1 - 10 Next
"You and I didn't harm the poor in Cuba by issuing sanctions that starved them to death. That was the dictatorial federal government and its water carriers in the Republican Party." Nice try, but that's absurd. The Democrats have had full control of the levers of federal power often enough during the last 50 years that they could have reversed the laws and policies had they so desired. No, if you want to blame parties, blame both. If this was such a major Democratic issue, why wasn't the embargo lifted when Dems controlled the entire Congress and Presidency after Obama was first elected?
Nonsense. The enemy in the 1980s was a newly-radicalized Iran that directly threatened our oil interests in the Gulf. We had no love for Hussein, but Iraq was a useful tool to thwart Iranian ambitions at the time. He fell out of favor when he was no longer needed for that role. You see, that's the thing that leftist Americans never seem to grasp: nations have no friends. We only have interests. That's why today's friend of necessity may become tomorrow's enemies should the reality on the ground change. Democrats used to understand that, remember? After all, FDR was cozy as a newlywed bride with Uncle Joe during the war - but only because we shared a common enemy at the time. That's how mature leaders manage foreign affairs.
"The person who should be most concerned about this action is probably Raul Castro." Why is that? Did normalization of relations with China bring an end to its communist regime? There's no reason to believe that Raul is in any danger from this action, since the Chinese have demonstrated that controlled economic interaction with the outside world in no way hinders a tyrannical government's ability to oppress its people. With that said, I am not necessarily opposed to pursuing this path through a combination of legislative moves and executive branch diplomacy. If, however, this unilateral action is an attempt to circumvent the current laws regarding trade with that island dictatorship, then it should be opposed as yet another usurpation of legislative authority.
"No government, much less our own, should have the power to deprive a child of his or her parents" And yet we do that to millions of American children on a regular basis when we deprive them of their American parents by sending those parents to prison. Where is the sympathy for those children? Does it not strike you as odd that the Left has so much sympathy for the children of illegals who unlawfully enter our country (a crime under Federal law - See 8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien), but care little for the children of American citizens imprisoned for breaking and entering or other crimes? I agree wholeheartedly, however, with your stated position on birthright citizenship. Something must be done to redress this misreading of the Fourteenth Amendment and remove this anchor baby incentive once and for all.
In response to:

What about the Brainiacs?

houdini1984 Wrote: Nov 22, 2014 8:33 PM
The Dems have been looking for a new slave class ever since we took their slaves away a century and a half ago.
"she is going change her residence from DC.....I mean...her parents house in New Orleans to some cardboard box in San Francisco and run as queen of the idiots" Against Nanny Pelosi? That would be a riot...
No problem. Simply break the budget down into separate bills and vote on each one-by-one, sending them to the President as they are passed. Let him be the one to veto funding for popular programs and necessary operations if he wants to throw another hissy fit. If he demands that everything be funded in one comprehensive omnibus budget bill, ignore him. As each bill is passed, go before the media and loudly trumpet the accomplishment. To make things even more interesting, give Obama all the money he asks for in the critical bills so that he has no excuse to veto them. Save those things you want use as leverage for last. That way the rest of the government is funded through individual appropriations bills and it becomes impossible for the president to shut the government down and claim that the Republicans failed to pass a budget. With that in mind, are your criticisms realistic?
"Landrieu in LA if elected in 2016 is she at zero in Jan 2017" She's a zero regardless of how her seniority might play out.
In response to:


houdini1984 Wrote: Nov 16, 2014 3:13 PM
Maybe Bacon's Rebellion? It ended in 1677. Other than that, I have no idea...
Exactly. They were well aware of the fact that conservatives could not be fooled on this issue. As you said, they were obviously referring to their own voters, as well as low info independents.
1 - 10 Next