Image 01 Image 03

Yeah, we were serious

Yeah, we were serious

Circa October 22, 2009:

Circa March 25, 2010:

Circa March 26, 2010:

Circa March 30, 2010:


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


I’m still stuck on that pelosi clip. I remember when she said that.

The words themselves are dripping with smugness and condescension. She views herself as part of the elite ruling class and hates the rest of us. Like hell she has to answer to us. We should take what she dishes and thank her!

They were going to cram this down our throats by hook or by crook, and they made no bones about it.

How many times was this crap pile “killed”, only to be brought reeking back to life?

    Estragon in reply to Ragspierre. | March 30, 2012 at 1:26 am

    Remember also that after Scott Brown won in MA, the only way to pass the thing was as a budget reconciliation, which cannot be filibustered under Senate rules.

    I think it would be appropriate to pass repeal the same way, assuming there is anything left of the law after SCOTUS gets through with it.

    More by crook, than by hook.

Of course the Dems didn’t take us seriously.

They’re a bunch of car clowns with honking noses and big shoes.
Jokes on you, bozos!
Too bad the circus is leaving town this November.

Maybe ya’ll can get employment in some traveling freak show.

Feeling somewhat slighted in your “All-Star” line up, Professor-

I demand the Great Lake State have representation.

Decades, and decades of representation…..(add a few more decades)

(48 sec.)

    9thDistrictNeighbor in reply to Browndog. | March 29, 2012 at 10:31 pm

    Silly Congressman! It’s not the “good and welfare” clause; they used Good ‘n Plenty candy to make the train run….

If the activist SC strikes down the law, conservatives can cheer at all the people who will die as a result.

    Ragspierre in reply to Rixriver. | March 29, 2012 at 9:31 pm

    Totally “out” now, Rix feels it’s time to really let her freak flag fly.

    She’s too stupid to get that ruling on the Constitutionality of a law that revolutionizes the role of the Federal government is not “activism”.

    And she’s too hatefilled and twisted to know that she’s not better than anybody here, and that there have always been ways to help people.

    Browndog in reply to Rixriver. | March 29, 2012 at 9:31 pm

    Would you happen to be one?

    Or, like all good liberals, you’re talking about “other” people?

    Uncle Samuel in reply to Rixriver. | March 29, 2012 at 9:32 pm

    Gub’ment health is itself a killer.

    There is a better way – Newt will figure it out.

    People die most often from self-inflicted preventable maladies and non-compliance, according to stats.

      Ragspierre in reply to Uncle Samuel. | March 29, 2012 at 9:35 pm

      Well, “nobody gets out of here alive”, Unc. One of those “reality” things…

      Rixriver in reply to Uncle Samuel. | March 29, 2012 at 11:09 pm

      For gov’t health being such a ‘killer’, I don’t see many old conservatives bailing out of their gov’t Medicare, or soldiers ditching their gov’t VA system….the purest form of ‘socialized medicine’ we’ve got.

        quiznilo in reply to Rixriver. | March 30, 2012 at 12:19 am

        Can I tell you about the 4 years I waited for impacted molars to be removed on your beloved military healthcare system. As if you would know anyone in the military anyway!

        I spent 2 of those 4 years permanently on excedrine ’cause of the pain. My liver probably took such a pounding, I don’t even want to know.

        The kicker is, I consider it my own fault for not just paying for a private doctor to do it earlier.

        You liberals want to make sure that everyone has crappy medical care, it’s NOT FAIR that someone might be getting better care somewhere.

        I’ll take market-rationed, government-free medical care any day over government-rationed.

        SDN in reply to Rixriver. | March 30, 2012 at 7:30 am

        VA is the purest form of socialized healthcare? Tell you what, why don’t you try being shot.

    Tamminator in reply to Rixriver. | March 29, 2012 at 9:51 pm

    You’re hilarious.
    Must hurt when you get outsmarted, doesn’t it?

    “People are gonna die!”
    What boo hoo bullshit.

    We’re on to you, clown.

    9thDistrictNeighbor in reply to Rixriver. | March 29, 2012 at 10:29 pm

    Rix has obviously had a thorough washing at the trough of the MSM who, in order to abet this administration, has twisted the language beyond recognition. No, Rixy, people won’t be denied access to medical attention should this blatant overreach be struck down. You might, however, not be able to have someone else foot the bill.

    Reminds me of a conversation I had during the Hillarycare years, when an otherwise very intelligent older gentleman became extremely frustrated and blurted out “I want my healthcare!”

      Actually we’ll all be footing the bill for far more expensive emergency treatment.

      This makes all our premiums go up…you guys just can’t seem to figure out how that works.

      And denying people because of pre-existing conditions? That’s just inhumane.

      But conservatives are a bloodthirsty lot. You cheered when Ron Paul was asked if someone without health insurance should just be allowed to die.

      That’s just the sort of folk conservatives are.

        9thDistrictNeighbor in reply to Rixriver. | March 29, 2012 at 11:44 pm

        Yeah, Rixy. Emergency treatment is expensive because physicians and surgeons are forced to practice CYA medicine ordering tests up the wazoo (and tests of the wazoo, while they’re at it) so gravy train types like you don’t step outside and speak to the waiting ambulance chasing atty. Step #1= tort reform.

        Next, think about the last time you even thought about, let alone offered to pay your physician for an office visit? What’s wrong with paying for services rendered at time of treatment?? Novel idea, that. But you’ve been conditioned to pay a bit into the pot and expect your neighbors to pick up the tab for the rest.

        Pre-existing conditions? Educate yourself with some reality. Barrycare already established a high-risk pool called the “Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan”. The prediction was that 375,000 would enroll in the ‘benefit’ plan. As of February 2011, only 12,500 had enrolled, so they made the rules easier and a year later only 49,000 had enrolled. If the pre-existing conditions situation were so dire, what’s stopping you? The benefit is there under Obamacare and a sliver (13 percent) of those deemed eligible have actually enrolled. It’s called a “high-risk pool” because the people enrolled in it have issues that cost more money. Barry solved the problem, yet few jump on board. Inhumane? I can think of a few other choice words….

        But to complete your education in reality, a bit of recent history. Before the One, insurers were already not allowed to exclude those with pre-existing conditions in the group market. Exclusions only apply to those without prior coverage or those who waited until they were sick to enroll in their employers’ plans. To deal with those in the individual market who did not have insurance, got sick, and then went out to get insurance, yes, there were exclusions. (See Romneycare in Massachusetts…why buy when you can wait until you really need it…oh wait, that’s why the fines and the mandates.) Want to solve the pre-existing conditions exclusion in the individual market? Tweak the rules and make all insurance products follow the group model. Let there be giant groups. Hey, how about purchasing insurance across state lines, like you do auto insurance? Wow, what a thought. No, we need 2,700 pages of coercion that nobody bothered to read so we could pass it and then find out what’s in it.

        And then you descend into ad hominem attacks. Nice.

          Oh, it is MUCH worse than mere ad hominem with Rixie and her Collective.

          We have to be demons. That is how the delusion works.

          That way, she buys her cheap mirage of moral superiority. AND, since she’s “good”, she can rationalize anything.

          Then change individual insurance to “must issue” and “community rating”. That would solve those problems.

          Tort reform is a red herring. Almost every state already has some type of tort reform. See

          That’s why the CBO believes federal enaction of additional laws would only reduce health care expenses by 0.5 percent.

          9thDistrictNeighbor in reply to 9thDistrictNeighbor. | March 30, 2012 at 7:08 pm

          Tort reform is not a red herring. Malpractice tort law is a matter of “drawing lines” concerning a doctor’s duty and the foreseeability of outcomes — in other words, rules concerning liability are arbitrary. Go ahead and do a search of “Loss of Chance”, or check out Matsuyama v. Birnbaum in Massachusetts. This involves medicine as “what might have been”. How about “what might be” medicine? It’s becoming increasingly popular for patients to sue for potential future problems. Another juicy Massachusetts case in 2009 set a precedent (not followed by all other states, but recently Ohio and West Virginia signed on, and New York is next up to bat) allowing medical monitoring/failure to monitor as a tort. Don’t like that? Check out Amanda Crider in St. Louis who wanted “natural childbirth” but sued and claimed that there was a violation of her civil rights due to failure to advise her in sign language of the necessity of an epidural she received. She didn’t provide an affidavit of negligence when she filed her case, so instead she said her civil rights were violated. The trial court dismissed the case. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, stating that the thrust of the action was medical malpractice, not civil rights. She had not met the requirements of establishing a case of medical negligence. Now how much time and treasure was wasted on that one?

          Your link to CBO information from 2009 is not germane, either. The CBO is only able to deal with the numbers that Congress provides to it. Barrycare was DESIGNED to have the bulk of shinola hit the fan after 2014, when he couldn’t be held accountable because he would have allegedly already been re-elected. Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

          So what’s in store is cutting costs the Ezekiel Emmanuel way–“ethics committees” who determine that “units” beyond age 70 should receive palliative care. Cut the people, cut the costs…yeah, that’s the ticket. Wait, you don’t like that one? How about “free” abortion and birth control for everyone…don’t be born in the first place and you won’t need to spend a dime on medical care.

        Darkstar58 in reply to Rixriver. | March 30, 2012 at 12:17 am

        If you jump off a cliff, should the Government be there to catch you?

        If you decide to drive into a wall at 100+ MPH, should the Government be there waiting with a pile of mattresses?

        If you choose to wrestle bears in the wild, do you expect the Government to be nearby with tranquilizers in hand?

        …I seriously don’t understand how Liberals feel the Government should just be expected to be there and save them from their own idiotic decisions. If you choose to live life without insurance, then you should be expected to assume the risks you have openly decided to take.

        And no, the percentage of people who “can not” get insurance is in the minute decimals bordering on a perfect nil.

        In reality, all these whinny Liberals that claim poverty and hardship are really just too lazy and entitled to move to an area which better suits their cost of living abilities. Allowing such a huge number of Welfare recipients in some of the highest cost of living locations (NewYork, SanFran, LA, etc) is one of the stupidest things this country has ever done – it merely ensures they will forever be on welfare; making sure their entire family will be held in poverty until they all get locked up in jail or killed and the family linage dies off.

        Minorities especially are much more likely to finish at least high-school, get (and stay) married and get a stable job outside the inner-city prisons the Democrats have established for them. But, the Democrats also insist till they’re blue in the face that its their right and of course, in their best interest, to stay in the Liberal-Created Poverty Hell which is a really just a certain path to pain, struggle, incarceration and/or death. “Evil America is racist and will make you feel bad” they say – and apparently this pitiful never-changing scare-tactic is reason enough to stay in a life of eternal shit stuck under the heavy thumb of a Government that is simultaneously creating your horrible situation…

    janitor in reply to Rixriver. | March 29, 2012 at 11:14 pm

    Just to point out that for the most part the poorest people and the oldest people (who consume the bulk of health care services) already are covered.

    I don’t want to spend thousands of dollars a year on medical insurance I don’t need in order to fund strangers’ contraception, toenail clipping, and psychotherapy.

    Medical costs and corrupt waste in the system (including unnecessary tests) would not be out of control in this country if insurance covered only what it was supposed to — catastrophic losses — and people paid for their own ordinary expenses of life.

    Somehow everyone I’ve ever met on Medicaid manages to pay for cable TV, cigarettes, fancy fingernails, booze, junk food, and/or other non-necessities.

    Estragon in reply to Rixriver. | March 30, 2012 at 1:29 am

    Do you see it somehow nobler to die because a Death Panel says you don’t get the care, that you are too old, or because medical advances aren’t made when the profit motive is eliminated from research?

    This monstrosity is guaranteed to lower the quality of care. It is just rationing, not “reform” in anything but name.

    Public schools?

    vonbeck2 in reply to Rixriver. | March 30, 2012 at 4:25 am

    This whole notion of this being an activist court is nonsense. It would be an activist court if it said this law is not constitutional and then said you will implement a system that we create. Just saying that a law passed is unconstitutional does not make judicial activism.

    How’s that chicken taste now that’s its come home to roost? Rixriver, the Democrats have no one to blame but themselves if parts or all of Obamacare are struck down. This was in the cards because of the manner Obama and the Democrats forced Obamacare down the nation’s throat.

    Some poetry might be called for here.


    “It shouldn’t matter that your [sic] are empty-handed,
    You have the right to be healthy.
    You should not be left sick and stranded,
    And only get care if you’re wealthy.”


    “Get your hand off my wallet
    You filthy weeping hippie”


You’re talking about the army of federal zombies who planned to make a career out of micromanaging my healthcare? tough bananas



Browndog is right. This snake is not dead yet. Keep beating it. Assume it will be upheld and act accordingly.

    Hope Change in reply to EBL. | March 29, 2012 at 10:09 pm

    Whether this is upheld or not does not address the core problem. Since the 50’s — ? the Supreme Court has operated on the notion that they are “supreme” over the other two branches of the federal government and the states and the people.

    As Newt has said and repeatedly,
    this is not true ,
    this would make our form a government an oligarchy of rule by 9 lawyers,
    this is against the plain meaning the Constitution,
    it is against American Tradition
    and flies in the face of the plain words of “three CO-EQUAL” branches of government
    and this is an immoral aggrandizement of power to the Court.

    Newt understands this. Newt has a 54-page paper in a PDF file over at that discusses why the court is supreme OVER THE OTHER COURTS ONLY.

    Therefore, act accordingly: VOTE NEWT.

    NEWT – SARAH 2012

      Darkstar58 in reply to Hope Change. | March 30, 2012 at 12:38 am

      “Since the 50′s — ? the Supreme Court has operated on the notion that they are “supreme” over the other two branches of the federal government and the states and the people.”

      While I agree with the eventual outcome of “Vote Newt!”, the sentence has one extremely simple solution most should be able to see…

      Stop doing unconstitutional shit!

      That’s all it really takes to nullify the ultimate power of the SCOTUS.

      Considering the Supreme Court is really the only branch of Government that has bothered to take the Constitution into consideration what-so-ever the last 50 or so years (actually, its around 70 – FDR was the first to blatantly ignore the Constitution constantly and manipulate the court to get what he wanted), it should come as no surprise they are the final say in the Country.

      (well, okay, we also need to stop the out of control lawyers suing over every paper-cut and spilled cup of coffee too. That would also go a long way to curbing the power of the SCOTUS. It will ultimately be a hard one to combat though, as Democrats have spent the greater part of 100 years trying to completely take over and empower the legal system for this very reason – when you take away a peoples livelihood, they dont take it well. And drastically reducing the number and power of Lawyers would destroy the Democrat Party like no other action the country could take.)

      Estragon in reply to Hope Change. | March 30, 2012 at 1:35 am

      Marbury v Madison was only 50 years ago? My, how time flies!

      Newt also talked about hauling judges before congressional committees. That is antithetical to our independent judiciary. Justice is elusive enough; adding direct political supervision would make it illusory for the less well-connected.

      The Constitution does in fact grant the Court the authority “to settle disputes arising under this Constitution,” doesn’t it? I know there is a theory that Presidents can ignore SCOTUS since they have no means of enforcing their orders except the Executive itself, but that seems closer to Stalin than Madison in attitude.

        Mike Giles in reply to Estragon. | March 30, 2012 at 9:39 am

        “Newt also talked about hauling judges before congressional committees. That is antithetical to our independent judiciary.”

        No branch of our government is totally independent of the others. Last I checked, the Senate appoints the Supreme Court, and the House pays them. Why shouldn’t the House ask the judges to explain what they meant? The House may simply note that when they laid out the purpose of the Legislation it was supposed to accomplish “X”, so what did they do or say wrong. Remember, the Founding Fathers didn’t assume our legislative bodies would be full of lawyers – who are inherently deferential to judges. Perhaps the committee wanted to hear the judges explanation of their actions. And if they feel they shouldn’t have to explain to Congress because they are Co-Equal and independent, Congress – if they don’t like that response – can then use it’s power to remove them. Given the choice, and having observed the results of this Judicial independence – Dred Scott, Plessy vs Ferguson, Roe vs Wade, Kelo vs New London – I’m not so sure I’m in favor of this idea of Judicial independence. What it often has come to mean is bad law being enshrined due to the USSC’s obeisance to precedent.

I’ve gotta say this:
I’m getting a strong strong feeling that the Left is going to implode on itself.

A lot of Americans are still asleep, but many more are awake and are aware of the con that is being played on them.

Spread the word.
Call out their lies.
And they cave like the narcissistic children that they are.

We just can’t back down anymore.
Breitbart IS here.

    Hope Change in reply to Tamminator. | March 29, 2012 at 10:24 pm

    Tamminator, I so agree. Many are asleep still, but more awaken every day.

    If Newt can make it to the convention, NEwt has a very good chance of getting the nomination.

    If Newt is the nominee, Newt — and we — will win in the fall.

    I don’t see that there’s anyplace to back down TO anymore. Romney, Santorum, Obama all leave us in the same leaky rowboat that the Left has been drilling holes in for years.

    Only with Newt do we turn the page to a radically different paradigm for true prosperity, true oil and energy, true reform, true personal SocSec savings accounts, true return of manufacturing the the USA.

    Only with Newt will we get a whole TEAM of brand-new CONSTITUTIONAL House and Senate elected officials who will TELL THE TRUTH to the MSM. Think of that! There would be enough of them that they would have each other’s back! And WE would back them up!

    We would have a President who answers questions honestly.

    WE would have a president who doesn’t have to focus-group test every topic and consult the elders before making a decision. A President who isn’t pandering secretly to Russia and Heaven knows who else.

    We will shift the narrative and have real wealth and savings again. Our states will be rich with oil royalties. Our landowners will get royalties. We will pay off the national debt in a generation with the oil royalties. We will control spending. The government will recognize it is the SERVANT of the PEOPLE.

    Our homes will be worth what they’re worth. The dollar as good as gold.

    Tamminator, I know you know. I appreciate your spirit and resolve. And I am with you 100%. I would love to see a NEWT -SARAH ticket in 2012 and HAVE THE CAMPAIGN WE SHOULD HAVE HAD LAST TIME. If Newt is the nominee, NEwt will win. And with Sarah, it will be fun!

      Tamminator in reply to Hope Change. | March 29, 2012 at 10:41 pm

      I love your heart and enthusiasm Hope and Change.
      I think that Newt Gingrich would truly be the best President that we could have after Obama.

      Sadly, I’m seeing the right wing weak-kneed pussies cave to Romney.

      Look, if Newt can’t pull off this fight, then I pray that he will pressure the chosen candidate to be a tough leader and steer the ship of America back to shore.

      But we MUST vote Anyone But Obama.
      My dear friend Trevor Loudon has researched how many Communists are in this White House, and it is unbelievable.
      And it’s documented.

      Obama and his crew MUST GO.

      Rixriver in reply to Hope Change. | March 29, 2012 at 11:13 pm

      “Only with Newt do we turn the page to a radically different paradigm for true prosperity, true oil and energy, true reform, true personal SocSec savings accounts, true return of manufacturing the the USA.”—–

      —-And it’ll all be brought on a fleet of flying unicorns, drifting down a rainbow sprinkling diamond dust!


      “We would have a President who answers questions honestly”

      Uh….you might want to ask some of Newt’s wives about how honest he is.

        janitor in reply to Rixriver. | March 29, 2012 at 11:24 pm

        Which one, Rix? The teacher one who seduced her juvenile high school student, and then alienated him from his family? Or the political groupie one who went after a married man, then later gave him the surprise of a cleaned-out house when he arrived home one day, after which they were separated for years?

          Rixriver in reply to janitor. | March 29, 2012 at 11:34 pm

          You tell me.

          So, no personal responsibility at all for old Newt, eh?

          Funny how conservatives always talk about personal responsibility, but whenever it comes to specifics involving a conservative, you’ll make every excuse in the world for why someone like Newt doesn’t bear any responsibility for his actions.

          Yeah, these mighty women seduced poor lil’ Newt, who didn’t have a single thing to say about it.

          You guys are funny.

          janitor in reply to janitor. | March 30, 2012 at 12:57 am

          This line of reasoning is like an atheist purporting to diss a Christian for not showing up in church.

        9thDistrictNeighbor in reply to Rixriver. | March 29, 2012 at 11:57 pm

        Hey wait, Rixy…now the ad hominem attacks are on Newt? Get your down twinkles straight. Did James Carville run out of dollar bills to drag through the trailer park? What about Edward of Chappaquiddick, or his brother, the first apparent intern assaulter? Americans have generally shown that they are astoundingly willing to cut people in the public arena a tremendous amount of slack for their personal failings. Let me know when you decide to convert to Catholicism and make a good confession. Americans who still believe in God take mercy and forgiveness very seriously, and even religious skeptics used to judge not lest ye be judged. What’s next, Rixy, calling every one raaaaacisst?

        Typical lefty tactics. When in doubt, start a fire in a wastebasket; when cornered, launch into a personal attack.

        scooterjay in reply to Rixriver. | March 30, 2012 at 6:38 am

        Heh heh heh….pretty telling move when you perform a head fake, and start a fire in a trash can all at the same time. What on God’s green earth does Newt have to do with this? What next, linking Trayvon Martin to this? Don’t go away mad, just go away.

    Communism and steps leading to it are one of those awful ideas that eventually implode on itself. Problem is that it takes half the human population with it. One deadly bubble, eh?

Off topic, but I’m not sure whether anyone is still reading the Martin/Zimmerman “facts” thread, so I’ll ask my question here:

Speaking of slippery facts, can someone definitively answer where the father’s girlfriend lives? Does she live in the development where the shooting took place, or somewhere else, and if the latter how far away? Is the complex in fact on a reasonable route between the nearest convenience store and her home? Does anyone actually know this, or is it all supposition?

    Ragspierre in reply to Milhouse. | March 29, 2012 at 10:38 pm

    My reading says that she lives in the complex. That is not definitive. Just what I’ve read.

    Estragon in reply to Milhouse. | March 30, 2012 at 1:43 am

    I have wondered the same thing. I’ve seen nothing on the location of the Baby Daddy’s girlfriend’s house – maybe someone should ask Spike Lee about it?

    But all I can say, as a hunch, is that if the neighborhood where Martin was shadowing houses were on a direct line between the convenience store and where he was staying, we’d have seen multiple maps showing how he was “gunned down on the way home.”

    Given the reprehensible and misleading reporting on this case (except for the local media, who appear to be mostly playing it straight as far as I’ve seen), it’s like Sherlock Holmes’ “dog that didn’t bark.” My hunch is he was nowhere near directly between destinations, and no one can explain why he was where he was.

    My hunch is he tried to evade the Neighborhood Watch for a reason. And it was not that he was afraid of losing his Skittles.

      Milhouse in reply to Estragon. | March 30, 2012 at 1:44 am

      See here, and my comment above. It seems genuine.

        BannedbytheGuardian in reply to Milhouse. | March 30, 2012 at 5:34 am

        But if it was only 70 mtrs from home -surely you can hear a shot -& the screams & at least the commotion of the police & ambulance .

        70 mtrs is not far – & especially if your son went out & did not come home. Plus the 13 year old waiting for his skittles.

        If someone was shot dead in my street or the next everyone would be out there to see the forensics in action.

        Gotta have a chalk marker surely?

Something about listening to what Maddow has to say is like having someone projectile vomit on you.

    Tamminator in reply to janitor. | March 29, 2012 at 10:47 pm

    That’s the funniest damn thing I’ve read today.
    I cackled, I laughed so hard.
    Thanks, man!

    Estragon in reply to janitor. | March 30, 2012 at 1:51 am

    Believe it or not, Maddow is the highest-rated cable opinion show that isn’t on Fox, her audience is only slightly smaller than Olbermann’s old fan base. She kicks CNN’s butt, not that it’s any achievement anymore.

    There are at least 988,000 seriously deranged people out there somewhere.

BannedbytheGuardian | March 30, 2012 at 5:49 am

For Rixriver. Basic health care is not expensive in America.

I got a consult with a Harvard qualified doc for $70 cash. A blood test for $170 & 40 days anti- biotics for $30.

I say very reasonable & very effective. Complete cure.

I was sick & thought about returning home but I am glad I did not. The cost would have been similar but they would never have picked up the Lymes.

So to this day I have had absolutely no ill effects.

Thank you doc & NJ Rangers.

If no one replied to rixriver’s provocative comments, he/she would spontaneously combust. On the other hand, it is good to hear from the ill informed [like rixriver].

Rachel Maddow is just like the insufferable anarchist hipster in my office.

They seem completely incapable of any other tone of voice than nauseating, self-righteous snark. It really grates.

Rachel, please, sarcasm may be the lowest form of humor, but you seem intent on pushing it even lower with your cringeworthy attempts. Ughh.