User Profile: AboveMyPayGrade

AboveMyPayGrade

Member Since: July 12, 2011

Comments

123 To page: Go
  • [3] September 16, 2014 at 4:58pm

    It’s hard for ME to feel pity for him – simply because when the money runs out to maintain the VERY thin level of restraint that our welfare system places on the parasite class by keeping them in their freebies such that they won’t turn to utter mayhem, and the money WILL run out soon enough, MILLIONS of Michael Pattons are going to be rampaging through our society doing whatever they feel they have to do when the government is no longer faithfully fulfilling its role as meal ticket, and it won’t just be cab drivers who will be encountering people like him on that day but business owners and homeowners as well.

  • [1] September 16, 2014 at 4:51pm

    How many of this guy’s kids – if some haven’t ALREADY – do you think are going to following in their daddy’s steps, as in the steps to PRISON?

    And just out of curiosity, WHAT was he planning to do with the stolen taxi anyway to supposedly provide for his kids: sell it REAL cheap at a garage sale?

    I get the feeling that the ONLY school that THIS guy has spent any real time in is REFORM school.

  • September 16, 2014 at 4:47pm

    How many different “baby mamas” do you think are represented among the mothers of all those kids?

  • [1] September 16, 2014 at 4:38pm

    Then what does it say about YOU if you think the conservatives who post here are mind-numbingly stupid – and yet you CHOOSE to insert yourself into the midst of such people?

    The vast majority of people with even two functioning brain cells still left choose to ESCHEW what they find abhorrent.

    What, do the people who are NOT “mind-numblingly STUPID” not want your company?

    And in case you haven’t noticed, plenty of politicians belonging to the party that YOU vote for have ALREADY declared the Tea Party folks to be “terrorists”. If the day comes that the federal government decides to declare them “terrorists” for the purpose of cracking down on them extra-legally, it isn’t going to matter WHAT the law is or isn’t on whether the government can legally do that, in the age of Obama, the law is whatever the government SAYS it is – or isn’t – at any given moment.

    Responses (1) +
  • September 16, 2014 at 10:51am

    You replied to Canadaboy’s 9:52am post reading, “I guess he his thinking of a job for when his term is up.”, with the reply at 10:17am, “He’s not leaving”.

    And yet AGAIN, I’ll pose the question for the umpteenth time to the umpteenth power on this site in this realm: WHERE is Obama going to get the bully boys who will KEEP him in power beyond 1/20/2017?

    Do you REALLY believe that an American military that Obama has insulted and demeaned almost non-stop since Day 1 of his presidency, culminating in the recent Taliban-Bergdahl swap, will do this? And don’t tell me about how thoroughly Obama may have replaced the top brass with loyalists, it isn’t GENERALS who take and occupy cities, it’s GRUNTS – and I think Obama will get VERY few, at most, at that level for such an endeavor. I think the same would be true for the National Guard and civilian law-enforcement.

    The civilian federal workforce? For all its recent acquisition of armament, are these the same bravehearts who, fearless of death, engaged in a firefight with the armed citizens who showed up at Cliven Bundy’s ranch in NV early this year to stand in solidarity in Bundy? Wait a minute, what’s that you say, they DIDN’T engage in a firefight with these citizens but BACKED DOWN instead? Gee, fancy that!

    U.N. troops? PUH-LEEZE! The only thing that U.N. forces have ever shown any aplomb for is not being SOLDIERS but being RAPISTS!

    So AGAIN: where does the army to keep Obama in power come from?

  • [1] September 15, 2014 at 5:49pm

    While I have little regard these days for the political understanding of the Millennial Generation, and even LESS regard for America’s so-called higher education system, I’m not so sure just what these students meant by “supporting” ISIS.

    It’s possible that their “support” for ISIS as supposedly indicated by this petition is merely that they do not believe that the U.S. government should attack them unless they attack us first (like with a latter-day 9/11), in which case, this petition may merely be measuring these students’ anti-war sympathies.

    If their “support” for ISIS is that they have no objection to the objection of a caliphate state in the Middle East, THEN I fully share the view of so many posters of revulsion, given the fact, as many have already pointed out, that the very caliphate they would thus have no objection to would chop off THEIR heads the first chance it could or impose on them the kind of society that would be an absolute hell on earth for them.

    Under the kind of society that ISIS and those like it would impose on this world, the students who signed this position, if they have no moral opprobrium toward ISIS, would find a lot of their favorite sexual activities strictly forbidden – and transgressions would be punished, if ISIS had its way, not with a session in the dean’s office but by DEATH.

  • [1] September 15, 2014 at 3:06pm

    Gee, your disdain for me just REALLY wrecks my day.

  • September 15, 2014 at 2:14pm

    As I’ve stated on a couple of related threads this morning on this issue, Obama’s strategy is to try to do NOTHING about ISIS until he’s out of office – and to hopefully (in Obama’s mind) leave it by the time he leaves office even more entrenched and powerful. And since ISIS now controls oilfields, it has the financial resources to acquire WMD’s – and since ISIS has already publicly stated that it wants to hit America on its own soil, I believe that Obama would dearly LOVE for ISIS to do this, preferably with WMD’s, only AFTER he has left the presidency.

    I think that the ONLY thing that Obama is worried about with ISIS is that it will make good its threat to hit us on our own soil BEFORE he leaves the White House (and if that happens, I wouldn’t expect something on the scale of a 9/11, I believe it will much more akin to Mumbai at Thanksgiving 2008 or what Chechnyan terrorists did in Beslan, Russia a few years earlier).

    Because if ISIS hits us on our own soil with a mass-casualty attack after the mid-terms (ESPECIALLY if those mid-terms result in the Democrats losing control of both houses of Congress) but roughly before the Dems’ presidential convention in 2016, and if we discover that the terrorists were able to get in through our southern border that Obama has left wide open, I believe that such an attack would likely quickly bring an end to Obama’s presidency, as I believe that panicky Democrats, to save 2016, would throw him over the side.

    Responses (1) +
  • [18] September 15, 2014 at 10:00am

    Problem is, THAT isn’t exactly a state secret!

  • [4] September 15, 2014 at 9:58am

    That’s comforting to know!

  • [1] September 15, 2014 at 9:27am

    DB Cooper?

    Heck, I’ll go you one better than that:

    I know what really happened to JUDGE CRATER, but I’m not telling!

    Responses (1) +
  • [2] September 15, 2014 at 9:26am

    But not well enough to allow it to avoid still having to lay off 500+ employees!

  • September 15, 2014 at 9:22am

    @ ewoodard

    Actually, we’re BOTH in agreement that Obama wans a mass-casualty attack on our soil.

    I’m not so sure, however, how you get from the Point A of such an attack happening on our soil to the Point B of such an attack assuring Dem power for years to come.

    If what you’re implying is that Obama would use such an attack as his “Reichstag fire” trigger to impose a national state of martial law, suspend the Constitution and all future elections, and make himself president-for-life (and if THAT’S what you’re implying, you have a LOT of company in that belief on this site), I have oft-stated on this site, and still believe, that I believe that such an attempt by Obama is FAR likelier to wind up with him in a rubber bag, a prison cell for the rest of his life, or a Third-World hidey-hole than as Emperor Obama I of America.

    If what you’re implying is that in the wake of such an attack it would result in a massive shift of support on the part of the American people to the Democrats, I think that if anything, it would have the OPPOSITE effect, because such an attack, ESPECIALLY if it was perpetrated by ISIS personnel who got into this country through our open southern border or in other ways that evidenced a complete indifference on Obama’s part toward America’s national security, would I believe cause people to turn AGAINST Obama and his party and to turn to those that they perceived were SERIOUS about protecting our country: Republicans.

  • September 15, 2014 at 12:23am

    Andrew Wilkow said on his satellite radio show over a week ago that NO head of state is going to send HIS nation’s forces to any effort to combat ISIS that Barack Obama will be in command of – because nobody believes him and nobody trusts him anymore.

    Besides, as I’ve stated on this site before on this, I don’t believe that Obama WANTS to defeat ISIS, I think what he wants is to dither and do nothing about ISIS until he is out of office and let ISIS become a more entrenched national entity, and since ISIS has openly stated it wants to hit us on our own soil, and since ISIS has seized oil fields which will allow it to generate the cash needed to pay for WMD’s, I think Obama wants to see ISIS become an acquirer of WMD’s which will then use those WMD’s on American soil.

    The only thing that Obama is worried about with ISIS, in my opinion, is it hitting us on our own soil BEFORE his term would end, because if ISIS is able to stage a mass-casualty attack on our soil (I doubt it would be on the scale of 9/11, I thinking more likely on the scale of Mumbai in November 2008 or what the Chechnyans did at Beslan, Russia a few years before), especially if on November 4 the Democrats lose control of both houses of Congress and if it happens before the Democrats’ presidential convention in 2016, I think such an attack would quickly bring about the end of Obama’s presidency, as to save 2016 for themselves, I believe that the Dems would throw him over the side.

    Responses (2) +
  • September 15, 2014 at 12:17am

    DEAD ON!

    Andrew Wilkow said on his satellite radio show over a week ago that NO head of state is going to send HIS nation’s troops to any effort to combat ISIS that Barack Obama will be in command of – because nobody believes him and nobody trusts him anymore.

    Besides, as I’ve stated on this site before on this, I don’t believe that Obama WANTS to defeat ISIS, I think what he wants is to dither and do nothing about ISIS until he is out of office and let ISIS become a viable national entity, and since ISIS has openly stated it wants to hit us on our own soil, and since ISIS has seized oil fields which will allow it to generate the cash needed to pay for WMD’s, I think Obama wants to see ISIS become an acquirer of WMD’s which will then use those WMD’s on American soil.

    The only thing that Obama is worried about with ISIS, in my opinion, is it hitting us on our own soil BEFORE he leaves office, because if ISIS is able to stage a mass-casualty attack on our soil (I doubt it would be on the scale of 9/11, I thinking more likely on the scale of Mumbai in November 2008 or what the Chechnyans did at Beslan, Russia a few years before), especially if on November 4 the Democrats lose control of both houses of Congress and if it happens before the Democrats’ presidential convention in 2016, I think such an attack would quickly bring about the end of Obama’s presidency, as to save 2016 for themselves, I believe that the Dems would throw him over the side.

  • [6] September 14, 2014 at 7:41pm

    I would LOVE to see Scotland vote for independence from the United Kingdom, for two reasons.

    One, from everything I’ve read, Scotland is one of the most welfare-state-intensive countries on this planet (I’ve read that 50% of Scotlands’ GDP consists of transfer payments from London). If Scotland votes to go it alone, those monies from Britain will cease, and thus Scotland will have to pay for its OWN pervasive welfare state. The Scots will QUICKLY discover, once they’re having to pay for it themselves, that that state is RUINOUS, and thus it will have no choice but to either greatly pare back or eliminate their welfare state.

    The other reason is because the Members of Parliament that Scotland sends to that body are solidly leftist and have been for years, and as a result have pushed the United Kingdom’s governance to the left. Without that leftist contingent from Scotland in its Parliament anymore, hopefully it would allow the governance of the U.K. to go right.

    Someone here posted that one drawback to the U.K. if Scotland votes for independence is the loss of that Scottish military base where NATO has been harboring nuclear submarines, as the Scottish National Party, the prime pusher for independence, has stated that if Scotland votes for independence, those nukes will be gone. But I think an independent Scotland would quickly discover it would need foreign revenues to survive – and what better source than charging NATO for use of that base?

    Responses (1) +
  • September 14, 2014 at 7:29pm

    RJJinGadsden, you replied at 3:21pm to knowbodyknows’s 3:01pm post with: “And, how does Congress veto an Executive Order? Be afraid…be very afraid.”

    As I’ve oft-stated on this site, if the Republicans win control of both houses of Congress on November 4, especially if they win control of the Senate with several seats to spare, the aftermath of such an electoral result is the PERFECT time for state governors to openly defy those executive orders and refuse to obey or submit to or enforce those EO’s or to allow federal authorities to enforce them, and then DARE Obama to just TRY to MAKE them submit to them, and in so doing, force Obama to either have to back down or to have to escalate.

    As I’ve oft-stated, if the Dems take a bloodbath on November 4, starting the next day for the next two years, their biggest priority is going to be saving 2016 for their sainted Hillary or for whoever else they run for president, as well as their party in general – NOT saving Obama. And thus, the Dems on Capitol Hill who survive the massacre will be in no mood to stick their necks out for Obama, and thus he’ll have no political capital left.

    It’s POSSIBLE that Obama could choose to escalate in the face of such defiance with force and violence, but if he were inclined to go that route, my question is, why didn’t he do so at the Bundy ranch earlier this year? I argue that Obama will be too afraid of jeopardizing his cushy life to risk it by escalating with violence.

  • [13] September 13, 2014 at 12:18pm

    I’ve never been married, but even I could have told those researchers at Rutgers this BEFORE they expended the time and money on this study.

    Guess the folks at Rutgers have never heard the expression “If momma ain’t happy, ain’t NOBODY happy”.

  • [2] September 13, 2014 at 10:40am

    I’ll ask the same question that Mark Levin led his satellite radio show off with yesterday: WHAT makes this story such a matter of national interest or importance?

    Levin started off his show yesterday by noting that on some major broadcast outlet, this was the story they led off their news coverage with, and he wondered WHAT, with all the OTHER issues facing this nation right now, makes this incident such a big deal that it should be some news show’s lead story.

    The very first thought that went through my mind regarding an answer to Levin’s question is that with so many things closing in on the Obama administration and with the Democrats looking at a bloodbath in the mid-terms, this was a desperate attempt by the leftist media to deflect attention away from all these things.

    Regarding the Peterson story itself, when I first heard about it, that he had taken a switch to discipline his son, the very first thought that went through my mind was, “What’s wrong with THAT? MANY children over the years have been disciplined by their dads with a switch, and THEY turned out just fine as adults, indeed, many of them in their adulthood realized how much of a favor their fathers did in disciplining them that way, by beating out of them behaviour patterns that would have ill-served them as adults, and were THANKFUL for that discipline even if they weren’t so thankful for it at the time it was administered.”

    Responses (1) +
  • [1] September 12, 2014 at 11:50am

    I guess that for the Nelson, when they prayed in a musty old hall in Detroy-it in the Maritime Sailors Cathedral, the church bell rang only NINE times instead of TWENTY-NINE.

    Responses (1) +
123 To page: Go