1 - 10 Next
Does the status of pundit "liberate" Mr. Schlichter of reporting, i.e. simply stating the arguments of Justice Sottomayor without his interpretation first? In a scientific debate about particle physics a scientist not being Justin Bieber would very painstakingly present an opposing view before shredding it to pieces. But it's Townhall, readers KNOW because they KNOW that Sottomayor IS A LIBERAL and therefore can dispense of being bothered with HER reasoning. Instead they are being conforted by Mr. Schlichter's more than predictiable screech: pea brains?
The author is to be recommended for his iniative. First and foremost, it would allow to establish a common ground on established facts which is often absent in current discussions. I am quite sure there will be a lot of space for disagreements on the fundamentals of solutions. But just being able to NOT fudge the facts just to "protect" one's position, would be a vast improvement.
In response to:

Marriage a la Mode

IAdmitIAmCrazy Wrote: Apr 02, 2013 12:50 PM
Thus, it comes to no surprise that under the onslaught of economic development which as a rule imposes a very high degree of flexibility on both spouses, marriage should suffer. You ca't have it both ways: economic liberty AND marriage stability. Your choice, Mr. Murcghison ...
In response to:

Marriage a la Mode

IAdmitIAmCrazy Wrote: Apr 02, 2013 12:48 PM
While, I am at it, Mr. Murchison writes "when marriage, as developed and refined by belief and practice over many centuries, was the norm for human beings." In this development, marriage evolved from a basically economic transaction of the nobility into a sacrament, the latter being a source of considerable income of the Catholic church. The "rabble" could - for quite a long time - do whatever it wished to. Since there were no material interests involved, the church didn't really bother. Thus, what for a US observer might be long tradition, to a student of history the holy sacrament of marriage is a rather recent event - mind you: not the institution itself but its sacral aspect.
In response to:

Marriage a la Mode

IAdmitIAmCrazy Wrote: Apr 02, 2013 12:41 PM
Does it occur to Mr. Murchison that his (correct) observation of the failing of traditional marriages is somewhat inconsistent with his attempt to denigrate same sex marriage? After all, it`s stability, commitment, responsibility that same sex couples are striving for. Isn't that eminently conservative and something Mr. Murchison should wholeheartedly support?
What kind of conservative thinks that contracts are free to be breached by one party when it doesn't like the contract anymore? Ah, well, one party is a union, and contracts with unions aren't really contracts, is that the argument? A contract is a contract is a contract.
REPUBLICAN CONSCIENCE and REPUBLICAN POLICY REQUIRE that: "The ANNUAL NUMBER of immigrants we accept be AT LEAST DOUBLED." That's from the Republican Party PLATGORM when Richard Nixon first ran for president in 1960 - and so much for the idiotic, ahistoric epithet of "Republican in Name Only", (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=25839)
CoachKr writes at ).26 am: "You can diversity or a successful country," That's what the Republican Party had to say: "Immigration has historically been a great factor in the growth of the United States, not only in numbers but in the enrichment of ideas that immigrants have brought with them. This Republican Administration has given refuge to over 32,000 victims of Communist tyranny from Hungary, ended needless delay in processing applications for naturalization, and has urged other enlightened legislation to liberalize existing restrictions. "Immigration has been reduced to the point where it does not provide the stimulus to growth that it should, nor are we fulfilling our obligation as a haven for the oppressed. (cont'd)
It alway suprises me when conservatives overplay their hand: Are you really that obtuse to think that a drive to allow everybody to live according to his/her sexual orientation suddenly turns into imposing just one orientation? The same for bortion: Freedom of choice is what it means; why would anybody - other than conservative opponents of abortion - restrict this choice? Really, you don't do your cause a favor, and then your brethren wonder why liberals hold people like you in contempt! As regards diversity: How come that the U.S. the shining city on the hill turned into such a power? Because successive waves of DIVERSE immigrants were integrated. Obtuseness in a political foe, w really hurts; if I were on your sides I'd pile on you
On your war stance I'd think you'd be a classical vote for Libertarian candidate Gray Johnson but you fear immigration which as a good Libertraian he doesn't ... However, there is NO MONOLITHIC CONSERVATIVE position on war, there are conservative interventionists and there are liberal non-interventionists. The issue cuts across all poltical outlooks. I don't know why you all seem to have the urge of declaring all your personal values as the only "conservatives" possible. Or would you say that Nuke-them Barry Goldwater was not a conservative? Most important: As a socialist I agree with your analysis of the Middle East.
1 - 10 Next