Reeducating The Yutes: Part 5

~Snooper~

Reference Parts 1 and 2 and 3 and 4.

This series started with this post right here.

This is the last comment to be dissected for the originating post here. Part 6 of this series will be created by comments placed in Parts 1 and following of this series called Reeducating The Yutes.

Comment #6 from Liberal A: this is a doozy

the united states is not a Democracy????
Are you insane?? do you read anything other than your own whack job authorities. the whole world considers the US a democracy. You and your ilk are terrifying to the future of any rational society. where are your answers to the questions I have posed to you. where is the debate. it is you who are not capable of debate because you have no facts to back up your nonsensical assertions.

how is it unconstitutional to provide health care to all of our citizens?
we have done this for senior citizens for decades. it has never been found to be unconstitutional. please explain how it is unconstitutional. you made an assertion. you should be able to explain what makes it unconstitutional

Judas H Priest. What a ninny. IT demands answers to ITS questions yet offers none of ITS own. Poor thing. Must be tough living in that moonbat spider hole. Let's see if I can "answer these ad homs".

No, I am not insane unless I think fixing a moonbat's idiocy, self-induced, is actually possible. And, no, the USA is not a Democracy or at least it wasn't founded as one. It may be one now seeing that every moron in and out of government thinks that mob rule is the law of the land. Mob rule is not the law of the land...yet but it is getting close. Just look how those morons in CA and across the country are reacting to the Prop 8 vote in CA. Those Anarchists seem to think that if they burn enough churches down and if they send white powder to enough people, the majority will yield to the minority. That is what democracy is...mob rule.

I have presented many facts and substantiation to my every point and assertion and this moonbat has brought none...IT came unprepared to be spanked and had by the Mad Hadder, me. And now, IT is upset so IT accuses me of doing what IT is doing...making lame assertions with zero facts and examples.

It is unconstitutional for the Federal Government to provide Health Care, Unemployment, Food Stamps, Welfare and any other socialist give-away program that cannot be reconciled with the United States Constitution. As soon as someone in and of authority that can provide Constitutional Chapter and Verse for every single Federal Government agency, policy and program, I will accept them if they are indeed Constitutional. Seeing that the Federal Government never has and seeing that absolutely no politician has done so, I can only conclude that there isn't Constitutional standing for any of them. I am talking about on the Federal level and not on the State level...there is a difference. We fought a Civil War over States Rights that some think was over slavery...which it wasn't.

And, I don't give a DAMN if "we have been doing it for a long time", no matter what that particular "it" is. Some politicians have tried to have our CONgress substantiate everything with the US Consttution and they will not even bring that out of committee. I wonder why that is.

Reeducating The Yutes: Part 4

~Snooper~

Reference Parts 1 and 2 and 3.

This series started with this post right here.

It was a simple post actually and an obvious one at that. It started with a simple question and the poor thing had a conniption fit over the Republic v Democracy thing. It obviously wants a Democracy and I am sure any Democracy would make this idiot happier than returning to our Federal Republic as outlined in our Constitution.

UHOH! More talking dulls from a deluded and poisoned mind. It actually DOES believe this crap!

Comment #5 From Libtard IDIOT A: ROFLMAO! I really don't know where to begin with this complete and utter fool.

you said you wanted to debate. you haven't answered any of my questions:

Federal Republic IS a form of democracy. we consider ourselves a democracy.here is a map of modern democricies. They are even called "Liberal Democracies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Lib...beral_democracy

case closed. please answer my questions about the gutting of all of our regulatory agencies.

here's another question: apparently, you think government doesn't work. that't true when it's run by incompetents and criminals like the ones in the Bush administration. Bush privitized Walter Reed Hospital. Greed took over and veterans received no care.It is back to government control now.when Obama gets in, veterans will get the care they deserve. Bush pushed student loans into private credit providers. Those providers are gutting students with usorous interest rates and unfair practices. here is an article in today's paper.

Student Loan Aid Is Test for Treasury
Groups Urge No Bailout Benefit To Private Lenders

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp...ml? hpid=topnews

of course the republican congress gutted all the regulations on credit card companies and they are now charging up to 39% interest. I suppose you support that too.

So since you are against government, Mr Historian, why don't you name one country in the whole history of the world that has had NO government. Do you suggest a country of 390 million people have no rules and regulations, no one to fix the roads, protect the consumer, provide a safety net for the poor and sick. what are governments for, just for killing and the military, kind of like the Libertarian idea??? Tell me Mr Historian. Elaborate on those phoney nonsensical soundbites of yours!

Please tell me how providing health care to all of our citizens would be unconstitutional. Explain how it would be unconstitutional. I will be happy to debate.

I am sorry I called you names. I am not proud of that, but I would like your detailed answers since you have written a long opinion piece.

Respectfully,

Barbara

Holy Toledo ladies and gentlemen! I mean, DAMN! This was sure has the SALAD thing down doesn't it?

The very first sentence in this idiot's comment is one of those jumping to conclusions things. I wonder where I stated that I "wanted to" debate? I don't debate idiots. I squash them. Period. There is no debating a fool and this particular fool is the very epitome of a spoiled brat, breaking out in temper tantrums. It really is amazing.

In parts 2 and 3 of this series, the comments therein bear the assertion of the emotional idiocy so common among the basic childish libtard that has absolutely no idea what they think they are talking about. It is incredible. Comments for Part 2 is located here and Part 1 comments is located here. I am quite sure that this series will go for quite some time due to the comments that are in Parts 1 and 2...I haven't even gotten to them yet but if one of the contributors of this blog wants to make a post on them, go ahead and do so.

Whenever they mention ANYTHING with wikipedia in it you know you have a total buffoon on your hands. Checkmate at this point and anything they say afterwards can be discounted as irrelevant. To make matters worse for itself, after IT cited wiki, he cited the Washington Compost. I am surprised that IT didn't cite the National Enquirer as well. Hell, in other comments IT cited the Rolling Stone for Christ's sake. DAMN!

These idiots shouldn't be allowed to vote. Now do you all understand why our Founding Fathers allowed for only the informed people vote? This one is sorely ill informed. Michael Sall has something to say about that as well.

Once again and as usual, IT makes a claim with absolutely no examples and no proof. IT makes the claim and I guess expects or "demands" that I answer ITS questions. That doesn't fly here in this blog. So, when the moron says that Bush is a war criminal and incompetent without the examples or proof or substantiation, I'll not do ITS homework for IT. I know EXACTLY what IT is going to say if IT has the guts to place the examples in the comments but I doubt IT will. The poor thing has already been spanked hard and has been had by the Mad Hadder...me.

When did President Bush "privatize" Walter Reed? I must have missed that memo. Chapter and verse please. Another incredible and outrageously retarded statement by this moron is that I don't want a government. I nearly lost an entire mouthful of coffee on that one.

Someone help me out here and let me know EXACTLY when and where that I have ever said that.

The only item that can be truly addressed in this comment is the subject of Federal Government provision of Health Care. National Health Care or Socialized Health Care or any other name the liberals want to give it is unconstitutional because the very premise cannot be reconciled with the United States Constitution. Period. End of discussion. Name the chapter and verse in the United States Constitution where that is addressed and I will buy into it. Now, if each individual State wants to provide that kind of health care to the residents of the individual States and the PEOPLE of those States so choose that for themselves, that is a different story. The Federal Government, by the US Constitution, does not have that authority.

The United States Constitution belongs to We The People and not the Government. Period.

Reeducating The Yutes: Part 3

~Snooper~

Reference Parts 1 and 2.

This is getting quite entertaining. What we have here is an official professional libtard idiot troll. Yes sir. A Pro Troll. What with all of the leaping and plunging to a previously perceived conclusion, their emotions take over and infer just about anything imaginable to support their inability to produce any substantiation at all. Simply amazing.

I was going to place three of the comments, #s 4, 5 and 6 here but I have changed my mind. It makes the posts too long. So, I will utilize #4 comment from the original post that started this reeducation process.

Comment #4 from Libtard Troll A:

as those of us who have gone to school know: a federal republic is a form of democracy: Your labels are silly and show an inability to think critically and in-depth. everything isn't just black or white- old snoopy

Encarta Answers
Democracy:
(Greek demos, "the people �; kratein, “to rule�), political system in which the people of a country rule through any form of government they choose to establish. In modern democracies, supreme authority is exercised for the most part by representatives elected by popular suffrage.
More about Democracy | Source

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/re...spx? q=democracy

WOW! Proof positive that this foolish imp has an ego the size of ITS plant between the legs, as it were. Not a SINGLE original thought other than emotionally charged drivel and then a word for word incantation from someone else that did ITS thinking for IT. Very interesting pathology there. Dr Rossiter and Dr Krauthammer would have field days with this one. I am sure Freud would as well.

The poor thing is stuck on whether or not we are a Democracy because IT has never taken the time to actually read our Constitution. If IT had, IT would know that we are not a Democracy but a Federal Republic operating under Democratic Principles.

IT has also revealed several of ITS "other identities" by using specific monikers.

It matters not a wit what people of today call or label the Nation we call the United States. What matters is what is in the US Constitution. It really is that simple and the simpletons should be able to decipher and discern this. Hell, my 13 year old can.

Don't you just love how the libtards say things like, "as those of us who have gone to school know: ", and then quote someone else? ROFLMAO!

Reeducating The Yutes: Part 2

~Snooper~

Please reference Part 1.

The comments which have inspired this series can be located here for the thread referenced in Part 1.

The second and third comments in the post originally written here is what we will deal with in this post. To be clear, please take note that the comments do not address the lies of Obama and his migration from the far-left Marxist ideology to the alleged and feigned centrist ideologies now being put forth by The One Messiah. The Czarbie apologists have begun there realization...Obama lied just like we said he was doing. The one placing the comments has also ignored the birth certificate issue, the democrat fear-mongering quagmire; self induced, the Democrat Party history of slavery, bigotry, the formation of the KKK, voter and campaign fraud and their unconstitutional principles and practices while claiming others have shredded the document. However, that is to be expected because one cannot debate the Leftinistra on Principles and Policies and Issues...they lose every time. They would "Rather" talk about their fantasies and their lies as if they are Truth. With that said, let us begin.

Comment #2 by Liberal A: (notice the unoriginal cut and paste technique...they have no originality to speak of)

Here is a section from Encarta about a great liberal thinker who influenced our founding fathers:

IV
John Locke
Print this section

An influential early liberal was the English philosopher John Locke. In his political writings, which deeply influenced the framers of the United States Constitution, he argued for popular sovereignty, the right of rebellion against oppression, and toleration of religious minorities. According to the thought of Locke and his many followers, the state exists not to promote people ’s spiritual salvation, but to serve its citizens and to guarantee their life, liberty, and property under a constitution.

Much of Locke ’s philosophy is reflected in the writings of the Anglo-American political philosopher and writer Thomas Paine, who argued that the authority of one generation should not be considered binding on its successors, that the state is perhaps necessary but still an evil, and that a belief in divine order was all the religion that need be demanded of free people. Thomas Jefferson also echoed Locke in the Declaration of Independence and in later pronouncements defending revolutions, attacking paternalistic government, and upholding free expression of unpopular opinions.

In France, Locke ’s philosophy was taken over by the leaders of the French Enlightenment, notably by the author and philosopher Voltaire. He insisted that the state should be supreme over the church and demanded universal religious toleration, abolition of censorship, lenient punishment of criminals, and a strong state acting only under general rules of law against forces obstructive of social progress and individual liberty. For Voltaire as for the French philosopher and dramatist Denis Diderot, the state is a machine for the creation of happiness and a positive instrument designed to check a strong nobility and a strong church, the two forces they considered most uncompromisingly dedicated to the conservation of old institutions.

http://encarta.msn.com/ encyclope...Liberalism.html

They make it hard to read sometimes with the cut and paste deals due to the odd-ball symbols. This is usually the sign that they have brought another's verbiage to the Debate Table because they have none of their own that mean anything. Their own verbiage that they write themselves is normally rife with ad homs and emotional drivel and has absolutely no basis in fact except for the usual moniker of "google it". Such shallow and child-like idiocy makes me chuckle and can inspire posts such as this.

Comment #3 by Liberal A:

do you see where liberals influenced the founders of this country and our constitution?????? You are completely ignorant. you like to use stupid labels like all you right wing non-thinkers. Liberalism Marxism. how about fascism and GW Bush. You people have just about destroyed our whole country and still you are spewing your ignorant chatter without any decent policies or concrete suggestions in sight. you are a disgrace to any intelligent society. Go get yourself an education. You hold degrees? Really hard to believe unless it is one of those right wing religious schools that make up their own "facts".

Fact: a photograph of Obama's birth certificate is online here:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/...bama- birth.html

if you are a history major, you should respect modern day historians,

here's an article about some of their thinking.there are other even worse polls of their opinions. maybe most historians are liberals because they have studied history and they see what policies and ideas are for the common good and which are not and which are actually destructive

http://www.rollingstone.com/ news...dent_in_history

I am just curious. you appear to be one of the 26% who think Bush has done a hell of a job.. just tell me why you think it is a good thing that he gutted all of our regulatory agencies- including those that protect our food and our environment, not to mention those that used to regulate financial institutions and the trading of commodities. Please tell me how that is a good thing.

then tell me why it is right that this disgraceful human being politicized our whole JUstice department. Is that what freedom and democracy are all about. yes our country is referred to as a democracy. JUst like Bush the idiot says he is spreading democracy all around the world-via war and torture. did you see how those world leaders refused to shake his hand??? I guess degrees are easy to come by these days. Bush has a degree from Yale and the whole world knows he is a know nothing who admitted to having read only one book that wasn't about Baseball or wasn't the Bible-his first debate..

oh well, you will keep spewing your nonsense, I am sure..

Barbara

There is quite a gathering of words forming sentences and all but they don't amount to much of anything substantial but we will try and make some sense of it anyway.

John Locke: yes, he influenced just about everyone he met and those he never met via his writings. I am one of them. However, his "liberalism" is not the same as Americanized Liberalism which amounts modern socialism, Marxism and Communism and in recent years "Progressivism". Equating today's Liberalism with John Locke is not only laughable but absolutely ridiculous. However, referencing the List of 45, one will find that this particular tactic was discussed before this particular "liberal" was born. Behold:

29) Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

30) Discredit the American founding fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man".

31) Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of "the big picture": Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.

32) Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture - - education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

33) Eliminate all laws or procedures, which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.

34) Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

42) Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special interest groups should rise up and make a "united force" to solve economic, political, or social problems.

All of the above are obviously diametrically opposed to the writings of John Locke which I have studied for decades so when a "liberal" brings up John Locke, you can see why I find that particularly funny and how it reveals their utter ignorance. So, John Locke is not the same as today's liberal at all. Let's move on to the third comment.

Aside from the over use of the ? key, the first sentence can be discounted and summarily dismissed as being totally irrelevant. Historically speaking, the liberal of yore is certainly not the liberal of today and the next part is yet another ad hom showing and revealing the inability to check their emotions due to one's uneducated stupidity trying to sound as if they are educated. I only write such posts to teach others how this is done.

It speaks of the fascism of Bush. I find that comical. Where is the substantiation? Where are the examples? Where is the proof? If they try to bring up FISA, does that make Obama a fascist as well seeing that he voted FOR it right after he said he wasn't going to? Naturally, there are no connections to President Bush and fascism but then again, the liberals have claimed that President Bush was also Hitler and there again, no proof has ever been presented other than emotional ignorance and stupidity which exposes the lack of historical education.

The remaining portions of the first paragraph in the third comment is nothing more than more childish ad homs which amount to more childish and emotionally unhinged stupidity. Simply amazing and this fool wants to debate? Debate what? How emotionally weak it is? No thanks. That requires no debate as it is "Rather" obvious even to the oblivious.

Next, the emotional child presents proof that the COLB (certificate of live birth) of Obama was shown to be fact but failed to recognize how forensic specialists proved the COLB was false and forged and the ones guilty of the forgery admitted to it. It also fails to make the connection that a COLB is not a birth certificate. Case closed.

Next, the uneducated "liberal" cites the Rolling Stone as an authoritative source as a historical source for the "common good" yet exposing that IT has no idea what the Constitution says about the "common good". Incredible. So, how does one debate a fool? The answer is that one does not because one cannot and this particular fool is a fool's fool.

The last two entries in the liberal's comment proves the fool's fool assertion. Apparently, IT believes in opinion polls as gospel which reveals a mental disparity between that which is real and that which is not. IT thinks I am a Bush supporter. I am not and never have been. I voted for him twice because I was certainly not voting for the Global Warming Myth Fraud Gore nor was I going to vote for the War Criminal, self-admitted, John F'n Kerry. Period. The ONLY thing I supported President Bush on was the Global War On Terror because he was rioght on that one and I fought in that war BEFORE he was President and BEFORE he was Governor of Texas. So, its following assertions are null and void and have no bearing, at least as far as I am concerned.

Yet, those assertions IT makes have no factual basis because IT presents no examples whatsoever which is the usual tactic utilized by such an emotionally unbalanced Americanized liberal. IT whines about the Justice System and I can only surmise that IT means the firing of the attorneys which is a President's right to do so and the only idiots that politicized it were the liberals...that discount that President Clinton did worse. Checkmate.

IT whines about Bush spreading democracy by war and torture with no basis in fact and discounts that thew United States has been at war with terrorism since 1974...they declared it via a plethora of Fatwahs and we ignored them until 91101 which was the Final Straw. The fool is a fool's fool. Alas, I digress.

Comments 4, 5 and 6 of the liberal will be addressed in Part 3 of Reeducating the Yutes series. IN comment #6 IT claims that "the whole world thinks we are a democracy" so I guess we need to amend our Constitution accordingly now.

Saints be with us.

Reeducating The Yutes: Part 1

~Snooper~

In a previous post entitled, "So What Do We Do About It?" we had the typical reaction from an uneducated "lefty" or a wrongfully educated "victim" of the List of 45. I cannot classify the individual making the comments a troll just yet so I will refrain from the usual "nailing of the troll to the Leftinistra cross" at this time. However, as SOP goes here, there comes a time when comments from the opposition make for good posts. This is such a time.

Click the link above and then read the post. Once that is accomplished, return here and we will discuss the comments left by the "misguided" and "wrongfully educated" student of history.

The post is about the creeping socialism in this nation beginning with President Wilson and made Law by FDR. Since that time, it has been a battle of ideology as this libtard points out. Naturally, the responder to the post in the comments section ignored the Obama birth certificate issue, and his many lies as revealed by his post-election actions and activities. The gist of the post was how the basic and general Marxist/socialist will lie to anyone and everyone to "win" an election. Their followers have not ideologies of their own and merely parrot the ideologies that appeal to their emotion because their intellects are void of substance and their void of understanding is simply AWOL.

First comment from Lib A:

You are one sick uninformed puppy. Liberalism is a mental disorder? It is liberalism that brought us Democracy, the end of child labor and so many other great reforms. It brought us free speech, the right for all citizens to vote. People with grade school educations should not be writing blogs and exposing their ignorance for all to see. I suggest you go to the Encyclopedia Britannica (if you know what that is) and look up Liberalism and conservatism. Liberalism great accomplishments take up dozens of pages and like I said before include the development of democracies. Conservatism fought all of these ideas and it's main accomplishment in America in the 20th Century was McCarthyism.

What you need is an education. Finally our country IS BEING TAKE BACK from the ignorant and uninformed which you so shamefully represent. oh that's right- Republicans have no shame! They say they are Christians as they support war and torture and the gutting of our great Constitution, written by men who were the Progressives of their times

Barbara

WOW! The first statement is the usual personal attack and some would call that some sort of derangement syndrome in some circles. We will call this one the XDS with the "X" undefined at the moment. However, I was then referred to the Encyclopedia, specifically the Britannica and IT wondered if I knew what that was. If the Encyclopedia Britannica is the be-all of end-all, we are all in trouble. Have you ever read the idiocy therein? That publication is at least one step up from Wikipedia and that isn't saying much.

According to the comment, because "liberalism" takes up pages and pages as opposed to "conservatism", conservatism isn't as good as liberalism. Interesting pathology that. I wonder what Drs Rossiter and Krauthammer would say about that? Incredible. I could spend quite a bit of time on that alone. As a matter of fact, I have.

One thing is more or less true in the comment...liberalism does bring about "democracy". There in lies the problem. Democracy is the antithesis of our Constitution. Democracy is mob rule and an example of that would be what is going on in California in regards to Proposition 8. The "losers" in that California Constitutional Amendment voting scenario are demanding that their "loss" be turned over and they are willing to do whatever it takes to get that "election" undone. That is democracy at work...mob rule...the minority in number violently dictating to the majority in number, the peaceful. Yes. liberalism, at least Americanized Liberalism is indeed a mental disorder reminiscent of temper tantrums rendered by spoiled brats when their way is not allowed or realized. This is also alluded to in the List of 45.

The poor misguided student has revealed quite a bit of its misunderstanding of the Founding Fathers and that is also exposed in the List of 45. The creature has no understanding whatsoever about the end of "child labor", "free speech", the right to vote and the catch-all and unsubstantiated "many other great reforms". Generalities are vanity. I deal in specifics. I let the emotional deal in generalities because it soothe their empty souls while I deal with the intellectual aspects of life.

Free Speech was granted us as a gift from our Creator and not "liberalism". Child Labor was abolished due to common sense and has nothing at all to do with "liberalism" unless one plays with the emotion heart string and claims the children were "liberated"...not the same thing unless the emotionally unhinged think otherwise. The "right to vote" is granted by our Constitution and has nothing to do with "liberalism". If you look back in time, only certain people were granted constitutional rights to vote and those people were the ones that "qualified" to vote and the people qualified to vote were the "informed people". Such isn't the case now and I will grant the premise that perhaps "liberalism" has done away with that and this is why we must revert back to the original intent...only the informed should vote.

In the last election, it is painfully and ruefully obvious that there should be cause to pause and rethink the electoral processes. Especially among the Obama supporters, I wold estimate that at least half - if not more - had no earthly idea why they were voting or for what they were voting. I saw this first hand with our Man On The Street episodes we conducted since the beginning of July to a week before the elections. We also witnessed the same as Howard Stern and others witnessed. The Obama supporters were 100% clueless. This type of electoral malfeasance needs to end.

Americanized liberalism? No thanks.

The last entry in the "liberal" comment is as thus:

What you need is an education. Finally our country IS BEING TAKE BACK from the ignorant and uninformed which you so shamefully represent. oh that's right- Republicans have no shame! They say they are Christians as they support war and torture and the gutting of our great Constitution, written by men who were the Progressives of their times.

I can spend hours and hours on this lunacy. The individual which wrote this utter nonsense is typical of that which we face; the brainwashed lunacy production of the government run reeducation camps we call Public Education and Institutes of Higher Learning...please read the List of 45.

First of all, "their kind" have not taken anything back from anyone...they have successfully pulled off the List of 45 by installing Americanized Socialism in the White House and Congress. They have in affect, committed Treason by overthrowing the United States Constitution and if the Nationalized Health Care, Nationalized Banking Industry, Nationalized Auto Industry projects are fully accomplished, the overthrow will be complete. There isn't anywhere in the Constitution that authorizes any of the above.

The cretin once again alleges the "gutting of our Constitution" without any substantiation. This reveals the over emotional or the emotionally unhinged type of rhetoric. It has no proof and lashes out as the spoiled brat would. The same would go for the "shame" and "war" comments. With no examples or substantiation, these "arguments" are unceremoniously discounted as the childish idiocy it represents.

The "Progressives of their times" is an interesting comment. I agree and always have and through the years of teaching that very concept, I have witnessed the morphing of this and the morphing took an evil turn in the early 1960s. In today's rhetoric, "Progressive" means "socialist" because "liberal" took on an ugly connotation which was handily rejected in the Reagan Era. The Founding Fathers were far from "socialists" and their progressivism was indeed progressive, not socialistic. Semantics people. You have to pay attention to their semantics.

The emotionally unhinged and the wrongfully educated fools in this nation are Clear and Present Dangers and need to be summarily dismissed as such and handily defeated.

The cretin mentioned shame and this will be the last entry of the comments left by the fool. It is the democrats and the "progressives" and the "liberals" and the "socialists" and the "Marxists" that have no shame. They "protect" the animals yet murder the unborn. That is a lack of shame right there and until that is well understood and acted upon I will entertain no "lectures" from the murderous pathological liberal. "The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness" is indeed a must read. I am on my third time through it.

What's your excuse?

JBlog me...thanks