Previous 11 - 20 Next
Does Rand Paul's opposition to the nomination of Loretta Lynch for AG make him a racist? No. It makes him a 2016 Republican presidential candidate. Is anyone surprised, or shocked, to learn that the black grievance industry, including CBC and NAACP, are arms of the DNC? If so I have a bridge to sell you.
"Obviously innocent" this was not as any of 12,000 people will tell you. Inadvertent, perhaps. Innocent. Nope.
I was going to write this myself, and so I will add another reason -- Bush grew the FL state government by more than 50% in his eight years there. America doesn't need another big government boob at the helm.
We still have troops in Germany, Italy, and Japan. The problem, nitwit, is that liberal Democrats are idiots who believed that leaving before the job of cleaning up was finished was a good idea. Now the problem is that these same liberal, idiot Democrats, on this video a prime example, are trying to rewrite history so that the Democratic Party isn't destined for the ash heap of history for what they've done. The problem, therefore, are spineless, stupid Democrats who lie about what they've done.
Yes and ... the size and number of Welfare Benefits make it is a rational economic decision to sit on your backside and collect checks rather than working hard.
W accelerated the leftward drift and the resulting economic chaos made Obama possible.
Kindler, gentler, caring, compassionate -- big government by any other name is still big government. Jeb Bush grew the size of government in FL by more than 50% in his 8 years. "Read-my-lips" Bush, the elder, raised taxes and was tossed out on his ear after one term. W, great guy with a wonderful connection to solders, grew government faster than any president in history until Obama displaced him. W's big government proclivities made Obama possible. Conservatives have had enough of the Bush Dynasty.
So we can count on Bernie to walk out of the next SOTU because of Barry's failures, say Berdgahl as an example, to notify Congress as is required by law.
Vaccinations don't work perfectly, which results in the idea of herd protection. The few (around 5%) for whom the vaccinations don't work well are afforded an extra layer of protection if everyone around them is protected. That is not to advocate one way or another, but it is to point out that the decision not to vaccinate can have consequences for other people. Such an idea is already considered in other contexts. Citizens have a right to own guns. They don't have a right to fire them randomly in subway stations. Not a perfect analogy but it does show that there is a principle of restricting freedom because of risks to others.
Not so. If your kids choose not to vaccinate and catch a disease they pose a risk to my kids, even though they may be vaccinated. Having everyone vaccinated provides a layer of protection above that of a vaccination for a single individual. Thus the other thing to consider is the liability people bear when they choose not to vaccinate. Parents who make that choice, as is their right, have children who pose a risk to my children. So their right of choice is not without impact to others. It is not so simple as you make it out.
Previous 11 - 20 Next