Previous 11 - 20 Next
If we include Democrats, Carter and Obama won the Iowa Caucuses.
Republicans? George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush (1988). Just since 1976, anyway.
Is Townhall officially Romney Campaign HQ yet? 21% for a former nominee is not impressive in the slightest. Him+Bush get 35%, plus Christie 40%. That's the establishment vote in Iowa. Most likely, by then there will be fewer conservatives in the race as some falter or simply don't gain any momentum. Last time Romney was beat by Rick Santorum in the Iowa Caucuses. Yes, Rick Santorum beat him. Freaking Ron Paul was 4,000 votes shy of him. He won't win Iowa in 2016, and he probably won't win South Carolina. If a single conservative can beat him in both of those, then it's likely they'll be the nominee.
Yes, because it's "wussing out" to move to the frontlines in Israel. In Israel, the war is open and in the light. In France, it's a bunch of street thugs beating up grandma on the way home from the grocery store.
"...Christie had an easier time coasting to victory in deep-blue New Jersey than Ken Cuccinelli in Virginia, whose environment is considerably more favorable to Republicans." Perhaps because he wasn't berated by the media and the DNC for months on end agitating about birth control access, without a nickel's worth of help from the Establishment GOP. Indeed, a few prominent moderate GOPers endorsed Clinton stooge McAuliffe.
Congress has plenary authority over DC by law. That's how societies are governed: by laws. I realize the average DC resident doesn't grasp this, but that doesn't change it.
In response to:

Jeb Bush's Immigration Problem

Nathan223 Wrote: Jan 03, 2015 11:29 AM
I'm sick of this garbage perpetuated on us by the media and their lapdogs, the GOP establishment. "Only a monster would deport a hard working immigrant whose only crime was reuniting his family here in the United States." Look at the nerve of this guy! Just rhetorical nonsense. "Monster"? Oh, yes, we are monsters for believing that the United States gets to control her own borders. Sorry, the United States has an absolute, unquestionable, and unlimited to kick or let in any non-citizen in the entire world. We don't have to let people come here, and we don't have to let them stay once they illegally sneak across the border, no matter the circumstances of their arrival. Get off your high horse with smug moral superiority over us rubes who have the audacity to believe that this country belongs to those of us who are already citizens first, and everyone can come along if we let them, not if they can claw there way through a porous border or unenforced visa rules.
And not voting will solve this problem how, exactly?
"It is logically impossible to prove non-existence of any kind." This is simply not true. The way to prove non-existence (or a negative in general) is to assume that it is true, and then perform a reductio ad absurdum. That's actually the attempted form of argument in the Problem of Evil.
There was no great fan fair over this. Putting your name on something isn't the equivalent of announcing it with trumpets. By this logic, you should never give to charity save with cash because virtually every other way of conducting a financial transaction involves giving them (or somebody else) your name.
Not to mention, McD's doesn't have thousands of different possible menu combinations. This regulation wouldn't be so onerous if it simply let the pizza chains give more generic ranges, and let the common sense of the customer figure out the rest. I mean, shouldn't common sense tell you the all veggie pizza is less fattening than the Mama Meats Ultra Deluxe?
Previous 11 - 20 Next