Previous 11 - 20 Next
"In December, Jeb Bush told the Wall Street Journal's Gerald Seib that a Republican candidate needs to be "much more willing to, 'lose the primary to win the general' without violating your principles" -- adding that no one has done that lately and that it's not easy." Oh, brother. Just goes to show how stupid Bush is. How do you "win the general" if you've already LOST the primaries? If you've lost the primary, you're OUT of the general election! Maybe THAT'S why "it's not easy", ya think? These Establishment GOP hacks with their trite and brain-dead slogans are why the GOP keeps losing the presidential elections.
In response to:

Why is Jeb Bush smiling?

BrianR.3 Wrote: Jan 07, 2015 1:09 AM
Jesus Christ! No wonder the GOP is so F'ed up. Is this the best it's got to offer? This is exactly why I quit that sorry excuse for a party back when they nominated McIdiot, and became an Independent.
"Drones"... We used to call them "radio-controlled" models...
Terrific column. Every time the Establishment GOP hacks promote these "moderate" candidates, all they do is prove that they're super-glued on stupid. Now they're talking about yet another BUSH? Someone else they can throw in the pipe and back until they see once again that these "moderates" are no longer electable? The Bushes have already had two bites at the apple, and turned out to be pretty lousy Presidents both times. Do the Establishment boneheads expect people to forget that? Speaking as a conservative independent, there's no way I'll ever vote for another one, regardless of who the Dem/socialists run. If this country's going to be drives off the cliff, let's just get it done at full speed. I can't see a dime's worth of difference between Bush and Clinton, frankly. He'll just head for the cliff a little slower. Screw that.
Oh, great. Yet another "moderate" pro-amnesty Bush. If the GOP actually nominates this clod, they'll have earned another butt-kicking at the ballot box in November 2016.
In response to:

The Conservative Case Against Torture

BrianR.3 Wrote: Dec 16, 2014 12:22 AM
A silly column by a naïve kid. Our constitutional rights don't extend to foreign enemy combatants. Period. The idea that enemy combatants are "protected" by the Constitution is patently absurd. We can freely kill them. We can't "torture" them?
Colbert "shreds" Obozo? Where? It sure wasn't in THIS video. All he did was act as his straight man, feeding him the lead-in line so he could preach to that choir full of lefties.
RedMacaw, that was an observation on the state of the law, and the flaw in Pavlich's article. I'm perfectly aware I can move. You have a firm grasp of the obvious. Traitorbill, there's a case that's going through the federal courts right now addressing the issue: Peruta v. San Diego. So far, we're winning.
"We've seen the results of this survey in action over the past few years through the implementation of concealed carry in all 50 states ..." I guess you don't get out here to Commiefornia very much. Though technically it's possible to get a CCW out here -- and has been for decades -- this is definitely NOT a "shall issue" state. The reality is that in most venues you have a better chance of winning the state lottery than getting your paws on a CCW.
Another take on the exact same issue: http://theviewfromtheisland.wordpress.com/ The first few essays deal with these issues.
Previous 11 - 20 Next