1 - 10 Next
It would be interesting for a polling org to do an equal sample poll. Equal samples of registered Dems and registered Reps at various times during the year to see which party is winning in the argument at any given time. Because in most cases there are crossover voters. Now that would be a useful poll.
In response to:

Why Governor Calls Shooter 'Suspect A'

Brandon156 Wrote: Jul 25, 2012 1:50 AM
"An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" means that the punishment should match the crime; no more, no less. Someone kills, they should be killed. Someone steals, restitution is required, etc... It's actually the basis for laws against cruel and unusual punishment. But it also seems to call for capital punishment in cases of murder or other conspiracy involving the loss of life.
In response to:

Our Disgraceful President

Brandon156 Wrote: Jul 15, 2012 10:07 AM
CNN seems to be doing a double-take with Obama. They are allowing some of Obama's narrative to pass, while not allowing others - the Obama Romney/Bain narrative for example. Could it be a result of their dismal viewership? I think so. I think they're very slowly (at a snail's pace) beginning to realize that they're journalists, not Obama campaign strategists. Of course there's still no hope for MSNBC.
....clear as to what fits under the conservative umbrella. Government must be efficient and not so expensive as to negatively affect the welfare and prosperity of ordinary Americans. It must be transparent, accountable, and protective of the interest of ordinary Americans. That's it. So in my estimation, conservatives are much better able to assess what is sheer baloney compared to what is in the interest of most Americans. Hint: They don't have a list of pet projects; rather a list of tested principles.
....certain things being done, because the things have always been issues under the radical leftist tent. The greatest sin of liberals is in not being very specific as to what they want. They assume too much. Political correctness has created a certain umbrella of assumptions as to what constitutes the liberal agenda. Vague ideas of fairness and income equality are thought to be covered specifically under that umbrella, even though nobody has laid out the particulars. That's why someone like Bloomberg, who is not really a Democrat, can say "No Big Gulps," and it's the liberals who will go along, because it seems to fit under the liberal umbrella, though not specified as such. Conservatives, on the other hand, are much more.....
I made a comment on Breitbart today to the effect that liberals have millions of pet projects, and Obama, with his "hope and change" promise attempted to place all of those pet projects under the same tent. The vagueness of the promise, despite a few specifics caused most liberals to believe that Obama was going to approve their pet projects. Wind power, Man-boy love, more food stamps; it mattered not what the pet project was, as long as radical liberals were in favor. Hope and change became the battle cry that placed them all in one spot; under the brilliance of King Obama. That they are fighting amongst themselves on certain pet projects is inevitable. They elected King Obama based on an emotional appeal with the assumption of.....
Have to laugh at your complete denial here. Walker won by a larger margin (+200,000) votes and 54/45 than when he was first elected gov. Your 8/1 figure is completely wrong. The unions spent over 21 million to recall Walker. The reason Barrett didn't get more backing is because he wasn't the unions' initial choice. Not only that, two cities in California, San Diego and San Jose voted on Tuesday to limit union influence in their cities. With everything that's been going on with cutting back on a union's ability to influence elections, coupled with the popularity of the leaders who do so, we can expect more of this trend in the coming years; and we can expect the recall, actually, of those who refuse to do so.
They call the barrier around New York that prevents anyone from escaping "Occupy the Perimeter." Yeah. That's it.
In response to:

The Secret Kill List

Brandon156 Wrote: May 31, 2012 12:20 PM
....also, in Iraq we scared the daylights out of Kaddafi, such that he ended his quest for nukes. In Afghanistan we temporarily restrained the Taliban, but drove Al Quida elsewhere (Iraq, Pakistan and the hills). We need to rethink strategy and goals in foreign wars. We should determine what "winning" means ahead of time, and once we've "won," get out. I think we should have left Iraq after taking out Saddam. He was the threat, we got him out. Afghanistan? That was the worst of the two conflicts in my estimation. We didn't accomplish much there, other than temporary restraint and the re-organization elsewhere of a terrorist organization.
In response to:

The Secret Kill List

Brandon156 Wrote: May 31, 2012 12:13 PM
We gained short-term benefits in both Iraq and Afghanistan, but neither war should have gone on as long as they did. In Iraq we took out Saddam who was bent on regaining nuclear capabilities that he lost in the early 1980s due to Israeli intervention. This is hardly every reported in US news circles, but it is a well-known fact that Saddam regretted invading Kuwait when he did; since he did not have nuclear capabilities at the time. If he had, we wouldn't have dared going in against him....
1 - 10 Next