Previous 21 - 30 Next
I keep seeing this "cancel the SOU" sentiment exists, but no article, including this one, puts anyone's name to it. It would be silly, and strikes me as something like impeachment that has primarily been invented by Dems to make themselves look put upon. OTOH, nothing says any Rep or Senator has to actually attend.
In response to:

Hollywood Hypocrites

gtanv Wrote: Dec 05, 2014 11:56 AM
Sorry, Brent, but I don't see your point on this one. In order to support policies allegedly designed to help the poor., you must be poor yourself? Brand and Moore have made a lot of money. They have the right to use that money to support any causes they wish, and they are not being hypocritical by being financially successful as an actor and filmmaker respectively. Yes, they are wildly wrong in their views, but as conservatives we can't make being wealthy a matter for criticism. (note that this doesn't apply to someone like Al Gore who has become wealthy on environmentalism and lives a lifestyle that he wants to deny to others. Brand and Moore are rich and advocating for the poor. Their wealth doesn't disqualify them from the right to do so.)
They plan to make Poliquin a one term rep. I hope that all the Dems who savaged Boehner for saying the same thing about BO will now disown Pelosi's goal.
"Woods said that the men were not named in the story because “we were telling Jackie’s story. It’s her story." That's the problem in a nutshell. A news report isn't one person's story. it's a full and fair investigation of the entire story. As such, this isn't news, it's just a polemic. It may or may not be true.... I'd lean to it being a Brawley, but the only way to reach an informed opinion is for some real journalist to look at the entire story.
They didn't. Lying is a tactic that has been rejected. Neither Bush nor Reagan took an executive action that was contrary to the expressed intent of Congress. Now. would you like to consider again how you will react when a GOP Prez takes the kind of unprecedented power this president has?
Sad that expecting adherence to the Constitution is now deemed to be whining. Some day you will wake up and recognize how badly your ideology has fallen.
If you mean that future GOP presidents can claim similar power for themselves, you're exactly right. Point out what a future GOP Prez could do, and ask them if they really want to legalize illegals badly enough to grant this Prez that much power. In fact, THIS precedent --- deferring deportation --- can be reversed by a GOP Prez in 2017, and the govt could use those illegal registries to find and deport people with ease.
It IS broken, in that people are ignoring it to come here illegally, and the wait to get here legally is so onerous. But, legalizing illegals already here does nothing to solve those problems, and, in fact, makes them worse by encouraging more people to sidestep the system. A "fix" stops the illegal influx and streamlines the legal immigration process to take away, as much as possible, the incentive to jump the line.
But they do presumably care about re-election. BO doesn't have to worry about it, but any Dem who noticed what happened on Nov 4 has to wonder if his/her political future is worth getting behind the Prez on this.
We might have Florence Ballard on our side, but we'll never get Diana Ross. :-)
Previous 21 - 30 Next