Democrat Hank Johnson things that Guam will tip over and capsize because of overpopulation. you have to see it to believe it. I’m surprised the guy he’s talking to didn’t bust out laughing.

  1. McCullough says:

    A tourist once asked me why the islands stayed in one place and didn’t just float away.

    I told her they used really big anchors.

  2. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    Five years old at least?

    …………………………………. and……… total BS.

    The difference: individuals can be nuts, but being crazy right wing fundy, slit your own throat, science denying, party before country ass hats IS THE REPUBLICAN PLATFORM.

    Thats a….. big difference.

    Still hoping the FBI comes thru and electes Bernie…… even though he too is too far right.

    • aslightlycrankygeek says:

      There is a longer list of anti-science positions in Democrat circles than Replublicans.

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        Thanks for proving my point. “Anti-Science” retarded Democrats are so rare, you have to google search to find anything near.

        And not even near is what you link to. That link is about “lefties” not Democrats, or more precisely the FORMAL POSITIONS OF THE DEMOCRACTIC PARTY.

        Whereas, on every issue I can think of, the Pukes Officially on the Record are so retarded and idealogical, they could and should all be charged with TREASON.

        Just a thought on the “anti-gmo” issue. I support gmo but I also support required labeling of such on foods so that people/idiots can make up their own mind. GMO might not be my issue, but others like Monsanto use/residue is. So FULL LABELING allows the free market to work. Republican Big Business Immunity from Lawsuit laws and giving our sovereignty over to Big Business is NOT the free market but rather close to fascists….. that old gubment/too rich/business welfare combo the Pukes love so much.

        Ha, ha: sucks to be a Republican.

        • NewFormatSux says:

          So does the Left or Democratic Party have a position on race and IQ, and whether IQ is inheritable?

          • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

            Well….. I think so. Not addressing the subject directly as I am while many but not all genetic researchers are of a private opinion: The Pukes take positions that greatly disadvantage the poor, black, unemployed thinking they are “undeserving” while the Dumbos believe they are indeed disadvantaged given the countries history of Racism and the burden/privileges that has undeniably crated….unless you are a Republican.

            I say: there are differences, but they aren’t signficiant….. ie, sufficient enough to base any social policy on.

            Know what I mean?

          • Clark says:

            You didn’t address the question at all.

            Its an uncomfortable question, and there is no PC way to squirm out of it.

          • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

            Well Clark—I’m not aware of either Party having a position on race and IQ. Whatever it is, or becomes, if its not mine….they are wrong.

            IQ is inheritable, but only as a regression towards the mean.

            Know what I mean?

          • Bracketcreep says:

            “Know what I mean?”

            Well, no.

            Please explain what you think “regression to the mean” is in this context.

            Also, yes or no: is there roughly a one standard deviation difference in the average IQ of American blacks vs American whites?

          • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

            Bracket: its a standard term. If you don’t know it…..look it up….. make the dictionary your friend.

            Not even close. That too is on the internet.

            spoon fed your whole life?

          • Bracketcreep says:

            I know what it means. However in the context you used it I think you don’t, but like the way it sounds.

            Is “not even close” your response to “yes or no”? Because if it is, “yes” is the only answer supported by actual science.

            Maybe you’re thinking of your discredited hero Stephan jay Gould.

            But the gap is one of the most reproducible and reliable findings in psychometrics – so much so it’s called the fundamental constant of sociology and is also seen in the results in every major standardized test such as the SAT, LSAT, MCAT, AVASB, etc. Year. After. Year. I can’t think of a test where it doesn’t appear.

            But since your religion prevents you from engaging with uncomfortable facts (hate facts) you will never be on the side of objective reality.

          • NewFormatSux says:

            It was just random talk, he has no clue what those phrases mean.

    • Hmeyers says:

      I dislike the flat earth wing of the Republican party, insert Ted Cruz or Rich Sanctorectum.

      I dislike the anti-gun idiocy of the Democratic party and the anti-free speech elements. I sometimes feel that the Democratic party promotes “rubber stamp” science, which isn’t science.

      I suspect both parties are in megacorp loot and pillage mode. Terrible trade deals like the TPP, Obamacare as handout to the health insurance industry, the bank bailouts, etc.

      I dislike a “polarized electorate” because polarized people don’t think — they just name call — and I think the population is plenty dumb already — and probably responsible for the type of people that get elected these days.

      No one in either the Republican or Democratic party really criticizes their respective establishments in the right way to ensure freedom and policies that make citizens lives better.

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        I dislike the anti-gun idiocy of the Democratic party /// You mean like outlawing armor piercing teflon coated cop killing bullets, or 100 round ammo clips, or universal background checks, or patients on psychtrophic drugs being denied gun possession…. or what?

        What Dumbo anti-gun policy are you for? Please don’t say “outlawing all guns.” THAT is MY position, not that of the DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

        • Mr Diesel - Trump or Cruz is Fine with Me says:

          Now bobbo, if you are going to start saying things about made up media bullshit about Teflon coated bullets you are going to make yourself look bad.

          Cop killing Teflon coated bullets is yet another hoplophobic media line of crap put out by the left and their sycophant boot lickers.

          The coating reduces the ability to penetrate body armor. The Feds only regulate the composition of the bullet, i.e. you could not use a depleted Uranium bullet as it would improve armor penetration.

          They even outlawed 100% Copper bullets that were hollow down the center although I don’t why, they are cool.

          • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

            Mr D–I am humbled before your advanced knowledge re all things guns, except what to do with them.

            Ha, ha. Thats it?? Just the Teflon thing?

            I thank you for your support.

          • Mr Diesel - Trump or Cruz is Fine with Me says:

            Of all my years owning guns what I do with them is let them sit. You can count on both hands the number of times I have shot any of them in the last 30 years.

          • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

            Mr D–I believe you 100%. The problem is: Not everyone is like you and I. With respect to you, that is a bad thing. With respect to myself….I’m more balanced.

            SOCIAL POLICY: Our own personal history and perspective to be taken into account, but in NO WAY to be controlling.

            ……………….like everything else.

        • Leroy the Wise economist says:

          You do realize there is no such thing as teflon coated bullets.

          You are referring to Black Talon rounds which featured a lubricant on the bullet that was black in color and meant to ease barrel wear.

          That coating is still on the market under the Winchester Ranger line of ammo.

          Media BS still being propagated.

          • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

            If there are no teflon coated bullets….then why the objection to outlawing them?

            ………….. (Ha, ha!)

        • Leroy the Wise economist says:

          Oh also there is no such thing as a 100 round ‘clip’.

          I have no problem with background checks at license firearm dealers.

          I do have a problem with that on private sales. You should make all private sales operate under the same rules- sell your car to someone – need proof of a valid license, insurance, no DWIs.

          • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

            No clip. I know that, couldn’t think of “magazine” or to look up what is correct AS THE POINT IS: I don’t care about the details as they are all subsumed.

            But………is clip so defined? Or is it just a matter of convenience that no clip has been designed to be so large?

            google: (gun clip) —“a device to hold cartridges for charging the magazines of some rifles; also : a magazine from which ammunition is fed into the chamber of a firearm” /// So, once again: why object to outlawing something that doesn’t exist….. if it doesn’t?

          • Leroy the Wise economist says:

            Well, if you try to insert a clip into most firearms it won’t work. There is a clear difference.

            That google definition is wrong. An M1 Garand for example takes a clip; an AR15 takes a magazine. You can load a magazine via clips, but the two are not interchangeable.

            Australia didn;t work. Only criminals have firearms and there’s a thriving black market for firearms. The law didn’t prevent criminals from getting guns. Most all criminals are not buying firearms legally to begin with. Even with the increase in concealed carry across the country, firearm crimes are down, not up. 2/3 of all legally owned firearms in the US have been bought in the last 8 years yet gun crimes are down, not up.

            Why would we need more gun control? And, if gun owners are asked to give up rights, what rights are non gun owners willing to give up in return?

            That’s what firearm opponents never understand. They want to limit or curtail someone else rights, yet they give up nothing in return. It’s strictly one side giving up rights and getting nothing in return.

          • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

            When only criminals have guns—they are easier to catch.

            It worked in Australia as there have been ZERO MASS SHOOTINGS in Oz since the new law.

            Both Oz and the UK had 1/20th the Death by Gun Crimes when these prohibitions went into effect. I think UK Death rates went up a bit while Oz went down a bit (from memory–I could be wrong).

            The USA needs more Gun Control because WE LEAD THE WORLD in gun violence. The criminals have too many guns, the fearful untrained psychopath has too many guns, and not to be doubly redundant, the POLICE have too many guns. Its a breakdown in society I tells ya!!

            The Gun Nuts can give up the fear of not having a gun and actually join the rest of the socialable human beings on the planet who aren’t fantacists. The non-Gun owners give up the right to have a gun to feel falsely more secure.

            What else ya got?

          • NewFormatSux says:

            If they had low crime rates before, and outlawing guns made little difference, with Australia lower and UK higher, why do you think it would make a difference in the US?

          • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

            Gee NFS–whad yhu do? Engage Pedro?? Take a stupid pill????

            In both Australia and the UK, deaths in MASS MURDER events (4 or more) declined. In Oz–to Zero. In the UK–greatly reduced (if memory serves).

            Thats a good thing don’t you think?????

            So–outlawing guns had beneficial effect in countries where the gun crime was low to begin with. Just imagine how much more effect it “should” have in the USA where gun crime is HIGH.

            You know: target opportunity?

            Take out a few outliers and massage the data (eg==don’t include countries with an active revolution going on) and there is a positive correlation between gun ownership and death by guns. This DESTROYS the HM-BS arguments of what about women, the old, the infirmed. …. and so forth. Its Statistics….. Switzerland not with standing.

          • NewFormatSux says:

            Places with most gun ownership in the US have least mass murders. Same effect is seen when gun control is repealed or implemented.

            There is a whole book, More Guns Less Crime written on the subject. You know, science.

          • NewFormatSux says:

            There is a positive correlation of going to the hospital and dying.

        • Leroy the Wise economist says:

          lmao! Hillary said Obama said they want Australian style gun control – which is outlawing most firearms and doing an involuntary gun buy back.

        • Leroy the Wise economist says:

          I have no problem outlawing them – I don’t see why:

          A) You need to outlaw something that doesn’t exist.

          B) There’s no evidence that teflon would affect penetration.

          • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

            Well, there ya go: a firm foundation upon which to fashion additional common sense gun control and regulations.

            I also support “Australian Style” gun control…………… because it works………. and in a society with much the same roots as in America thereby negating that specious argument.

        • Hmeyers says:


          If you are for outlawing all guns …

          there isn’t much of a reason for me to explain in detail why I think the Democratic party is wrong.

          You already have made up your mind.

          And I suspect are not open to alternative viewpoints.

          • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

            Well HM….. that is basically correct. I have thought about the issue and made my own moral and pragmatic conclusion.

            ALL MY CONCLUSIONS are subject to change based on a change in facts or a rebalancing of equities. I don’t cling to my anti-gun position as a set in stone central meaning in my life.

            If too many guns in a heterogenous society like ours presents a cost in death and insecurity that is fairly objectively self evident—how can any RATIONAL person argue “for” them?

            I’ve only heard fantasies and preferences so far. Nothing rational, given the cost to society.

          • Hmeyers says:

            Perhaps at a future time in a less cluttered thread we can argue about it.

            It sounds like you are in favor of:
            1) Women having no right to self-defense
            2) You are in favor of crime — cops come AFTER a crime has occurred.
            3) You prefer old people being harassed by thugs.

            You are aware that most violence is commited by males in the 18-24 range.

            So apparently, you favor the caveman “physical might makes right” dogma.

            Of the physically strong to harass the weak.

          • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

            HM—anywhere, anytime.

            Lets Parse your assumed consequences of a gun ban that flies in the face of real world experience:

            It sounds like you are in favor of:
            1) Women having no right to self-defense /// Of course they do. The MOST COMMON victim of a home based gun is…….the wifey or gf. You see the difference there? No gun==go to hospital. Gun present==you get murdered. Its statistics.

            2) You are in favor of crime — cops come AFTER a crime has occurred. /// Yes….and all too often a crime CAUSED BY A GUN. Best law enforcement comes by way of well trained cops, connected data bases, good social safety nets, and the populous ready to call them.

            3) You prefer old people being harassed by thugs. //// Thugs don’t need a gun to harass old people.

            You are aware that most violence is commited by males in the 18-24 range. /// Yes indeed. Giving those midgets a gun is even worse. See how that works HM: what ever is “bad” is worse with a gun.

            So apparently, you favor the caveman “physical might makes right” dogma. /// How’s that? The best evidence is I prefer logic and the dialectic progression, facts, figures, analysis.

            Of the physically strong to harass the weak. //// Ha, ha—see your primary error? You think a gun “makes you strong.” Thats why you so stupid.

          • Hmeyers says:

            It seems that in order to discuss this issue you have to resort to name calling.

          • NewFormatSux says:

            The cost in death is not self evident. Just assumed by you.

          • NewFormatSux says:

            Take a look at county by county murder counts for last year. You will find that the vast majority had 0 or 1 murder for the year. Then see if the counties with highest rates of gun ownership are in this group or not in this group in any significant way.

          • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

            Well HM—I couldn’t control myself after you called me a caveman.

            Stop being so limp wristed.

          • Hmeyers says:

            No I didn’t.

            And you know I didn’t.

            I think insulting others is infantile.

            I hate name calling.

            And it prevents a logical discussion.

            Meanwhile, perhaps this might serve as an eye-opener to you:


          • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

            NFS–Yes–Death from guns is not self evident. You have to actually “know” something as in inform yourself with a 2 minute google. Too hard???? In USA–11K per year or 30 times the rate in the UK and even more than OZ? Even higher for mass murders. Pretty obvious the damage guns do. And note: this includes the number of lives “saved” because a gun was present.

            County by County analysis? What statistical correlation did you use for the regression analysis and z-score validation? In general…. yeah, I’d think there would be a positive correlation depending on exactly what is being compared….. or …. gun death/ownership is affected by other more direct relationships than lines on a map.

          • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

            Me calling your argument stupid doesn’t stop you from engaging the other 99% that was there.

            Limp wrist.

            Don’t throw links out like shit on a wall and make me guess what you think is relevant. STATE the import of your link. You might be surprised how many people read charts upside down.

    • NewFormatSux says:

      Do Democrats have a position on the benefits of Head Start which has been scientifically evaluated to be worthless, with at best temporary improvement?

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        Is Head Start worthless? Think I read that it makes no difference after 3 or 4 years? Meaning that the scores of those who do and don’t use Head Start are the same.

        ………………but would those scores be the only valid measurement?

        Certainly one other benefit would be for the single Moms and poor parents as a kind of babysitting and feeding service…… and that would be a good thing.

    • NewFormatSux says:

      There was a debate in 2005 between Jonathan Chait and Jonah Goldberg on this point, conservative don’t think empirically, that I can’t find.
      Here is what started it:

      Here is a response by someone else

    • NewFormatSux says:

      Marc Perkel isn’t going to help with his promised updates on Hillary’s lies. Even if he were so inclined, the Tesla ‘Model E’ is going to be announced soon.
      Even Perkel will fall for basic marketing from Felon Musk. The Tesla lineup is models S,3,X.

    • No Name says:

      Proof positive right here in this blog too! Democrats are as stupid as (a few) Republicans.

      But then, DUMB-AS-CRAP = DEMOCRAT

      And it’s no coincidence the dumb-as-craps use an ASS for a mascot. (Pssst! Its what they collectively have for a BRAIN!)

      Seriously, Bobbo. You need to stop letting your CHURCH do all your thinking for you. The democrats are WAY WORSE! You THINK — because someone on TV TOLD you so — that Republicans are your enemy. And without examining any FACTS, you go with it. You don’t LOOK or REMEMBER what wonderful things your DUMB-AS-CRAP’S have given America. All you do is listen to what your PREACHER says. That way, when any Republican starts asking how we’re supposed to PAY for things, you’re all ready to point out how they’re the evil ones simply because they want to cut spending on crap like donkey fuck parties.

      USE YOUR BRAIN (if you have one)!

      Just consider some of the things YOUR dumb-as-crap GODS have given us that the Republicans failed to stop. Things like, the IRS and the Federal Reserve! Yes, it was Democrat Woodrow Wilson who fucked America when he signed over America’s fiscal affairs to the Illuminati back in 1913. But that’s probably a little too “tin foil” for you, I’m sure. Never mind any FACTS! I’m sure your RELIGION tells you that he was a really great guy.

      So maybe you might like to consider INCOME TAX which is explicitly prohibited by the US CONSTITUTION where it says no tax on labor should ever be imposed. As if a little thing like LAW ever stopped a POLITICIAN — left or right. Then again, how about taxes on Social Security where Dumb-As-Crap Al Gore helped impose? Taxes on something that Big Mamma LBJ made everyone with a JOB pay into and then said would NEVER be taxed. Funny how the dumb-as-craps just glance over that one.

      Or how about just plain old BIG GOVERNMENT that every damned leftist who’s ever got to power has achieved — helping to create a toppling, corrupt government that you’ve been told over and over again, like some sort of fucked up mantra, is now the fault of the REPUBLICANS?!

      You, sir are a perfect example of “STUPID”! And it’s because you DON’T THINK or consider FACTS!

      We’ll just not pay too much attention to the collective butt fucking your hero O-Bummer has given us. Things like MORE WAR! or the FACT that his “help” now has the U.S. on the edge of a financial collapse, the likes of which will make 1929 collapse look like a zit on a fleas ass. You probably even think that Fuckhead O-Bummers’ new health health care system is great too. Again, without considering any FACTS, you probably don’t even know that Obamacare is poised to KILL more people than having left things alone. Ya, sure. Non-discrimination of pre existing conditions is a good thing but that’s the ONLY good thing anyone can say about it. We’ll just forget just who has to PAY for it — or where those who DO pay for will get the money! (I’m pretty sure YOU’RE not one of those who pays for it.)



      About the only thing I will agree with you on are the FEW stupid people who use their religion as some kind of fact when it’s clearly NOT! And it certainly seems like those religious retards are all Republicans too. But then, you’re pretty damned guilty of that very same SIN once you realize how your church is the Church of Leftist HATE! (Psst! It’s called bigotry!)

      I won’t try and bore you with facts like how crazy ass Southern Baptists are predominantly DUMB-AS-CRAPS!

      Just realize that when you spew your hatred towards ANY group of people — political or not — that your church is YOUR PARTY! So stop praying in your leftist tower of bullshit. Try and ADMIT it when your PREACHER fucks up. And then… try and REMEMBER!

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        Ha, ha…..again, separate the Party Platforms from the idiots who vote straight party ticket on both sides.

        Otherwise, as you admit, a factless screed.

        Know what I mean?

  3. ± says:

    You’d have been better off just leaving your original idiotic post twisting slowly in the wind instead of posting an an additional ineffectual attempt at recovery.

    • ± says:

      Godwin’s Law variant. You’ve already lost when you can only muster an ad hominem attack invoking Hitler.

  4. jpfitz says:

    Oh No, I have Relatives on Guam!

    Right-tip over. It’s still floating out there with a gigantic Target and a Military base.

  5. Joe Austin says:

    News flash! Idiot congressman discovered! Oh wait….


Bad Behavior has blocked 5671 access attempts in the last 7 days.