BAD NEWS; GOOD NEWS: COAKLEY LOSES!

My comment on Shannyn Moore's article. Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Polls are showing that this was a referendum on health care and Obama policies. Massachusetts already has health care, so they realized how much more expensive and how much more intrusive it would be for the federal government to impose a new program on top of the one they already have now.

The current healthcare plan in Mass. is very expensive to the taxpayers of Mass. If the gov't allows insurance companies to sell across state lines, that would help the Mass. system because it's a private sector based system with the cost to taxpayers being driven up by mandates and subsidies. Cut the cost of private insurance and you cut the cost to the taxpayers.

As for this not being a (and I'll be a grown up not a child here and not use the pejorative word that is a blatant slur against gays) win for the TEA Party movement, Keith Olbermann said it was last night. He said it was a case of (gay slur) electing one of their own. Was Keith wrong?

I think Sarah Palin nailed it right on the head last night in her commentary. It was a tidal wave against the status quo. I understand the desire to explain it away, but the truth is the truth. Democrats need to face it, not explain it away.

We Kicked Some Major Ass Tonight!

This is one of the greatest moments in "Unsheathed" history. The liberal agenda has been destroyed by Scott Brown, warrior of the Northeast, who has taken back "the people's seat."

God bless the people in Massachusetts.

Mitt Romney called it a "monumental victory." Sarah Palin said it was a rejection of the status quo. We're taking it back.

It was a major victory for grassroots America and the TEA Party.

God bless America.

How to Field Dress a Moby

Finally, I have a written account of a true slaying. Upon initially receiving the first few tweets, the alarm went off in my head. The tweeter tried to portray themselves as someone who voted for Reagan. Then she engaged me in a debate, which I am always willing to engage in.

My strategy of course, as we fence, is to always keep the discourse intellectual and with respect as I lie in wait for the "victim" to give me the opening for the kill.

Never one to initiate a fight, I am one to quickly engage once the opponent proves their true intention. Rather than personally attack the individual because they disagree with me out of the box, I wait for them to make the first move and slammo. He or she who personally attacks first loses.

The liberal strategy of course, is to personally attack as soon as they are losing the argument.

And so it went this way (most relevant recent post first - additional posts to me from the Moby after I stopped responding to her can be seen here):

@schwanderer Once again I prove that when a liberal is losing their argument they always go personal. Appreciate the tweets. Poli Sci lesson 18 minutes ago from web in reply to schwanderer

@schwanderer I knew you were a mobie, but I always try civil discourse until the moron tips their hand. Lose big tonight liberal! 20 minutes ago from web in reply to schwanderer

@ReaganTMan Sorry dude you are no Reaganite you are a Jim Demint style cliche. Back to your cave. 22 minutes ago from web in reply to ReaganTMan

@ReaganTMan Should women/men who can't have children be able to marry? Must one pass some fertility test in your world? Talk abt Big Brother 23 minutes ago from web in reply to ReaganTMan

@ReaganTMan You thnk that only heterosexual people of child bearing age (Women) should be able to marry? that's what u call liberty? 24 minutes ago from web in reply to ReaganTMan

@ReaganTMan So old people shouldn't marry either? Now you are showing your wingnut attitude.You are off the Reagan bandwagon. 24 minutes ago from web in reply to ReaganTMan

@schwanderer Marriage involves pro-creation. What gays do is called recreation. There's a difference. Apples and oranges. 42 minutes ago from web in reply to schwanderer

@schwanderer It's not illegal to be an atheist and it's not illegal to be gay. 43 minutes ago from web in reply to schwanderer

@schwanderer Free to not have atheist liberals ram their beliefs down our throat. Free to protect human life born and unborn. about 1 hour ago from web in reply to schwanderer

@ReaganTMan Free to not believe in God? Free to have or perform a legal abortion? I believe in liberty too. about 1 hour ago from web

@ReaganTMan You don't have to be a conservative to want limited govt. It's where the limits are the is the issue. Free to marry who u want? about 1 hour ago from web in reply to ReaganTMan

@schwanderer Limited government and individual liberty should not be too far right for anyone. If it is, we're in trouble. about 2 hours ago from web in reply to schwanderer

@ReaganTMan If you are speaking for yourself, good for you. I am no lefty but GOP is no longer the party of Reagan, Ike even Nixon IMO about 1 hour ago from web in reply to ReaganTMan

@schwanderer Reagan would be proud of us, not the caricature that the left portrays of us. We're not homophobic racists. KO is wrong. about 2 hours ago from web in reply to schwanderer
@ReaganTMan When you've voted GOP for 40 yrs exclusively & you find there's not one you could vote for something's wrong TOO far right 4 me about 1 hour ago from web in reply to ReaganTMan

@ReaganTMan Re gays I was pointing out how Reagan would differ from right wing ideology of today about 2 hours ago from web in reply to ReaganTMan

@ReaganTMan Which came first teabags on the hat or the phrase teabagger and who first said it? More ignorance. Libs just poked fun at fools about 2 hours ago from web in reply to ReaganTMan

@schwanderer Who says anything about discriminating against gays. If anything, the leftist smear "tea bagger" is an offensive term for gays. about 2 hours ago from web in reply to schwanderer

@ReaganTMan And Reagan would not discriminate against gays. He would favor stem cell research as Nancy does He was respectful of others about 2 hours ago from web in reply to ReaganTMan

@ReaganTMan I cast my 1st vote for Reagan for CA GOV. He would hate the ugliness of the GOP & TeaPartyers. He didn't do personal attacks about 2 hours ago from web in reply to ReaganTMan


And in this liberal Moby tweeter's attempt to bait me, I baited her and enjoyed the unhingement as it occured live on twitter.

As we all know, a Moby presents themselves as a non-liberal, a fellow conservative or in this case a "Reaganite." Their motus operandi is to try to bait the conservative into saying something that can be used as an example to fuel their twisted liberal argument.

I smelled this one from the start. Her twitter page says she is "Left of center."

I also smelled the tactic as the conversation always turned to the issue of gay marriage despite my argument about Reagan and liberty. Of course, the tweeter didn't like the fact that I am opposed to gay marriage. Contrary to what this Moby or a moron like Keith Olbermann might put forth, being opposed to gay marriage does not make you a homophobe, a racist or a bigot. It makes you an American with an opinion.

You will also notice that I never once said anything bad about gay people. In a free society, what you do in your own bedroom is none of my business. But, in my opinioni, there is a sanctity to marriage that our culture has always recognized as being between a man and a woman. As a free American, I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.

This tweet gets my unhinged award: "@ReaganTMan Even Cheney supports gay marriage and adoption. Maybe one of your kids will be gay. What would you do then, kill them?"

Hmmmm, let's see, the tweeter projects incorrect views onto me (it's usual liberal tactic - it's their textbook somewhere) by asking if I would kill my kid if I was gay, if I would only let heterosexual people of child bearing age (Women) marry and if people should have to pass fertility tests. That's good, but sorry, that's not me. Marriage is simply between a man and a woman. In my understanding of God's plan, according to the bible, marriage is primarily for the sake of pro-creating and raising a family in a proper environment, but its only restriction is that it is between a man and woman and no other combination of sexes or species. So you can forget the fertility tests.

If it's any consolation to the tweeter, I don't believe the government should bestow extra taxes or tax breaks on married people (with the exception of deductions for dependents) or not allow single people to enter into contracts with each other for insurance coverages, living arrangements and the like. While I don't fully think we should call it a "civil union," I do think a "civil union" like approach can be taken so that if gay people want to share medical benefits or the right to determine medical care for each other if incapacitated, they should have the right to put that in writing.

I like this nutty one, too: "@ReaganTMan You are speaking a foreign language. Sorry I speak only English and a little French. Your views are an attack on what America is."

To which I reply, if my views are an attack on what America is, you're in the wrong America. And if your attacks on me is your view of what America is, you're still in the wrong America.

And we conservatives are the intolerant ones? Sorry, check mate. Your intolerance is way greater than mine.

Liberals Keep Upping the Ante at Their Own Peril

Think of it like this. Every day you approach a traffic light and every day you tell yourself that it's going to turn red by the time you get there. It usually does. Napolean Hill says it is through the process of "self talk" that we create our future outcomes. Rhonda Byrne discovered a secret law in the universe called "manifestation." We create what we think. The liberals are creating their own monster.

Consider that Sarah Palin supporters see this:




Now Consider that Sarah haters see this:



Given how the loony left to continues to ratchet up their criticism of her, we can only expect Sarah Palin to continue to grow even stronger and stronger. They're attacks are only toughening her up. They create their own monster at their own peril.

We watch an established news analyst like Chris Matthews, in his zest to portray Palin as dumb, come up with an intellectually blank comment like "how is she going to be a pundit? She doesn't know anything." Chris, that only shows us how dumb you really are. How about Mika Brezienski? In her zeal to join the morning zoo on MSNBC in trashing Sarah Palin, she too demonstrates her own stupidity while naming Abraham Lincoln as her favorite Founding Father.

Leave it to the liberals to come across as even dumber than the Palin they portray.

It is funny, though, to watch liberals continue to wet themselves and dribble their fingers across their lips at the mere thought of Sarah Palin. Though we try to tell them it's "rabbit" not "wabbit," they can only storm off the set muttering "these diwectors just wub me the wong way." The "dumbing down" of Sarah Palin is manifesting itself in their own mental meltdowns.

Godzilla is coming.

Willow Palin and Bristol In The News For Troubles Past And Present

I became a member here because I'm not closed minded and always want to hear what the other side has to say. I've read the hate mongering about Sarah Palin and the whining about "tea baggers." While most stuff on here is liberal garbage, I peruse through for the occasionally well thought out article that could provoke "real" thought.

Palin holds no office and all you got left is a 15 year old kid who misbehaves after running out of frivolous ethics complaints, fabrications about divorces and lies about federal indictments.

Our Founders set it up so that we could do our power struggles at the point of of a pen rather than at the point of a gun. As such, I must say it's pretty cool doing battle this way, even if it is your goal to destroy conservatism and our goal to take the board back and play by our rules again. We're confident we can crush you when we get to play using our rules because they involve things many liberals aren't that good at: morals and ethics.

Where I lose my head, though, is on stuff on like this. I don't advocate violence and I don't encourage anyone to take any violent actions. But, I do motion to change the rules to allow for a real good smack to the head for anyone who uses someone's children to smear them. That's just so far out of bounds, there has to be serious consequences for it.

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost