1 - 7
In response to:

The Snowden Effect

Anderson4 Wrote: Jun 14, 2013 12:45 PM
It's a simple equation. If 99.9999999 percent of terrorists and potential terrorists are in foreign countries, 99.9999999 percent of our intelligence gathering should be of people in those countries. George W. Bush's mistake was in dividing foreign and domestic intelligence evenly. Take the fight to the enemy, not the American people.
1) ...Opposes terrorist attacks on civilians the world over. There is a problem with this, right off the bat. When specifically asked if they condemn a Muslim act of terror against non-Muslims, this response is a dodge, one of several, to avoid doing so. Unless Muslims are willing to condemn other Muslims as "bad Muslims", condemning all terror is futile; because they will expand the definition of terror to include things like "Zionism" and building settlements and churches in lands they believe should be exclusively Muslim.
Every time the left spouts out about gun control, the right should respond by calling for a faster and more efficient death penalty for murder. After conviction, and with federal appeals, a condemned killer should be executed within two years after sentencing. This can be achieved with some common sense changes to criminal procedure. First is that appeals automatically move to the head of the federal docket with strict limits on appeal delays. Second that federal judges can only overturn by exoneration. Third, that states are declared "competent" to execute, so how they do it is not open for federal argument.
In response to:

The Fallacies That Guide Us

Anderson4 Wrote: Nov 30, 2012 9:01 AM
Obama and company are like confirmed alcoholics arguing with their Republican wives over the family budget. O&C: “Okay, we’ll take out a third mortgage on our home, sell the car, you can street walk, and make our young children do yard work around the neighborhood for money so I can buy more booze.” Republicans: “No more booze. We cannot afford booze. We have no more money for booze.” O&C: “You’re being unreasonable. Our only alternative is to buy more booze. We have to have more booze. You have to let me buy booze any time I want because I have to have more booze, and I hate having to ask your permission to get more booze!”
Are there any Republicans, at all, willing to advance legislation to bust up the MSM oligopoly? I mean, seriously, just a dozen corporations control TV, radio, movies, newspapers, magazines, pollsters, book publishing, and big pieces of the Internet. Wouldn't it benefit us all to antitrust most of these? They no longer provide the news, only spin, pointless argument, and info-tainment.
The author neglects the ebb and flow of the diversity of opinion on both sides. For example, the political left can be subdivided into "liberal", and "radical", and the political right as "liberal" and "conservative". When nationally, liberalism was ascending and conservatism declining, the radicals of the Democrat party are marginalized. They are less able to control the agenda of the left, but liberals of both parties have more power. Conversely, when conservatism is ascending and Democrat liberalism is declining, it marginalizes Republican liberals as well, and yet the radicals of the Democrat party more strongly control their parties agenda.
Whenever an incident like this happens, liberals immediately grab hold of the debate by making it one about gun control. While this needs to be opposed, of course, conservatives should also make an effort to change the debate, to "limiting the power of federal judges to delay or deny the death penalty for convicted murderers." This puts the liberals on the defensive, trying to defend 20+ years delays in carrying out a sentence of execution for a heinous murderer. Conservatives should demand a timetable of no more than 5 years after initial conviction, with all such appeals moving toe the head of the docket, and that federal judges only be permitted to judge the fairness of the trial, not the method of execution set by the states.
1 - 7