1 - 10 Next
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.
Good column. Pointed observation: those who could impact the initial Russian communist wave were war weary indeed. ISIS is the logical conclusion to the inevitable withdrawal of a war weary West which spent an unproductive decade in the Middle East preceding these events. Sadaam was a murderer, but he was essentially a secular thug. His replacement was always likely to be worse: Iraq was/is a non nation ruled historically by political violence.
In response to:

D.C. Disease and the GOP's "Electeds"

ITSTLN Wrote: Aug 27, 2014 9:10 AM
In answer to the question that Hewitt led the column with: the reason a coalition on the government "shutdown" was so problematic is because the shutdown was politically stupid. It polled out at 22%, with the GOP receiving overwhelming primary responsibility for that response.The visceral right-see Cruz et.al.-managed to scare the GOP into accepting-in the House anyway-a policy response that achieved nothing.
I would suggest that the suggested description of the ACA statute authorizing subsidies to the state exchanges only be modified to include the adjective "deliberate words". Its quite clear that the drafters were trying to pressure states into creating their own exchanges and got too cute. The Democratic mantra (read lie) is that the error was a simple misstatement /oversight(although it appears 10 times in different segments of the law). My suggestion for use of "deliberate" is meant to clearly undermine that claim-which is idiotic on its face. And place people like Gruber/Emanuel in a defensive position. Of course, having no shame is a great defense, and one which compliments their willingness to lie.
These are the voices of what I like to call the visceral right. They aren't interested much in winning; they are interested in indulging their preference to process emotional information regardless of the consequences. It's obviously more important to gratify their egos than to prevent the hard left from sustaining a discretionary political control of the country, and that requires a pretense that someone like Ryan is in effect Harry Reid in disguise. Most of the time,fortunately, they are more loud than influential.
Its obvious that living in a household with a transfer payment recipient does not necessarily qualify that resident as a welfare recipient.Further many of those recipients receive a variety of benefits and are essentially multple counted in this methodology. That kind of ersatz definition calls the entire premise of the article into question.,particularly since the actual metrics on the recipient totals are relatively easily verified. I agree that promotional dependency is a clear agenda of the left, but the author would be better off not kiting his totals.
I probably agree with all the political positions the writer espouses.But the column is a long non sequitor.
Ambrose Bierce: A man who isn't a liberal at 20 (years old) has no heart. A man who isn't a conservative at 40 has no head.
1 - 10 Next