"I do not like this kind of hope. And we won't take it. Nope, nope, nope."

And Sarah Palin is a dope, dope, dope.

Two sick bitches abuse an autistic boy at knifepoint, forcing him to perform sex with animals walking across a partially frozen pond, making him get himself out when he falls through.

Could be argued attempted murder, but I doubt the charges would stick.

Uh oh. John Kerry draws a red line in Ukraine.

Patrick has the sads again. Sarah is much more popular than he is and he and his ilk cannot make her go away. Little Patrick can only call her silly names.

Patrick has the sads again. -- Dave B at March 13, 2014 3:09 PM

No. Patrick lives in a world of cognitive dissonance. He can't believe in the truth:

The President's approval rating has dropped to 41 percent, according to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, and many of those surveyed said they wouldn't support candidates in the November elections who support Obama

(time.com/21121/poll-obamas-approval-rating-sinks-to-new-low/)

He also still believes the [un]Affordable Care Act will work with only 4M registrants. And it's all Sarah's fault along with the rest of the GOP.

But of course we need to disregard the SCOTUS dissenting opinion:

The Court today decides to save a statute Congress did not write. It rules that what the statute declares to be a requirement with a penalty is instead an option subject to a tax. And it changes the intentionally coercive sanction of a total cut-off of Medicaid funds to a supposedly noncoercive cut-off of only the incremental funds that the Act makes available.

The Court regards its strained statutory interpretation as judicial modesty. It is not. It amounts instead to a vast judicial overreaching. It creates a debilitated, inoperable version of health-care regulation that Congress did not enact and the public does not expect. It makes enactment of sensible health-care regulation more difficult, since Congress cannot start afresh but must take as its point of departure a jumble of now senseless provisions, provisions that certain interests favored under the Court’s new design will struggle to retain. And it leaves the public and the States to expend vast sums of money on requirements that may or may not survive the necessary congressional revision.

The Court’s disposition, invented and atextual as it is, does not even have the merit of avoiding constitutional difficulties. It creates them. The holding that the Individual Mandate is a tax raises a difficult constitutional question (what is a direct tax?) that the Court resolves with inadequate deliberation. And the judgment on the Medicaid Expansion issue ushers in new federalism concerns and places an unaccustomed strain upon the Union. Those States that decline the Medicaid Expansion must subsidize, by the federal tax dollars taken from their citizens, vast grants to the States that accept the Medicaid Expansion. If that destabilizing political dynamic, so antagonistic to a harmonious Union, is to be introduced at all, it should be by Congress, not by the Judiciary.

The values that should have determined our course today are caution, minimalism, and the understanding that the Federal Government is one of limited powers. But the Court’s ruling undermines those values at every turn. In the name of restraint, it overreaches. In the name of constitutional avoidance, it creates new constitutional questions. In the name of cooperative federalism, it undermines state sovereignty.

Pat Condell has a new good point:

A society of cowards.

But meanwhile the whole thing of Sharyl Attkisson has been buried by the left and even by google.

Open a new google search page and purposely misspell her name:
Shreyl atisson
cheryl atkinson

or many others. You end up in a completely different place. But if I misspell Beyonce somehow google finds suggestions that I made a mistake. Why is that?

Oh, I know! It's just so terrible that the President has such low approval numbers. I'll just have to console myself with the knowledge that his approval numbers are still higher than Bush's, and that it's not like he's running for reelection.

Oh, I know! It's just so terrible that the President has such low approval numbers. I'll just have to console myself with the knowledge that his approval numbers are still higher than Bush's, and that it's not like he's running for reelection. -- Patrick at March 13, 2014 8:10 PM

But of course the Obama/Bush compariosn is is never valid?

Then of course all of Obama's problem is the fault of the GOP? But even Rachel Maddow was saying "Obama Has Accomplished 85% of First Term Agenda in 2 Years. How is that the GOP obstructing him?

Then there was the "clean" debt ceiling extension. How was that obstruction? Was it because Cruz outed the RINO's?

www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/02/11/debt-ceiling-republicans-boehner/5390293/

Please get a clue some day Patrick. I'm running out of pity for your ignorance.

It's not ignorance, Jim. It's the cult of personality at work. The One can do no wrong, and no woman in politics can be attractive.
That is why Feinstein gets a pass, Boxer gets a pass, Hillary gets a pass, but Sarah? No way.

And the fallacies, "appeal to prior practice" and "two wrongs" and "appeal to popularity" must be ignored.

Another way to see if a person is part of a "cult of personality" is to ask them a simple question: "What does your favorite have to do to violate the Constitution?" They will not know, and will seek to divert the question into something else or back to you. Nothing is more important than defending their idol.

Jim P. "Please get a clue some day Patrick."

You first, Jim. I know you like to build yourself up as intelligent by suggesting that other people are clueless. And that you like to think of yourself as a constitutional authority. But the truth of the matter is, you are neither. And no one knows that better than you do.

You first, Jim. I know you like to build yourself up as intelligent by suggesting that other people are clueless. And that you like to think of yourself as a constitutional authority. But the truth of the matter is, you are neither. And no one knows that better than you do. -- Patrick at March 14, 2014 9:16 AM

Ok, let's ignore the number of times I have given numerous citations and facts in reply to your postings (like the 3 in post that you are replying to).

Then let's also ignore the number of times I've asked you to support your positions with links or verifiable facts and it's crickets in response.

I've done my best to debate you on facts. Your response is generally off-topic. I always have done my best not insult anyone personally on the 'net just out of personal preference.

My hope is that you realize that your view of the world will lead to socialism and that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I don't want to be on that road, and I'm more than willing to let you travel it alone.

"...and will seek to divert the question into something else or back to you."

See? Right on cue!

See? Right on cue! -- Radwaste at March 14, 2014 9:25 PM

Rad,

I know you're right. I just love hearing the crickets of him not posting a comment on Amy's various posts about the TSA, Obamacare, NSA spying, and other issues where he is not just a minority opinion, but is also wrong.

Maybe someday the wall will break and he'll actually look at a fact and it will overwhelm his conception of the world.

I know it is forlorn hope, but there is always hope rational thought. But he lives in California, so we're probably called "stupid neanderthals" to all his friends.