1 - 10 Next
Oh, there's been a war on women all right - it's just that it's been perpetrated by the Left. There's even a body count associated with it: more than 25 million baby girls slaughtered at the altar of Leftist Choice over the course of the last 40 years.
Are you sure that is a photo of black people? I see one black man, a woman with black hair who may be black, white, or Asian, a young woman who appears to be white, and another woman with blonde hair in front of her in line. Now, if your argument is that there are no black Democrats in red states, that is just absurd - as is your stated belief that blacks constitute 40% of the population. You simply are not entitled to your own facts.
"Why should some lobbyist from out of state pay for a state’s Senate candidate? Only one reason, they want his vote" There is another, less nefarious answer that seems to elude many people: big money donors have ideologies, and they understand that those ideologies can only be advanced when the party that most closely represents their interests holds sway in the Senate or House. It does little good for a donor to wholeheartedly support a Senate candidate in his own state, if that Senator ends up being part of the minority. Remember, when we support candidates, we are not merely supporting the individuals we want to represent us; we are also supporting the ideas and policies for which they advocate. Those ideas and policies know no state boundaries.
In response to:

Can Obama Rise To Carter's Level?

houdini1984 Wrote: Mar 19, 2014 2:33 AM
And here I thought the Soviet involvement in Afghanistan lasted from December 1979 to February 1989 - with the Soviets leaving almost a month AFTER the Reagan Presidency ended. Given that he was out of office before the Soviets completely withdrew and ended their occupation, how exactly do you justify claiming that Reagan somehow abandoned the country when he was no longer in charge of America's foreign policy?
In response to:

Progressives’ Rules Of Outrage

houdini1984 Wrote: Feb 23, 2014 10:33 AM
If I remember correctly, Gott mit uns means "God with us."
In response to:

The Lesson of Dunkirk

houdini1984 Wrote: Feb 21, 2014 2:42 AM
Yes, he seems to miss the fact that the Left never stops fighting. They fight for their dangerous causes without regard to whether or not they have the numbers to win. Of course, they do have the advantage of having a complicit media that stands ever ready to do the heavy lifting on the messaging front, but that is beside the point. The fact is that they know that there is no advantage to delaying the fight when it comes to politics. They pick an issue, attack, and continue attacking until they gain that first "compromise" foothold on enemy soil. For them, the battle is never postponed, never avoided, and never over until they have achieved all of their political goals. They are a dangerous, delusional lot, but their battle tactics are ones that the Republican Party needs to study in detail.
In response to:

The Lesson of Dunkirk

houdini1984 Wrote: Feb 21, 2014 2:36 AM
Huh? It is the Democrats and their media allies who have tried to frame the debate around social issues. The conservative side has been arguing about fundamental freedoms and a restoration of the proper limited role of government in our lives. That IS the war.
In response to:

The Lesson of Dunkirk

houdini1984 Wrote: Feb 21, 2014 2:31 AM
I understand your basic premise, Thomas, but I have to wonder when - if ever - you think we should actually stand our ground and fight. As you note: "Whatever the Republicans threatened, President Obama could call their bluff. They would either have to back down or have a second government shutdown for which they would be blamed." Fine. We all understand that the President's allies in the media would have once again painted the Republicans as obstructionist and anti-American. But, your fundamental assumptions about the current state of power politics in Washington begs one simple question: when can't Obama adopt that strategy of doing nothing and blaming the Reps? Using your line of thinking, it is easy to see how a Republican victory in the 2014 Senate battle could lead to absolutely no real change in the capital. After all, what use would it be to have the Senate and House under Republican control if we have to simply do whatever the President wants for fear that he will simply force another government shutdown and blame it on his opponents. I just have to wonder when some of your more elite colleagues think it would be appropriate for us to start fighting. Do we have to wait until we have veto-proof majorities in the Congress? Complete control of the Congress and the Presidency? The Second Coming? When will the Washington insider class finally stop belittling the efforts of those who are sincerely trying to save the Republic, and give its blessing to those who actually have the courage to fight?
"The entire Democrap party now sees themselves as victims." Only now? Heck, the Demoncrats have been feeling victimized for almost 150 years - ever since those rotten Republicans told them that they were no longer allowed to own people.
In response to:

Ideology vs. Reality

houdini1984 Wrote: Jan 08, 2014 1:58 AM
Actually, those two examples are not really applicable at all. Thomas' article is about how leftist policies need to be evaluated in terms of results, rather than on an emotional basis. The military - which should be "embraced" by all Americans, since it serves to protect our sovereignty from foreign encroachment - is one of the very few actual responsibilities entrusted to the Federal government. How would you apply this ideology vs reality line of thinking to the military? As for the tax-exempt status of religious organizations, the are strong historical reasons for denying central governments the power to exercise strong control over churches - and there are few more dangerous tools than the power to tax. After all, the power to tax is the power to destroy. Is it any wonder then that we would desire to deny that type of authority to any central government that might one day be hostile to religion or believers? Again, what exactly would you like to see done with those "tax breaks?" Would you prefer to see said exemptions go by the wayside, and thereby provide elected officials and unelected bureaucrats the opportunity to exercise control over faith organizations through the coercive and destructive power of taxation?
1 - 10 Next