertently call you a “redneck”?


      1. merl1 March 29, 2013

        I used to call my redneck brother a redneck and he wasn’t offended. I think that you’re full of shit, redneck. I meant for that to offend you.

        1. Mulligatonney March 30, 2013

          That’s what I figured…
          No point in trying to make excuses to justify your double-standard.

          Animal Farm, by George Orwell: “All animals are equal – but some are more equal than others”. Whatever you say is automatically right. Whoever disagrees with you is wrong…

          Your own words convict you.

          And you know for certain that NO ONE is offended when you use the term “redneck”? Does that mean I can call blacks monkeys as long as they are not offended?


          1. merl1 March 31, 2013

            I don’t care what you call them, just do it to their face, and not a child’s or woman’s face, a man’s face who’ll kick your stupid ass for you. You’re a typical whiny ass crybaby right winger, aren’t you? Fuck you, redneck.

          2. Mulligatonney March 31, 2013

            …and now the true liberal intellect sallies forth. F…U…redneck…
            Lovely. Thanks for the tour of Liberal tolerance and progressive thinking.

            And maybe the rednecks would kick your stupid ass for you too, if you had the testicular fortitude to say it to THEIR face. But be careful – they also have their “religion and guns”, remember? They might do worse than just kick your ass. They might have the temerity to evangelize you and shoot you after you accepted Jesus.

            That’s why you are trying to take their guns from them as well. You don’t have the balls to defend yourself, so you just put your head in the sand and stick your ASS in the air for whatever drunken sailor who wanders by to sodomize you. But you are such a fear-filled pussy that you don’t want ANYONE to defend themselves – the thought of actually having to defend yourself makes you soil your little pants, doesn’t it?

            Anyway, I would be happy if you would avoid being the pussy that I think you are and volunteer to kick my ass in person. That would be fun.

            Careful – I may be a “redneck”… or even worse – a Republican. You may get your ass kicked.

          3. Merl Allen April 1, 2013

            Damn dude, i think you should see a doctor. Who the hell cares what you call people? And what’s with all of the sexual references? I think that are a confused angry little person. I am giving you my permission to call anyone that you want to a nigger, OK? Do you feel better now?

          4. Mulligatonney April 1, 2013

            Thank you for that permission. That is what I have been waiting for. That’s what the entire country is waiting for – permission from another liberal to practice our right to free speech.
            I am offended by your use of the word “dude”. That is clearly discrimination, intolerance, false stereotyping, cyber-bullying, religious persecution, prejudiced, defamation, slander and at last, the word all you fear-jacked socialists have been waiting for – racist.
            You are a racist against people that you pre-judge to be “dudes”.
            I call upon the NAACP, The Black Caucus, NOW, Queer Nation, and Dancing With The Stars for an immediate investigation. This has to stop now.
            …Just giving you liberal rectal worms a taste of your own medicine. Possibly it might taste a little better than where you normally get it from, yes? And possibly not quite as humiliating – on the other hand, though – I hear that’s what really turns you liberal cross-dressers on…so maybe it actually excites you secretly…makes you feel a little “nasty” while attending PTA meetings….

      2. Jeffrey Loop March 29, 2013

        You’re not very bright, are you?

        1. Mulligatonney March 30, 2013

          This looks like a “cut and paste” from one of your other “intellectual” postings. They basically all say the same thing…some drone mantra of, “you’re not very bright, are you”…

          So – who’s not very bright?


      3. dtgraham March 29, 2013

        Redneck refers to a set of beliefs, not to a race, creed or color. Big difference. It comes from people who work outside all day and the sunburn on the back of their neck was visible. Yes, it’s used in a pejorative way by liberals but the term is worn with pride by actual rednecks. Check out the acceptance of the term by conservatives in Alexandra Pelosi’s film “American right feeling wronged”. Jeff Foxworthy has made a living on redneck jokes with no controversy. The term practically has social acceptance now.

        1. RobertCHastings March 30, 2013

          “Redneck” is all over A&E with “Duck Dynasty”, “Swamp People”, “Little Honey Booboo”, etc. But, I guess A%E must be considered the “liberal media”? Or is that stuff on TLC? Come on, folks, I know some of you rednecks out there are watching it, they all appear to be quite popular.

          1. Mulligatonney March 30, 2013

            So what?

            Just because you watched “Fat Albert” and the “Cosbys” is not justification to call blacks monkeys.

            The abject, intellectually bereft arguments that you liberals use to defend yourselves is so colossally stupid it exceeds every attempt to describe it.

            No wonder you believed O’Bama…

        2. Mulligatonney March 30, 2013

          …and Eddie Murphy and Richard Pryor and many other black comedians have made their living using the word “nigger”…

          There is simply no adequate manner in which to describe your particular brand of stupidity.

          I say that you are stupid because you are actually attempting to justify using a slur against a group of people by using the same arguments you denigrate your hated conservative counterparts for using.

          You are trying to use words that sound intellectual, but the argument you attempt to make has not a shred of disciplined thinking or logic to it.

          That is beyond ignorant. That is exactly what is wrong with liberal thought. It has no basis in logic. It is all contrived.

          Oh – and did I mention that you are a pussy?


          1. dtgraham March 30, 2013

            Well, you got us all at “pussy”. We must be wrong then.

            Actually you have a point, which is a little rare from conservatives these days. I’ll break it down for you Mulligatonney. We’re just saying that redneck is not even in the ballpark of wetback, fag, or the N word for various reasons, although we all agree that name calling is something that should be avoided—redneck or otherwise. You have a point.

            That’s called liberal nuanced thinking. You probably wouldn’t know much about that but keep reading the National Memo and the concept will come to you. Hell, eventually we could be talking conversion.

            By the way, I’d stay away from conservative talk radio. It’s pretty much all name calling. There’s no false equivalency here.

            Feel better now tough guy?

          2. Mulligatonney March 30, 2013

            That’s the closest you guys ever get to admitting you’re wrong. And wrong you are – on many things. You attempt to excuse your heroes for the very thing you rage at your opposition for doing.

            Actually – it’s called “self righteousness”. An ancient term meaning basically a feeling or display of moral superiority derived from a sense that one’s beliefs, actions, or affiliations are of greater virtue than those of who disagree with them.

            The point is – they are ALL in the ballpark, you stupendously ignorant bastard… Its “pretty much all name calling” on this website as well as on conservative talk radio. You claim to be different, but offer nothing but the same name-calling.

            The thing that makes your ignorance stand out like a lighthouse is – you call yourselves “intellectuals” and “tolerant” and “forward-thinking” and “progressive”, then engage in the very behavior and name-calling you consider yourselves to be above. If nigger is bad, redneck is bad, using the same logic you used previously – if it offends someone, right? The difference is that liberals think they can choose the words that society must consider offensive. That is self-righteousness. Pure, plain and simple.

            George Orwell: “Four legs good, two legs ba-a-ad…” Don’t you get it? You have been played. By the very communists that began to infiltrate the Democrat Party in the 1950’s and ’60’s…

            Republicans share the blame. But you pseudo-intellectuals have been liberalized to the point where you cannot even recognize the difference between liberty and tyranny anymore.

            You have been played, you pathetically puerile unfortunate…

          3. RobertCHastings March 30, 2013

            Who in this series of postings has referred to himself as an intellectual? Must be your inferiority showing through. You folks are the ones that like to engage in name-calling once your bluff and bluster are exposed. You must be a Bill O’Reilly loversince about all you can say to someone who opposes you is “shutup”.

          4. Mulligatonney March 30, 2013

            Again with “you folks”…

            Sounds like you could be a racist… by your own definition, of course…

            And you still cannot defend your use of the word “redneck” to describe a group of people and how it is superior to the use of the word “nigger”…

            You simple-minded bastard….

          5. RobertCHastings March 31, 2013

            As sensitive as you appear to be, sounds like you just might be an extremely rare bird – a black redneck. First one I have ever known of, personally, although I am sure they are out there. Charlie Pride was a black country singer, but not exactly a redneck. Jeff Foxworthy is a redneck, but he isn’t black. His book and CD entitled “You Are a Redneck If …” might be of interest in clearing up your identity confusion. Are you a closet something? It is well known that if you come out and embrace your true self, it is much easier for you to deal with. Good luck with your therapy!

          6. Mulligatonney March 31, 2013

            This IS my therapy, butt-face…arguing with brainwashed democrats. There’s a lot of you sick and mentally challenged bastards out there that need my help.

            And again, with your use of the slur “redneck”. That means I get to call you a nigger, yes?

            Why, I believe you are a racist. But you did just give me permission to get right down to your level. That is where you are most comfortable. So for that, I am appreciative.

            That’s kind of a rare bird as well, wouldn’t you say? A liberal racist? A progressive discriminator? Those are oxymorons, according to the Liberal Democrat Credo.

            But in your case, the syndrome is much more easily defined – you’re just a moron.

          7. RobertCHastings March 31, 2013

            Oh, please, talk dirty to me. Hit me, hurt me, make me feel cheap. I just think you are SOOOO cute when you get angry.

          8. dtgraham March 30, 2013

            Can you use more adjectives? I couldn’t quite understand that. I need more adjectives.

          9. Mulligatonney March 30, 2013

            Oh…you don’t understand what an adjective is? Maybe this will help, you illiterate bastard.

            An adjective basically modifies a noun or a pronoun by enhancing its meaning and usually precedes the noun or the pronoun which it modifies, as in the following example:

            “dtgraham shoved a stick of Pepperidge Farm butter in his eager ass so all of his felching homosexual friends could fantasize that they were eating movie popcorn.”

            In this case, the adjectives in order as they appear in the paragraph are

            1. Pepperidge Farm
            2. Eager
            3. Felching
            4. Homosexual
            5. Movie

            And you remain a colossal castrati of intellect.

          10. dtgraham March 31, 2013

            I clearly know what an adjective is or I wouldn’t have used that kind of mocking, sarcastic use of the word in response to your adjective filled posts, now would I have?

            At this point I don’t even know what you’re looking for here. Is it just a pissing match or an actual debate or what?

            Mulligatonney, you need to be thinking about the words of your own Reince Priebus at CPAC. Remember he talked about polling data showing his party had a general perception of being intolerant and narrow minded and how that was beginning to hurt them electorally. He was soft peddling it. Their perception is worse than that. He then went into, ‘that’s not us’, ‘better messaging’, yadda yadda.

            Give some thought to your posts tonight Mulligatonney. Some serious thought. You’ve called a number of people a pussy, out of the blue. They’re pussies in what way again? You end with that as a completely irrelevant, throw away comment at the end of your posts. You’ve now referred to me as a pussy, homosexual, and castrated male. You think maybe you’re hung up on certain sexual issues just a bit too much? And where is this incredible anger coming from? As Priebus was suggesting, how do you think that attitude plays out in the nation when trying to win general elections?

            I’m actually a middle aged heterosexual married man who fully supports sexual orientation equality in every way. It should be in the Bill of Rights in my opinion. My friend, I honestly don’t care if you think I’m gay, or who else might, and I’m not just saying that. I really don’t. Many years ago someone once mistakenly thought I was gay for some reason and I remember myself and others having some fun with that for a while let me tell you.

            The thing is Mulligatonney, that’s a liberal attitude. This kind of homophobic, sexualized hatred is not the future for the GOP. Gay marriage is coming. It’s a runaway freight train now and you’re not going to stop it. It’s been a while but the last time I checked I think there were around 30-40 nations which had legalized gay marriage, with more being added. It’s been a dizzying pace with what started out as just Belguim I believe.

            In any event, you got us on redneck Mulligatonney. It does seem a little lame compared to felching (felching?), homosexual, eager asses, I gotta say…but keep working on this new sensitive conservative attitude and your party will be fine.

          11. Mulligatonney March 31, 2013

            Okay – so finally, you want to talk…

            That is not what was being offered before.

            I simply responded to a comment by stcroixcrap about Stearns County Minnesota being a redneck “island of ignorance” in an otherwise “progressive” state….

            The response was basically, “what if those people don’t like being called rednecks?”

            Then followed a litany of liberal excuses and justifications, and the typical double-standard of one group clawing at their minds attempting to explain why one slur is better than another.

            My point – who gets to decide what slurs are acceptable?

            Their point, apparently – liberals do, because of their superior intellectual and progressive discernment. I cannot count how many people commented that redneck was not only acceptable, but actually a label worn with pride by those who consider themselves rednecks.

            If that is not a self-righteous, egotistical, arrogant claim, then indeed liberals think that they get to decide the new morality in this country.

            People are people, and they are not unique in their morality or their immorality. It is in the re-definition of morality that conflict occurs.

            So – you want to talk about moral relativism? I think political correctness is the new religion in this country – the new Big Brother doublespeak. And there are already many more laws in this country than are necessary, many of which would be quite effective if they were enforced instead of inventing more 3,000 page legislative monsters. So bring it on…

            Just don’t try to argue that calling someone a redneck who is offended by the derogatory term is somehow better than calling someone a wetback or a queer… both of the latter have a basis in fact as well.

            So – you guys want to call names? Let’s call names…
            You want a legitimate argument? Let’s go…

            But if all you liberals only want to jerk each other off and bash people who think differently than you, then you are worse than the people you bash.

            Because – admit it… You really do think that your thinking is more advanced, liberated, intellectual and “progressive”…

            That’s why I come on this website – to study the way you think. I don’t see anything here that is particularly attractive. I have already been involved with groups that think they are superior.

            You are nothing new to me.

          12. dtgraham April 1, 2013

            Like I said, I generally agree with you on the name calling. If your granny in Minnesota is offended by redneck that’s good enough for me. Contrary to what you’re thinking though, liberals don’t make the rules and there’s no question that the term has gained a lot in popularity and social acceptance over the years, where once it was seen by more people as racist and classist although more classist. Now the word is more often used as a matter of pride rather than seen as a negative. Morality and societal standards change over time and so does language. Redneck is in a grey area right now.

            As I said, the word refers to a set of beliefs, attitudes and values and not to race, color, orientation, or gender. That’s a huge difference and I shouldn’t have to explain why.

            The term has become such a part of popular culture that you can’t blame people for being confused about it. Jeff Foxworthy’s books and stand up routines about the stereotype have spawned different types of redneck merchandise like T-shirts and stickers that are popular among white southerners especially. Foxworthy did a lot to establish redneck as a term of endearment by focusing on humorous and positive aspects of redneck cultural beliefs. As I was mentioning, check out the conservative embrace of the word in “American right feeling wronged.”

            There’s King of the Hill on TV which is sort of a sympathetic version of redneck life. Gretchan Wilson’s redneck woman country music hit. Author Jim Good’s redneck manifesto. There’s no end to it.

            You’re grasping Mulligatonney. You see your party insulting gays and minorities on a routine basis and you’re scraping the bottom of the barrel looking for any false equivalency that you can find. I get your bigger point (although that wasn’t your intention) on the name calling but that wasn’t really what any of this was about. You did inadvertently make a legitimate point and I acknowledge it, but you can drop the fake outrage and the piety. Nobody’s buying it.

            By the way, both you and your party need to work on this amazing homophobic rage. Gay marriage is coming and gay rights are going to become an increasingly important part of the culture in the future, let’s face it. This attitude will really hurt the GOP in the years to come. They have to change.

          13. Mulligatonney April 1, 2013

            I believe congratulations are in order. That’s the best job you’ve done so
            far at avoiding inflammatory statements and downplaying your obviously heartfelt feelings of superiority.

            But you didn’t quite make it…

            To give you the benefit of the doubt, however, I will refrain from responding in kind to your haughty and self-righteous remarks and see what that brings… I can always go back to something you seem to understand better.

            What if my point wasn’t “inadvertent”? What if you, in your liberal narcissism, simply assumed that “rednecks” aren’t capable of cogent or logical thought? Would that make you ignorant? What if I thought my point would be so obvious to you “liberal intellectuals” that I mistakenly concluded I wouldn’t have to spell it out to you? That I could make my point by satirizing all the one-sided comments on this website?

            Your argument in favor of using the slur “redneck” isn’t just weak… it is simply wrong. Hypocritical at its very best. Using your argument, because blacks used to tap-dance, whites performed in “black-face” and Al Jolson satirized negros, and there were many songs about “darkies” and “niggers”, most of them not offered as insults, it would still be okay to use slurs such as those. But they were done away with, yes? Why? Did the people using the term complain? Or were the ones that were offended by the remark complain?

            The point really is hypocrisy, is it not? People love to insult each other and make fun of each other. Liberals think its okay to use certain words that others are offended by, so they say them anyway – in spite of their complaints… How is that different than what you accuse others of? Where is the tolerance that you claim to believe? The answer is that your tolerance is reserved for those who agree with you. Just like the people you accuse.

            As for homosexuals – sorry, no… Homosexuals already have their rights. Just like every other American citizen. Like Eddie Murphy said, “I make fun of homosexuals – because they homosexuals!”… There’s a lot to joke about there. Liberals love to attach labels like “racist” and “homophobe” to people who believe that marriage is between a male and female, as it was traditionally instituted in the Bible, which is a very legitimate moral axiom.

            If the homosexuals want to sign a contract for tax purposes or lifetime commitment purposes, let them do it without invading the time-honored religious and faith-based institution of marriage. You are smart enough to do that, if you wanted to. You could write the legislation yourself, and call it a Nuptial Contract, or a Spousal Agreement… But no – you not only have to ask for special “minority” treatment under the law, but you want to force those who are vehemently opposed to it to APPROVE OF IT. You are demanding that they violate their own spiritual beliefs. You want to call it MARRIAGE. The true Christians are simply not going to go along with that. No more than they are going to participate in the art of baby-killing just because OBamaCare demands that they do. That is called tyranny.

            Its one thing to engage yourselves in immoral acts. Its quite another to demand that someone who does not believe as you do to become complicit in it.

            You think this about sexual intolerance? It is most definitely not. It is about morality.

            The average person isn’t nearly as invested in what a homosexual does to himself as you assert. Although it may be true that I am not in favor of anyone teaching my children that it is a “normal sexual behavior” and showing them how it is done in public school and promoting it, does that make me “homophobic”? If a person is a homosexual, he knows about it soon enough without teachers encouraging students to greater heights of experimentation and self expression to discover their “true sexuality”.

            …additionally, the Federal Government has no business deciding many things that they are deciding as I write. This is the biggest reason there is an increasing backlash from American conservatives on a vast number of issues. Not because homosexuals want to explore each other’s lower intestines. They have been doing that for centuries. States Rights are important. That’s why we have a House Of Representatives. Right now, the highly populated, dense areas are receiving the majority of the “representation”.

            Right now, Washington is mainly working for about a half-dozen hugely populated areas, where they continue to funnel most of the “entitlement money” into in exchange for votes. And, they continue to look for more ways to take money from the people they are supposed to be working for.

            And many of us are beyond fed up… Many of us. And we’re the ones who turn to our “religion and guns” in times of crisis, remember? Isn’t that what the president said? Is that why the liberal is so adamant about removing them both from American society? Is the president worried about that? If he is, has he done something to cause himself to be afraid of what the 2nd Amendment guarantees?

            That’s what this is about. Not about a bunch of queers. Did you note the sarcasm there, or am I simply making another “redneck slur”?

            One of the other many things that you are wrong about is your assumption that I am a Republican. That is offensive and you are stereotyping, discriminating and practicing extreme prejudice in that assumption. While not nearly as offensive as being called a democrat, it is still offensive.

            In my opinion, both parties are corrupt, maybe beyond being able to correct themselves, at this point.

            They might just need some help.

          14. dtgraham April 2, 2013

            I’ll try to respond to some of this Mulligatonney. You’re wrong on many of your facts, all over the place in your thinking, and you’ve got the well known conservative persecution fantasy going on. It’s kind of rich getting called out by the king of inflammatory and “haughty”, superiority statements. Go back and reread all of your posts.

            For the last time, I’m just saying that all name calling is not in the same ballpark as per my previous analogy. No group decides this. It’s just an organic, societal thing. For the reasons pointed out earlier, redneck has slowly evolved into a more acceptable term and not because liberals have made it so, but because conservatives have. One might easily joke around with a conservative friend and call him/her a redneck in a teasing, light hearted way. Would a white call his African-American friend a nigger? It’s just not the same thing. As well, redneck is a construct. It’s a concept, not a person. That’s an enormous difference. Given all of that, it’s still name calling. I’d have to be on awfully good terms with a conservative before calling her/him a redneck, but I could possibly see it. I couldn’t possibly see calling someone I know well a chink or a raghead. Get it now?

            And no, just because in popular culture an African-American might be fine tap dancing with Shirley Temple in 1935, that didn’t justify the term nigger in the terrible way that it was used or the brutal suppression either. That’s obviously not an extension of my “logic” on redneck. Give it some thought man.

            Marriage has nothing to do with religion. You can get married at city hall right? This is the 21st century Brown v Board of Education argument. Blacks could go to school but they must go to separate schools with their own kind. Alternately, we’ll construct some kind of partnership arrangement for gays but it can’t be marriage. Same idea both ways. You’re setting up two classes of citizens and you’re doing it on the basis of religion. That has no place in the United States Constitution. There is a separation and firewall between church and state. There is no state sanctioned religion and there can’t be any kind of religious test. The U.S. is not a fundamentalist Republic—Islamic…Christian or any other. It’s not a Theocracy. Think of it in simpler terms. You—John and Joe American—can’t get married because my religion says that’s bad. What the hell is that?

            Marriage in biblical and early times took on different forms and was never associated with religion the way conservatives like to believe it was. Yes, various ceremonies and feasts accompanied the wedding day at different times in history, but the wedding was not performed, sanctioned or blessed by religious officials. As far as is known, there was no exchange of marriage vows, and our commonly used vows don’t even come from the bible. In fact the matter was neither religious nor civil, although religious obligations often followed. In Old Testament times polygamy was acceptable and King Solomon was the most notable polygamist with his 700 wives and 300 concubines.

            No one’s asking anyone to violate their spiritual beliefs. In countries that have legalized gay marriage, churches are always exempt from performing the ceremony. If you don’t believe in gay marriage, don’t get gay married. People opposed to it are being asked to become complicit in it in what way?

            You may influence someone to be accepting of their fellow gay citizens but you can’t influence them to become gay. That makes zero sense. Could someone have talked you into abandoning all of your natural inclinations and desires and doing something that was repugnant to you? Did you choose to be heterosexual or did it just come naturally to you with

            no choice whatsoever in the matter? I think we both know what the answer to that is. It’s not a choice. Stop warping and twisting reality to make it fit your ideology.

            Lastly, you’re very wrong about that congressional representation thing. It’s actually the opposite. Republicans have been working on a strategy they refer to as Redmap. They want to create Republican firewalls (as they themselves call it) around the country by gerrymandering the congressional districts. That pace picked up with a fury after the 2010 midterms when they were able to capture so many state houses and governorships. They’ve cordoned off democratic voters by bunching them up into smaller, single districts while creating new sparsely populated Republican districts. Some of the boundary lines look ridiculous. Depending on the area, it can take up to 4 times as many votes to elect a Democrat to Congress as a Republican when you analyze the numbers. I’ve seen the breakdown. It’s the reason that about 1.5 million more people voted Dem than Repub in the Nov 2012 congressional races, yet it’s still a Republican controlled Congress. Analysts say that it likely will be GOP controlled until into 2022 anyway, no matter how many people vote Democrat. It’s government by the minority.

            Incidentally, the net takers of federal monies are the red states. The blue states are the net providers. Chris Christie, of all people, pointed that out but he didn’t have to. You can easily verify that.

          15. Mulligatonney April 2, 2013

            Not difficult to see why you don’t understand – I don’t think you believe in the Christian God, or have delved too deeply into the Bible. But you do criticize it. That’s your choice. Seems like you think the Constitution is outdated and backward as well… That’s your right, too.

            Go back and read your OWN posts….

            Again – the people who I asked the question to about the term “redneck” on this site are the ones who started the name-calling and superior thinking stuff. So – I take the hit for responding to them the way I did. Just because I can do it better or more shockingly than they can is not an excuse to join in. But – that was my entire point, genius…

            Let’s see if I can sum up:
            1. Liberal’s name calling is better than those they judge.
            2. When liberals wink at each other knowingly as they denigrate the “rednecks in Stearns County”, they are just sharing love for their fellows.
            3. I can say redneck because you say I can.
            4. I cannot say nigger because you say that I cannot.
            5. Marriage has nothing to do with religion because you say it doesn’t, although it has for thousands of years…
            6. Homosexual marriage is okay because Solomon was a sinner.
            7. You cannot influence anyone to become a homosexual even though psychiatrists agree that sexually abused boys become pedophiles themselves… they don’t even actually have to be physically violated…you have heard of the Stockholm syndrome… imprinting.
            8. You talk about government of the minority: State Reps: California = 53——New York/New Jersey = 42——-Michigan/Illinois/Ohio = 52. Chicago, New York and Los Angeles/San Francisco. 3 cities basically control 34% of the votes in the House, and it gets worse if you include the Great Lakes States as a whole. Been that way since before the Civil War. That is where the Democrats win their elections. New York, Chicago and L.A….
            9. Entitlements – top ten poverty cities receiving entitlements are all Democrat-run. Democrats know that they can cultivate the poor for their votes. All the worst educated people, too… It isn’t too difficult to get poor people to believe that OBama loves them and the rich are keeping them down. Except for the annoying fact that the richest people in America are Democrats.

            So – basically, “All animals are equal – but some are more equal than others”. You think yourself superior, which is not uncommon for someone with a modicum of education.

            Like I said – If I was someone who knew nothing about American government and was looking for a party to join, I would find nothing that attracted me to your philosophy, the motivation or the honesty (or lack thereof) behind the Democrat party. You believe that debt is not real, that the people sitting in the wagon are superior to those pulling the wagon. You reward laziness with the money of those who work hard. You advocate killing your own babies. You champion illegal alien criminals violating the laws of this country and would render helpless those weaker citizens who would choose to defend themselves with firearms. You assert your own self described “rights” even as you push to deny others their rights. You fashion your own golden calf and don’t even recognize it as you look upon it.

            This entire marxist system that you are pushing under the guise of “progressivism” and “liberalism” is simply another system of marxism under another name. Just re-packaged tyranny with different pigs in charge. (Animal Farm – have you read it?)

            Founding principles:
            Our rights come from God, not government – limited government, individual liberty, free enterprise, strong national defense, and personal responsibility. I don’t see any guarantees of entitlement or outcome there.

            Watch and see what happens to this country as you continue to trade your liberty to the government. Then, possibly you will finally understand the real lesson of history. The Germans did.

          16. dtgraham April 3, 2013

            I think you’ve been had on the top ten poverty cities Mulligatonney. I looked into it. There a couple of websites that portray the same cities in blue states as the poorest and, suspiciously, without any explanations at all as to why, and many of them don’t seem to make a lot of sense. Most of the sites though also have the same list of cities but different cities, with detailed reasons as to why they’re poor. Nine of those cities are in the old confederacy. They have names like Valdosta, Mcallen, Brownsville, and Gadsden. You’re talking numbers like 40% without health insurance, one tenth earning less than $10,000.00 a year, 15-20% unemployment rate, etc… I have a hard time imagining those cities are Dem controlled in such deep red states. I have an equally hard time imagining cities like Philadelphia, NY, and St. Louis from your list would be worse off.

            There we have it don’t we? There was a time when Americans agreed on much more. We all got our news and information from the same reliable sources. We all had the same set of facts and people argued over the minutia of details as to who had the best plan to accomplish the same goals that were so often agreed upon. Not now. Now, different realities have been constructed with different facts.

            Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes discovered something in the 90’s. There’s something about that far right political philosophy that’s an easy sell to far too many weak minded and apolitical people when you dumb it down and then dress it up in phony, populist language. Then throw in a good dollop of belligerent religiosity, a total disregard for facts, and you have yourself the classic demagoguery and a winning combination. They play to the darker angels of our nature, and then encourage and manipulate. It’s remarkable how many people can be convinced to vote against their own self interest, partly based on a number of cultural and social wedge issues. If what you were saying is true, the Republicans would never see office again unless they changed a lot. The conservative media has that little problem rectified though.

            They small ball you constantly with the never ending ‘we hate gov’t’ meme. You say deregulation led the financial services sector to turn the world into it’s own private casino, and damn near wreck the economies of numerous nations including the U.S.? So? Hey! look at the working poor who’re collecting food stamps over there. Now that’s our problem…right there. As Fox News recently cried on a Sunday—“stop demonizing the banks.”

            The debt is a problem Mulligatonney. No question. Here’s the thing though. Unlike what you’ve heard, there are two sides to the debt equation; revenues and spending. I know you only hear about the spending. Due to population growth, inflation, and other factors, you can’t just look at raw numbers when analyzing something like this. It has to be taken as a percentage of GDP to be meaningful. Due to 30 years of tax cutting, federal revenues were about 15.8% of GDP before sequester. Even with the repeal of about 16% of the Bush tax cuts, that is still far below the historical average in the post war era. It simply isn’t enough to pay for Medicare, Medicaid, SS (with the same benefit payout) and the Pentagon, not to mention discretionary spending.

            This nation had four consecutive surplus budgets from the late 90’s to early 2000’s after Clinton’s across the board tax hikes. He simply established what the marginal tax rates should be IF you actually want to pay for things and not go into debt. Did it hurt the economy? No. In fact, there was a boom after that. Just like the recent sequester tax increase has resulted in a bull market, although I wouldn’t give the sequester credit for that. Merely coincidence, and the tax increase had no apparent effect.

            The Republicans are flat out lying to you. This is just simply the Stockman, Norquist strategy of “starve the beast.” You keep cutting taxes to the point of finally creating an artificial crisis. Then you say that you have to roll back the 20th century to save the nation fiscally. Sorry Granny, we can’t afford your Medicare any more. We’re going broke and we don’t believe in gov’t or taxes. Paul Ryan is going to throw you out into the private market with a coupon that’s designed to cover less and less of the increase in medical costs in the future. Sorry about that. It’s funny how the military never figures into the cutbacks isn’t it?

            Explain to me why you think it’s more important for hedge fund managers to declare their income as carried interest under the capital gains provision and, therefore, pay only a 15% tax rate, as opposed to generating more federal revenues so granny can have her pension and health care? Explain that Mr. Christian. And no…there’s no historical correlation between modest variations in marginal tax rates and material changes to economic output, so don’t hit me with that.

            After you’re finishing explaining then tell me which countries, among the wealthy advanced democracies, don’t have pensions and health care for their senior citizens. Germany, France, Sweden, Canada…which ones? Name one. They also have universal health care for everyone and are in better shape financially than the United States, but I won’t ask you to go into that. Just the seniors.

          17. Mulligatonney April 6, 2013

            Your own words, whether you realize it or not, are a page from Saul Alinsky’s book, “Rules For Radicals”…

            Again, you fall prey to communist/socialist propaganda even as you accuse others of ignorance. You may ask, “What is wrong with communism or socialism?” The answer is, “read a history book”… It doesn’t work – not without trading your liberty and placing your future in the hands of a small politburo… Once they have the power, they never give it back – not without huge pain. And they then dictate to YOU. This is called tyranny. Our own government bursts at the seams. And what is the result? People in growing numbers now look to the government as the solution to all their problems, not themselves, their own ingenuity and hard work and are trading their liberty to a growing Leviathan that begins to devour everything within its reach.

            Talk about getting “small balled”… That is the aim of the philosophy you have attached yourself to – to inundate you with minutiae. Read Cloward-Piven – two professors at Columbia (OBama’s school) Ask yourself, “What is their goal?” They tell you “equality”, yes? If that is their goal, why have the poor in this country increased so significantly in the last 50 years? Didn’t Lyndon Johnson declare war on poverty in the 60’s. Is your answer really, “The Republicans did it?”

            How is it that the Democrat Party continues to harvest the votes of the poor like farmers cultivating a crop, promising them more and more stuff and focusing their hatred on the rich instead of teaching them independence, industriousness and self motivation?

            The answer is this: “Those who constantly rob from Peter to pay Paul can always count on Paul’s support”…

            That’s the way they want you. Poor, dumb and blaming it on someone else.

            The wealthy should pay a higher tax rate with no loopholes. Corporations should be regulated from profiteering, monopolies and unfair business practices, but not strangled…

            Thats it.

            So – I have already told you that I support the Constitution and founding documents 100%. The Federalist Papers warn about a government that acquires too much power and set about describing ways to prevent evil, corruptible men from getting too much of it. The Declaration Of Independence declares that our rights are given to us by our Creator, not by any man, especially the type of man that lusts for that kind of power – the politician. And the Constitution attempts to put that philosophy into practical application.

            So – what do YOU believe in? What kind of government do you think is the best? A European socialist state? What ARE you? What do you stand for?
            This is the question that confounds you socialists the most.

            And the trick to preventing tyranny – whether it approaches from the left or the right – is to see it and stop it before it becomes too powerful.

            I think that is the lesson of history. USSR and Nazi Germany both failed. Why? Tyranny. Corrupt, evil men. So – who are you going to put in charge? Certainly not someone with OBama’s history. Ooops! You already did… Now we are all reaping what you have sown.

            That is the genius of our Founding Documents and our founders. They knew “all sinned and fell short of the glory of God” and designed a government to prevent the type of sinner or groups of sinners who became intoxicated with power from getting too much of it.

          18. dtgraham April 8, 2013

            Clinton’s on-budget numbers were in a surplus position in 1998, 1999,2000,2001. The debt dropped as a percentage of GDP and the debt growth slowed. That the raw debt number didn’t drop is a bit of an illusion due to legislation and the peculiarities of governmental fund accounting. Intragovernmental holdings is the money that the gov’t owes to programs like SS and a swack of others. That’s part of the national debt even though it’s money that the country owes to itself. The rest of the national debt is public debt. Any excess money from SS and any number of other gov’t funds must be invested in gov’t issued debt. That causes the intragovernmental debt number to increase which technically adds to the debt load. When Clinton talks about paying down the debt he’s talking about paying down the public debt and not the overall debt. Clinton’s 1993 budget reconciliation act was mostly responsible and that was before the GOP took the house. It only reversed some of Reagan’s tax cuts and didn’t restore federal tax revenues to pre Reagan levels.

            Well I must say that you have all of the talking points, catch phrases, idioms, and lingo from the conservative media down pat. However, they’ve filled you up with false information and irrational fear. You’re petrified of Nazis, communists, lions and tigers…oh my. There are far too many binary conservatives. It’s either Ayn Rand or Soviet communism. Nothing else? Any deviation from the former must eventually lead to the latter. Stray a little too far from Libertarianism and—here comes Hitler!

            As with almost everything else you’re fed, your information on the war on poverty is wrong. In the year before JFK was elected, American poverty was listed at slightly over 24%. That rate fell to 11.1% by 1973 which was also the year that Nixon began dismantling LBJ’s office of economic opportunity and transferred a few of the remaining agency’s programs to other departments. By the 80’s, the spirit of deregulation and anti-gov’t put the final end to what was left although some of the legacy remains in Head Start, Trio, the job corps, and so on. Of course there was still poverty because it wasn’t a guaranteed annual income or anything, but given the parameters of what one might realistically expect, it was certainly a success The Great Society was also part of the war on poverty and Medicare reduced geriatric poverty from 28.5% in 1966 to 10.1% today. You asked me if I blame Republicans for the long term limited success of the war on poverty. Absolutely.

            What do I stand for you ask? Like virtually any liberal I want a combination of economic freedom along with a degree of gov’t regulation of markets. The relative strength of either of those components in the national economy can vary greatly between countries and that’s where the debate should lie in the American body politic. I want a gov’t to provide environmental protection, maintenance of employment standards, a standardized welfare system, maintenance of competition and fair business practices, and universal health care for every single citizen within the context of some public or public/private mix model.

            Economies work best when the means of production are mainly under private ownership (not necessarily every case); when markets remain the dominant form of economic coordination and when the accumulation of capital through profit remains the driving force behind economic activity (with some exceptions). However, I want the gov’t to wield considerable indirect influence over the economy through fiscal and monetary policies designed to counteract economic downturns and capitalism’s tendency toward financial crises and unemployment, along with playing a role in interventions that promote social welfare. It’s sort of a compromise between full out state socialism and unfettered free market capitalism, that’s superior in net effect to either of those in my opinion.

            I personally prefer the Nordic model that has more of a government role but, again, that should be the debate. Do you like that model? They’ve been very successful with a very high standard of living, depending on how you define socialism How about Tony Blair’s third way? Maybe Angela Merkel’s conservative free market reforms, or do you want even more market initiatives with the proviso that some regulations are necessary. What about Canada’s so called hard headed socialism that’s gotten good write ups? It’s these kind of things that should be discussed, not Nazis, communists, Hitler, Satan Obama, and the sinners of the Bible. How many communists are left? North Korea, Vietnam and Cuba. Hell, even the Chinese don’t believe in it anymore.

            Another thing I want is for the Republican Party to return to sanity. They’re fringe libertarians on economics and some social policies. They want rid of the EPA, Medicare, Medicaid, and SS badly. They don’t appear to want any regulations whatsoever on Wall St., and the banks can gamble your money away on reckless speculative bets with the GOP’s blessing. On many social issues though, they seem to want to create a theocracy so strict that the Taliban would nod in approval. North Carolina wants to revive a statute that turns adult consensual oral sex into a felony. Is that limited gov’t? North Dakota and Arkansas want to imprison women for having an abortion so early in the pregnancy that most women won’t know that they’re pregnant at that stage. They want a gov’t large enough to monitor every pregnancy to ensure that the state’s desired outcome is achieved. The Republicans had a Presidential candidate who actually said on tape that he wanted to have a serious discussion with Americans about the perils and evils of birth control (Santorum).

            I don’t ask for a return to the days of Eisenhower, although I’d like that, but can they just return to the days of pre Michelle Bachmann? How about that?

          19. Mulligatonney April 9, 2013

            …so your answer to everything really is, “The Republicans did it”…

            …and you guys call conservatives “crazy”… So if OBama is really just a victim of the previous administration, then he is not nearly as ‘cerebral’ as you Democrats say he is. Or he would have accomplished something by now yes? Oh, I forgot – he is a supreme intellectual, but the Republicans have kept him from realizing his destiny – but, then – isn’t a “supreme intellectual” able to figure out a way to work with the backward and intolerant Republicans?

            Listen to what I am saying….
            There was no surplus. If there had been a surplus, there would have been a decrease in annual debt. You cannot call debt in any form, a surplus. You simply cannot. When you spin something that hard, it ruins your credibility to make any other point.

            If there was a “surplus” and they used it for anything other than to pay off debt, then it was not a surplus. Its the same thing that the Fed does all the time. Like the guy that finally makes enough money to make a payment on his credit card and instead buys a big screen TV with it.

            This tendency of liberals to assign a term of justification to something otherwise unacceptable discredits any other argument you might have. You want so badly to declare that “Clinton had a surplus” that you will say it even if it isn’t true. They moved money around and raised taxes, but if they did not pay down the debt, there WAS NO SURPLUS.

            You call someone who tells you the truth binary?

            I just finished educating you on what happens to a country when its population leans too far to the left or too far to the right – and you respond by calling Republicans “insane”… The issue is so far beyond “right” or “left”, it is almost inconceivable that you cling so desperately to that which indoctrinated you and those who did it. Do you really think that OBama cares for you? Have you studied his history? Do you know that he is a member if the New Party in Chicago, a communist party that used ACORN to recruit ignorant, poor black voters in Illinois and to rig elections? Is that what you stand for? Look at his history. Nothing but America-haters, from his parents to his pastor to his mentors to his professors to his financiers and political allies…HE CHOSE THEM! who do you think is behind his fund-raising, both for the Illinois State Senate, the U.S. Senate and his unexplainable rise to President with a single year of experience as a senator, with mostly “I abstain” votes…

            Again I lead you back to the Founding Principles, which were set in place by men who understood corruption and the danger it posed when combined with too much power. (Federalist 51, Madison). OBama is the guy our founders warned us about – that’s why conservatives have decided to rise up and be heard…they feel they have been “tolerant” long enough.

            That’s all.

            The rest of the details and statistics you bandy about are not much more than artifacts of corrupt men wielding too much power and the self-centered voters who allow themselves to be bribed by their promises.

            The Europeans are no better than veal. They are kept in a pen that grows smaller and smaller, fed enough of the stuff that keeps them soft and dependent – and the majority of them no longer know what liberty is. Our country is in danger of heading that way as well – it is entirely possible that it is inevitable in a world that grows smaller with every passing year.

            But that is not what this country was founded upon. And there are many Americans who have believed in those principles strongly enough to fight for it, down through the ages….and many of them remain and will fight again… Not for the politicians or the businesses – but for their desire to live free and for their families to live free after them.

          20. dtgraham April 11, 2013

            You’re wrong on the facts per usual Mulligatonney, but the two things that are different this time is that you’re closer than you usually are and I happen to agree with you on the sentiment of it.

            I left you the official numbers on Clinton’s budget surpluses but I edited it a bit late, to throw them in, and you might not have gotten them. It was officially 69.2 billion, 125.6 billion, 236.4 billion, and 127.3 billion from 1998-2001. If you do a search, this is what you will find. The national debt did decrease from 5,776,091,314,225 trillion in 1999 to 5,662,216,013,697 trillion in 2000, so you’re wrong about that too. The debt grew by only a very small amount in the other years, instead of decreasing, although it did shrink as a percentage of the economy.

            The way it’s calculated and reported is peculiar and I don’t agree with it. There are two items that are considered to be off budget: i) SS trust funds and all other intragovernmental funds, and ii) operations of the postal service (Bush II effectively jacked up that list). Any excess revenues from the SS trust funds and all other funds are automatically invested in government issued debt by federal law. The gov’t has to issue interest-bearing securities, with their interest adding to the debt. You might say that having a surplus in that way causes the gov’t to increase it’s expenditures, and that’s actually what happened to the reported surplus in the other years. It wasn’t big enough to cover it.

            I think you need to be able to account for all external and internal expenses and outlays in a budget. If you haven’t covered accrued intragovernmental fund debt, then why are you declaring a surplus? I agree that the “public debt” is far more important but it’s still deceptive semantics. In any event take that up with Washington, not me.

            Republicans want tax reform that brings rates down to just two: 10% and 25%. IF you are going to keep revenue constant it is mathematically impossible to bring down rates for high earners, which is in effect what will happen if you move to a rate structure like that, without raising rates on low and middle income people. It is not possible. More GOP lies. It will either be a massive revenue loss or an increase in revenues from low and middle income payers…period.

            Even the Democrats are locking into a revenue base that implies awfully steep reductions in discretionary spending in the part of the budget that’s set each year by 2018, 2019, 2020 and therein lies the problem. To maintain the basic social contract it’s going to be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to make the numbers work even under the Democrat’s approach. Of course it would be worse under the Republican approach.

            There has been a substantial shift to the right in the Democratic party on taxes in recent decades, and that was also locked into the fiscal cliff deal where so little of the budget destroying Bush tax cuts were repealed. Look back. Clinton only reversed some of Reagan’s tax cuts. It’s taken Obama 4 years to reverse about 16% of the Bush tax cuts and he’s not likely to get any more. There’s a trend there, and if starving the gov’t is the GOP aim, they’re on track.

            Mulligatonney, you’re sold a load of horse shit on a daily basis by Rush, Glenn, Fox, etc… Leviathon? Not only does America not do anything more than other western nations in terms of social spending, it does less per capita. Gov’t pensions and health care for seniors (with monthly premiums and co-pays), unemployment insurance and a small social safety net for the poor and disabled. Who’s not doing at least that? What is unique is having a defence budget that’s as large as the next 13 nations COMBINED and a tax structure that brings in about 16-18% of GDP as revenues. Margaret Thatcher’s Britain took in 35% of the economy as tax revenues, for comparison…and she was no liberal. It’s the price of modernity. No one in their right mind wants the kind of gov’t services of the late 18th century except the uber wealthy, who don’t need gov’t, and they’re the ones shouting in your ear every day through their media to get rid of it. I don’t think the Magna Carta had the National Health Insurance in it, or the post revolution French Republic mentioned paid vacations but those things aren’t going anywhere, regardless of the “founding father’s original intent”.

            For anyone with any kind of common decency and humanity the future doesn’t look good. The Republicans have rigged the congress until at least the end of the decade and they’re not going to let “entitlements” be funded. At the same time, trillion dollar deficits clearly can’t go on, so where are we? Well, good luck explaining to mothers that their disabled child’s Medicaid has to go, and also granny has to go back to work at 85 because God told the founding fathers that those programs were the work of the devil. That’s where we are.

            There’s not much point in continuing on with this Mulligatonney. I find your posts almost childlike, with an utter lack of awareness, and the work of a political imbecile to be honest, although you might be a smart cookie in other ways for all I know. That describes too many of your compatriots on the right these days. Check out the lunatic ramblings of our own Lana Ward here at the Memo every day. You live in a different dimension where facts and stats are just the artifacts of corrupt men. Where the Germans and Japanese are soft and dependant, and have no freedom. Where Obama is a Muslim Communist Kenyan. Where Acorn wasn’t just an advocate for lower income people but an election rigger. Where America is somehow headed toward the European experience instead of the banana republic experience it’s actually headed toward. You know, where there are only the super rich, the desperately poor, and no one in-between with no effective government; and a corporate elite who’ve bought off all the politicians.

            I live on a little place that I like to call Earth Mulligatonney, but I’ll tell you what—-if you want to respond, I’ll be like Bill O’Reilly and give you the last word. Let me have it.

          21. Mulligatonney April 12, 2013

            Let you have it eh? That’s what yo’ mama said…
            That’s rap – it’s okay for me to say that because blacks say it…

            But I will definitely not call you a “fag”, even if I think you are a cigarette…

            So – to sum up – there was no surplus during the Clinton years. If one doesn’t pay down debt with money left over from collecting too much tax, it cannot be called a surplus.

            There were a couple of years there that Clinton got close, due to a huge tax increase and a booming economy that he had nothing to with, but the debt increased every year. And much of the money he committed to be spent wasn’t actually scheduled to be spent until he left office. Clever bastard… Make promises with money that you know someone else will be blamed for… an old trick. So – let’s see…

            black conservative = racist….
            white conservative = racist
            debt is surplus
            homosexual is gay
            killing your baby is a reproductive right
            killing a convicted murderer is immoral
            an illegal alien criminal is an undocumented immigrant
            take my gun and my defense, but hire armed bodyguards for yourself
            crow about Clinton “surplus”, silent on OBama debt
            Champions of free speech, unless its talk radio…
            Clean energy, but we’ll fight you every time you install a wind turbine
            Count every vote, except overseas military – they’re conservatives

            …and this kind of thinking makes you feel superior?

            …liberals are living, breathing, walking contradictions and yet have the temerity to call others “political imbeciles” because they have an opposing opinion.

            From what I can tell, you consider yourself to be a social and political elite, but don’t even know what you stand for. You have no moral position, except the one with your ass in the air for the government to penetrate any time it chooses, because you think the government knows what is best for you and don’t believe you are trading any of your God-given liberty for it.

            Not only that, but you believe that you and the government know what is best for ME also… And you will vote away your freedom and mine for a little bit of temporary and false security.

            You actually trust the government enough to give up your 2nd Amendment rights – this alone tells me that you have no understanding of history. Or of ambitious, corruptible men…

            Caesar would call you a coward. I think I would agree with him… and I would also add the more modern colloquialism – pussy.

          22. RobertCHastings March 31, 2013

            And you remain an illiterate potty-mouth, incapable of providing even the semblance of a reasoned argument. /what is it they told computer programmers – CICO?

          23. dtgraham March 31, 2013

            The guy has issues for sure but he shares those with too many of his fellow Republicans. He’s not unique.

          24. Mulligatonney March 31, 2013

            Again, you miss the mark, you flatulent fluke flogger..

            1. Communist – definitely not.
            2. Socialist – most assuredly no.
            3. Democrat – same as 1 & 2 above.
            4. Reublican – nah… they are not much better. Better, but haven’t shown much of late….

            Certainly not quite as “ubiquitous” as you think you are, yes?

            But certainly you are judgmental enough to surmise that I am a Republican. That’s what makes you a liberal. You think you know everything.

          25. RobertCHastings March 31, 2013

            He most certainly IS unique. Have you seen how cute he is when he gets angry? Oh, lordy, I just can’t stand how cute he is when he’s angry. And he just said something about being in the closet, or coming out of the closet, or something like that. I just hope he is wearing something spiffy when he does come out.

          26. Mulligatonney March 31, 2013

            Maybe I will be wearing your chapstick around my turgid member.

            Or worse yet – possibly I will finally announce that I am a closet democrat. That would explain your chapstick, anyway…

          27. Mulligatonney March 31, 2013

            You offer no reason or legitimate argument.

            The initial issue was simply the question of whether liberals get to define what are “desireable” slurs to use and which are not.

            If I told you that the term “redneck” was offensive to my great Aunt Polly and all of the people that inhabit Stearns County Minneapolis, where your pal, stcroixcrap, on this very website began the entire exchange – an “island of ignorance” in his own words – would you stop using it?

            Careful – your response may disqualify you from the next “progressive socialist” scrum..,

          28. RobertCHastings March 31, 2013

            Of course I wouldn’t stop using it, simply because you get so riled up over it, and, as you have been told before, you are just SOOOO cute when you are angry!

          29. Mulligatonney March 31, 2013

            I am a prophet.

            You just self-identified as the very thing you preach against. You must be a racist redneck.

            Victory is mine. Now, put on some more chapstick. It’s going to be a long night, and I am in the mood for punishing you.

          30. RobertCHastings April 1, 2013

            Everybody (except perhaps you) knows why turds are tapered. It’s so your a..hole won’t slam shut when you have a hangover. However, in your case, your BS is tapered, big at one end with Fox Newsspeak and small on the other end with facts, so it won’t set up a deafening echo in your skull when you stop talking. Game Set Match

          31. Mulligatonney April 1, 2013

            Another shining example of unoriginal liberal wit – but I am probably only half right.
            That particular “turd statement” has been around for 30 years or more. Butt, however antiquated, it is fitting that a liberal homosexual should employ its use. After all, you guys are the experts on the use and misuse of the butthole.
            Now your defeat is complete.

          32. RobertCHastings April 1, 2013

            Yo mama.

          33. RobertCHastings March 31, 2013

            And you don’t even come CLOSE to ceding error. Back to your ubiquitous name calling as a cover for your lack of vocabulary? You must be one of those “immigrants” you were railing against since it is apparent that whoever taught you English had success only with the name calling. The rest is rather sketchy. Logic is really shaky. And critical thinking is non-existent.

          34. Mulligatonney March 31, 2013

            And you must be one of those who is still trying to hide the fact that you are a closet heterosexual from your cross-dressing boyfriend.

          35. RobertCHastings March 31, 2013

            As a matter of fact …

          36. RobertCHastings March 30, 2013

            Amazing, simply amazing how you folks can morph “redneck” into “racist”. Must be on your mind an awful lot now that there is a black man in the “White” House. Talk about stupid arguments. Have you even read what you posted? I didn’t think so.

          37. Mulligatonney March 30, 2013

            …and who are “you folks”…?

            Liberal speak is a religion of constant contradiction. You can declare a living, unborn baby inside its mother’s womb “unhuman” and yet try someone who kills a pregnant woman with his car for double murder. You call criminals crossing into our country illegally “immigrants” and bestow gifts and benefits upon them that our own citizens don’t get. And then your president joins with 19 South American foreign nations in lawsuits against the very states whose laws he is sworn to protect on the side of the criminals. He declares himself a champion of the middle class even as he steals money from their take home pay as recently as January of this year.

            Your golden calf, Hussein OBama, calls 7trillion dollars of debt “progress” and “hope and change”… he said during his 2008 campaign that it was “stealing from our children’s future” and “treasonous”. Now, the debt is rising exponentially and he calls it progress. And his cult following of starry-eyed lemmings agree with everything he says, defend him when the evidence is obviously to the contrary, and follow him right over the cliff.

            You’re pissing all over yourself trying to hang on to some thread of superiority when clearly you have been defeated in open philosophical battle. You can defend your name-calling for an eternity. It simply singles you out as identical to those you rail against.

            And your long-legged Mack Daddy has you right where he wants you.

            You are actually defending your use of the term “redneck”. In so doing, you grant the eternal right to anyone who wishes to call you anything they want.

            It is not up to you to decide that it’s okay to call someone a redneck. If it is, it’s okay for him to decide to call you a nigger.

            Or even worse – a democrat or a liberal.

          38. RobertCHastings March 31, 2013

            You “folks” just seem to keep rehashing the same issues, going over and over and over them, like a broken vinyl record. The issues you broach above have already been dealt with; but I guess the pictures weren’t simple enough. I guess your word for the day is “exponentially”, which you don’t seem to have quite right. Have your English teacher explain it to you so next time you use it, it will be more appropriately applied.

          39. Mulligatonney March 31, 2013

            If I did need it explained to me, I certainly would not take your colossally stupid advice and seek out an English teacher. It would only be necessary to seek out an average mid-school math teacher… a fact which you are too intellectually challenged to comprehend, apparently…

            Meanwhile, you ignorant bastard – as to the issues you say have “already been dealt with” – who decided that? You?

            But then, that IS the problem, you see – you liberals think the issues are yours to decide by virtue of your “progressive and superior intellects and perceptions”

            You liberals who don’t know whether to seek out an English teacher or a math teacher. But you do know that redneck is not an offensive word.

            Pathetic miscreant…

          40. RobertCHastings March 31, 2013

            You are SOOOOcute when you get angry! And there you go again with one of those “you people” jeremiads.

      4. plc97477 March 30, 2013

        There is nothing wrong with calling someone a redneck. Where did you get the idea it was wrong?

        1. Mulligatonney March 30, 2013

          So – NO ONE takes offense at being called a redneck?

          This type of selective thinking is the very thing you liberals whine so adamantly against.

          Using your very words, I can now justify using the word “nigger”.

          Thank you. You have been of great assistance in helping me prove my point.

          1. RobertCHastings March 31, 2013

            Once again using those pejorative terms. I just don’t understand how you “folks” so easily complain to others about being called a generally derogatory term, and yet you bask in it yourselves. You need to brush up on your Logic, or were you asleep during that session?

          2. Mulligatonney March 31, 2013

            That was MY argument, you stupid bastard…

            You liberals are the ones who trumpet tolerance and political correctness… You should be horrified at your grievous mistake of using the slur “redneck” now that you have been notified that it is offensive.

            Your reaction would be completely different if all of a sudden your messiah Hussein OBama declared it an offensive word. You would soil yourself changing positions on your use of it.

            Logic is not a tool in your toolbox when you fail to make that connection. Every tool you get seems to go right into your ass or your mouth – because you are unable to discern one from the other.

          3. RobertCHastings March 31, 2013

            You’re SOOOO cute when you get angry!

    2. Gary C. Graves April 1, 2013

      You are right stcroixcarp Bachmann has a little trouble telling the truth, like Pailn can’t answer the questions asked, I thought a redneck is a person sunburned on the back of the neck, you might say I am a Democrat to.

  5. JDavidS March 29, 2013

    Instead of calling this piece “This Week in Crazy” why not just cal it “The Beck and Friends Corner”? We’ll all know what you mean.

    1. RobertCHastings March 30, 2013

      Great idea! However, it does seem to draw out some of our own crazies, like Mulligatonney.

  6. Andrew Rei March 29, 2013

    A couple of days ago, I changed Bachmann’s nickname from “B*tsh!t Crazy Bachmann” to “Guano-Loco Bachmann”….the new nickname means the same as the old, but it’s funnier to say and it doesn’t include the world “sh!t”….LMAO

    1. Allan Richardson March 29, 2013

      Besides, it acknowledges our linguistic debt to Hispanics.

  7. adriancrutch March 29, 2013

    See the thing in beck’s ear! It’s a audio-prompter to keep Beck’s spiel moving along and in case he farts and can’t remember what to say! Although farting would be more entertaining than just him alone.

    1. Allan Richardson March 29, 2013

      Actually, it reminds him to “inhale … exhale … inhale … exhale …” without which he would forget how to breathe and suffocate.

      1. plc97477 March 30, 2013

        Makes me wish for a malfunction.

  8. howa4x March 29, 2013

    Well you have to give the right wing some credit. They used to say the same things about Blacks, Jews, Irish, Italians, women and Native Americans, so just shows they are keeping up with the news and targeting Muslims instead. Funny how the right wing always needs a boogey man to point to. I guess they are so far out there that a distraction helps. Maybe a direct policy debate with out a straw man or jingles is way too above their heads

    1. Independent1 March 29, 2013

      My hunch is that even rational thinking is way above their heads.

  9. Lisztman March 29, 2013

    And… I presume all those Somalis that the STATE Department (?!) is relocating to Bachmann’s district are (voting) CITIZENS? Have Mr. Beck’s fact-checkers (ha-ha) asked any of the Somalis WHEN they moved there, and why, and who paid for their move? (And, if they’re citizens?) LMBO.

    Mr. Beck asks why, all of a sudden, is Ms. Bachmann being investigated for ethics violations. Perhaps, just perhaps, it’s because it appears that some of her policies and/or procedures are/were… ummm…. Duh! Unethical?

  10. Lisztman March 29, 2013

    Re the sink: All I can say is… wow.

  11. Kelly Cowan March 29, 2013

    Coo Coo for Cocoa Puffs!

  12. empiremed March 29, 2013

    Vice President Biden today is enjoying his third vacation of the year, a five day sojourn on South Carolina’s luxurious Kiawah Island, where he will no doubt partake of his favorite pastime, golf.

    Biden and his wife Jill arrived on the island – known as a golf mecca – Thursday night and are not scheduled to depart before Monday.

    Biden’s trip is the latest episode in a bout of rampant vacationing by the First and Second Families, who have been roaring out of Washington this year on taxpayer-funded excursions even as the deficit mounts and the sequester axes jobs and critical spending on other priorities.

    While both President Obama and Biden pick up some of the tab for their recreational travel, the bulk of the costs – including flights aboard Air Force One and Air Force Two and security and staff needs – are billed to taxpayers.

    Biden should feel especially refreshed when he returns given that he just had a vacation last month in Snowmass, Colorado, where he spent several days over President’s Day weekend. Close by in a neighboring section of Colorado’s ski country was First Lady Michelle Obama, who was taking her second vacation of the year in Aspen.

    Over the same President’s Day weekend, President Obama was roving the fairways at an exclusive golf resort in Florida where he got pointers both from Tiger Woods and Tiger’s famous former coach. He and Mrs. Obama had already spent part of late December and early January in Hawaii.

    Biden’s first trip this year was a sun worshiping exercise in the U.S. Virgin Islands, where he stayed with his family from Friday, January 4 until Tuesday, January 8.

    South Carolina is also a crucial presidential primary state that Biden – believed to be strongly considering a run in 2016 – no doubt has his eye on. Biden reportedly will be back in the state in May when he headlines the annual Jefferson Jackson Dinner, a Democratic fundraising event in the state’s capital, Columbia.

    But while his presence in South Carolina over the next few days will generate some local publicity, Biden is sticking to rest and relaxation and has no public events scheduled.

    1. merl1 March 29, 2013

      He should go on vacation and shoot an old man in the face like good VPs do. And we all know that when chickenGeorge Bush took his 3 years worth of vacations he rode a Greyhound Bus and slept in a pup tent, right, jackass?

      1. empiremed March 29, 2013

        “Sun Valley is known to be a getaway for celebrities and the First Family is no different,” reports KMVT.

        “In an exclusive photo obtained by Idaho’s First News, you can see the First Daughters, Malia and Sasha Obama skiing at River Run Thursday. The Sun Valley Ski Patrol confirms the girls were enjoying the wonders of the mountain. We also received unconfirmed reports the daughters were staying at Thunder Spring in Sun Valley.”

        Earlier, it was reported that the Obama daughters were at a resort in the Bahamas for Spring Break.

        Both reports could be true: The Obama daughters could have spent the first half of the week in the Bahamas, before leaving the sun for the Idaho snow.

        Meanwhile, the White House remains closed to the public, as the Secret Service is said to lack the funds necessary to keep the building open to all.

        1. RobertCHastings March 30, 2013

          And I seem to recall the daughters of the “family values” president, George W, being shown at a bar, leading their Secret Service agents around. That one sure provided good press for W. Oh, and lest we forget, he spent at least half of the time between his first inauguration and 9/11 ON VACATION. Obama’s closing of the White House to visitors is a practical budgetary move seeking to enhance the financial stance of the federal government, especially since all of the cuts the Ryan budget calls for have yet to be identified.

          1. empiremed March 30, 2013

            A reporter from Colorado asked White House spokesman Jay Carney how President Obama justifies “lavish vacations” and golf trips, and whether he plans to cut back:

            Bringing up high unemployment in minority communities and government furloughs, the reporter started, as well as “millions of Americans unemployed, and family budgets that have been cut. How does the president justify lavish vacations and a golf trip to Florida at taxpayer expense? And does he plan to cut back on his travels?”

            Carney responded, “I can tell you that this president is focused every day on policies that create economic growth and help advance job creation.”

            UPDATE: Here’s the full exchange:

            Q All right. I wanted to follow up on this young woman’s question about the high unemployment out in places like Colorado, all around the country, especially in the minority communities — exceptionally high unemployment. And when there is government workers who may be furloughed, millions of Americans unemployed, and family budgets that have been cut, how does the President justify lavish vacations and a golf trip to Florida at taxpayer expense? And does he plan to cut back on his travel?

            MR. CARNEY: I can tell you that this President is focused every day on policies that create economic growth and help advance job creation. We have presided over the past three years over an economy that’s produced over 6.3 million private sector jobs, and we have more work to do. And this President’s number-one priority is growth and job creation. When you come to —

            Q But it’s not working in the minority communities.

            MR. CARNEY: Well, the fact is unemployment has come down. It has not come down nearly enough. And what we need to do is embrace policies that advance job creation, make secure the middle class, and create ladders of opportunity for those who aspire to the middle class. We certainly do not need to embrace economic policies that shift the entire burden of deficit reduction onto senior citizens, middle-class families, Medicaid recipients. The proposal coming out of the House would slash Medicaid by a third.

            Q But it doesn’t affect inner-city jobs.

            MR. CARNEY: It doesn’t? You don’t think it does?

            Q No.

            MR. CARNEY: People who depend on Medicaid to help take care of their kids who are disabled. People who depend on Medicaid to take care of their parents who are in nursing homes. People who are not in the middle class but aspire to it, who depend directly on Medicaid. I think you need to examine what the Medicaid program actually does.

          2. RobertCHastings March 30, 2013

            My point, in case you missed it, was that Obama, like EVERY other president, takes vacations (yes, at taxpayer expense) and his are neither more nor less lavish than those of any others. Do you think Obama paid Woods to play golf with him? Why don’t you write a letter of inquiry to the President? He might actually enlighten you. He is very fond of reading and responding to correspondence from the people for whom he works, much more so than previous Republican presidents. Sounds like Carney’s responses were pretty direct and unequivocal, especially the one about Medicaid. Do try to remember that the current administration supports, fully, the mission and vision of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, unlike some of the President’s predecessors, because President Obama fully recognizes that such programs are, in many cases, all that people have to keep them going.

        2. plc97477 March 30, 2013

          I’ve been to Sun Valley and I am not even close to being a celebrity.

    2. Allan Richardson March 29, 2013

      You do know that elected officials reimburse the taxpayers for their families and personal friends who ride along, right? And considering that the cost of flying the plane is the same with or without “unofficial” passengers, and the Treasury is reimbursed at airline ticket rates, We the People make a profit when he takes his family, right? And you know that the President and Vice President are ON DUTY 24/7 anywhere they are, right? And W’s time clearing brush at his ranch while HIS war was going on was about three times as much, right? Oh you don’t know all those things? Must be because you only listen to Beck and Limburger!

      1. empiremed March 29, 2013

        First Lady Michelle Obama and her two daughters skied at a posh resort in Aspen, Colo., with the help of numerous instructors on private ski runs during Presidents Day weekend.

        While President Obama was golfing with Tiger Woods in Florida, Michelle — who brought along a few friends and daughters Sasha and Malia — headed to the slopes.

        They were given all-day private lessons with pro skiers from the Ski and Snowboard School of Aspen — a few instructors with the adults, and more with the kids, we’re told.

        Other Aspen sources told us the Obamas, surrounded by security, skied at Buttermilk Mountain, one of the peaks in the Aspen Snowmass resort, which includes the fearsome superpipe featured on the Winter X Games. But Michelle and her daughters stuck to the beginner “Panda Pipe” area.

        Getty Images

        First lady Michelle Obama and daughters, Sasha Obama and Malia Obama

        One witness told us, “Michelle was with two big groups and were in Aspen all weekend. Both girls were skiing, one in blue and one in a purple coat, and black pants. Michelle was in a navy ski suit. There were crowds of security guards dressed in black around them, all parked off the bunny slopes. Michelle and the girls were mainly going out each morning before the lifts opened.”

        We’re told some wealthy Aspen visitors were annoyed when “air space was blocked because of [the Obamas’] plane, so others couldn’t get their private jets in. Many people nearly didn’t land or had to be diverted.” We’re told the Obama family stayed at the home of Aspen Ski Company owners Jim and Paula Crown, who are big Democratic donors. Their security team occupied another entire house next door.

        1. RobertCHastings March 30, 2013

          And your point is, just exactly what? That the Obamas are taking vacations at public expense while the Bushs did NOT? Sorry, that dog don’t bark.

        2. Allan Richardson March 30, 2013

          And all you can do is REPEAT your initial post, and not address the “you do know” points that I brought up. Sounds like the guy trying to sell John Cleese the dead parrot on Monty Python’s Flying Circus … repeating the “pining for the fjords” excuse. Of course, you probably do not appreciate ironic humor enough to have seen this, but other readers of this blog will get the joke.

      2. empiremed March 29, 2013

        Michelle Obama recently revealed that she and President Obama don’t give Christmas gifts to each other. They merely say, “We’re in Hawaii,” and that’s Christmas gift enough.

        But actually the present is from taxpayers, and it’s an expensive one.

        The total cost to taxpayers of Obama’s vacations to Hawaii since becoming president is likely in excess of $20 million, and possibly much, much more. During a time of budget deficits that threaten the nation’s security and its future, the Obamas have chosen to maintain a “family tradition” and vacation halfway around the world instead of finding far cheaper alternatives closer to home.

        The $20 million figure is based on estimates of the cost of the four Hawaii vacations the Obamas have taken during Christmastime 2009-2012. According to a detailed breakdown by the Hawaii Reporter, the annual excursions in 2009, 2010, and 2011 cost about $4 million, much of it attributable to the expense of taking Air Force One, at an hour rate of about $180,000, on an eighteen-hour roundtrip journey to Honolulu and back.

        New Year’s Day, 2012

        But $4 million almost certainly underestimates the true tally, as it does not include many miscellaneous items like the cost of flying advance teams out to Hawaii and separate flights Michelle Obama took in 2010 and 2011, when she left ahead of her husband, who was forced to stay in Washington to finish up work with Congress.

        This year, Obama returned from Hawaii to complete a deal on the Fiscal Cliff and then jetted back to Honolulu, where he is now engaged in Part 2 of his vacation. The second roundtrip flight added about $3.24 million to the tab this time, bringing the cost of the 2012-1013 vacation to well over $7 million.

        If we assume the estimates are probably quite low, then it’s likely to the bill for the combined vacations is more than $20 million.

        Given that much of the cost involves transporting the First Family and its retinue, the Obamas could have saved taxpayers millions by doing what the vast majority of Americans do: taking either one trip a year, or none.

        The Obamas get plenty of vacation. They have sojourned every summer in Martha’s Vineyard except for last year, when campaigning and pre-election concern about appearances got in the way. They often take a side trip somewhere else during the year, and Michelle goes skiing annually out West.

        At the very least, they could spend their Christmas holidays at Camp David or at one of the many fine resorts outside of Washington, which would require only the use of the presidential helicopter to get them there.

        If they must find a warm haven, a rental home on the Gulf Coast, the Atlantic shore of Florida, or even Puerto Rico or the U.S. Virgin Islands could easily be arranged at a fraction of the price of getting to Hawaii.

        Some argue that Obama is justified in returning to Hawaii because that is where he spent his formative years. But how many of us get to go visit our roots for a two week vacation every year?

        The Obamas probably also feel they must go to Hawaii because they are creatures of habit. While there, they do the same things and visit the same places every year. But their allegiance to routine is costing the taxpayers – including those in the middle class Obama claims to care so much about – millions of dollars.

        1. dtgraham March 30, 2013

          Empire Medical huh. Republican spam from the medical insurance industry. You’ve seen Joe Conason on TV a lot lately and you figure we’re influential do ya? Well, we’re honoured at the National Memo in a perverse kind of a way.

        2. RobertCHastings March 30, 2013

          empiremed, please refer to my previous post regarding YOUR previous post. Thank you, and have a pleasant day.

    3. midway54 March 30, 2013

      Neither will match the vacation times of Junior Bush and the sainted Ronnie Reagan both in terms of the number and especially of the duration of each.

      1. Nora C Ostrander March 30, 2013

        President taking the most vacation days? George W. Bush with 1,020! Second was FDR who was elected four times!!! Those are the facts.

        1. RobertCHastings March 31, 2013

          George W may have been on VACATION for 1,020 days; but he was OUT-TO-LUNCH for 2,922 days! And that’s the fact!

  13. disqus_CmPS82g3vc March 29, 2013

    What really amazes me is the number of right-wing crazies who respond on this obviously liberal site! I suspect they’re all being paid by Rove and the Kochs–er, Pricks to monitor what liberals are saying about their “heroes.”

    To all you redneck yahoos like “Pussy” Mulligetonney (btw, it’s mulligetawney–unless your name is “Tonney”) and Germansmith (“Sieg Heil”), do you work for a living or does the far right stipend allow you to spend entire days monitoring liberal websites?

    I bet it was hard for the Pricks and Rove to find stooges like you who can read and write!

    1. RobertCHastings March 30, 2013

      It would be fun, and informative, were we to get on THEIR right-wing sites and interact with them, show some camaraderie, let them know we are thinking about them, you know. Try “The Rightscoop” or “The Daily Caller” (the site that was the source for the Sen. Menendez”sex scandal”. They do appreciate our comments, although frequently they can’t quite understand them.

      1. plc97477 March 30, 2013

        Maybe we should try using smaller words. That might help.

        1. RobertCHastings March 31, 2013

          And simple pictures- they seem to really enjoy simple pictures, like dogs humping— something. The really get off on that.

  14. Carl March 30, 2013

    If Bachmann is looking to identify Muslims in our government, she needs to look no further than the godfather of the Republican party, Grover Norquist.

  15. RobertCHastings March 30, 2013

    So glad they didn’t disappoint us this week. They need to start their own traveling act. Vegas has room for at least one more talking monkey act, and I am sure Branson, MO would welcome them with open arms. Their writers could keep late-night viewers in stitches,possibly even revive Jay Leno’s late-night career. I think some of these guys have writers who did skits for Johnny Carson. And some of the stuff is really reminiscent of Jerry Clower, or Moms Mabley. The big problem is, however, that they actually believe what they are saying. I wonder how they would react to some vintage George Carlin.

  16. Allan Richardson March 30, 2013

    Cheryl Courtney-Evans has it pegged. Rich Republicans in Congress, Statehouses, or the private sector have grown up never having seen a mop bucket sink, much less ever had to work at a menial job! Like the time Bush Sr. visited a grocery store and was amazed by the price scanner, since he and Barb never had to do their own shopping!

    But they think their policies will make America more prosperous. Here’s a clue from way back in Henry Ford’s day: you cannot make a country more prosperous by deliberately making a large number of its citizens LESS prosperous.

  17. progressiveandproud March 30, 2013

    Translation: Michelle is running scared of this investigation, she has seen an increase in her district of dark skinned people (Somalians!!!), therefore, there must be a government conspiracy to destroy her career.

    I swear to God, Hollywood comedy writers must be jealous of her imagination. They can only wish they were half as prolific.

  18. Lyn Judd March 30, 2013

    Michele Bachmann is under investigation because she is incompetent to represent her incumbents. Glenn Beck doesn’t understand this because he is a brain donor.

  19. exdemo55 March 31, 2013

    President Obama and his family this morning went to Easter Sunday services at St. John’s Episcopal Church in Washington, D.C. Here are notes on the Easter service from the pool reporter, which included this part, “It drives me crazy when the captains of the religious right are always calling us back … for blacks to be back in the back of the bus … for women to be back in the kitchen … for immigrants to be back on their side of the border”:

  20. exdemo55 March 31, 2013

    Easter Sunday is not a day of rest for the Democrats’ moneychangers. At least three top party officials dispatched fundraising emails Sunday in their bid to reach loyal Democrats in between church and Easter dinner.

    It’s just the latest sign that politics and fundraising have become as regular as shopping at Sears or Walmart, which also open on Easter.

    The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Sunday morning sent out an updated fundraising note from House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi that didn’t even mention Easter.

    “We could really do this! If we can hit 200,000 donations before tonight’s FEC deadline, it would send a blistering message to Speaker Boehner and the Republicans. Donate $3 before MIDNIGHT and your gift will be triple-matched,” said the email.


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.