See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

1. Leaning Straight Up » The stimulus price continues to rise. Can we afford it?
2. Fiscal Suicide: #biteme « JoHNBRoDiGaNDoTCoM
3. Barack Obama: His policies and politics make him the “enemy” of the American People « Mark Epstein
4. Stop, thief! Kill the bill, melt the phones — But As For Me
5. Where is All of That Money Going to Go? | Pirates! Man Your Women!
6. Mike Pence: Overwhelming NO - GOP Support for Obama Stimulus Bill - But Melt The Phones Anyway | FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog
7. Hot Air » Blog Archive » The Democratic Porkfest Bill of 2009
8. Michelle Malkin: Illegal Illegals: Stop, thief! Kill the bill, melt the phones call now folks! 1-202-224-3121 | Illegal Illegals Report Call ICE 1-866-DHS-2ICE Report Employers Call ICE 1-866-347-2423 “No Amnesty” English National Language
9. Stop, thief! Kill the bill, melt the phones « Jim Blazsik
10. Fiscal Suicide: 20 Things That Suck « JoHNBRoDiGaNDoTCoM
11. Riehl World View
12. The Radio Patriot
13. Offering It Up » Michelle Malkin on the stimulus bill
14. More Stimulus Musings « The Forum
15. “Stimulus” bill needs to die… | The Anchoress
16. What’s Wrong With the Obama Economic Stimulus? « Peace and Freedom Global Future
17. Jihad The Porkfest! « Mcnorman’s Weblog
18. Fascists (#LibHippos) at the Democratic Congressional Committee Want you to Sign Petition to Silence Rush Limbaugh & Free Speech | Ft. Hard Knox
19. $335,000,000 FOR STD PREVENTION IN ECONOMIC STIMULUS BILL | Right Voices
20. Congress Hits the Jackpot! « Conservative Pilgrim
21. The Irascible Chef » Slippery Slope Effect
22. Playing the Kid Card | America Needs Me
23. Democrat=Socialist
24. Maybe I’m being too cynical, but… : Pursuing Holiness
25. Conserva-Kat » Blog Archive » Do not be fooled!
26. Michelle Malkin » Theft update: Amendment debate
27. Reading The Stimulation Porkage, Pages 145-146: Shovel Ready Wellness | Blue Grass, Red State
28. | Right Resolve
29. Latest Bailout Passes Without a Single Republican Vote | The Daily Conservative
30. Two stupid things: the Bailout and a military FAKER « Chockblock’s blog
31. 1/28-Views from the Heartland: Reader Mail and Blogs « American Heartland Bar and Grill
32. The Wide Awake Cafe » Eight Days of Silence
33. House Dems Pass the Stimulus Hoax… « Gunservatively!
34. Expose The Media » Obama’s Stimulus: Take Your Hands Off My Money
35. Michelle Malkin » Daschle’s revenge: Porkulus also a universal health care Trojan Horse
36. Expose The Media » Obama’s Stimulus: New Cars For The Feds, Government Control Of Healthcare Industry, 4.1 Billion To ACORN, $300 Million For Golf Carts, $787 Billion in New Welfare Spending And Many More Earmarks
37. President Obama Looking For Solutions in All The Wrong Places–Big Government: You Are No President Ronald Reagan! « Pronk Palisades
38. Fausta’s Blog » Blog Archive » The 40-Year Wish List
39. » Blog Archive » Melt the Phones
40. Latest Stimulus Bill Passes Without a Single Republican Vote | TDC

Trackback URL

Comments

1. #605020
   On January 28th, 2009 at 3:12 pm, Bill Grant said:

   If it gets through the house on a party line vote the only real way of stopping it is in the senate with a filibusterer or getting 10 democrats to join with republicans to vote it down.

   The following democrat senators voted against the first bailout bill. In addition to the 40 Republicans perhaps they could be persuaded to employ some restraint.

   Ron Wyden(D) 202-224-5244
   senator@wyden.senate.gov
   Maria Cantwell(D) 202-224-3441
   senator@cantwell.senate.gov
   Byron L. Dorgan(D) 202-224-2551
   senator@dorgan.senate.gov
   Russ Feingold(D) 202-224-5323
   senator@feingold.senate.gov
   Tim Johnson(D) 202-224-5842
   senator@johnson.senate.gov
   Mary Landrieu(D) 202-224-5824
   senator@Landrieu.senate.gov
   Bill Nelson(D) 202-224-5274
   senator@Nelson.senate.gov
   Bernie Sanders(I)802-862-0697
   senator@Sanders.senate.gov
   Debbie Stabenow(D) 202-224-4822
   senator@stabenow.senate.gov
   Jon Tester(D) 202-224-2644
   senator@Tester.senate.gov

   Here is: The contact information for Republican senators who can be asked to employ any means necessary, including a filibusterer to stop this.

2. #605021
   On January 28th, 2009 at 3:13 pm, bluesoc said:

   Thanks for letting us in on the new double speak for collectivist. Kind of like the new word for socialist, I do believe they are now called progressives. Consider me duly educated

   One might argue that the constitution was a collectivist document. “We the people”… Why doesn’t it say “I the individual”?

   (I’m not arguing for a Collectivist ideology. I’m simply stating that your use of the word in a pejorative sense is not warranted. If you want to criticize me, please be more specific)

3. #605023
   On January 28th, 2009 at 3:14 pm, flmom said:

   The richer you are, the more likely you are to save it.

   This is very simplistic thinking, even for you Bluesoc. Speaking as a business owner myself, more tax breaks mean more money to spend on expanding my business, as in advertising, hiring more people, larger office space, etc. Rich people do not get rich by hoarding money, they do it by taking risks, investing, you know, entrepreneurial stuff that the government knows nothing about.

4. #605026
   On January 28th, 2009 at 3:15 pm, bluesoc said:

   Speaking as a business owner myself, more tax breaks mean more money to spend on expanding my business, as in advertising, hiring more people, larger office space, etc.

   Are you really going to expand your business in the midst of a serious recession?

5. #605027
   On January 28th, 2009 at 3:19 pm, Bill Grant said:

   Bluesoc said:

   Seeing the government as a tool to correct market failures is not collectivist thinking. It’s pragmatic.

   There is nothing pragmatic about trying something that has shown to be unworkable or at the very least “inefficient” over and over again.

   Thanks for not calling yourself a “conservative” though. I appreciate that.

6. #605028
   On January 28th, 2009 at 3:20 pm, flmom said:

   ne might argue that the constitution was a collectivist document. “We the people”… Why doesn’t it say “I the individual”?

   Because the Constitution grants the individual the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

7. #605031
   On January 28th, 2009 at 3:21 pm, bluesoc said:

   Because the Constitution grants the individual the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

   That’s the declaration of independence

8. #605041
   On January 28th, 2009 at 3:30 pm, flmom said:

   Are you really going to expand your business in the midst of a serious recession?

   I think you miss the point, or maybe this is a teachable moment. Of course I’m not expanding the company in this economy and nor will I if this boondoggle of a bill passes. Corporate taxes here in the USA are the highest in the world, even a modest cut in these taxes would give me more money to hire that extra office help I need, or to take out another page of advertising, or to add that extra computer I need. See the multiplier effect just with me?

9. #605046
   On January 28th, 2009 at 3:36 pm, bluesoc said:

   I think you miss the point, or maybe this is a teachable moment. Of course I’m not expanding the company in this economy and nor will I if this boondoggle of a bill passes. Corporate taxes here in the USA are the highest in the world, even a modest cut in these taxes would give me more money to hire that extra office help I need, or to take out another page of advertising, or to add that extra computer I need. See the multiplier effect just with me?

   Perhaps you’re missing my point. There’s no point in giving tax breaks if there is no expansion (and therefore no multiplier effect)in the short term, given that we want short term results.

10. #605060
    On January 28th, 2009 at 3:45 pm, flmom said:

    That’s the declaration of independence

    You’re right, but the Constitution states that it promotes the general welfare of it’s citizens, which means health, pursuit of happiness and liberty for all. I really don’t think they meant we should all be on welfare.

11. #605065
    On January 28th, 2009 at 3:49 pm, emjem24 said:

    bluesoc:

    Why expand or spend money when the Federal Governement is pushing the country further into unsustainable debt that will eventually see a rise in inflation and taxation?

    I don’t blame flmom. She’s smart… unlike poor people. Poor people are poor for one reason and one reason only-they don’t know the value of a dollar, don’t know how to save, don’t want to work, and don’t know how to survive without Big Daddy Government taking care of all their needs.

    How do I know? Because my mother was born into abject poverty- the kind that Americans don’t know much about. The kind where your dietary choices are limited because your own father spent the bread on booze and women. Not that you care about the sociological observation that personal life choices have as much to do with poverty as they do wealth.

    Tell me, bluesoc: are you going to spend in this environment? Or will you hoard your “wealth?” Will you upgrade your skill set to ensure increased job opportunity or will you remain complacent like most of the American public that jobs last forever?

    Perhaps if Americans saved money in the first place we wouldn’t be living in a culture of debt, irresponsibility, laziness, or political complacency.

12. #605067
    On January 28th, 2009 at 3:51 pm, flmom said:

    Perhaps you’re missing my point. There’s no point in giving tax breaks if there is no expansion (and therefore no multiplier effect)in the short term, given that we want short term results.

    Tax breaks across the spectrum would be a quicker more, effective way of putting more money in the economy. I don’t see any multiplier effect by spending 200 million on the National Mall.

13. #605073
    On January 28th, 2009 at 3:55 pm, flmom said:

    Thanks emjem24, my parents were also born into abject poverty, my life was not much better. I vowed that I’d never have to worry about where the next dollar was going to come from, hence the work ethic, and also, I emigrated here from England because I knew that the USA was the only place that it was possible for me to achieve that goal. I’m not so sure I’d make that same move now.

14. #605077
    On January 28th, 2009 at 3:59 pm, bluesoc said:

    I don’t see any multiplier effect by spending 200 million on the National Mall.

    It creates jobs. The people with jobs have more income to spend. They spend it on local businesses. Those businesses can pay employees who then spend income, etc.

15. #605081
    On January 28th, 2009 at 4:01 pm, John Deaux said:

    On January 28th, 2009 at 3:15 pm, bluesoc said:

    Are you really going to expand your business in the midst of a serious recession?

    Actually, a local gun store did just that.

16. #605084
    On January 28th, 2009 at 4:03 pm, John Deaux said:

    On January 28th, 2009 at 12:21 am, bluesoc said:

    Who said I’m a liberal?

    On January 28th, 2009 at 2:45 pm, bluesoc said:

    Seeing the government as a tool to correct market failures is not collectivist thinking. It’s pragmatic.

17. #605089
    On January 28th, 2009 at 4:05 pm, sonofdy said:

    Our new “smart” president trying to walk through a window instead of a door.

18. #605090
    On January 28th, 2009 at 4:06 pm, sonofdy said:

    It creates jobs. The people with jobs have more income to spend. They spend it on local businesses. Those businesses can pay employees who then spend income, etc.

    Short term jobs at best.

19. #605092
    On January 28th, 2009 at 4:07 pm, bluesoc said:

    Poor people are poor for one reason and one reason only-they don’t know the value of a dollar, don’t know how to save, don’t want to work, and don’t know how to survive without Big Daddy Government taking care of all their needs. How do I know? Because my mother was born into abject poverty

    I appreciate that you have a personal connection, but I don’t think you can draw such a broad conclusion from anecdotal evidence.

    Tell me, bluesoc: are you going to spend in this environment? Or will you hoard your “wealth?”

    No. I’m not going to spend. It would be irrational for me to do so. There is far too much risk in job markets, and I really don’t know what my future income will be.

    I think this proves my point. If private citizens/businesses have incentive NOT to spend, but spending is necessary to end the recession (quickly), I think the government should step in.

20. #605093
    On January 28th, 2009 at 4:07 pm, bluesoc said:

    Short term jobs at best.

    It’s a short term solution.

21. #605098
    On January 28th, 2009 at 4:11 pm, sonofdy said:

    Short term jobs at best.

    It’s a short term solution.

    And leaves a long term mess. Great for getting re-elected, but thats about it.

22. #605105
    On January 28th, 2009 at 4:18 pm, bluesoc said:

    And leaves a long term mess.

    But if the short term mess is worse than the long term mess created by the solution, then perhaps it is justified.

23. #605111
    On January 28th, 2009 at 4:24 pm, John Deaux said:

    On January 28th, 2009 at 4:18 pm, bluesoc said:
    But if the short term mess is worse than the long term mess created by the solution, then perhaps it is justified.

    I’m sure that’s what Roosevelt thought. Tax the rich sounds pretty good. We get money to the people and the rich can afford it. Of course, it was probably responsible for drawing out the Depression for years.

    The simple fact is that the Dems and their constituents are out for the quick, easy solution. They never look past the surface to see what knock on effects will take place. They only understand the simple emotion of “We need to do something now!”

24. #605112
    On January 28th, 2009 at 4:25 pm, rightisright said:

    On January 28th, 2009 at 12:21 am, bluesoc said: Who said I’m a liberal?

    You did, with your postings.

25. #605113
    On January 28th, 2009 at 4:25 pm, sonofdy said:

    And leaves a long term mess.

    But if the short term mess is worse than the long term mess created by the solution, then perhaps it is justified.

    Not if the long term mess is a choice between national insolvency and hyper-inflation.

26. #605119
    On January 28th, 2009 at 4:35 pm, Speakup said:

    This is all about heavy liberal CYA, the left knows this beached whale will start to rot before the ink is dry and the only chance Dems have is to drag the GOP down with them.

    Just a loud clear NO! Will start opening up seats for the GOP, let the left send themselves to hell, its what their good at and leave the rest of us out of it.

27. #605122
    On January 28th, 2009 at 4:39 pm, bluesoc said:

    Not if the long term mess is a choice between national insolvency and hyper-inflation.

    That’s not really a response to my point. You’re basically arguing that the long term mess is worse than the short term mess. That’s fair, although I don’t think it’s obvious, and it’s definitely debatable.

28. #605126
    On January 28th, 2009 at 4:43 pm, sonofdy said:

    That’s not really a response to my point. You’re basically arguing that the long term mess is worse than the short term mess. That’s fair, although I don’t think it’s obvious, and it’s definitely debatable.

    National bankruptcy or massive hyper-inflation would be worse than a depression, and it will happen unless you have a couple of trillion in your wallet.

29. #605127
    On January 28th, 2009 at 4:46 pm, bmac727 said:

    As a former Contracting Officer (CO) for the DOE (& DOD), let me tell you that almost NONE of the funds appropriated in Pelosi’s Pork Package (aka ’stimulus’ bill) will actually be spent in FY 2009 (or CY 09); rather, it will only be “obligated” – after the funds appropriated by Congress are finally ‘broken out’ by the miriad of Federal Departments & Agencies (note: this can’t happen until the bill is signed by the POTUS & the various Department HQs decipher from the bill exactly how much each has been appropriated & for what purpose); then each Agency ‘deposits’ the funds in the appropriate account for the assigned Contracting Activity for Obligation by a CO before the end of FY 09, i.e., 9/30/09. You can figure that about 90% of this ’stimulus’ money will not be obligated until the waning hrs of Sep. 2009. After all this and much much more, only then can the money actually be “spent”. And, you can bet that the larger Departments & Agencies have yet to even get their previously appropriated FY 09 funds broken out yet. I’m sure glad I retired early!

30. #605129
    On January 28th, 2009 at 4:47 pm, TypicalWhite said:

    My rep, John Duncan (TN-2nd) is voting against the bill. Here’s a quote from his website:

    “We simply cannot afford this so-called stimulus package. All it is really is a short-term fix for our addiction to spending.”

    Now, that’s a Republican!!

31. #605131
    On January 28th, 2009 at 4:48 pm, bluesoc said:

    You did, with your postings.

    I don’t see why it’s liberal to say that where the benefits of government intervention are greater than the costs, it should be used.

    I can already predict a response: the benefits are never greater than the costs.

    That’s an ideological argument. Mine is pragmatic.

    I think there is such a thing as a pragmatic conservative. Am I wrong?

32. #605137
    On January 28th, 2009 at 4:57 pm, kayfromcarroll said:

    In Response to #33 MarcoPolo:

    I went to the link at DCCC and sent them this:

    You GO, Rush!!!

    I HOPE Pres. Obama fails in turning this country into a Socialist/Communist paradise.

    The only CHANGE I want to see is the Failure of any and all pork-laden bills from here until the end of 2012.

    Republican Senators and Representatives- Get some balls. Vote NO or PRESENT to all attempts to hijack my kid’s future.

    I also sent them a copy of it in their “CONTACT US” section.

    BWAHAHAHAHA!!!

33. #605143
    On January 28th, 2009 at 5:03 pm, Micheleeroo said:

    PLEASE CALL YOUR CONGRESSPERSON! i just called mine (Dave Reichert of E. King County WA) and they say they’re running 1/2 and 1/2 on this from constituents. And constituent input will weigh heavily on his decision. This is likely playing out everywhere else. PLEASE CALL and help give your congressman something to stand on when saying no!

34. #605145
    On January 28th, 2009 at 5:06 pm, sonofdy said:

    PLEASE CALL YOUR CONGRESSPERSON! i just called mine (Dave Reichert of E. King County WA) and they say they’re running 1/2 and 1/2 on this from constituents. And constituent input will weigh heavily on his decision. This is likely playing out everywhere else. PLEASE CALL and help give your congressman something to stand on when saying no!

    I already have. Several times.

35. #605146
    On January 28th, 2009 at 5:06 pm, Elm Creek Smith said:

    On January 28th, 2009 at 3:00 pm, bluesoc said:

    If they don’t pay income taxes why should my income taxes go to them in a government handout that Da One calls a tax cut?

    Because our goal is to stimulate the economy, and tax cuts stimulate the economy. Also, the poorer you are, the more likely you are to spend a tax break. The richer you are, the more likely you are to save it. We want people to spend the money they get from the tax breaks.

    You’re not paying attention. If they don’t pay income taxes and they get a tax break that is from my taxes, that is not a tax break, it is REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH. You can call a cow pat a rose, but it still stinks.

    You want to stimulate the economy, you cut taxes on companies that create jobs.

    ECS

36. #605149
    On January 28th, 2009 at 5:09 pm, bluesoc said:

    You’re not paying attention. If they don’t pay income taxes and they get a tax break that is from my taxes, that is not a tax break, it is REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH. You can call a cow pat a rose, but it still stinks.

    Like I said earlier, they pay taxes, just not income tax. It’s a payroll tax break (FICA, etc. )

37. #605150
    On January 28th, 2009 at 5:10 pm, TypicalWhite said:

    Sadly, though, I have to recall how we flooded the Capitol with phone calls on the original $700 billion bailout, and RINOs voted for it anyway.

    “Representative” To quote Inigo Montoya of The Princess Bride: “I do not think it means what you think it means.”

38. #605174
    On January 28th, 2009 at 5:24 pm, RogerCfromSD said:

    Exactly whose package is getting stimulated with the liberals’ plan?

39. #605188
    On January 28th, 2009 at 5:31 pm, RogerCfromSD said:

    How would we go about organizing a “Everyone Do a Tax Deadline Deferment” Protest?

40. #605198
    On January 28th, 2009 at 5:44 pm, sonofdy said:

    Still don’t think a person who doesn’t pay taxes should get a tax “rebate”

41. #605211
    On January 28th, 2009 at 6:08 pm, rfjjulie said:

    I’ll be doing my taxes this week. Maybe I should the Geithner expemtion in the amount of 34K.

42. #605221
    On January 28th, 2009 at 6:16 pm, Wellsy said:

    Damn, it passed. Glad to see no Republicans voted for this mess, and a couple Dems went with them.

43. #605227
    On January 28th, 2009 at 6:21 pm, Bill Grant said:

    I have connections to 4 states, 2 blue, 1 border 1 red. The red state congressmen seem to be solidly opposed, the border and the blue states are on the fence and are getting calls from the opposition, probably Acorn or the like. (They are reading from a script according to the people answering Robert Wittman’s phones.)

    Somewhere in some hollowed out volcano George Soros is patting himself on the back for being able to astro-turf a “pro-bankruptcy” lobby on short notice. Either that or someone put these kids to work.

44. #605229
    On January 28th, 2009 at 6:23 pm, corona said:

    Not what it says here:

    On the final vote, the legislation drew overwhelming support among Democrats while all but a few Republicans opposed it.

45. #605243
    On January 28th, 2009 at 6:27 pm, Bill Grant said:

    Sonofabi+ch…

    On to the senate.

46. #605249
    On January 28th, 2009 at 6:30 pm, FilmLadd said:

    On January 28th, 2009 at 2:45 pm, bluesoc said:

    Seeing the government as a tool to correct market failures is not collectivist thinking. It’s pragmatic.

    Really? To adopt methodologies that result in a reduction in economic prosperity (as collectivism always results in) is not pragmatic, it is merely stupid.

    Under collectivist thinking, the government is a tool for anything and everything under the sun, including the correction of “market failures.”

    I contend, however, that if used for anything beyond its fundamentals (the protection of individual life and liberty), the State becomes nothing more or less than the whip of the slavemaster, the collective.

    I understand that you’re using hyperbole to illicit a response (and it worked), but it’s still quite ridiculous.

    It’s not used hyperbolically, nor is it ridiculous. You are at the very least a propagandist for the collective, if only subconsciously.

    I don’t see why it’s liberal to say that where the benefits of government intervention are greater than the costs, it should be used.

    I can already predict a response: the benefits are never greater than the costs.

    That’s an ideological argument. Mine is pragmatic.

    Again with the “pragmatism.” You are attempting to paint the term “ideology” as an evil – which is another propagandistic tactic used by collectivists to achieve their ends.

    You’ve studiously avoided refuting the failures of collectivism everywhere and anywhere it is tried. Point out a country in which more collectivism (or in your words, “government intervention”) has ever resulted in greater liberty and economic well being.

    You can’t – unless of course you lie.

47. #605267
    On January 28th, 2009 at 6:37 pm, Bill Grant said:

    On January 28th, 2009 at 6:23 pm, corona said:

    Not what it says here:

    
    WASHINGTON — After a sharply partisan debate on Wednesday, the House of Representatives passed an $819 billion economic stimulus package designed to create millions of jobs quickly and give consumers more money to spend.

    The vote was 244 to 188. None of the House’s 178 Republican members voted yes.
    ————————————————————————

    $819 Billion Stimulus Passes in House
    By Richard Rubin, CQ Staff

    The House passed an $819 billion economic stimulus bill Wednesday after rejecting a Republican substitute that would have made deeper tax cuts than the legislation proposes.

    The final-passage tally of 244-188 included no support from Republicans, a day after President Obama had made a personal appeal to GOP lawmakers to vote for the bill (HR 1).

48. #605277
    On January 28th, 2009 at 6:46 pm, TypicalWhite said:

    Way to go, House Republicans! Now, get on calling your Senators.

49. #605288
    On January 28th, 2009 at 6:56 pm, dadinseattle said:

    Let Freedom Ring?

    This just might be the beginning of the end of everything that makes us a free society.

50. #605291
    On January 28th, 2009 at 6:57 pm, jbh45 said:

    As far as the senate…I have Boxer and Feinstein. So much for my voice being heard.

51. #605322
    On January 28th, 2009 at 7:20 pm, redpeach said:

    I spoke to a college student last week who recently returned from doing an internship with a Congressman in DC and when speaking about the bailout he told me how frustrating it was to have to answer the phones about the bailout because, and I quote, “The electorate just doesn’t understand why it had to be passed and they are so uneducated. We spent all day rolling our eyes at people.” I can’t remember which Congressman it was but I do know that it was a Republican. Not exactly a conversation that made me feel hopeful.

52. #605354
    On January 28th, 2009 at 7:43 pm, bluesoc said:

    You are attempting to paint the term “ideology” as an evil – which is another propagandistic tactic used by collectivists to achieve their ends

    If I implied that ideology is evil, and offended you, I apologize. I didn’t realize I was making that argument, but perhaps the Collective has penetrated my subconscious more than I knew.

    To be honest, I think you’d have a much stronger argument if you made it more pragmatic and less ideological. For instance:

    “Government intervention in economics has not worked in the past, so it likely will not work in this case.”

    rather than

    “Government is never the answer unless protecting life and liberty”

    This collectivist ranting just doesn’t do it for me. It’s starting to sound like a star trek episode.

53. #605397
    On January 28th, 2009 at 8:52 pm, Jeff2161 said:

    Seeing the government as a tool

    Fixed it.

54. #605427
    On January 28th, 2009 at 9:30 pm, FilmLadd said:

    On January 28th, 2009 at 7:43 pm, bluesoc said:

    To be honest

    Yes, please. Haven’t seen you be that yet – not just with any of us, but with yourself.

    The thing that is most insidious about your virulent virus is its great capacity to blind. And when you manage to get yourself close to the truth…

    “Government intervention in economics has not worked in the past, so it likely will not work in this case.”

    It pulls you back into a cutesy, “hip” morass…

    This collectivist ranting just doesn’t do it for me. It’s starting to sound like a star trek episode.

    Perhaps you should apply for a “Daily Show” writing gig to feel comfortable surrounded by your fellow infectees.

    Until then, have fun propagandizing. I’m sure you’ll get everyone enslaved. You’re almost there anyway, why give up now?

55. #605450
    On January 28th, 2009 at 9:58 pm, bluesoc said:

    FilmLadd said:

    My goodness, you have a lot of hatred inside of you. I hope it’s just the anonymity of the internet.

56. #605801
    On January 29th, 2009 at 8:42 am, FilmLadd said:

    On January 28th, 2009 at 9:58 pm, bluesoc said:

    My goodness, you have a lot of hatred inside of you. I hope it’s just the anonymity of the internet.

    Don’t confused hatred with righteous anger against the enemies of freedom. That’s a common mistake made by the collective from Star Trek, too.