Several Influential Conservatives Favor Comcast Merger

April 8, 2014

Via email. No particular dog in this fight myself; however, I prefer to see business decisions made by business people, not politicians. That sentiment would argue for Congress to stay out of the way and let them do the deal. There’s more detail at link. The submitted letter is here.

Heavyweight conservatives and banterweight conservatives are lining up on both sides the Comcast/Time Warner merger.

The heavyweights, which include Grover Norquist at Americans for Tax Reform, Wayne Crews at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Duane Parde at the National Taxpayers Union, have penned a letter to influential Senators including Mike Lee, Chuck Grassley and Ted Cruz, urging them to look past the politics and approve the merger between the two cable giants on traditional grounds—you know, the grounds under which the anti-trust laws were written and passed in the first place?

via Norquist and Other Conservative Heavyweights Jab in Favor of Comcast Merger – John Ransom.

AdSense 300×250
NewsMax Trending Now
  1. Pat Carfagno says:

    First clue that the merger is a bad idea is that Grover Norquist is for it. Second clue would be that Ed Rendell is on the board of Comcast and is a VP there. Scum of a feather flock together. The PA gov’t mafia is alive and well.

  2. Ragspierre says:

    “Antitrust” regulation was and still is largely predicated on mythology.

    IF a merged Comcast starts ACTING like a trust, then it would be rather easy AND well-supported that it be broken up.

    PREVENTING a merger on the pretext that it MIGHT act like a trust is loopy.

  3. Steve says:

    Obamacare Update:
    Health Premiums up despite promises…

  4. […] Several Influential Conservatives Favor Comcast Merger Go to this article […]

  5. Ragspierre says:

    Just to clarify, the difference between being pro-business and pro-market is categorical. A politician who is a “friend of business” is exactly that, a guy who does favors for his friends. A politician who is pro-market is a referee who will refuse to help protect his friends (or anyone else) from competition unless the competitors have broken the rules. The friend of business supports industry-specific or even business-specific loans, grants, tariffs, or tax breaks. The pro-market referee opposes special treatment for anyone.

    Nails it.

    And THAT reform needs to be sold to the American people as what Conservatives stand for.

    Markets. Choices. Liberty. Small, effective government. Fair treatment all around.

    That cannot lose.

  6. Ragspierre says:

    If you ever wonder about the liniments of the Collectivist hatred for the middle class, here they are.

  7. Ragspierre says:

    A tragic phenomenon has affected President Obama since he became President. The more radical his audience, the more outrageous his lies. At his appearance before Al Sharpton’s National Action Network, Obama called voter fraud claims “bogus” and said his Justice Department has “taken on more than 100 voting rights cases since 2009. ”

    This is a bald faced lie. One need merely click this link from the Justice Department’s own website to see it is a lie. The truth is that 39 cases have been brought, not 100 – and only 13 relate to protecting minority voting rights – usually foreign language ballot issues. The rest of the cases involve states sending out military ballots (an effort only begun after blistering coverage at PJ Media and elsewhere in 2010).

    Read the whole thing. Nobody who had any respect for the law would be seen in the company of “The Rat Reverend Al”.

  8. Ragspierre says:

    “America was founded on the notion that most politicians can only be expected to be ornery, low-down, crooks. Nobody in those days was fool enough to believe they could be Light-workers, Messiahs and create a world without guns. Thus in the Founder’s view the only way to guard against rogues was to ensure that government remained as small as possible relative to its essential jobs; to change those in office frequently and often, like we change underwear.”
    —Richard Fernandez


    AND that government NEVER be allowed to become the sugar-daddy for any part of the population.

  9. Ragspierre says:

    One person not celebrating is former Internal Revenue Service official Lois Lerner. She was a regular green eyeshade employee carrying out thankless tasks until, one day, she caught the attention of House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa of California and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp of Michigan. Since then, her life has been a living hell. Her latest reward for doing her job is a 97-page criminal referral to the Justice Department by the Republican Congress.
    —Margaret Carlson (idiot)

    We should all give puuuuuurrr Lois a group hug and a medel for “doing her job”?

    No? Hows come…???

    “How did Lois Lerner catch the attention of Congress? Because she planted a question with a friendly lawyer at a convention so she could baldly lie about what she and her agency had done in a way she assumed would let her best manage media coverage. It didn’t work, but she kept lying until, on advice of counsel, she realized that she should stop lying and plead the Fifth Amendment. Green-eyeshade stuff, to be sure. But, all the same, I think she still probably belongs in prison.”
    —Jonah Goldberg

    And, OF COURSE, Pres. ScamWOW had NOTHING to do with this.

    And there wasn’t a smidgin of corruption, no sireee.

  10. Ragspierre says:

    A great deal of the discussion about the Cliven Bundy standoff in Nevada has focused on the legal questions — the litigation between Mr. Bundy and the BLM, his eccentric (i.e., batzoid) legal rationales, etc. But as Rich Lowry and others have argued, this is best understood not as a legal proceeding but as an act of civil disobedience. John Hinderaker and Rich both are correct that as a legal question Mr. Bundy is legless. But that is largely beside the point.

    Of course the law is against Cliven Bundy. How could it be otherwise? The law was against Mohandas Gandhi, too, when he was tried for sedition; Mr. Gandhi himself habitually was among the first to acknowledge that fact, refusing to offer a defense in his sedition case and arguing that the judge had no choice but to resign, in protest of the perfectly legal injustice unfolding in his courtroom, or to sentence him to the harshest sentence possible, there being no extenuating circumstances for Mr. Gandhi’s intentional violation of the law. Henry David Thoreau was happy to spend his time in jail, knowing that the law was against him, whatever side justice was on.

    I have never found authority in the Constitution for the federal government to own anything but small holdings of land. Certainly not vast tracts.

    I reason this was because the Framers, who were all astute men, knew that the baronial system made EFFECTIVE slaves of the common people by concentrating power in the form of land holdings by the barons. Land meant power, and they were carefully LIMITING power in the central government.

    They were all ALSO representatives of their states, and jealous of the rights of their states.

    There is no rational reason for the central government to own any land outside its Constitutional authority.

    • Gus says:

      What a surprise. The Clownselor does mental back-flips to justify his support for a wingnut freeloader of 21 years.

      It’s always tyranny when wingnuts aren’t allowed to get stuff for free.

      • Ragspierre says:

        What a surprise. Guz is here to lie, throw around stupid trollish garbage (like “tryanny”) and show what a hate-twisted, sick sumbitch he is.

        Oh, and fail to deal with the point of my post, while lying that I “support…a freeloader”.

        Just like all his posts.

        • Gus says:

          The “point” of your post is that to your knowledge, there is no “rational reason” for the federal government to own more lands than you think it should. Therefore, Bundy not paying his bills for 21 years is just like Gandhi.

          Unfortunately for your “point”, there is nothing in the constitution limiting how much property the federal government is allowed to own. If the framers wanted to limit the federal government in this regard, it could have. But they didn’t. So, you speculate about land barons and conclude that the framers, who were slave owners, were concerned about the feds making people slaves through the feds owning property.

          Without a shred of support – just your own surmising.

          All to support a wingnut who hasn’t paid grazing fees for 21 years.

          • Ragspierre says:

            Well, for a lying moron, that was typical.

            The Constitution DOES, in fact, limit the land which the central government can own.

            People can read.

            But you would have to be literate to comprehend this.

            SOME of the Framers were slave owners. What does that have to do with anything, except to throw bullshit into the issue of their APPARENT intent to limit the central government’s power?

            Nothing. It is just troll-crap. Typical of your Collective.

            And then you simply repeat your lie respecting “support”.

            But it is who your are, and all you have.

  11. Ragspierre says:

    There is one caveat to this, which is that Lerner never mentions who specifically should be prosecuted for lying on the forms. This could apply equally to Occupy Wall Street groups as well as Tea Party groups … if the IRS was investigating them both equally. Even Lerner admitted two days later that she wasn’t investigating them equally, though, and the pattern uncovered later made that painfully obvious. The intent here seems clear — to use the Department of Justice as a weapon against political opponents, as if the IRS couldn’t make life miserable enough for people on its own.

    Perhaps the House committees investigating Lerner need to start issuing subpoenas to Justice personnel to determine just how Lerner proposed moving forward on criminal prosecutions, and who she may have suggested as targets. They could start with Nikole Flax, Nancy Marks, Joseph Grant, and Jennifer Vonze, and see where the investigation goes from there.

    Sounds like we have people to investigate.

    Maybe some of them would like a deal…

  12. Ragspierre says:

    I held a 1 man tea party rally in the minivan last night. It was clothing optional and VERY enjoyable.

    • Arlene says:

      You’re absolutely disgusting. Who does this?

      • Ragspierre says:

        Well, Guz/Walt/Lucasss/Carl/Arlene/suck-puppets,

        YOU do this.

        And YOU think it is clever!

        What it really is is cowardly lying.

        And a screaming indicator of a deep, dark pathology common to trolls.

  13. Ragspierre says:

    Yeah, that would make sense to a Collectivist.

    She’s-bilious has but one demonstrated competency…she lies with a straight face.

  14. Ragspierre says:

    Crazy Uncle Joe tells the Boston Marathon survivors the bombing was…

    “worth it”.

  15. Ragspierre says:

    WELL, WHAT BOOKS HAVEN’T THEY COOKED? Is Obama Cooking the Census Books for Obamacare?

    For several months now, whenever the topic of enrollment in the Affordable Care Act came up, I’ve been saying that it was too soon to tell its ultimate effects. We don’t know how many people have paid for their new insurance policies, or how many of those who bought policies were previously uninsured. For that, I said, we will have to wait for Census Bureau data, which offer the best assessment of the insurance status of the whole population. Other surveys are available, but the samples are smaller, so they’re not as good; the census is the gold standard. Unfortunately, as I invariably noted, these data won’t be available until 2015.

    I stand corrected: These data won’t be available at all. Ever.

    No, I’m not kidding. I wish I was. The New York Times reports that the Barack Obama administration has changed the survey so that we cannot directly compare the numbers on the uninsured over time.

    If the numbers were good, we’d know about it.

    Reminder: Obama moved Census control to the White House early in his first term.

    Well, they HAVE weaponized the entire Federal bureaucracy so as to impose Collectivism and silence their enemies.

    This IS the Obamabanana Republic, after all…

  16. Gus says:

    “The Constitution DOES, in fact, limit the land which the central government can own.”

    And maybe by next Wednesday you’ll cite some authority to that effect, and tell us how such authority applies to the facts of this case.


    “OME of the Framers were slave owners. What does that have to do with anything, except to throw bullshit into the issue of their APPARENT intent to limit the central government’s power?”

    You brought up slavery, and the framers’ concern thereof through “baronry”, as justification for the now “apparent” concern over how much land the federal government owns. Which the voices in your head tell you to be true, therefore you state it as fact.

    You would have us believe that Art. 4, 2 does not mean what it says. All to support a wingnut who simply doesn’t want to pay his bills. Because you luv the constitushun.

  17. Ragspierre says:

    Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution for the United States.

    To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

    When this provision was under consideration, a member of the Constitutional Convention asserted “that this power might be made use of to enslave any particular state by buying up its territory, and that the strongholds proposed would be a means of awing the state into an undue obedience to the general government.” In response, a motion was made to “insert, after the word ‘purchased,’ the words, ‘by the consent of the legislature of the state.’ This change, as asserted by the delegate who proposed it, “would certainly make the power safe”.

    Guz lied–You brought up slavery, and the framers’ concern thereof through “baronry”, as justification for the now “apparent” concern over how much land the federal government owns.

    What I said was that the Framers knew that land was power. They intended the central government to have VERY LIMITED POWER.

    I ALSO correctly stated that the Framers were jealous of the rights of the states they were present at the Constitutional Convention to represent. They were not about to cede control over vast lands to the Federal government.

    You are a lying, cowardly, hate-twisted lover of Collectivism and hater of people and their freedoms, as you show here constantly.

    Thanks again for THIS day’s demonstration of how stupid, contemptuous, dishonest and hateful your Collective really is!

  18. Ragspierre says:

    The underlying assumption of our belief in the rule of law is that we are talking about law in the American tradition: provisions that obligate everyone equally and that are enforced dispassionately by a chief executive who takes seriously the constitutional duty to execute the laws faithfully. The rule of law is not the whim of a man who himself serially violates the laws he finds inconvenient and who, under a distortion of the “prosecutorial discretion” doctrine, gives a pass to his favored constituencies while punishing his opposition. The rule of law is the orderly foundation of our free society; when it devolves into a vexatious process by which ideologues wielding power undertake to tame those whose activities they disfavor, it is not the rule of law anymore.

    The legitimacy of law and our commitment to uphold it hinge on our sense that the law and its execution are just. As John Hinderaker points out, concerns about the desert tortoise—the predicate for taking lawful action against Nevada ranchers under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)—turn out to be pretextual. The ideologues who run the government only want to enforce the ESA against a disfavored class, the ranchers. If you’re a well-connected Democrat who needs similar land for a solar project, the Obama administration will not only refrain from enforcing the ESA against you; it will transport the tortoises to the ranchers’ location in order to manufacture a better pretext for using the law to harass the ranchers.

    When law becomes a politicized weapon rather than a reflection of society’s shared principles, one can no longer expect it to be revered in a manner befitting “political religion.” And when the officials trusted to execute law faithfully violate laws regularly, they lose their presumption of legitimacy. Much of the public is not going to see the Feds versus Bundy as the Law versus the Outlaw; we are more apt to see it as the Bully versus the Small Fry.
    —Andy McCarthy

    Contra lying coward Guz/Walt/Carl/Lucass/Arlene/all other suck-puppets the troll posts under,

    NOBODY is saying Bundy is legally right, or there is no claim against him.

    THAT is just the troll’s lying talking-point from his Collectivist punk meisters in the fringe moonbattery. Who, as we’ve seen repeatedly, can pack anything up his compliant butt with his full permission. Or moaning agreement…

  19. Ragspierre says:

    Figueroa suffers from a disease known as Arnold Chiari Malformation and Syringomyelia. Even though the Obamacare plan she purchased assured her that she was covered, her insurance card was denied when she went to fill her prescriptions. Then she learned that none of her doctors accept her Obamacare plan. Figueroa says she cannot find a doctor who accepts her Obamacare plan; indeed, there are only six doctors in all of Staten Island who take her plan, none of whom she’s been able to get appointments with.

    Figueroa’s congressman, Rep. Michael Grimm (R-NY), intervened to help her obtain some of her vital prescriptions. Grimm says he’s already received calls from at least a dozen Staten Island residents facing the same problem with Obamacare’s “narrow networks” – extreme restrictions to doctor and hospital access imposed by Obamacare.

    Just think what it would be like if she were closer to a death panel, instead of just running into a faceless, bloodless “policy problem”…created, of course, by ObamaDoggle and the Collectivists who forced it on the American people.

  20. Ragspierre says:

    But the ACA is a commitment to permanently subsidize comprehensive health insurance for millions who could not otherwise afford it, which the federal government has no viable plan to finance. Moreover, experience shows that it is very difficult to scale back such spending once large numbers of Americans have been made dependent on it.

    Let’s walk through the salient features of this unfolding fiscal disaster:

    Read the whole thing.

    For those who can read…

    ObamaDoggle won’t work because it cannot work.

  21. Ragspierre says:

    Today is the cutoff date for public reactions to the California Supreme Court’s ethics advisory committee’s proposal to forbid California judges from affiliating with the Boy Scouts, which the left deems anti-gay. Given the Left’s animosity to traditional value-based institutions, it is not surprising that it loathes the Boy Scouts. What is remarkable — actually, frightening — is how easy it has been for the left to make it illegal for a judge to be a leader in the Boy Scouts. This is the now case in 22 states. It will soon be the case in California as well.
    —Dennis Prager

    The Collective is composed of really disgusting, intolerant, and hateful people.

    They live every day lying to themselves and everyone else. It is their first principle.

    • Carl says:

      Wow, you’re still at it? What a crazy old geezer you are! I guess when you stop posting we should assume that you keeled over.

      Keep up the good work!

      • Ragspierre says:

        Well, “Carl”/Guz/Lucass/Arlene…

        keep in mind that I’m younger than Ol’ Walleyes Clinton and WAY younger than Crazy Uncle Joe Biden.

        To say nothing of Harry “Grandpa Simpson” Reid.

        And, at the end of any day, I’ve actually said something substantive. As distinct from you, you idiot.

  22. Ragspierre says:

    Hey, where’s all the crowing about THIS CBO report, Guz…???

    You never get tired of being punked, do ya?

  23. Ragspierre says:

    Cripes, I’ve lost count of all the times Pres. ScamWOW’s outlaws have been spanked in courts across the land.

    Not nearly enough, but some cases are just about to pop.


  24. Ragspierre says:

    “All of the newly insured [FOUR percent] are more likely to identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party than the overall national adult population. Those who signed up through exchanges are the most likely to tilt Democratic and not Republican.”

    Wow. Impressive…

    But let’s say it was 4x that. Still pitiful.

    What a catastrophe.

  25. Ragspierre says:

    We know the Obami were up to their eye-sockets in this corruption.

    We know how dangerous this is to our essential civil compact.

    But so did and does Pres. ScamWOW, and he needed to win in 2012…at any cost.

  26. Ragspierre says:

    Focusing on jobs, huh?

    That is just another of those Obamic lies.


    Obama made it worse. Whatever it is.

  27. Ragspierre says:

    MICKEY KAUS: Obamacare’s Core Flaw?

    Risk-filled sump, update: If everyone knew the risk pool on the Obamacare exchanges would be sicker-than-normal — as the last sentence of this NYT piece suggests — then why throw the hapless unsubsidized people (e.g. singles making $46,000) into that pool, where their policies will inevitably be more expensive, with more restrictions, than if they were in a more normal pool? Did Obamacare’s designers think they’d be happy about it? This seems like the programs’ core flaw, no? It’s why, despite all the seemingly impressive numbers, Obamacare leaves a bad taste. … $350,000 a year lawyers with fancy employer plans get care from the best doctors and check into Sloan Kettering if they need it, while even previously insured $46,000-a-year suckers can’t, and are told that’s just the price of insuring the uninsured.

    ObamaCare: Of, by, and for the 1%!

    “Core flaw”…???

    The challenge would be to find ONE ‘core flaw’ in a program so riddled with disaster-inducing stupidity.

    Why, it’s almost like Cloward and Piven designed it…

  28. Ragspierre says:

    Steyer is the ultimate rent-seeker who depends on government connections to produce subsidies and mandates that make his “green” energy investments profitable. He also is, or was until recently, a major investor in Kinder Morgan, which is building a competitor to the Keystone pipeline. Go here, here, here, here, here and here for more information about how Steyer uses his political donations and consequent connections to enhance his already vast fortune.

    But Steyer’s hypocrisy goes still deeper. Today, he is a bitter opponent of fossil fuels, especially coal. That fits with his current economic interests: banning coal-fired power plants will boost the value of his solar projects. But it was not always thus. In fact, Steyer owes his fortune in large part to the fact that he has been one of the world’s largest financers of coal projects. Tom Steyer was for coal before he was against it.

    A reader with first-hand knowledge of the relevant Asian and Australian markets sent us this detailed report on how Steyer got rich on coal. He titled his report “Hypocrisy & Hedge Funds: Climate Change Warrior Tom Steyer’s Secret Life as Coal Investment Kingpin.”

    Now, that thar is some Pres. ScamWOW level hypocrisy.

  29. Ragspierre says:

    And note that all those other “manly men” just sucked their…teeth…


  30. Ragspierre says:

    THE RISE OF “MEDICAL HOMELESSNESS” UNDER OBAMACARE: ConsumerWatch: Some Covered California Patients Say They Can’t See A Doctor. Thus illustrating the difference between “coverage” and “care.”



    Everything we told you Collectivist morons would happen, as predicted.

  31. Ragspierre says:

    Georgia insurers received more than 220,000 applications for health coverage in the Affordable Care Act’s exchange as of the official federal deadline of March 31, state officials said Wednesday.

    Insurance Commissioner Ralph Hudgens, though, said premiums have been received for only 107,581 of those policies, which cover 149,465 people.

    “Many Georgians completed the application process by the deadline, but have yet to pay for the coverage,” Hudgens said in a statement Wednesday.

    Yeppo. More evidence, as predicted.

  32. Ragspierre says:

    SHAKEDOWN: GAO report: White House directly involved in Enroll America fundraising. “Until now, outgoing Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius was the only official known to have solicited financial support for Enroll America, a nonprofit that promoted enrollment for the Affordable Care Act. But a Government Accountability Office report released Monday detailed not only the secretary’s involvement but that of a White House adviser.”
    Sounds like someone was trying to cover it up, too.

    EXACTLY the behavior you predict in a fascist economic system. Which, of course, is what ObamaDoggle IS.

  33. Ragspierre says:

    It may come as an unwelcome surprise to conservatives, but America’s military has one of the only working models of collective living and social welfare the country has ever known, writes Jacob Siegel.
    —The Beastly Day

    I wonder if that idiot has the awareness to understand how that is SUCH a NOT good thing…???

  34. Ragspierre says:

    Dem Rep. on Obamacare: The Worst Is Yet to Come, “It’s Going to Hit the Fan”

    Heh. Yes, yes… It IS going to hit the fan…

  35. Ragspierre says:

    The hysterics of the druid religion of the Collective are always good for a larf.

  36. Ragspierre says:

    Not that it matters, but this latest example of Josh Marshall’s misogyny stems from Sharyl Attkisson’s speculation that Media Matters might’ve been paid to go after her. Well, that’s just silly, isn’t it? Everybody knows they all work for free!

    It’s okay to say whatever you want about a woman who disagrees with you, as long as she’s not a Democrat. I’ll bet Josh Marshall actually thinks he’s a good person. Lefties are amusing.

    …and disgusting…

  37. Ragspierre says:

    Well, good! Institutionalized racial, gender, and other discrimination should have ended in the ’60s, when we worked against it.

  38. Totally Heterosexual Conservative says:

    Just another wingnut liar.

    No wonder he is such a hero to the Tealiban collective.

    • Ragspierre says:

      First, there is no such boogy-thing as a “Tealiban”, you poor, paranoid moron.

      Second, NOBODY has said that Bundy is legally correct in his claims. NOBODY thinks he’s a “hero”. Just a regular old citizen.

      Third, if Princess Running Bare Warren can claim “Cherokeeness” out of thin air, shouldn’t Bundy be able to claim ancestral rights, too?

      • Totally Heterosexual Conservative says:

        “Second, NOBODY has said that Bundy is legally correct in his claims. NOBODY thinks he’s a “hero”. Just a regular old citizen.”

        I see. So you and your collective support him because of wingnuttery.

        “Third, if Princess Running Bare Warren can claim “Cherokeeness” out of thin air, shouldn’t Bundy be able to claim ancestral rights, too?”

        I’m sure that’s a killer line among your collective.

        • Ragspierre says:

          “So you and your collective support him because of wingnuttery.”

          Your use of “collective” is just projection.

          I’ve posted ample examples of the reason that the conservative side of the country OPPOSES the BLM and other bureaucratic strom-trooper conduct.

          If you were not illiterate, you would understand.

          You yourself have PRETENDED to be concerned with the militarization of the civil police and agencies.

          Which, I always kinda knew, was just another of your lies.

          There ARE so many, many…

          • Totally Heterosexual Conservative says:

            Yes, you and your fellow Tealiban collectivists ALWAYS find ways and “arguments” as to why your heroes aren’t subject to the law. We get it; you hate it when the government doesn’t let you freeload in the name of freedum.

          • Ragspierre says:

            “We get it…”

            No. You just lie.

            As always.

            You poor, hate-twisted, moronic bung-sucker.

    • Ragspierre says:

      Oh, and Totally Heterosexual Conservative is another of your perversion of reality.

      We all know you are a totally queer Collectivist.

      Don’t we?

      • Totally Heterosexual Conservative says:

        We do know that you are oddly obsessed with homoerotic themes. Why that is, only a specialist can say.

        • Ragspierre says:

          “Totally Heterosexual Conservative says…”

          He, he, ha, ha, ha…!!!!

          • Totally Heterosexual Conservative says:

            For example, your use of flair in the form of giggling, and excessive punctuation.

          • Ragspierre says:

            You puuuuurrrr lil’ queer Collectivist troll.

            You should see if you can find a sense of humor on eBay you can afford!

            “…excessive punctuation…”


            Call the “Punctuation Patrol”. See is there’s a reward…!!!

  39. Ragspierre says:

    See? It is all lies, all up and down.

    It isn’t about the environment.

    It IS about restricting your freedom. Not there’s, of course.

    Just YOURS.

  40. Totally Heterosexual Conservative says:

    “You should see if you can find a sense of humor on eBay you can afford!”

    Yes, the wingnut often mistakes its mental illness for “humor”. Mind you, your repressed urges are not mental illness. Obamacare can help you, Clownselor. Thereunder, gay marriage is now mandatory.