image stats
date added
None Yet
previous votes
log in


indent register
indent recover

Mmmm, Hmmmm let me get you a big steamy bowl !!

1 star2 stars3 stars4 stars5 stars
Mmmm, Hmmmm let me get you a big steamy bowl !!

Comments for: Mmmm, Hmmmm let me get you a big steamy bowl !!
dv8 Report This Comment
Date: September 10, 2009 04:33AM

commie corngrinning
dv8 Report This Comment
Date: September 10, 2009 06:32AM

thanks to you...we can't afford it(*finger*)
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: September 10, 2009 07:06AM

Bush left 1 trillion dollar deficit, what is our deficit right now? 11 trillion?
pro_junior Report This Comment
Date: September 10, 2009 08:06AM

the ignorance in that statement is astounding...
if I push a snowball down a mountain and after it rolls part way down it grows to a diameter of 10 feet...then I turn responsibility of the snowball over to you and it continues to roll down the mountain...when it reaches a diameter of 50 feet , who's fault is that, yours or mine?
bus Report This Comment
Date: September 10, 2009 08:11AM

With no fanfare and little notice, the national debt has grown by more than $4 trillion during George W. Bush’s presidency.

It’s the biggest increase under any president in U.S history.

On the day President Bush took office, the national debt stood at $5.727 trillion. The latest number from the Treasury Department shows the national debt now stands at more than $9.849 trillion. That’s a 71.9 percent increase on Mr. Bush’s watch.

Even Bush inherited an unimaginable sum.
Bus Report This Comment
Date: September 10, 2009 08:15AM

jgoins is correct if you are talking about Bush Senior while he was Reagan's vice president.
SkullandChains Report This Comment
Date: September 10, 2009 09:26AM

Hilarious! cool smiley
Bus Report This Comment
Date: September 10, 2009 12:37PM

Commie corn is grown in the U.S.
SkullandChains Report This Comment
Date: September 10, 2009 02:50PM

"The latest number from the Treasury Department shows the national debt now stands at more than $9.849 trillion. That’s a 71.9 percent increase on Mr. Bush’s watch."

Costs a lot of money to blow up terrorists. drinking
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: September 10, 2009 04:54PM

if you blame Bush for the new deficit junior, the ignorance isn't mr goins', it's yours, or anyone else who dares to whip out the "W" card. (*facepalm*)
x Report This Comment
Date: September 10, 2009 07:58PM

spoken like a true idiot.

I thought you didnt like Bush? Why do you always defend him?
maddie Report This Comment
Date: September 10, 2009 08:02PM

This is a openly Racist site of school kid mentality. Listing to them compute reasons and facts its a interesting study. Shit really does float

There intelligence is limited to poop throwing and Nigger worship.

And thats the smarter ones.
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: September 10, 2009 08:05PM

i do not/have not/will not defend W, but the W card is the weakest argument alive. people should whip it out more around here the entertainment factor is slipping big time. handjob
x Report This Comment
Date: September 10, 2009 08:06PM

Well you certainly can tell that you are a highly intelligent non-racist plus613 user by the post.
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: September 10, 2009 08:07PM

uh.....thank you? totally
x Report This Comment
Date: September 10, 2009 08:08PM

that last comment was for maddie

nose_digger you are always intertaining... not a bush supporter... that is hilarious.
x Report This Comment
Date: September 10, 2009 08:16PM

Posted by: fossil_digger [x]
Date: August 19, 2006 06:43PM

your questions are .....not worth answering because you don't want to hear the truth. all you want to hear is something derogatory towards bush, and I'm afraid you're barking up the wrong tree. in other words...go hump someone else's leg
x Report This Comment
Date: September 10, 2009 08:20PM

so there wasnt anything bad to say about bush huh? Great pres that left the country in great condition but obama fucked it all up. Lets hear it.
x Report This Comment
Date: September 10, 2009 08:24PM

OH and Im COOL online. rock on

fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: September 10, 2009 08:33PM

toad is the man. handjobtotally
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: September 10, 2009 08:43PM

i thought it was obvious that i am an "anyone but a liberal". if you haven't heard me say something bad about W, you are not paying attention.
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: September 10, 2009 08:50PM

c'mon captain selective hearing...........
Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: September 10, 2009 09:04PM

When one follows the trends in these debates/discussions a single pattern seems to repeat itself over and over, here and pretty much elsewhere on the web too.

A discussion typically may open with a remark voicing disagreement about a liberal ideology, policy or piece of legislation being proposed, and maybe another voice will chime in with agreement or maybe not but inevitably the libs will all start spewing the same contentious blather. They seem totally incapable of entering one of these discussions without throwin out the same tired "you are a racist". "you must be a racist", "you're stupid", "You must be a Bush supporter", "you probably were a Bush supporter", "if Bush hadn't left things ...", "you only think this way because Obama suggested this" and all the other rediculous remarks of this ilk.

My question to all you libs is why are these same tired lines used over and over and over? Are you all so totally incapable of formulating real thought and couching it into intelligent conversation and thereby actually trying to hold an honest discussion or debate by making real points about your position that this is your only means of attempting to HAVE such discussions?

I LOVE debate and always have as I see it as a great way to explore opposing viewpoints or opinions. However, once either side of a debate begins to simply abandon the use of logical argument in making their case and begin instead to just throw out personal attacks and slanderous remarks (typically things not even germaine to the discussion) they by default cede the debate to their opponent.

With all that in mind are all you libs (maddie, madmex, toad(<-X) or wolfie) really incapable of discussion and instead feel that personal attacks and such crap really wins you anything at all is these discussions?

Here's a few simple clues cats : Keep the discussion focused and on target, cut the personal attacks, quit tryin to personify anyone who disagrees with you or your candidate as a racist and logically state your position or case instead. These simple points will make your own carry much more power and certainly make them come off as more than just schoolyard BS as it typically does in many of the replies here when the above crap gets to be a part of the discussion winking

fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: September 10, 2009 10:16PM

hey toad, why are we still in Iraq? and Afghanistan?
u2binetcooldudes Report This Comment
Date: September 11, 2009 12:24AM

How important is this site to your social life and sense of worth?
Doh Report This Comment
Date: September 11, 2009 12:30AM

Pro... please correct him on his rediculous spelling
SkullandChains Report This Comment
Date: September 11, 2009 12:32AM

This is a tesT Of the natural broadcast system of natural breasts an such things. I signed in, plus says I'm not, so here's the test...

WOOKIE WIKIE WOO WOO! SUCKS TO BE SWOOWOO! Eeener neener weener swookie swookie poo. grinning
SkullandChains Report This Comment
Date: September 11, 2009 12:47AM

Sure, I think bush made some mistakes, which president hasn't? But I also thinnk that there are people out there who wanna kill me, my family and my neighbors. IMO, Bush was right in going there to kill them before they killed us. If you can find flaw in what I'm saying, fine, go ahead, but I'm puttinng moneythat you don't live in the US.
Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: September 11, 2009 12:49AM

Interesting question, but ... doesn't self worth mean exactly that? If so how could that be experienced online confused

Back to the topic though I'm curious if anyone seriously thinks a government that can run a whore house into the ground can actually manage to somehow pull off overseeing something as complex as national health care for 300 million people. And ... claim to be able to fund it with money they will save by auditing Medicare/Medicaid and recouping $900,000,000,000 from bogus claims etc.? Oh, but wait, if they could accidentally pay out an extra $900,000,000,000 in claims and coverage for the poor and elderly how much excess will that morph into when managing the whole populations health care?

The real question when you get right down to it is why is the federal government is even considering health care for the citizens when constitutionally there is no reason for this to even be discussed.

Anyone who wants to tell me again about healthcare being one our rights, please do me a favor and link to the part of the constitution where it mentions this tongue
sticking out smiley

fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: September 11, 2009 12:59AM

i saw a deal today that Acorn people were teaching a girl and her boyfriend how to run a whorehouse and dodge the taxes. of course when this went public, they were "fired". (*horse*)
SkullandChains Report This Comment
Date: September 11, 2009 01:37AM

Fossil, stop beating his ballsac.
SkullandChains Report This Comment
Date: September 11, 2009 01:54AM

OMG! This country is run by bogus claims, falsehoods, the hood, niggas, bitches, hos, WHITEY SHORTS, insurance fraud, oh yea, that covers bogus claims, silly me.
SkullandChains Report This Comment
Date: September 11, 2009 02:01AM

People are watching me. You kno, to take all my tinfoil, apples, oranges, ect. All to build a better life, better gun. Too bad I still have the metal strip that cuts off the tin foil, otherwise there would be hell to pay.
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: September 11, 2009 06:39AM

To call me a racist because I hate this president and his actions is just stupid. You can call me a racist because I don't like blacks, or mexicans and flat don't trust them then you would be correct. But to call me a racist because of the president, oh I see now, ok I am a racist so what are you going to do about it? Just because I am a racist doesn't mean I can't see mistakes being made. Political correctness is a huge mistake everyone is making and it will do harm to America and everyone else in the world.
doofy Report This Comment
Date: September 11, 2009 02:05PM

I'm also sick of hearing/seeing people pull the race card whenever they are put to task on a subject.Isn't that thing worn out yet? It has become the all encompassing trump card for people like Mex who are too lazy or cranially challenged to put forth any reasonable arguments to challenge those that question them.

On a sidenote to the Healthcare reform I read that citizens will be subjected to a $3,800.00 fine if they don't accept the new Healthcare.
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: September 12, 2009 06:38AM

I am paying around $100 per month for medicare right now. It sounds to me like the new health care plan will cost me even more when it comes. I also believe wholeheartedly that the plan is to bring about population control and disguise it as cheap health care. People who they consider a drain on society and are not paying in taxes will be eliminated. I also believe it will spell the end of medical research to find cures for life threatening diseases. I also can't trust the government run anything effectively.
FrostedApe Report This Comment
Date: September 12, 2009 08:07PM

I have health insurance, provided by my employer. Damned good insurance. It's not "Congress Good", but it's damned good. It's also insanely expensive. My CEO has made no secret that she is totally in favor of the government plan, and it doesn't take a psychic to read between the lines and see that our current plan will be dumped, the very day the government plan becomes available. The current plan is way more expensive than the 8% "fine" she would have to pay for us to get on the government system. So, I get crappy, government-run health care, if I live long enough to actually get an appointment, and some bureaucrat decides I'm worthy, plus I get higher taxes to pay for it, and the same pay. If there's any reason at all that I shouldn't be opposed to this dumb-ass idea, I'll be fucked if I can think of it. I pay more, and I get less for it. Hmm, let me think about that for a second...

If there's some way to give insurance to people who don't have any, and do it without me paying for it, and without destroying the insurance I already have, rock on. Otherwise, you can eat shit.
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: September 13, 2009 06:57AM

The health care plan will be jammed down our throats and there will be nothing we can do about it. When mid-term elections come next year the American people will not vote out all the idiots who have done this to us because too many people in this country are to lazy to think for themselves.
dv8 Report This Comment
Date: September 13, 2009 08:04AM

hopefully we will all still be around. take your vaccine or we take you. (*finger*)
Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: September 13, 2009 10:12PM

I was talkin about the national healtcare issue with an English friend of mine last night. The conversation went all over the place but something he said about their system wasn't very reassuring.

He told me if you were ill from some condition one of the best things that could happen to you is if you were involved in a car wreck or had some other physically damaging accident. I asked him how the hell that could be so and he said the system was very good at taking immediate care of people if they had an accident but if you had a condition or illness getting treatment was often very untimely.

What he related very specifically was "Our system is very good at helping people in the moment but not very good at all at taking care of the unwell."

Under a healthcare system like that, with the elderly likely to be the most "unwell" segment of the population wouldn't it seem that this segment would also then suffer the most significantly of all?

It doesn't always take "denial of service" or "end of life counseling" for programs to very silently achieve the same goal in the long run.

In a similar move the puppetmaster flatly denied and has continued to deny the healthcare bill would cover illegals, which on the surface sounds good, hell maybe even beneficial, right? Yeah right, except ..... he's made it public knowledge since even before his political campaign that he intends to attempt to extend amnesty/citizenship to the illegals anyway and has even recently been heard to say after healthcare reform is settled that would indeed be his next goal.

So, is he really lying about wanting to give benefits to illegals when he expects for them to soon not be considered illegals (*facepalm*) Nope, at least not in his eyes hot smiley

fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: September 14, 2009 11:24PM

Oakland, Calif. – Many liberals lambasted the Bush administration on detention policy and warrantless surveillance, often arguing that they violated the Constitution. Now the Obama administration is pushing ahead with plans to require every American to purchase health insurance.
Doesn't that also violate the Constitution?
The Constitution created a federal government limited to its enumerated powers. Everything Congress is allowed to do is spelled out in Article I. The 10th Amendment makes it explicit: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Nothing in the Constitution authorizes any federal involvement in healthcare – yet Congress may soon require everyone in America to buy insurance.
Admittedly, the Supreme Court has ruled that the language empowering Congress to "regulate Commerce ... among the several States" applies to an ever-broadening range of activity. The "commerce" clause was originally intended to prohibit interstate tariffs, a supposed problem under the Articles of Confederation.
Ironically, consumers today cannot freely buy health insurance from across state lines. If there's any legitimate application of the "commerce" clause, it would be to overturn such restrictions. But the framers never gave Congress the general power to regulate industry.
In the 1935 case Schecter v. United States, involving farming regulations, the court unanimously struck down parts of the National Industrial Recovery Act for overstepping Congress's commerce power. Liberal Justice Louis Brandeis informed one of President Franklin Roosevelt's aides to "tell the president that we're not going to let this government centralize everything."
The next year, the court ruled in Butler v. United States that elements of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, which inflated food prices by restricting supply, violated the 10th Amendment.
After FDR threatened to pack the court with additional judges friendly to the New Deal, the court lost its spine. In 1937, it upheld the National Labor Relations Act – which greatly expanded the power of labor unions and greatly diminished the freedom of contract – under the "commerce" clause.
In Wickard v. Filburn (1942) the justices even upheld the conviction of a man for growing too much wheat on his farm. The court reasoned that even wheat grown solely for private consumption ultimately had an impact on the economy, turning the "commerce" clause into a regulatory rubber stamp.
The "commerce" clause is now interpreted very broadly. Although in United States v. Lopez (1995) the court struck down a firearms law that exceeded Congress's commerce power, it ruled 10 years later in Gonzales v. Raich that federal drug policy overrode California's medical marijuana laws, despite the 10th Amendment.
Justice Clarence Thomas dissented: "If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress' Article I powers … have no meaningful limits." Indeed, practically nothing is beyond the pale anymore.
Then there is the privacy issue. In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), Roe v. Wade (1973), and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) the court found reproductive freedom to be guaranteed as an implicit right to privacy. In Casey, the court reasoned that abortion entailed "the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy," and that such choices are "central to the liberty protected by the 14th Amendment."
Why wouldn't this apply to the right to decide whether to buy health insurance?
Other constitutional concerns emerge. The mass collection of medical data likely to occur under proposed reforms threatens the Fourth Amendment's "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects." Making it a crime not to buy insurance, and then forcing people to show they have not bought it, arguably clashes with the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination.
The Ninth Amendment reserves to individuals all rights not expressly denied by the Constitution. Nothing in the document curtails our right not to purchase health insurance. And being forced to fill out forms to apply for insurance is in tension with the 13th Amendment's prohibition of "involuntary servitude."
The quality we could expect from government care may also raise constitutional questions. In early August, a federal panel ordered California to release 40,000 inmates because the health services were so strained, causing one unnecessary prisoner death per week, so as to render the treatment "unconstitutional." If we all become captive consumers under federal mandate, could we not similarly argue that any shoddiness in our mandated health services is an unconstitutional burden?
Those who find such constitutional arguments unconvincing are often quick to invoke them against policies they oppose. Similarly, some of today's critics of President Obama and national healthcare brandish the Constitution as a holy document, but were silent when President George W.Bush trampled its many limitations on executive power, and even signed an expansion of Medicare.
A newfound, consistent, and lasting respect for the Constitution, across the ideological spectrum, would renew the health of our republic like nothing else.
Anthony Gregory is a research analyst at the Independent Institute and the author of a forthcoming book on habeas corpus.
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: September 15, 2009 06:50AM

The government should not be allowed to force us to pay our medical bills like they will be trying to do. Debtors prisons will not be far away and those should have stayed gone and never return.
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: September 15, 2009 10:30AM

you wonder if any of these cheese dicks even read the constitution.
Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: September 15, 2009 01:10PM

If they did read (and actually understood) the Constitution they would have to vote against any such healthcare proposal as they would naturally come to understand they have no legislative rights in the issue to pass such measures hot smiley

fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: September 15, 2009 01:25PM

i can't wait to see the impending amendment to the constitution. every person voting to amend will be tossed out on their asses! (*horse*)
Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: September 15, 2009 05:18PM

Here's some valid commentary on the topic of the Constitution in regards to healthcare legislation on the federal level [].

'Course it's straight outta the mouth of one of those crazed Republican funded astroturfers, or at least that's what O man, Pelosi etc. would have one believe handjob

jgoins Report This Comment
Date: September 16, 2009 07:07AM

During the Bush administration there were those here who were spouting off about Bush becoming a dictator, where are they now and why are they not shouting about Odamna becoming a dictator. There seems to be many more signs of this happening now than there were during the Bush administration. I believe they are not seeing this because they are just happy a black man is president regardless of what he does to America. Yes I am racist so no need to go there but that has nothing to do with seeing the truth behind what is happening to this nation. We are allowing our nation to be taken over by and mortgaged out from under us by this corrupt administration and that include all members of congress as well regardless of their color or creed. so go ahead and start calling me a racist if you like I already know this.
FrostedApe Report This Comment
Date: September 16, 2009 08:58PM

Thousands of illegals stream across the border every day. Once here, they get fake ID's and fake SSN's, so they can get jobs. Then they get another fake ID, so they can also get welfare. Seriously, is Prez O'Bammer not smart enough to figure out that they will just as easily be able to get fake National Health Care ID cards? Please.
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: September 17, 2009 07:00AM

Odamna knows full well illegals will be covered under any plan congress puts out. This is what he wants regardless of what he says, "he lies".
Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: September 17, 2009 08:21AM

Nah, the current legislation proposed actually doesn't cover illegals, nor will it grant them rights to credits or other things that will be granted to citizens as it's written.

But, here are 2 things that still figure prominently in the discussion in that regard :

1. Though the proposed legislation does not grant coverage to illegals it also mysteriously doesn't contain methods of verification for determining if a claimant is a legal citizen which coupled with other currently existing mandates regarding medical personnels rights to even "ask" if someone is a legal citizen as this could be construed as racist or in some way discriminatory, there would then be no need to agree to cover the illegals specifically.

Though their have been attempts to add language to the bill to allow for verification of a claimants legal citizenship before the government agreeing to pay for coverage of a claim these attempts have been shot down by liberal members of the bills committee and stricken from the bill, not just once, but twice now.

2. With the "Next Program" on Big Os agenda directly following nailing down healthcare is his intended granting of amnesty to all the illegals his position is quite clear in that these self same people the American public by and large wants to be insured will not be given coverage will be covered by default once Obama grants them amnesty and of course citizenship rights as a part of his overall master plan anyway (*facepalm*)

jgoins Report This Comment
Date: September 18, 2009 06:01AM

Mr. Kim this goes without saying, you are correct in the way illegals will be covered under health care reform. But I believe his major goal is to bankrupt America thereby helping his Muslim family destroy us. He was born in South Africa and raised in the Islamic faith. If this is not true then where is the proof? Why i9s the administration blocking all inquiries?