User Profile: Reaganaut


Member Since: May 10, 2013


  • [3] November 10, 2014 at 11:27pm

    It would be a gigantic waste of time to try and “repeal” ObamaCare with Obama in office. Instead, what each and every Republican should be saying right now is “We are not going to fund ObamaCare, and we are going to cut taxes and we are going to decrease spending and we are going to put tariffs on Chinese imports and we are going to force the approval of the Keystone XL pipeline and we are going to secure the border and we are going to start acting American again in spite of the clown in the Oval Office. All these things are plausible – repealing OBAMACare while OBAMA is in office is not one of those plausible things.” De-fund it today, and we can repeal it altogether once an American regains the office.

    In reply to the post Rand Paul = Nancy Pelosi?

    Responses (1) +
  • [4] October 27, 2014 at 11:32pm

    And how’s that election victory working out for you?

    Meanwhile, back in the present, the Democrats are losing the Senate and Obama sucks at everything.

  • [81] October 27, 2014 at 11:22pm

    This is the pinnacle of Progressivism: to take a stance completely contrary to logic and reason, and then blindly attack all who oppose your stance. This world view will eat itself over time since it is prone to group-think and lacks new ideas and innovation. Just stay out of its way until it’s done feeding on itself.

    Bill, you helped create the Ultra-Progressives, now they’ve turned on you: you reap what you sow.

    The gods of the copybook headings are bringing their “terror and slaughter” as we speak.

  • [3] October 27, 2014 at 11:14pm

    Rabid, in most instances you’d be right, but this cannibalization of their own kind is a result of the positive feedback loop which began in the 60′s and has reached its zenith today. I like to call it “Ultra-Progressivism” in which the attacks are blind and doled out to all, but are based in the opposite of normal logic and reason. Doublespeak at its finest.

  • [24] October 27, 2014 at 10:03pm

    True, but in this case, it’s more like idealistic stupidity induced by left of Stalin professors.

    Responses (2) +
  • [1] October 20, 2014 at 12:04pm

    At the time I voted on the question at the end of the article, 71% of the people who read it don’t stand by their principles and fear retaliation (i.e., they answered “Maybe”).

    And this is why our government walks all over us: we are too scared to speak up and express our values. Instead, we have become mindless lemmings who fall in line and trudge toward our eventual demise. We see it coming, we know it’s coming, but we move toward it anyway – because we wouldn’t want to cause ourselves suffering.

  • [2] October 10, 2014 at 11:54am

    “The results are indicative that emissions from established fossil fuel harvesting techniques are greater than inventoried,” Kort said. “There’s been so much attention on high-volume hydraulic fracturing, but we need to consider the industry as a whole.”

    I think you’re all missing the point of this article. The conclusion that these “scientists” are drawing is that the methane emissions are anthropogenic in nature – not naturally occurring seeps.

    More bogus B.S. from lying pseudo-scientists.

  • October 10, 2014 at 11:04am

    “Wipe me”

  • October 9, 2014 at 5:40pm

    “I farted”

    Responses (1) +
  • [10] October 9, 2014 at 4:34pm

    “Plausible deniability”
    “Quiet peasant”

  • November 4, 2013 at 12:07am

    “I mean, the proposal was this big! You guys can’t expect me to read all that! You didn’t take the time to read the legislation, so why should I read the bid for the website?”

  • November 4, 2013 at 12:02am

    “Wait, so you’re not arresting me today? You guys are dumber than I thought.”

  • November 4, 2013 at 12:01am

    “Ms. Sebelius, if you were to estimate the size of this piece of crap legislation and the subsequent website, how big would you say it is?”
    “It’s at least this big around. I saw it walking down the hall of the White House yesterday….wait, what was that? Oh, my! That was the First Lady? Ooops.”

  • November 3, 2013 at 11:56pm

    “I don’t know what to do with my hands….”

  • November 3, 2013 at 11:56pm

    “And so after our initial project kick-off meeting to get this thing rolled out, I turned to everyone and said, ‘F@#k it, let’s go get some burritos!’”

  • November 3, 2013 at 11:52pm

    Must be a private school because that kind of material is verboten by the Kool-Aid drinkers. Tends to sour the Kool-Aid for the uninitiated.

  • October 23, 2013 at 11:32am

    Or maybe he could just man up and act like a parent. Not today’s kind of parent, but what would be referred to by today’s wussifiers as a “hard@$$”.

    Responses (1) +
  • October 22, 2013 at 1:02pm

    This will be the legacy of the Great Divider in Chief. Instead of leading and uniting, our president avoids accountability and blames situations like this on everyone else. I’m sure the liberal trolls will point the finger at the conservatives and libertarians leading these pushes instead of the people who are pushing them to these extremes.

  • September 30, 2013 at 12:28pm


    Your use of the words “born” and “unborn” create a cyclic argument which doesn’t speak to the issue of abortion. The question is not whether a child is “born” or “unborn”, but whether the child is a person with rights. Of course you aren’t born until you are “born”.

    “Scientifically” speaking, you are 100% incorrect to assume that it violates scientific dogma by calling an unborn child an individual with rights. Truly an organism with its own diploid DNA set comprised of the union of two haploid DNA sets, one from the mother and one from the father, that can consume energy, produce waste, respond to stimulus better than Solyndra, etc. is a living individual organism.

    Of course, you could argue that the unborn child relies on the mother to provide it nutrients and is therefore not a true individual. But if I were to place you on Mars where you cannot survive without oxygen, water, nutrients, etc. that occur naturally here on Earth, would that make you not a human individual with rights? The point being, we are all dependent upon the proper conditions for survival just as the unborn child is dependent upon the proper conditions in utero. Our level of dependence does not determine our level of humanity.

  • June 26, 2013 at 7:38pm

    Obviously TheBlaze does not appreciate the female anatomy…..