They DO Exist!!

Much like the fabled Jackalope in Northern Michigan, there too must be a colony of that type which is rumored to exist, yet due to the description certainly MUST be rare.  My Goodness one would think the tinyus cranius homosapiens crashius species was merely legend, perhaps like a sport of commentary by locals when talking to tourists for a few laughs, but we discovered one here in Traverse city! At our very own Tax day Tea Party!

I will admit my behavior was less than admirable when greeting this creature of lesser morals, as I DID insist he was of a small mind.  My insult may not have started the ensuing conversation on the proper footing.   Sometimes the heat of the moment, or excitement upon the discovery that people can make a complete ass of themselves for no apparent reason, will bring about our own loss of control, so I do apologize to those who take offense (including the “upstanding” young man in the video) to my addressing him as such.

Other than that..  I will let this thing speak for itself.

I won’t pretend I handled this encounter the best I could have. Perhaps that is what they are looking for. At least however it was peaceful and most the folks on hand walked away afterward laughing at his naivety, sporting a chuckle or two.

I only wish I could laugh so easily. This is who is running the government right now. This is the type of thinking that is creating policy, establishing future protocol, and setting the agenda for the country right now.

I had hoped that such denizens of the darkened soul would turn out to be a figment of some KOS writer’s wild imagination.. but here it is in front of you.. Giggles away…

Update – Malkin’s list

35 comments for “They DO Exist!!

  1. Granny
    April 16, 2010 at 9:35 am

    He doesn’t look old enough to pay taxes – what could he possibly be protesting?

  2. April 16, 2010 at 10:31 am

    My favorite part about the Sterling Heights rally of about 600 Tea Partiers waving flags and home-made signs was the quiet, rather bitter-seeming group of 50-75 MEA school employee union types across the road – all with pre-printed “SOS” signs, presumably courtesy of their union, and one way or another all paid for by you – John Q. and Mary Taxpayer! The contrast could not have been more clear.

    That said, it was a fine example of Americans peacefully and politely agreeing to disagree on political matters, even when both sides are out on the streets together. Even if those on one side of the street represent a privileged class of government employees, and those on the other the struggling workers and small business owners who pay for the other group’s privileges.

  3. April 16, 2010 at 4:23 pm

    The problem is he is correct. The two wars, one unnecessary and based on misinformation, were never paid for, as well as the tax cuts for the richest 1 percent that helped create the deficit. He seemed he was trying to answer, respectfully, numerous questions asked of him. He is also correct that there is no takeover of health care.

    Let me answer your question, when you go to the ER it doubles and triples the cost when in most case it may have been taken care of in an inexpensive office visit. By the time the person goes to the ER all they do is stabilized them, and the minor problem can turn into a life threatening illness. The current system is simply unsustainable.

    “There are organizations for that?” How ridiculous. I guess we need more spaghetti dinners to raise the $50,000 or more for treatment. Get real. I do see you have an anger management problem, but you wouldn’t be a teabagger if you didn’t. Teabagger was originally your term, and it has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality or two men. Still, I liked the guys sign, even though it is no where close to the ugly and sometimes racist signs displayed by the teabggers.

    How is teabagging a violent act? I like the “thank you for your service” crap. That’s just like Republican’s support for veterans; just hollow words.

    What does he hope to accomplish today? Apparently, the same thing you are.

    I sure would like to meet this guy. He stood up your repeated verbal attacks, kept his cool and just used logic and facts.

    Why would you post a video where you got your ass kicked?

    • jgillman
      April 16, 2010 at 10:05 pm

      First of all “teabagging” is a word gleefully resurrected from the sewers of liberal minds. It was never an accepted tea party term.

      As for ringing hollow.. I won’t say unless I mean it. I give credit when I can to those who have made the decision to fight for our rights, and offer a great latitude of opinion more to those who have served regardless of their political preferences. I am willing to give a second listen once I know of their service. the least I can do. But it does not make me agree with socialism if that is what they want to spend that good will on. This guy had no intention but to cause angst with a sign that suggested a violent act against MRS Palin.

      IMO, Your service to our country becomes a waste as you fight for the replacement of individual liberties with government mandates and a gun to our heads if we do not support such things. Make no mistake, the use of force and the country’s top collection agency is a violent act against the people. It is contrary to the oath of service you personally made. If you prefer communism you spit on that oath.

  4. James Rice
    April 16, 2010 at 8:08 pm

    Jason, regarding the disgusting Sarah Palin sign that the subject of your video brought to the Tea Party: The guy is probably no worse than your typical narrow-minded bigot, even though we could discuss the criminal implications of what his sign actually suggests; after all, one has to wonder what any person who approves of the crime of taking another person’s property (through taxes) would approve of with regard to committing a crime against another person’s physical being… but, then again, I don’t try to understand the thinking of the modern “liberal” any more than I try to understand the thinking of a common criminal. That’s why I agree with you that even though many of us laughed off the incident, I believe that the danger posed by this gentleman, and other like minds unable to reason and function normally in a civil society, is a danger to take seriously.

  5. Joshua
    April 18, 2010 at 9:18 pm

    First of all, what’s gay about teabagging*********Deleted by admin************** Can you definitively say that Sarah Palin wouldn’t be up for a good teabagging? It’s only violent if you force it, no?

    Not to mention the sign itself is just trying to poke fun at the term initially used by the movement. You have to be blind not to have seen some of the ridiculous tea party signs out there. Or willfully ignorant.

    Does anyone in the tea party movement even know what socialism is? Or why the first tea party took place?

    Have YOU ever bought something you don’t need? If so, why are my taxes paying for services like the roads you drive on and the police who protect you. Oh, and the soldiers who fought for our rights? They were paid for by our taxpayer dollars.

    You and your fellow tea partiers are nothing more than sheep being used by people working against your best interests to further their political goals.

    • jgillman
      April 18, 2010 at 10:44 pm

      Cute. The suggestion alone is violence against MRS Palin. Only the most pitiful and small mind would think the sign of that loser was appropriate.

      The ridiculous signs.. Which ones, the LaRouche ones, or your own?

      Socialism is a crime against humanity. It steals the work of one and assumes the Authority knows best how to distribute it. And I am pretty sure those people who are the producers of wealth in this country and attend these tea parties are quite aware of why they do so.

      General welfare: Roads, community safety (police, fire) Appropriate and just. General infrastructure to support the cities and protect citizens is correct a use for monies collected from the citizens. We ALL benefit. When you take wealth and re-distribute it, by the very nature of the deed, you are creating inequities of public use. Re-distribution is wrong. your analogy is quite flawed.

      Sheep? What about your patron provider Mr Soros? Funding the engine of the socialist schema you operate under.. the “collective ” if you will. Which protesters more resemble the single pattern thinking, Tea Party attendees who make their own signs and take their own cues on what they want to protest, OR the single theme signs from the left (often purple union signs) which originate from a bussed in crowd and organized by a labor union. Our best interests are served when we have control over the health care we receive, and the money we earn.

      Check your premises before offering such criticisms. It makes you look .. for the lack of a better civilized word, ..tired.

      • Phill
        April 19, 2010 at 5:19 pm

        Hey, Mr. “upstanding” here with a few observations for you to consider…
        1. I imagine that there are some death row prisoners that would like you to talk to their judge/jury and explain that eyewitness testimony is not proof, and that video is absolutely necessary for something to have occurred. Also of note is that it was a Tea Party rally, and I’m not sure the attendees would be clamoring to prove the congress critters right. Perhaps this shows a lack of “plants” and that there just might be some in your movement with other motives.
        2. While I commend you for admitting your crass behavior and apologizing to the readers of this blog, I have two questions for you. Why didn’t you post the tape of your admitted provocation? Was your apology only to your followers for having cast a shadow on the movement or to me? If it was to me, I find it odd that you once again resort to name calling in your descripton of me and your post. Just saying…
        3. I suggest you refer to this website as it reveals a bus that went around the country (even here, I believe) funded by wealthy conservatives, and carrying, according to the pics on the web, pre-made signs. Be intellectually honest before stating easily verifiable misnomers. It makes you seem to be, for the lack of a “more” civilized word, Hypocritical. See ya at the next rally. AO3.

        • jgillman
          April 19, 2010 at 6:17 pm

          On Number 1. I have no idea of what you are talking about. Feel free to elaborate.

          Number 2. I posted what I had. I did not edit but for a few seconds before and after so it would fit in the youtube format of 10 minutes. I was cautious to make sure there was nothing that mattered either way.
          My “provocation” was admitted though I had no tape. I called you a name. I own my mistake in my approach to the situation so that I amy learn from it as well as any who run across other people attempting to ruin a party with mistaken methods… willfully. But I still think you are small minded, and your mistaken methods and unrepentant attitude with a willful promotion of violence to women (Mrs Palin) is troubling.

          So don’t pretend you have me a corner. I may not approach a similar situation as harshly up front I will laugh at your efforts first then be a little more dismissive. Your own actions paint you as a pathetic tool of the oppressive socialist effort going on throughout the country. A tool… Nothing more.

          • Phill
            April 19, 2010 at 7:58 pm

            I am referencing your adamant claim in the posted video that no Congress member was called a derogatory term, nor spit upon, because there wasn’t video. You also stated that Breitbart said it never happened, so it must not have happened. From what I’ve read, Breitbart wasn’t even in attendance at the rally in question. I was simply stating in the above comment that people can, have, and will continue to be convicted of murder or other crimes without videotaped proof. Eyewitness testimony has long been used in such instances. Another way I could use your reasoning is…Jesus was never born and never existed. There is no video (or pictures) of Jesus, is there? There aren’t even any eyewitness’ left alive so how can anyone believe he was born just from reading recollections? After all we’re not supposed to believe everything we read, are we? What about number 3? Will you please explain the contradiction?
            One last thing. Your unwavering claim that it was the left that applied the term “teabagging” or “teabagger” to your movement is clearly disproven from the picture on the other commenters entry. Ignorance of the usage of a term was never offered as why some may have seen the above terms used at a tea party rally. You explicitly state it’s “homosexually violent” “only used by the liberals” or if it was seen at the rally, it was a plant. Now you believe this matronly woman was just confused as to the meaning. My understanding of the term doesn’t negate that there are many, many pictures from when the movement started. It was tea party members that used it first regardless if they knew the meaning.

          • jgillman
            April 19, 2010 at 8:22 pm

            Separate your paragraphs.. it helps a reader keep up with the rambling.

            the “eyewitness” on the spitting incident:

            “One man is yelling with his hands cupped over his mouth as Cleaver walks by, and as Cleaver passes him, he recoils as if he has been hit in the face with spit. What is probably unknowable is whether the protester spit on Cleaver by accident or on purpose.

            In an interview on Tuesday with a local Fox News affiliate, Cleaver would not directly answer the question of whether he was intentionally spit on, and in fact seemed to deny he ever had claimed to have been spit on:

            “I haven’t talked about this incident on TV or anywhere, and I’ve been approached to talk about it on every national TV show,” said Rep. Cleaver in an interview with FOX 4 News. “I never, I never reported anything, never a single thing in Washington, not one thing. People assume I went somewhere, never done press conference, never done an interview on it and I’m not going to do it.”

            The denial appears to directly contradict a statement issued by Cleaver’s office following the incident. Cleaver’s statement incorrectly claimed that Capitol Police arrested a man for spitting on Cleaver. Capitol Police told the Associated Press that they did not make any arrests that day.

            Innocent until proven guilty much? I have seen the incident, and suspect was a guy shouting and probably a little flew, but he did not spit at the congressman. A far cry from spitting or name calling, which you are all too eager to assert is the modus operandi of tea party goers.

            That picture is no more proof than your claim of spitting made it a reality. The immediate set up of “smarter than a fifth grader” lefties in the media like Olberman, or “tingle up my leg” Matthews, have forwarded that without acknowledging they KNOW the meaning. Folks who lack the vocabulary (unlike yourself) might have thought it was a cute way to participate. (in the most innocent sense) All it did was offer dirt-bags an opportunity to scoff at the lack of sophistication the perceived those who were singled out at the tea parties like that woman.

            Because you KNEW the meaning.. Your agenda was hardly innocent. It was trashy and inappropriate. Further, the wanna be lefties who know only to follow based on emotion might well take your suggestions to heart. It is a violent suggestion you made. Define it another way.. really you cannot.

  6. Julie
    April 19, 2010 at 5:53 pm

    I think Joshua was talking about this sign:

    I was going to type out my argument, but I realized (based on your snotty response to Joshua’s comment) that you’re incapable of seeing other points of view. That’s ok, it’s your right, but it is sad.

    • jgillman
      April 19, 2010 at 6:26 pm

      That sign is either carried out by someone who doesn’t know the dual meaning of the word or is herself a plant.. I suspect the former.

      Phill (the sign holder at our event) Knew full well what it means and thought the juvenile effort was indeed a cute way to embarrass Tea Party goers.

      apparently that is the only way the left knows how to debate.. Is all good.. We knew that already. Emotion, deception, and lies is what put this health care plan into play, and is what is being used universally as the STATED GAME PLAN of the “crash the tea party ” crowd.

      I suggest you re-read my response to Joshua. Because you disagree with it, hardly makes it snotty. And frankly, I feel no need to be overly cautious with my words here.. on my domain. You are my guest.

  7. Julie
    April 20, 2010 at 6:57 pm

    “Because you disagree with it, hardly makes it snotty.”

    Calling someone pitifully small minded and “tired” is snotty. It’s not constructive or substantive, it’s just a basal insult and it remains as such whether I agree with you or not.

    You make an assumption about my beliefs but your assumption might be faulty. I haven’t said how I feel one way or another on anything. I decided not to give my argument, remember, because of your ad hominem attacks (look it up if you don’t know what I’m talking about) and your assertions about “the left,” etc. You’d be amazed at how similar “the left” and “the right” are in their debate strategies if you analyzed them academically. The tactics are so similar that the issues become marginalized into obscurity and the entire exercise becomes not about substance but “my team” versus “the other team.” There is no platform for anyone, only resentment, bitterness and acrimony. These emotions get in the way of understanding your own motivations and the motivations of people you disagree with.

    My guess is that you are so bitter about the way things are going you’ve lost sight of the hope of actually effecting change. That’s understandable. In fact, I’d say most Americans are in the same boat and have been for a while regardless of what “side” they’re on. However, while angry verbal and written assault might provide a temporary satisfaction they only serve to deepen the cultural divide. If you want to use your blog to talk shit about people and try to make yourself seem superior, fine. It’s “your domain” as you so crudely put it. But you could be using this venue to actually promote your beliefs in a positive way rather than attempting to tear others down. You could start a dialogue rather than a flame war. If you want to foster understanding and truly effect change, don’t start by rubbing shit in people’s faces. It’s not very effective.

    • jgillman
      April 20, 2010 at 10:05 pm

      Im hardly bitter.

      I simply see people in government making incredibly bad decisions, and am part of a movement to halt those decisions. The premise of my disagreement is with Phill, and his carrying a sign that suggests a violent act towards a woman who happens to have an opposing view and charismatic content so opposite to Phill’s that it threatens him.

      And I do use the domain in a positive way. But you don’t agree with them so it seems snotty. You talk of me trying to present myself as looking superior, then attempt to do so yourself? Ill bet you win your arguments with the mirror daily, and by golly, you “know that people must surely like you..”

      My argument in life is very simple.. Don’t involve me. Don’t put a gun to my head, and expect me to capitulate to some Pollyanna version of how life should be. Don’t pretend you are doing someone a favor by picking their pocket, and buying them lunch. Theft is theft. Compassion is best served whole.

      As for rubbing.. Who is using the emotionally effective tact of swearing? Weak. ipsi loquitor.

  8. April 21, 2010 at 12:17 pm

    First of all, teabagging” is a term you guys called yourself first. This guy is exercising a right he defended that you use to attack people. My service to my country is not a waste, and just because I disagree with your view doesn’t make it so.

    Make no mistake, the use of force is a violent act against the government, which are the people, and it is simply treason. I continue to uphold the oath of enlistment I took many years ago, as well as the times I reenlisted. I don’t “prefer communism” that I spent 20 years fighting against, and I don’t spit on anything, even something as disgusting as teabaggers who promote violence against their country. That’s something teabaggers do. The health insurance bill was passed by the legally elected representatives of the people. Just because you do not agree with it, does not make it communism or anything else.

    • jgillman
      April 21, 2010 at 12:43 pm

      Sad little minds.

      You continue to use the term, BECAUSE it is inappropriate. You and this guy should do tea.

      I don’t care if you disagree with my views, but when your actions cause me to lose liberties protected by the constitution, what authority have given up? You become all that you have fought, and are no better. I am fighting for freedom, are you? I know you DID, but do you still? You think so? If you don’t call it communism, does that make it easier to swallow?

      • April 21, 2010 at 3:25 pm

        Sad little minds.

        Yes, I continue to use the term you gave yourselves because you don’t like it, not because it’s inappropriate because it isn’t. Of course you care if I disagree with your views or you would not accuse me of being a communist or question my patriotism. You certainly have no right to question my patriotism or the vet in the video. No one is losing liberties. It seems odd that you were not up in arms when we actually gave civil liberties away in the so-called “patriot act.”

        I actually fought for freedom, and I still am instead of just giving it lip serve like you are. It’s not called communism, it’s called a Democratic Republic. The people I voted for to represent me said they support health insurance reform, and that’s one reason I voted for them.

        • jgillman
          April 21, 2010 at 3:47 pm

          Sooo.. Forcing someone to purchase insurance… is a freedom thing?


          • Phill
            April 26, 2010 at 10:05 pm

            No one is going to force you to buy health insurance. If you do not buy health insurance on your own accord, you have to pay a tax. Taxes levied by the U.S.A. are without a doubt Constitutional. Did you really bring your son into this fracas? Really? Your sons uniformed(uniformed?), sudden appearance in this debate seems like a ploy to bolster your own patriotism and/or rightness…Just because he took an oath, doesn’t mean you did. You and I alike lost actual Constitutional rights under BushCo. Habeus Corpus. Warrantless Wiretaps on U.S. Citizens.. Unless you have archives of your rants and raves from those years under BushCo and evidence of “Fighting” for the Constitution or anything…Save it. You’re intellectual dishonesty is truly awe-inspiring. Do you really believe that all racist signs that have appeared at TeaBag rallies have been plants? Come on, you’re kidding me, right? Not even one TeaBagger, somewhere out there, hates him some Negroes? Also, Here is a clip of some Palin supporters before the election. I’m sure at least a few of them turned into TeaBaggers at the behest of the goddess that is Palin. If not a few, than at least one of them did, Dontcha’ think?

          • jgillman
            April 26, 2010 at 10:57 pm

            Why did you insert race into the debate?

          • jgillman
            April 26, 2010 at 10:59 pm

            Oh yeah.. as for my son.. you might look into the history of the blog for more of his participation and a little more perspective on my beliefs.

            Looks like I have a new fan.. Awesome.

          • April 26, 2010 at 11:39 pm

            Ok, so you buy health insurance, or you get taxed…. I guess you aren’t required to do anything. I mean, no one is forcing me to pay taxes either. It’s just if I don’t, I have my property seized and liens put on my income, and then federal agents come to throw me in the clink.

            As for my involvement in this “fracas” – I brought my self in. I’ve also been using that gravatar image since around September 2008.

            In regards to articles/comments on the patriot act – this blog has been in existence circa OCT 07, years after that shit got passed.

            Intellectual dishonesty – classy shit.

    • April 21, 2010 at 3:48 pm

      So…. how are tea partiers promoting violence against this country?

      In addition, there are many bills that have been passed which are unconstitutional – whether or not the Supreme Court rules as such.

      Obamacare is one such law that is unconstitutional. So no, you are not upholding your oath which includes defending the constitution from enemies foreign AND domestic.

      • April 21, 2010 at 4:16 pm


        “How are tea partiers promoting violence against this country? Please, stop playing dumb. The heated rhetoric and the call to overthrow the government with arms is not promoting violence against this country?


        “There are many bills that have been passed which are unconstitutional – whether or not the Supreme Court rules as such?” Really? Who decides that, you? I don’t think so.

        First there is no such thing as “Obamacare.” Now, if you are referring to health insurance reform, it certainly is constitutional.

        Yes, I am upholding my oath “which includes defending the constitution from enemies foreign AND domestic.” It’s you who are not, and in fact, may be that domestic enemy. The President was elected legally in accordance with the U.S. Constitution. Congress was elected legally IAW the Constitution, and they passed a bill IAW the constitution. If, the law were unconstitutional, the courts, IAW their constitutional duty, would rule that way.

        • jgillman
          April 21, 2010 at 4:43 pm

          Umm please provide a reliable source of reporting for Tea Partiers ” calling for overthrow with arms.

          Is that like the non existent spit, or racist name calling we heard your guys complain about? Does it exist because you say it does, even if you never saw it?

          Please provide a reference point where we can ascertain a similar judgment of the constitutionality of the “health insurance reform” In other words please POINT TO SPECIFIC language IN THE CONSTITUTION which says the federal government can apply such rules upon us.

          Well the courts have yet to determine if this unconstitutional bill will stand.

          Then, after November, the replaced congress can determine whether they will put stronger safeguards in place to hold off the federal government from attempting to re-enact slavery, as this bill does.

          No gotcha. If you cannot find authority in the constitution, you cannot rightly argue its constitutionality can you? Debate has two sides, but there is one ultimate truth. Parsing is not an option when considering one’s liberties. You know… that thing our forefathers paid in blood to preserve?

          • April 22, 2010 at 10:23 am

            Apparently, you have never been to a so-called “tea party,” here is just one:

            The “non existent spit (sic) , or racist name calling?” It certainly does exist. The “tea parties” weren’t promoted and advertised on militia and white supremacist web sites for nothing.

            Multiple provisions of the Constitution permit Congress to enact this insurance reform legislation, including the Commerce Clause, and legal experts, including conservative scholars, are therefore uniformly saying that any lawsuit to stop it will undoubtedly fail.

            Multiple provisions of the Constitution permit Congress to enact this insurance reform legislation. As long ago as 1944, the Supreme Court held that the business of insurance fell within Congress’ regulatory authority under the Commerce Clause, as well as Congress’ authority to tax and spend for the general welfare. Nothing since undercuts the authority of Congress to legislate in this area. No provision of the Bill of Rights, or text found elsewhere in the Constitution, acts to prohibit Congress from enacting the healthcare insurance reform legislation.

            And legal commentators, including conservative scholars, are therefore uniformly saying that any lawsuit to stop it will undoubtedly fail. And in any event, the legislation only “compels” coverage in the sense that it places a tax on non-insured individuals. The conservatives are asking the judiciary to interfere in the political process, which they constantly claim to be against.

            “Re-enact slavery?” Wow. I guess you really are a Republican, and you are following the GOP strategy of when you lie, go big.

          • jgillman
            April 22, 2010 at 11:02 am

            Apparently YOU have never been to a Tea Party. And WOW you had to dig back a year for any hint of something that supported your perception of the truth.

            Must have taken you all night. You really ought to get some sleep.. I hate to think taxpayers are paying someone to be napping on their desk at the legislative offices, Kevin.

            So anyhow you would say let one bad apple spoil the whole bunch. Perhaps if it fit your idea of bad? (let me be clear.. I hardly pass judgment on those who speak proper historic phrases) As to name calling, out of a likely 1000+ video cameras not ONE single second of such an act has been presented. The reward of $100,000.00 was offered for proof.. seems an easy payday.. So offer proof, or continue to eat crow as a fabricator of reality.

            As to the commerce clause, Insurance itself may in fact be under authority of commerce or a reading of commerce, but to FORCE USE of INSURANCE it does not. Hardly the efforts of a “free nation’s” government.

            You don’t get Liberty do you?


        • April 21, 2010 at 6:05 pm

          Stop playing dumb? I’m not. The onus is on you to prove that the tea partiers are promoting an overthrow. You can’t. So you have to resort to telling me that I’m playing done. Classy.

          So you think that the nine people on the bench are smart enough to determine with 100% correctness what laws fall in line with the constitution, and that their ruling should be treated as gospel?

          Let me propose this scenario: Congress passes a law that affects you personally – A bill of attainder. You challenge to the supreme court and they rule it as constitutional. You’re okay with that? Yes or no.

          As for playing this game of “There’s no such thing as Obamacare”, I can play that game too. The act that passed into law isn’t “health insurance reform”, it’s the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”.

          Lastly, you accuse me of not upholding my oath, and being “that domestic enemy”? That’s a pretty strong charge – where is your evidence?

          • April 22, 2010 at 11:09 am

            So, you are really dumb, and not just playing?

            Do I “think that the nine people on the bench are smart enough to determine with 100% correctness what laws fall in line with the constitution, and that their ruling should be treated as gospel?” Hell yes I do because I believe in the U.S. Constitution, and I swore an oath to uphold it. That’s the constitutional function of the U.S. Supreme Court.

            Yes, I’m OK with it. The “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” signed into law is health insurance reform.

            You may be right, it was a strong charge accusing you of not upholding your oath, and being “that domestic enemy.” Now, I assume we are talking about the oath of enlistment? Please remember you first accused me of “not upholding your oath which includes defending the constitution from enemies foreign AND domestic.”

            The oath says, “…I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me.”

            I am upholding that oath. It is teabaggers who are trying to say the President is illegitimate and his orders do not have to be followed. Now, if you are not a teabagger I will apologize for accusing you of not upholding your oath, and I will accept your apology for accusing me of not upholding mine.

          • jgillman
            April 22, 2010 at 12:50 pm

            Liberty or not?

            Liberty or No Liberty?

            What do YOU consider a “free man?”

            And if the Supreme court shuts down the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” as unconstitutional will YOU recant? Will you Repent? will you continue to support the constitution which you claim gives these judges their authority?

            Say so now, that whatever these judges determine will be your position when this is all over.

            Say it. State it. Confirm it with the certainty that you are presenting, that your position will be supported.

            Harder than you thought.. huh?


          • April 22, 2010 at 9:55 pm

            I take it you haven’t stopped beating your wife yet?

            By the way, you dodged my question. If the supreme court ruled a bill of attainder to be constitutional, would you support that decision?

            And no, I haven’t teabagged anyone.

  9. James Rice
    April 21, 2010 at 9:15 pm

    “Liberalism” really is a form of mental illness (or stupidity). In one instance, we have a small-minded bigot who carries a sign encouraging unspecified persons to commit a sex act on a woman; a sex act that would be committed against her will, obviously. (I call him a bigot because the target of his proposed crime is someone whose politics he disagrees with.) And then, when this person is properly confronted, and his vile and despicable suggestion is named for what it is, and he is treated with the contempt which he deserves, he whines about being attacked ad hominem, and then expects an apology.

    Then we witness the deranged spectacle of another “liberal” who objects to the naming of facts; indeed, actually characterizing the moral clarification of particular facts, as “angry verbal and written assault.”

    Finally, there’s this statement: “Make no mistake, the use of force is a violent act against the government, which are the people, and it is simply treason.” Which translated must mean: “Make no mistake, the people are the use of force, and a violent act against the government, and is simply treason.” I think that what this “liberal” was really trying to say is, that in his view, the law abiding, peaceful, hard working, tax paying tea party participants are somehow (I say somehow because, here, no evidence is presented) attempting, or advocating the violent overthrow of government. Either way one interprets that statement, one is still left to ponder the confusing similarity between insanity and stupidity.

  10. Phill
    May 13, 2010 at 8:53 pm

    Read ’em and weep. If the refuge of Neo-Cons such as William “The Bloody” Kristol writes articles such this one, you know you’ve lost your argument; Not that you ever had one anyway.

    • jgillman
      May 13, 2010 at 10:07 pm

      So you insist you are either ignorant or an ass.

      Big whoop.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.

Loading Facebook Comments ...