1 - 10 Next
In response to:

The Best-Ever Argument for Federalism

ITSTLN Wrote: Dec 20, 2014 10:42 AM
Completely concur. Would also note same principles apply to social issues. The founders clearly understood that the states were the "laboratory of democracy" (to quote Romney), and that the concepts of culture and freedom varied across demographics and generations. That said there has to be a center that holds, and therein lies the debate.
This situation has nothing to do with "freedom of speech" or the first amendment. Those references, whether by Waxman or Pavich, are inane. The story is one about cyber raiding; the political context is about national security, not about media commentary, particularly about itself. It fascinates me how fixated the media is in covering its own members, usually to minimal effect and public interest.
Probably because I'm obtuse, I fail to see how hacking a movie studio/ entertainment company is a great threat to national security.Hacking financial institutions is obviously a much greater problem, which has received modest prior coverage. Anything affecting the media is of course of earth shaking consequence. At last to the media. If Sony wants a realistic response, given the distributors hesitantcy to show the movie, they should just stream it to the world (ideally for free). It sounds like a dud premise anyway and they can write it off.
Observation: the GOP base is comprised of center right and hard right conservatives. The latter like to pretend the former are "Rhinos" and accordingly that they are the only true keepers of the flame. That's a fiction which discounts about half of the consistently Republican electorate (and is kept alive by the radio babblers who are more interested in audience maintenance than political success). The primary mission of any candidate will be to effectively weld the two party components. The center right needs to respect the hard right and accept their viewpoints as legitimate-even when impractical, and the hard right needs to stop pretending its the autonomous soul of the party. That said, welding those two political cultures into an effective coalition is most certainly not a good fit for another Bush: Jeb would be a huge unforced error.
In response to:

Why Trump Should Run

ITSTLN Wrote: Dec 18, 2014 9:54 AM
Reagan was a prior 2 term California governor, prior Presidential candidate who came close to unseating an incumbent in his party, and prior head of a divided union which he helped become a functioning enterprise. Comparing his 1981 circumstance to Trump is absurd. So is this column.
In response to:

America Needs Its Rough Men

ITSTLN Wrote: Dec 18, 2014 9:25 AM
How about adding some modifiers? "Nonlethal and controlled"? "Limited to eliminate/contain personal damage"? "Obligated by circumstance"? The left understands of course that arguing that we should never do it ( I know Feinstein said "never again" but she is well aware that is an absurdity), Their default position will completely disappear in the heat of battle. Which is why they link it to the claim that it produces no actionable intelligence. My contention from the onset was that the relevant Congressional personalities should have to formally go on the record authorizing the program.
We should welcome he comic relief.
In response to:

America Needs Its Rough Men

ITSTLN Wrote: Dec 17, 2014 3:19 PM
i certainly agree with you and Orwell. And I'm all in favor of EIT or whatever acronym or euphemism is current. But spare me the semantic arguments. Of course its a form of torture, nonlethal in intent and controlled perhaps. So what? Call it that and don't insult our intelligence. If we are violating some international agreement Obama can use his enforcement discretion to functionally amend the treaty.Or something. But the verbal gymnastics are absurd, as is the ersatz outrage.
Perhaps a viable opinion as a prelude. But essentially a political abstraction: no standing on this case.
The "normalization" is overstated: the key component would be cessation of the embargo-which would require Congressional action. And would certainly split his own party unless he can verify concessions on human rights and some national response on expropriation.
1 - 10 Next