Previous 21 - 30 Next
"So you actually believe that the only freedoms the Founders sought to protect when they drafted the Constitution were the ones they "had in mind" at the time?" I can say without flinching, that they didn't have in mind the elevation of fudge-packing to the same level as traditional marriage.
"it's consitutionally indefensible to defend a position against it," Really. Tell me: where is the "constitutionally defensible position" that a court can overturn a duly-voted amendment to a state constitution?
Really. Can you give me an example, please? Oh, wait: Drugs. I forget, you Paulian types are always about the drugs. You see "freedom" and read "drugs" every time. Never mind.
"It's just that the average American has been bashed over the head with this." That's true for me. I still think it's a travesty, but since we are no longer a government of the People, but of the COURTS, what difference does it make? People seem to forget this whole things started with an unprecedented decision by the Supreme Court to overturn a STATE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. I don't know if that's EVER been done before, and I have no clue where in ANY Constitution a court gets the authority to do that. A real conservative would focus on that, not on how "cool" he wants to look in the eyes of his liberal buddies. (WORD TO THE WISE, MR. BARRONE: They're STILL laughing at you and there's nothing you can do to stop them).
I want to see the stats in five years on the number of "same sex marriages." I predict there will be no more than 10,000 across the entire country. And in the meantime I also predict fewer and fewer actual marriages, you know, between a man and woman with the intent of staring a family. This, as I recall reading a few years ago, was the result of "same-sex marriage" in the Netherlands. The number of such "marriages" were miniscule at first and nearly non-existent afterward. But the unaccountable effect was the huge dive in the number of actual traditional marriages. Because the upshot of the whole debate was that younger people saw marriage as a non-serious enterprise that was somehow about "sexual rights," not family.
Is this a prediction, Mr. Barone? Or a prayer?
Because you can think of a list of Southern Democrats "better" than Cochran, right?
In response to:

Masters of Deceptive Persuasion

Illbay Wrote: Dec 16, 2014 4:16 PM
Oh, and I've often wondered... Does Obama eat the dog before he wags it? Or after?
In response to:

Masters of Deceptive Persuasion

Illbay Wrote: Dec 16, 2014 4:14 PM
I pointed out to my kids in 2012, what Obama had done to them, none of which was good. They listened to me then, where they had not in 2008, and they voted for Romney (for what good it did). I am the "master of Perceptive Dissuasion."
Could you tell me, please... The value of all the gold ever mined in all of world history is equivalent to about $8.2 Trillion. The value of all the assets of the United States economy is about $190 Trillion. How, please, is the "gold standard" supposed to work? If you say "the value of gold will rise," then what's the point of gold backing, if it's just as volatile as any other asset? The value of the United States dollar is based on the perceived value of goods and services. All you types want to do is peg it to the value of ONE SPECIFIC THING. There is a reason that until we went off the gold standard, we had recessions about every decade, and Depressions about every thirty or forty years. The Gold Standard is the pipe dream of utter fools.
This is simply anecdotal - one person's story. Of course, the politicians thrive on those. The WH will invite some schlub to sit in at the SOTU on less merit. Anyway. At the time Obama took office, I was making in the mid-100K range. True, times were good in the engineering and construction business at the time, but nevertheless it was a HUGE windfall. Then the economy cratered. Granted, this was due to events before Obama came into office, but they WERE tied closely to the Democrats taking over Congress in 2006, and Bush basically rubber-stamping everything they threw his way. You can see the GDP, economic growth, etc., curves from that time to this, and there is a marked slump from early 2007 onward. Bush gets blamed for the economic mess, but it was the Democrat Congress that was to blame. Obama just made things worse. Before Obama's first term I had never been out of a job, working as an engineer. From 2009 until 2011, I was out of work a total of about 14 months. When I finally gained employment again in late 2011, it was at a salary 26% less than what I had been making in 2009. In fact, I am only now beginning to reach the level of salary that I made ten years ago - and that's not counting the comparison between 2004 and 2014 dollars. Since I returned to work, my wife was also laid off and decided to stay home rather than go back into the workforce - so she's one of those "permanently out of the work-force" statistics that Obama's regime never counts in their statistics. We in effect are making about 55% of what we were making in 2009 - again, NOT adjusted for inflation - and that's not going to change owing to the nature of the marketplace and the fact that I'm now in my late 50s. We're doing okay, but our dreams of a cushy retirement are GONE. We will do well to have around 60% of my present income available to us when we retire. Again, this isn't JUST Obama, but it IS a direct result of anti-consumer, anti-prosperity policies of the Democrats, and the parallel failure of the Republicans to counter them in any way. Republican politicians in general simply don't care that much, so long as they are elected and reelected. I do believe there are a few such as Ted Cruz who, if they were able, would change that, but they are in the deep minority. the GOPe sees them as more of a threat than Democrats.
Previous 21 - 30 Next