1 - 10 Next
In response to:

The 25th Annual No Pants Senate

LonesomePolecat Wrote: Jan 15, 2013 12:23 PM
Well you are headed in the right direction with the discussion of pants. But perhaps more apropos is what I call the "The Stinky Pants Boys" which can indeed include women. Every session there is a long standing secret exercise where all congress persons remove their pants, and remaining un-washed, hand they over to somebody else in the group, who then adroitly re-pants -- kinda of like re-gifting. As a result, they all eventually stink the same, and you can not tell the difference from smell to smell. This did allow for the likes of Ted Kennedy, pants-less, who had a distinct smell of his own.
I sent your column to a fellow engineer at GE -- engineers usually think more cogently than other ilk -- and his reply: "I didn't choose him; he's a f[...........] idiot. We knew it when he was chosen to replace Welch. He was the worst of the 3 being considered. The one we wanted went to 3M, fixed them, Boeing, fixed them, and I don't know where he is now...!" And a RINO to boot. Thus at least you have one endorsement.
You write as if Roberts had an either / or choice between obamacare and beating back the commerce clause, i.e., he could NOT do both. Simply, I ask, why not. If you earnestly believe that he has effectively "killed" the commerce clause, I would restrain you haste. Wait till the next pseudo intellectual dance on the head of a pin, with the commerce clause front and center. On the other hand, Roberts has kicked wide open the door on the wildest schemes for taxing left only to the imaginations of the socialists. And they do not even have to call it a tax. The court will do it for them. More a fox in the hen house, I suspect.
You know I had forgotten about the Hitler quote. But it is the con-man's motto. If you are going to lie, you may as well make it BIG. Baron Von Münchhausen did so well with that approach that he had a psychosis named after him -- more commonly known as Münchhausen by proxy. I now see a whole string of sub-categories: Münchhausen by Obama, Münchhausen by Pelosi, Münchhausen by Reid, and a real big one .... Münchhausen by Wasserman-Schiltz. I could go on ......
In response to:

One-on-One with Marco Rubio

LonesomePolecat Wrote: Jul 02, 2012 11:28 AM
Ya, what? You have a problem. Try to get some help ..... naugh, forget it.
In response to:

One-on-One with Marco Rubio

LonesomePolecat Wrote: Jul 02, 2012 11:18 AM
I have cited it about 10 times in the article. Minor vs Happersett, Supreme Court, 1875. Read and weep. Sorry. Oh, and you should notice Article 2 Section 1 in the Constitution. Retort now is you will. I hope you have not worn you mouth out .... oh, maybe I do.
In response to:

National Rottenness

LonesomePolecat Wrote: Jul 02, 2012 10:55 AM
Last line screwed up .. When it was disclosed by Leo in 2010, it magically started to re-appear (with little or no explanation) in 2011. Your thoughts.
In response to:

National Rottenness

LonesomePolecat Wrote: Jul 02, 2012 10:53 AM
I have a request. You usually study, before you pronounce. What would you say about the conjunction of Article 2 Section 1 (A2S1) of the Constitution, and Supreme Court ruling of Minor vs Happersett, 1875, wherein a Natural Born Citizen is clearly defined. You will have to be careful about where you look this up (in legal search databases) as it has been purged from many of them. (Guess why.) This purge was discovered by Leo Donofrio, and he has documented it going back to 2006, 2007, leading up to the 2008 primary and national elections. When is was disclosed by Leo in 210, it magically started to re-appear (with little or no explanation) in 2011. Your thoughts.
In response to:

One-on-One with Marco Rubio

LonesomePolecat Wrote: Jul 02, 2012 10:38 AM
I have cited it about 10 times in the article. Minor vs Happersett, Supreme Court, 1875. Read and weep. Sorry.
In response to:

One-on-One with Marco Rubio

LonesomePolecat Wrote: Jul 02, 2012 10:36 AM
You do not have to go back that far. Minor vs Happersett, Supreme Court, 1875. Plato and Aristotle are nice, but .... no need.
1 - 10 Next