Previous 11 - 20 Next
"The guy who lost to the guy who lost to Obama" Hahahahahahaha! Do you even listen to yourself or are you just retarded. In 1980, Reagan was a former democrat, a former supporter of the New Deal. As Governor of California, he signed into law one of the first bills legalizing abortion. Obviously a RINO through and through, right? Worse yet, He was the guy who lost to the guy who lost to Carter! Tell me again how that turned out?
In response to:

A Moral Question for the GOP

DirtiusMaximus Wrote: Aug 17, 2012 10:32 AM
Further, you cannot claim that a bill THAT HAS NOT BEEN PASSED BY EITHER HOUSE OF CONGRESS represents the will of Congress. That's perhaps the thinnest argument I've ever seen in a Townhall article ever.
In response to:

A Moral Question for the GOP

DirtiusMaximus Wrote: Aug 17, 2012 10:30 AM
Whether you think the actual policy is the right one or not, to do it by executive fiat is flatly unconstitutional. It circumvents the clear intention of the Constitution on how laws are enacted and negates the very idea of checks and balances. Like much of what our President does (from unilaterally deciding not to uphold DOMA to interfering with a business's right to expand into another state), it smacks of an imperialist bent.
In response to:

RNC Chair to Reid: Dirty Liar

DirtiusMaximus Wrote: Aug 05, 2012 10:24 PM
Senators cannot be prosecuted for anything they say in the Senate, no matter how criminal it would otherwise be. The worst that can happen to him is a censure by the Senate...which he leads, so fat chance of that.
And conservatives are called hateful.
Give me one definition of a cult that would include Mormonism and not Catholicism or Lutheranism. You can use all the pejoratives you want, but yours is a losing argument.
They are probably looking at tithing alone. In the LDS church tithing is used for church administration and building costs as well as printed materials like lesson books for sunday school and the like. Members are also encouraged to donate to a fund called fast offerings which is exclusively used for helping people in need. There are no administration costs taken out of this money. A dollar donated to this fund is a full dollar that goes to helping someone who needs it. The difference is that the fast offering fund is managed almost entirely on a local level. These funds are generally not sent to church headquarters and would not be counted as part of the "income" of the church as a whole. At least that is my understanding.
That just goes to the general attitude of liberals that if you don't wan't something mandated by government, you don't want it to exist at all.
Yes, other candidates for the GOP nomination attacked Romney from the left. That's part of why they are NOT the nominee. Someone calling you a liar does not make you a liar. And this: --"Why would you want to nominate the guy who lost to the guy who lost to Obama?"-- is the absolute dumbest argument of the entire primary season. By that same logic, the GOP should not have nominated Reagain in 1980. After all, just four years earlier he lost to the guy who lost to Carter! He couldn't possibly win, could he! Oh, wait. How did that turn out again?
And if that doesn't convince you, look up John Maynard Keynes.
One more: http://campusprogress.org/articles/obama_to_congress_invest_in_students_and_economy_by_passing_buffett_rule/ "I believe that we cannot stop investing in the things that help create that middle class; that create real, long-lasting, broad-based growth in this country."
Previous 11 - 20 Next