1 - 10 Next
Obama has been the most liberal president since Woodrow Wilson, the man who was willing to take the nation to war, thereby indirectly causing the deaths of 116,500 US citizens, wounding 204,000 more, and costing the Treasury $22.6 billion ($533.8 billionin 2014 dollars) to secure his place in history (he wanted to form a one world government at its end, what became the ill-fated "League of Nations"). Wilson's megalomania eventually reduced him to madness. As Obama sees his policies, one after another, rejected by the American people and unraveling, as it begins to dawn on him that he may not be the "Messiah" he thought he was, there may be a creeping madness waiting in the darkness of the soul for him as well. A kind of dying of rationality that no one is going to be able to predict or understand. I'm just hoping he can get through his last two years without being photographed eating dirt in the Rose Garden.
Is the economic law of supply and demand all THAT difficult for an Iranian oil "expert" to wrap his turban around? Here's a thought. Stop refining plutonium to weapons grade. Then you save billions in annual outlays, and all the sanctions that are crippling your economy disappear overnight. It's win/win for you. Of course, you're going to have to give up your dream of world domination in the name of Allah, and I understand that's a very big sacrifice for you megalomaniacs, but there it is. There's no free lunch.
In response to:

Romney Insider: Mitt's Running...

ChuckintheOC Wrote: Dec 06, 2014 5:52 PM
Sorry, but to me that's choosing to continue starving, because you didn't get the entire loaf of bread offered to you. People who are really hungry for change in '16 will settle for ANYTHING that even REMOTELY looks less liberal than what we've seen for the last six years. Anyone who remains finicky is just lying if they claim to be hungry for change. Third party votes by conservatives do one thing and one thing only: they put the liberal Democrat in office.
In response to:

Romney Insider: Mitt's Running...

ChuckintheOC Wrote: Dec 06, 2014 5:43 PM
Ted Cruz is a solid conservative with exactly ZERO chance of getting elected president. If nothing else, Barrack Obama has taught us that members of Congress make horrible presidents. If the Republican Party EVER selects another standard bearer from among the members of Congress again, they may as will disband the party.
In response to:

Romney Insider: Mitt's Running...

ChuckintheOC Wrote: Dec 06, 2014 5:37 PM
Nail on the head.
In response to:

Romney Insider: Mitt's Running...

ChuckintheOC Wrote: Dec 06, 2014 5:36 PM
And then we get Hillary! What luck!!
In response to:

Romney Insider: Mitt's Running...

ChuckintheOC Wrote: Dec 06, 2014 5:35 PM
When Ann says "maybe", then and only then will I start believing Romney might run again.
So you're offended by an accurate, if dramatic term? That's really strange coming from someone who thinks Ethan Epstein made a "serious mistake" in condemning Burce Springsteen's choice of "Fortunate Son" for his performance at the "Concert for Valor" held recently at the Capitol Mall, to commemorate the bravery and sacrifice of those who have fought and died for their country.
It's actually instructive of how liberals argue to follow and read the article. What you find is massive equivocation, every liberals friend, drafted (excuse the play one words) in a malicious attack on the Weekly Standard, and in particular Ethan Epstein (which I, unfortunately, confused in my reply to "Brigand" with the iconic Bill Kristol.
William Kristol, if anyone bothers to actually read his "article" (I'm not sure a six sentence, three paragraph blurb over a video counts as an "article", but I consider that dilemma taken care of by the scare quotes), but here's the link: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/anti-military-anthem-played-concert-valor_818921.html Now I'm sure "Brigand" and the author of the article (accurate use of the word here) agree that Kristol has made a "serious mistake", and that "mistake" is clearly, in their eyes "being a hypocrite". And the alleged "hypocrisy" is that Kristol, a staunch defender of the First Amendment right to free speech, has written an "article" denouncing Bruce Springsteen's choice of songs to sing in commemoration of all the soldiers who fought and died for their country at the recent "Concert for Valor". What neither Gutilli nor Brigand tell us is that Kristol never denounced Springsteen's RIGHT to sing the song, "Fortunate Son", but rather the appropriateness of his choice. Evidently, Brigand and Gutilli feel the choice as entirely appropriate, in fact so appropriate that to think otherwise is "a serious mistake" in Brigand's mind, and amounts to being "tone deaf" in Gutilli's. Of course, Gutilli doesn't want to frame his complaint this way, so he points out all the hypocrisies Kristol may have committed in expressing his opinion about the quality (or lack thereof) of Springsteen's song choice, ("Nowhere in the song does it encourage anyone to resist the draft, desert the armed forces or head north over the border. Neither does the song denigrate the flag or cheer on the Vietnamese Communists."), none of which makes any appearance in Kristol's actual six sentence blurb. And all this is given as Gutilli's convoluted mental journey from what Kristol actually wrote, to what Gutilli would like you to believe he meant, so that he can then frame his criticism against Kristol as a hypocritical attack on a liberal's right to speak his mind. And that's the thing about liberals and free speech. They think that because everyone has a right to say whatever they want that no one has any right to pass judgment on the content of what they've said. To them "F**K YOU!" and "God bless you" are not only protected expressions under the First Amendment, but their quality of content is equal, and if you condemn the content of the former, you've just eliminated any "right" you have to condemn the content of the latter without being "hypocritical
1 - 10 Next