1 - 10 Next
In response to:

Take the Fifth…Please!

Millicent Bystander Wrote: May 27, 2013 9:30 AM
Hillary is going to have a tough time unburning her political toast after the Benghazi scandal. Would I like to see her hauled in front of Congress and forced to testify again under oath? Absolutely. But I'd rather she not be made a martyr and have her political life resuscitated. I think there's a risk of that if the questioning gets intense (as well it would AND should). Then, not only would she not suffer any consequences for her role in Benghazi, but she'd once again be the odds-on favorite for 2016. If our victory is that she's permanently unable to run for president, I'm willing to take that in lieu of everything else.
In response to:

Take the Fifth…Please!

Millicent Bystander Wrote: May 27, 2013 9:24 AM
What we need is a brand new game, and I think that game should be capitalizing on public outrage to dismantle the IRS and the 16th Amendment, permanently. Rather than give the left more ammunition to fire at conservatives, let's make left wing politicians and their media enablers get in front of the camera and DEFEND this garbage. I'd be willing to lose the political slapfight with Obama if we could win the war against the IRS.
In response to:

Take the Fifth…Please!

Millicent Bystander Wrote: May 27, 2013 9:18 AM
Mr. Schlichter suggests an interesting strategy. I'm not sure it's the right medicine for this particular ill, however. I think it places too much faith in Team Lo-Info's ability to understand, much less care, about why a bunch of the president's employees are blathering on about some obscure provision in that moldy old constitution. We also know the how the press will spin the narrative when Rep. Issa's committee becomes a Fifth Amendment factory: Just because you take the Fifth, it doesn't mean you're guilty of anything!
Spare us the melodrama, Carl.
In response to:

MA Poll: Warren: 53, Brown: 46

Millicent Bystander Wrote: Oct 31, 2012 12:27 PM
Clearly Massachusetts voters have their priorities completely out of whack.
When is Charles Krauthammer going to run for president? He already has my vote in the bag.
He had to switch topics because he lost the Ryan-believes-the-same-thing-as-Akin argument a few posts down.
No, you are supposed to make your case that the above-quoted language makes abortion illegal in cases of rape or where the mother's life is threatened. I don't see where you do that. Now, if you think you've done it by saying the killing of a human being (you left out "with malice aforethought") is murder, you also fall short, because most societies define killing in self-defense as NOT murder. Saving the life of the mother is a qualified circumstance of self-defense. So again, your logic fails.
AllYouPeopleNeedToKnow claims that the following language makes abortion illegal in cases of rape or where the mother's life is threatened: "To provide that human life shall be deemed to begin with fertilization." Okay, Lefty friends. Now's your chance to make your case. (Logically, please, and no name calling.) Where, in the language quoted above, is abortion made illegal in cases of rape and in instances where the mother's life is threatened?
Agreed. I see nothing in those 12 words that can even remotely be construed the way What'shisname argues.
1 - 10 Next