1 - 10 Next
It's not clear to me how the Democrats can legislate a change to Constitutional rights as set forth by the Supreme Court. The Court didn't rule that the law was somehow flawed. It ruled that Congress could not ignore religious freedoms under very specific circumstances. Even Scalia said that the ruling did not cover those cases where the good of the state was greater that the individual beliefs such as in the cases of transfusion of blood, vaccinations, etc. And although the Supreme Court long ago agreed that abortion was a right, it did agree that those apposed to abortion would be forced to pay for them. The debate continues. And much like the Israeli and Arab conflict that has been ongoing for thousands of years, I see no end to it.
The hypocrisy of liberals knows no bounds. You got it. But you are expected to just shut up, sit down, and quietly accept the dual standard. The government does not have to abide by the laws of the land but you do.
So if ID cards are so discriminatory, then why does the DoJ require an ID card to enter the Department of Justice? Just asking. Shouldn't the DoJ be allowing illegal immigrants to flood into their office to stay for as long as they like without any ID or health evaluation? I smell hypocrisy.
And if you research the actual benefit of solar panels, you will find that no one will ever recover their investments so the fools are actually paying more for their energy by using solar panels. The reason is that the efficiency rating for the panels, upon which the glowing reports of energy savings are based, don't tell you that the efficiency rating begins to degrade the day after you install the panels just like the value of a car depreciates when you drive it off the lot. As the panel's efficiency rating degrades, it takes increasingly longer to recover your investment. In the majority of the cases the panel will need to be replaced before you see a return on the investment--and the cycle starts again. Those panels that last for the full expected lifetime rarely show an overall savings or if they do, it's so tiny as to be a waste of time and money when you consider the following. There is also the costs of removing/replacing the panels as well as the energy costs of recycling them--which are not factored into the hyped up promises of solar energy. The same goes for electric cars. The energy used to recharge the batteries, the fact that the battery packs will need to be replaced, and the cost in energy to recycle used battery packs before anyone sees a penny of benefit are not factor into the bogus mileage and energy claims. And like solar panels, no electric car owner will ever see a return on the investment in terms of saving money or saving the planet. Solar, wind, and electric cars are nothing more than scams supported by taxpayer subsidies and taxpayer dollars used to install them at government facilities or to encourage people to buy them; which are just other forms of taxpayer subsidies to the industry. Every solar and wind company would go broke in a month without the 53% of us who still pay federal income taxes paying to keep their doors open for business. My point is that the 20 million could have been put to better tangible benefits by providing care rather than flushing it down the solar toilet.
Allowing people to resign or retire isn't the same as holding them responsible for their negligence. I want to see them charged with felony offenses, tried, and spend some time in the slammer. That might set the right example for everyone in government that if you do the crime; you do the time. Why do government employees and appointees get a pass on the same crimes that send the little people to prison? This has got to stop. I was in the Marine Corps. If I had done anything close to the negligence of these people, I would have been court martialed, demoted, fined, and doing time in the brig. So why do they get to walk out the door as if nothing every happened??
For liberals it's never about the facts--only the emotions. Emotionally, Ms. Ireland is ideologically and blindly wedded to abortion and anything and everything that contributes to preventing new life or if that doesn't work to kill the new life as quickly as possible. She doesn't care if the SCOTUS ruling was narrowed to placebo only used at 4:30 am on the 2nd Tuesday in November--she would be blindly against it--just as the silly environmental wackos blindly signed the petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide (H2O or natural water) without a clue what they were banning. Emotionally if felt good for them to ban something, anything, everything, even water; as long has they feel good about their moral superiority in all things. And I'm dead tired of the term "woman's right to choose." She already had the right to choose not to get pregnant so it should more accurately say "woman's right to choose to revisit the consequences of her lack of good judgment."
I was a Marine platoon commander in Vietnam from 1968-1969. I was a Marine company commander during the evacuation of Saigon. You are so right. There were so many unsung heroes of that forgotten war. In fact there are more than 58,000 of them etched in granite at the Vietnam Memorial. I can't remember all of the names of the Marines killed in my platoon, but I can still clearly see all of their faces and I remember many of their personalities. There hasn't been an accurate or decent movie made about Vietnam. Hamburger Hill comes close, but it didn't capture the Vietnam I knew: stinking rice paddies, leaches, ring worm, oppressive heat in the dry season and driving rain for weeks at a time during the monsoons. Deer Hunter, Apocalypse Now, Platoon, Born on the Forth of July, and Good Morning Vietnam were total cr*p. We Were Soldiers battle scenes were fairly accurate, but the characters weren't. I'm sorry to say that the brief Vietnam scene in Forrest Gump was realistic compared to my experiences while I was there. Anyway, my point is that there are too many war movies about combat after WW II are either just political agenda BS fantasies or severely flawed in other ways that don't tell the real histories. Unfortunately, with the exception of a very few movies, Hollywood is little more than a propaganda machine for the liberal view of war. An that isn't going to change because the truth is too distasteful for liberals.
But a movie about an 18-month air campaign is unlikely. While unlikely because of Hollywood's appetite for liberal themes, I think it could be done. Twelve O'clock High was not about the entire story of the 8th Air Force, but it was representative of not only the 8th Air Force but of all the early bombing efforts of WW II. The movie "Air Force" wasn't about the entire bombing campaign in the Pacific, but it was representative. The average American is so incredibly ignorant of our own history that any movie about our history that is even remotely accurate would be welcomed.
Actually, if you do math, you personally only pay into Social Security and Medicare a tiny fraction of the amount you will eventually receive if you live to the current average age. Both Social Security and Medicare are Ponzi schemes that are wholly dependent upon more people paying in than people are receiving. It's been that way from the start. There is no trust fund. There is no lock box as the Democrats have claimed. There is no money held for you in an account. The Supreme Court ruled a long time ago that Social Security was a tax and that there were no provisions for earmarking that tax specifically for Social Security. Therefore, the Supreme Court ruled, Congress can use those tax revenues however it chooses. And Congress does so by treating Social Security and Medicare payments as taxes that all go into the general fund. Therefore, both entitlements are nothing more than a pass through of your money to other people the government is paying it to. Not a single dime of your SS and Medicare taxes are in the current system. It's been used for other things and paid out to current SS and Medicare recipients. It is a Ponzi scheme that is completely dependent upon there being more people paying into the system than there are recipients. That has worked so far, but as they say, socialism works until you run out of other people's money. That is what is happening now. With the Baby Boomers retiring at an exponential rate, by 2033 there will be more people receiving payments than people paying into the two entitlements. The only way to sustain it after that is to increase deficit spending and the national debt. That's a patch, not a solution. Eventually, the dollar will become worthless and hyperinflation will kick in. When that happens, you will need a wheelbarrow of hundred dollar bills to buy a potato. It happens more often than you think. Google hyperinflation and see for yourself how many countries have fallen victim all due to gross mismanagement of government spending. And when you start receiving SS and Medicare benefits, you will very soon exceed all of the money you paid into the system. After that, you will be living on other people's money that they are paying into the system. It's a Ponzi scheme and like all Ponzi schemes it will eventually collapse. The fact that the Federal government can pile up trillions of dollars of debt to pay for all these things will stretch it out, but it too will fail.
In response to:

Supreme Court Will Not Hear NSA Case

Frederick78 Wrote: Apr 08, 2014 3:51 PM
This is what is wrong with the Federal courts and especially the Supreme Court. They are the third branch of government in what our forefathers intended to be the checks and balances to keep the President or Congress from usurping the Constitution. You would thing that issues that define what the Constitution means or doesn't mean or of laws, regulations, and executive orders that may violate the Constitution would go to the head of the line as being fast tracked. It may take years before NSA issues involving the 4th Amendment and rights to privacy now make their way to the Supreme Court. Years of potential violations of the Constitution and citizens rights. And courts are supposed to defend the Constitution, but when in doubt they acquiesce to the politicians who give a rat's flying potato about the Constitution as long as they can get votes. When in doubt or uncertain, courts should always rule in favor of the limits the Constitution was intended to impose on the Federal government.
1 - 10 Next