Tuesday, April 26, 2016

Gimme That Old Time Fascism


I've been more than a bit disappointed in Paul Krugman as of late. His support of Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries makes no sense at all. What is more disturbing than that is the fact that, in the past twenty years, the man has been proven over time to be in the right on every single issue he's confronted. Why should this time be the exception to the rule? It's not too much of a stretch to think that maybe he knows something that I don't know. After all, he's a pretty smart fellow - but Hillary Clinton??? As I've stated on this site before, perhaps she'll surprise us. Perhaps Mr. Paul is in on her "secret plan". Maybe, but I'm not optimistic. Hillary leaves me cold; and there has been nothing in her campaign to change my mind on that score.

On some YouTube site this morning, a well-meaning but utterly clueless Sanders supporter claimed that "she is not the Democratic Party." This poor guy has missed the point entirely. The problem with Hillary Clinton is that she is the Democratic Party. She's one of the reasons I left the Dems eighteen years ago next month. With donkeys like her, who the heck needs those elephants?

They long ago forgot that they're supposed to be the party of FDR. They're not any longer. That's been the case for a very long time - we're takin' decades. Sherrod Brown and Elizabeth Warren are the exceptions. They've never been the rule. Perhaps that might change, but I'm not going to hold my breath. In the mean time we're forced to contend with the Hillary Clintons and the Chuck Schumers. I need a drink.

There is a growing fear out there that, if denied the nomination, Senator Sanders will mount a third party uprising. Relax. If Hillary ends up being the nominee, I'm certain he will urge all of us to get behind her. Bernie loves this country too well to do anything as despicable as that. Sad to say but, if nominated, Clinton will be the lesser of two evils - or as Ralph Nader might have said - "the evil of two lessers". Whatever the case, it's a given that she'll be (I think) preferable to anything the Republicans are likely to puke up (I hope).

What Me Worry?
But Krugman made a great point in a recent New York Times column regarding the Republican primaries and the current contest between Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. As indescribably horrible as a Trump administration would prove for this already-doomed nation (not to mention the entire planet) a "President Cruz" would be far worse. To be honest with you, I really don't think that that's gonna happen. Not even the American people are that completely naive. The problem is this: No sooner does that idea come to my mind when I'm hammered by the memory that this is the same thought I had sixteen years ago with regard to George W. Bush. The American people would never send this moron to the White House - or so I thought. They even ended up re-electing the guy. Ain't that something?

Are you ready for the punchline? So extreme are the current headliners in the GOP quest to take back the White House, Bush is starting to look like a moderate.

Wait! It gets even better! Ronald Reagan is starting to look like Abraham Freakin' Lincoln! Aren't these interesting times? They are, you know. They really are!

But Ted Cruz is something else indeed. This country would not survive a Cruz administration. I'm not saying that I would mind terribly much to see him inaugurated next January 20; in fact, it would be the best thing that ever happened to me - much in the same way that Dubya's reign of error suited my purposes quite nicely. When one's vocation is highlighting the utter destruction of a country that was (at one time) a nice place in which to live, something as completely weird and preposterous as old Ted makes one's task a bit easier to say the least. And let's face some irrefutable facts here: While we are descending steadily into the abyss, at least we can be comforted by the thought that we'll be laughing all the way. The guy is a riot of unintentional mirth.

I always pride myself on being able to find these little silver linings. It's a gift.

Ted Cruz is a dangerous dingbat and a demagogue of the first (and worst) order. Show me someone who would humorously speculate whether or not middle eastern sand would "glow in the dark" after a nuclear strike, and I'll show you someone who probably should not be placed within a thousand miles of the Oval Office. This is common sense, folks. I cannot believe that so many of our fellow citizens would believe that sending this chucklehead and sociopath to the White House would be a jolly good idea.

As the man once said, "Be careful what you wish for".

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
`
AFTERTHOUGHT:`
MY cousin, Patricia Cullen sent me a link a couple of days ago to this column from the New Orleans Uptown Messenger. The writer, a guy named Owen Courreges, makes no bones regarding the fact that he is vehemently opposed to the very idea of a fifteen-dollar-an-hour minimum wage. Here is my response in the comments section:
"You tell us that it is unfair to pay fifteen dollars an hour to "unskilled labor". I disagree. By your own admission prices would rise only "slightly" (your word). I don't know about you, but I would be delighted to pay fifty cents more for a Big Muck (not a typo) knowing that the person preparing it was receiving a wage he or she could live on. Or better still, maybe the corporate dynamos way atop the McDonalds food chain (pun intended) could take a pay cut of several million dollars. They would still be exceedingly wealthy men and women. Just a thought.
"And while we're on the subject of food, here's a little tidbit to munch on: In the states where "unskilled labor" earn the highest wages, those economies are doing much better than those where wages are the lowest - particularly in the old confederacy where (WHAT A COINCIDENCE!) Louisiana happens to be located.
"Your argument is riddled with examples of the utter futility of conservative thought. Wake up and smell the elephant dung, Owen.
"Raise the minimum wage to fifteen bucks per hour and watch your economy go through the roof. In countries like Norway and Sweden, fast food workers make the equivalent of $25.00 per hour and more. Last I checked (which was less than five minutes ago) those places are doing quite nicely."

Although I tried twice to post that message in the comments section, the Uptown Messenger refused to publish it. Cowards. Within less than an hour after I wrote it, I learned that the CEO of McDonalds has just given himself a three-hundred percent pay raise. Nice work if you can get it.

You can read Owen Courreges' article here:

http://uptownmessenger.com/2016/04/owen-courreges-if-the-fight-for-15-wins-expect-higher-prices-and-fewer-jobs/#comment-43250

It's only fair that I post  a link to it so you can judge for yourself:

91 Comments:

At 10:26 AM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

To the far Right fringe, Bush was "too liberal", so now we have the fascist/theocracy wing rising to the top of the Republican Party.

Hunter S. Thompson said Bill Clinton was the "Best Republican President" in modern history. Obama and Hillary are in line for continuing that tradition.

 
At 10:33 AM, Anonymous James Hansen said...

When you have Cheney himself praising Hillary you know she will be hell for this country.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-politics/8741148/Dick-Cheney-heaps-praise-on-Hillary-Clinton.html

 
At 11:30 AM, Blogger Chuck Morre said...

My advise is two fold,

"Start drinking heavily ". Bluto

And to not vote this election.

 
At 12:19 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just like most blogs these people (including the press) love and live in their own echo chamber and don't want to hear anything different from their own opinions. One reason they are highly edited is it just turns out to be a never ending argument and bitch session, like your comment section.

 
At 12:58 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

a never ending argument and bitch session

Welcome to politics.

 
At 1:03 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

NO Dave. Arguments and bitch sessions yes, but not never ending where nothing gets done. Welcome to the politicians thinking and the reason the Congress gets nothing don, and why their approval rating is in the single digits. But I can see where you are coming from since you are part of the never ending crap posted in Tom's comment section. Enjoy your hot air with the rest of them on this thread and every other thread on this blog.

 
At 1:05 PM, Anonymous James Hansen said...

The only reason there is so much arguing in politics is because the Conservatives are totally wrong! Once they realize that every thing will be fine.

 
At 1:31 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Anonymous offers criticism that lacks a point or example, not unlike the false equivalence of the favorite corporate media excuse that "both sides do it"?

As for "never ending crap", at least some of us provide documented sources to support our statements. Others do not, or source only shared opinions rather than evidence.

I don't mind criticism. I don't care if I'm called an obnoxious asshole. But I will not lie or deliberately deceive as done by the partisans of the far Right.

If Anonymous cannot discern the difference between reporting measurable climate science, and promoting a paranoid conspiracy theory of an international conspiracy of evil climate scientists, then he will forever be lost in a world he sees as "never ending crap".

If Anonymous cannot discern the difference between claims of an "American ISIS propaganda video" and calling out the fact it is untrue, then he will forever be lost in a world he sees as "never ending crap".

Shall I continue?

 
At 1:41 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You can wait til hell freezes over for your opponents to admit they are wrong and meantime get nothing done. The founders could not get the South to admit slavery was wrong, so they compromised (maybe because they were all slave owners also) and created a new government (got something done). Possibly they thought they could not fight a Civil war and a war for independence from Briton at the same time and win. The slave problem was left for another time and with the new Constitution had a legal standing to fight slavery. Still the South would not admit they were wrong, so over 600 thousand died to ensure blacks had Constitutional rights. Good luck getting nothing done while you wait for your opponents to agree with you.

 
At 1:46 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks for proving me correct Dave. Your unproven insults about me (like I deny climate change, a lie by you) is a perfect example of dishonest debate and continued division of people. And you wonder why nothing gets done, or why sides get farther apart. Assholes like you cannot live with any thinking but your own proving again why brick wall thinking idiots like you should be ignored why discussing serious problems of government.

 
At 1:50 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I never even brought up ISIS, or climate change, yet you KNOW what my position is on both issues. Laughable, but thanks for proving me correct again. By the way Mr. my superior thinking is the ONLY way things can be, I thought my example of slavery was a good one and proven by history. I await your next unfounded insult against me, to of course, continue your THINKING you are correct and everyone else is wrong. I needed a laugh today, thanks.

 
At 1:56 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Your unproven insults about me (like I deny climate change, a lie by you)

OK, I see Anonymous is similarly impaired in reading comprehension as Chuck.

"If Anonymous cannot discern..." isn't saying "Anonymous cannot discern".

Although he seems to not discern the meaning of "if" at this point.

"Assholes like you" And there it is. Thank you. Don't you hate it when assholes have your number?

 
At 2:02 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

I never even brought up ISIS, or climate change

Easy, sport. I didn't say you did. I was noting the differences between reality and Chuck's propaganda. You, that stuff you equate as "never ending crap".

Thin skinned today, are we? I won't waste any more time correcting one lacking in reading comprehension.

But I am delighted Anonymous is enlightened enough to oppose slavery. I am also delighted Anonymous is enlightened enough to not deny climate change, albeit he seems to believe that climate change denial and sourcing the science are the same "never ending crap".

What a crappy world to live in. Pity.

 
At 2:30 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"If Anonymous cannot discern the difference between reporting measurable climate science, and promoting a paranoid conspiracy theory of an international conspiracy of evil climate scientists"

You didn't bring up climate change?

"As for "never ending crap", at least some of us provide documented sources to support our statements"

And where is your documentation that I deny climate change Dave.

Enjoy yourself idiot. keep those name calling fights going asshole.

 
At 3:07 PM, Anonymous James Hansen said...

Anon, sorry but you do not know how to read or else you would not have an argument with Dave.

 
At 3:50 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You two word twisting, brick wall thinking, supremacists should learn how to write clear English instead of trying to say you meant something else. Now on with your childish, name calling, bickering.

 
At 6:41 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Enjoy yourself idiot. keep those name calling fights going asshole.

Wow. This thin-skinned, obtuse, projecting dullard has got to be "Anonymous Chuck". He's at the same level.

And like Chuck, all he does is attack individuals while never offering ideas or information.

If he isn't Chuck, he's just another dim bulb troll.

 
At 7:05 PM, Anonymous James Hansen said...

I just read Sanders has Elizabeth Warren on his short list for VP. Talk about a Liberal Dream Team! I assume she is agreeable which is a rebuke to Clinton who could use her support to get more Liberal votes. \

It most likely will not come to pass which is a shame but the average American is clueless about most subjects and especially politics.

 
At 7:44 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I quoted you jackass, you addressed anon (me) no one else. By by jackass

 
At 7:53 PM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

Make it three Anon, I think you misread Dave's statement too.

 
At 9:01 PM, Blogger Chuck Morre said...

Tom

What is your take on the 20% drop in voters in the Democrat primarys and caucuses 2008 vs 2016 ?
Clinton fatigue?
Are you concerned that if she wins that trend will continue in the general?
I have to admit that based on the reported support for Bernie I'm surprised in the large decline in voters
Must be GOP voter suppression ;)

 
At 9:58 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck, what is your take on Trump winning all five tonight? Are you concerned he'll win the nomination?

 
At 10:04 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

My advice for Chuck is two fold,

"Start drinking heavily ".

And to not vote this election.

You won't be alone. Lots of republicans have sworn they'll stay home if Trump wins the nomination.

Total votes so far

Clinton ——— 10.4 million
Trump ——– 8.7 mill
Bernie —— 7.7 mill
Cruz —— 6.4 mill
Rubio — 3.4 mill
Kasich — 3.2 mill

 
At 10:21 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


LOLGOP ‏@LOLGOP 4h4 hours ago
LOLGOP Retweeted POLITICO
Trump is like hockey. Pretending his appeal extends beyond drunk white men hoping for a fight is just a waste of ad $$.

5 hours ago
LOLGOP Retweeted LOLGOP
And if you're in a party that's about to nominate Trump, you can just assume you've been wrong about most things.


 
At 10:25 PM, Blogger Chuck Morre said...

Anony,
If you have been reading this blog for a while you know two things,

I don't engage in conversation with anonymous posters or posters whose name is not hyper linked,
And
Regardless of the party, I will vote for the most conservative candidate of the Demcorat or Republican Party

Tom,
Lower voter turnout in the Democrat primarys down by 20% vs 2012, why?

 
At 10:32 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Results for Rhode Island are 100% in.

Sanders and Hillary together got 119,000 votes. Trump got 39,000. Rafael (Ted) Cruz got 6,000

 
At 11:03 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Chuck Sore Loser asks: "Lower voter turnout in the Democrat primarys [sic] down by 20% vs 2012, why?"

There's always been a negligible correlation between turnout in the primaries and turnout in the general election, but keep fucking that chicken, Chuck, if it calms your nerves.

 
At 11:17 PM, Blogger Chuck Morre said...

I will leave having sex with chickens to transgender supporters.
It's a liberal thing, normal humans wouldnt understand it
Turn out in Democrate primarys is lower by 20% vs 2004. Must be voter suppression.LOL
And in NOV if the dem voters don't turn out just remember it started in the primarys.

 
At 6:35 AM, Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

Tom Degan: "You can read Owen Courreges' article here...

Good, I see Patricia C. posted for you. What's the matter, Tom?...you didn't show enough leg? ;-)

In defense of Owen, however, I noticed he's an attorney by day. He gets a pass for being a horse's ass.

 
At 10:44 AM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

Clucky keeps making up statistics (when he's not visiting Communist websites) and yet STILL can't tell us what conservatives have done for the poor and middle class the last 40 years.

So..given that they have done NOTHING for those people, WHY should anyone but the uber rich vote Republican?

THAT is the only REAL question, and everything else is just window dressing.

 
At 11:26 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Sore Loser Chuck's question about Democratic primary turnout is based on a falsehood. He keeps comparing 2012 to 2016, while ignoring the fact that the 2016 primary schedule is significantly different than 2012. The early Democratic primaries this year were in "red" states where there are less Democratic voters. But he has somehow convinced himself, and is trying to convince us, that for some unexplainable reason Democratic voters are staying home. Comparing the 2016 schedule to the 2012 schedule, SoreLoserChuck is being dishonest as usual.

 
At 1:22 PM, Blogger T. Paine said...

Tom, your take on politics is always amusing to me. I know that not all New Yorkers think as you do on this topic, particularly when one gets away from New York City, but I think the number of folks that differ from you are so few that the appearance of homogeneity on politics is assumed. Sadly, that homogeneity of New York progressive political opinion is entirely detrimental to the continuation of a free nation.

I guess in some ways nothing has changed in New York over the centuries. After all, they were the only state that didn't have instructions and had to abstain from the vote on our Declaration of Independence as a nation. Fast forward to today and New Yorkers still want dependence, but on a new tyrannical government instead. Give us free stuff or give us death! Right?

The fact that three of the four viable candidates for president wish to further expand government and continue to entrench the dependence of our people should horrify any American students of history. Instead, Mr. Degan rails against the only candidate, while imperfect, who would abide by the Constitutional law of the land.

Sanders is a self-avowed socialist that has never held a job outside of government who wishes only to further indebt and enslave our nation. Hillary is a dishonest and untrustworthy crook who should be in prison for her myriad of crimes against our country, most especially putting our nation's secrets in grave jeopardy through her use of a private email server.

And then there is the progressive Trump. Yeah, he is running as a Republican, but his history and values are all left-wing. Indeed, he is nothing more than a paler shade of Obama. If he gets the presidency, God help us all, we will simply have swapped one dictatorial president for another. We will have changed the platitude of "hope and change" for "make America great again". Neither man is capable of restoring America's strength and freedoms.

Meanwhile, we all yawn and are much more concerned with the passing of Prince than we are with the impending passing of our once great nation. It makes me very sad.

 
At 1:56 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Sanders is a self-avowed socialist that has never held a job outside of government


Ted Cruz went right from college into government.
Not a drop of experience with the holy Invisible Hand of Free Market Enterprise.
Well, his wife works for Goldman Sachs... does that count?

And then there is the progressive Trump.

A left winger in sheep's clothing! And he is your frontrunner. He beat the crap out of your deep bench. Rubio, Carson, Walker, Bush.

So if this country is full of right-thinking conservatives, with just a few commie-pinko states like Tom Degan's "free stuff" NY, why is "progressive" Trump the front runner? You would think Scott Walker would be leader of the pack. Are republicans so easily fooled?

 
At 2:32 PM, Blogger T. Paine said...

Evidently Republicans are indeed easily fooled. After all they voted for progressive Republicans for the GOP presidential nominee for decades: Bob Dole, George W. Bush, John McCain... and now evidently the hyper-progressive Republican Trump. We get the government we deserve. The fact that we don't pay attention to history, civics, and economics... let alone that archaic Constitution of ours, means that we will continue to drift towards tyranny.

Tom should be happy though... at least for awhile until the chickens come home to roost.

 
At 3:16 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

TP, with all due respect, let's see if we can learn anything about New York here.

New Yorkers still want dependence, but on a new tyrannical government instead.

The horror!! It is to your credit that you know what others want. Especially those who want a “tyrannical government”.

Would this include a government that starts wars based on lies, tortures suspects, and spies on its citizens? Somebody re-elected Bush, so that seems to be what Americans want.

Oh, wait. What am I thinking. That stuff has nothing to do with being a “tyrannical government”, especially when Republicans do it.

"Real Tyranny" is Constitutional regulation of commerce and taxation. Pity the poor suffering Kochs, gasping for the sweet air of liberty.

Give us free stuff or give us death! Right?

Ah, the famous “free stuff” card. That should settle the discussion. Right up there with the patented far Right “Commie Card” for liberals.

So are we to learn New York is a “taker state” wanting “free stuff” from all the good Americans in Republican and Southern states and such. Never mind they take more from the federal government than they contribute. New Yorkers foot the bill for several taker Republican states.

http://www.businessinsider.com/red-states-are-welfare-queens-2011-8#!IpqnG

Who really benefits from government spending? If you listen to Rush Limbaugh, you might think it was those blue states, packed with damn hippie socialist liberals, sipping their lattes and providing free abortions for bored, horny teenagers. . . .

As it turns out, it is red states that are overwhelmingly the Welfare Queen States. Yes, that's right. Red States — the ones governed by folks who think government is too big and spending needs to be cut — are a net drain on the economy, taking in more federal spending than they pay out in federal taxes. They talk a good game, but stick Blue States with the bill.


 
At 5:12 PM, Blogger Chuck Morre said...

No Mozart, I'm asking Tom ( and you if you can put two original ideas together) why the number of democrat voters in 2016 primarys is 20% less than in the 2004 primarys, for the same number of primarys held in the states?
What do you think has caused this large drop in Democrate votes?

The horror of socialism is it believes govt knows better how to spend the money you earned than you do.
The ultimate big bother nanny state.

Venezuela is a great example of how socialism (doesn't) works.

 
At 5:30 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Again with all due respect, , let's see if we can learn anything about the candidates here.

The fact that three of the four viable candidates for president wish to further expand government

I understand why this may be said of Hillary and Bernie. Trump hasn’t advocated expanding health care or any public safety net. Mr. Cruz has proposed additional law enforcement surveillance of Muslim communities. I’m pretty sure that counts to further expand government. Cruz would be happy to gut food stamps and public health care, so that should comfort our “liberty lovers” who see Constitutional provision of the general welfare as an evil form of tyranny.

Sanders wishes only to further indebt and enslave our nation.

When and where did Sanders express this dire and dark wish, one may inquire with a futile hope of answer. If one were to attempt to demonize an individual, this is the language to employ for that manipulative mode of discourse targeted to appeal to anger, resentment and hate.

Hillary is a “dishonest and untrustworthy crook who should be in prison for her myriad of crimes against our country.”

Be that as it may, in the former Constitutional democratic representative republic known as the United States of America, prison was punishment for those convicted of specific crimes.

In our Post-Bush times, criminal convictions are an inconvenience. This is why Bush claimed power to imprison people without charges or conviction.

So far, Hillary has not been convicted of a crime. And it’s not like Republicans haven’t been trying produce any charge, is it? So it seems former House Speaker and Republican rule maker, Dennis Hastert has been quite the dishonest and untrustworthy one with the serious legal and moral breaches.

So we can reasonably agree that dishonest and untrustworthy politicians have been at the levers of power. We can also note what some did with their power used to be crimes.

Seems it USED to be crime to lie to Congress, and the nation, to support unprovoked war of aggression. Waterboarding and other torture tactics USED to be a crime. Domestic warrantless surveillance by law enforcement and spy agencies USED to be a crime.

What was it Hillary did again? What crime shall we hang her, er, imprison her, for now?

“Evidently Republicans are indeed easily fooled”, except for Chuck, we presume?

The sad fact is most Americans HAVE been fooled. Did you know 70% of Americans believed Saddam was involved in 9-11, just before Bush got his war of choice going?

Oh, yes, it can happen here. And it is still happening.

Some of you are fooled by Big Oil's paid shills shrieking about a global conspiracy of evil climate scientists and their damn "socialist thermometers", or some such madness.

And that is just the tip of a very large, and thawing, iceberg.


 
At 7:51 PM, Anonymous Hillary's Lies Matter said...

We need Bernie to run as an Independent against the Greedy Croney Capitalist pig Hillary! amirite?

How many here will vote for the unqualified bitch if he doesn't?

I know Mozart will put a clothespin on his nose as he punches Hillary's chad. amirite?

 
At 8:09 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Meth: The Official Drug of the Republican Party

On Tuesday afternoon, Maricopa County sheriff’s deputies arrested Emily Pitha, an independent political consultant working for Senator John McCain’s re-election campaign, during a drug bust at her home in Phoenix, Arizona. Police made the arrest after her boyfriend signed for a package from the Netherlands containing more than 250 grams of MDMA.

A Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office spokesman, Detective Doug Matteson, said that detectives executing a search warrant at Pitha’s home discovered an active meth lab, along with unspecified quantities of LSD, cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, about $7,000 in loose cash, and counterfeit money.

“Also in the backyard were the beginning stages of a building they were building with a fake wall that would possibly to be used for growing illegal marijuana,” Mattheson said. According to KPHO/KTVK, the detective also alleged that there were bomb-making materials on the property.

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2016/04/its-good-news-for-john-mccain

 
At 11:21 PM, Blogger Chuck Morre said...

Wow, that news about a woman who was an independent consultant working for republican senator McCain sure changed my vote. I'm voting for Clinton for sure now
She wasn't a republican
LOL

 
At 7:00 AM, Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

Dave Dubya: "So are we to learn [from T. Paine, that] New York is a 'taker state' wanting 'free stuff' from all the good Americans in Republican and Southern states and such. Never mind they take more from the federal government than they contribute. New Yorkers foot the bill for several taker Republican states."

Dave, do you mean "takers" like this?

 
At 7:18 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...



Chuck laughs and says "She wasn't a republican"

Oh, I get it... because she works as an Independent consultant, Chuck somehow reads it as "she's not a republican, she's an independent."

Maybe she's a liberal democrat? I doubt it.

She previously worked for Ambassador Barbara Barrett, Senator Jeff Flake, and Senator Jon Kyl. All conservative republicans.


Also, I see Hastert was in court yesterday. During sentencing, he admitted to his crimes.

His victims got to read statements in court, including the sister of one of the (now deceased) victims. And the judge called Hastert a serial molester.

Here's what Hastert said in 2003: ‘Put repeat child molesters into jail for the rest of their lives’

He got 15 months.

Drug dealers, child molesters... tsk tsk.

 
At 7:39 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It was not only Paul Krugman, but Charles Blow, and the entire editorial board of the New York Times who took gratuitous potshots at Bernie Sanders for the sole purpose of enforcing the Clinton machine meme of inevitability. That is something the Times should be ashamed of every time they proclaim to be the epicenter of American progressivism. Thank you Mr. Sanders for unmasking these hypocrites, particularly Charles Blow, who today (April 28, 2016) writes that the progressive movement is not dead. Such two-faced irony should be condemned by all true progressives.

 
At 2:47 PM, Blogger T. Paine said...

"That is something the Times should be ashamed of every time they proclaim to be the epicenter of American progressivism."

Wow... some unintended candidness. Does anyone recall a time when newspapers actually reported the news with at least a semblance of objectivity? Now most major newspapers always have a progressive slant in what they report and what they fail to report. So much for being the "fourth branch of government" to look out for We The People. Instead, the news media has become cheering sections for the most progressive elements of government. And that damned fool Paul Krugman is the worst of them all. My dog is a better economist than that damnable fool.

 
At 3:04 PM, Blogger Chuck Morre said...

T Paine
Right on!

 
At 4:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wouldn't call the New York Times a progressive newspaper. They were the biggest cheerleaders for George W.'s Iraq war. Tom Friedman, Judith Miller, and the rest of the editorial board. They all supported Cheney's folly.

Does anyone recall a time when newspapers actually reported the news with at least a semblance of objectivity?

No. The Hearst papers always pushed a certain agenda. Of course Rupert Murdoch put his personal stamp on every one of his "news"papers. The New York Post is predictable. And newspapers always make presidential endorsements.

Most major news outlets follow the corporate model. They don't raise the important questions, they dance around them.

Is Roger Ailes an objective news man?


Note to Chuck: "Power to the people, right on!"

 
At 4:54 PM, Blogger Chuck Morre said...

TP

Just read that Obama is the first President in history to not see one year of 3.0% growth while in office.
His average will be, if he's lucky, 1.55 ( Reagen's average was 3.55 GDP).
Is Obama is up for the Noble Prize in Economics?

 
At 5:03 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hmmm...

Fox's Varney Dubiously Claims US Is "Sliding Toward Recession" After Economy Grows Slightly Less Than Expected
Stuart Varney: "It Is Legitimate To Use The Word Recession" Despite Seven Consecutive Quarters Of Economic Growth

Fox Business host Stuart Varney misleadingly used the Commerce Department's most recent economic growth estimate to claim the United States is "sliding toward recession." In reality, there are many reasons to believe economic activity will pick back up in the spring and summer this year.

On the April 28 edition of Fox Business’ Varney & Co., Varney used the Commerce Department’s quarterly GDP report, which estimated economic expansion to be 0.5 percent in the first three months of 2016, to claim America is “sliding toward recession.” Guest Julie Roginsky attempted to correct Varney's characterization of the economy, explaining that the United States' economy is still growing and has created nearly 15 million new jobs over the course of “73 consecutive months of job growth,” but she couldn't budge the host from his talking points.

 
At 5:13 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...


With all due respect, let's see if we can learn anything about news media.

The voices from the far Right insist newspapers and broadcast media are "cheering sections for the most progressive elements of government". So how "Right on!" is this statement?

The Right will ignore certain media facts. Today's corporate news media are owned by a small number of corporations. A very large share of it is owned by Murdoch’s Right Wing News Corp; Fox News, Wall Street Journal, etc.

"Liberal media" is the far Right's highly misleading term for corporate media. Unlike in the past, the news divisions are used for profit generation. Much has changed from the public service requirement of airwaves and print news.

Corporate media serve their bottom line, not liberal ideology. Their bias is always in favor of their corporate owners and advertisers. Always. They support the status quo because the status quo supports them. Always.

Corporate media run stories the Right doesn’t like, so it is accused of bias against them. They ignore the fact the same corporate media virtually parroted Bush and Cheney’s Saddam/al-Qaeda ties, “nukular aluminum tubes, and WMD lies as news.

Does anyone recall a time when newspapers actually reported the news with at least a semblance of objectivity?

I recall President Eisenhower.

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1957/8/1/are-our-nations-newspapers-biased-pin/

…according to Editor & Publisher's poll of the nation's newspapers, in terms of circulation 80 percent of the papers sold daily editorially backed Eisenhower, 11 percent supported Stevenson and 9 percent were uncommitted; of the weekly papers 75 percent favored Eisenhower, 20 percent Stevenson, with the others undecided.

I also recall when most American newspapers endorsed George W. Bush in 2000.

https://www.gwu.edu/~action/natendorse5.html

Even after the debacle in Iraq Editor&Publisher found that 213 daily newspapers endorsed Kerry and 205 daily newspapers endorsed Bush in 2004.

https://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/cands/natendorse5.html

Perhaps those who recall differently also recall "Leave it to Beaver" as a black and white documentary of American life.

 
At 5:26 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...




When specifically asked his opinions on Ted Cruz, Boehner made a face, drawing laughter from the crowd.

“Lucifer in the flesh,” the former speaker said. “I have Democrat friends and Republican friends. I get along with almost everyone, but I have never worked with a more miserable son of a bitch in my life.”

 
At 8:02 PM, Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

Dave Dubya: "Perhaps those who recall differently also recall 'Leave it to Beaver' as a black and white documentary of American life."

Gee, Wally, don't you think you're being a little hard on Mr. Paine? I mean, golly, it's not his fault he doesn't understand that six corporate conglomerates (Disney, CBS Corporation, News Corporation, Viacom, Time Warner, and Comcast) own the majority of mass media outlets in the United States. How can he, Wally, if he only bases his viewpoints on what those six tell him?

"Inverted totalitarianism", as coined by political philosopher Sheldon Wolin, explains this aspect of media consolidation succinctly and accurately, and you and I have discussed this concept many times.

When do you suppose conservatives will leave their outdated notions of "liberal media" back in the '50s and '60s, and start to see the world as it has actually become?

 
At 11:06 PM, Blogger Chuck Morre said...

Even Hillary is saying the economy sucks, thanks Obama.

 
At 11:55 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Even Hillary is saying the economy sucks, thanks Obama.

Yeah, thanks Obama, for ruining the thriving economy that Bush left you, amirite?

 
At 12:44 AM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

"Even Hillary is saying the economy sucks, thanks Obama"

Maybe if your GOP heroes had HELPED instead of obstructed?

Another example of conservatives not giving a shit about the poor and middle class. In fact, it is their goal to ELIMINATE the middle class.

Also more examples of Clucky having no original thoughts.

 
At 12:46 AM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

"Is Obama is up for the Noble Prize in Economics?"

No, but he got his Nobel PEACE prize, probably for allowing conservatives in congress to live.

 
At 3:55 AM, Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

Anonymous: "Most major news outlets follow the corporate model. They don't raise the important questions, they dance around them."

Very good, except for one important detail. Replace the word "most" with the word "all" and your statement is one-hundred percent right on the money. (Pun intended) That's how the modern version of fascism thrives.

"While the versions of totalitarianism represented by Nazism and Fascism consolidated power by suppressing liberal political practices that had sunk only shallow cultural roots, Superpower represents a drive towards totality that draws from the setting where liberalism and democracy have been established for more than two centuries. It is Nazism turned upside-down, 'inverted totalitarianism.' While it is a system that aspires to totality, it is driven by an ideology of the cost-effective rather than of a 'master race' (Herrenvolk), by the material rather than the 'ideal.'" ~~~ Sheldon Wolin

No matter how you slice it or dice it, it's still totalitarianism, and it's still fascism. It's contemporary America, and it has been for awhile.

 
At 7:27 AM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

Meanwhile, conservatives go batshit nuts over who will use what restroom, while ANOTHER of their own gets a mere 15 months in "Club Mad" for raping young boys. Not only that, but 41 prominent Republicans wrote strong letters to the judge asking for leniency

Welcome to the "family values" party.

 
At 7:28 AM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

Club Med

 
At 9:33 AM, Blogger Chuck Morre said...

George Orwell wrote in 1944 that "the word 'Fascism' is almost entirely meaningless ... almost any English person would accept 'bully' as a synonym for 'Fascist'". Richard Griffiths said in 2005 that "fascism" is the "most misused, and over-used word, of our times". "Fascist" is sometimes applied to post-war organizations and ways of thinking that academics more commonly term "neo-fascist".

Contrary to the popular use of the term, Communist states have sometimes been referred to as "fascist", typically as an insult. Marxist interpretations of the term have, for example, been applied in relation to Cuba under Fidel Castro and Vietnam under Ho Chi Minh. Herbert Matthews, of the New York Times asked "Should we now place Stalinist Russia in the same category as Hitlerite Germany? Should we say that she is Fascist?" J. Edgar Hoover wrote extensively of "Red Fascism". Chinese Marxists used the term to denounce the Soviet Union during the Sino-Soviet Split, and likewise, the Soviets used the term to identify Chinese Marxists and social democracy (coining a new term of social fascism).

One common definition of the term focuses on three concepts: the fascist negations of anti-liberalism, anti-communism and anti-conservatism; nationalist authoritarian goals of creating a regulated economic structure to transform social relations within a modern, self-determined culture; and a political aesthetic of romantic symbolism, mass mobilization, a positive view of violence, and promotion of masculinity, youth and charismatic leadership. According to many scholars, fascism—especially once in power—has historically attacked communism, conservatism and parliamentary liberalism, attracting support primarily from the far right.


JG, what are your thoughts about the above taken from Wikipedia? Do you see any similarity between Fascism and Socialism? What is interesting is both are anti conservative. I ask because it has been a common throw down used by socialist to call those they oppose "fascist ", while ignoring the commonality between all forms of government that has as one of its goals the control of the economy.

 
At 10:44 AM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

"...attracting support primarily from the far right."

Indeed, this is what we've been saying all along.

What would Chuck have to say about this quote from the same piece? Probably nothing. It requires reflection.

Some scholars consider fascism to be right-wing because of its social conservatism and authoritarian means of opposing egalitarianism. Roderick Stackelberg places fascism—including Nazism, which he says is "a radical variant of fascism"—on the political right, explaining that, "The more a person deems absolute equality among all people to be a desirable condition, the further left he or she will be on the ideological spectrum. The more a person considers inequality to be unavoidable or even desirable, the further to the right he or she will be."

The promotion of equality is where fascism and socialism cannot mix. De-regulated capitalism on the other hand, promotes inequality. Only Constitutional taxes, regulation of commerce, and provision for the general welfare, aka socialism, can be the vital balancing force against the dominant political power of economic elites.

 
At 1:42 PM, Blogger Chuck Morre said...

Davy,
I'm going to respond to you knowing I run the risk of you putting words into my mouth, and claiming I'm this or that.
We will see how you handle this.

I disagree with the very foundation of your argument and that is your perversion of the word "equality". All are created equally in the eyes of God,( if you believe in him) hence my opposition to abortion. BUT there is no equality in humans IQ, any more than there is equality in different humans vision( not every body has 20/20) or hearing, etc. Socialism or any economic governance can not change that.

All persons regardless of their race, wealth, sex, etc under conservatism are treated equal and are given the same equal chance to succeed or fail, again and again. Under conservatism there are no set asides of afirmative action, nor should there be any govt bail outs of corporations. Under our Constitution govt is supposed to be limited and individual liberty expanded. This is not the case under liberalism, socialism or fascism. These forms of governance operate for the benifit of the govt and it's internal ruling class to the determent of the individual. They assume the govt is best suited for determining what is greater good. And in order to do this they must take Liberty from the citizen under the guise of they know what's best for you.

How is your(socialist) view of corporations and how they should be treated any different than under fascism? Socialism and fascism both control business and how the population spend their earnings. How, by limiting market choices via price and taxation and by limiting competition. With conservatism, the market decides . Liberty grows and the success of the indivual is only limited by their skills, and work ethic.
Now, JG and Davy what are your views on my orginal post?

 
At 2:22 PM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

Clucky sure seems to spend time on Communist websites.

He never mentions Dennis Hastert, the duggars or "Subway Jared"

ANd he STILL cannot tell us what conservatives have done for the poor and middle class the last 45 years.


But he can "cut and paste" with the best of em. No original thoughts. Always quoting someone else, Usually a Communist.

 
At 2:31 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Re: Chuck's original post:

"...attracting support primarily from the far right."

Indeed, this is what we've been saying all along.

OK?

I run the risk of you putting words into my mouth, and claiming I'm this or that. I disagree with the very foundation of your argument and that is your perversion of the word "equality".

This is projection. Chuck just put the words of Stackelberg in MY mouth, so to speak, calling them “Your argument” and “your perversion of the word equality”.

Chuck misread the point posted, that fascism is based on inequality and is right wing.

Chuck fulfills the statement, “The more a person considers inequality to be unavoidable or even desirable, the further to the right he or she will be."

Under our Constitution govt is supposed to be limited and individual liberty expanded. This is not the case under liberalism, socialism or fascism

But that facts say Conservative Republicans do not want women to have equal rights as men. Conservative Republicans do not want minorities to have the voting rights and representation they’ve had in the past. They impose restrictions on registration and voting rights for demographics that don’t vote for their party.

And everyone know there’s no equal treatment under the law for the poor and the rich. Poor guys don't get the best lawyers or go to "country club prisons".

These forms of governance operate for the benifit of the govt and it's internal ruling class to the determent of the individual.

Is he really making the case that food stamps, Medicare and Social Security do NOT benefit individuals?

They assume the govt is best suited for determining what is greater good.

And just who are “they”? Can he quote anyone at all saying this? Even if he could, he would still be imposing the famous far Right double standard. Who agreed that the govt. was best suited for determining to take us to a war of choice in Iraq?

Mostly conservatives.

Is the entire philosophy of conservatism that only war and law enforcement are government obligations for the “greater good”? It seems so. They certainly oppose our Constitutional taxation, regulation of commerce and provision for the general welfare as having anything to do with the greater good.

Food stamps for hungry kids are NOT for the greater good? How is that possible unless one embraced inequality?

With conservatism, the market decides .

Ah, their almighty god and ruler of the earth, the holy, pure and infallible “Market”. Yes it decides to sell worthless mortgage backed securities and credit default swaps and sends us to depression and recession. It also decides to swindle customers, retirees and investors. And cons want their sacred Market to regulate itself. The Mafia also loves to let the “market decide” their business ventures too. Laws and regulations are very bad for business, amirite?

Great idea.

 
At 3:12 PM, Blogger Chuck Morre said...

Davy you and Mozart never surprise me with your stereotypical responses to anything I post.
Ya yad yad yad yad
What is better for the greater good is the private sector having the heel of govt taxation and govt regulation off its neck so it can create the jobs that are lacking and therefore reducing the highest number of Americans ever to be on welfare. That's what a recovery looks like, not increasing the welfare rolls but reducing it via the private sector. Something a socialist and honestly a communist would both be opposed to. You want the money corporations to return from overseas and to be taxed at the highest Corp rate in the world? This when record levels of taxes are being collected? Do you really believe spending more on socialism is going to improve the unemployment level?
Hey Mozart, why are you running from the truth about Obama's failed economic track record? The 4th worse in our history, the first president to never have grow rate of economy go above 3% while in office, the doubling our our debt while receiving record tax revenues and you stupidly claim it's the GOPs fault for not having spent more? Record numbers of Americans not working, and you claim it's because the GOP didn't allow Obsma to spend more? Policys that allow the highest number of illegals ever to come and stay under Obama, and not a word from you sycophants? And branding anyone who points these facts out as racists, fascists or nazis par for the course. Just as your responses make clear, and just like you want obamacare to fail, you only believe in the power of big govt and don't give a damn whay that power costs in human lives.
Look it up for yourself, in the last 100 years how many humans has socialism murdered? The Soviet Socialist Union Republics murdered 60 million of their own in less than a hundred years by starvation due to failed socialist programs and out right murder to strengthen the government's control . How many of China's population were murdered by their socialist plans? Another 60 million, or more?
Only a socialist fool would believe as you two do. One of you has posted America is already socialist, then why are you so unhappy with things? You've got your heaven on earth now, why would more of same make it better instead of worse?

You claim people are tired of the same ideas and yet you support the ideas put forth by a 74 year old socialist who has been in congress for 23 years! And according to Hillary the economy sucks, after 8 years of her party having the White House.

 
At 5:38 PM, Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

Upchuck More: "JG, what are your thoughts about the above taken from Wikipedia? Do you see any similarity between Fascism and Socialism?"

I enjoy discussions, but I don't like monologues. I've answered all of your questions on Tom Degan's last few posts truthfully and thoughtfully, however I'm getting the distinct impression that you don't feel inclined to answer mine -- or those of anyone else -- if you think you're going to be challenged or compromised on your own hard-and-fast stances.

With those conditions in mind, please go back to the previous post and answer the question I asked of you at 5:50 PM -- and asked again at 7:35 AM. Here, I'll save you the trouble and I'll ask you a third time: Would you agree that we live under corporatism in the United States today? If not, why not?

Your cooperation, not to mention genuine civility, is always appreciated.

 
At 5:58 PM, Anonymous James Hansen said...

Chuck stated years ago he would answer Liberals questions "When Hell freezes over" and he has for the most part kept his word. It is a good policy because he can hide his ignorance better that way.

Since my name is not in blue he has to keep ignoring me, I love it!

 
At 9:45 PM, Blogger Chuck Morre said...

JG and your positions aren't hard fast?

 
At 9:50 PM, Anonymous James Hansen said...

My computer models show that the ice caps will be gone by the end of May 2016 due to man made global warming.

I have started building a big boat in my backyard which will hold as many animals as possible when the big flood comes.

I just want to say that the end of earth is near.

The sea is rising and the sky is falling! Bwaaaaack buck buck! Bwaaaaack buck buck!

 
At 11:46 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

We see it took 5 minutes for Chuck to add a post posing as James Hansen. What. An. Asshole.

What is better for the greater good is the private sector having the heel of govt taxation and govt regulation off its neck

More anti-Constitution dogma from the far Right. The Great Bush Recession proved tax cuts for the rich and de-regulation are the true failures.

how many humans has socialism murdered?

Zero.

Authoritarian Dictators murder. War mongers Bush and Cheney murdered thousands of Iraqis and Americans in a crony capitalist war of choice based on lies.

Socialism feeds humans and provides medical care. De-regulated capitalism creates inequality and profits from war.

How many millions of innocent people were killed by the US military in wars of choice? Still counting.

 
At 12:08 AM, Blogger Chuck Morre said...

Again as predicted Davy accuses me of posting or stealing Mr Hansen's name,
What an authoritarian ass wipe!

 
At 12:09 AM, Blogger Chuck Morre said...

Head up your as much Davy, zero, really?

 
At 1:00 AM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

The Troll doth protest too much, methinks.

 
At 7:36 AM, Anonymous Saul Alinsky said...

RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

 
At 8:00 AM, Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

Upchuck More: "JG and your positions aren't hard fast?"

I'm still awaiting a reply. This is my fourth request: Would you agree that we live under corporatism in the United States today? If not, why not?

From your silence, I can only surmise that you agree. Thank you for justifying my thankfulness I'm a liberal.

 
At 8:05 AM, Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

Dave Dubya: "Authoritarian Dictators murder."

So true -- it isn't the economic system, per se, but rather those directing it.


"War mongers Bush and Cheney murdered thousands of Iraqis and Americans in a crony capitalist war of choice based on lies."

Great example!

 
At 9:22 AM, Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

Tom Degan: "Gimme That Old Time Fascism"

As opposed to the "new style" fascism?

Read Wolin's Democracy, Inc. Learn where we are, and how we got here. Learn where we're going.

 
At 11:12 AM, Blogger Chuck Morre said...

Methinks you are a socialist ass hole, Davy.

 
At 11:13 AM, Blogger Chuck Morre said...

JG,
Thousands = millions? Only in socialists math.

 
At 11:17 AM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Methinks you are a socialist ass hole, Davy.

I love it when Chuckie flatters me by imitation. (It's easier than thinking for himself, and we know he's intellectually lazy.)

 
At 12:15 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Grand Imperial Wizard (GIW) of the Rebel Brigade Knights of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) endorses the GOP frontrunner:

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/04/a-lot-of-what-he-believes-we-believe-kkk-grand-imperial-wizard-endorses-trump/


“I think Donald Trump would be best for the job. The reason a lot of Klan members like Donald Trump is because a lot of what he believes in, we believe in. We want our country to be safe.”

The GIW says that President Obama has been good for his organization. “He has been a very good recruiting tool for this organization. And it’s not because he is black. We are more political than racial.”

Gee, just like “not racist”, and more political, Trumpie Chuckie, amirite?

 
At 4:57 PM, Anonymous Harry from Wallingford, CT said...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/venezuela-energy-economy-political-crisis-1.3555192

Venezuela at risk of unravelling as economic, energy turmoil deepens

A devastating drought has brought Venezuela, already facing economic and energy crises amid simmering political unrest, to the brink and threatens the future of the oil-rich nation.

"Simply put, a natural disaster is making a man-made disaster much worse," said Donald Kingsbury, a professor of political science and Latin American studies at the University of Toronto.

The "man-made disaster," in this case, is a heavily petroleum-dependent, state-run economy gutted by the precipitous drop in crude oil prices.

Inflation will reach 720 per cent some time this year, the International Monetary Fund estimates, and the economy will contract another 10 per cent. Food staples and essential medicines are increasingly scarce. The costs of basic goods and services has skyrocketed. Incomes, for those lucky enough to still have one, are stagnant.

Further, crime rates have reached troubling levels. Venezuela now boasts the world's second-highest per capita homicide rate after Honduras.




Socialism at its finest. When you let "progressive" pinhead central planners run your economy and put all your eggs in one basket, oil in Venezuela's case, this is what happens.

 
At 5:14 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

When ChuckSore Loser gets tired, "Harry" appears.

Harry, would you like to move to Israel? Universal, compulsory healthcare. And their fast food workers are unionized. Quite the social safety net. A socialist hell hole, right? Should we boycott them? Pick any of your aliases to reply, they're all good.

How are things at the USO? Do they say "thank you" when you pour their coffee? What a good man you are.

Sometimes you have trouble spelling correctly. I suspect it's when you've been drinking. Bottoms up, Chuck!

 
At 5:35 PM, Anonymous Harry from Wallingford, CT said...

Show some balls anonymouse at 5:14PM and post with a name.

Saul Alinsky would be proud of you by attacking those who don't believe in Marxism.

There is more than 1 non-Marxist poster on this blog. Too bad your skull is too thick to figure it out.

Will you be pulling the lever for Hillary now that the old white guy Bernie with a big foaming mouth who rants about giving free stuff to all the slackers is history?

The Clintons are Greedy Crony Capitalist pigs. Put a clothespin on your nose as you pull the lever. She really stinks! amirite?

 
At 5:49 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Harry" this country is moving so far to the left you won't recognize it. Even a wingnut like you throws around words like "greedy crony capitalist pigs" LOL. You sound like Abbie Hoffman.

Enjoy your GOP convention. Who will it be: Rafael Cruz or the Donald?

 
At 5:57 PM, Anonymous Harry from Wallingford, CT said...

Whats funny JG is you don't have the balls to post under that slave holders name. amirite?

9/11 is still an inside job you mentally disturbed anal retentive spell checking dick head?

 
At 6:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

LOL

Drink up, Sore Loser. And don't forget the popcorn. Your GOP convention will be quite the show. Lots of republican "lawmakers" won't even be showing up, they're too embarrassed.

Hold your nose and vote for the Donald. If he beats Hillary, we'll have a centerfold first lady.
Something for you to pull your dick to.

 
At 8:45 PM, Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

Now we know the reason Chuck's voting for the Donald! ;-)

 
At 8:54 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Now we know the reason Chuck's voting for the Donald! ;-)


He's been pulling for the Donald every since Rubio dropped out.

Good thing ChuckHarrySoreLoser's getting social security. Tweezers aren't cheap.

 
At 9:08 PM, Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

Anonymous: "He's been pulling for the Donald..."

I told you he was "bipolar"... LOL

 
At 12:38 AM, Blogger Chuck Morre said...

Davy,
Who pays for all that free stuff socialism gives away?

 
At 6:25 AM, Blogger Amicas Curia said...

not a drink, a dance

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home