“including his monkey wife”? WTF? Are you serious, dude? Nothing would make me happier than to see Obama resign or get tossed out on his ass for what he has done, but attacking his wife and refering to her as a monkey? You make me sick, dude.
September 14, 2011 at 9:51am
September 14, 2011 at 9:46am
September 13, 2011 at 7:09pm
I’ll go. Where do I sign up?
September 13, 2011 at 11:40am
And the Blaze/Beck do it again. At least we can all say you clowns are consistant–consistant in attempting to railroad Ron Paul. Uh, quick question Scott/Glenn, how do you morons sleep at night? Please, for all our sakes, never bump into me on a street corner.
September 12, 2011 at 11:48pm
Honestly, why do I come back to this site and read this BS? Scott and Glenn, I’m surprised you haven’t endorsed Santorum. I mean, since all three of you are about equal in terms of being hell bent on a theocracy. You don’t give a rat’s a** about liberty or the Constitution. All you care about is bringing about “Change God Can Believe In”. You don’t want America to exist as a free Republic. You want America to exist as a theocracy, where even non-radicalized Muslims are public enemy number one and adherence to your small-minded, religious dogma is considered “patriotism”. Like Santorum, you make me sick to my stomach.
Glenn did Endorse Santorum as his #2 pick. Says all I need to know about Beck's leanings these days. Go NEOCON!
I agree Beck jumped the shark. His Fox show until the last few months was a libertarian show period. Suddenly he became a neo con.
The best revenge for Paul supporters will be when Obama beats Perry or Romney in 2012. That is the pure John Galt moment guys like Beck talk a little about and think they know about but they really don't.
I am an ardent Ron Paul supporter and think that Glenn does realize that the candidate that most closely matches his personal paradigm is Ron Paul.
I think that Pat Gray's prejudice against Dr. Paul effects Glenn quite a bit.
Santorum is a big government guy with regard to foreign policy and at home. He supports a federal mandate that would outlaw same sex marriage which would do further damage to the already battered tenth amendment. If we have learned nothing else in the last 100 years it is that we cannot impose morality on others from a strong central government. Further supporting my theory, Pat Gray supports Santorum.
Someone needs to remind Pat Gray that the current Federal definition of marriage (one man and one woman) was passed in violation of the first amendment rights of the Mormons in Utah who at the time had multiple wives. (As long as everyone in a relationship is a consenting adult we should leave them alone and if a state wants to make a law or rule then you vote with your feet as the founder's intended).
I am a devout Mormon myself and am certainly not wanting a return to polygyny (I am lucky to have found one woman willing to put up with me).
Don't give up on Glenn and Pat, just remind them as often as you can that Joseph Smith taught a very libertarian principle, "Teach (people) correct principles and let them govern themselves".
To categorize Islam as some small radical element that has betrayed the true teachings of Islam is not only incorrect it's like categorizing Hitler as a lover of Jews, poetry and Art. just plain stupid.
Let me give you the definition of a non-radicalized Muslims
Someone who believes a little of what muhammad preached but not all of it. Actually less then half....well OK really not a allot.
If your a true believer of Islam then you were OBL and the millions upon millions of those who chant death to liberty, death to democracy, death to the USA.
Didn't I school you on this already. It's obvious you don't want to broaden your understanding of Islam and wish to remain a clown troll or your a jihadist spreading disinformation to inject harm in our republic.
September 12, 2011 at 11:27pm
September 12, 2011 at 11:22pm
Hey model, why don’t you suck my member…I’m sure you’re very talented at it.
Hey easy on the pit bull...it's tough going through life with a mug like that...besides she's on the payroll...what's she supposed to say?
Takes one to know one.
Hey model, why don't you suck my member...I'm sure you're very talented at it.
COnservative Teacher . . .
You teach your kids with that mouth? If getting rid of the Department of Education will throw you out into the street, I'm all for it. You should have been home schooled. That way you would at least know how to cook meth.
She is a complete moron, among many other morons, living the dream due to the idiocy of all the other morons that allowed them to reach such lofty levels. These people would be living under a bridge in a cardboard box if they didn't work for the liberal moronic party. And why do they all have to be so butt ugly?
Damn! I feel like I'm back in grade school! Who cares what she looks like! It isn't her looks that offends me, it's th BS issuing forth from her mouth! Let's all try and stay focused on the important things! Just sayin'
September 12, 2011 at 2:28pm
Really? Does anyone really care what Krugman says? Crazy people say crazy things, that’s how they roll. What difference does it make? Krugman isn’t going to influence policy decisions or even the general direction of this country. He appeals to such a small minority of ultra-liberals and progressives that he and his words are less than inconsequential.
He is obviously on something. When you see him on tv lately he looks scared to death. His entire faith has been exsposed as an academic excersise with no basis in reality. Its over. We cannot continue to borrow any more money and even Kool Aid Krugman knows it.
Just because his audience is limited doesn't mean people should call him out when write hateful lies about people. He is a reporter and should be held to a higher standard than some crazy guy wearing a soup board spouting off about doomsday or the CIA.
This guy is lowqer than slime while he supports a Prseident who says NEVER LET A CRISIS GO TO WASTE he claims another President was doing the same thing.
You know what slime where ever you are I want to say I 'm sorry for comparing krugman to you.
Exactly. This is a ploy to get him in the news and stir up trouble which is what he wants. Just ignore him and he'll go away. Why give him the time of day. Not worth it.
What he says 'does' matter, yet what matters more is what is said in response.
For instance, if you tell a lie long enough, it becomes a truth.
If people don't respond, and let this kind of talk go unchallenged, it festers, metastasizes and becomes part of the engrained fabric.
When untruths are spieled, they must be met with a response. Period.
Yes, fewer people listen to Krugman and even less after his latest "repugnant" piece. But it is the NYT that should be condemned for printing the piece. I must assume that the NYT editors thought it worthy of printing on the tenth anniversary of 3000 innocent people being murdered in NYC. This was one of the few times when every American, save Krugman apparently, put differences aside and pulled together to do what was necessary to recover.
Donald Rumsfeld should not be the only person to cancel their subscription to this "repugnant" paper.
He has every right to his opinion but stating it out loud does have consequences. Many people do not like what he has said, I don;t like it, but he did have the right to say it. The consequences are that many people may drop their subscriptions to NYT and I ask them "What took you so long?"
You are exactly right. What is unthinkable today, is thinkable tomorrow, and common place next week........if someone doesn't have the courage to stand up and say something about it. Liberals have a bully mentality. If you stand up to them, they'll back down 9 times out of 10 because they're really cowards masquerading as heroes in their own sad little world.
Yes, he does have the "right" to say what he believes. But, just because you can say something, doesn't mean you should (as we USED to teach any 3 year old). Our rights mean that we have a responsibility to use them appropriately. What he said....on the day he said it.......unexcusable!
You are not factoring in that there are a thousand Paul Krugmans in the media, each doing what he did every single day. Add it all together and you have a media hell-bent on destroying this country and making Obama a hero. You gotta start somewhere. Krugman is as good a place as any.
Let Krugman be the face of liberal America that we are fighting.
Trust me. He makes a difference. He spews lies.
It chills me to think that you may really be a teacher.
Your attitude is that of a moral relativist. That is NOT a plus in any classroom.
Check out Krughole this is what a radical, crack user looks like
to BBoat -- you need to read my post again. I said that what he said had consequences. What part of that was wrong? I agree that he should not have written it at any time let alone on 9/11. But can you think any less of him than you did before he said this?
Not much of a Donald Rumsfeld fan, but the NYT will be a
handy item in the old outhouse at the Cabin for now on.....
September 12, 2011 at 10:27am
If we get out of our three unconstitutional wars, there won’t be a need to cut defense spending. This isn’t rocket science. America must maintain a vastly superior military in size, scope, and technology. What we cannot do is continue to be the world’s police. It simply isn’t constitutional to continue to travel down this path.
Bring the Troops home and Use them to kick Islam out of the United States and Canada...I'll Agree to that..And your right We need to Stop being a World Police Force...
Indeed get them home now.
The problem is that there are evil people in the world who want to kill us, each and every one of us. The United States is the primary target. Every time we try to forget this fact, history repeats itself and we find ourselves in the middle of a much larger war. In modern times, we have tried to isolate ourselves from the growth of International Communism, from National Socialism, and from Japanese Military Imperialism. In the end, our weakness led to Pearl Harbor, WWII, the Korean War, and the long Cold War. Now, through no fault of our own, we are engaged in a war declared upon us by International Jihadism. We have no choice but to fight. The guns or butter argument offers a false choice. We must defend ourselves in order to remain free. Not guns OR butter, but defense in order to be free to produce butter.
A wise man prays for peace but prepares for war. America doesn't need to cut defense we need to quit policing the world and the savings will come automaticly. We need a strong defense not offense.
So what Ben & Jerry is say if the terrorist were eating Ben & Jerry they would not have attacked the USS, Cole, Colbart Towers, first Twin Tower attack or the second Twin Tower attack, etc. Let's see what happens if B & J take their ice cream over to the middle east Libya, Iraq, Iran, etc and see how peaceful the middle east becomes. No more B & J for me or family.
Many years a go when I learned B&J ice cream was made by liberals, I refused to buy it...Now when I go shopping I want to turn all their Ice Cream UPSIDE DOWN!!!
CONSERVATIVE_TEACHER, although I may agree that we need to bring the troops home, what's unconstitutional about the Iraq war? Bush got the votes from congress. Obama did not seek congressional approval, which makes his war unconstitutional.
I agree and disagree with your comment; I certainly don't agree with this guy Shane or Ben who promote a liberal agenda and Shane misuses Biblical principles in that cause so he doesn't deserve a second thought in my mind.
I do agree with you that we do need to draw down our forces in all three wars but I'm perplexed why you consider all three unconstitutional. Afghanistan...unconstitutional? I can see why people think Iraq might be although I would disagree with that statement. The only unconstitutional war I see for certain is Lybia which had NO Congressional approval. You say you're a teacher please educate us.
I'm disgusted as usual with bennie and Jerry do not even buy their ice cream
These wars are unconstitutional because this administration is criminalizing anything they don't agree with, to fuel the fire that is the left. One of the failed examples is Fast and Furious, now we see this stupid and useless wars that are driving military spending up so they can say its ok to cut it now.
O.K. make "Chubby Hubby, Not War" is cute, but..........
Well, like the old saying, "It is better to fight the islamwackos in Baghdad than in Brooklyn", but maybe that doesn't matter to you. (saddam hussein attacked our ally Israel and offered bounties to all terrorists who killed Jews, but that probably doesn't matter to you either.)
September 10, 2011 at 10:09pm
Get us out of all the unconstitutional wars, bring every last troop home, and the defense budget can be cut while maintaining our current level of readiness…even increasing our level of readiness for that matter. Rumsfeld is a liar, always has been and always will be.
I'm left to wonder when people will wakeup and realize that whats happening in this country is being done on purpose, by the evil people who are in charge. They want us subjugated and they want this country destroyed.
Get us out of all the unconstitutional wars, bring every last troop home, and the defense budget can be cut while maintaining our current level of readiness...even increasing our level of readiness for that matter. Rumsfeld is a liar, always has been and always will be.
Don't cry to us, TEACHER, cry to YOUR Commander-in-chief. These are YOUR unconstitutional wars now, not OURS.
There's only one unconstitutional war, bub. That's Libya. The other two were approved by Congress.
Sir, might I suggest to you that you look at what ACTUALLY comprises a Declaration of War? It is a very specific thing, and we have NO Declaration of War in effect at this time, for ANY of our military adventures around the world.
Congress' weak-kneed, limp-wristed "authorization for use of force" is NOT, I repeat, NOT a formal Declaration of War.
I seem to remember one congressman bringing forward a formal Declaration of War when the "use of force authorization" was being bandied about. He was dismissed as a crank and a kook. Wonder who that congressman was? None other than Ron Paul. That guy you guys like to claim is "isolationist", etc., ACTUALLY TRIED TO FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONDITIONS FOR A STATE OF WAR. Had he been successful, the Middle East would look a lot different today than it does.
We will get out of all unconstitutional wars whem we rid the world of an unconstitutional president
September 10, 2011 at 9:31pm
You should be sorry, moron. I loath Barack Obama and his ideology, but to suggest he wants to have terrorists attack our country and kill Americans is ridiculous. Get a grip on reality you freak.
September 10, 2011 at 8:57pm
Better no evidence followed by no attack than obscure evidence after an attack.
Well said ... too bad others don't see the clarity of this ...
Well said ... too bad others don't see the clarity of this ...
September 10, 2011 at 8:01pm
I just want to thank you for that post. There really is nothing like being vindicated in an argument live, as the argument is happening. You, along with the rest of your religious nutball buddies, have done just an absolutely wonderful job in proving my point—that you are all quite nuts. And people wonder why western civilization spent over a millennia in the dark ages. Given the opportunity, I’m sure you’d burn a self-proclaimed witch at the stake as well. Please take the “Conservative” part out of your username. You are not conservative. You are a religious radical.
September 10, 2011 at 5:22pm
@Patriotme, again you are missing the point of my original comment. I did not imply that it was “no big deal”. Of course it’s a big deal. It’s sickening actually, but you’ve missed the point. For a ‘believer’, the fallback position of “God’s Will Be Done” is the position of no big deal. Apparently you don’t read many of the posts on the Blaze, or you simply choose to ignore them. On topics such as disasters or the like, the vast majority of the posts are both religious in nature and fall into one of the two categories I described. You cannot escape this fact. The evangelical Christian faith demands that you either accept a tragedy as being “god’s will” or the aversion of a tragedy as “God’s intervention”, both of those being completely out of your control—hence the “no big deal” implication.
September 10, 2011 at 3:45pm
First, thank your husband for his service from me. It is greatly appreciated. Second, isn’t it in fact true that you really don’t know jack shiit about me? Do you know if I am myself a veteran or not? Do you know if like you, I have family members serving this country overseas? Of course you don’t. But like the rest of your religious nutball buddies, that doesn’t seem to matter—facts don’t seem to matter. And therein lies the contradiction—the hypocrisy of religion that have and will continue to comment on and expose whenever and wherever I can. You claim, like most BBT’s will, that our Republic was “founded on creationist principles”, but at the same time choose to either ignore or pretend that the truth of factual history. You spend your time falsely accusing me of being a liberal, but not a single word of the people on this very thread calling for the mass murder of human beings solely on the basis of their religious affiliation. Of course, that isn’t surprising due to the fact that Christianity has held this stance in the past and in fact attempted to carry out those plans more than once.
Islam, as a religious dogma, is a threat to liberty. Christianity is a threat to liberty. Progressivism is a threat to liberty. Psuedo-conservatism, more popularly known as the religious right, is a threat to liberty.
September 10, 2011 at 2:15pm
You arrive at your conclusions about me via a common misconception—that ‘Conservatism’ is married to religion. Nothing could be further from the truth. Conservatives—true conservatism has been hijacked by the religious right in our republic. Beck is the poster child for this axiom.
The reality is that I despise the concept of central statism no less than I despise religious control. I am staunchly opposed to Marxist socialism. I’m staunchly opposed to big government. I’m staunchly opposed to Barack Obama. What I am for is Constitutional Liberty—no more, no less. As far as I’m concerned, Obama, Soros, Evangelicals, Beck, MSNBC, Fox News, and yes even The Blaze are all equally as much a threat to true liberty.