Previous 11 - 20 Next
In response to:

The Lesson of Dunkirk

LarryFromMo Wrote: Feb 21, 2014 11:49 AM
Your last comment explains it all. Unfortunately the media are in the tank for the Democrats and they mostly create the narrative. Republicans did make the case you mention, but if Fox News is the only outlet that will give them a voice the message is not going to get through.
In response to:

Cruz Control? Part II

LarryFromMo Wrote: Feb 20, 2014 8:47 AM
It's a catch 22 situation. Do you do what you believe is right even though it may hurt you politically such as not voting for a budget that includes ObamaCare or do you make votes that you don't believe in such as passing a no-conditions debt ceiling increase so that you don't create controversy before the Republican favored November elections? Neither choice is that attractive, but that's the situation the Republicans find themselves in. Demonizing those who choose one path or the other is not productive.
In response to:

5 Ways Liberals Make War on Women

LarryFromMo Wrote: Feb 15, 2014 7:02 PM
The difference between Fox News and the Liberal media is that Fox News differentiates straight news vs. commentary. Chris Wallace is the best news anchor in the business. Sure, Hannity and Kelly are conservative, but you know that when you watch and they aren't pretending to report straight news. On the other hand, the Liberal networks either downplay or refuse to report on any stories negative to their Liberal cause. Their lack of coverage of the IRS scandal is disgraceful. Because of their complicity we still don't have all of the facts. Name one story that Fox has refused to cover because it is detrimental to conservatives.
I'm hoping for a Nikki Haley run. Put her next to Hillary on a stage and it will be a re-run of the Nixon - Kennedy debate, except with parties switched.
In response to:

Alcohol vs. Marijuana (Part 1)

LarryFromMo Wrote: Jan 28, 2014 5:00 PM
If you are not driving a car or working then it should not be illegal. You owe a duty to others to not drive or work stoned, so based on what I said these should be illegal. We are in agreement on this. If you are not engaged in these activities then it's only illegal because the government has decided there is too much risk of injury to the person doing it. Martial arts also has risk of injury to the person doing it, so why can't the government use the same logic to decide it is too risky?.
In response to:

Alcohol vs. Marijuana (Part 1)

LarryFromMo Wrote: Jan 28, 2014 2:18 PM
"Just because we can doesn't mean we should. And if that's the case, what other illicit passion is going to be next in the lineup of legalization?" - Just because we shouldn't doesn't mean it should be illegal. And if that's the case, what other passion the government deems to be illicit is going to be next in the lineup of prohibition? Maybe your glazed doughnut? Once you go down this road of the government deciding what is good for us and codifying it into law it becomes a slippery slope. Laws restricting a person's behavior should be based on a duty they owe to others. If they want to engage in a risky behavior that only impacts themselves they should have the freedom to do so. Chuck, how would you feel if the government deemed martial arts too risky and sought to ban it? The risk of injury is certainly there. Who should decide if that risk is too much - the guy who decides he wants to take the risk and get in the ring or the government?
The leading cause of death in the US is heart disease. Beware of what you wish for John - They'll be coming for your cheeseburger next.
I agree. Although I am not a pot smoker I know people who are that hold jobs, own houses and don't fit John's stereotype. It's a slippery slope for the government to decide you can't have something because they determine what is and isn't good for you. Before you know it we'll have mayors deciding how big of a soft drink you can buy. Oh, wait.
In response to:

Parting Company

LarryFromMo Wrote: Jan 01, 2014 5:38 PM
I highly recommend reading Mark Levin's "The Liberty Amendments" for those who think along the same line as Williams. The Constitution gave the States the avenue of calling for a Constitutional Convention and taking back their rights. Maybe the time has come.
In response to:

Parting Company

LarryFromMo Wrote: Jan 01, 2014 5:35 PM
The pinheads actually expect people to turn in the new bulbs to collection centers instead of just throwing them in the trash can. We will be poisoning our water supply with the mercury you mention because politicians are simply out of touch with reality.
"which", not "with". Hit the enter button a little too quickly.
Previous 11 - 20 Next