Previous 11 - 20 Next
Why is there a fence at the White House and why does it work? The fence is there to protect the president and those in the White House. It works because Obama enforces the law against jumping it. The fence wouldn't work if people weren't prosecuted for jumping it. People don't cross the border because there's no fence, they cross it because they aren't prosecuted and deported for doing so.
Krauthammer is wrong here, because the reason the fence at the White House works, is because Obama has fence jumpers caught and prosecuted. If you don't enforce the rules about the fence, it doesn't matter. If Obama prosecuted and deported those who are here illegally, then we wouldn't need the fence either.
The reason the fence around the White House works, is because the rule about jumping it is enforced. If our government didn't allow people to cross the border illegally, and deported (after a short jail stint) those who violate their visas or otherwise are here illegally, there wouldn't be a need for a fence, just like there isn't a need for a fence at the White House considering there are police who'd stop and arrest anyone who crossed the line just like those who cross any line the police are enforcing.
Well, there is another problem, and that is single women looking for government to be the daddy of the family. They look to government, to steal for them. That's a problem.
Congratulations and thanks to Hawinks for one of his best articles. "There is no debate of significance on the Left about whether Obamacare is a good idea or whether the government can 'afford' to spend more money on any new programs." There's no debate, because Obama promised that Obamacare wouldn't add one dime to the deficit. Of course, that was just another lie. And liars who govern, aren't trusted and as a result, cannot lead. As Peggy Noonan's column explains, Obama is enjoying his perks, because he doesn't want to govern anymore.
In response to:

Driving the American Dream

MoreFreedom Wrote: Jul 03, 2014 7:36 PM
Speeches/articles like this are a waste of citizen's time. Is Rubio fighting for limited government and reducing the government burden? It sure doesn't show in this article. I guess he doesn't want to discuss what's going on in Congress, like him taking big campaign cash from Big Sugar and voting for corporte welfare for them at our expense: http://www.cato.org/blog/big-sugar-wins-senate RINOs like Rubio would rather waste our time and promote his name, rather than fight for us, or even tell us about what Democrats are doing. I wonder if he wants to promote the American Dream in another country like Iraq. How'd that work out?
When liberals (along with social conservatives) use govenrment to oppress the speech of others, that is offensive to me. Will college administrators take actions to ensure that I'm not offended as well? No, which shows you they aren't aginst offending others, just that they don't want to be offended and they support free speech, only for themselves. But that's not free speech - that's government oppression of speech.
The only solution is to reduce government spending, government debt, and government control. That would allow us to grow; otherwise, political promises of Social Security, Medicare and what government is supposed to provide (defend our lives, liberty, property and pursuit of happiness) will be seriously broken. As it is now, we don't have the wealth (nor will we) to pay for these promises. It would be less painful to cut spending now, rather than later when rather than cutting spending - spending stops altogther as the dollar collapses along with the government and its promises.
In response to:

A God-Given Right To Break the Law

MoreFreedom Wrote: Jul 02, 2014 11:08 AM
"When it seems reasonable to contemplate a religious exception to a generally applicable law, that is a pretty good reason to question the law itself." Amen to that! Government laws should be restricted to dealing with situations in which one party harm another or their property. And not providing something to others for free isn't harming others. But forcing people to do so, is slavery and that is harming others. Thus, Obamacare, forcing us to buy a product, harms us and removes our freedom. That is the true abomonation.
In response to:

"Crapitalism!"

MoreFreedom Wrote: Jul 02, 2014 10:59 AM
That is what the 1% rich who've millions to invest in crony crapitalism have done. Consider billionaire George Kaiser and the $500 million of our money he got for Solyndra. He took it a step further, and once he got the loan and paid off himself and the other investors, he declared bankruptcy. I expect another crony crapitalist might have bought the assets to do it again, or they may not considering the publicity Solyndra got. But the other failing firms have assets to buy on the cheap.
In response to:

"Crapitalism!"

MoreFreedom Wrote: Jul 02, 2014 10:56 AM
Fiscal conservatives make the distinction because Democrats will attack capitalism because it makes the rich richer, without pointing out that it's really politicians picking winners that is making the rich richer. Government control (via legislation/regulation) is what crapitalists want, because it's harder to get rich in the free market, and the 1% rich also don't want any competition.
Previous 11 - 20 Next