Guest Post: How Many Senators Does It Take To Screw A Taxpayer?

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Jim Quinn

How Many Senators Does It Take To Screw A Taxpayer?


“Today, the government decides and they misdirect the investment
to their friends in the corn industry or the food industry. Think how
many taxpayer dollars have been spent on corn [for ethanol], and there’s
nobody now really defending that as an efficient way to create diesel
fuel or ethanol. The money is spent for political reasons and not for
economic reasons. It’s the worst way in the world to try to develop an
alternative fuel.”
- Ron Paul

When bipartisanship breaks out in Washington DC, check to make sure
your wallet is still in your pocket. Every time you fill up your car
this winter you are participating in the biggest taxpayer swindle in
history. Forcing consumers to use domestically produced ethanol is one
of the single biggest boondoggles ever committed by the corrupt
brainless twits in Washington DC. Ethanol prices have soared 30% in the
last year as the supplies of corn have plunged. Only a policy created in
Washington DC could drive up the prices of gasoline and food, with the
added benefits of costing the American taxpayer billions in tax
subsidies and killing people in 3rd world countries.

The grand lame duck Congress tax compromise extended a 45-cent
incentive to ethanol refiners for each gallon of the fuel blended with
gasoline and renewed a 54-cent tariff on Brazilian imports. The
extension of these subsidies, besides costing American taxpayers $6
billion per year, has the added benefit of driving up food costs across
the globe, causing food riots in Tunisia, and resulting in the starving
of poor peasants throughout the world. This taxpayer boondoggle is a
real feather in the cap of that fiscally conservative curmudgeon Senator
Charley Grassley. He was joined in this noble effort by another fiscal
conservative, presidential hopeful John Thune. It seems these guys hate
wasteful spending, except when it benefits their states. The
bipartisanship in this effort was truly touching, as Democrats Kent
Conrad and Tom Harkin also brought home the pork for their states.

A bipartisan group of 15 senators signed a letter in late November
demanding an extension of U.S. ethanol subsidies. I wonder if the fact
they have received hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign
contributions during the past six years from pro-ethanol companies and
interest groups like ADM, Monsanto, the National Corn Growers
Association, and the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association had anything to do
with this demand. You can always count on a Senator to do what’s best
for his re-election campaign rather than what is best for the country.
These symbols of political integrity will always spout the standard
talking points:
  • Promoting ethanol reduces our dependence on foreign oil
  • Ethanol is green renewable energy
  • Ethanol is cheaper than gasoline

As we all know when dealing with a politician, “half the truth, is often a great lie.”


Corn is the most widely produced feed grain in the United States,
accounting for more than 90% of total U.S. feed grain production. 81.4
million acres of land are utilized to grow corn, with the majority of
the crop grown in the Midwest.  Although most of the crop is used to
feed livestock, corn is also processed into food and industrial products
including starch, sweeteners, corn oil, beverage and industrial
alcohol, yogurt, latex paint, cosmetics, and last but not least, fuel
Ethanol. Of the 10,000 items in your average grocery store, at
least 2,500 items use corn in some form during the production or
processing. The United States is the major player in the world corn
market providing more than 50% of the world’s corn supply. In excess
of 20% of our corn
crop had been exported to other countries, but
the government ethanol mandates have reduced the amount that is
available to export.

This year, the US will harvest approximately 12.5 million bushels of
corn. More than 42% will be used to feed livestock in the US, another
40% will be used to produce government mandated ethanol fuel, 2% will be
used for food products, and 16% is exported to other countries. Ending
stocks are down 963 million bushels from last year. The stocks-to-use
ratio is projected at 5.5%, the lowest since 1995/96 when it dropped to
5.0%. As you can see in the chart below, poor developing countries are
most dependent on imports of corn from the US. Food as a percentage of
income for peasants in developing countries in Africa and Southeast Asia
exceeds 50%. When the price of corn rises 75% in one year, poor people

The combination of an asinine ethanol policy and the loosest monetary
policy in the history of mankind are combining to kill poor people
across the globe. I wonder if Blankfein, Bernanke, and Grassley chuckle
about this at their weekly cocktail parties while drinking Macallan
scotch whiskey and snacking on mini beef wellington hors d’oeuvres. The
Tunisians aren’t chuckling as food riots have brought down the
government. This month, the U.N. Food and Agricultural Organization
(FAO) reported that its food price index jumped 32% in the second half
of 2010 — surpassing the previous record, set in the early summer of
2008, when deadly clashes over food broke out around the world, from
Haiti to Somalia.

Let’s Starve a Tunisian

“What is my view on subsidizing ethanol and farmers? Under the
constitution, there is no authority to take money from one group of
people and give it to another group of people for so called economic
benefits. So, no, I don’t think we should do that. Besides, bureaucrats
and the politicians don’t know how to invest money.”
- Ron Paul

The United States is the big daddy of the world food economy. It is
far and away the world’s leading grain exporter, exporting more than
Argentina, Australia, Canada, and Russia combined. In a globalized food
economy, increased demand for corn, to fuel American vehicles,
puts tremendous pressure on world food supplies. Continuing to divert
more food to fuel, as is now mandated by the U.S. federal government in
its Renewable Fuel Standard, will lead to higher food prices, rising
hunger among the world’s poor and to social chaos across the globe. By
subsidizing the production of ethanol, now to the tune of $6 billion
each year, U.S. taxpayers are subsidizing skyrocketing food bills at
home and around the world.

The energy bill signed by that free market capitalist George Bush in
2008 mandates that increasing amounts of corn based ethanol must be used
in gasoline sold in the U.S. This energy legislation requires a
five-fold increase in ethanol use by 2022. Some 15 billion gallons must
come from traditional corn-blended ethanol. Nothing like combining PhD
models and political corruption to cause worldwide chaos. Ben Bernanke
and Charley Grassley have joined forces to bring down the President of
23 years in Tunisia. People tend to get angry when they are starving.
Bringing home the bacon for your constituents has consequences. In the
U.S. only about 10% of disposable income is spent on food.  By contrast,
in India, about 40% of personal disposable income is spent on food. In
the Philippines, it’s about 47.5%.  In some sub-Saharan Africa,
consumers spend about 50% of the household budget on food. And according
to the U.S.D.A., “In some of the poorest countries in the region such
as Madagascar, Tanzania, Sierra Leone, and Zambia, this ratio is more
than 60%.”


The 107 million tons of grain that went to U.S. ethanol distilleries
in 2009 was enough to feed 330 million people for one year at average
world consumption levels. More than a quarter of the total U.S. grain
crop was turned into ethanol to fuel cars last year. With 200 ethanol
distilleries in the country set up to transform food into fuel, the
amount of grain processed has tripled since 2004. The government
subsidies led to a boom in the building of ethanol plants across the
heartland. As usual, when government interferes in the free market, the
bust in 2009, when fuel prices collapsed, led to the bankruptcy of
almost 20% of the ethanol plants in the U.S.

The amount of grain needed to fill the tank of an SUV with ethanol
just once can feed one person for an entire year. The average income of
the owners of the world’s 940 million automobiles is at least ten times
larger than that of the world’s 2 billion hungriest people. In the
competition between cars and hungry people for the world’s harvest, the
car is destined to win. In March 2008, a report commissioned by the
Coalition for Balanced Food and Fuel Policy  estimated that the
bio-fuels mandates passed by Congress cost the U.S. economy more than
$100 billion from 2006 to 2009. The report declared that “The policy favoring ethanol and other bio-fuels over food uses of grains and other crops acts as a regressive tax on the poor.” A 2008 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (O.E.C.D.) issued its report on bio-fuels that concluded: “Further
development and expansion of the bio-fuels sector will contribute to
higher food prices over the medium term and to food insecurity for the
most vulnerable population groups in developing countries.”
These forecasts are coming to fruition today.

It Costs What?

The average American has no clue about the true cost of ethanol. They
probably don’t even know there is ethanol mixed in their gasoline. The
propaganda spread by the ethanol industry and their mouthpieces in
Congress obscures the truth and proclaims the clean energy mistruths and
the thousands of jobs created in America. The truth is that producing
ethanol uses more energy than is created while driving costs higher. The
jobs created in Iowa are offset by the jobs lost because users of
energy incur higher costs and hire fewer workers as a result. It takes a
lot of Saudi oil to make the fertilizers to grow the corn, to run the
tractors, to build the silos, to get the corn to a processing plant, and
to run the processing plant. Also, ethanol cannot be moved in
pipelines, because it degrades. This means using thousands of big diesel
sucking polluting trucks to move the ethanol – first as corn from the
fields to the processing plants, and then from the processing plants to
the coasts.

The current ethanol subsidy is a flat 45 cents per gallon of ethanol
usually paid to the an oil company, that blends ethanol with gasoline.
Some States add other incentives, all paid by the taxpayer. On top of
this waste of taxpayer funds, the free trade capitalists in Congress
slap a 54 cent tariff on all imported ethanol. Ronald R. Cooke, author
of Oil, Jihad & Destiny, created the chart below to estimate the true cost for a gallon of corn ethanol. Cooke describes a true taxpayer boondoggle:

It costs money to store, transport
and blend ethanol with gasoline. Since ethanol absorbs water, and water
is corrosive to pipeline components, it must be transported by tanker to
the distribution point where it is blended with gasoline for delivery
to your gas station. That’s expensive transportation. It costs more to
make a gasoline that can be blended with ethanol. Ethanol is lost
through vaporization and contamination during this process.
Gasoline/ethanol fuel blends that have been contaminated with water
degrade the efficiency of combustion. E-85 ethanol is corrosive to the
seals and fuel systems of most of our existing engines (including boats,
generators, lawn mowers, hand power tools, etc.), and can not be
dispensed through existing gas station pumps. And finally, ethanol has
about 30 percent less energy per gallon than gasoline. That means the
fuel economy of a vehicle running on E-85 will be about 25% less than a
comparable vehicle running on gasoline.

Real Cost For A Gallon Of Corn Ethanol

Corn Ethanol Futures Market quote for January 2011 Delivery $2.46
Add cost of transporting, storing and blending corn ethanol $0.28
Added cost of making gasoline that can be blended with corn ethanol $0.09
Add cost of subsidies paid to blender $0.45
Total Direct Costs per Gallon $3.28
Added cost from waste $0.40
Added cost from damage to infrastructure and user’s engine $0.06
Total Indirect Costs per Gallon $0.46
Added cost of lost energy $1.27
Added cost of food (American family of four) $1.79
Total Social Costs $3.06
Total Cost of Corn Ethanol @ 85% Blend $6.80


Multiple studies by independent non-partisan organizations have
concluded that mandating and subsidizing ethanol fuel production is a
terrible policy for Americans:

  • In May 2007, the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development at Iowa State University released a report
    saying the ethanol mandates have increased the food bill for every
    American by about $47 per year due to grain price increases for corn,
    soybeans, wheat, and others. The Iowa State researchers concluded that
    American consumers face a “total cost of ethanol of about $14 billion.”
    And that figure does not include the cost of federal subsidies to corn
    growers or the $0.51 per gallon tax credit to ethanol producers.
  • In May 2008, the Congressional Research Service blamed recent
    increases in global food prices on two factors: increased grain demand
    for meat production, and the bio-fuels mandates. The agency said
    that the recent “rapid, ‘permanent’ increase in corn demand has
    directly sparked substantially higher corn prices to bid available
    supplies away from other uses – primarily livestock feed. Higher corn
    prices, in turn, have forced soybean, wheat, and other grain prices
    higher in a bidding war for available crop land.”
  • Mark W. Rosegrant of the International Food Policy Research
    Institute, testified before the U.S. Senate on bio-fuels and grain
    prices. Rosegrant said that the ethanol scam has caused the price of
    corn to increase by 29 percent, rice to increase by 21 percent and wheat
    by 22 percent. Rosegrant estimated
    that if the global bio-fuels mandates were eliminated altogether, corn
    prices would drop by 20 percent, while sugar and wheat prices would drop
    by 11 percent and 8 percent, respectively, by 2010. Rosegrant said that
    “If the current bio-fuel expansion continues, calorie availability in
    developing countries is expected to grow more slowly; and the number of
    malnourished children is projected to increase.” He continued, saying
    “It is therefore important to find ways to keep bio-fuels from worsening
    the food-price crisis. In the short run, removal of ethanol blending
    mandates and subsidies and ethanol import tariffs, in the United
    States—together with removal of policies in Europe promoting
    bio-fuels—would contribute to lower food prices.”

The true cost of the ethanol boondoggle is hidden from the public.
The mandates, subsidies and tariffs take place out of plain view.
 The reason blenders (and gas stations) will pay the same for ethanol is
because they can sell it at the same price as gasoline to consumers. A
consumer will pay the same for ten gallons of E10 as for ten gallons of
gasoline even though the E10 contains a gallon of ethanol. Consumers pay
the same for the gallon of ethanol for three reasons. (1) They don’t
know there’s ethanol in their gasoline. (2) There is often ethanol in
all the gasoline because of state requirements, so they have no choice.
(3) They never know the ethanol has only 67% the energy of gasoline and
gets them only 67% as far. The result is that drivers always pay much
more for ethanol energy than for gasoline energy, simply because they
pay the same amount per gallon. When gasoline prices are $3.00 per
gallon, Joe Six-pack pays $4.50 for the same amount of ethanol energy.

You know a politician, government bureaucrat or central banker is
lying when they open their mouths. Whenever evaluating a policy or plan
put forth by those in control, always seek out who will benefit and who
will suffer. Who benefits from corn based ethanol mandates and
subsidies? The beneficiaries are huge corporations like Archer Daniels
Midland and Monsanto, along with corporate farming operations (80% of
all US farm production), and Big Oil. The mandated ethanol levels are
set in law. By providing tax subsidies we are bribing oil companies with
taxpayer dollars to do something they are legally required to do,
resulting in a $6 billion windfall profit to oil companies.  The other
beneficiaries are the Senators and Representatives from the farming
states who are bankrolled by the corporate ethanol beneficiaries and
their constituents who will re-elect them. The environment does not
benefit, as many studies have concluded that it requires more fossil
fuel energy (oil & coal) to produce a gallon of ethanol than the
energy created. The jobs created in the farm belt at artificially
profitable ethanol plants are more than offset by job losses due to the
added costs in the rest of the economy. When subsidies are removed or
oil prices drop, the ethanol plant jobs disappear, resulting in a
massive capital mal-investment. 

Our supposedly wise PhD and MBA leaders have created a perfect storm.
The unintended consequences of government intervention in the
markets are causing havoc, food riots, starvation and intense suffering
for the poor and middle class. Brazil produces sugar cane ethanol in
vast quantities and can export it to the U.S. much cheaper than we can
produce corn ethanol. Fuel prices would be lower without tariffs on
Brazilian ethanol imports. The average cost of food as a percentage of
disposable income for an American is 10%. Averages obscure the truth
that the cost is probably .0001% for Lloyd Blankfein, Ben Bernanke and
Chuck Grassley, while it is 30% for a poor family in Harlem. America’s
horribly misguided ethanol policy combined with Ben Bernanke’s Wall
Street banker subsidy program are resulting in soaring fuel and food
prices across the globe. Poor people around the world suffer greatly
from these policies. Below are two assessments of ethanol.     

 “Everything about ethanol is good, good, good.”Senator Chuck Grassley, Iowa

“This is not just hype — it’s
dangerous, delusional bullshit. Ethanol doesn’t burn cleaner than
gasoline, nor is it cheaper. Our current ethanol production represents
only 3.5 percent of our gasoline consumption — yet it consumes twenty
percent of the entire U.S. corn crop, causing the price of corn to
double in the last two years and raising the threat of hunger in the
Third World.”
Jeff Goodell

Who do you believe?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
High Plains Drifter's picture

Tyler, I said in a earlier post a week ago that I didn't hate anyone. I lied. I hate these crooked, lying , traitorous politicians. I hate them real good and always have.  By the way, is that GM corn or Heirloom corn? 

Akrunner907's picture

Hate your neighbors and family that don't vote. Hate the people that sit on their ass and don't get involved.  Hate all those voters who plug into the mainstream media to get their daily instructions.  They are the ones that are the cause for running this country into the ground!  When we, the voters, stopped holding elected officials accountable and forcing them to be OUR representatives we now are receiving our rewards.  It only took 100 years to unwind this country, but it is here.   


Good night, and good luck!

High Plains Drifter's picture

As I have stated around here before, as you say also, it took a hundred years to get into this mess. So now , it will take a hundred years to get out of it. I look upon the horizon, I don't see too many who are willing to make such sacrifices. Our children have been taught to be selfish and self serving. There was a time in this country when we had at thing called front porches. This was a place where the family would go sit in front of the house, after dinner etc and talk. Now we have back porches, because we need our "privacy" Heck, many people don't even know their own neighbors and yet somehow someway, someone is supposed to build a coalition based upon this mindset. How can this be? I think this nation is overwith.

Akrunner907's picture

The only thing I can be grateful for is that Al Gore invented the internet! :)

High Plains Drifter's picture

Oh yeh, the same guy who tried to rape his massage therapist and the same guy who got a Nobel peace prize for his bogus global warming theories. Yeh I remember his fat ass. Let us not forget how he used to call anybody and everybody from the VP's office trying to get them to give campaign contributions to the democrap party. Yeh he is a real peace of work. He too, belongs dangling at the end of a chinese made rope, the fat fuck.

Mark Medinnus's picture

Let's set him swinging and try for the fleas on his ass at 100 yards.

High Plains Drifter's picture

His fat ass and a hundred yards. Piece of cake....

Malcolm Tucker's picture

If you want to see what Fascism looks like read this. Written by a Tunisian. it's a sector by sector, company by company listing of the huge concentration of wealth and power in the hands of former Tunisian Dictator Ben Ali:

High Plains Drifter's picture

It was said he was like his own little mafia , him and his extended family. He stepped on his dick , when he went against the Israelis and wanted to support the Palestinians. Then all of a sudden not long after this, there are riots in the streets. Imagine that. There are many jewish Islamic converts and Berbers living in North Africa. Names,  faces and religious philosophies  do not mean much. It is what a man believes on the inside that matters and money talks , there as here and bullshit walks and as here, who has the money.

Rick Masters's picture

The scary thing is some of the stuff you said may become illegal soon. I can't believe I just said that. It's like a bad dream that I keep waking up to each morning.

High Plains Drifter's picture

Oh yes. If I lived in Canada, or Europe or Australia, I would receive a knock at my door over some of the things I say around here, and yes I would go to jail and then to prison. I promise you this. Dissent is a thing of the past, soon around here, believe me when I say that.

Hicham's picture

I highly doubt that. Have you ever been to Canada?

WaterWings's picture

Speaking of Canada, and energy, where is Leo "Chinese Solars" Kolivakis?

Wonderful news if you aren't worried about unemployment!!

Village Idiot's picture

They're working on a 1000 yard minimum...

Vol. 18, No. 2      01/14/10

Tucson Tragedy Prompts Renewed Calls For Gun Control

Click here to vote in this week's poll.

This week, the NRA and countless Americans offered prayers and condolences for those killed and wounded during the senseless assassination attempt on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.).

Yet while those of us who defend the Second Amendment were respecting the heartache of the people of Tucson and waiting to learn the full facts of the case, anti-gun activists were renewing their push for more gun control laws.  ("In the wake of these kind of incidents, the trick is to move quickly," the Violence Policy Center's Kristen Rand told MSNBC.)

Rand and other gun ban advocates were quick to push several schemes.

The most widely publicized is the proposal by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) to re-impose the 1994 ban on new manufacture of ammunition magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition, and to criminalize the transfer of existing magazines between law-abiding gun owners.  These magazines are standard equipment for self-defense handguns and other firearms owned by tens of millions of Americans.  Law-abiding private citizens choose them for many reasons, including the same reason police officers do: to improve their odds in defensive situations.

Also, Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) proposed to ban possession of firearms within 1,000 feet of the President, Vice President, Members of Congress or federal judges.  Obviously, this proposal would be ignored by anyone who intends to harm a government official.  But it would impose extraordinary burdens on honest gun owners, creating potentially hundreds of square miles of roving "gun free" areas throughout the United States. 
There's no question that the debate over gun control will continue after the Tucson attack.  Please rest assured that the NRA will, as always, stand front and center in defense of the rights of gun owners.  And, as always, watch your NRA-ILA alerts for the latest news and calls to action on these critical issues.


Ned Zeppelin's picture

Who really needs clips holding 10 or more rounds of ammunition? It's not a sporting arm for hunting, after all.  Time to be reasonable. 

nmewn's picture

"Who really needs clips holding 10 or more rounds of ammunition?"

Someone facing eleven Jared Loughner's.

trav7777's picture

what the fuck does "need" have to do with anything?

NEITHER YOU nor the GOVERNMENT is the BOSS of everybody.  this is OUR country, NOT THEIRS

i.knoknot's picture

spot on trav, and in terms even some of the local idiots can actually understand.

what part of 'we have the right to be left the fuck alone' are these folks not getting?


WaterWings's picture

Yeah, why do cops carry around multiple high-cap mags?

Lets make a bunch of laws and ask criminals after the fact which ones they considered.

Chupacabra's picture

Where is it written that a weapon must be "a sporting arm for hunting," you effeminate little wimp?  And who cares what a groveling sniveler like you thinks is or is not reasonable when it comes to their choice of weapon?  F*ck you, Ned, you're exactly what's wrong with the world today.  Lop those balls off quick, son, they certainly ain't doing you any good.

Red Neck Repugnicant's picture

I support the second amendment, because I believe in whatever freedom we still have.  If you want to burry 10,000 rounds of ammo in your backyard like a feral, undomesticated RamboSquirrel, go for it.  Our quest for freedom from oppression is more important than any tragedy that might arise from it.  

For me, though, the problem with the second amendment are the wannabe-Rambo, Gunsmoke-douch-bags that are so often attached to the cause.  You know the ones I'm talking about: they always cowboy-up the rhetoric until the gun becomes a metaphor for their swinging dicks. Sometimes you don't even need to hear them to spot them - look for one or more of the following: flat-top, mustache and/or goatee, cowboy boots/hat, mullet, musky cologne, spitin' tobacco, oversized vehicle, barbed-wire tattoos and a preoccupation with Pamela Anderson (that's a must!). 

There's very little in the Constitution that elicits more ego-charged rhetoric than the second amendment; it's like halloween for their fragile, power-starved egos. We don't retreat, we reload! Fuck n' A! Saddle up the Camaros, baby!

These idiots are no different than those goofy Christians who babble in tongues and give Christianity a bad image.  Same with so many of the second amendment wing nuts who can't have a legitimate conversation without dressing up their ego into a tough-guy costume first.  They fit in the same box of lunacy.

Talk to me about Christ or freedom, and I'll listen and engage with civil discourse. Talk about faggots, effeminate little wimps, how God needs money or the upcoming rapture, and I'll just dismiss you as someone exercising their right to be a fucking moron. 



WaterWings's picture

Engaging, yet still stinks of agenda. The "bad image" kind, if the reader knows what I mean.

nmewn's picture

I think he said anyone without a degree from Eton College is a lower form of life than he and is not entitled to an opinion without first clearing it through him...or sumpin.

I could be wrong ;-)

Chump's picture

What a lot of blather just to say, "I think I'm smarter than people I think are stupid."  Wow, what a success for you.

"Talk to me about Christ or freedom, and I'll listen and engage with civil discourse."

Ahahahahahaha.  Boy, phew, hahaha, thanks for that.

NumberNone's picture

What the fuck is wrong with you? 

Which of your so-called second amendment lover characteristics ""flat-top, mustache and/or goatee, cowboy boots/hat, mullet, musky cologne, spitin' tobacco, oversized vehicle, barbed-wire tattoos and a preoccupation with Pamela Anderson (that's a must!)." is associated with Jared Loughner?

Which of your characteristics "flat-top, mustache and/or goatee, cowboy boots/hat, mullet, musky cologne, spitin' tobacco, oversized vehicle, barbed-wire tattoos and a preoccupation with Pamela Anderson (that's a must!)" tied to the gun toters in Chicago that killed 217 people during the first half of 2010. 

You hate because your an elitist.  You hate because you think are smarter than they are and you think you know better than them.  Mostly you hate because they hate your liberal bullshit, have no fear of you, and have no qualm sticking a middle finger in your face to tell you to FUCK OFF and there is nothing you can do about it....except bash them in blogs and pray someday "daddy" government squashes them.   

Chump's picture

Who really needs a semi-automatic rifle?  They're fast repeaters and unnecessary for skilled marksman.  Time to be reasonable.

Who really needs a KA-BAR?  It's designed for fighting and even has a "blood groove."  Time to be reasonable.

Who really needs knives with points at all?  They're good for stabbing and unnecessary for most kitchen applications.  Time to be reasonable.

Who really needs a nine pound sledge hammer?  This isn't the Wild West and we aren't building any railroads.  Time to be reasonable.

Who really needs your uninformed and useless opinion on what is or isn't reasonable, anyway?

hardmedicine's picture

I still don't understand why fully auto isn't legal.  It says "shall not be infringed"  .... that means I should be able to carry around a fully automatic machine gun I think.  Go ahead and junk you pussy liberals.  And I'm a woman!!



nmewn's picture

Give em hell lady!

They're not "liberals" they're progressives (socialists)...a liberal...a classical liberal, would never empower the state to take from a citizen.


The failed, vacuous logic of the progressive mind is simply this.

They agree, that the Bill of Rights is a document for all citizens outlining what the government >>>cannot do<<< against the citizen.

So far, so good.

Except for the Second Amendment...which they somehow strain to make the argument that it (and only it, the Second Amendment) applies to the government, the state.

There is no other of the remaining nine Amendment's where they try to make this do so would incite full scale rebellion.

This is where the progressive/socialist lie of "militia" falls flat on it's face.

Atlas Shrugging's picture

To directly answer your question, I do, because I WANT them (they're MAGAZINES, not "clips").  Either your head is so far up your ass or you want to control me, and either way, you are part of the problem.  I recall recently about a Marine on leave that was out with his girlfriend at a movie and was attacked by dozens of feral punks.  What better way to defend yourself than with a semi-auto (preferrably a .45, but a 9mm does generally have more capacity) and several high capacity magazines?  This situation is oh-so typical of the deflect-the-blame mentality of the Left.  Instead of infringing upon my rights to defend myself in the most efficient manner possible, why not just hold scum like this accountable for their actions and put this guy at the end of a short rope on a tall tree within a month?  That's the message we need to be sending!

Red Neck Repugnicant's picture

What better way to defend yourself than with a semi-auto....

.....infringing upon my rights to defend myself in the most efficient manner possible

You (and your violence-mongering ego) completely miss the most salient point of the second amendment.  In fact, in doing so, you are no different than the Left who tries to use the statistically irrelevant event from last weekend to bolster their anti-gun propaganda.  The Left's point from last weekend and your post above both reflect a "head up ass" mentality.  

The second amendment is about freedom from oppression and freedom from a government taking your rights.  

Gun rights should never be questioned when a retard goes ape-shit, nor should it be validated by another statistically irrelevant scenario regarding punks in a parking lot. The second amendment is NOT about being able to turn a movie-theatre parking lot into a blood-soaked, urban warfare video game with chunks of carnage hanging from the rafters because you want some punks to pay the ultimate price for their transgressions against you. 

I don't want retards taking my rights, nor do I want blood-lusting wing-nuts protecting them. 


i.knoknot's picture


you've proven many-times-over that you have it in you to be a complete asswipe in here.

but, regardless the source, a well-made point is simply that. props.

disclosure: i do like the parts of the movies where the 'leave me alone' good-guys beat/blow the shit out of the persistent bad-guy antagonists.

g's picture

What!?!? Al Gore did not invent the internet. Al Gore is just another pompous fool who loves to hear himself talk, plenty of idiots blindly worship this false god.

To the point, this is an enlightening article for sure.

imapopulistnow's picture

Progressives must always find a villian.  Ethanol is the villian of the day.

damage's picture

Uhm... I don't know a single libertarian, or conservative that believes ethanol used as fuel is good... only one or two idiot progressives...

Eric The Red's picture

Uh, Grassley is a republican.

trav7777's picture

huh?  Corn based ethanol is NET ENERGY NEGATIVE.

It burns MORE OIL to put into your tank than oil it replaces!

Progressives with their idiotic green fetishes had as much to do with this boondoggle as the moron conservatives who are bankrolled by the big agra companies.

Cistercian's picture

 And not only is it energy negative it is also something that leads to a loss of topsoil.Farming is very much better in this regard today...but there is still loss.The ultimate mortgaging of the future!

   Starving the poor is just a wonderful happenstance for our dipshit lawmakers...they cave to evil shortsighted lobbies, and are rewarded by enough payola for reelection!

  The system works!

 For the Evil.

i.knoknot's picture

and we refresh that topsoil with ... oil-based fertilizers...

we're so friggin doomed.

johnnynaps's picture

I don't vote anymore......have you seen the choices? Why would you want to support a McCain or Obama, both suck. I am tired of voting for the lesser evil. Oh, and I guarantee that I am doing more to starve the BEAST than you! Keep working and paying those taxes.....there might be another worthless war we need you to fund.

High Plains Drifter's picture

I used to say that when I voted. I have not voted for a very very long time now. It doesn't matter who we vote for, nothing good for the people happens never.

malikai's picture

The light at the end of the tunnel is when this whole bogus "reality" collapses. At that point, there will be no more subsidies, and the corruption which goes with it should also cease. I just hope it is us who inherit the new system, not the fascists of today. Here's to the Chinese cutting their losses and dumping treasuries en masse.

trav7777's picture

if you want subsidies and corruption, China is your country

philgramm's picture

No vote is also a vote.  You are opting out and disagreeing with a rigged system.  If all the sheeple stayed home on election day the politicians would soon realize that no one supports the ponzi.  More importantly, the people would realize they are not alone, that the rest of the citizens are also fed up.  The state is very good at creating a problem, orchestrating a reaction, the offering up a solution (I read this somewhere but I don't recall where but credit is due tothe person who saw this).  It is the only way for the useless mafia known as the state to stay relevant.

High Plains Drifter's picture

I have never really thought about it, since on the surface it seems so benign, but just thinking about it, what would it possibly really mean?  Just think about it. If not one person voted, for anything, the shock to the system would be so great, that this one simple act, similar to every person taking their money out of the banks, would in fact, collapse the system. Imagine that.

Ned Zeppelin's picture

I tend towards HPD's view, at least on the national elections. Why bother picking between tweedle dumb and tweedle dumber?  Talk about a waste of gas, heading to the polls is an egregious waste of gasoline. Look at the last election: Obama (bought and paid for by Goldman Sachs) and Biden, or McCain (ZZZzzzzz) and the psycho, and dumb as a stump, Palin.  Great choice. If it were a restaurant you'd have already dissed it on the online reviews. 

Chupacabra's picture

Whiner.  Be a man and do something about it.