User Profile: BadgerBenson


Member Since: September 01, 2010


  • [3] September 28, 2016 at 4:46pm

    That is simply false on several accounts.
    1. There are great elected officials all around us on the state level.
    2. Your suggestion we walk away from this with a communist/socialist government is based on the notion that Article V means we can write a new government charter. That is simply false. Article V states a convention can only gather to propose amendments.
    3. It further states in Article V any amendment proposals must be ratified by the states. That means 38 states are needed to ratify any amendments. So even in your doomsday scenario that still means 38 states would have to approve an amendment that cancels out the Constitution itself and gives us a new dictatorial government. That makes zero sense.
    4. Let’s put that 38 ratification bar into further perspective. It means only 13 states are needed to stop any amendment. It means 13 LEGISLATIVE BODIES out of 99 (2 houses in each state, and Nebraska being 1 house) is all that is needed to defeat any disastrous amendment.
    5. If you claim Article V says more than what it clearly states (that is it has new government charter authorization) then you must also submit open interpretation to other parts of the Constitution. We can’t have this view both ways.
    It’s time to look at Article V for what it is – A Constitutional amendment process for the people via the states to deal with abusive federal government. It is not a backdoor system to change our Republic.Our Founder’s were smarter than that.

    Responses (2) +
  • June 9, 2016 at 1:16pm

    I must be the only one reading this and thinking they were referring to at least one of the two people pictured to the left of the headline.

    Responses (1) +
  • [7] May 31, 2016 at 2:06pm

    Why do people pay for cable/satellite TV, I’m guessing there’s a good chance you probably do too. Simple, more options. As far as SXM for me, figure in extra music channels that many consider better than terrestrial free radio, throw in access to every Major League Baseball game and other sports, and many other talk programs you can access other places, it’s a good deal for some like me. Throw a small extra charge that allows you to access off your phone (My Sprint unlimited data is like $120/month for two in the family.) and internet access to all programs and ability to create custom channels on the net side, there’s a lot more to it. Living away from my favorite teams this is easier access to follow my team. I find it to be a great deal. To each their own with their buying choices.

  • May 19, 2016 at 4:32pm

    It’s a good point. However, I think Article V is a REALLY big deal and something everyone on our side should be considering. At the very least admit that it is in the Constitution, and must be there for a reason. If you want to brand yourself as a Constitutionalist as an individual, or as a party labeled the Constitution Party, I think AV is an important consideration. They’re either ignored it, or through a number of articles it seems a lot of members object to it. (Fine if you object, let’s have that debate.) But don’t claim the constitutional mantle if you disagree or are even agnostic with a very important part of it, a part of it that is needed to be used now more than ever. I’d love to see the Constitution Party pick up the cause of Convention of States! But as it sits now, I think better than arguing over parties and 3rd party chances, our best hope is to get involved with Convention of States.

  • [8] May 19, 2016 at 3:28pm

    Do you support use of Article V and the Convention of States? It appears the Constitution Party is against using the Constitution to address government. Everything I can find on their site suggests they are against Article V.

    Responses (2) +
  • [3] May 19, 2016 at 3:27pm

    Not so fast. If you’re going to claim the title of “Constitution Party” you must embrace the entire Constitution. It seems to me the Constitution Party does not. A search of their web site reveals many articles against use of Article V of the Constitution. Fix that and back 100% of the document then you can claim to legitimately use that title, and I’ll consider joining you.

    Responses (2) +
  • [16] December 29, 2015 at 10:08am

    Ok troll. Let me explain. She brings up crimes committed by whites. While at the same time saying she doesn’t have anything to do with terrorism, we accept that, but she’s whining that she’s being asked to condemn it. She’s applying one standard to one group of people while being annoyed when a similar standard is applied to her. There you go moron.

  • [23] December 29, 2015 at 9:55am

    Oh I see she can generalize and talk about “white people”, but how dare we mention Islamic terrorism and expect her to defend those (our country) who would defend her. I bet she expects every whitey here to condemn the KKK too, although 99% of us probably have nothing to do with it, nor did anyone in our family before us.

    Responses (2) +
  • [8] November 14, 2015 at 10:59am

    What part are they upset over? The borders comment? Saying “Vive la France” – thinking he was mocking them or something? It’s no different than us cheering “USA! USA! USA!” or “God save the Queen!”

  • [4] September 29, 2015 at 12:20pm

    Richards then proclaimed, “The source of this is actually Americans United for Life, which is actually an anti-abortion group, so I would check your source.”

    AS IF that eliminates the legitimacy of the claim. As if there’s something inherently wrong with that viewpoint. So now the authority on any issue must be the “pro” stance? These people are the most blind special interest protectionists there ever were.

  • [2] August 31, 2015 at 10:59am

    These archelogical stories never fall short of disappointment.

    DRAMATIC HEADLINE, claiming important new understanding of humanity. Then you read it. Almost always it’s something about something being much older than it was and….that’s it. Cool, but really has our understanding of who we are changed all that much?

    Responses (2) +
  • August 26, 2015 at 1:06pm

    What’s important at this time is that no media rush to judgment. We need to make sure the accused did not have any sort of Confederate Battle Flag items in his home or on his person. Until then we can’t be certain what his motives were. I fully expect the media to do their standard due diligence with this crime.

  • [24] April 22, 2015 at 1:50pm

    Give the man a Pulitzer!

  • [10] April 9, 2015 at 10:38am

    It’s our fault. She just needs the $15/HR she deserves then she’d be a better employee.

    Responses (1) +
  • [11] March 17, 2015 at 5:43pm

    It’s ok. I have no reason to hate her.

    We can live without her music. Let’s see how long she can last without our farms.

  • [3] March 2, 2015 at 4:18pm

    Right, the story clearly said a lot of days he gets rides in between. Maybe he takes a nap on his break. Maybe he has a friend or neighbor on the route where he can sleep a bit? Whatever the case, if true, he’s not getting a lot of sleep. Point is, we don’t know every detail or the circumstances. It’s certainly odd, but I agree there’s way too much callousness with a lot of these responses.

  • [2] March 2, 2015 at 4:11pm

    Hoosier75 – You realize there’s more than one Osceola in the country? Do you also realize the article said it was in Iowa? Thus, the link from the Des Moines Register. It is indeed brutally cold in Iowa in the winter. Perhaps you saw the picture of him with the surrounding snow? Obviously not Florida.

    Maybe you need to read carefully before you start calling others “dumbass” and saying “idiots are out in droves”. You do appear correct, but they’re looking you right in the mirror.

  • [4] February 5, 2015 at 5:53pm

    Were they filmed in Georgia? This is talking about film locations (which I think they are better choices than some of these listed) and not straight up what movie is associated with each state.

    Responses (1) +
  • [4] November 10, 2014 at 3:36pm

    Maybe more importantly, his new song carries a very pro-life message. He just performed it last week on GMA. Generally his remarks have reflected a more liberal bent, but he’s never been a jerk about it or let his politics get in way of his entertaining.

  • September 3, 2014 at 3:45pm

    Reminds me of this.