Previous 11 - 20 Next
In response to:

Thad Cochran's Voting-Rights Victory

bworei Wrote: Jun 30, 2014 8:41 AM
Given my options above, I marked this article "ridiculous." Mr Jacoby, you are either ignorant or intentionally deceptive in that there was no mention of the fact that the vast majority of Democrats who voted for Cochran very likely committed a CRIME! MS Code 23-15-575, states: “No person shall be eligible to participate in any primary election unless he intends to support the nominations made in the primary in which he participates.” Sure you can't read someone's mind, but it's still the law! But it's a law that requires integrity, which apparently is a rare commodity among MS Democrats!
Indy - Try this on for size (A little something Jason knows, but apparently you don't): Obama stated in 2007 that he would pass health care legislation that would reduce costs by up to $2500 per year per family. Yet health care costs are continuing to go up. Which is Jason's point precisely: If Obama had delivered on his promise, that wouldn't be happening! PS: And spare me the "we have to wait for the entire law to go into effect for the premiums to start coming down." There will be even more coverage requirements when it's fully implemented; premiums will not go down. Obama's promise is a pipe dream and THAT'S why people are upset!
In response to:

On Fast & Furious, "Blame Bush" is a Lie

bworei Wrote: Jun 20, 2012 6:26 PM
Hey, Bottisilly - Why is it that Holder himself admitted to Cronyn, "I'm not trying to equate the two" when you have all these "stories" which "show" that they can be equated (and TH is, thus, "lying" to us)? I guess that means Holder is lying, too. (But then again, we knew that already, didn't we? ;-)) Trust me: The AG's office has more info than you can scrape together online from your Mom's basement. If the two programs were as similar as you purport them to be, no way Holder admits that they aren't.
In response to:

Real Racism

bworei Wrote: Apr 15, 2012 9:12 PM
"[T]o progressives, diversity means different colors but like minds – drones who think what they’re told." So well written!
See my post below: IT DOESN'T MATTER who controls Congress if this maverick gets re-elected!
The point you third-party idealists fail to realize (or admit) is that IT DOESN'T MATTER who controls Congress when you have a maverick like Obama in the WH! So what if we re-take the Senate. Obama has ALREADY demonstrated that he will do as he pleases, either via executive order or executive fiat. He just reassured the Russians that that's the case just last week. Don't you get it?
This year, the economy's even worse than when O took office, O is the one who's unpopular, HE's the one running he war, and Romney is far better to look at (so the ladies tell me and, sadly, that still makes a difference). Study after study reports a MAJOR drop in enthusiasm among college students and blacks and NO WAY they turn out as strongly for him as they did in '08. With all that O had going for him in '08, he only garners 52.7% of the popular vote. Taking into account everything I just cited above, Romney is "going to lose anyway"? Wanna reconsider that assumption?
Romney is "going to lose anyway"? Which facts do you have to back that up? Not conjecture about how, because you hate him, he's going to lose, but some solid reasoning, please. The first poll to come out after Santorum dropped out had Romney UP on Obama. His lead will only grow once Newt and RP drop out. HERE are some facts for you: Obama only got 52.7% of the popular vote, despite the fact that he had EVERYTHING going his way in '08: The Dow was in free-fall, Bush was EXTREMELY unpopular, the wars were EXTREMELY unpopular, and here comes this brash, young, good-looking alternative vs McCain.
As for Romney's record of nominating liberal justices, again, answer my questions: Would he nominate Sotomayor or Kagan? Absolutely not, and you know it. Bush, another squishy moderate, gave us Roberts and Alito, and Alito weathered an attempted filibuster just fine. (And Romney will have a strong GOP Senate, too, so you can't compare it to the situation in Massachusetts: Romney will have the Senate as President, but he didn't in Mass. Mass's electorate is liberal, but the country is center-right. In short, it's not a legitimate comparison.) That's the honest truth, and how dare you question my honesty!
First of all, don't put words in my mouth. I'm not trying to "push" Romney. Read my post: I said there's much to dislike about him. NOTHING is worse than 4 more years of Obama, though, and we're left with Romney as our only hope in that regard, until the more-conservative young guns are ready in 4-8 years.
The libertarians WILL shrink the gov't? They WILL NEVER get elected because they WILL NEVER be (and have never been, I might add) more than a fringe party. Your pipe dream of a third party as the answer is a CRACK PIPE one at that! There are much-more conservative, young heavyweights coming up in 4-8 years (e.g. Rubio, Ryan, Rand Paul et al). We have to HOLD ON in the meantime! If you contribute to O's re-election, it will be too late! That is REALITY! Don't you get it?!
Previous 11 - 20 Next