See, this is why we need more politicians like Barney Frank

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYlZiWK2Iy8&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

Comments

  1. 1

    YLB spews:

    Go Barney!!!

    The politicians in general are afraid to push back against these idiots because it gets broadcast on TV and moron pundits then tut tut at them. They’re afraid they’ll lose a lot of votes that way.

    Doesn’t erase the reality that these ghouls are either bought and paid for tools or simple fools whose minds are easily shaped by fear-mongering and will do what the fear-mongers tell them.

  2. 2

    Puddybud is shocked SHOCKED spews:

    Barney Frank has a slim and none chance of losing in his district. He can be pompous all he wants. The rest of the country sees Barney for what he is.

    A blowhard.

  3. 3

    delbert spews:

    Shameless, even when your gay lover is prostituting himself out of your apartment?

    Shameless, even when your sleeping with a sr. VP for FM, whom you’re supposed to regulate?

    Shameless, even when you call for more loans to people who shouldn’t get them, can’t pay them back, and will lose what little they COULD invest and be crushed when they ultimately fail?

    No, this country needs fewer congressmen like Barney.

  4. 4

    worf spews:

    We need more politicians to stand firm against the TBTB. (Tea Bag Terrorist Brigades) Remember just a couple of years ago when countless people were shoved into cages called “free speech zones,” or arrested at events held by former president George Bush for merely wearing anti-Bush t-shirts? Now people are allowed to openly carry loaded weapons while protesting against Obama. The TBTB does this for one reason only – to intimidate the opposition, to create fear in the streets of America and to foment civil unrest.
    This is the goal of the modern day Republican party – the destruction of America by violent means.
    Thank god there are a handful of people in public service who have the courage to stand up against these scum. To bad our President is too much of a coward to point out who the real Nazis are.

  5. 5

    Rujax! spews:

    2. Puddybud is shocked SHOCKED spews:

    Barney Frank has a slim and none chance of losing in his district. He can be pompous all he wants. The rest of the country sees Barney for what he is.

    A blowhard.

    08/20/2009 at 8:37 am

    Pot?

    Meet Kettle!

  6. 6

    Now you see it spews:

    #2 – You watch that video clip, the same one we’re ALL seeing…as you think BARNEY is being a blowhard…not the crazy wingnut Republican who ‘wonders’ why Obama is a Nazi?

    Really? Republicans have gone insane. They were always anti-fact, anti-reality, anti-science, anti-evolution…but now it’s just black = white insane. Expanding health care is the same as murdering 1 million Jews and gays? Really? Seriously? No kidding? That’s your argument? Really?

    They call the Democrats Nazi’s? Why don’t we ask the American Nazi party who they support more. The gay friendly black President, or the angry dumb white southerners who hate blacks, gays, Jews, immigrants, etc. One of these things matches Nazi views more.

    Health care is “Nazi” like? Canada is a Nazi country? So is England, Japan, Norway, Iceland, Sweden, France, Brazil, Finland. Dude, we’re the ONLY industrialized nation on EARTH without some level of national health care. So that means by your logic (giggle) that ALL countries on earth are Nazi’s except for us.

    Republicans…redefining stupid and insane to new levels every day.

  7. 8

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @6 You forgot to mention their gun-brandishing, which apparently is meant to convey they’re prepared to shoot people to keep Americans from getting affordable and effective health care.

  8. 9

    czechsaaz spews:

    Finally! I was incredibly frustrated by Obama’s response to the “pull the plug on Granny” cannard. I’m paraphrasing but he basically said, “I don’t support that.”

    No, oh great orator. The correct response is:

    “Anyone who earnestly believes that Congress will pass a health care bill that includes Euthenasia has gone mad. Not Partison, not misinformed, just plain old insane. Anyone who claims that such a plan is under consideration is a Liar. Next question.”

    There are constituants who’s opinions are so extremely whacked that the only thing to do is be blunt and move on.

  9. 10

    spews:

    Delbert @ 3,

    “Shameless, even when your gay lover is prostituting himself out of your apartment?”

    As opposed to, say, actually patronizing a prostitute while satisfying a diaper fetish?

    Or skip out on Father’s Day with your children to spend a little Q-time with your hispanic lover?

    “Shameless, even when your sleeping with a sr. VP for FM, whom you’re supposed to regulate?”

    Could be worse…could be sleeping with an employee who is the wife of another employee.

    Or, worse yet, trying to pick up other men while sitting on the shitter.

    “Shameless, even when you call for more loans to people who shouldn’t get them, can’t pay them back, and will lose what little they COULD invest and be crushed when they ultimately fail?”

    Could be worse…could start a $700 billion war, based on lies, killing 4,000 U.S. Soldiers and, perhaps, half a million other people, drive the economy into the dirt, and shoot your friend in the face….

    “No, this country needs fewer congressmen like Barney.”

    You’re sweating the small stuff. What we need is the extinction of the Republican party. Hopefully some alternative party—one with adults at the helm—will rise from the ashes.

  10. 11

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    AOL’s coverage of Frank’s townhall was disgusting. Their headline and story were slanted to portray Frank as losing his temper and being out of control. Their writing handled this loony woman with kid gloves. And these days, about 70% of the respondents to AOL’s non-scientific polls side with the howling wingnut mobs on just about any issue you can name, including healthcare. It’s pretty obvious that AOL’s subscriber has dwindled to the trailerpark rednecks and one cheapskate rabbit.

  11. 12

    Don spews:

    Hey, I’m not gay and even I can see this woman is from outer space. Doesn’t matter what your sexual orientation is, if you believe the crap that this woman is spouting, well maybe you should go back to your home planet.

  12. 13

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @9 Actually, the healthbaggers probably are innocent of being liars, because they’re too insentient to form the conscious intent that lying requires. In other words, they’re incapable of lying in the same sense that a barn door is incapable of lying.

  13. 14

    spews:

    Roger Rabbit,

    “You forgot to mention their gun-brandishing, which apparently is meant to convey they’re prepared to shoot people to keep Americans from getting affordable and effective health care.”

    New Republican slogan:

    Today’s G.O.P.: Shooting people now to save them the heartache of untreated psoriasis

  14. 15

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @12 I wonder if that’s the same woman who thought Obama is an “Arab” — or maybe her sister?

    Where the hell does the GOP get these people, anyway? They must troll the sewers for them.

  15. 17

    Now you see it spews:

    Ronald Reagan was best friend with Nazi!

    This just in…proof that Ronald Reagan associated with, and claimed to be GOOD friend with a Nazi!? Partial gov option health care makes Obama a Nazi. So England and their TOTAL gov single payer health care is 10 TIMES the Nazi country and makes their leaders 10 TIMES the Nazi Obama is, yet Nazi lover Reagan is seen HERE associating with the Nazi leader of Nazi run England:

    http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/a.....75-32A.jpg

    Why does Reagan love Nazi’s so much? Even George W. Bush had only one other major country help in his Iraq War…ENGLAND! Even W. loved Nazi’s. Why do Republican support Nazi’s so much?

    LOL. See how STUPID this Republican argument is! No facts, no reality, no common sense. The new Republican Party.

  16. 18

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @14 This country is still made up largely of intelligent, educated, and reasonable people and I think Republicans have miscalculated how their clown show will play at the polls in 2010.

  17. 19

    Paul spews:

    It’s funny we hear Republicans say that they do not want “faceless bureaucrats” making medical decisions but they have no problem with “private sector” “faceless bureaucrats” daily declining medical coverage and financially ruining good hard working people (honestly where can they go with a pre-condition). And who says that the “private sector” is always right, do we forget failures like Long-Term Capital, WorldCom, Global Crossing, Enron, Tyco, AIG and Lehman Brothers. Of course the federal government will destroy heathcare by getting involved, Oh but wait, Medicare and Medicaid and our military men and women and the Senate and Congress get the best heathcare in the world, and oh, that’s right, its run by our federal government. I can understand why some may think that the federal government will fail, if you look at the past eight years as a current history, with failures like the financial meltdown and Katrina but the facts is they can and if we support them they will succeed.

    How does shouting down to stop the conversation of the healthcare debate at town hall meetings, endears them to anyone. Especially when the organizations that are telling them where to go and what to do and say are Republicans political operatives, not real grassroots. How does shouting someone down or chasing them out like a “lynch mob” advanced the debate, it does not. So I think the American people will see through all of this and know, like the teabagger, the birthers, these lynch mobs types AKA “screamers” are just the same, people who have to resort to these tactics because they have no leadership to articulate what they real want. It’s easy to pickup a bus load of people who hate, and that’s all I been seeing, they hate and can’t debate. Too bad.

  18. 20

    Puddybud is shocked SHOCKED spews:

    Did the evil Republican machine bus people into his town hall HA Libtardos like Dummocrapt friends did at other town halls?

    That woman was a Lyndon LaRouche Dummocrapt. Just like the Lyndon LaRouche democrat who put the Hitler moustache on “the messiah”. Butt wait… another total jerk cleaned it up and claimed people like this LaRouche Dummocrapt are “acting” like Brownshirts. Imagine that! Dummocrapts “acting” like Brownshirts. That makes Puddy’s day.

    Bwaney Fwank: “On what planet do you spend most of your time?

    Lady’s answer should have been “You’ve been seen at Uranus!”

    He responds like he did back in April at the Kennedy School of Guvmint.

    Thanks for the laugh Goldy. LaRoucheheads are a valuable part of the Dummocraptic Rainbow.

  19. 21

    MegaB spews:

    Barney Frank is a filthy disgusting person. Anyone who supports that commie homo doesn’t belong in the United States. Real Americans are done trying to debate or reason with liberal communist homosexual screaming mimi nut jobs. Get out of our country.

  20. 22

    proud leftist spews:

    All Democrats promoting healthcare reform should follow Barney’s lead. People who are batshit crazy wingnuts, incapable of acting like adults, should not be treated with deference and respect. Their opinions simply don’t matter. Screamers should not get their way because of their volume. Chuck Grassley, who now says the anger he has witnessed at townhall meetings should result in a downsizing of healthcare legislation, is a wimp. He is giving in to whackjobs. Of course, given that whackjobs are the core of his party, I can see why he would want to appease them.

  21. 24

    YLB spews:

    20 – LIAR!!!!

    LaRouche is a fringie fascist demagogue! There’s nothing democratic about him.

    Now this moron is echoing Limbaugh!!

    What a tool!

  22. 25

    Puddybud is shocked SHOCKED spews:

    Busted wondermoron… Too bad the neon Vacancy sign buzzing has you missing critical information on the tape. Well that’s because Goldy didn’t link the whole video, just the piece from CNN which cut it up.

    The LaRouche woman says, “This policy is already on the way out. It already has been defeated by LaRouche.” Would any real Republican come close to making a comment like that to Bwaney Frank.

    Hey thanks. Puddy will visit Rush Limbaugh now instead of Allahpundit and Weekly Standard.

    What a douchebag this wondermoron is!

  23. 27

    YLB spews:

    25 – Babbling tool! YOU CALLED LAROUCHE A DEMOCRAT!

    YOU”RE A WORTHLESS LIAR and GAY HATER!!!

    Look at all the right wing haters that pop up when someone with some courage speaks the truth.

    FIENDS!

  24. 28

    Mr. Cynical spews:

    Eventually, when you promise FREE Health Care to 49 million more people who pay ZERO, something has to give.
    Canada has seen it and is seeing it more & more aka the example I gave at 26.

    Now, the ONLY way to balance the Budget once we go down this slippery Single Payer slop is to ration Health Care. Someone has to it. Obama wants to put that power in the hands of a Commission.
    Of course the KLOWNS aren’t going to call them Death Panels…they call them something that feels good. But the bottom-line is when a 3rd Party (ie Gov’t) is in anyway involved in patient care based on Budget & Politics…you are deciding on someone else’s life & future.
    And if the decision is a matter of life & death…by golly, it is a DEATH PANEL!

  25. 29

    YLB spews:

    The fiends are now trying to deflect from the fact that the fringie LaRouchies are standing with the Faux News and Limbaugh-brainwashed wingnuts at the townhall scream-fests.

    They’re going down!!!

  26. 30

    Puddybud is shocked SHOCKED spews:

    wondermoron, did you find the full video yet? What color was her hair? What color was her dress?

    Did she say LaRouche in her presentation? What was that 30% real unenployment under “the messiah”?

    Come on chicken fess up fool. Start talking or keep squawking…

  27. 31

    Puddybud is shocked SHOCKED spews:

    Here’s today’s wondermoron smackdown…direct from WikiPedia… you know wondermoron that lefty org?

    Lyndon Hermyle LaRouche, Jr. (born September 8, 1922) is an American self-styled economist,[1] political activist, and the founder of several political organizations, known collectively as the LaRouche movement. He has been a perennial candidate for President of the United States, having run in eight elections since 1976, once as a U.S. Labor Party candidate and seven times as a candidate for the Democratic Party nomination.

    wondermoron, still stupid even today!

    P.S. Labor Party candidate? Well per Pelletizer, headless and other HA Libtardos Republicans are cheap labor goons so the Labor Party has to be “leaning” Dummocraptic fool!

    What a loony libtardo wondermoron is.

  28. 32

    Mr. Cynical spews:

    How come Barney isn’t screaming about the David Axelrod debacle. Chew on this..

    “Out of all the firms Pharma could choose to do their media work, they chose David Axelrod’s firm, which still maintains Axelrod’s son on the payroll and owes Axelrod himself $2 million,” House Republican Conference spokesman Mike Lloyd wrote in an e-mail.

    “It’s hard to believe the public can be assured that David Axelrod isn’t influenced by any of this in the course of the health care debate. For an administration that promised ‘change’ and to be above even an appearance of impropriety this does not even come close to passing the smell test,” Lloyd wrote.

    Remember when Henry Waxman was demanding info on salaries and benefits for all the Pharmaceutical Execs?? Perhaps Waxman ought to ask for e-mails and notes related to conversations with David Axelrod or Axelrod’s son. Right??
    Watch the MSM sweep this under the rug and whitewash it.

  29. 34

    worf spews:

    Eventually, when you refuse to insure people under a “pay or die” system, you end up with statistics like this:

    About 12.1 million Californians, or 37% of non-senior residents, were uninsured for at least one month during 2007 and 2008, Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, a Washington, D.C.-based group, said Thursday. Most of them were uninsured for at least six months, Pollack said, and more than 80% of them were in working families. Minorities were more likely to be uninsured; 53% of Latinos and 38% of blacks were uninsured during the two-year period; for whites, 25% were uninsured.

    http://articles.latimes.com/20.....uninsured3

  30. 35

    Puddybud is shocked SHOCKED spews:

    Man wondermoron makes Puddy’s day.

    Lyndon LaRouche has not only repudiated the President’s fascist sophistries, but he has put forward, in precise detail, the measures which can and must be taken in order to solve what is real about the health care crisis. The essential elements of the LaRouche Plan are three:

    1. Abolish the Health Maintenace Organization (HMO) system;

    2. Revive the principles and implementation of the 1946 Hill-Burton Act;

    3. Implement the Single-Payer plan (Medicare for all), as the key means of financing adequate health care for all.

    Hmmm… now who recently was gung-ho on the single payer plan? http://www.pnhp.org Wasn’t that Don Joe? Isn’t the single payer plan part of the NutRoots Scream last week wondermoron?

    And we all know Don Joe is miles smarter than you wondermoron!

    YEP!

  31. 37

    Puddybud is shocked SHOCKED spews:

    So once again Goldy thanks for the laugh at the expense of one Dummocrapt being attacked by another Dummocrapt!

    Infighting is wonderful!

  32. 38

    Michael spews:

    Yeah, that video is getting a lot of play.

    Am I the only one noticing that the trolls are a little extra off the hook today?

  33. 39

    spews:

    Puddybud,

    Once again, you are being intellectually dishonest. The same source you cite in 31 saying that LaRouche has run as a Democrat (as if that was some definitive measure) also points out that he has been repeatedly rejected by the Democratic party.

    Granted, lying by cherry-picking facts is more the technique of a shameless propagandist, rather than outright lying, but isn’t it about time for you to stop all of your forms of dishonesty and try being an honorable person?

    And if being an honorable person isn’t enough of a motive, don’t your religious convictions demand honesty from you?

  34. 41

    Now you see it spews:

    How does EVERY industrial nation on EARTH have some form of national health care but us? Are they ALL Nazi? Do they ALL kill their grandmas? You think we have the world best health care?

    Republicans never let reality in do they? Evolution isn’t real. Science isn’t real. Logic doesn’t work. A crazy lady screams at Barney Frank and calls Obama a Nazi, and the Republi-tards say they’re done trying to be reasonable? @21 and @23 just spew of anti-fag anti-black KKK talking points…while IRONICALLY accusing everyone ELSE of being a “Nazi”.

    Hey @21 and @23, go to the American Nazi Party home page. You’ll find they agree with YOU, and hate Obama and gays just like you do. Like you they want the fags, Jews, blacks and ‘foreigners’ out of “their” country.

    If you support the KKK positions on blacks, gays and Jews, but then call everyone ELSE a Nazi, you might JUST be crazy!

  35. 42

    Puddybud is shocked SHOCKED spews:

    Darryl, comment claimed as spam. But suffice it to say the intellectual dishonesty of many HA Libtardos in comments on this blog calling David Duke a Republican when he was repudiated by the Republican party holds true on HA.

  36. 44

    Now you see it spews:

    @43 – Outside of this “health care will take away our civil rights” issue…where did YOU stand on the Patriot Act? Were you protesting in the streets and posting angry emails to Republicans sites protesting it? Or did you willing give Obama the right to read your email, listen to your phone calls and hold you forever if HE alone determines you’re a “threat” to the government? Did you give up all of those rights and VASTLY increase the power of the Federal government happily…to make you ‘safer’? And are NOW just concerned that telling insurance companies to stop dumping sick people is the end of our civil liberties?

    Really? Huh. Sad proud wingnut. The truth hits home doesn’t it?

  37. 45

    Freeze spews:

    He didn’t even say why he supported it. At least I don’t think he did, he always sounds like he has something in his mouth when he talks and it makes him almost impossible to understand.

  38. 46

    Puddybud is shocked SHOCKED spews:

    Now you see it, All of my positions on this blog are well known. You can ask wondermoron@29 to have him email them to you cuz he’s screen scraped all the PuddyMissives since 2004.

    This is a new one…Outside of this “health care will take away our civil rights” issue – Hmmm… My right to choose health care was removed long ago due to state regulations. When Puddy lived elsewhere Puddy’s health insurance cost was less. When Puddy moved to WA State, everything was more, even Puddy’s car insurance do to having to pay premiums for uninsured idiots!

    Regarding – “HE alone determines you’re a “threat” to the government?”, Nothing new to Puddy. Puddy has already been profiled before on the east and west coasts.

    Regarding – “stop dumping sick people” maybe you should bring that up to Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama who supposedly did that in Chicago. That Ol Black Panther, Dummocraptic Congressman Bobby Rush, is checking into it.

    Truth is truth. Can’t sway from the truth. Puddy tells this to wondermoron all the time.

  39. 47

    Michael spews:

    Sarah Palin’s disabled child qualified for special treatment under the American’s With Disabilities Act and the American’s With Disabilities Education Act the second she squeezed him out. If the Palin’s were low income the kid would qualify for Medicad- a single payer public program if I’m not mistaken. But, what we get from miss Palin is ” government’s evil and the Obama Admin wants to kill my baby.”

    I think Senator Frank’s comment could be applied to Miss Palin as well.

  40. 48

    I try my best to be just like I am spews:

    I hear Obama intends to retitle his book “My Audacious Struggle” and will occupy the Sudentenland this fall.

  41. 49

    blue john spews:

    Does anyone speak Puddyese out there? His posts are indecipherable without a translator.

    I just do my best to ignore his posts. It’s not like he says anything insightful. He and his cohorts remind of that smelly angry drunk old guy at bus stops, ranting to anyone who will make eye contact.

  42. 51

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @28 I don’t remember anyone saying it would be free, but they’re certainly getting it free now, at your expense. Apparently you like that system and want it to continue.

  43. 52

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    See, numbskulls like Klown keep confusing uninsured with untreated. We have around 47 to 50 million uninsured people in this country, but most of them are getting medical care, the costs of which are passed through to the paying customers. And because the uninsured are getting treated in the most expensive way possible — via ad hoc visits to emergency rooms — you could hardly make our existing system more costly for the paying customers even if you designed it that way. Which leads to the suspicion that someone did.

  44. 53

    Michael spews:

    @48

    No, that’s the title of Dick Cheney’s up coming book. Hitler was a fascist (that means he was part of the political right) btw.

  45. 54

    Puddybud is shocked SHOCKED spews:

    Yeah blew john, your posts are a puff of pungent air too! Did you watch the full video? Did you see the lady Bwaney Frank attacked?

  46. 55

    Puddybud is shocked SHOCKED spews:

    Pelletizer throws up that same smelly canard

    We have around 47 to 50 million uninsured people in this country

    What’s the breakdown Pelletizer? You never tell anyone the breakdown!

  47. 56

    spews:

    Puddybud @ 42,

    “But suffice it to say the intellectual dishonesty of many HA Libtardos in comments on this blog calling David Duke a Republican when he was repudiated by the Republican party holds true on HA.”

    Wait. What? So you are saying that it is okay for you to be dishonest because others are dishonest?

    What kind of bankrupt philosophy is that?!?

    In particular, it seems rather at odds with Christian philosophy (e.g. Matthew 7:12, Exodus 20:16).

    How do you resolve the conflict between your faith and your conduct on HA????

  48. 57

    YLB spews:

    We need politicians like Barney Frank and we DON”T WANT idiots who would do this:

    Ridge was never invited to sit in on National Security Council meetings; was “blindsided” by the FBI in morning Oval Office meetings because the agency withheld critical information from him; found his urgings to block Michael Brown from being named head of the emergency agency blamed for the Hurricane Katrina disaster ignored; and was pushed to raise the security alert on the eve of President Bush’s re-election, something he saw as politically motivated and worth resigning over.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....64127.html

    The Republicans cannot be trusted for at least a generation IF EVER because of this.

  49. 58

    Steve spews:

    Speaking of Puddy’s delusions, Tom Ridge admits in book that he was pressured to raise the terror alert levels to help Bush win.

    http://www.usnews.com/blogs/wa.....r-911.html

    Ol’ Tom, heh, I bet he’s another one of Puddy’s “lefties”, another no good, lying member of the Alan Greenspan wing of the Democratic party. Spin it, Puddy.

  50. 60

    Sam Adams spews:

    Blah Blah Blah.

    The reasons healthcare costs are high:

    Third Party Payees.
    People getting services without cost.
    Regulations and mandates.
    Frivilous law suites and outragious judgments.

    Yet, once again, y’all make this to be about evil corporations vs an altruistic gov’t. Or vice versa.

    BOTH entities have their own agenda…and the welfare of the people ain’t it.

  51. 61

    Steve spews:

    I know, we can just think of it as Puddy having just received a double bitch-slap from us @57 and 58.

  52. 63

    Steve spews:

    @62 By race, of course. You’ve read his racist rants and jokes, I’m sure. He wants to know how many undeserving brown-skinned folks are in that 47 million.

  53. 64

    Michael spews:

    @63

    Actually, I skip most of his stuff.

    So… Somehow the undocumented guy who works his ass of mowing lawns or the undocumented woman working her ass off changing sheets in a hotel and following all the rules of society are worse than a unemployed, meth-brewing, porn addicted, cracker?

  54. 65

    czechsaaz spews:

    @42

    Hmmm, comparing Lyndon LaRouche with David Duke. Sounds like fun.

    LaRouche – Lost political race as a member of Labor Party re-runs as Democrat, loses primary, re-runs, loses again, re-runs, loses a third time…

    David Duke – Lost political race as member of the Democratic party. Re-runs as Republican, WINS!

    LaRouche – Runs as Democrat in 2004 presidential primaries and gained 22% of the vote in Arkansas. Democratic party refuses to award him delegates. (I think the work I’m looking for here is repudiated.)

    Duke – Runs for State house 1989 as republican. WINS, Seated as State Rep. and serves from 1990-1992 as a Republican (I think the words I’m looking for here are “accepted with open arms by republicans.”) I’ll give you that by the time he had become a total embarassment and ran for president the national Repugnantcans wanted nothing to do with him but he was a welcome traveller for a long while.

  55. 66

    lostinaseaofblue spews:

    So Barney Frank is a paragon of what we should all emulate?

    If it’s okay with you I’ll avoid soliciting underage prostitutes, though. For Barney this may be a high point, but for me it’s kind of disgusting. No, on balance it really should have cost him his job and some prison time, and would have done had the act been heterosexual.

    And if it doesn’t bother you folks on the left too much I’ll avoid compromising my ethics to push bad loans on financial institutions using my position on the Banking Committee.

    I’ll also try avoiding intentionally and publicly humiliating people who pay my salary. Yes the silly crazy woman was doing that to herself, but a more decent response would have been… never mind, we’re talking about Barney Frank.

    And elocution remniscent of Elmer Fudd is a bit annoying, but that’s more a style thing than one of substance.

    On second thought maybe the esteemed Senator is not really someone I want to pattern my life on.

  56. 67

    Politically Incorrect spews:

    Pompous blowhard.

    Applies to everyone in Congress and the Senate. You don’t get to be elected or re-elected without being a pompous blowhard.

    Govnerment “service” doesn’t attract humble people.

  57. 68

    ArtFart spews:

    @66

    “So Barney Frank is a paragon of what we should all emulate?”

    Probably a helluva lot better than a lot of people, present company included.

    “I’ll also try avoiding intentionally and publicly humiliating people who pay my salary.”

    As you yourself point out, she did that to herself. Also, the last I know, the job description for a member of Congress didn’t include being required to agree with every self-appointed critic, or to voluntarily subject oneself to public disrespect.

    “On second thought maybe the esteemed Senator is not really someone I want to pattern my life on.”

    He’s not a Senator, he’s a Representative. That means the people in his district–you know, the people he represents–have voted for him to keep his job every two years…quite a few times over, in fact. They’ll most likely do it again the next time around. And you know what? Their opinion counts for more than some loud-mouthed crazy bitch from God knows where taking her cues from Glenn Goatfucking Beck.

  58. 69

    lostinaseaofblue spews:

    RE 67:

    But it needn’t harbor the consciously crooked. Power corrupts, and the process for becoming a Senator should remove that person from consideration. It doesn’t, but there is a limit.

    To avoid the stream of responses about past or present Republican abuses, I believe this to be true on either side of the political divide. If a NONPARTISAN effort were made to indict even our past president I’d be okay with that. Either he did or didn’t violate the law, and a process not driven by partisan rancour would establish his innocence or guilt.

    Trouble is there is no such thing anymore. Either you’re a liberal who believes all conservatives are evil and malign. Or you’re a conservative who believes all progressives are unpatriotic bastards selling the country out to Europe. This is of course painting with too broad a brush, but it often feels that way.

    In reality you folks believe something about healthcare and the role of government in it that I don’t. This doesn’t make you evil or stupid. It does, in my humble opinion, make you wrong. In your opinions, humble or not, I’m sure I’m wrong.

    Edward R Murrow let Joe McArthy pursue his idiotic ranting for half an hour on his show once. He prefaced McArthy with a brief address to his audience. He said that he trusted his audience to sift the nonsense from the truth in the senators’ speaking.

    Where is there anyone remotely like that now?

  59. 70

    lostinaseaofblue spews:

    RE 66

    Artfart, you’re too humble. Anyone is better than Representative Frank. Thanks, by the way for the correction.

    Still, why isn’t your buddy in jail right now for having sex with a minor prostitute?

    Why isn’t the Representative being investigated for numerous fishy activities in his committee roles? Maybe there is no connection between his lover being appointed to a role in a financial institution he had no qualifications for. Maybe.

    You’re correct also in writing that his constituents have the say on his continuing presece in the HOR. How do you know the woman wasn’t his constituent? Were Rep Frank a public servant rather than a corrupt disgusting thing he would have acted as such with the people who he is responsible to. Because the mans’ response was on your intellectual and culural level doesn’t make it right.

    As usual you’re incapable of reasoned response and feel the need to write as though you were a dirty minded 10 year old, but that’s not your fault. Genetics, I imagine.

    Have a nice weekend.

  60. 71

    Puddybud is shocked SHOCKED spews:

    Checksaid, the issue isn’t your comparison, the issue is LaRouche supporters are creating special “posters” and showing up at Town Hall events discussing their points against Dummocraptic Congressman and Senators. We who think right have no issues with LaRouche supporters taking on the likes of Bwaney Fwank.

    Since you are having another bout of special issues checksaid go back and see what LaRouchies support.

    It’s so hilarious when Puddy sees the comments of those who don’t read PuddyPosts yet these same peeps are so ready to comment on them. Who are the schizoids again?

  61. 72

    Puddybud is shocked SHOCKED spews:

    The break down? WTF are you talking about?

    Easy, how many are certified American citizens needing real medical insurance, not some fictitious number bantied about to make everyone think it’s a humongous problem.

  62. 74

    Don Joe spews:

    Lost:

    So Barney Frank is a paragon of what we should all emulate?

    Who said that, and where?

    If it’s okay with you I’ll avoid soliciting underage prostitutes, though.

    If it’s OK with you, I’ll refrain from even hinting that someone has engaged in such a gross violation of the law unless there is some real evidence to back up that accusation.

    Also, I’ll refrain from using such salacious accusations in an ad-hominem attack on someone whose arguments I can’t refute with logic and reasoning.

    And if it doesn’t bother you folks on the left too much I’ll avoid compromising my ethics to push bad loans on financial institutions using my position on the Banking Committee.

    And, if it doesn’t bother you folks who live entirely in a world of your own making, I’ll refrain from making up facts solely because they happen to be convenient crutches for the conclusions I want to reach.

    I’ll also try avoiding intentionally and publicly humiliating people who pay my salary.

    I’ll try to avoid assuming that, simply because someone walked up to a microphone, that said person actually pays anyone’s salary.

    On second thought maybe the esteemed Senator is not really someone I want to pattern my life on.

    AF has already corrected your “Senator” error, leaving me free to ask, why the hell not? For you, such a pattern would be a substantive improvement.

  63. 76

    lostinaseaofblue spews:

    Re 74, and explicitly not 73 and 75:

    Steve is, I assume, about 11 and should be quiet and listen to the adults until he has something to say.

    Don Joe seems a reasonably intelligent person, so is due a response.

    So look it up. Rep Frank was investigated for and admitted having sex with a minor male prostitute. Becuse it was homosexual and we daren’t do anything to avoid offense he wasn’t prosecuted. Oh yeah, and he used the old “he looked 18.” And I’m not answering a Rep Frank argument, but a Rep Frank means of conduct. To the best of my poor understanding that is the gist of this discussion. In this case the writer implied that Rep Frank should be emulated by other polititians, so a response based on his behavior is appropriate.

    You might be bothered to look up Franks’ record. He pushed the financial institutions to loan money to poor risks. He did this to increase home ownership among the poor. Noble goal, but the reason they are poor is often because of poor money management.
    Additionally banks weren’t awfully happy about loaning money on homes located in downtown Detroit for instance, for obvious reasons.

    As for the assumption of constituency it doesn’t matter. What Frank knew was that he was publicly acting like an asshole. He knew that the meeting he was at was supposed to be his constituency. Given that adult and polite behavior would have reasonably been expected.

    You don’t know me and I thankfully don’t know you. I assume that in person you behave with rather more decorum than in the anonymity of the internet, but I could be wrong. Hopefully I am.

  64. 79

    lostinaseaofblue spews:

    Sorry Don Joe, this was a typo. Should have read, ‘hopefully I’m not wrong.

    “You don’t know me and I thankfully don’t know you. I assume that in person you behave with rather more decorum than in the anonymity of the internet, but I could be wrong. Hopefully I am.”

  65. 81

    Steve spews:

    Lost, I’ve gotten rather used to you blathering on like you did about the congressman, gladly pulling shit from your ass, and then turning around and complaining about HA civility. Like I said before, after heaping abuse on Barney Frank you had the nerve to write this, “To avoid the stream of responses about past or present Republican abuses, I believe this to be true on either side of the political divide.” You’re just another wingnut hypocrite, no doubt one with a panda suit in your closet, and you are quite deserving of a steady stream of HA abuse.

  66. 83

    Puddybud is shocked SHOCKED spews:

    Darryl, scrolled back and saw your post#56.

    You and your side are hypocrites. When we who think right show the hypocrisy in the HA leadership regarding you scouring our posts while giving a pass to those leftist posts screams loud and clear to us. Yep it does go against some of my principles, but Puddy is documenting the mind of a leftist progressive. You guys have such a big tent.

  67. 84

    czechsaaz spews:

    @71

    You’re absolutely right Puddy. I don’t hang on your every not-comprehensible word. For the same reason I’ve tried a couple times and can never get all the way through Atlas Shrugged.

    All it takes is to read about 1/3 of it to know it’s crap.

  68. 85

    Don Joe spews:

    Lost @ 76

    Let me see if I got this straight. It’s perfectly OK for you to level a salacious accusation of felony conduct with absolutely no reference to any authoritative source for the facts (indeed, suggesting that I merely go “look it up), but, when I call you out for making such an accusation, you feel quite free to suggest that I’m not behaving in a civil manner?

    I must say, you have an amazingly bizarre concept of “civil” conduct.

  69. 87

    mark spews:

    Bawney Fwank is punk and needs his fucking teeth knocked in. I’m not gonna do it for fear of AIDS as he’s a worldclass fudgepacker.

  70. 89

    Mr. Cynical spews:

    Goldy doesn’t seem to like Opinion Polls that show the demise of the Progressives!!
    Barney Frank is the Progressive Posterboy (except for allowing the Banks to run rampant under his watch).

    You can do better than that Goldy!

  71. 90

    spews:

    Mr. Cynical,

    “Goldy doesn’t seem to like Opinion Polls that show the demise of the Progressives!!”

    Wrong (as usual). Goldy had nothing to do with it.

    You violated multiple aspects of the HA Comment Policy by posting an extended excerpt three times. I deleted two of them, and left the excerpt in the most recent open thread.

    But…as long as we are on the topic, here are some hints for you:

    1. Post only brief excerpts of someone else’s writings. Don’t copy an entire article, don’t copy a big chunk of the original material. Copy only enough to support your own point.

    Here’s the deal: If you copy a substantial portion of someone else’s article, it is called theft. If you briefly excerpt material that you then comment on, it falls under the principle of fair use.

    2. Attribution is helpful, although internet search engines make it easy to identify an original source. Make it clear that you are quoting (as you do, Cynical).

    3. The copied material should be used to support your own commentary. If you have no comment to support, don’t post copied material. (This is a COMMENT THREAD, not a fricken press release feed).

    4. Don’t post someone else’s stuff if it is unrelated to your comment.

    5. Make sure your comment/quote combination is relevant to the post topic. If not, find the nearest Open Thread, DL announcement, etc. and dump it there instead.

    6. Don’t post the same material in multiple threads. Doing so is a clinical indication of having a really small dick.

  72. 91

    Blue John spews:

    I just did a search on the internet and I cannot find any facts that Barney Frank was involved with anyone underage. Prostitute yes, but not underage.

  73. 92

    correctnotright spews:

    Puddyfool keeps trying to say the LaRouche is a democrat…hahahah.

    How many times has he WON the democratic nomination or gotten more than 2% of the vote?

    On the other hand, David Duke has run as a republican and won the republican nomination…

    so according to Puddy’s “logic” (remember, Puddy has a “masters” degree…in demogoguery) DAvid Duke espouses the republican party’s view…Racist!

    LaRouche’s position on health care and other issues is directly in line with Rush Limbaugh, the birthers, the deathers and the rest of the looney bin republicans.

    And where is politically incorrect to defend the Viper militia and their gun-toting buddies?

  74. 93

    Puddybud is shocked SHOCKED spews:

    NutsTooTight strikes again:

    Puddyfool keeps trying to say the LaRouche is a democrat

    Yep…NutsTooTight, LaRouche attacked GWB many times. From WikiPedia again:”LaRouche was present in Boston during the 2004 Democratic National Convention but did not attend the convention itself. He held a media conference in which he declared his support for John Kerry and pledged to mobilize his organization to help defeat George W. Bush in the November presidential election. He also waged a campaign, begun in October 2002, to have Dick Cheney dumped from the Republican ticket.” PyddtEmphasis

    Yep LaRouche is a Republican NutsTooTight. And you are a loon… wait a minute… we knew that.

    Do you remember the LaRouche douche who approached Henry Kissinger: “Do you sleep with young boys at the Carlyle Hotel?” – Ellen Kaplan.

    LaRouche’s position on health care and other issues is directly in line with Rush Limbaugh

    Rush wants single payer health care?

    Can you show all of us his words on the subject NutsTooTight?

    URL

    Citation

    Time and Date Stamp

  75. 94

    correctnotright spews:

    A loon? coming from you? Why that is a compliment!

    Once again your faulty logic and tendency to blame everything on “democrats” (which you can’t seem to spell correctly, without a third graade level insult) revelas what a fool you are.

    According to you logic, David Duke is the standard bearer for the republican party.

    Again, what democratic nominations has Larouche won?

    Does Larouch support Obama and did he support Obama in the election as 99% of democrats did?

    Here is Larouche in June of 2008:

    LaRouche Warns of McCain Defeat of Obama

    by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

    June 4, 2008 (LPAC)–I warn that as matters stand right now, the ham-handed actions on Senator Obama’s behalf by financier circles aligned with Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean, are handing the general election of the next U.S. President of the Republic to the candidacy of Senator John McCain. I therefore denounce the Democratic National Committee Chairman, and his accomplices such as London stooge George Soros, for conducting a flagrantly fraudulent operation against the vital interests of the United States and civilization generally.

    Gee, he hates George Soros, England and Obama…two out of three identical with Puddy.

    Keep playin’ fool, you look more stupid all the time. George Soros is who republicans hate and who you criticize….go join the looney Larouche people…you have so much in common!

  76. 95

    spews:

    Puddybud @ 93,

    Here, again, you slip back into intellectual dishonesty. Any objective assessment (as opposed to being a hack who selectively snatches bits from a Wikipedia page) of LaRouche would not label him as a Democrat or a Republican. He is a (formerly?) bright, but completely paranoid, wackjob who marches to his own drummer. He has never gained any credible standing in either party.

    Again, I have to ask, isn’t your intellectual dishonesty at odds with your Christian philosophy (e.g. Matthew 7:12, Exodus 20:16).

    How do you resolve the conflict between your faith and your conduct on HA????

  77. 96

    Puddybud is shocked SHOCKED spews:

    Darryl, you can try and throw up Biblical verses as an attack. Puddy already discussed how blind you are to the leftist “intellectual dishonesty” on this blog. Yep it’s blatant. An yep, Puddy will act just like the HA intellectually dishonest libtardos here.

    Regarding calling me a “hack who selectively snatches bits from a Wikipedia page”; thanks for those kind words. Puddy has saved them for the next leftist libtardo “who selectively snatches bits from a Wikipedia page”.

    Regarding “He has never gained any credible standing in either party”; he never gained any status in the Republican Party. But he chose run in the Democratic Party. He could have been like John Anderson.

  78. 97

    Puddybud is shocked SHOCKED spews:

    NutsTooTight, Wow his hatred of George Soros makes him a Republican?

    Let’s look at the headline again

    LaRouche Warns of McCain Defeat of Obama

    Curious the headline doesn’t say

    LaRouche Warns of Obama Defeat of McCain

    Now that would have meant something NutsTooTight!

    One other thing NutsTooTight:

    I warn that as matters stand right now, the ham-handed actions on Senator Obama’s behalf by

    looks like he likes “the messiah” but NOT the actions of other Dummocrapts jockstrapping for the messiah.

    Nope LaRouche is a Democrat. You Dummocrapts have to live with it.

  79. 98

    spews:

    Puddybud @ 96,

    “Puddy already discussed how blind you are to the leftist “intellectual dishonesty” on this blog. Yep it’s blatant.”

    I don’t see the connection. The difference between you and me, is that I am honest when engaging in a real debate. That means that I don’t cherry pick to make a point that is obviously objectively incorrect. Also, I would never succumb to lying because I see people lying on the other side. Where’s the honor in that?

    “An yep, Puddy will act just like the HA intellectually dishonest libtardos here.”

    That you choose to act dishonorably is very clear. But my question is, how do you resolve the conflict between your intentional dishonesty and the standards expected of you by your religious philosophy?

    You have stated in the comment threads that you are a devout Christian. And you have just stated that you will continue being dishonest. Is this a sign that you are wavering in your Christian faith?

    “Regarding calling me a “hack who selectively snatches bits from a Wikipedia page”; thanks for those kind words. Puddy has saved them for the next leftist libtardo “who selectively snatches bits from a Wikipedia page”.”

    Well…first, I didn’t exactly call you that. I used that as a hypothetical in contrast to objective, evidence-based analysis. Perhaps you thought I called you that because of guilt?

    Second, the problem isn’t using Wikipedia (which can be good or bad). The problem is cherry-picking to make a point when the full context suggests the point is not true.

    “Regarding “He has never gained any credible standing in either party”; he never gained any status in the Republican Party. But he chose run in the Democratic Party. He could have been like John Anderson.”

    If you had chosen a more honest path, you might have also pointed out that (1) the Democratic Party could not prevent him from running as a Democrat, and (2) the Democratic Party has refused to award him delegates that he earned.

    Actually…if you had taken an honest approach, you never would have tried to argue such absurdities as “LaRouche [supporters] are a valuable part of the [Democratic] Rainbow.”

    That’s just plain old lying. Who respects that?

    There is an art to debating your opponent to a pulp. And the highest form of that art is to use truth and facts. I can respect someone for that.

    Using intentional falsehoods is just plain old lazy hackery. Nobody respects that (except other liars, I suppose.)

  80. 99

    Don Joe spews:

    @ Darryl,

    It’s probably worth pointing out that none of this addresses the classic bit of Puddy-style Manichaenism: Larouchians are whacko’s, Larouchians endorse parts of health care reform. Therefore, health care reform must be a whacky idea.

    This is the same argument Puddy tried to make about Cap-and-Trade a while back: we were supposed to regard it as a bad idea solely because Enron thought it was a good idea.

    This is classic Puddy-style Manichaenism: if the person espousing an idea is “bad” then the idea must be bad. If the person espousing an idea is “good” then the idea must be good. We’re supposed to ignore such things as the variety of people who happen to believe that the Earth is not flat.

  81. 100

    Steve spews:

    @97 “You Dummocrapts have to live with it.”

    Here, Puddy, you can live with this:

    http://www.bostonherald.com/ne.....sex_crime/

    A Republican pedo caught in a panda costume. Yuck! We all know about Mr. Klynical’s and Marvin’s sad stories, but you don’t do that kind of stuff, do you, Puddy? Please tell us that you ain’t traveling down the ol’ goat road with Klynical and Marvin.

  82. 101

    spews:

    Don Joe,

    Thanks for the comment. I have been focusing on Puddy’s dishonesty.

    Your comment is on his inability to construct arguments that are logically valid.

    But, as you probably realize, the two may be connected.

    That is, Puddy may realize that he is abusing logic. Such statements may be intentional manifestations of his dishonesty so that he can make a point that he otherwise couldn’t honestly make.

    I used to think he just didn’t understand how to properly construct an argument. But after he intentionally lied to me over something trivial, I’m suspecting this is just part of him being a pathological liar.

  83. 103

    Puddybud is shocked SHOCKED spews:

    Darryl, Puddy has decided to attack absurdities with absurdities.

    Witness this absurdity from Don Joe

    Larouchians endorse parts of health care reform. Therefore, health care reform must be a whacky idea.

    No where has Puddy even hinted this. Puddy placed on HA Libtardos from LaRouche himself:

    1. Abolish the Health Maintenace Organization (HMO) system;

    2. Revive the principles and implementation of the 1946 Hill-Burton Act;

    3. Implement the Single-Payer plan (Medicare for all), as the key means of financing adequate health care for all.

    They seem to be Dummocraptic issues being pushed by the faithful. Butt, when it comes to framing an absurdity argument by a libtardo, Don Joe is a grand master.

  84. 105

    spews:

    Puddybud,

    “Darryl, Puddy has decided to attack absurdities with absurdities.”

    I’m certainly not against you attacking absurdities—even with other absurdities—provided you are honest about it.

    (For example, satire is a great example of using absurdities to counter absurdities.)

    And, I agree with you…I haven’t seen you use Larouchian’s support to suggest health care reform is a wacky idea, per se. But you have used Larouch to make other, equally disingenuous, insinuations.

    I though Don Joe’s last paragraph, however, nicely summarized one of your faulty argument techniques.

    My question is, are you being intentionally dishonest, or do you really not know how to properly construct a logical argument?

  85. 106

    Puddybud is shocked SHOCKED spews:

    Man Don Joe’s absurdities abound

    Cap-and-Trade a while back: we were supposed to regard it as a bad idea solely because Enron thought it was a good idea.

    Puddy discussed the messiah was a cap and trader last August 2008. Puddy mentioned if you are going to You can get the actual quote from wondermoron as he claims to have all the PuddyMissives.

    Wait… Puddy will deliver it himself. Notice the absurdity of Don Joe above and what Puddy wrote…

    Speaking of low information voters – here’s some information you idiots don’t know. You won’t find it on Daily Kurse, DUmmys, or Stink Progressives.

    Obama is for Cap and Trade. Can you Moonbat!s tell me what favorite Donkey organization did more to pressure Congress to move into cap and trade than anybody else?

    Guess?

    It’s the favorite of headless lucy and other leftist loudmouths.

    Enron! OMG

    LMBBAO!

    08/30/2008 at 8:06 am

    Don Joe is another of the HA disingenuous schmucks on HA Libtardos.

  86. 107

    Puddybud is shocked SHOCKED spews:

    Thanks Darryl, Don Joe farted

    This is classic Puddy-style Manichaenism: if the person espousing an idea is “bad” then the idea must be bad.

    And this happens how often of HA Libtardos by HA Libtardos?

    Can you say every day?

    Regarding disingenuous arguments, David Duke was fully repudiated. Yet the KLOWNS on your side continue to use him as an attack. You never released some of the HA links Puddy found where Puddy documented the disingenuous David Duke arguments. Yep Darryl, very telling to Puddy.

  87. 108

    spews:

    Puddybud @ 106,

    “Puddy discussed the messiah was a cap and trader last August 2008.”

    So? Why is this relevant to the statement you quoted from Don Joe???

    “Puddy mentioned if you are going to You can get the actual quote from wondermoron as he claims to have all the PuddyMissives.”

    We all do, Puddy. It’s called “Google.”

    “Wait… Puddy will deliver it himself. Notice the absurdity of Don Joe above and what Puddy wrote…”

    Ok…

    Obama is for Cap and Trade. Can you Moonbat!s tell me what favorite Donkey organization did more to pressure Congress to move into cap and trade than anybody else? […] Enron! OMG LMBBAO!

    “Don Joe is another of the HA disingenuous schmucks on HA Libtardos.”

    Wait a minute, Puddy. In the quote you gave, you do EXACTLY what Don Joe suggests you do in 101.

    How does that make Don Joe disingenuous???

  88. 109

    spews:

    Puddybud @ 107

    “Regarding disingenuous arguments, David Duke was fully repudiated. Yet the KLOWNS on your side continue to use him as an attack.”

    Well…if you feel that David Duke is being unfairly labeled a Republican, then argue the point with facts. Don’t argue with lies.

    Consider the logical consequences of a community trying to fight lies with more lies.

    Person one lies, then person two fights that lie with a lie, person three jumps in with a lie, etc. The stable equilibrium is a community with everyone lying about everything.

    It doesn’t work well, which is why truth is held in very high regard by all major religions and philosophies.

    “You never released some of the HA links Puddy found where Puddy documented the disingenuous David Duke arguments. Yep Darryl, very telling to Puddy.”

    I didn’t (knowingly) delete your David Duke comment. If it had a lot of links, it may have looked like spam (HA gets hundreds of spams a day that someone has to scan for real comments), or somebody else may have emptied the spam filter.

    But, Puddy, if I HAD deleted the comment, I wouldn’t hesitate to tell you. You see, I value truth far more than ideology.

    Truth is part of my principles. My ideology is derived out of my principles, not the other way around.

    How about you? Since you seem willing to lie for your ideology, it doesn’t say much for your principles!

  89. 110

    Puddybud is shocked SHOCKED spews:

    Twist and turn Darryl. It doesn’t work with Puddy. My comment was in response to the Don Joe absurdity. It’s your side who has been screaming Enron is wrong did not Puddy’s side. You can easily see all the anti-Enron comments on this blog.

    Can you dig it?

    Regarding wondermoron, he claimed he was going back all the way to the start of HA and captured every Cynical Marvin and PuddyMissive created his own database using tctmgr. He bragged about it again here Darryl. Darryl, your memory is slipping dude.

  90. 111

    Puddybud is shocked SHOCKED spews:

    Darryl does another Don Joe:

    I didn’t (knowingly) delete your David Duke comment.

    Where did Puddy accuse or directly impute your deletion of the entry?

    You never released some of the HA links Puddy found where Puddy documented the disingenuous David Duke arguments.

    Man you twist straightforward comments into something for your benefit.

  91. 112

    correctnotright spews:

    @97: Dear Moron Puddy

    I know reading is very difficult for you…but Larouche opposed Obama before the election. Period. He also opposed John Dean and George Soros.

    You and the idiot republicans oppose Dean, Soros and Obama. The idea that a democrat would oppose those three….well, only a total fool like you would even suggest it.

    Thanks for arguing like the total moron you are. Of course, you must support David Duke because he is a “republican” according to your third grade level illogic.

  92. 113

    Puddybud is shocked SHOCKED spews:

    Consider the logical consequences of a community trying to fight lies with more lies.

    Maybe you should have Jon DeVore threads reviewed before he posts them. Remember his attempt at placing R. Allen Stanford at the feet of Republicans because he was from Texas?

  93. 114

    Puddybud is shocked SHOCKED spews:

    Man that NutsTooTight keeps coming back with useless information. If he hated Obama why did he comment on his jockstraps creating havoc NutsTooTight? Let’s look at the headline again

    LaRouche Warns of McCain Defeat of Obama

    Telling in itself NutsTooTight.

    Larouche opposed Obama before the election. Period.

    So did Hillary Clinton fool. So did some Congressional black women NutsTooTight. So did others in the Dummocraptic party. Did LaRouche continue to oppose “the messiah” after he won the Dummocraptic nomination?

    Talking about 3rd grade logic, Puddy may have to yank my older son from UW if that’s the logic taught there! That’ll save me money this year!

  94. 115

    correctnotright spews:

    I made the David Duke comparison:

    Puddy was insinuating that Larouche was a democrat and I said that David Duke got a lot more republican support than Larouch ever got as a democrat:

    In December 1988, Duke changed his political affiliation from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party.

    Duke won the primary as a republican:

    In January 1989, Duke ran in a special election open primary for the State House’s 81st district seat. Running as Republican Duke finished first in the primary with 3,995 votes for 33.07%

    Duke was elected to the House as a republican:

    Duke with 8,459 votes defeated Treen 8,232 votes (50.68% to 49.32%) [6]. He served in the House from 1990 until 1992.

    In 1990, in the October 6 general election, Duke ran as a Republican against three Democrats including incumbent Senator Bennett Johnston, Jr.

    The Republican party endorsed state Senator Ben Bagert, but national Republican officials anticipated Bagert losing and fragmenting Johnston’s support; so funding for Bagert’s campaign was halted, and he dropped out two days before the election, though his name remained on the ballot. [26] In the last week of the campaign, Republican Senator John Danforth of Missouri openly endorsed Johnston.[citation needed]

    Duke received 43.51% (607,391 votes) of the vote to Johnston’s 53.93% (752,902 votes) [7], and, according to exit polls,[citation needed] Duke received more than 60% of the white vote

    Duke got 60% of the white vote and 43% of the total vote as a republican.

    This is a quote from the republican Duke’s campaign manager:

    We keep telling David, stick to attacking the blacks. There’s no point in going after the Jews, you just piss them off and nobody here cares about them anyway.

    Oh, and just to be sure that Puddy understands the origins of the republican David Duke:

    In 1974, David Duke founded the Louisiana-based Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, a Ku Klux Klan group, shortly after graduating from LSU. He first received broad public attention during this time, as he successfully marketed himself in the mid-1970s as a new brand of Klansman — well-groomed, engaged, and professional. Duke

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Duke

    According to Puddylogic (logic used by Puddy that is separate from real world logic), Duke is certainly a republican and Puddy as a republican must support him and his racist views.

  95. 116

    correctnotright spews:

    @114: Puddy just refuses to read.

    Larouche has lots of ridiculous headlines that are contradictory. The point of the article (written by Larouche sycophants) is that Obama is bad, that Obama supports England (for some reason that is bad) and is supported by Soros and Dean (the democratic chair) and that is also bad.

    I don’t pretend to make any sense of Larouches contradictory and schizophrenic positions…but clearly he is not a mainstream democrat. Just as clearly, David Duke is more of a mainstream republican and has gotten way more public support than the crazy Larouche.

    Anyone who persists in labeling Larouche as a democrat is either:

    deliberately disingenuous
    willfully ignorant

    which is it Puddy?

  96. 117

    correctnotright spews:

    Hillary Clinton never opposed John Dean during the election.

    Dean was the National democratic committee chair.

    Again Puddy, why are you spouting such BS? It just makes you look even more foolish.

  97. 118

    correctnotright spews:

    Obama is an idiot:
    This was Lyndon LaRouche’s comment upon hearing Barack Obama’s response to a question posed to him on Tuesday in an interview broadcast on NPR’s “All Things Considered.” Obama was asked if he was “willing to deliver the unwelcome message” that high gas prices are here to stay.

    January 7, 2008 (LPAC) – Lyndon LaRouche was asked by a French member of the LaRouche Youth Movement yesterday what he though of Barack Obama after his Iowa caucus victory. He replied by situating the entire campaign as a farce being played by the hedge funds to get a Bloomberg candidacy

    Former conspiracy theory presidential candidate and the Original Ron Paul, Lyndon LaRouche, has offered his take on the Obama phenomenon. It ain’t so good! Specifically: Obama’s father was a bad father and also an agent with MI5, every male from every continent inseminated Obama’s whore of a mother, and Obama is a monkey who also works with British Intel. Obama is also a Racist.Will the LaRouche/Paul team join the Libertarian party race and steal it from Mike Gravel and Bob Barr?

    The Lyndon LaRouche organization is promoting a byzantine conspiracy theory portraying George Soros as puppetmaster for Barack Obama (see excerpt and link below). He may be calculating that this theory will appeal to Republicans, giving his fringe views an air of legitimacy.

    LaRouche has a history of success using similar tactics involving Soros-related conspiracy theories. In 2003, he and his minions charged Soros with profiting from an international drug cartel (read here and here). During the 2004 presidential campaign, that charge was actually repeated by mainstream Republicans such as then Speaker of the House Rep. Dennis Hastert (read here), David Horowitz (read here) and Accuracy in Media (read here).

    LaRouche has a long history of recklessly charging political figures with drug dealing — most famously Henry Kissinger (read here) and Queen Elizabeth (read here). Those accusations were laughed out of the market of public opinion, for obvious reasons, but the Soros accusations seem to find more receptive ears. For years, Republican organizations such as the National Legal Policy Center have promoted a world view featuring Soros as Satan (read here), a trope readily picked up by Fox News.

    There are many more of these citations…I can’t cite them all here but the general theme is that as far back as the Iowa primary, Larouche opposed Obama and Larouche’s wingnut rhetoric has been picked up and amplified mainly by the republican right wing, Faux news and other republican fellow travelers.

  98. 119

    correctnotright spews:

    Lyndon Larouche: A true looney

    Who listens to him and his crazy conspiracy theories: republicans

    Why does Puddy deliberately lie?

  99. 120

    spews:

    Puddybud @

    “Where did Puddy accuse or directly impute your deletion of the entry?”

    So…where did I accuse you of accusing me of deleting your comments?

    But…when I read,

    You never released some of the HA links Puddy found where Puddy documented the disingenuous David Duke arguments. Yep Darryl, very telling to Puddy.

    I took that as you accusing me of not releasing one or more of your comments. The spam queue was empty, so I told you plainly that I didn’t delete them and maybe somebody else did.

    “Man you twist straightforward comments into something for your benefit.”

    What the fuck?????? What was twisted? At worse I could have been clearer by starting with “The spam queue is empty now.” I though that was obvious from the rest of the comment.

  100. 121

    spews:

    Puddybud,

    “My comment was in response to the Don Joe absurdity. It’s your side who has been screaming Enron is wrong did not Puddy’s side.”

    Enron was wrong on some very big things—you know, like fraud. But that doesn’t mean they weren’t right about some (or many) things.

    Holy shit…now you are starting to sound like a mentally retarded child. And I am not saying that satirically!

    “You can easily see all the anti-Enron comments on this blog.”

    So? Were they comments criticizing Enron over Cap and Trade?!?!? If not, what is the relevance?

    “Can you dig it?”

    No, frankly.

    “Regarding wondermoron, he claimed he was going back all the way to the start of HA and captured every Cynical Marvin and PuddyMissive created his own database using tctmgr.”

    So? It sounds like a 30 minute programming job. Of what relevance or interest is this factiod?

    Are you going to next tell me about his spell-checker use???

    “He bragged about it again here Darryl. Darryl, your memory is slipping dude.”

    Didn’t see it, Puddy. Again, I remind you, I don’t delve into all that many comment threads.

  101. 122

    Don Joe spews:

    Darryl @ 101

    But, as you probably realize, [Puddy’s dishonesty and Puddy’s inability to construct arguments that are logically valid] may be connected.

    I have no doubt that they’re connected, which is why I brought up Puddy’s Manichaean world view.

    That is, Puddy may realize that he is abusing logic. Such statements may be intentional manifestations of his dishonesty so that he can make a point that he otherwise couldn’t honestly make.

    That might be possible, but I’m still inclined to think that both Puddy’s dishonesty and his abuse of logic both stem from that Manichaen dualism. Puddy regards himself as one of the “good” guys who is guided by the Holy Spirit, and, therefore, cannot be wrong. Puddy honestly believes that the Holy Spirit will prevent him from ever making a substantive error.

    We’ve seen this over and over again. I’ve only ever known one person in the world who has made any effort to argue that Alan Greenspan is a liberal, and that person is Puddy.

    Consider Puddy’s comment at 103, where he purports to refute my supposedly absurd claim with more absurdity. Puddy’s repudiation consists of saying that he was really arguing that, because LaRouchians argue for the same health care reform policies that some Democrats favor, LaRouchians are therefore Democrats.

    Puddy fails to recognize that the two conclusions are corollaries of each other. Indeed, when he says that he’s never even hinted at the corollary I stated in my comment at 99, he’s either being dishonest or he has forgotten that he, himself, slipped into that same corollary in his comments at 35 and 36.

    When Puddy claims to “attack absurdities with absurdities” he is, quite literally, arguing with himself.

    Puddy cannot disconnect the proposition from the one who’s making it. Consider Puddy’s statement at 106:

    Puddy discussed the messiah was a cap and trader last August 2008.

    Note, Puddy makes absolutely no effort to argue against cap and trade on the merits of that policy itself. Instead, Puddy’s primary point is that Obama favors the policy–he’s a “cap and trader” as Puddy puts it. The most important thing to Puddy is not the policy, but who’s advocating which policy.

    Yet, when I restate his argument in the form of a corollary, Puddy goes completely apeshit. Why? Because restating his argument in the form of a corollary makes the absurdity of his original argument painfully obvious.

    All of this stems from Puddy’s Manichean dualism. What I find both amazing and amusing is the extent to which that dualistic world view is impervious to any form of cognitive dissonance whatsoever. As you have noted, Puddy will flat out lie like a rug rather than have to admit that there’s something wrong with this dualistic world view.

  102. 125

    Puddybud is shocked SHOCKED spews:

    Puddy was insinuating that Larouche was a democrat

    There is no insinuation. It’s public record NutsTooTight.

    According to Puddylogic (logic used by Puddy that is separate from real world logic), Duke is certainly a republican and Puddy as a republican must support him and his racist views.

    No that’s NutsTooTight logic, affected by lower pelvis secretions backing up in his alimentary tract. Acid reflux maybe?

    Once again for all to see before Puddy enters the kitchen to bake some salmon…

    From LaRouche himself:

    1. Abolish the Health Maintenace Organization (HMO) system;

    2. Revive the principles and implementation of the 1946 Hill-Burton Act;

    3. Implement the Single-Payer plan (Medicare for all), as the key means of financing adequate health care for all.

    Who supports single payer NutsTooTight? Don Joe does. Are any of those Republican tenets? Anyone? Puddy knows Don Joe ain’t Republican.

    Notice NutsTooTight is trying through an article equate LaRouche’s dislike for Soros means LaRouche is a Republican. LaRouche is not a Republican. No matter how you fold spindle or mutilate and no matter how much shouting NutsTooTight does he can’t prove otherwise.

    There is no lie NutsTooTight, except for the crap you are spewing about LaRouche and his dislike for Soros being anything but Democrat.

  103. 126

    Puddybud is shocked SHOCKED spews:

    So Don Joe LaRouchians are Republicans? Independents? Communists?

    Come on dude tell us!

  104. 127

    Puddybud is shocked SHOCKED spews:

    Puddy doesn’t have to argue cap and trade Don Joe. Your side is anti-Enron. That’s all that’s needed for the argument.

  105. 128

    Don Joe spews:

    @ 126

    I think they’re LaRouchians, Puddy. Any attempt to slap some other kind of label on them does damage to the meaning of that label.

  106. 129

    Puddybud is shocked SHOCKED spews:

    BTW Don Joe Puddy already explained Cap & Trade and the issues around it for future energy policy. Puddy doesn’t have to reexplain himself for your benefit. Can you Google it Don Joe?

    Back to my salmon now!

  107. 130

    Don Joe spews:

    It occurs to me that Puddy’s comments are almost always instructive examples of various forms of logical fallacies, and that it seems pretty clear that Puddy has more in common with Barney Frank’s dining room table than Democrats (or liberals) have in common with LaRouchians.

  108. 131

    Puddybud is shocked SHOCKED spews:

    Oh yeah Don Joe. It occurs to Puddy you are talking out your ASS again. It’s LaRouche people have more in common with Democrats than Republicans.

    Do you see LaRouche people at Republican conventions? Helping write the plank? Is LaRouche pro-life? Does LaRouche support Israel? Did you see a LaRouche person supporting GWB over the last 8 years?

    The only logical fallacy is in your mind.

  109. 133

    spews:

    Puddybud @ 131,

    “It’s LaRouche people have more in common with Democrats than Republicans.”

    ROTFLMAO!!!!!!

    That’s what you are reduced to arguing, Puddybud? Arguing that LaRouche people are more like Democrats than Republicans? Come to think of it, I do recall seeing some minorities at the LaRouche booths on UW campus last spring. But, doesn’t that arise out of a Republican pathology (i.e. the G.O.P.’s inability to attract minorities)????

    You started out making the bold statement that “LaRouche [supporters] are a valuable part of the [Democratic] Rainbow.” Now you are pleading correlation!

    That’s quite amusing.

    “Do you see LaRouche people at Republican conventions?”

    As you know, I went to the Democratic National Convention last year. I saw NO LaRouchians, but I did see a small contingent of McCain “protesters”. Does that mean Democrats are more like Republicans than they are LaRouchians????

    “Helping write the plank?”

    Can you demonstrate that LaRouche has actively participated in writing the Democrat’s plank???

    “Is LaRouche pro-life? Does LaRouche support Israel?”

    Who gives a fuck? LaRouche has no standing among the Democratic or Republican parties. He is an outlier wackjob.

    “Did you see a LaRouche person supporting GWB over the last 8 years?”

    No…but last spring quarter, I regularly ran into LaRouche supporters at their “spots” on campus asking anti-Obama questions. It suggests strongly that LaRouchians will not be supporting Obama for the next eight years, either.

  110. 134

    spews:

    Hey Puddybud,

    You seem to have missed my question above…

    Do you believe that your comments on HorsesAss are the Holy Spirit working through you?

  111. 135

    Puddybud is shocked SHOCKED spews:

    Darryl: The

    Do you see LaRouche people at Republican conventions? Helping write the plank? Is LaRouche pro-life? Does LaRouche support Israel? Did you see a LaRouche person supporting GWB over the last 8 years?

    Is all about Republicans. Nothing in that is about Democrats.

    You can call him an outlier whackjob but his views closely match the Democratic Party. Puddy calls Bernie Sanders (I) Vermont an outlier whackjob but his views also closely match the Democratic Party.

    Nuff SAID!

  112. 136

    Puddybud is shocked SHOCKED spews:

    Darryl, to use your commentary.

    Post #56, #95 & #134 are irrelevant to the discussion. Why? Puddy is a person of free choice such as you. God gives all men/women free choice. You and your ilk are freely anti-God and Jesus.

  113. 137

    YLB spews:

    LMAO!!! Stupes writes the darndest things.

    Hillary Clinton supports the sterilization of blacks.

    Alan Greenspan and Hank Paulson are lefities in drag.

    Bush had nothing to do with the TARP (funny his signature is required to pass it into law).

    Now the LaRouchies are Democrats in some sort of drag.

    Among a host of other too stupid idiocies.

  114. 138

    spews:

    Puddy @ 136,

    “Puddy is a person of free choice such as you. “

    Thanks for clearing that up.

    “You and your ilk are freely anti-God and Jesus.”

    Ohhhh? Where have I been “anti-God and Jesus?” Or can I safely assume this is simply your juvenile hyperbole….

  115. 139

    YLB spews:

    LaRouche has always been a staunch proponent of nuclear power and even at one time published a magazine devoted to fusion.

    Lamar Alexander and John McCain want to build 100 nuclear power plants.

    Ohhh!! According to braindead Stupes logic LaRouche’s views closely match the REPUBLICAN party..

    LOL!

  116. 140

    spews:

    Puddybud @ 135,

    “You can call him an outlier whackjob but his views closely match the Democratic Party.”

    Well…SOME of his ideas match the Democratic Party. Some, are obviously closer to Republicans…. You know, like showing up at town hall meetings with Hitlerized pictures of Obama.

    Let’s examine a political speech from LaRouche, given yesterday:

    The good factor is, that the American people, in the majority, have risen, as a people—ordinary people have arisen as a people—to say: “We do not believe in this government! We believe in our Constitution. But you have violated our Constitution. We are the American people, and when you betray our Constitution, we defend it.” And you find the way people are speaking, they’re not wild men. Some people are very angry, but they act in measured terms: They denounce the health-care policy of Obama, which is genocidal, as Hitler-like.

    Huh…that sounds very closely aligned with the Teabagging-wing of the Republican party….

    (Psssst…that doesn’t make him a Republican.)

    “Puddy calls Bernie Sanders (I) … views also closely match the Democratic Party.”

    Well if you were trying to call Sanders a Democrat (which, I realize you aren’t), you would have a stronger case. I mean, you could present evidence that Sanders closely collaborates with the Democrats (like caucusing with them, committee assignments, etc.). Of course, you would still run up against the fact that he runs as, and is elected as an independent, which would provide very strong evidence that he isn’t.

    My point is, if you pick and choose facts and selectively present only those that support your “cause”, you can pretty much call anyone anything. It’s dishonest and demonstrates a lack of integrity.

  117. 141

    Another TJ spews:

    Darryl,

    I apologize if this comes across as rude. I do not intend it to be so. I merely feel it is most appropriate in this case to be blunt…

    With respect to this:

    My point is, if you pick and choose facts and selectively present only those that support your “cause”, you can pretty much call anyone anything. It’s dishonest and demonstrates a lack of integrity.

    How many times, in how many ways, does Puddybud have to say it? He is and intends to continue to be dishonest on this website. He has rationalized away any and all moral qualms.

    Seriously, after literally years of people pointing out his hypocrisy and anti-christian behavior, do you really think he’s suddenly going to change?

    Again, I’m sorry if this sounds rude; it may be, though that’s not how I mean it. It’s just that I’ve seen this same argument so many times, I feel bad to see you wasting your time on it.

    (It should go without saying, though I’m going to say it anyway, that you’re free to do as you please, and it’s not my place to tell you how to spend your time. As I said, I just hate to see you wasting it on a dead end.)

  118. 142

    YLB spews:

    Regarding “He has never gained any credible standing in either party”; he never gained any status in the Republican Party. But he chose run in the Democratic Party. He could have been like John Anderson.

    And so we come full circle to David Duke who CHOSE to run in the REPUBLICAN party?

    Does that speak VOLUMES or should we never speak of it?

  119. 143

    spews:

    Another TJ @ 141

    “Seriously, after literally years of people pointing out his hypocrisy and anti-christian behavior, do you really think he’s suddenly going to change?”

    I’m not doing this because I hold out hope that Puddybud will change. I have a hunch that he is a sociopath, but I am not certain. So that is why I keep probing at all the contradictions that constitute our Puddybud. There is, in fact, purpose behind my probes and queries.

    “Again, I’m sorry if this sounds rude; it may be, though that’s not how I mean it. It’s just that I’ve seen this same argument so many times, I feel bad to see you wasting your time on it.”

    No problem…I appreciate the comment. I have a slightly different perspective. I’ve met Puddy and engaged him one-on-one, and it was pleasant. Puddy isn’t a nameless, faceless person to me. So when he blatantly lied to me about something too trivial to be worth lying about, I found that as fascinating as it was disappointing.

  120. 144

    spews:

    YLB,

    “And so we come full circle to David Duke who CHOSE to run in the REPUBLICAN party?”

    LaRouche has run on the Democratic ticket, too. The difference is, the Democrats rebuked him by refusing to award him the few delegates he earned. Duke, on the other hand, was unsuccessful running as a Democrat, so he switched to being a Republican and was elected to a U.S. House seat in a special election.

    So…Duke is a blemish on the Republican party, but aside from winning a special election (which speaks more to the folks in that Congressional District), it is not clear that the Republicans ever espoused Duke. It would be dishonest to seriously claim that Duke represents mainstream Republicans, today or ever.

    “Does that speak VOLUMES or should we never speak of it?”

    Facts are facts, but what do we gain by talking about the freaks? They seem like an irrelevant sideshow to me.

    We have influential mainstream Republican politicians and party leaders right now taking about “Obama’s death panels”, “health care rationing panels”, “government run health care”, questioning Obama’s citizenship, accusing the President of espousing socialism, claiming global warming is a hoax, and on and on.

    To me, it seems there are plenty of current, important examples of Republican spin snowballing into blatant lies that needs discussion to bother with the sideshows….

  121. 146

    Puddybud is shocked SHOCKED spews:

    Darryl,

    My point is, if you pick and choose facts and selectively present only those that support your “cause”, you can pretty much call anyone anything. It’s dishonest and demonstrates a lack of integrity.

    Exactly what your side does all the time here on HA. And when Puddy calls you on your blind eye hypocrisy crickets are heard chirping.

    Previously Puddy provided to you the R Allen Stanford post Of Jon DeVore His implication of R Allen Stanford being a Republican from Texas went merrily along until Puddy PROVED his leanings were highly Dummocraptic.

  122. 147

    Puddybud is shocked SHOCKED spews:

    Puddy is shocked and surprised you took on wondermoron and his David Duke retort above. If you had seen the post deleted by another most of the HA links on David Duke were from wondermoron.

    Hey Darryl, Puddy will call everyone by their real name if the HA Libtardos do the same. They were the ones who started the buttpuddy, buttputty, buttpacker, pudpacker, etc. names before Puddy started uniquely naming leftist weirdos.

  123. 148

    Puddybud is shocked SHOCKED spews:

    You know Another TJ, is an enigma. He cries about Puddy hypocrisy yet it was he who first delivered this:

    Nobody tell Mr. Scott, but those “spontaneous” expressions of the “will of the people?” Not so much. Actually, not at all.

    Think Brooks Brothers.

    Or think Brownshirts.

    You live on Talking Points Memo as much as wondermoron lives on Daily Kos. Can you provide a cogent thought without first going there drinking your morning java? Next you called old people Brownshirts. Then later on you tried to clean it up by saying

    I called people who are acting like Brownshirts Brownshirts because it’s accurate and appropriate.

    Funny the acting like is missing in the first post. You called old people some who may have Jewish or other heritages attacked by Brownshirts in Germany the very thing.

    And Puddy has hypocrisy in this leftist’s eyes.

    You are a 3 second laugh Another TJ.

  124. 149

    Another TJ spews:

    Honey, you misunderstand. I didn’t “clean up” my comment. It didn’t need cleaning up. I included links to sources that explain why I used each term, links that you have seen fit to remove. I stand by my characterization of thugs bussed in by Freedomworks, AFP, and others to disrupt meetings and intimidate Americans and their duly elected representatives as Brownshirts because that’s what they were acting like.

    Don’t like it? As I’ve already pointed out, that’s because you have problems with democracy. You can deal with your problems or not; it’s no skin off my nose. Just know that every time you make that inaccurate accusation, you make a bigger ass of yourself.

    On the other hand, as this thread clearly demonstrates, you’ve got no problem with that.

  125. 150

    Puddybud is shocked SHOCKED spews:

    Honey?

    When did you become so “expressive”? Puddy has provided the links to your comments in a different thread.

    Puddy full understands your foolishness. If you can’t see the issue of characterizing old Americans that way, some who may have relatives who died from Brownshirts you are way too drunk in the TPM kook-aid!

  126. 151

    Puddybud is shocked SHOCKED spews:

    Why are people like Another TJ and others so scared of young and old Americans protesting something they don’t like?

    Hillary Clinton in 2003 said it was our right to debate and disagree with any administration.

    Nancy Pelosi in 2006 said dissent is patriotic.

    Yet the pathetic moron Another TJ gets his morning marching orders from TPM so he can make a point.

  127. 152

    Puddybud is shocked SHOCKED spews:

    Hey Don Joe,

    something to ponder from your bud “the messiah”. Puddy doesn’t want to see this as it will hurt poor inna city minorities and poor people. But that’s okay to people like Don Joe cuz he makes big bucks.

  128. 153

    spews:

    Puddybud @ 146,

    “Exactly what your side does all the time here on HA.”

    Well, then take ‘em on Puddybud. But do so with honesty and integrity! Otherwise you lose as badly as they do! See my point?

    “And when Puddy calls you on your blind eye hypocrisy crickets are heard chirping.”

    “Blind eye hypocrisy”???? No, Puddybud. When I choose to engage someone in an intellectual discussion, I do so honestly. Not getting involved is not hypocrisy—that’s just necessary time management.

    “Previously Puddy provided to you the R Allen Stanford post Of Jon DeVore His implication of R Allen Stanford being a Republican from Texas went merrily along until Puddy PROVED his leanings were highly Dummocraptic.”

    I don’t remember reading that post or the comment thread (and I obviously didn’t participate in the comment thread). And I really don’t know anything about the topic. I’m not very interested in the topic, frankly. Sorry. But…I hope you found some good solid facts, and interpreted them soundly to make your argument. That would be awesome.

  129. 154

    spews:

    Puddybud @ 147,

    “Puddy is shocked and surprised you took on wondermoron and his David Duke retort above.”

    “Take on”? I just corrected a factual error on a topic we were discussing in the thread. It’s not a big deal to me, and I doubt it is to him.

    “Hey Darryl, Puddy will call everyone by their real name if the HA Libtardos do the same. They were the ones who started the buttpuddy, buttputty, buttpacker, pudpacker, etc. names before Puddy started uniquely naming leftist weirdos.”

    Maybe you misunderstand me, Puddy. I am not suggesting that you abandon nicknames. But it helps your readers if the nickname clearly identifies who you are referring to. You know, use Yellow Lemming Tramp instead of Wondermoron, and people will make the connection. During the academic year I have precious little time to play in the comment threads, and unfamiliar names just make me skip the rest of the comment. Please take this as a gentle criticism of your comment style: I don’t understand many of your comments because they are cryptically written, and I don’t usually have time or inclination to translate non-standard words and phrases into simple English equivalents. But you can do whatever you want regarding nicknames and style of prose, it is just a suggestion.

  130. 155

    Another TJ spews:

    Sweetie, you’re such a delicate flower, I have to soften the blow or you’ll go all Drama Queen on us again. Kind of like how you once again fail basic reading comprehension and go apoplectic on behalf of old people who you admit exist only in your fevered imagination.

  131. 156

    Paul spews:

    I am always glad to see Americans voicing their opinions, I may not always agree with them, but I enjoy it, so please keep boycotting Whole Foods Market, Inc., companies keep dropping sponsorship of the “Glenn Beck” BS, Astroturfers keep showing up at town hall meeting and get your shouts in (we all know you can’t articulate your position and are all about hate) they hate and can’t debate, sweet.