Recent Comments

1. about 4 hours ago on Prickly City

   Maybe you didn’t, but the Orange Idiot sure did. For four long years. What a freaking crybaby.

2. about 4 hours ago on Tom the Dancing Bug

   It’s useless with Jack. MAGA’s are just too paranoid to understand.

3. about 4 hours ago on Mike du Jour

   That article from Wikipedia could have been written to describe, exactly, what Trump and his cronies have done, and are doing. If you can’t see it, you’re blinding yourself.

4. about 4 hours ago on Tom the Dancing Bug

   How incredibly ignorant of you.

   Not “attacked,” investigated. I understand it’s hard for you to know the difference. Why use an obvious political name for a supposedly neutral non-profit? That is just inviting attention.

5. about 4 hours ago on Pearls Before Swine

   Just another poor sad sack that is too ignorant to understand what he thinks he knows.

6. about 9 hours ago on Monty

   It was probably a can of oil. :-)

7. about 9 hours ago on Mike du Jour

   You’re making an assumption that’s not in evidence.

   I didn’t say that firing DOJ employees was “lawfare.” I said “Perhaps you should talk to Bill Barr. Or maybe the DOJ employees.” Both could tell you about the “lawfare” that Trump and the Republicans indulged in. Especially Barr.

   If you really think that only the Democrats have done it, you are truly in the cult.

   Stop blinding yourself.

8. about 11 hours ago on Tom the Dancing Bug

   He likes to ignore the points that don’t support his ideas.

9. about 11 hours ago on Tom the Dancing Bug

   No, it’s because they used blatantly political names.

   You choose to ignore the part that says “It later emerged that liberal groups had been targeted, too, although in smaller numbers.” It was in smaller numbers because the “liberal groups” weren’t stupid enough to make their names so obviously political.

10. about 12 hours ago on Tom the Dancing Bug

    It looks like you didn’t even read the article.

    “The controversy began in 2013 when an IRS official admitted the agency had been aggressively scrutinizing groups with names such as “Tea Party” and “Patriots.” It later emerged that liberal groups had been targeted, too, although in smaller numbers."

    Why wouldn’t you scrutinize an organization that has such blatantly political names?