Previous 31 - 40 Next
If an elected official chooses to apply budget cuts in a way that they know will violate their oath and harm the country, state, county, or city, and they do this in order to intimidate and coerce voters into going along with their programs, is that not criminal? The intent is clear. The choices are clear. The responsibility to govern in a way that upholds their respective oaths of office is clear. Why are we letting this pass? It is extortion. I know that politicians have been doing this for the last 8 or 10 years. That doesn't make it legal. I believe that this is a crime and it should be treated as such.
In response to:

Ben Carson Owes No Apologies

mlimbolimbo Wrote: Feb 18, 2013 12:27 PM
I respect Cal Thomas and agree that the prayer breakfast is not supposed to be a political event. It is, however, a political event for Obama. It is also the proper venue to discus moral issues and I find each and every issue discussed by Dr. Carson to be worthy of consideration in a discussion of values. Thank you Cal Thomas for standing up for separation of politics from religion. Thank you Star Parker for understanding the value of the discussion and thank you Dr. Carson for speaking the truth. Whether this was the correct venue will forever remain debatable. That we are having this discussion nationally is a very good thing.
The premise is faulty. Shall not be infringed is the standard. In theory these things would not inhibit a persons right to keep and bear arms. In practice they would. Universal background checks would by necessity lead to registration. Registration is both intimidating and dangerous. Produce one example of national gun registration that did not lead to confiscation. Further, universal background checks would almost certainly hinder the transfer of arms between honest people. Imagine the fees and paperwork and the cost. I promise you that the anti-gun crowd is doing just that. Does anyone think that this is anything but an attempt to keep honest people from buying selling and giving firearms between friends and family?
If it helps us forget Obamacare, can we call it medicinal?
Isn't this whole debate out of context? The way that I understand this is that they get a warrant to wiretap a person rather than a number. They then do not have to get another warrant each time that person changes phones. Am I wrong? If I am correct, these are not really warrant-less wiretaps. They are taps without a warrant on a specific number. Necessary to track any bad guy these days. I am a conservative who believes we should pick our fights wisely. This might be one to leave alone.
How many children died in Europe under Hitler? How many in the Ukraine? How many in China? How many in Cambodia? We have the most sensible system around. We have the moral and legal authority to use weapons to defend our life, property, and liberty.
You are right. However, the result will be that the conservatives in congress will be voted out and replaced with liberals. The want list will grow and the result will be the completed destruction of this country. At this time, the only restraint on Obama is a House that refuses to go along with him. It's all we have. Let's not throw it away.
This may be the first time that a president's support of a charity will actually hurt it. Shame on the Red Cross for giving this campaign commercial to Obama when there are thousands of well known and loved spokespeople that would have been happy to help.
In response to:

Obama's Dangerous Consistency

mlimbolimbo Wrote: Sep 22, 2012 10:55 PM
Here's how I really feel about this. $#%^&*()_ Islam. This is the most hateful violent bunch of people on the planet. One way or the other we will eventually be in an all out war with Islam. I'm one of those people that would rather do it now than later, so let's get it on. If your a muslim and you want to come look me up, fine. But be a man about it. Look me in the eye and tell me that you hate me and want me dead. Don't go after my kids or the innocent neighbors. Don't be a coward. I'm tired of cowards on both sides. For you Americans that do not understand Islam, there are two sides. There is freedom, and there is Islam. There is no middle.
In response to:

Obama's Dangerous Consistency

mlimbolimbo Wrote: Sep 22, 2012 10:45 PM
It's not the president's job or right to condemn speech. That is up to the people of this country. It is not a matter of law, it is a matter of commerce. If your speech offends, you will not get our business. You will not eat and you will either change what you say or you will move. We will not try you for speech crimes and we will not threaten you with death. Nor will the Jews. Therein is the difference between Judaism and Islam.
In response to:

A Moral Question for the GOP

mlimbolimbo Wrote: Aug 18, 2012 12:45 PM
Ms. Chavez misses one of the larger points. We are the overflow for Mexico. The unhappy, dissatisfied and unemployed in that country come here. Until that overflow is stopped, Mexico will have no reason or manpower to clean their own house/country. Far from being humanitarian, providing refuge for millions of dissatisfied Mexican citizens extends the power of the corrupt in that country causing untold suffering and death. On another point: I once thought that we could allow a shortcut to citizenship for military service, but I now believe that loyalty to country should be proven in citizenship before a man takes up arms for our country. We don't need an army of people with questionable loyalties.
Previous 31 - 40 Next