Previous 11 - 20 Next
Liberalism is... neo-feudalism.
Boehner also wouldn't be one of the nominal leaders of the GOP, he'd be a lieutenant. That's not to say he's a leader...
I almost wish they could get this passed through both chambers, and the President signed it into law. The court ruled narrowly (as the plaintiffs argued their case narrowly) that the provision was a violation of Religious Freedom Restoration Act, not on Constitutional grounds. Since RFRA was passed to prevent specific violations of the "free exercise" clause of the 1st Amendment (in response to SCOTUS ruling against the ceremonial use of peyote by an Amerindian tribe), the Senate bill would have clearly "prevented the free exercise thereof". When the new law inevitably reached the court, it SHOULD lead to a more sweeping ruling that would endorse all religious objections to the entire list of contraceptives on 1st Amendment grounds. Of course, there's no guarantee SCOTUS would rule properly- The ACA and McCain-Feingold rulings (among many, many others) prove that well enough. Hence the ALMOST wishing...
Now, let's be fair; most of them are not exempt from the requirement. They merely had their portion of the premiums subsidized...
Regarding the "is turning into" part, I beg to differ. Since the Progressives completed their takeover of American liberalism, it's always been about coercion.
WOW! I didn't know you could even get internet access in the 1890's...
Except it was costing Alaska's taxpayers more money than it would ever cost her. But then, you and your ilk are quite good at dismissing the spending of somebody else's money...
In response to:

The Tea Party’s Talk Radio Ally

latebloomer Wrote: Jul 15, 2014 4:59 PM
And maybe Obama will reveal 20 years from now that he's been an agent-provocateur all along, pushing the Liberal-Progressives much further than they could otherwise have gone in so short a time in order to generate a rightward backlash among the general public. Wouldn't hold my breath, though...
In response to:

Lawsuits and Impeachment

latebloomer Wrote: Jul 15, 2014 4:36 PM
I could MAYBE be a little bit impressed with Boehner's attempt at curtailing the Administration's abuses through the courts if he had first had the courage to attempt to curb them using the power already at his disposal- the House's control of the purse strings. Absent any attempt at that, he's just trying (unsuccessfully) to look good to the base he has a tendency to denigrate until he needs us.
In reading the first dozen or two comments, I infer from the context 2 different definitions for Libertarian, 3 for Conservative, and at least 3 for Liberal. How can we possibly have a rational debate when we can't even agree on what we're talking about? So, back to basics with one of my favorite quotes from Robert Heinlein: "Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." Evaluating all candidates and positions on THAT basis will help to clear up a lot of confusion.
In response to:


latebloomer Wrote: Jul 12, 2014 6:22 PM
The GOP can't even properly use the ordinary power at it's disposal to rein in the Executive Branch- their control of the purse strings- for fear of the narrative by the PR wing of the Democratic Party.(aka the MSM). What makes anyone think they have a chance of properly managing an impeachment? At best, pushing impeachment is rather akin to staging the Normandy Invasion in August 1943. At worst, it'll be as if the Allies had attempted to liberate France by invading through Belgium.
Previous 11 - 20 Next