I heartily agree, Lady Wolverine. I quit posting here a long time ago, just stop in frequently to read the articles. For a great site with moderators, try AmericanThinker as well. Thoughtful people inhabit that place, and trolls are stopped in their tracks. The owners of TH should be painfully ashamed of how they have let their site deteriorate. I am truly amazed that the good people whose articles are placed here suffer such ignominy.

What's the matter? Too many facts are crowding out all the brilliant liberal ideas in your pinhead? A word of advice, Max:: when you hear a fact, just stick your fingers in your ears and yell "La-la-la-la!"

It's his choice to go or stay - but his choosing to stay in is just reflective of his ego; it's embarrassing everyone except himself. He really needs the smack of reality to convince him to go back to writing history books, which he is very good at.

Face it, it's a lot more simpler reason why liberal women aren't sleeping around: what sober man would sleep with Nancy Pelosi, Janet Reno, Sheila Jackson Lee, or Maxine Waters? You'd have to be stone drunk to do so, in which case, no "Anthony" rises to the occasion.

Logic, not facts (the two things progluddites don't understand) says that someone with a job has more hope for the future for her child than some crack ho who sees a child as a "punishment" (Barry's word for it).

Do you own those magnificent mountains? Who is this "we" you speak of? If you think it is more worthy to keep a mountain (though seriously, no one is reducing mountains to rubble to fuel the economy), then you can pay the owner of the mountain to keep it as such. If you're not willing to pay his price, then you don't think it's worth it, obviously. But don't go have the government put a gun to my head and demand that I help you "save" those mountains - that would be called conspiracy to armed robbery.

While it's true that our ancestors in the 19th century didn't need a President to make their economy flourish, we do need one now to weed out all the regulations which are stifling productivity, set policy for a smaller government, and we need one to sign, not veto, Congressional bills that wipe out whole departments and budgets. The Presidents of yesteryear were also needed, like John Adams, to veto bills like providing relief out of the taxpayer's pocket for people whose homes were flooded in St. Louis. The President is an essential part of our nation, though it sounds like you want her to be a mere figurehead. The position has nothing to do with making plans, but acting to lift and keep government off the backs of the people.

Judging by the number of comments, I don't think there will be great weeping and gnashing of teeth with this development. Good thing you kept your day job, Rich.

Okay, Judy, I'm listening, who do you think should run for President? Who do you think is popular enough to evict Barry from the White House? Who do you think can start the movement to turn back 98 years of Progressivism? I see a field of candidates out there, and haven't made up my mind yet who I will back; it's way too early to be deciding these things when most of them have hardly spoken or even thrown in their hats. As to the Tea Party being extreme, yes, I agree - so did Goldwater when he said: "Extremism in the defense of liberty is not a vice, but a virtue."

Touche! The only thing in the middle of the road is roadkill.