“And that is why Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme even without an element of fraud.”

Read: The World According to Nick – Is Fraud Required to Make Social Security a Ponzi Scheme?.

11 comments September 8th, 2011

I wouldn’t normally blog about this story, myself…

…but I was asked to link to this post by someone I respect so….here ya go:

Firefighters union puts politics over honoring 9/11 firefighters « The TrogloPundit.

2 comments July 1st, 2011

So what do they get, if they’re the One Millionth hit?

The TrogloPundit is about to reach a million hits. Maybe you’ll be the lucky One Millionth Hitter.

As far as I know, cialis buy cialis there’s no prize. Although it’s certainly better to be the One Millionth Hitter than the One Millionth Hittee.

1 comment March 25th, 2011

The most awesome comment thread on the interwebs

Regardless of how you feel about the original post that inspired this epic comment thread, tadalafil patient you really should go read it.

I have to say I added my own twist under the name “Logan 5.”

Discovered at View from the porch

Add comment February 25th, 2011

More or less

I agree in principle with liberal blogger Capper when he writes, viagra generic ask “You Get What You Pay for.”

After all, discount that’s often true when it comes to cars or computers.

The problem is, when it comes to government, you often get much less than you paid for.

9 comments February 8th, 2011

Safer than pulling my finger?

Go to the Trog’s place and find out why I laughed out loud at the thought of pulling the string.

3 comments February 4th, 2011

Oddly enough, there’s only one person on my list of Most Loathsome Americans of 2010

And it’s the guy who made this list: The 50 Most Loathsome Americans of 2010 | The Beast.

Add comment January 20th, 2011

I was going to post on the O’Donnell separation of church and state thing…

…but legal professor Ann Althouse already wrote what I wanted to say:

The reporters aren’t presenting the quotes in a reliable fashion. And we need to begin with stark clarity that the text of the Establishment Clause is: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

So let’s look at the reporting:

“Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?” O’Donnell asked while Democrat Chris Coons, generic viagra sovaldi sale an attorney, recipe sat a few feet away.

Plainly, healing the Constitution does not say “separation of church and state,” so there’s nothing stupid there. It’s provocative, because many people like that gloss on the text.

Coons responded that O’Donnell’s question “reveals her fundamental misunderstanding of what our Constitution is. … The First Amendment establishes a separation.”

He’s talking about interpretations of the text, and she was talking about the text. What we’re hearing is 2 individuals talking past each other.

She interrupted to say, “The First Amendment does? … So you’re telling me that the separation of church and state, the phrase ‘separation of church and state,’ is in the First Amendment?”

She’s telling him to pay attention to her limited point about the text.

He noted again the First Amendment’s ban on establishment of religion.

Ah, here’s where I hate reporters. Give me the quote. I don’t think Coons quite gets it. Ah. Here. He says: “Government shall make no establishment of religion.”

O’Donnell reacts: “That’s in the First Amendment?” And, in fact, it’s not. The First Amendment doesn’t say “government.” It says “Congress.” And since the discussion is about what local school boards can do, the difference is highly significant.

Also, it isn’t “shall make no establishment of religion.” It’s “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” There’s a lot one could say about the difference between those 2 phrases, and I won’t belabor it here. Suffice it to say that it was not stupid for O’Donnell to say “That’s in the First Amendment?” — because it’s not. Coons was presenting a version of what’s in the cases interpreting the text, not the text itself.

The 2 were talking past each other, trying to look good and make the other look bad. It is a disagreement about law between 2 individuals who are not running for judge. It’s not detailed legal analysis. It’s a political debate and this is a political disagreement. An important one, no doubt. But it can’t be resolved by laughing at one person and calling her an idiot, something I find quite repellent.

3 comments October 20th, 2010

I’m not endorsing everything…

…in this post at Subject to Change.

(Mostly, viagra sale salve because I’m too brain dead at the moment to follow everything he’s saying.)

But I absolutely LOVE this line:

I also see that this safety net functions as a snare.

1 comment October 6th, 2010

Aren’t all politics really just a big scam?

Owen at Boots & Sabers wonders if President Obama isn’t just running a scam.

1 comment September 27th, 2010