« | »

The Hive – Please Talk Among Yourselves

Here is our usual weekend discussion thread, where comments on the general topics of the day are welcome.

But please remember to post and comment on specific news items in the ‘News Selected By Our Correspondents’ thread below or via the link found in the sidebar.


This article was posted by Steve on Friday, January 6th, 2012. Comments are currently closed.

41 Responses to “The Hive – Please Talk Among Yourselves”

  1. nuthingbettertodo says:

    Wasn’t it a few years ago they were blaming this on global warming?


    Fly parasite turns honey bees into ‘zombies’: study
    Relaxnews – Fri, Jan 6, 2012..
    Fly parasite turns honey bees into ‘zombies’: study


    US scientists have discovered that a fly parasite can turn honey bees into confused zombies before killing them, in an advance that could offer new clues to why bee colonies are collapsing.

    So far, the parasite has only been detected in honey bees in California and South Dakota, American researchers reported in the open access science journal PLoS ONE this week.

    But if it turns out to be an emerging parasite, that “underlines the danger that could threaten honey bee colonies throughout North America,” said the study led by San Francisco State University professor of biology John Hafernik.

    Hafernik made the discovery by accident, when he foraged some bees from outside a light fixture at the university to feed to a praying mantis he’d brought back from a field trip.

    “But being an absent-minded professor, I left them in a vial on my desk and forgot about them. Then the next time I looked at the vial, there were all these fly pupae surrounding the bees,” he said.

    Soon, the bees began to die, but not in the usual way by sitting still and curling up. These bees kept trying to move their legs and get around, but they were too weak, said lead author Andrew Core, a graduate student in Hafernik’s lab.

    “They kept stretching them out and then falling over,” said Core. “It really painted a picture of something like a zombie.”

    Further study showed that bees that left their hives at night were most likely to become infected with the fly parasite, identified as Apocephalus borealis.

    Once bees were parasitized by the fly, they would abandon their hives and congregate near lights, a very unusual behavior for bees.

    “When we observed the bees for some time — the ones that were alive — we found that they walked around in circles, often with no sense of direction,” said Core.

    The parasite lays its eggs in the bee’s abdomen. About a week after the bee dies, the fly larvae push their way into the world, often exiting from between the bee’s head and mid-section.

    The research, which has also confirmed that the same flies have been parasitizing bumblebees, won local excellence awards when it was first presented last year.

    Next, the team hopes to find out more about where the parasitization is taking place, and whether the “zombie bees” leave the colony of their own accord or if their disease is sensed by comrades who then push them out.

    Researchers plan to use tiny radio tags and video monitoring to find clues to the mystery.

    “We don’t know the best way to stop parasitization, because one of the big things we’re missing is where the flies are parasitizing the bees,” Hafernik said.

    “We assume it’s while the bees are out foraging, because we don’t see the flies hanging around the bee hives. But it’s still a bit of a black hole in terms of where it’s actually happening.”

    Experts have theorized that the huge die-off of bees worldwide since 2006, a major threat to crops that depend on the honey-making insects for pollination, is not due to any one single factor.

    Parasites, viral and bacterial infections, pesticides, and poor nutrition resulting from the impact of human activities on the environment have all played a role in the decline.

    The mysterious decimation of bee populations in the United States, Europe, Japan and elsewhere in recent years threatens agricultural production worth tens of billions of dollars.



    • tranquil.night says:

      Yayy I’m so glad you got 2012 started right.

      The Soros Legion of Doom is sending the S&L Hive a message!

      ZomBee Apocalypse it will bee!

    • canary says:

      Summer before last I had some insane honey bees swamp a shrub. Never seen anything like it in my life so ran down the street to my Obomi green neighbor to show this freak act of nature. Extinct, I was told. Tell that to my buddy in Kansas that has hives over hundred acres. Anyways, the more I sprayed the shrub with several bug spray cans to include ant killer spray (more oil based) the more that came . Finally, went to and bought another name brand spray for outdoor patio use and within seconds total peace. So that old brand going strong brand sure sold me. I worried so much I’d lose the smart green drought tolerant evergreen bush from bug spray washed it with the hose and it’s doing great. The bee’s needed to head a bit north to the city and suck out what was left of the annual flowers on the tree and flower reserve that was dying dead to the bones, do to the city also rationing water.
      It broke my heart as I don’t like the honey the leading groceries sell from Latino cocaine growing countries of Hugo Chavez and old Soviet Union countries. Even local portrayed honey is just a local address of areas else where in the state.
      Out of shame and the loose tree you must replant a tree, I am starting honey bee nests next in backyard areas which would be more protective to the bees and me. I will see if it helps the property tax that has sky rocketed to pay for some independent artist and schools that are Obama

  2. tranquil.night says:

    Heh: Steyn – Debate Night in the Titanic Ballroom (H/t HA Headlines)

    I see Terence Jeffrey and Andy McCarthy are having a disagreement about the correct response to a question on gay adoption. The correct response is to take an unconstitutional federally-funded supersized condom, roll it over George Stephanopoulos’ head, and say, “That’s odd. I can no longer hear a word you’re saying. So let me throw in my two bits on impending multi-trillion-dollar ruin…”

    I disagree slightly with some of the other points however. Even if the debates are mostly theatrical rather than grounded, when the emerging narratives continues to be the moderating hacks embarassing themselves on their home turf rather than some candidate’s flub or wacky view, that’s itself a small but important sign of solid growth from the campaigns.

    They all did very well for a predictably ridiculous forum. With the exception that it’s foolish to go after Romney on his record at Bain rather than his political record, which happened a bit more at the Meet the Depressed debate today. Mitt is very effective at making that line of attack look like class warfare, and good for him for being able to aggressively combat it because everybody knows it’s going to be coming at him full throttle if he’s the nominee.

    Still, Newt had the best line of the night regarding anti-Christian bias which won him kudos even from a lot of his harshest opponents of late.

    Santorum did well too. As did Perry. Nothing game changing as everyone else concluded, but they’re all certainly performing at play-off level now.

    Also: Smitty on Newt’s “enough with the pious baloney” comment to Romney on his political record http://theothermccain.com/2012/01/08/romney-displaying-a-barackian-level-of-contempt-for-the-american-people/ another very interesting and good exchange of the debates.

  3. tranquil.night says:

    Sen. Rubio’s closing Senate Floor address from 2011: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=48608

    He can’t be the VP this series I’ve decided. He’ll make the nominee look like a light-weight.

    Shine, shine on.

  4. proreason says:

    I got a fever and only Tim Tebow can scratch it.

    If this guy can do it two more times, he could win the election for conservatives. The enthusiasm can carry into November and maybe even defeat our own favorite little statist, Mitt Romney.


  5. proreason says:

    And now for a few words from Thomas Sowell, a man who, if he isn’t wise, nobody is.

    “If Newt Gingrich were being nominated for sainthood, many of us would vote very differently from the way we would vote if he were being nominated for a political office.

    But how much weight should we give to this stuff when we are talking about the future of a nation?

    Against this background, how much does Newt Gingrich’s personal life matter, whether we accept his claim that he has now matured or his critics’ claim that he has not?

    Do we wish we had another Ronald Reagan? We could certainly use one. But we have to play the hand we were dealt. And the Reagan card is not in the deck.

    While the televised debates are what gave Newt Gingrich’s candidacy a big boost, concrete accomplishments when in office are the real test. Speaker Gingrich also produced some long overdue welfare reforms, despite howls from liberals that the poor would be devastated. But nobody makes that claim any more.

    Did Gingrich ruffle some feathers when he was Speaker of the House? Yes, enough for it to cost him that position. But he also showed that he could produce results.

    In a world where we can make our choices only among the alternatives actually available, the question is whether Newt Gingrich is better than Barack Obama — and better than Mitt Romney.

    Romney is a smooth talker, but what did he actually accomplish as governor of Massachusetts, compared to what Gingrich accomplished as Speaker of the House? When you don’t accomplish much, you don’t ruffle many feathers. But is that what we want?

    Can you name one important positive thing that Romney accomplished as governor of Massachusetts? Can anyone? Does a candidate who represents the bland leading the bland increase the chances of victory in November 2012? A lot of candidates like that have lost, from Thomas E. Dewey to John McCain.
    Those who want to concentrate on the baggage in Newt Gingrich’s past, rather than on the nation’s future, should remember what Winston Churchill said: “If the past sits in judgment on the present, the future will be lost.” If that means a second term for Barack Obama, then it means lost big time.”


    And here is what has come to bug ol proreason about mittens. The only thing I have ever heard him say about obamy is that “he has failed”. That’s it. According to Mitt, little lenin is just another guy from the neighborhood who got lucky, got elected and is in over his head. He’s failed. Yawn, time for someone new.

    Excuse me?? The way I see it, he hasn’t failed, HE HAS SUCCEEDED BEYOND ANYONE’S WILDEST DREAMS. He’s the most successful marxist since Stalin and Mao died. He isn’t just a guy from the neighborhood who got lucky and won the opportunity to screw up a few things when he isn” gorging on Wagu beef and thumbing his nose at the country. He’s the guy who is at the very verge of pushing my country over a cliff from which it will never recover, the guy who is forcing my descendents into involuntary servitude, the guy who is the frontman and mouthpiece for a cabal whose exclusive mission is to conquer the world and turn it back to feudalism.

    Mr Romney doesn’t quite capture the essence of that, imho.

    • Melly says:

      Wow – where do I begin? Or do I even want to address your baseless claims against Romney? Gingrich is not credible, likable, or electable. America doesn’t want to replace one philosopher king with another. Questioning Romney’s accomplishments as Governor? Really? With his record as Governor, Head of the Winter Olympics, business accomplishments, education, moral background, religious devoteness easily obtained with a click of the mouse? Fine, you don’t like Romney. It’s not enough to say the opposition is bad. You must convince us why you are better. Gingrich can’t do that Romney can.

    • tranquil.night says:

      Instead of knee-jerking a hyper-emotional defense every time your guy is criticized, Melly, you should try considering some of the key points being made.

      Romney himself said his record proves he can compromise with the Democrats, which is what he thinks we have to do.

      Pro and I are in exceptionally passionate disagreement. Not because we dislike Mittens personally but because if he is the nominee and believes thats what it takes to win, we are going to lose. When we accept a national narrative on their premise, ours automatically has lost.

      Mitt just doesn’t grasp the gravity of the stakes or understand who he’s up against in this game, how they play it, and neither do his supporters. That’s all. Nothing personal (yet everything is usually personal in politics becase these decisions have have an impact on everyone).

      And yes, it is up to one of the other Conservatives to effectively make this case, or it will be settling on him, at which point, he better damn well figure out quick why this country is divided and seizing up economically, culturally, and politically. Liberalism. 15 trillion in debt. REDISTRIBUTIONISM. CLASS WARFARE. Romney embraces means testing from everything to Capital Gains to entitlements. That’s redistributionist, not even deniable, yet he isn’t for any structural reform because means testing is the only way we can win the argument in today’s world. Politely, screw that noise.

    • proreason says:

      Melly, I have supported Romney in the past, as you probably are aware. I have argued that he is a good candidate, more conservative than people think, and an honorable person. You can find posts on S&L that say exactly that.

      But now it is clear that he is running one of the dirtiest campaigns in history. Let’s be up-front about it. Romney tanked Perry with the “rock revelation”, and his minions are the slimeballs behind the smearing of Herman Cain, who I didn’t favor, but whose integrity I defended on that issue. Obama’s forces, of course, would be perfectly willing to do that and much more, but not NOW. They would wait until September. Now Romney’s supporters have smeared Gingrich. Not on policy…but personally, and disingenuously. The corporate raider who destroyed the lives of tens of thousands to make a fortune for himself is calling the man who accepted $35K from Fannie Mae a hypocite. Give me a break.

      If Romney had stood up like a man and said to Newt’s face what his minions have said for him behind Newt’s back, and then had the audacity to DENY any connection, and THEN, unbelievably, call Gingrich a whiner for revealing the scheme, than I would still be split between Romney and Newt.

      But since Romney has set the rules, I say, bring it on. Newt isn’t backing down, and it looks like Perry is going to fire back as well.

      Ironically, if Romney still wins, which he very well might, it will end up helping him, because it will give the very serious negatives that nobody has yet brought up (because the msm wants to run against him) time to weather.

      Followup: I was surpised to learn Sarah Palin agrees that the marxists want to run against Romney. Very few pundits have said as much, even though it seems plainly obvious.


    • tranquil.night says:

      Here’s the counter-weight argument to Romney’s Bain Record circulating the blogosphere by James Pethokoukis: http://blog.american.com/2012/01/romney-doesnt-need-to-apologize-for-his-bain-career/

      I’m no expert in venture capitalism – maybe someone can help – but if there were promises of benefits, workers have legal recourse under bankruptcy proceedings, right? Sometimes things go bad and nobody wants to take a loss. I don’t know where the fairness line is there. I suspect it’s typically contextual in each case. So let the great indictment of Capitalism continue.

      With Mitt being The Inevitable One, I guess this whole examination and discussion was inevitable, and he’s certainly pulled no punches towards the others. It’ll be interesting to see where it goes, hopefully in the direction of clarity. Better now than when we have to defend him in the general.

    • proreason says:

      The JP article doesn’t provide enough information to judge whether Bain Capital was an honorable business or not, but at least one part of it is flat out wrong. The business that Bill Gates build can’t be compared to Bain Capital in any way. Microsoft created hundreds of thousands of jobs (probably tens of millions if all of the people employed today on microsoft-related technologies are counted). Now, nobody would argue that was Gates intent, but also nobody would argue that laying off people to make a profit was Microsofts intent either. But it was for Bain Capital.

      At least some of Bain’s activities are also not “venture capitalism”. Venture capitalists invest money in start-up businesses that they hope will catch on an grow by orders of magnitude. The Venture Capitalist extracts a steep price for those early investments, because a high percentage of start-ups fail. That isn’t the business model described in the JP article either.

      Most businesses of any kind create products and services (including Venture Capitalists as the investment partner), and almost all of them, large or small, create jobs. But Bain Capital was in the business of restructuring other businesses in order to extract profits for itself. Eliminating jobs was an essential part of Bain’s business model. In other words, Bain was a radically different kind of business than what 99% of the world envisions when thinking about business. And I would daresay that the vast majority of that 99% would be appalled by what Bain and companies like it do. Yes, it’s possible to argue that it is a necessary part of capitalism. But one can also argue that vultures are a necessary part of nature. That doesn’t mean either one should be celebrated, and it certainly doesn’t mean that Bain Capital is a showpiece for free markets, or that Romney’s business career before he spent the last 20 years running for office (and winning once) will be something that the American public finds admirable.

      Let Mr. Romney and the past he rarely describes be vetted so that republicans can know what they are buying while Romney buys them. I’d wager less than 5% of the public is aware of the kinds of things Bain did.

      Of course, Romney has started whining today about how disappointed he is that other so-called pro-business Republicans are suddenly questioning his past activities. Goose. Gander. Except when it comes to him.

    • tranquil.night says:

      Have to admit on a purely surface level, nothing elicits the image of a predatory shark more than “Bain Capital.”

      Thanks for the context and insight.

    • JohnMG says:

      Consolidations, buy-outs, mergers………they are all part of the sink-or-swim nature of business. I don’t necessarily have a problem with firms such as BC that facilitate these activities, for if those businesses that are in danger of failure/bankruptcy were better managed, more efficient operations, they might not be in the situations which they find themselves. Not always the case, but quite frequently so. While we can find the activities of Bain distasteful, as long as no laws were broken and precedent followed they often save the patient….similar to removing a cancerous lung to save the life.

      What Romney did (excising the fat) in the private sector would be a Godsend if applied judiciously to our bloated government. If he is the nominee, the question is, can he do it? Will he do it? Will he lead the charge back to Constitutional governance and rule of law? We don’t know. I’d like to hear a plan…..so far all I hear are words backed up by some long-ago successes as proof of his prowess.

      Having said that, the same can be said of Gingrich. I like Newt, but he’s been all over the map since ’94 and some of it ain’t pretty. And what worked then doesn’t necessarily translate into success in the predicament in which we find ourselves.

      Perry has the most recent past to point out, but even he remains a question mark on the national stage. And to be brutally honest, these debates have served no one well except the Democrats. Why the Republicans bothered with them at all mystifies me, for a blind man should have seen this train wreck coming. Can any of you say they helped winnow the field, short of making them all serve as stationary targets in a media shooting gallery.

      I’m disgusted with the whole damned bunch. All I’m waiting for is to vote for whomever is the “not-Obama” candidate. Or some mysterious candidate to enter stage-right who sets the electorate on fire with his polished rhetoric and conservative zeal, and who ACTUALLY walks the walk.

    • proreason says:

      What matter is what the voters think about Bain Capital.

      It’s hard to imagine it being a plus with swing voters. I hear the argument that it was good experience for a president (Mark Simone makes that case very persuasively). but when the media gets finished with its mini-series about predatory “Pain Capital”, it ain’t gonna be viewed as a positive.

      So it’s a good thing it is finally coming out. Better now than on the big screen in September.

    • tranquil.night says:

      I erred to write earlier that a vetting of Bain was an indictment of Capitalism and equivalent to class warfare. My paranoia to accepting Leftist memes got the best of me until I bought into a meme. There isn’t any anti-capitalist agenda being promoted by Bain critics. That’s hyperbole and in the case of some who participated in the Newking, it’s hypocrisy. Certainly the Left is going to try and treat it as a vindication for their ideology when we question whether the pursuits of alleged so-termed “vulture capitalists” are noble. But this isn’t a sudden sporadic loss of faith in the tenets of the free markets on the right, nor a sudden embrace of government being actively in command and control of “economic social justice.” If anything, it’s an effort at self-regulation.

      Dan Riehl: “There are many activities of a capitalst nature, not all of them are equal once one considers the underlying values driving the various individuals engaged in them. I can remain a solid capitalist and still not care for Mitt Romney as a potential nominee because of the decisions he made in his personal wealth creation.” http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2012/01/the-bain-wimps-are-hypocrites.html

      Ace: “How Come Romney Is Allowed To Go Cheap-Shot On Everyone Else, But the Minute He Gets Some Cheap-Shot In Return, It’s a Crime Against America?” http://ace.mu.nu/archives/325472.php

      Michelle Malkin: The Abysmal Incomptenece of the Non-Romneys http://michellemalkin.com/2012/01/09/the-abysmal-incompetence-of-the-non-romneys/

    • proreason says:

      good link to reihlsworld, tn.

      Dan makes the point much better than I did that there are all sorts of capitalist activities and even die-hard capitalist supporters aren’t obligated to view them all as if they were handed down to Moses.

      Bain Capital putting thousands of people out of work because they could do it legally, and valued huge profits for a few money men above the lives of thousands of people is NOT what most free-market loving conservatives are thinking about when we celebrate how Apple or Walmart has benefitted millions of people through innovations and cost controls.

      It’s more than fair to get that discussion going it. It has been hidden so far.

      Let the vetting of Romney begin at last.

    • Yota says:

      Don’t let your conservative passion swing you so far right that you end up on the left side. Are you listening to yourselves? Bain acquired poorly performing firms and took action to improve the business performance. Yes, they cut fat, they cut inefficiencies and, yes they cut jobs. Your criticism sounds just like the libs protesting against cutting government jobs! How do you expect to cut the cost of government and debt without cutting jobs just like Romney and Bain did? Did you ever think that Bain’s cutting of thousands of jobs actually saved ten of thousands more from losing their jobs when the businesses would have failed? Your attacks against Romney are becoming fanatical, you are losing your perspective. Gingrich, Santorum, Bachman and Cain didn’t have staying power because they were not strong candidates- they were good candidates, but not strong candidates, the polls and primary votes will contine to show that. And the strong survive. When you want to stop the strong from being the survivor in favor of the weak, then I’m sure the Democratic Party will welcome you with open arms.

    • proreason says:

      Sorry yota, I do my own thinking. I’m simply not persuaded by the ruling class spin, as you seem to be.

      Romney is certainly better by a mile than obamy, but as far as what conservatives want, he is a potempkin village. He talks conservative but has never acted conservative. He feigns being presidential and honorable while his minions serially destroy his opponents in the most underhanded ways possible. The ruling class insists he isinevitable but as long as other candidates are in the race, he can’t get over 25% of the republican vote (12.5% nationally, at best). He brags about being a capitalist, but what he did as a capitalist isn’t what people who support free markets want capitalists to do. They want Steve Jobs, Sam Walton, and more choices for everything….not moneymen who get rich picking at the carcasses of dying businesses. There’s a need for that and we don’t repudiate it….but for our PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE?? Give me a break.

      There’s a lot of flack and spin out there, but those are the raw facts.

      Here are the key question to ask yourself when thinking about Romney’s electability vs Newt’s electability:

      – will normal Americans prefer a guy who laid off thousands of people to make hundreds of millions of dollars for himself, or a guy who accepted $35K from Fannie Mae in consulting fees…because that is how it is going to be presented to the public one the make believe media gets their fangs in the Romney
      – will normal Americans prefer a guy who is a Mormon (which many consider to be a cult religion) or a guy who 20 years ago cheated on his wife and ended up marrying the ones he cheated with twice. Bear in mind the number of people who worship their mates and would never consider adultery.
      – will normal Americans prefer the guy who INVENTED, IMPLEMENTED AND DEFENDS ROMNEYCARE TO THE DEATH to the guy who at various points in time has expressed support for some aspects of it (as did the Heritage Foundation)
      – will the mass media continue their embargo on information about Romey if he becomes the nominee
      – and why exactly is the embargo in effect, anyway? Do you think they are rooting for Romney to become president, or might it be some other reason?

      I don’t know the answere, but I have some strong suspicions.

      Just because Romney hasn’t been vetted on the really important matters, doesn’t make somehow make him the people’s choice, and just because somebody thinks these issues through instead of accepting a propaganda campaign doesn’t make the person a liberal.

  6. Anonymoose says:

    Not a news article but an idea I’ve thought about for some time. I’ve noticed many situations where a radical liberal college student is supported by parents who are conservative, or one spouse has a conservative job that pays the bills while the other runs around to green environmentalist meetings and spouts off online about it.

    Too many of these people claim to be all for some fantasy utopia world of socialist equality, yet their food, money and shelter comes from conservative activities.

    Therefore I came up with the idea of Conservadollars and Liberadollars. Not a unit of currency, but seeing where the money comes from. Track down most of these people enough and you’ll see that underneath the radical veneer Conservadollars are what really keeps them going. Take that away, let them support themselves just by their Liberadollars, and see how long it lasts.

    What do you think?

  7. Laree says:

    Imus Guest Frank Rich, Obama’s Foreign Policy Hasn’t Been A total Failure, accuses Rick Perry of wanting to invade Iraq again VIDEO.

    Like A Bat Out Of Hell, that’s how I would describe our exit from Iraq. Unfortunately we left Iraq, without a Status Of Forces Agreement.

    No one but Rick Perry got the answer right on the Iraq foreign policy failure at the ABC republican debate last Saturday night. Not Mitt who missed an opportunity, and certainly not Newt who repeated the liberal media meme.

    It’s unfortunate that we will end up back in Iraq, but President Obama’s leading from behind style has consequences to the United States national security.

    The American Economy is tied directly to our Foreign Policy. Both of are tied to our National Security.”It’s the free flow of oil stupid”


  8. canary says:

    Dear fellow American,

    Nearly 1 million American rifles banned by a stroke of Barack Obama’s pen.

    In a move unprecedented in American history, the Obama Administration quietly banned the re-importation of nearly one million American made M1 Garand and Carbine rifles.

    The M1 Garand, developed in the late 1930’s, carried the United States through World War II seeing action in every major battle.

    Now, South Korea, which received the rifles as a loan during the Korean War, wants to give American gun collectors the chance to get their hands on this unique piece of history.

    But according to Hillary Clinton’s State Department there is a danger they might, possibly, one day “fall into the wrong hands.”

    Let me be clear: at no time in U.S. history has the ownership of this firearm — or any part of this firearm — been illegal, restricted or banned.

    Americans have collected World War II M1 Garand and Carbines for decades.

    I’m helping lead the fight to defeat this radical gun ban in the United States Senate and I want your help.

    Please join me by taking a public stand AGAINST this outright assault on our Second Amendment rights by signing the Official Firearms Freedom Survey below!

    For Freedom,

    Rand Paul


    Does this ban on historical U.S. WWII rifles make sense when Obama and Hillary are giving high military technology and training, weapons & training, etc. to more and more global wide muslims?

    U.S. gave Assault weapons to corrupt leaders and drug cartel to Mexico in Fast and Furious.

    Our highest technology secret Drone & the 2nd one a couple of days later to…Iran.

    It makes no sense. Perhaps Obama & Hillary made an ‘under the table offer $’ for the collectible Made in the U.S.A. WWII rifles. They may be on their way to Haiti.

  9. wirenut says:

    Fight on my friend! 03, .06. Springfields are the hill, I’ll die on. The above want those too. Cutting up our history, come’s natural for progressives.
    As far as the Garand’s, Gen. Patton said it best……! Once the boy-king let’s the UN. take over our 2nd. amendment, it’s everyone for themselves. It’s damn near that now.When his reign is over, he will have united the gun owners, and freedom lovers.

  10. heykev says:

    Even Chuck Woolery can find a measly Trillion over ten years…why can’t Congress (rhetorical question). Thought this was fairly funny and shows just how easy spending cuts can be IF Congress is serious about it.


  11. canary says:

    Yota/ “Your attacks against Romney are becoming fanatical”

    Yota, Mitt refused in the debate to answer who’ll he’ll give jobs to his building roads and bridges to restore economy?

    Ya think he was recalling the illegal Mexicans who get these jobs by showing fake ID’s? And all Mitt’s constant trading and business all over the world his entire life I’d like to know more about because of you seen

    Mitt Romney’s Store on line.

    $15.00 for a flimsy “yard” sign
    $ 4.00 a bumper sticker
    $ 3.00 dollars a button

    $35.00 for a long sleeve shirt (probably paid 20 cents for the cheap grey t-shirt
    20.00 a kids t-shirt
    $60.00 for a sweatshirt (has a little zipper at the top
    $50.00 a hoodie

    Someone could make and sell his stuff cheaper on a site and he couldn’t do anything about it.

    Doesn’t say where Mr. all over the world business bought his merchandise.

    I’ve never had to pay for buttons, large yard signs or bumper stickers.

    I’ve always gotten big yard signs, bumper stickers, buttons, writing pens for free.

    Doesn’t sound like Mitt is in tune with the little people.

    I don’t like his fake smile when ever someone is critical of him. Such as over focusing on the middle-class like Obama does.

    Yota, you’ll be glad the dumb dumb at least took his Attack Democrats off his front page.

    I wonder how much he paid himself when he was a bishop?

    • proreason says:

      I’m confused Melly.

      How is pointing out that Romney’s career as a businessman who dismantled other businesses “class warfare”? Why do you think people here would accept Jon Stewart’s formulation? Why is discussing Romney’s specific business practices class warfare? You aren’t agreeing with the obamy strategy of declaring that anyone who disagrees with you about something should be prevented from speaking, are you?

      I can understand why people might support Romney, since I did myself before he decided to use underhanded smear tactics three times in a row against other candidates, but I never thought his business activities should remain unvetted. All that will do is make it possible for the marxists to spring it on the country in September, when it is far too late to counter it.

      Get everything on the table. Mormoninsm as well. Let people make their own minds up about it. If Republicans decide it’s a good idea to have a candidate who made hundreds of millions (billions if you count the other investors) by dimantling other businesses and ruining the lives of thousands of innocent people, then so be it. At least people will have had the opportunity to prepare for what is coming in September.

      I mean, hey, vetting is what they did to Gingrich right…except, of course, that many of those claims were bald-faced lies and cynical distortions, and Gingrich didn’t have the means to respond. And he hadn’t started it. And he had never attacked Romney. And Newt has had actual conservative accomplishments. And Newt has publicly stated that he regrets some of his past mistakes. And Newt isn’t trying to mislead the public about his history. So other than the dozen or so significant differences, it’s apples to apples.

    • tranquil.night says:

      Well, Rush seems to be in agreement that by questioning the merits of what Bain did, everybody now are class warriors and suddenly implying they prefer a Marxist Authoritarian to a vulture capitalist in the White House. Yet at the same time he’s totally cogniscent of the fact this was exactly what was coming against Mitt in the general.

      “You aren’t agreeing with the obamy strategy of declaring that anyone who disagrees with you about something should be prevented from speaking, are you?”

      Question of the day.

    • proreason says:

      If it turns out that Bain’s activities were primarilly in investments and venture capitalism and that the activities where people were laid off were last ditch and/or reasonable efforts to save businesses, rather than line the raiders’ pockets at the expense of the workers and owners, then I’ll agree that conservatives should defend those activities.

      But even if that turns out to be the case, Romney’s career should still be vetted, and his unethical treatment of the other candidates is still deplorable.

      Let the bright lights shine.

  12. tranquil.night says:

    That didn’t take long: http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/01/perry-mitts-company-just-vultures-who-eat-the-carcass-110316.html

    Perry – “I will suggest they’re just vultures,” he said of firms that “loot” other companies. “They’re vultures that are sitting out there on the tree limb, waiting for a company to get sick. And then they swoop in, they eat the carcass, they leave with that and they leave the skeleton.”

    Romney camp – ” “It is no surprise that, having spent nearly half a century in government between them, Speaker Gingrich and Governor Perry have resorted to desperate attacks on a subject they don’t understand. We expect attacks on free enterprise from President Obama and his allies on the left — not from so-called ‘fiscal conservatives,’”

    • proreason says:

      Fiscal conservatiam and corporate raiders aren’t related in any way.

      Fiscal conservatism is a look-ahead straegy to align governmnt costs with revenues. It usually also is a strategy to limit the size and reach of government.

      Corporate raiders dismantle or restructure failed or failing businesses in order to transfer wealth from the businesses to the raiders’ pockets. That someimes includes attempts to return the businesses to profitability, but no raider restricts himself to that method alone.

      So drawing parallels between the two is false and devious.

    • tranquil.night says:

      You’re right, but politically it’s the best tact for now. Half of Conservativedom is lecturing the more Conservative candidates on preying upon class envy in defense of the Republican Moderate.

      The next season of the Twilight Zone is upon us. For as much as Rush’s perspective is frustrating me, he understands that we got here because of the slippery slope Romney and the establishment placed us on.

    • proreason says:

      When did Rush say it, yesterday or today. I want to read what he said because he’s right 99.6% o the time, and it seems like he is wrong about this one. Maybe he has a nuance I don’t get.

      I was foursquare for not tarnishing our candidates unnecessarilly until Romney decided to take that role on while maneuvering to prevent the others from doing it to him. Got a problem with that. Obviously.

    • tranquil.night says:

      Yesterday, he confessed he was uncomfortable by the line of attack. Today it’s been much more aggressive. He’s been playing Newt clips and bits from the documentary and saying the Left can’t do it any better when it comes to attacking the profit motive.

      Underlying it is frustration that the campaign has lost all perspective on the regime, I think.

      To that I throw my hands up and recall that happened a long time ago, and it happened because the Establishment was way more vicious towards Conservatives than they intended to be against Obama.

    • proreason says:

      2 of the 3 fox panelists on Baer’s show say the arguments against Bain are “intellectually bankrupt”.


      But they both make the argument unsupported, suggesting that there can be no bad capitalist activities. But can that be? Are not monopolisic activities generally considered bad? Do not many people think that Sachs and Soros are “bad” capitalists? If Bain could have saved some businesses that they chose instead to shut down for a quick profit, would that not be bad?

      I find the intellectually bankrupt argument to be intellectually bankrupt.

      Let the bright lights shine on Mr. Romney. He invited the glare by shining lights on others. Let him convince the country that his dishonest and deceiptful treatment of 3 consecutive opponents are the exceptions in his behavior, and that he wasn’t similarly mean-spirited as the CEO of Bain Capital.

    • proreason says:

      Newt had a strong and consistent focus on the regime until Romney spent $3 mllion to distort and lie about his record in Iowa. Who can blame the man?

      other than the republican ruling class, that is.

      Yesterday, they were calling Newt a whiner. Today, they are doing the whining. Please please fox and blogosphere, don’t tell the world about the career of little boy blue. That would be unAmerican.

      Looks like they were wrong about their assumptions that they can get away with anything and that others won’t fight back against the myth of the inevitableness of Mitt. Today, he doesn’t seem quite so inevitable.

      And I can’t get too bent out of shape about damaging the whiner’s brand. Like, the leftists wouldn’t have done it. Give me a break. It’s BETTER to have the fight now that for it to be an October surprise.

    • tranquil.night says:

      Oh, you called up the Soros brand before I could. Legally using Capitalism to run a global anti-capitalist cabal into tanking sovereign nations! Hurray profit motive! Sauron4prez!

      Of course that would just be a vote for Obama. My secret cover as an occupooper has been blown.

    • proreason says:

      I’m not the only one who thinks they want to run against Romney.


      Of course, they all have their weaknesses, but Romney’s are the most glaring

      1. I hadn’t realized it before, but Rush points out that OWS was probably staged to prepare for Wall Street Mitt
      2. Aside from that, Romney is the poster child for fat cat Republicans, is he not?
      3. Many people won’t vote for Mitt because he’s a Mormon, including millions of otherwise locked-in Republicans.
      4. Remember what the Repubs did to flip-flopper Kerry in 2004? You aint’ seen nuthin yet.
      5. RomneyCare – nuff said
      6. Mitt isn’t going to run scorched earth against his fellow Harvard grad obamy.
      7. They already beat Mitt in 94 with the swimmer, and Teddy didn’t even try hard
      8. Mitt is backed by all of the ruling class repubs who haven’t rocked the boat while the marxists raped the country.

  13. canary says:

    Obama’s ‘Illegal in U.S.” Uncle fighting his other “unlawful criminal charges’. The WH speaks out.
    AP: Obama uncle seeks police officer’s driving record
    By Denise Lavoi Jan 11, 2012

    BOSTON (AP) — …
    Onyango Obama, 67, the half brother of the president’s late father, was charged with drunken driving in Framingham in August…

    …”I think I will call the White House,” he stated, according to the police report….

    Defense attorney P. Scott Bratton, citing a car crash Krishtal had in November,….

    Krishtal was injured Nov. 22 when he lost control of his police cruiser and crashed into a stone wall while responding to reports of gunshots….

    Obama initially was held without bail on a detainer from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials on allegations he violated an order to return to Kenya 20 years ago. He was later released and has been ordered to regularly check in with immigration officials.

    The White House has said it expects Obama’s arrest to be handled like any other case.

    entire article at below link

    Obama’s illegal criminal Uncle’s attorney brag on website

    “Trial Attorney Scott Bratton and our team of professionals have fought to win hundreds of criminal cases, and obtained millions of dollars for accident victims, …”

« Front Page | To Top
« | »