1 - 10 Next
Nothing's going to change. The people at the higher levels of the administration are against it on ideological grounds; Buffett, Steyer, the environmental groups, green energy cronies, etc., that fund the party, don't want it--it won't happen. Democrat candidates have the option of running against it, if they think it will help them, but they're not going force it over the administration's wishes (and couldn't, if they wanted to).
In response to:

Random Thoughts

Anthony305 Wrote: 1 hour ago (1:41 AM)
He surely got it right on the third-party candidates. How can these morons run for office, knowing that whatever votes they get are most likely taken away from a tolerable candidate, and if they get very many, will probably result in the election of an intolerable one. Minor parties are a good thing in a parliamentary system, where winning a few seats can often result in real power in a closely divided parliament, or in building a coalition government. In the American electoral system, the only thing a minor party can do, is to take votes from the major party that is closest to it in philosophy, and assist the party it despises most.
In response to:

Mistakes of the Past Are Back

Anthony305 Wrote: Sep 26, 2014 12:29 AM
What if the whole point of invading Iraq was to attract terrorists, to bring them to battle, kill their people and deplete their resources? What if, in the present circumstances, we equip, train and assist the Kurds and Sunni tribes to destroy the terrorists in their areas, and in the bargain, guarantee them sovereignty, and independence from the corrupt Shi'a government in Baghdad?
In response to:

GOP Bordering On Victory

Anthony305 Wrote: Sep 26, 2014 12:07 AM
The trouble here is that the corrupt morons that run the Republican party have sold out to Tom Donohue and other big-money contributors to the party establishment. They have promised amnesty, and are still trying to whip their elected officials into line, using their control of the party's campaign money to force support for the program they've already sold, but haven't yet been able to deliver. The solution is to purge the entire party leadership establishment. Nothing good is going to happen as long as these people are selling government, and using the money to control Congress.
What I was trying to say is that he's a figurehead, the face of the movement; things are getting done, but not necessarily at his personal instigation, more by the organization that he represents. The higher levels of every department, agency, commission, board, etc., in government are packed with people of a similar Marxist outlook; they don't need any direction from above to impose their program on us. With the news people assisting, and covering for them, we have no idea what all they're doing.
You're giving Obama far too much credit. I don't doubt that he's knowledgeable about the Marxist philosophy that's been hammered into him by his family and associates since he was a kid. He's certainly studied Alinsky, but he's not really proficient at applying Alinsky's tactics. Obama isn't good at anything, or informed enough to properly manage anything; he's a creation of the news industry, and the horde of commies that surround him--an empty suit, with a teleprompter and a herd of speech writers.
In response to:

The Emperor’s New Climate

Anthony305 Wrote: Sep 24, 2014 12:01 PM
The problem is that the leadership of the Republican Party needs to be overthrown, so that people can be elected who will dismantle the tyrannical, unaffordable structure of government that has been built over the last hundred years.
Republicans shouldn't be pandering to any group--not women, blacks, Muslims, Spanish-speakers, the "poor", or anyone else. The Democrats already have the ignorant, non-thinking, emotion-driven and "something-for-nothing" voters, and are likely to keep them. If the Republicans are to provide an opposition, they must go for the rest, and use their campaigns to educate people about what our unaffordable, tyrannical government is doing to them (rather than for them), and gain support by making more people see that the present level of government is a more of a burden to them, than a benefactor, and that there simply isn't the money to continue on the present course, even if it wasn't destroying our freedom and prosperity. It's not possible to out-pander the Democrats, and would be even more destructive to the country, if it was.
That should be even more of an incentive to vote against the self-serving, corrupt, imperious bastards that control things; there will never be a chance of good government, until these people are removed from positions of power.
Congress must give its approval to this (or any other) particular military action, and prescribe its limits, hopefully excluding any US involvement in the Syrian civil war (which seems to be the only reason Obama wants to intervene). This is not an emergency where immediate action is required, and there is no time for consultation. A president has command authority, but only in actions authorized by Congress.
1 - 10 Next