Stark explains that the Constitution has no meaning at all
posted at 8:48 am on August 2, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
Sometimes when we start getting a lot of e-mail about a video clip, the results are disappointing. Not this time; in fact, the e-mailers may have undersold this Breitbart clip of Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA), the lunatic who once told a constituent that he wouldn’t bother wasting urine on him, telling a crowd that the federal government has no real limitations in telling people how to live their lives. The setup to this question may be the most clear elucidation of the Constitutional issues involved in ObamaCare, and Stark literally has no answer for them:
A few points should be noted. While the woman argues effectively about the 13th Amendment bar on slavery, the Fifth Amendment protection against confiscation of private property also applies, as does the Article I, Section 8 mandate on Congress to protect the ownership of “exclusive right to their Writings and Discoveries” for those in the sciences and the arts. Also, take a look at Stark’s body language in this exchange. Normally combative (and aggressively insipid in most cases), Stark seems to be collapsing in on himself as the woman builds an argument effectively enough to win applause from her fellow constituents. The bombastic Stark is almost inaudible when he admits that ObamaCare is a symptom of a federal government that no longer adheres to Constitutional limitations, and indeed doesn’t recognize them at all.
Republicans in every district should play this clip and demand an answer from incumbent Democrats who voted for ObamaCare.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
He’s just stating the simple fact – we are no longer a constitutional republic under rule of law.
Conservatives who are still clinging to the fantasy that we still are, or can somehow gain it back, are just as deluded as they think liberal are.
The truth is – the “progressives” have won, and the government of the United States is unsalvageable. Even if the republicans sweep into power, and actually keep their promises, the damage done is fatal.
Rebar on August 2, 2010 at 10:08 AM
No, I disagree. When you raise your hand, and swear an oath before God and country to do something, you are morally obligated to do it—-and to fail to do it has big consequences.
God entered into oaths and instructed Moses to teach others to do the same. There is power in our words—both the power to help and harm others, as well as ourselves. If we fail to adhere to an oath that we swore to keep, we harm ourselves. That is exactly what Mr. Stark is doing here, he is heaping harm upon himself by failing to live up to his oath.
ted c on August 2, 2010 at 10:11 AM
I’m thinking the Supreme Court, being a part of the Federal government, is not a satisfactory check on the power of the Federal government now and that a different method ought to be considered if we are to adhere to the guarantee in the Constitution of a Republican form of government.
Dusty on August 2, 2010 at 10:11 AM
Stark’s seat in Congress should be occupied by this woman.
radjah shelduck on August 2, 2010 at 10:13 AM
Lincoln often gets hammered for this one, but I’m not sure I agree.
Article I Section 9:2
“The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public safety may require it.”
This exception wasn’t latitude enough for him? Educate me.
pugwriter on August 2, 2010 at 10:13 AM
Mike Gallaher just mentioned this blog by Ed on his radio show. Way to go, Ed!
ladyingray on August 2, 2010 at 10:14 AM
DUDE!!! That’s a friend of mine’s sister!! We always lament and laugh that she has such an absolute tool as her congressional rep.
lizzie beth on August 2, 2010 at 10:15 AM
well, pass on our hearty thanks to her for body slamming the reptilian thinker, Pete Stark.
ted c on August 2, 2010 at 10:16 AM
I think we should propose that all persons who are eligible to vote, MUST own and practice using a firearm.
All those who are declared incompetent or ineligible to vote are excused from this responsibility.
All those who decline to obey are declared incompetent or ineligible to vote.
If I can mandate that you MUST purchase healthcare, “because the government is going to pay for it if you don’t.”
Then I can mandate a item that will increase your safety, because we have to pay for the policeman if you can’t protect yourself.
Both are wrong, but maybe getting them to understand one mandate is wrong they may understand two mandates are wrong.
barnone on August 2, 2010 at 10:17 AM
Waiting with baited breath for Crr6 or Jimbo3 to justify involuntary servitude in order to provide for Obamacare.
Interstate Commerce Clause perhaps?
Good n’ plenty clause?
Please, Please, please, I want to see you neo-progressives justify this one.
Chip on August 2, 2010 at 10:18 AM
The Pete Starks of this world are precisely why the constitution was intended to grant the federal government limited powers. The government must be run by imperfect human beings and will inevitably include despotic individuals with nasty personality disorders like Stark. Indeed, government power actually attracts the worst among us.
“The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.” -
James Madison
RadClown on August 2, 2010 at 10:24 AM
This is not where I would beat up on Lincoln. It is the banning of farm equipment, by county. Imagine if a future southern President banned fuel oil during winter. What would you do in the north without home heat or electricity?
Slaves were legal farm equipment and made millions of dollars to the Slave States. Lincoln didn’t “free the slaves”. He freed them in select states and counties. Read the Emancipation Proclaimation.
barnone on August 2, 2010 at 10:24 AM
I agree with forest, this video was edited and taken out of context, just like that other one. Well, like all of them that catch Democrats saying something stupid. When the whole video comes out I am sure we will find that “in context” what he said was wise and really really good for us.
He is just trying to save us from ourselves, and he has a RIGHT to do that because he is smarter than us. He told us so, I believe him don’t you?
November!!
odannyboy on August 2, 2010 at 10:25 AM
Sorry, Wikipedia left out the “exception” language. I wonder why? Note that he left out New Orleans.
United States, the following, to wit:
Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth[)], and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.
barnone on August 2, 2010 at 10:28 AM
I agree, this is all out of context. While he said that the government can do anything, he really meant that only We the People, with the assistance of the government, collectively can do anything here in this country under the veil of inalienable rights….surely MSNBC will soon provide the full context of his missplaced words….//
ted c on August 2, 2010 at 10:29 AM
Define a rebellion?
The Southern states did not seek to overthrow the U.S. government – they sought a way apart from it. But this is really not important – I’m just throwing this out there to illustrate that the founders never intended for ONE individual, the Chief Executive, to make this kind of decision unilaterally. Lincoln was overruled by another branch of government – he ignored the order. The founders really intend for the President to be able to assume dictatorial powers in times of emergency? I don’t think so – since they were well aware that the Roman Republic failed in this manner.
HondaV65 on August 2, 2010 at 10:31 AM
Hey, I’ve made this slavery point on here many times and I never get a post. :(
lorien1973 on August 2, 2010 at 10:34 AM
Is she ready to take campaign contributions yet? She needs to be. Please thank her for her patriotism. She rocks!
redwhiteblue on August 2, 2010 at 10:34 AM
This country is under tyranny right now.
By definition, we are being ruled at gunpoint, not governed by law. Congress and the President are acting unlawfully, and yet enforcing their will by threat of force.
Where is Thomas Jefferson when we need him?
fossten on August 2, 2010 at 10:37 AM
STARK
RAVING
MAD
Del Dolemonte on August 2, 2010 at 9:56 AM
Del Dolemonte: Nice!!:)
canopfor on August 2, 2010 at 10:38 AM
Stark is, of course, a detestable maggot of a man and if he were on fire, I would waste urine on him to douse the fire, to use his favorite expression.
That said, I find quite absurd her suggestion that the entitlement of healthcare services granted by Oblahma’s socialism is a form of slavery upon those who provide those services. Those who will provide healthcare under socialism will be paid and will voluntarily work for that pay.
The part she almost gets right is that the people paying for that socialism will be paying involuntarily. She seemed to hint at that in her first remarks and then went the wrong way in her second part. It might have been better to just piss on Stark.
Jaibones on August 2, 2010 at 10:46 AM
Hopefully what you mean is simply that the Emancipation Proclamation should have applied everywhere.
To me it sounded almost like you didn’t have a problem with equating slaves to farm equipment. That’s not what you meant, is it?
DarkCurrent on August 2, 2010 at 10:52 AM
From Lincoln’s report to congress on July 4 1861:
stake. Taney missed the crucial point made in the draft of Lincoln’s report to Congress on July 4:
[T]he whole of the laws which I was sworn to [execute] were being resisted…in nearly one-third of the states. Must I have allowed them to finally fail of execution?… Are all the laws but one [the right to habeas corpus] to go unexecuted, and the government itself…go to pieces, lest that one be violated?
Two years later congress voted to clarify presidential suspension of habeas corpus. (Since it was mentioned in Article I there was some confusion over who could suspend it, congress or the president).
The difficulty here is in dividing the war powers of the Commander in Chief from his peacetime powers. In our current dilemna, war powers aren’t even on the radar screen, we simply have a slew of congresscritters (and governors, and the president…)ignoring the constitution in its entirety.
One could never make that argument of Lincoln, who likely was more familiar with the constitution than most presidents before him and most of them since.
pugwriter on August 2, 2010 at 10:54 AM
It’s funny that the entire House of Representatives have sit through townhall meetings, attend campaign dinners, walk in parades and they have to listen to us speak our minds. This is our chance and it only comes once every two years.
yoda on August 2, 2010 at 10:57 AM
Peter Stark… A POS in need of flushing.
RalphyBoy on August 2, 2010 at 11:00 AM
Federal Govt is doing a Great Job of protecting the borders and handling the Gulf oil spill.
This Guy Is Brill-Yunt!
TimBuk3 on August 2, 2010 at 11:02 AM
The fact that Pete Stark is still in Congress says as much about the voters in his district as it does about him.
Ward Cleaver on August 2, 2010 at 11:06 AM
Why is Pete not on more state run media outlets…?
d1carter on August 2, 2010 at 11:09 AM
She best be careful or else Michelle will have her sorry, fat @ss sent off to the bitter, clinger, food desert re-education camp.
Alden Pyle on August 2, 2010 at 11:26 AM
I think we already knew Democrats neither respect to, or adhere to the constitution, nor do they intend to legislate within the confines of the Constitution.
But it’s nice to see an admission of their lack of respect, and desire to rule as dictators. Not that I like it mind you, but it’s nice to see an admission of it.
capejasmine on August 2, 2010 at 11:27 AM
Unless something changes, when the peasants come with torches and pitchforks, this guy will be among the first to get thrown out of our Capitol building.
ncborn on August 2, 2010 at 11:30 AM
That’s why you posted the quote, right? Geesh.
lorien1973 on August 2, 2010 at 11:46 AM
So what’s your point then?
DarkCurrent on August 2, 2010 at 11:50 AM
Peter Stark (DEMOCRAT) offering himself up as a Target…it’s easy pickings on a Monday morning. This is like shooting fish in a barrel. There isn’t any “Constitutional” argument he could make, and he knows it so he points to “Centralized Power -The Federal Government” that’s where his power comes from so he isn’t going to say anything negative. But he is pretty stupid if he thinks there isn’t enough voters who don’t know differently, and that action can be taken to cull the herd of the worst offenders like himself…Peter Stark believes he is a Power unto himself, he thinks his power comes from D.C. and not the People, who vote politicians into PUBLIC office…Public Servants, Peter Stark (DEMOCRAT) thinks he is a Lord and Master. Which goes back to the lady’s question about “Slavery”.
California needs an enema to get rid of many of their “Fascist Wannabes” the state California is in sad shape.
Nancy Pelosi brags about out spending the Republicans 2-1. The Republicans should be targeting as many seats in the State and U.S. Congress as they can come this November.
Dr Evil on August 2, 2010 at 11:51 AM
This woman is wonderful.
burt on August 2, 2010 at 11:57 AM
Sarcasm on/
Of course it was Lincoln’s fault seven States left the Union, formed their own government, and wrote their own Constitution, all before he was inaugurated.
Of course it was Lincoln’s fault the Confederacy started the war.
Of course it was Lincoln’s fault the Confederacy just wanted to have the power to deny individual rights to certain individuals.
Of course the 10th Amendment absolutely gives the State the power to deny individual rights.
Of course the Confederacy is completely faultless.
Let’s blame Lincoln for everything…..
Or if you would like, we could blame Bush…….
/Sarcasm off
rukiddingme on August 2, 2010 at 12:06 PM
Firing upon Fort Sumter.
Sarcasm on/
Of course it was no big deal that what they wanted to separate from was the growing anti-slavery sentiment.
Of course it was no big deal they thought so highly of their slaves that their new and improved Constitution defined which specific individuals were to be considered slaves.
The Confederacy just wanted to be left alone.
/Sarcasm off
If you did not think it was important, you would not have brought it up for discussion.
Jefferson Davis suspended the writ of habeas corpus in parts of the Confederacy as well.
My suspicion is this fact probably does not bother you so much.
rukiddingme on August 2, 2010 at 12:09 PM
Thank you for that.
Double thank you.
Thank you as well.
Too many conservatives ignore the fact that the Republican Party was started as the party of individual rights.
rukiddingme on August 2, 2010 at 12:11 PM
Well, it looks like the Thorazine was working this time.
29Victor on August 2, 2010 at 12:24 PM
Land in anarchy
Pinal county sherrif declares federal government the enemy.
Stark and his, Obama included, don’t care. This is no longer a country of laws, but a country of ‘men’.
Schadenfreude on August 2, 2010 at 12:37 PM
Stark- “I’m suing HotAir. The things I said in this video were taken out of context and they didn’t play the whole tape.”
CynicalOptimist on August 2, 2010 at 12:38 PM
Bottom line remains the same…anything is legal until one takes it to court (deep pockets) and is lucky enough to find a judge who actually believes the Constitution is in some quaint applicable to the process.
JIMV on August 2, 2010 at 12:38 PM
You’re right about Lincoln, Honda. I’m glad you brought his name up, because I think much of the federal overreach that we see today is rooted in the precedent set by Abraham Lincoln. Not only did he suspend Habeus Corpus, but he did so for the purpose of helping him start and win an unjustified war against the South, which had every God-given and Constitutionally protected right to succeed from the union.
Lincoln was a murdering tyrant. That’s right. If Obama were to do the things Lincoln did then, he’d be equated with Hitler by many, and rightfully so. But yet Lincoln is extolled as a hero by both conservatives and liberals alike.
There’s been a lot of brainwashing concerning Lincoln, a lot of historical revisionism and selective memory. Unfortunately, much of the right has succumbed to this as much as the left. Even Glenn Beck, who is better on these things than many others in the mainstream, has a poster of Lincoln on the wall of his radio studio. Talk about a huge disconnect.
2Brave2Bscared on August 2, 2010 at 12:48 PM
Well butter my butt and call me a biscuit – this is the best posting — November is going to come faster than I thought ..
wheels on August 2, 2010 at 12:54 PM
THROW……THROW…..THROW……..
……….ALL of them out of office.
The ruling class in this country will never never never get the message unless they LOSE POWER.
PappyD61 on August 2, 2010 at 12:59 PM
What really bothers me is the fact that he starts laughing about the whole thing and the audience’s displeasure, at the end of the clip.
The first thing we need to do is amend the Constitution, so neither Congress, nor any other government official, has the power to “appoint” people to fill Congressional seats; unelected liberal democrats have greatly contributed to the problems the US is facing, right now.
Also, we have to insure through Constitutional amendment that these bureaucats are subject to recall. That is the greatest, fastest weapon we have in many cases, especially when it’s coupled with the power of special election.
When this guy is voted out of office, I’m sure he’ll still be a condescending assclown, thinking himself still to be the “ruling class”, and better than everyone else, with the entitlement to do anything he wants, whether he’s still a corrupt petty bureaucrat, or not.
Virus-X on August 2, 2010 at 1:00 PM
Treason deserves the death. In a just world, most of the people on Capitol Hill today, both Republican and Democrat, would be expunged from office, tried, found guilty, and put to death for their crimes.
Too often we treat these scoundrels with too much humor and nonchalance, but we have to remember the severity of their crimes. To not do so is to accept the evil of the present of order of things.
2Brave2Bscared on August 2, 2010 at 1:01 PM
Correction: death penalty.
2Brave2Bscared on August 2, 2010 at 1:02 PM
Wouldn’t it be funny to see all members of Congress actually hauled before the Supreme Court on criminal charges of slavery?
And CONVICTED.
Virus-X on August 2, 2010 at 1:03 PM
To what rebellion are you referring? The rebellion of the South? The sovereign states which comprised the South had every God-given and constitutionally protected right to govern themselves, to dictate their own futures, and to succeed from the Union if these rights were infringed upon. The South was not in rebellion for trying to exercise their consitutionally protected right to succeed; Lincoln was in rebellion for uses the sword to stop them.
Consider yourself educated. Next time do a better job of checking your premises.
2Brave2Bscared on August 2, 2010 at 1:06 PM
Great video! If only we could confront the entire ruling class in such a way. Get them all up on a stage, surround them and carefully explain why we don’t need nor want them any more.
FloatingRock on August 2, 2010 at 1:07 PM
First the tyrants on the Supreme Court would have to be replaced and of course tried themselves.
2Brave2Bscared on August 2, 2010 at 1:08 PM
I disagree that the “progressives” haven’t won – considering that we will be entirely bankrupt and economically floundering in 10-20 years, which is exactly where they’ve been leading us these past 100 years.
I also disagree that the only way out is through bloodshed. The possibility of the red states leaving the current union, and adopting the pre-progressive Constitution with additional safeguards – such as no public unions, a far more restrictive commerce clause, etc., would be a rebirth of the constitutional republic the founders built.
Rebar on August 2, 2010 at 1:12 PM
I am sensing a complete lack of gratitude on this thread. And after all the government has done
forto you.For shame.
Lily on August 2, 2010 at 1:14 PM
Sounds nice.
FloatingRock on August 2, 2010 at 1:15 PM
Well, about the only thing I can say in Stark’s favor here is that at least he’s still willing to face his constituents in-person, unlike some of his colleagues. But, yeah — he has no good answer to her question.
acasilaco on August 2, 2010 at 1:17 PM
Wow, never seen Pete so sedate. Interesting.
Jim-Rose on August 2, 2010 at 1:17 PM
One reason that the feds can do pretty much anything is that they help finance State budgets. I’m not saying that’s a good thing, it’s just reality. For example IV-D welfare programs? Financed by the feds. That is, future generations are obligated for today’s expenses. Then, once the States are in hock and unable to maintain civilization without federal financing, the feds can do whatever the hell they want. The threat of pulling federal funding works all the time.
The States have to free themselves from this unholy alliance with the federales. It should be gradual, but entitlements need to be cut back. If the State cannot afford a program, borrowing ceaselessley is not a realistic or responsible solution. And the States’ complicity is enabling deficit spending means that when it comes time to discard “sovereign states” as a historical anachronism, no one will regret it.
GTR640 on August 2, 2010 at 1:17 PM
We need to strike down some SCOTUS precedents that perverted the Constitution and BOR as well, such as KELO vs. City of New London, for one.
FloatingRock on August 2, 2010 at 1:20 PM
So what did he swear to uphold and defend?
The Communist Manifesto?
Tim Burton on August 2, 2010 at 1:22 PM
They’ve won for now, yes. I only meant that the fight is not yet over. We still have some fight left, though it’s not much and it’s not nearly as strong as movements such as the Tea Party would suggest (see my username link).
Do you really think the blue states will allow the red states to succeed and form their own union without a fight? Blue America is far too tyrannical and far too dependent upon the production of red America to let them just walk away, in my opinion.
By the way, since we’re on the topic, here are a couple of discussions you might be interested in reading.
A proposal to divide the United States into two countries
An expanded proposal to divide America into two countries
2Brave2Bscared on August 2, 2010 at 1:22 PM
True, but those are the barest tip of the iceburg. You have to go back to FDR and the “new deal”, then strip out all that and all the “progressive” nonsense since.
That is simply not going to happen in today’s United States, which is why a new nation needs to split off and start fresh.
Rebar on August 2, 2010 at 1:27 PM
I am sure Stark’s opinion will change when the Republicans are in control…
Oh, wait!
Seven Percent Solution on August 2, 2010 at 1:28 PM
I think people need to stop blaming Stark.
He is a lizard, that much is obvious.
The real problem here is the corrupted electorate who have elected him eighteen times.
Stark can lose an election.
That means nothing!
The people who knowingly elected this man who cares nothing for the constitution are still voting.
“Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; if it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it.” (Judge Learned Hand)
sharrukin on August 2, 2010 at 1:28 PM
How is Texas treating you?
You have been told before that any attempt by you and your ilk to take away my US citizenship will be resisted.
Peacefully, of course.
rukiddingme on August 2, 2010 at 1:29 PM
If you think the “Civil” War was really about ending slavery, you’re an idiot.
2Brave2Bscared on August 2, 2010 at 1:31 PM
Yes, I do, for two reasons. First, red America is far stronger militarily and economically – the blue states simply cannot win. Second, with the coming GOP resurgence and the distinct possibility of a super-majority House, Senate, and president Palin – it will be the blue states that will be clamoring to leave, which we should let them do.
Texas is treating me just fine, in fact I’m closing on a house right now.
Have to shown up to any of the Texas separatist group meetings, all of which preexisted prior to my move, to tell them that? Didn’t think so.
Rebar on August 2, 2010 at 1:37 PM
For one, this is ridiculous on its face. Democrats aren’t going anywhere. Secondly, if the progressives have already won, why would they want to succeed?
2Brave2Bscared on August 2, 2010 at 1:43 PM
Go ahead and move back to the Glorious Union then. No one would stop you.
2Brave2Bscared on August 2, 2010 at 1:44 PM
Why is everybody picking on Stark? He has been in the House since 1973. Somebody keeps sending him back. Don’t hate the dog, hate the owners.
Kenosha Kid on August 2, 2010 at 1:45 PM
If you think the Confederacy did not fight the war in an attempt to protect slavery, that makes you less than an idiot.
It is duly noted that your failure to address all the other points of my response to you indicates you have no rebuttal.
You are dismissed.
rukiddingme on August 2, 2010 at 1:50 PM
Why can’t both be criticized? Stark isn’t a poor animal who doesn’t no any better.
2Brave2Bscared on August 2, 2010 at 1:51 PM
Is there a constitutional process for that?
DarkCurrent on August 2, 2010 at 1:52 PM
I don’t think a strong GOP majority federal government by 2013 is ridiculous at all, current evidence clearly favors this outcome.
Why “progressives” will want to split off, because the rank-and-file have a visceral hatred of the GOP in general and Palin specifically. When they see any part of their agenda threatened, they will want to bolt, just as there was a movement after Bush won his second term. Multiply that feeling by a million, heck they’re running the show right now and they can’t contain their hatred, imagine 2013 when they’ll really have something to complain about.
Rebar on August 2, 2010 at 1:52 PM
That’s a logical fallacy, actually. Read a logic book.
2Brave2Bscared on August 2, 2010 at 1:53 PM
Don’t need to. Freedom of assembly, remember?
When you and your ilk come to my house, I will tell you in person.
Peacefully, of course.
I already live in the Union. You do not?
rukiddingme on August 2, 2010 at 1:53 PM
Of course it is, that is why you failed to respond. Got it.
rukiddingme on August 2, 2010 at 1:54 PM
Deal.
Do you think you still live in a constitutional republic under rule of law?
Rebar on August 2, 2010 at 1:59 PM
I wasn’t contesting that point.
I still don’t see this happening. But it’s a bit pointless arguing about such future events. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see.
2Brave2Bscared on August 2, 2010 at 2:00 PM
Might as well save your breath. Confirmed sad-sacks like him will only really ‘listen’ to the sound of gunfire…preferably lots of it, directed at them.
I used to think Grant was too harsh on the South with his scorched-earth policy. No longer. The Roman Empire knew how to squash a rebellion once and for all, we just didn’t have the guts to do it because we were fighting our own families.
Dark-Star on August 2, 2010 at 2:01 PM
Try to get this through your head:
You are subject to the laws of this nation, LIKE THEM OR NOT.
Don’t like the laws? Can’t change them. Get out. Stay out.
Dark-Star on August 2, 2010 at 2:02 PM
Ah, good to see the spirit of Lincoln lives on.
2Brave2Bscared on August 2, 2010 at 2:03 PM
Agreed.
Rebar on August 2, 2010 at 2:04 PM
ehem…
equanimous on August 2, 2010 at 2:05 PM
Typical garden variety fascist, you don’t impress me.
Rebar on August 2, 2010 at 2:05 PM
Unbelievable.
I bet this joker calls himself a “conservative” too.
2Brave2Bscared on August 2, 2010 at 2:05 PM
Yes, I realized my error after posting. But thanks for that, douchebag.
2Brave2Bscared on August 2, 2010 at 2:06 PM
I love how he sort of nods in agreement when she tells him people like him are destroying America.
Then he grins.
How screwed up is THAT?
capitalist piglet on August 2, 2010 at 2:09 PM
IIRC, he’s a libertarian.
sharrukin on August 2, 2010 at 2:10 PM
Thank you.
Actually he does not. He has stated many times on this blog he is an independent.
Says the Statist.
rukiddingme on August 2, 2010 at 2:11 PM
This lady, whoever she is, should run against Stark. She would have my vote….
DL13 on August 2, 2010 at 2:12 PM
We shall have a beer summit, then I will peacefully send you down the road.
rukiddingme on August 2, 2010 at 2:13 PM
The person who fights to maintain the fiction of the union, regardless of how the government trashes the Constitution and strips us of our rights, is calling me a “statist”.
Comedy gold.
Rebar on August 2, 2010 at 2:16 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »