1 - 10 Next
In response to:

Is DWS Getting Fired?

ITSTLN Wrote: 18 hours ago (11:06 AM)
You are misinformed. Its actually a muskrat (Donald Trump gave her the idea).
In response to:

Is DWS Getting Fired?

ITSTLN Wrote: 18 hours ago (11:05 AM)
I was about to say my prayers are answered. But I thought better of it. The woman is a truly wonderful party representative: she actually incorporates all the qualities which are prominently identified with the left. We should hope she lives forever and remains her party spokesperson, up to and including a future taxidermy representation in Ripley's Believe It of Not at Branson.
In response to:

Paul Krugman Is Wrong Today

ITSTLN Wrote: Sep 16, 2014 1:32 PM
The headline would be accurate if it ran daily. Otherwise it is erroneously modified, by inferring today is somehow a novelty.
In response to:

Poll: Huckabee Clear Favorite in Iowa

ITSTLN Wrote: Sep 15, 2014 3:06 PM
The Iowa poll is irrelevant. The GOP in Iowa is a creature, for caucus and primary purposes, of two mega evangelical churches. They simply don't represent enough electoral diversity to be very utilitarian in candidate selection.
Sarah Who?
In response to:

No One is Born Gay

ITSTLN Wrote: Sep 09, 2014 2:44 PM
The premise that homosexuality is defined by a "gay gene" is scientifically dubious on its face. The current analysis of homosexuality as a medical/scientific reality indicates the difference is real and a product of brain chemistry. But it is also not a defining or governing characteristic: sexuality has a multitude of components that are probably highly variable from individual to individual, and homosexuals are as different in presentation and sexual manifestation as heterosexuals. Since sexuality is largely defined by conduct, it certainly is not unreasonable to say no one is born gay. But its just as reasonable to say some are born with different responses to different sexual stimulus, including homosexuals.
In response to:

Truett Cathy's Faith Flavored Chick-fil-A

ITSTLN Wrote: Sep 08, 2014 10:30 AM
I am typically less than impressed by Starnes columns, but this one is an excellent homage to a man who lived the words he believed in. When the idiot mayors in Chicago Emanuel) etc. criticized Cathy's son and Chick Fila (i.e. they don't share our values etc) someone should have talked about the history of the founder and the company. Ditto Hobby Lobby. Both compensate better than minimum wage by the way, and have never discriminated against anyone.
Passport is a side issue, not least because it is legally mandatory and process protected. However we can summarily place the holders of these passports on a no fly list without the legal theatrics implicit in the revocation process. That's the appropriate question. Bigger issue: do we actually know who the ISIS members are that we are trying to control?
In response to:

O'Reilly: Killing History

ITSTLN Wrote: Aug 29, 2014 1:50 PM
Forced on him by a Republican Congress? Suggest you look up the Congressional composition in 1964.
I think House control Is certainly far less potent than the visceral right wants to believe:It is going too far however to call it a myth. The emphasis needs to be: one congressional branch can't control the process or even substantially influence it. Add the Senate however and that equation changes. The TEA party and its voters need to emphasize that appraising the actions of the House as if it can act in a vacuum is FOOLISH: CLOSING DOWN IN WHOLE OR PART THE GOVERNMENT PER CRUZ'S PREFERENCE HAD A 22% CONSTITUENCY. Simply put: win the Senate, and then evaluate the power of your representation and ideology.
1 - 10 Next