Sunday, April 05, 2015

Why Hillary?

For the history books:

41. Bush
42. Clinton
43. Bush
44. Obama
45. [Fill in the blank]

It's nearly certain that number 45 will read either Clinton or Bush. Do you have any idea how idiotic we're gonna look to future generations? I have a really good idea.

The Democrats would be wise to exhibit a bit more caution in what they publicly wish for. A little food for thought.

Tyrone Power 1914-1958
Many years ago there lived an actor named Tyrone Power who was active in Hollywood for a little over twenty years. He was just a bit before my time. When I was a day shy of three months old, he collapsed and died of a massive heart attack on location in Madrid, Spain while filming a sword fight scene with fellow actor, George Sanders. He was only forty-four years old.

Orson Welles once said of James Cagney, "Every moment of Cagney is truth." By comparison, every moment of Ty Power was contrived. In fact, I've never been able to understand how he was able to survive in Hollywood for as long as he did. To his many fans and his heirs: I'm sorry but the guy couldn't act his way out a decomposing burlap sack. We're talking mucho lousy! There's a dandy reason why his name is not remembered today as reverently as Gable's, Bogie's or Tracy's. In every performance by Tyrone Power I've ever witnessed, he has all the conviction of the most popular Sophomore in the lead of a high school play. 

It's a little unsettling how I get the same feeling from Tyrone Power's acting that I do whenever I watch Hillary Clinton on the stump. 

The "party of FDR"?
If you want a perfect illustration for why I left the Democrats almost two decades ago, you'd be hard-pressed to come up with a better example than the entire "Hillary phenomena". As of this date she is virtually unopposed by any other Democrat as she prepares for what is obviously a long-planned run for the big house on Pennsylvania Avenue. The question that is screaming to be posed is this one: Is this the best that the "party of Franklin Delano Roosevelt" can come up with? True, she's light years better than anything the Republicans will be able to puke up in the substance department, but why settle on her? Are the Clintons so all-powerful that there is no one out there in the Democratic landscape who is able to muster up the courage to challenge them? Are they that gutless?

I understand that there are a lot of people (myself included) who would like to see a second, culture-shattering precedent established next year by electing the first woman as president of the United States. To go straight from the first black dude to the first gal is indeed tempting - no argument there - but Hillary is not the one for me. In fact, she's not even a close second. 

One has to wonder about the Dems these days. The situation is bleak everywhere you look - at least as far as the progressive cause is concerned. When I learned that Chuck Schumer (the gentleman from Wall Street) was in serious consideration for the role of Senate leader, replacing the retiring mannequin, Harry Reid, it seemed to me to be a classic case of jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire. With Democrats like these guys, who the heck needs Republicans? Why is it that the party that was redefined generations ago as being the party of "Progress" has forgotten their roots? Is it any wonder that so many of us are becoming more apathetic with each passing year?

If the Republicans end up nominating someone with an IQ above room temperature - in other words the type of candidate that doesn't appeal to the typical primary voter in the South and Midwest - you can bet everything you own on the fact that the Tea Party knuckleheads will bolt the GOP and start a third party uprising. That would be a wonderful thing for my purposes. The same should happen to the Democrats.

Here is as profound a political quotation as any I've read in my lifetime:

"People have hearts, they have kids, they get jobs, they get sick, they cry, they dance, they live, they love, and they die. And that matters. That matters because we don't run this country for corporations. We run it for people."

Elizabeth Warren 

I would love to see Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts toss her hat into the ring but apparently that's not going to happen. She has said - over and over again - that she has no intention of running and I have no reason to doubt her sincerity. One thing you can't accuse Liz Warren of is being insincere. Too bad. She is one of the few people out there with the heart and soul of a true progressive. I hope she changes hew mind.

There are those who would make the argument that electing a relatively unknown woman from New England would be an uphill climb. True, but those were the same arguments that were made eight years ago when an obscure, African American politician from Chicago (NOT KENYA) named Barack Obama announced his candidacy for the White House. Everything is possible in this age. The first time I ever heard Elizabeth Warren speak I fell in love with her. I like to think of her as Spencer Tracy to Hillary's Tyrone Power; a meadow at sunrise to Hillary's astro-turf.

Maybe Ms. Clinton will turn out to be a pleasant surprise. Maybe she won't. We can pray for a miracle here, but the nasty reality calls for us not to be naive. She is the best the Democrats can come up with. Let's deal with it as best we can. Remember, the alternative to Hillary is Jeb Bush. We don't want to go down that road again - trust me on this one, kids.

Yeah, barring a miracle, the former First Lady, senator and Madame Secretary will more than likely be the Democratic nominee in 2016 - which means it's all highly probable that she will become the next president of the United States. The only good news upon the horizon is that the GOP has gone so far off the deep end in recent years that they've become unelectable on a national scale. Otherwise I'm not-at-all happy about this scenario. Hillary is about as much of a progressive as "liberal" Republican Nelson Rockefeller was - in other words: not very progressive at all. I've voted in every presidential contest since 1980 and I'm probably not going to miss this one, much as I'm tempted to. But you can bet that I'll be holding my nose when I cast my ballot on Election Day next year.

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY 


Be it Easter or Passover- or whatever - have a happy one! 


No identification needed
Here Comes the Sun
by the Beatles

Little darling, it's been a long, cold, lonely winter....
Sun! Sun! Sun! Here we come!  


Kevin Swanwick
Writing and Thinking
a blog by Kevin Swanwick

Kevin Swanwick is one of my oldest friends in the world - he's 102 - but seriously folks....

Long time readers of The Rant might remember Kevin as the gent who a few years ago took a pilgrimage with me to the Abbey Road studios in merrie olde England. He writes a blog called "Writing and Thinking" which has a lot less readers than this site - which is strange because it's a much better blog, and he's a much better writer. So have a look at this excellent site and put him on your list of bookmarks, okay? He has something important to say and we all need to listen. Here's a link:

This kid's got a future, no doubt about it.


At 8:33 AM, Anonymous Sore Loser said...

"One has to wonder about the Dems these days. The situation is bleak everywhere you look - at least as far as the progressive cause is concerned."

Right on Tom, right on!!

Of course you now must explain to a few of your fans what is a progressive

At 10:47 AM, Anonymous JH said...

I think between 2016 and 2020 there is a very good chance that the wheels will fall off the cart for the US.

There is at least ten different ways that events can spin out of control and that is without a war mongering idiot like Hillary at the helm.

We have a mix of natural and man made disasters waiting to happen in addition to the ongoing fiasco called Republicans.

Dire scenarios are building up in every direction and they are intent on depriving Gays of wedding cakes.

It seems there are similar processes in Congress and lavatories, shit floats to the top.
And we are going to pay a price for that law of physics.

At 11:09 AM, Anonymous Jean Netherton said...

Well said Tom. All the things I have wanted to say but didn't have the words.

If it weren't for the fact that the next president will be appointing the next Supreme Court justice, I would be tempted to sit out the vote also.

At 11:46 AM, Blogger December27 said...

Hillary Clinton was the "more than likely" candidate in 2008, too, and look how well that turned out for her. She is not "the best the Democrats can come up with"; she's just all that they have, so far, come up with. And there are too many of us who, like you and me, will have to hold our noses to vote for her. Despite the impression of inevitability given by the media, it's early days yet and I have confidence she'll get some viable competition. My first choice would be Bernie Sanders.

At 11:48 AM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

I would rather see Warren or Corey Booker step up and run, but I do not hate Hillary Clinton as much as some people do.

People are always saying "We need new faces and Ideas in Washington! Throw out the old guard"

Yet, when Obama came forward, people whined that he had "no experience to be President" as if ANYONE who hasn't actually held THAT office does.

But Hillary is as close as we can get to "experience". She was married to a great President, was a Congressman, AND was Sec. of State. Like has been said, I can think of worse people to occupy the Oval Office, and not all have an "R" after their name (although the vast majority do)

I think there will be many more Dems stepping up, it's just that they don't want to "burn out the brand" by announcing too soon. Ted Cruz KNOWS he's never going to get the job, just like Trump and the other ultra crazies) He just wants to get some time in the spotlight before the REAL contenders start forcing him back into the shadows.

The GOP sends out the major loonies early so that when the "real" candidates announce they will seem sane by comparison.

At 12:01 PM, Anonymous Jay said...

There are at least two reasons I think Hillary is so popular. The first is that many people did fairly well in the '90s under Bill. Second, let's not under estimate Bill's leadership. This was guy who could talk about an issue and dissect it properly.

As a country, we miss this rationale dialogue.

Still-Hillary doesn't "wow" me and I have a feeling her candidacy has more to do with a "bucket list," than actually doing any good for the country. I can't think of any unique issue, position, or platform that she has put forward to distinguish herself. It seems to be a matter of simply cashing in on the Clinton name.

Regarding "Liz:" I read a very interesting article which made the case that Liz might be more powerful and useful staying where she is. There's a wisdom to that.

One candidate on the Democratic side I'm watching is Jim Web. I don't know much about him and I haven't seen him in action, but his creds suggest a possible bridge to unity or at least some healing.

We really have become a polarized country and despite what oh-so-many say, it isn't because of Obama.

Hillary may eventually get the Democratic nod and I will vote for her over ANY GOPer, but may vote would be reluctant.

At 1:48 PM, Anonymous Sore Loser said...

Want info on Jim Webb?
Cut and paste this address into your browser.

Let me know what you think after reading about him.

At 2:09 PM, Anonymous JH said...

Seems like a good Liberal to me.

At 2:41 PM, Blogger Rain Trueax said...

I am still hoping for O'Malley, though I don't know a lot about him either other than he was the governor of Maryland.

Like many of my friends, no way could I vote for any of the Repubs who will take this country further into fascism and limiting the rights of women and minorities. They are totally the party of old white guys who like guns; but that said, seriously, Dems cannot do better than her???!!!

At 2:48 PM, Anonymous Sore Loser said...


As a Conservative or classic liberal, I fear Mr. Webb's candidacy the most.

I am not afraid of Sanders, Clinton or Warren getting the nomination.

Have you asked yourself what would happen if a gay couple ordered a wedding cake from a bakery owned by a Muslim?

How would you expect a Jewish bakery being asked to bake a birthday cake for Adolf Hitler?

Or a bakery owned by an African American being asked to bake a cake for the KKK anniversary?

How would you react to their response? Does the Constitution guarantees/provides the power to force a bakery to bake a cake counter to their beliefs. Should there be?

At 2:59 PM, Anonymous Sore Loser said...


How does the GOP limit the number of black Senators being elected?
Are you aware of the fact that the first black senator from the south since the reconstruction is a member of the GOP?

As for your claim that GOP is at war with women, give me a few of the battles that have taken place in this war?

What laws have the GOP passed limiting the rights of minorities?
Did the President signed them into laws?

"totally the party of old white guys "

Rain, that is simply not the truth.

At 5:20 PM, Blogger Kevin Swanwick said...

Happy Easter Tom.

At 5:36 PM, Anonymous JH said...

So I guess asking a "christian" to bake a cake for a gay couple is the same as asking Holocaust survivors to bake a cake for Hitler.

That is a perfect analogy if you are a Conservative, for a Liberal, it is mindless.

At 9:07 PM, Anonymous Sore Loser said...


You said you "guessed", but fail to see the main point in the examples I offered. In fact you only mention one.
In my view your use of "guessed" is an attempt to lessen the value of my examples instead of justifying forcing a bakery make something they dont agree with.

That is supported by your use of Christian in small letters and between quotation marks since you are saying that by not agreeing with you they are not meeting your standards of being a Christian.

Here's an idea for you, Christians do not have to met your standards to think if themselves as Christians, any more that Muslims have to met the standards of ISIS to be Muslims.
You dont get to set the standards for what people believe about themselves.

Why should anyone be forced to make a cake in a way that goes against their standards, their beliefs?

Would you required a Muslim baker to bake the wedding cake for a gay marriage?

Just because you might agree with gay marriage does not mean everyone else has to agree with you. If this is such an egregious violation of civil rights(which it is not), you should open a bakery serving only the gay community. Sounds like you would have plenty of business.

Final thought
who Photoshopped the pix of Hillery?

At 10:21 PM, Anonymous JH said...

It is not my standards that Christians have to live up to. It is the standards of Jesus.
And I believe Conservative Christians are failing miserably.
There is more to being a Christian than persecuting Gays and cursing women who want an abortion.

Try reading this, it might open your eyes:

At 11:35 PM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

The funniest thing is, the Boy Troll just admitted that conservative "Christians" are closer in ideology to Muslims, Hitler, and the KKK.

As for his other questions, they have been answered over, and over, and over. He just doesn't realize it because he can't get the answers from inside his bubble. It's like trying to explain to one of those retarded "Moon Hoaxers" why there are no stars in the photos taken on the Moon.

At 11:48 PM, Anonymous Sore Loser said...

Christ said if you were a Christian you should bake a cake for a gay couple? What book was that in, 1st Delusions?

When did Christ undue the Old Testament's stance on homosexuality?

Not baking a cake for a gay marriage is persecuting them? Please, get a grip.

I think you had better focus on winning the 2016 Presidential election, if who a bakery says they will bake a cake for who they say the won't is your number one problem.

BTW why aren't you holding the "religion of peace" Islam to the same standards as you want to hold "christians" to, maybe a little anti Christian bias leaking out there JH?
Your lack of comment on Muslims throwing gays off of tall buildings to their death yet blasting a Christian owned bakery for not making a cake, seems just a little bit odd.
No in fact what it shows is the liberal hatred towards being told there is a right and wrong.

At 12:08 AM, Anonymous JH said...

The whole point of being a Christian is to be Christ like as much as it is humanly possible.

Every thing I see coming from the Far Right Christians is the opposite. They are all going to Hell as far as I can see.

At 4:30 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

TC is a much worse actor than TP.

At 8:41 AM, Anonymous Tom V. said...


I have to agree with your sentiments on both sides of the aisle this time around. It truly is sad times for this great country of ours. the Dems are offering up Hillary again while the Repubs have their share of retreads as well as a few new but light weight potentials. I am truly looking forward to learning a bit more about former Governor O'Malley and I'm a Republican.

Hope all's well

Tom V.

At 9:00 AM, Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

JH: "The whole point of being a Christian is to be Christ like as much as it is humanly possible."

Unless you follow the Republican Jesus...

At 10:04 AM, Anonymous Sore Loser said...

Going to hell because they are opposed to baking cakes that run counter to the religious beliefs?

Going to hell because the are opposed to the murder of humans in the womb of the mother?

Do you mean to say if the they agreed with you and baked gay cakes and supported the murder of humans in their mothers womb, they would not be going to hell?

On the other hand, Muslims who throw gays off of buildings to their death, and are opposed to abortion, you give them a pass. If Christians converted to Islam but held to their beliefs about gay and abortion, would they be going to hell?

Some kind of god you would be. I think the job of god is above your pay grade.

Tom V

The DNC has no one but themselves to blame for the apparent crowning of another Clinton as their candidate. Obama now and the Clinton's for the past 15 years have sucked the air out of every political room they enter.

That the GOP field is made up of light weights is subject to interpretation. When each of the people at the top of the GOP pack put their work record vs H. Clinton's work record all of them have had more years of service either as Congressman or Governor than she does. Her claim to fame is not one of being elected by the voters but of being married to the President and being appointed Secy of State. Very weak.

On the other hand, as I said before, since the vast majority of Americans id themselves as not being liberal, I'm more concerned about Senator Webb than anyone being talked on the DNC side.

Here's a source for some back ground on O'Malley.

At 12:06 PM, Anonymous HarleyA said...

So are Republican (or Democrats for that matter) Christians supposed to advocate for policy based on Christianity or based on the Constitution? Not trying to present a false dichotomy, but it is a fair question. If the former, then are we not open to the accusation of advocating for theocracy? Out of one side of the mouth we are maligned for advocating Christian beliefs (theocrats), while being corrected for not being Christian enough out of the other. And, in every case, quite frankly, most often by those who have a surface understanding of Christianity at best. That is evidenced by the frequent use of only select teachings of Jesus – primarily the Sermon on the Mount – not placed in context with the full body of His teaching and work. I would be happy to apply the FULL teachings of Jesus to our governance. But, I actually don’t advocate for a theocratic regime – nor did He.

In most cases (as in the “cake-gate” silliness) Christianity and the Constitution live together just fine. Any private business can refuse to perform a paid service based on matters of conscience so long as they do not injure the civil rights of the other party. A true Christian could use the cake situation to hold to their beliefs and (hopefully nicely) refuse the service. And, a reasonable gay couple would understand and use a different baker. However, Christian liberty would allow the Christian to make the cake for them and maybe share with them that they don’t agree with the lifestyle, but I’ll make the cake for you anyway just to be nice. So, it is not a “cut and dried” thing, here. Truth and love must both be preserved – and that’s not always easy. And, Christians deal with matters of conscience on issues like this as well, if you know your NT scriptures. Because it isn’t easy – you want to love the person, yet not condone the behavior. In any event, there is no reason we can’t live together on this issue – it’s not complicated. Gays do not have to adjust their lifestyles to fit my moral standards under the constitution, and I don’t have to bake cakes for them. That this has been blown out of proportion is indicative that constitutionality is not the issue – it is something more than that.

At 2:01 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well since the ends seem to have been already "decided" other than sound byte intrigues - Clinton v. Bush - (Regrettfully, Eliz won't make herself avail. until '20 or '24 - my guess is '20 ABSOLUTE should Jeb win; '24 dicey if 16 years of Dem's hold the tiller.) -so the unexamined question is the GOP response in the next chair at the table.
Back to the issue at hand. Jeb is too "liberal" for the conservative base - he actually acknowledges climate change and common core. So they need a lunatic VP mate. And they will need a female to counter Hillary. Sarah didn't quite work out last go 'round.
So I am putting my money of one of these from the clown car rogues gallery - Michelle Bachmann, Niki Haley, Jan Brewer, Marsha Blackburn.
Unrelated parting thought: Is intolerance now tax exempt as a religion?

Jim D.

At 2:14 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Forgot to add the McCain - Lindsey Graham cheerleader - Kelly Ayotte on the list of possibilities.

Jim D.

At 2:31 PM, Anonymous JH said...

Harley, the mixing of church and state was never a good idea. These new laws could be used to deprive a gay couple from buying a house, getting a job or even medical treatment from a doctor.

There is always a threat to society when creating a group of people into "the other."

And these movements have a way of expanding and growing far beyond the seemingly benign beginning.

To paraphrase SL. How is making those people wear yellow stars on their coats persecuting them, please get a grip.

At 2:49 PM, Anonymous Sore Loser said...

JH, so what's your take on Islam's views on gays? Think they should be allowed to say no to an order they find offensive?

Stretching the buying of a cake to buying a house is just that, a stretch.

"the whole point of being a Christian is to be Christ like as much as it is humanly possible."

Tells me you haven't a clue about Christianity. Sounds works based which I doubt you would understand.

Anonymous/Jim D
I doubt seriously that any of the names you mentioned will win the GOP nomination for VP, as I suspect you do as well. So bringing them up is stupid. I hope you realize that you are intolerant towards conservative women.

As to your parting thought/question "intolerance now tax exempt as a religion?'
Are liberals ever intolerant?

At 3:13 PM, Anonymous JH said...

I see no difference what so ever in a baker denying services to gays or a banker, doctor,plumber doing the same.

And I do understand the concept of obtaining salvation.

At 3:25 PM, Anonymous HarleyA said...

JH –

I disagree as to your assessment of the potential impact of the laws. Having said that, I think they are extraneous and already implied and protected by our constitutional rights. Problem is, the constitution doesn’t seem to limit anyone these days. So, from that standpoint, I can understand the driver.

I think if we all simply understood and accepted the rights of others to disagree with us (and even not desire to associate with our lifestyles), we’d be fine. As it stands, the extremes in the LGBT crowd seem particularly bent on the very thing they used to abhor – that is, forcing their ethics on others…and, making a spectacle out of them. So, as important as not allowing my religion to impact the civil liberties of another is not allowing their disagreement with my religious belief to impact my ability to adhere to my religious convictions. Granted, some cases can be “grey” and not easy to discern where that line is and how to preserve both our civil rights. However, in the cakes-for-gays debacle, it is clear cut and not even worth discussion. A Christian baker who would prefer not to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple should not have to – and should not have to undergo scrutiny and persecution by the State or by the refused party. It is a non-issue. Again, there is more driving this than civil rights – this is a battle of ideology taking place on the public stage.

At 4:14 PM, Anonymous JH said...

Harley, I can agree with a lot that you are saying but I would be more comfortable if they did not enshrine these concepts into law. Just leave the opinions and actions up to the individual.

I have to say I was never able to reconcile the punitive and judgmental aspects of the Old Testament with TSoTM for instance.

It would seem to me the OT is largely irrelevant to the Christian belief.I would like to think the value system of the New Testament supersede the OLD.

Of course I know fairly little when it comes to these matters, thats why I am talking to you.

At 6:07 PM, Anonymous Sore Loser said...

"concept of obtaining salvation."

You do not "obtain" salvation.

At 7:44 PM, Blogger Rain Trueax said...

Sore Loser, I am wasting my time on this but you are trying to tell me my vote should be open to Repubs who would limit women's right to choose, never favor equal pay for equal work, would end an individual (woman or man) to marry who they love, not pay for birth control as part of health care (which they pay for Viagra just fine), and block any sort of harassment laws, which mostly benefit women as they tend to have more men groping them than happens in reverse. Now, you as an individual, might not be for those barriers to women, but if you support the right, they do. As for Repubs in the South, yeah, the party name has changed but the ones who would block minorities from voting, that hasn't changed-- just what they call themselves today.

At 7:55 PM, Anonymous Sore Loser said...


I'm saying that the list of things you accuse the GOP of being and or doing is not true.
Have there been individuals who have taken some of those positions, yes, but the party it's self has not.

This is like JH saying the not baking a wedding cake for gays is the akin to not giving a bank loan to gays. It is simly not true.

And conservatives have been accused of been extremist? I think the federal govt has no business saying who can or can not get married. That is a State issue. But liberals want it to be a Federal issue because they know that not all the States would do as they favored. Now who is being intolerant?

At 9:05 PM, Anonymous Hopey McChange said...

Why Hillary?

If you are pinned down in some foreign embassy who else are you going to trust to handle that 3:00AM emergency phone call?

At 11:04 PM, Blogger Rain Trueax said...

We won't agree, Sore Loser and I know from past discussions, that it goes nowhere. I am just going to say-- they speak their issues and that's what they are. When they get power in a state, pick it, any state, that's what they do. But we are never going to agree. You get one vote. I get one. We each have a right to that but what we can't deny is what is a fact-- which means what the right does whenever it gets power. Christian sharia law. Indiana just tried to put that across. They backed off but they will do it again. If you agree with that, well, it's your right. It's not what I believe in.

At 12:27 AM, Anonymous Sore Loser said...

So you do want the Federal govt to control who a bakery must sell cakes too?

At 2:26 AM, Blogger Lydia said...

Marvelous post, Tom. I would think so even if I did not fully agree with you.....which I do!

At 9:06 AM, Anonymous HarleyA said...

"Christian sharia law"

Maybe just a pinch of hyperbole, there... you do know what sharia law generally has to say about punishment for homosexuality, right?

At 11:02 AM, Blogger Rain Trueax said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

At 11:05 AM, Blogger Rain Trueax said...

And Sore Loser, the government already does that. Try denying services to a black person, Chinese, any minority and see how it goes for you. I understand the fear some Christians feel that if they partake in anyway in a marriage between two they believe go against their creed, they will be punished by their Old Testament God. But it's ridiculous to think that God really cares or considers them to be part of that wedding because they provide flowers to someone who paid for them. Businesses open to the public benefit from many services provided through taxes and it's the argument that says they have to obey Civil Rights laws. IF you believe a gay chose that lifestyle, you will see this differently than if you believe they were born who they are.

At 11:07 AM, Blogger Rain Trueax said...

I know what the Christian Old Testament says about its punishment too (and many Christians are quoting it when they say this is a big deal. Sharia law is when the religion of Islam dictates legal penalties. There are those who already are applying that to this country whenever they can. For those in the religion, that probably sounds great. For others, like me, not so much. (had to delete this the first time I put it up for a typo).

At 7:33 PM, Anonymous JH said...

A three minute video of one of Americas best heroes still living today.

At 8:15 PM, Anonymous Smokey Lagumski said...

"JH: "The whole point of being a Christian is to be Christ like as much as it is humanly possible."

Unless you follow the Republican Jesus..."

That blog Jefferson has collapsed under its Hugo Chavez like censorship with its "My way of Nanny State Government or the Highway" there. Only "WTC was an inside job" wingnuts post on that blog.

And by the way Jefferson, big oil has the highest effective tax rate of any industry in the US. You are full of shit about how they don't pay their "fair share".

Just Say'n the Facts wingnut.

At 8:10 AM, Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

Smokey Lagumski: "Only 'WTC was an inside job'..."

It wasn't?? Basic high school physics, and the evidence, indicates otherwise.

Oh, I'm sorry, I don't believe in science. So of course you believe the official narrative.

"...big oil has the highest effective tax rate of any industry in the US."

Possibly...but you'll have to prove it to me. According to Taxpayers for a Common Cause, twenty of the largest oil & gas companies (2009-13) had an effective tax rate of 24% (much lower than the statutory rate of 35%) but thanks to special tax provisions which allow these extraction companies to defer a significant portion of the tax liabilities they've accrued, they only paid a "current" tax rate of 11.70% in federal taxes.

So, I maintain my earlier stance that they don't pay their fair share.

At 8:37 AM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

Rain, there is no such thing as a "Christian Old testament"

The OLD Testament is the JEWISH book, and the NEW Testament is the "Christian" book.

At 8:42 AM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

Sore Loser, marriage is a CIVIL RIGHT which means individual states cannot decide who can and can't get married. We've already seen issues where couples married in one state are not recognized as such in another.

It also should never come up for a vote, because the majority should never be able to decide which individuals or groups should have certain civil rights.

Freedom is for everyone, or it's for no one.

At 8:45 AM, Anonymous Sore Loser said...

Who controlled Congress and the White House 2009-13?

Those darned Democrats, that's who. Ever wonder why they passed those tax rates on BIG oil or didn't change the law to increase the effective rate during that time?
Ever wonder why the State of NY is offering all kinds of tax incentives for out of state business to move there?
Which party controls New York?
Democrat Party, that's who.

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

Sore Loser: "Who controlled Congress and the White House 2009-13?"

Members from both the Democratic wing and the Republican wing of the corrupt "Corporatist Party".

That was too easy -- and obvious. If you can't see this by now, you're either wantonly ignorant, or you restrict your news sources to the mainstream media.

Which is it?

At 11:38 AM, Blogger Rain Trueax said...

Mozart, Christians use the Torah and other books from the Jewish scriptures-- but they translate them for their own needs. For instance finding new meanings for their political aims-- abortion being one of those from the King James version to the newer translations. I called it Christian because Christians do use it for their attacks on gays.. IF someone was only using the Gospels, they'd not be concerned about gay marriage-- at all. It's using that Old Testament and its current translations where it is a factor. There are reasons why, despite some of what Jesus said, that the Old Testament is still regarded as significant-- allegorically and historically to some. I just heard the story of Noah used by someone saying the end times are here. I suspect any florist or bakery fearful of selling a wedding cake or decorations is using that Old Testament for their justification. I was in such groups for years, so I do know something about it-- though I am outside it now.

At 2:21 PM, Anonymous Sore Loser said...

And 9/11 was an inside job.

What do the Muslims use to support their murdering of gays?

At 2:37 PM, Blogger De_Bill said...

Marriage isn't the property of religion, it's a civil union requiring a contract issued by a civil authority that is celebrated optionally by a religious ceremony, if that is the desire of the participants.

A person's choice of religion should have nothing to do with it, especially if they're not one of the parties named on the contract.

At 2:49 PM, Blogger Rain Trueax said...

Sore Loser, I don't know much about the Koran but I would guess it's in there somewhere. Using scripture to suit ourselves seems to be a human characteristic-- even if it requires twisting it.

At 4:01 PM, Anonymous Sore Loser said...

So Rain, whats worse, being "attacked" by a bakery wont bake your wedding cake, or being thrown off a building to your death?


You realize your view of marriage is exactly the same as was held by the old Soviet Union?

At 4:46 PM, Blogger Rain Trueax said...

Sore Loser, you can use the same justification to block civil rights for any minority. Yep, they could be hung and so what's the big deal with using the same water fountain...

At 4:48 PM, Blogger Rain Trueax said...

And the significance of the old Soviet Union is what? Valuing civil rights for gays leads to ... I am not sure what you are getting at.

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

so here's the question for the staunch Christians repleat with their invented hyperbole. We have listened to your bakeries, pizzeria's, even doctors - always encased as a one-way street.
Now do you have any clue whether the person baking the cake, making your pizza (betting that pizza joint won't ever see a dime of the $874K raised by gofundme) - delivering your pizza - or a doctor saving perhaps your life in the emergency room is gay?
Wouldn't the firmness of your conviction require that you ask that question before getting the services rendered?
Try calling your pizzeria and tell them you want a pepperoni and NO gay delivery drivers will be allowed.
God forbid you are injured - be sure to ask the physician first what his/her sexual preference is before they proceed to healing.
Just curious, how firm are you willing to take your stand on the convictions you espouse.

At 5:40 PM, Anonymous Sore Loser said...

Don't beg the question Rain, it's beneath you.

At 5:44 PM, Anonymous Sore Loser said...

In Dearborn Michigan yesterday during the early afternoon hours a gay couple, who were searching for a bakery that would cater to their wedding needs, was surrounded by a crowd and pelted with rocks and loose bricks until their death.

The couple walked into "By the Prophet," a well known Muslim-owned bakery and tea house and inquired about a cake with two grooms as the topper. The result was a small riot that caused their demise. There was no public outcry. Left wing media and commentators are currently debating behind closed doors about who to defend and who to blame over this catch-22 incident.

Filmmaker Michael Moore, a Michigan native, was reached this morning for his take on the issue.

"Its not like there is a clear bad guy here, I mean there's no Republicans, Christians, or even Jews involved," Moore said. "Who are we supposed to denounce in a situation like this?"

Moore's confusion is echoed throughout the media and among his progressive peers. "Our colleagues are left with a big problem here," Moore continued. "I mean there are millions of people that are right now trying to point a finger in rage at someone over what happened, but instead their flaccid fingers are dangling towards the ground." Moore then turned his head to look out the window as a single tear ran down his face.

"We have two oppressed groups of people here involved, so we are torn apart trying to unquestionably defend both of them," Moore continued. "If we dare call out our Muslim friends, that would imply we think they are violent. That would make us bigots and we'd be no different from the Islamophobic right-wingers."

"Perhaps we can call this an example of a minority lashing out against white Christian supremacists. They have a right to their beliefs and we might just have to go with that," said the progressive filmmaker. "On the other hand, and we can't say that a gay couple were wrong to want a wedding cake from their bakery. Back to square one."

As confusion runs rampant among the progressive ranks, once proud and outspoken liberals can be seen walking aimlessly in streets and in their homes with a blank look on their faces, having no clear target for their anger.

"In the end," Moore added, "we will probably just have to bury this incident and forget that it ever even happened."

The Peoples Cube

At 6:09 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

SoreLoser® you're as funny as a cry for help.

and you certainly have a way with the ladies! "Don't beg the question, it's beneath you"

Oooh! What a man!

At 7:14 PM, Blogger Rain Trueax said...

Beg the question? i was giving you credit to assume you'd understand what I said. The comparison you made to which is better is equivalent to using the same argument back in the era where blacks were forced to ride at the back of the bus. Why worry about it! What I am saying to you is this matters as an issue of respect. We all want it, don't we?

At 7:18 PM, Anonymous sore loser said...

And the significance of the old Soviet Union is what?

That's called begged the question

At 7:28 PM, Blogger Rain Trueax said...

I am ignoring the satire you posted because I have seen too many of those posted where others literally believed they were true. Satire though should be funny and that one was not.

For those who don't know gay couples, I understand they really have no clue as to what they are like, how deeply they can love, how they really are just like everybody else with wanting a family. For those who use their religion as a way to justify sanctimonious behavior, as has been the case with some of those businesses, like a pizza place, where no gay ever asked for a pizza for their wedding, and yet they spout off they'd not sell to them and end up with nearly a million dollars in donations from those who think that was courageous and wonderful. For those 'Christians' so worried about gay weddings, maybe they might take another look at the words in red in the Gospels.

At 7:29 PM, Blogger Rain Trueax said...

ah, well I didn't know what the heck the old Soviet Union had to do with this issue as though it was a slippery slope? I literally could not figure out how it figured into the debate.

At 5:34 AM, Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

Rain Trueax: "...I didn't know what the heck the old Soviet Union had to do with this issue as though it was a slippery slope? I literally could not figure out how it figured into the debate."

Rain, please don't waste your time attempting to find a possible hidden meaning, or words of wisdom, from Sore Loser (or any of his pseudonyms). The troll always deflects when he's backed into a corner -- which he invariably is.

At 7:19 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


OMG, did you hear the latest?
9-11 was an INSIDE JOB!

That is what's called a creditability gap.

At 7:33 AM, Anonymous Sore Loser said...

A majority of Americans believe businesses should not be allowed to refuse services based on their religious beliefs in the wake of controversies in Indiana and Arkansas over gay rights and religious freedom, a Reuters/Ipsos poll found on Thursday.

The poll, conducted April 6 to 8, also found that 52 percent of Americans support allowing same-sex couples to marry, far more than the 32 percent who oppose it.

At 7:51 AM, Anonymous Sore Loser said...

The correct answer is:

“They’re both poorly-educated, not-very-bright hustlers willing to recite whatever their handlers told them, as long as it didn’t involve hard work.”

The question, according to the NYTimes, is:

“How Is Scott Walker Like Reagan?"

At 2:51 PM, Blogger De_Bill said...

"You realize your view of marriage is exactly the same as was held by the old Soviet Union?"

Them dern commies also thought the earth was round, so I guess they were wrong about that, too?

You realize you made an embarrassingly moronic point?

Probably not.

At 6:17 PM, Anonymous Sore Loser said...

Walter Scott was plugged in the back eight times, then the killer yells at him as he approaches the body, handcuffs him as he’s bleeding to death, plants evidence, renders no assistance to a dying man, then lies about the whole thing in the report.

And if a young man hadn't captured the whole thing on his cell phone, the lie would have become the official report.

At 7:53 PM, Anonymous Harry from Wallingford, CT said...

Why Hillary asks Tom Degan?

I ask how the evening of September 11, 2012 would have been if Chelsea Clinton had stopped by the Embassy while trying to collect large donations for the Clinton Foundation from the rich Middle Eastern countries who oppress and treat women like slaves which the mainstream media ignores.

Maybe Hillary would have answered the call for help and not have folded like a cheap suitcase.

Hillary talks a big game about handling the 3:00AM phone call, but she if full of shit.

At 9:00 PM, Anonymous Sore Loser said...

Where does the money for the Clinton Foundation go?

Lots of great causes, helping impoverished women and children all over the world. Disease eradication. Important stuff like that.

I think it's great the Rich Middle Eastern countries are asked by the foundation to dig DEEP in their pockets to contribute. They can afford it.

Jimmy Carter's been active helping impoverished people. Great charities.

George W? Painting self portraits in his bathtub of his ass.

At 9:10 PM, Anonymous Sore Loser said...

Harry, what are you going to do if Hillary is elected in 2016? You've endured two terms of the Kenyan Usurper. Unimaginable suffering on your part.

Will you move to Canada? Or someplace in South America?

At 2:30 PM, Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

Anonymous: "9-11 was an INSIDE JOB!

Very true...

At 7:08 AM, Anonymous Harry from Wallingford, CT said...

The Republican bill, co-sponsored by New York Senator Charles Schumer and eight other Democrats, would allow Congress to block the U.S. from lifting sanctions against Iran. President Barack Obama’s administration says the measure could imperil the nuclear talks and that he would veto it.

The other Senate Democrats supporting Corker’s bill are Bob Menendez of New Jersey, Michael Bennet of Colorado, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Tim Kaine of Virginia and Bill Nelson of Florida. Maine’s Angus King, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, also is co-sponsoring the bill.

Thanks God there are some Democrats who don't have their heads up their butts and will challenge the Boy King Emperor Who Wears No Clothes!

Do these Senators now listen to Rush Limbaugh?

Will Mozart, Saul Alinsky's Favorite Radical Son Dave Dubya, and Tom call them traitors? No, we will just hear crickets.



Who's surprised?

But then, if he really DOES support Cotton, Why didn't he come forward to stick up for him sooner?"

"And explain to us why you think TREASON is "patriotic""

"Still nothing from him on the "TREASONOUS 47" or anything else or relevance"

At 7:50 AM, Anonymous Rob Wagoner said...

We have become a hyper regulatory State that is more interested in passing laws than expanding personal freedom.

Big government criminalizes poverty, regulates business and personal relationships, and profits from their regulatory power and control over those who reside on Main Street pulling the wagon and pay for the nanny state loafers.

There is a growing interest to change our sentencing laws and decriminalize drug usage and victim-less crimes.

A backlash has started against the power of the police, prosecutors, judges, and local government(s) who use the legal system as a piggy bank to expand their little social welfare thiefdom's .

At 8:31 AM, Anonymous Captain America said...

When those elected are too lazy, or too incompetent to solve, really solve serious issues (like education, poverty, addiction), they take the path of least resistance: that would be to simply write law. What else can you expect from a lawyer?

Most in Congress are lawyers who have become fat pigs from gorging at the public trough.

Then they sit on their fat humps and slap each other on the back with congratulatory glee about the volume of 'work' they have done. Their laws are thousands of pages of Pig Latin.

And that's before the nazi profiteers of deprived civil liberty and self-propagating law enforcement pull up to the slop trough.

Picture it. It's really quite grotesque. And by the way, every pendulum swings.

At 5:10 PM, Anonymous JJ said...

Chuck "The Schmuck" Schumer and 8 other Democratic Senators have gone against "The Messiah" concerning Iran.

Are they traitors? Nothing but crickets from the Progressives.

Progressivism is truly a mental disorder.

At 5:59 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


That photo of Hillary should be updated. Either it is 30 years old or it has been modified to remove all the wrinkles of that old hag.

Just sayin.

At 6:15 PM, Anonymous Dave Dubya said...

Jeffersons Guardian,

Please stop posting on my blog which has gone to shit as my comment count is really low.

Tin foil wearing people like yourself who post on my blog and believe 9/11 was inside job has destroyed any credibility of the "Freedom Rants."

If I knew your real name and where you lived I would sue you.

You need medication Jefferson.

At 6:42 PM, Anonymous Sore Loser's Doctor said...

Funny how Sore Loser's "friends" appear in clusters: JJ, anonymous, followed by Sore Loser stealing Dave's name. He links to cpusa, which several aliases have done.

Obsessive-compulsive disorder combined with being somewhere on the autism spectrum.

You are to be pitied. It's no coincidence you live alone.

At 7:07 PM, Anonymous Sore Losers Doctor said...

Liberalism is a mental disorder!

How is Barry's Iran treaty going?

Chuck Schumer and 8 other Democratic Senators are now challenging Barry's incompetence in pretending there is a treaty with Iran. Are these guys traitors? LOL Mozart you dumb fuk.

At 7:11 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You are to be pitied. It's no coincidence you live alone."

Like Tom Degan? OK Tom does not live alone as he lives with his mom. It is no surprise he is waiting for her to kick the bucket so he can have the house.

At 9:15 PM, Anonymous Sore Loser's Physician said...

What amazes me is why Tom doesn't ban this troll. Block him and watch sore loser and all his vile aliases disappear.

Then he can go back to pleasuring himself while he watches the blonde legshow ladies on Fox.

At 9:21 PM, Anonymous Sore Loser said...

You're right. I've been trolling this board ever since Obama was elected. I've been having emotional problems all my life. I understand it's unhealthy for me to obsess over politics. I want to apologize to everyone for all the nasty things I've said here over the years. I'm working on being a better person. I won't post here anymore. It's not healthy for me.
I apologize for stealing other commenters' names. My goal this year is to find a job and spend less time trolling progressive blogs.

At 11:14 PM, Anonymous JH said...

There is no doubt that SL is emotionally and mentally disabled. He is incapable of any sort of normal interaction and is best left alone.

I have concluded he is a total waste of time, would you debate politics with someone in the mental ward?

At 8:57 AM, Anonymous Barbara Walters said...

Barbara Walters Actually Thought That Obama ‘Was Going to Be the Next Messiah!

“He made so many promises,” she began. “We thought that he was going to be – I shouldn’t say this at Christmastime, but – the next messiah.

And the whole Obamacare, or whatever you want to call it, that Affordable Health Act, it just hasn’t worked for him, and he’s stumbled around on it, and people feel very disappointed because they expected more.”

Darn right we expected more! People were counting on that website to work, especially when their health coverage was cancelled. They expected him to follow up on his promise too that “if you like your health care plan, you can keep it. Period. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Period.”

She added: “It’s very difficult when the expectations for you are very high. You’re almost better off when they are low and then they rise and rise.”

I know she’s trying to stick up for the Liar in Chief, but doing so is not going to help his reputation. He messed up, and it’s time for him to own up.

Unfortunately, Obama doesn’t care. So he will just keep lying and facilitating more problems until someone else is elected.

At 9:26 AM, Anonymous Rene said...

Why Hillary?

Can anybody just run for the office of the Presidency without stating her stand and solutions for the various problems facing this country today?

Can anybody just run for President without her knowing a single accomplishment she did as Secretary of State?

Can anybody just run for President with the smell of corruption trailing her, but cannot be investigated as the Media will suppress any negative print about her?

Evidently she can.

Just as Obama ran for office in 08 with a record of laziness and incompetence, with nary a record of accomplishment and won all because the suckers just decided that it was time for the nation to have a black man in office, any black man will do, it is time for the first female President even with nothing to show why she is capable and competent for such a position.

At 10:23 AM, Anonymous Sore Loser said...

Just as Obama ran for office in 08 with a record of laziness and incompetence, with nary a record of accomplishment and won all because the suckers just decided that it was time for the nation to have a black man in office, any black man will do,

Nice logic, "Rene"

If you're so right about the suckers then why didn't Herman Cain win? Why didn't Alan Keyes sweep the election? "Any black man will do"

Two terms! Ha ha ha

Your tears are so tasty

At 10:25 AM, Anonymous Sore Loser said...

whoops, sorry.

I said I wasn't going to post here anymore.

At 9:52 PM, Anonymous Sore Loser said...

No De_bill,
I've just connected the dots.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home