Free Markets, Free People


You may be a criminal

There’s an interesting little petition at MoveOn.Org. It got some press attention, and apparently MoveOn decided to try and cool it a little bit, and stop promoting it, even though it seems popular, with almost 50,000 signatures. Anybody can set up a petition at MoveOn, and the popular ones show up on the main petitions page. But, Move on has decided that this petition “may not reflect MoveOn members’ progressive values,” so they aren’t promoting it any more. The petition is still there, though, and here is what it says:

I call on the Justice Department of the United States of America to arrest Republican Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Speaker of the House John Boehner, and other decision-making House Republican leaders for the crime of seditious conspiracy against the United States of America.

Petition Background

The House GOP leadership’s use of the Hastert Rule and H. Res 368 to shut down the government and threaten the U.S. economy with default is an attempt to extort the United States government into altering or abolishing the Affordable Care Act, and thus, is self-evidently a seditious conspiracy. Arrest the perpetrators in Congress immediately and bring them to justice.

These people are so sure that they’re right that they see no problem at all with criminalizing politics, and threatening their opponents with prison. Political opposition to their preferred political views is not mistaken, in their view, it’s criminal. They seem serious about it.

You should probably try and think through the implications of that.


Dale’s social media profiles:
Twitter | Facebook | Google+

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • email
  • Print
  • Google Bookmarks

62 Responses to You may be a criminal

  • Being a lefty liberal is EASY. It is the default stance of the intellectually lazy. All you have to do is feel (specially “good about myself” kind of feel), and never solve anything.
    Isn’t that Barack Obama in a nutshell ?

  • My Dem friends on FB are sarcastically posting about someone complaining about Andrew Sullivan, a foreigner, commenting on our politics.
    Meanwhile, they had nothing to say about “arsonist” extortionists hostage takers, etc.
    They are not very self aware.

  • Dale, you obviously don’t have enough enlightenment to grasp the leftist, postmodernist reality.

  • But being a criminal is subjective .. open to interpretation …

    “Look at the health care law,” he [Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio] continued. “The law is on the books. They decide which parts of it to apply and which parts not to apply. They issue their own waivers without any congressional oversight. And what they say is, you’re going to pass a legalization law and some enforcement. What’s not to say that this White House won’t come back and cancel the enforcement aspects of it? And that’s what he means by lack of trust, and quite frankly, it’s difficult to find a good answer to that. I think they make a very legitimate point. But certainly, the president has undermined this effort. Absolutely — the president has undermined these efforts.”

    … Obama had delegitimized the Executive Branch, making them Los Bastardos
     

  • Sort of like opponents to the war being called “supporting terrorism” back in 2004.  Yeah, the extremes on both sides are mirror images of the other, so sure they are right that they see the other side as the enemy.  The reality is that most on the left and right care about freedom, America and want what’s best for the country and just disagree with the means to achieve it.  Calling it criminal is just plain WRONG – and moveon should stop it.

    • Nancy Pelosi said arsonist. You show me something similar  from someone as high up as her.

      • … but Nancy Pelosi is EXTREME crazy EXTREME left EXTREME.   Did I mention that Nancy Pelosi is EXTREME ?

      • I’d like to see something similar from almost anyone outside of a blog comments rant.

        I believe that ‘oppenents of the war being accused of “supporting terrorism”‘ was mostly an invention to play victim and vilify their opponents critics. 

    • Right, like how you call Republicans “jihadists.”  Hypocrite.

      • Nothing hypocritical, I’ll say the same about the far left, especially when they go on an ideological tear and make it seem like conservatives are evil, blah blah.  Both sides do it – and in partisan blogs bolster each other as they attack the other side.  I’ve voted Republican often – for Senator, for state reps, etc.  I look for people who have the capacity to work with the other side.  In the last Senate election I know I agreed more with Angus King’s Democratic opponent on issues than I agreed with him.   Yet King has proven able to pragmatically work with others (and I wish Olympia Snowe, who is a political hero of mine, and a Republican).  We share common values, despite the disagreements.

        • Yes, excoriating others for what you just admitting to doing yet again is indeed hypocritical.

          • I’m not doing it myself.  I’m pointing out that people on both sides act like “true believers,” seeing the other side as evil.  These jihadists are harmful to the political system and need to be marginalized – unless they are able to compromise and work with others who think differently.  If they can, if their behavior changes, they should be engaged.  The problem is not their political views, but their psychology.  They can’t work with others, and demonize others because of their political views.   Perhaps with hard core communists or fascists that can be justified, but not with normal liberals and conservatives in the US who are really very close ideologically even though they think the other is evil.

          • And tea party people are jihadists because…..you say so. And if we don’t help marginalize them….then…..

          • “I’m not doing it! I’m doing it because…”

            You are a riot.

          • The problem is not their political views, but their psychology.

            Yes.  If they insist on dealing with reality, instead of joining in the Collectivist delusions, there is definitely a problem.  If they actually ACT like they understand how self-destructive ObamaDoggle and our spending are, they are “jihadists”.
            One the other hand, if you and Barracula act like the narcissists you so clearly ARE, and refuse to negotiate and counsel others to refuse to negotiate…well, that is the height of “sanity”.  To the insane.

          • Perhaps with hard core communists or fascists that can be justified, but not with normal liberals and conservatives in the US who are really very close ideologically even though they think the other is evil.

            There you go again, you lying sack of dog mess.
            Your Collective is made up of communists, fascists (Obama’s fav, btw), socialists, and all other variations on the BIG STATIST theme.
            You are the reactionaries to the small government American Revolution.
            And, remember, it was Hateful Harry and Barracula…with your pom-pom girl cheering from the sidelines…who refused to work with others, you lying Collectivist tool.

          • I’m not doing it myself.

            Doing something, then declaring you’re not doing it, and then immediately doing it again makes you look like you’ve stopped taking your Thorazine.

            I’m pointing out that people on both sides act like “true believers,” seeing the other side as evil.

            Two “sides”?  Once again, you apply your ideological thinking to over-simplify reality.  On this reduction, which utterly fails to model reality, you further compound your error by asserting symmetry.  Thus, you attempt to dismiss all criticism outside a narrow range of establishment “conventional wisdom” (a reflection of those in power, the lapdog media, and the inept acanemics and pundits), disregarding any attempt to judge a criticism by its merits.  It must not be considered, at all, because you decree it to be outside the “mainstream”.
            Like this:

            These jihadists are harmful to the political system and need to be marginalized….

            It isn’t that you don’t take them seriously and that you move on.  It’s that you want to focus on them, suppress them, and take away their freedom to stand up for what they believe.

            …unless they are able to compromise and work with others who think differently.

            In other words, you will consider another’s ideas if he is willing to sacrifice them to agree with you?
            More authoritarian attitude.  You’re not even trying to mask it now.

            The problem is not their political views, but their psychology.

            This from the nut who contradicts himself incessantly and parades around in Q&O with a “KICK ME” sign on his back.
            OK, so you decree that those outside the “mainstream” only have those verboten ideas because of psychology.  What do you do?  You could use the Soviet ploy of decreeing critics of the regime as mentally unfit and institutionalize them.  Yeah, yeah, I know, you’re not that radical.  Well, you couldn’t get away with it, now.  But maybe you could keep sowing the seeds and see if any of this demonization takes root.

            They can’t work with others, and demonize others because of their political views.

            Demonize others?  You mean, like declaring them to have no reason, to be psychologically problematic?
            If things ever get so bad that the government does start suppression opinions and treating any dissent as a psychological issue, and you get what you want, I hope one of your students turns you in to authorities because you gave him a bad grade, convincing them that you are secretly subversive.

    • http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2013/10/19/congressman-steve-cohen-tea-party-republicans-are-domestic-enemies

      - A Democrat Rep. calls Tea Partiers “domestic enemies”
      “Arsonists”
      “Hostage takers”

      The left is encouraging and calling for violence against those that disagree with them. They WANT people on the right dead, hurt, attacked, thrown in jail.
      After all, if crosshairs on a map can directly lead to violence, as we were repeatedly lectured after Giffords was shot, then what do you call this?
       

      • Just some food for thought for them.  Who do they think is going to win that fight?

      • Right.  Scratch a Collectivist (faculty) lounge-lizard…
        find a cold authoritarian, totalitarian kommissar waiting for their big moment with the proles.

        • Scott missed the boat.  He could have stayed in D.C. or he could have been more intelligent and persuasive and gotten picked up as an “expert”, occasionally called in to pontificate on some news network, like MSNBC.  That would have pre-staged him to be a potential candidate for a staff position, from which he would have real power and influence.  And, if the Democrats ever escalated their power to more authoritarian levels, he could achieve his dream of tossing us into mental wards, silencing websites like this one, and censoring the internet to filter out all the “extremists”.
          Alas, he’s stuck with the moose and the doe-eyed freshmen.

          • Oh, Elliiot, I love my life.  I would rather be where I am than anywhere else, especially not an expert in DC.  I consciously gave that up, and feel blessed and truly lucky to have the life I have now!

          • “I’m good enough, I’m smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.”
            Just watch the snow coming down and don’t think about how it could be you turning the screws on those tea party jihadists, if only….

    • Right. Because we arrest and try criminals. Jihadists we blow up with drones.

    • Some of the opponents of the war WERE supporters of terrorism, Erp, you moron.
      And it was not hard to tell them from others, either.
      What a tool.

      • Hell, at least one WAS a terrorist – Bill Ayers.

      • Your style Rags – hide your true identity, make outlandish statements, avoid any real give and take – shows that yes, you are one of the people I consider poison to our political discourse, and you simply have to be kept irrelevant.  I don’t consider you evil, just unable to grasp ideas other than your view of what’s right, and thus not to be taken seriously.  And it looks like the country is turning against the tea party big time.  But not against the GOP or against conservatism.  We need a strong conservative movement in this country.  We don’t need those who act like they are waging a holy war against an enemy they consider evil.  I started reading Chris Matthew’s book about Tip O’Neill and Ronald Reagan.   We need more who are like those two – pragmatic and able to work with those who think differently than themselves.  Reagan would be seen as far left by today’s tea party.

        • LOL…!!!

          I CAN recognize good and evil.  Which ALSO implies I have a greater capacity to comprehend VASTLY more in the way of ideas than do you.

          Not everything breaks down to good or evil, but quite a few things DO, and you cannot even begin to comprehend them, by your own admission!

          Given the full-tilt campaign of demonetization lodged by your Collective against the TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY movement, the TEA party remains remarkably viable, vibrant, and vital.

          And all you can do is mischaracterize who and what it is, you poor, stupid, lying Collectivist tool.

          Step up, Erp, and give us your count of TEA party-supported candidates who are NOT “old, white men from the South”, you lying sack of shit.

        • There is no pragmatic way to work with people who want to spend more money than we take in, and are willing to take it from people who are already over taxed.

          There is no ‘reasonable’ approach after some period. You can only be ‘reasonable’ up to a point when people are demanding you give them more and more of your wealth.   At some point you can legitimately decide that you’re done giving in and compromising.

          That doesn’t make a person a radical holy warrior.

          But in your pragmatic, unbiased, open minded way, you continue to characterize the tea party as ‘radicals’.

          • …and are willing to take it from people who are already over taxed.

            Ah, but they CANNOT do that very well.  THOSE people have a say, and will not stand for it.  So that is kind of limited as to utility.
            SO…what they DO is shift it to people who have NO say…the unborn.
            MUCH superior as a means of screwing people…

        • you are one of the people I consider poison to our political discourse, and you simply have to be kept irrelevant.

          How are you going to make him less relevant than you?  Go to his house and cut his internet?  Maybe lobby your party politicians to pass a Fairness Doctrine for the interwebs, putting people like you in charge of censoring to create “balance”?

          I don’t consider you evil, just unable to grasp ideas other than your view of what’s right, and thus not to be taken seriously.

          Not evil, but in need of silencing.
          Why don’t you just not take him seriously and be satisfied with that?  Why must you revert to the authoritarian approach, decreeing that he “has to be kept” down?

          We don’t need those who act like they are waging a holy war against an enemy they consider evil.

          And, you get to decide who acts that way and wage a jihad against them, to keep them irrelevant.
          Your glaring contradictions are so ham-handed that it seems you’re doing it on purpose, to troll for responses.
          Why don’t you take up video games?  Go spend your time shooting up imaginary things.  You might actually have a chance of winning, rather than being humiliated, time after time.

          • I’m betting on humiliated time after time in both arenas.

            At least here he doesn’t have to suffer the corpse hump replay the kids would do on him after they merc’d him.

             

          • At least here he doesn’t have to suffer the corpse hump replay the kids would do on him after they merc’d him.

            I think what he faces here is far worse than being virtually tea-bagged by pimple-faced kids.  And, if he had any sense, he’d see it.
            Hence, the open question of whether he’s a pathological narcissist who can’t see when he’s being trounced and ridiculed, a troll who gets weird kicks from baiting people to humiliate him, a masochist, an idiot, or some combination.

    • …the extremes on both sides are mirror images of the other….

      Like most who subscribe to an ideology based upon bad ideas, you attempt to portray the world through a grossly oversimplified model.  In this case, you present complex situations as having only two “sides” which are symmetrical in many aspects.  You follow the irrational practice of putting Hitler and Stalin as far away as possible and then cramming any and every system, idea, or person in between the two endpoints, using arbitrary metrics.  Basically, the “right wing” is whatever people say it is, if they have the soap box and say it loudly and often.  Everyone from Nazis to minarchists are called “far right”, which makes as much sense as arranging biological taxonomy according to the number of letters in the common name of an animal, so that a whale and an eagle are dubbed near cousins.
      It’s unthinking dogma and you’re more guilty of the things you inanely ascribe to “ideology” when you want to smear an opponent with that label.

      …so sure they are right that they see the other side as the enemy.

      Once again, you are certain that certainty is a bad thing.
      Since the world does have evil people who attain power, identifying them for what they are is not just a meaningless product of political rancor.  And, lying about others by portraying them as evil is not the mirror image of accurately pinpointing the source of the harm.
      But it is a sleight of hand to get average people riled up and taking sides.  Most Americans have no political power. Their true enemy includes everyone with political power who would use their productivity to benefit themselves and their cronies.  They are just pawns.  And, you’re a pawn with delusions of control and insight.

      The reality is that most on the left and right care about freedom,

      Most people are extremely ignorant of political news or history.  Hordes of them react emotionally to scant bits of information and cast votes based entirely on whims.  Those who win elections have the funding of wealthy elites and a staff which knows how to sell a product based on ridiculously impossible promises, rather than to convince people rationally and honestly.  Those voters who “care about freedom” are likely to have a warped notion of what it means–inculcated by government-run schools, distorted media, class warfare envy, etc..
      Freedom is the moral probity of letting people do things without interference, so long as they don’t hurt others.  It isn’t a “social construct”–and, we all know that’s just a euphemism for the diktats of the elite and powerful who manipulate the ignorant masses with fear and envy.  My freedom does not create an obligation on you to pay for my needs or wants.  That’s privilege, by definition, and holding a vote won’t change that fact.

      …want what’s best for the country and just disagree with the means to achieve it.

      No, they want what is best for their party and their interests.  Their “means to achieve” their goals, however, aren’t to apply their own productivity to benefit themselves, but to devise ways to greedily deprive the productivity of others for their aims.
      Except success comes from the initiative of individuals and the voluntary cooperation to benefit those involved.  It doesn’t come from plundering what others create and winning votes to impose your blueprint on everyone else.
      If, as you assert, most people would prefer to see most Americans being successful, then they could easily demonstrate that by trusting other people to make their own choices for their own goals.

      • You may be certain about things, Elliot, but that’s just your subjectivity.  If I disagree, your certainty is irrelevant.  Most smart people realize that in complex issues like ideology, politics, the meaning of life, religion, etc., there are no falsifiable experiments or paths to clear and certain knowledge, so anyone claiming certainty is delusional. We can reach agreement that, say, Stalin killing 20 million people (more than Hitler’s holocaust) is evil, even if we can’t prove it.  But when you get people saying taxation is evil, they’re being absurd.  They can believe that – but there is no reason for people to take them seriously, or think their certainty is any more than a subjective psychological desire to “be right” and think themselves as seeing reality more clearly than others.  Some people need that, but there is no reason to take those people seriously – they’re battling their own demons.

        • A rich, creamy trove of Ott Scerb material…right thar…
          And Erp is completely unaware…

          • Right…see Rags….it’s like this…..

            If you believe an ideology or practice a religion that says it’s okay to murder people in their sleep, there are no falsifiable experiments or paths to clear and certain knowledge that that’s wrong.

            If you insist on burning your living wife/wives on your funeral pyre when you die, there are no falsifiable experiments or paths to clear and certain knowledge that that’s wrong.

            If you stone people or saw off their heads for violating your religious laws, even if they aren’t the laws of the person you’re killing, there are no falsifiable experiments or paths to clear and certain knowledge that that’s wrong.

            If you believe you can own people and keep them in bondage or labor against their will and you do so, there are no falsifiable experiments or paths to clear and certain knowledge that that’s wrong.

            If you believe women are property and are subject to the rule of, either their male relatives or their husbands, there are no falsifiable experiments or paths to clear and certain knowledge that that’s wrong.

            You can’t be certain that ANY of the things I just listed (ALL still in practice or practiced within the last 200 years) are wrong.

            And you’re delusional, DELUSIONAL!!!!!!!!(did you year me?) if you claim certainty that those things I listed are wrong.  DELUSIONAL.  You can’t prove any of it you see.
            Anyone claiming certainty is delusional.  There is absolutely no reason to take people who thinks those things are wrong seriously.  No reason.   Seriously.
            People who believe the things listed are wrong, their certainty is just a subjective psychological desire to ‘be right’ and think themselves seeing reality more clearly than others.
            They’re just battling their own demons you see.


            Furthermore Scott is certain that anyone who is certain in their beliefes is delusional.

          • Did I mention, he’s certain that all the tea party supporters are jihadi radicals.
            He’s certain that support for the tea party agenda is fading.
            He’s certain that Obama scored a huge political victory when Russia agreed to negotiate for Assad on the chemical weapons.
            He’s certain that the Republicans MUST compromise with Obama.
            He’s certain he’s a political science expert.

          • I’m certain I enjoyed this.

            :)

             

          • I am certain I did, too!
            Heh!

          • Don’t you find it odd that we can’t “prove” that Stain was evil for murdering 20,000,000 people (which is a low estimate)?  But, we can be certain that people who say that taxes are evil are delusional and battling demons?
            Next he’ll start ranting about spectral evidence.  There really is no point to try to engage him in an honest exchange.  He works as a foil and an object of ridicule, but nothing more.

        • You may be certain about things, Elliot, but that’s just your subjectivity.  If I disagree, your certainty is irrelevant.

          That is your rhetorical strategy, in a nutshell.  You can be certain of things, but if someone else displays certitude and you disagree, then you decree (with certainty) that their statement is “just [their] subjectivity.”
          You declare such rules so that you will never lose an argument–so long as you can convince people to follow your rules, but so far you’ve utterly failed at that.

          so anyone claiming certainty is delusional.

          Are you certain of that?
          How many times will you repeat that mantra before you catch on that there are plenty of people here mocking you for such an obvious stolen concept fallacy?  How many times do you put your hand on the stove to make sure it’s hot?
          Hold on, I didn’t have to wait for a new comment, you did it again, in the same paragraph:

          there is no reason for people to…think their certainty is any more than a subjective psychological desire….

          “No reason” sounds like certainty.
          Jumping Jehoshaphat, you’re a dunce.

          • Nope, my opinion.  Only fools claim certainty, or think that’s something worth worrying about.  I’ll stand by my beliefs and defend them.  I know I can’t prove them, but that’s OK – there is no reason to do so, or to claim “certainty.”  That’s a kind of pathology.

          • “Only fools claim certainty, or think that’s something worth worrying about.”

            You just don’t see what you’re doing, do you.

            Fool.

             

          • Only fools claim certainty, or think that’s something worth worrying about.

            I’m certain you would certainly fight a fire in your home, certain of the danger, and worry about what it might do.
            But I’m not an lying Collectivist tool who feigns nihilism while wearing out whole forests of pom-poms cheering for BIG GOVERNMENT.

          • Nah, he’s bravely defending his beliefs.    2 ounces water, 1 slightly malfunctioning squirt gun, 1 noble progressive nihilist hero, ready to do battle because, uh,  it doesn’t matter.

          • Only fools claim certainty….

            You used the word “only”, which indicates certainty.  By your own declaration, you’re a fool. Q.E.D.
            Iteration #3,248.
            How soon before you do it again?  Once again, I have no need to wait for your next comment:

            I’ll stand by my beliefs and defend them. I know I can’t prove them, but that’s OK – there is no reason to do so, or to claim ‘certainty.’

            “no reason” implies certainty.  If someone came up with a reason to prove their beliefs, you’re certain that the reason would be wrong.
            And, I notice how you inexplicably shifted from discussing certainty to discussing “certainty”.  Add scare quotes, make it ambiguous, imply that people who use the word (excluding you, of course) are tilting at windmills, pretending that you are not the one who starts these discussions of certainty by attacking anyone who acts with confidence with your paralytic uncertainty mush-headedness.

            That’s a kind of pathology.

            Toss a few more seeds.  Demonize your opponents (while exempting yourself, of course).
            We see what you’re doing.  And, we’re laughing at you.

          • Yah, but it is a sort of sad, pathetic kind of laughter, because Erp is really pretty pitiable.

          • Here’s a little lesson:
            Instead of saying, “Only fools claim certainty…,” say something like, “Claiming certainty when the issues are highly complex is foolish.”  Or, better yet, “…seems foolish to me.”
            Instead of saying, “…there is no reason [to prove my beliefs],” say something like, “I see no reason to prove my beliefs to you.”
            I know, it doesn’t have the same sort of punch that you imagine your words have.  But even when you emphasize your point with implied certainty (ironically while damning certainty), you’re not very smart or persuasive, so the punch your words have, in general, is like smacking someone with a cotton ball.  But you’ve got to work with what you have.
            Most discussions of certainty originate with you declaring that someone else is wrong or crazy because they express certainty in their arguments (not because of their arguments, mind you, just because of the certainty in them).  More often than not, the whole thing is a straw man, because your opponent is confident and not expressing 100% metaphysical certainty.  But you don’t let details like that stop you.  No, you twist what others write to suit your ersatz canned responses.
            Take the debate over atheism.  Atheists are constantly accused of having faith, the mirror image of the religious fanatic who is certain that god exists and that he knows what god wants him to do.  Hitchens, Dawkins, and many others consistently debunk both arguments: (1) faith and (2) symmetry.  For #1: the existence of god (or quantum magic, or other supernatural things) has as much evidence as the existence of fairies.  If one said, “There are no fairies,” you would not declare that such a person has an irrational faith in the non-existence of fairies.  For #2: believing absolutely in something for which there is no evidence is not the mirror image of not believing in something for which there is no evidence.
            Likewise, when some supporter of big government declares that centralized control can fix problems, if just the right people happen to be in control, that’s not the mirror image of someone who cites history as evidence that central control fails because the central controllers are fallible humans whose incentives run contrary to the stated goal of representing the people.  The faith in big, centralized government is far less rational than cynicism.

          • If one said, “There are no fairies,” you would not declare that such a person has an irrational faith in the non-existence of fairies.

            It is apparent you have never spent much time in Hollywood…

          • I think it’s kinda fun that he holds beliefs he’s ‘uncertain’ about that he’s willing to defend.

            And he thinks that makes him superior to the rest of us to boot (psychologically twisted demon ridden certainty hobbled fools that we are).

             

          • I think it’s kinda fun that he holds beliefs he’s ‘uncertain’ about that he’s willing to defend.

            He doesn’t know if he is correct, but he is certain that if he were certain, he’d be wrong.  And still, he defends that which he cannot know for certain, because, well, just because.

            And he thinks that makes him superior to the rest of us to boot (psychologically twisted demon ridden certainty hobbled fools that we are).

            Beyond all the mush-headed paralytic uncertainty that we simply can’t know something (except that we can know that we can’t know), it’s just a simple case of special pleading and straw man.  The rules don’t apply to him and the rules do apply to you, even if the antecedent of the rule is his own invention.
            Most parents of young teenagers will recognize these rhetorical techniques.  The kid gets old enough to start understanding reasoned arguments and learns just enough to think he or she is correct, but not enough to know why not.  It’s at that point, the parents appear to be stupid and unreasonable.  It takes a few years, but it wears off, and then the parents return to being intelligent and wise.
            Dealing with Scott is similar, except I don’t love him and I don’t have any expectation that he’ll grow out of it.

  • I think it’s great they want to set precedent. Next time we capture the levers of power, lets just execute them. Problem solved.

     

  • http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/10/figures-ted-cruz-stalker-fueled-by-democrat-party-messaging/

    This will not end well.  The Collective has no compunction about the kind of tactics they use to gain a “victory”.

    • No, it won’t end end well because pushback ALWAYS happens, and they’re not taking that into account.
      It’s unfortunate but this is where we are headed. We simply cannot live with the likes of them.

  • And just so you know, you criminal bastids delayed the Obamacare rollout and sabotaged the web-sites.

    Well, if you don’t know now, you’ll know when Obamugabe’s Rose Garden speech wraps up.

  • TOOOOOOOOOooooo FUNNY…!!!
    After Snake Oil Delux invites people to use phones instead of TOXIC website…

    http://townhall.com/tipsheet/ChristineRousselle/2013/10/21/obamacare-call-center-down-as-president-encourages-phone-registration-n1728960

    • Yes, they’ll help you by sending you that paper application!

      We needed a $688 million system that you used to call in and get your paper applications.

      I guess the new slew of ‘experts’ they’re bringing in will do the work pro bono, out of pity, or something (not).

      Once again, I can assure you, you don’t fix a $688 million failure system in a few weeks, I don’t care what set of ‘experts’ you bring to bear on the code.

      But the press will issue glowing reports from the front detailing our numerous successes and assuring us that ultimate victory is just around the corner.
      After all, this was NEVER about a web-site!!!!!!

      ….unless you consider they knew there were massive problems and Barack went forward with the web-site debut on the announced date, which….

      kinda implies it was about the web-site.

michael kors outlet michael kors handbags outlet michael kors factory outlet