Previous 11 - 20 Next
Nothing proves the wisdom and necessity of the Second Amendment as a means to protect ourselves from a big oppressive government than the left, the champions of big oppressive government, wanting to do away with it. It is the epitome of irony that Rachael Maddow can misquote a statement in direct accordance with the Constitution to support her opinion that the Constitution is wrong.
Nothing proves the wisdom and necessity of the Second Amendment as a means to protect ourselves from a big oppressive government than the left, the champions of big oppressive government, wanting to do away with it.
Ann Coulter's "long history of lying" is an example of the same self-fulfilling opinions I mention in my post above.
What else would you expect from the left who are so convinced that their view of the way things are is so indisputably correct that they can openly take a situation like Ferguson, where even they are unable to point out any racism, and support nation wide violent protest against racism because the issue is real even if not in this case. It is like my sainted Mother used to say when presented with evidence that I had not done whatever awful thing she had accused me of; "It doesn't matter. It is just the sort of thing you would do." To add injury to insult, it is then chalked up as another example of the non-offender committing the very offense of which he has been unjustly accused.
The Senate does not conduct foreign policy. Rubio has no more experience in that regard than Walker. They have both been witness to Obama's carnival and are equally capable of critiquing it. Knowing what not to do is a large part of knowing what do to. Clearly the alternative to not being engaged is being engaged and the alternative to believing our involvement is the cause of the problems is thinking our involvement can relieve the problem. Actually policies will, of course, matter but in that regard I do not see why a Senator would be better or worse at it than a Governor. I would much prefer they both distinguish themselves from their opponent rather than from each other. Leave it to the Democrats to contrive reasons not to vote for a Republican.
That and the 'optics'. Unlike for the Grand Jury, the protestors will give more credit to the administration for conducting the investigation than blame for not finding any reason to prosecute. It showed they were 'on their side'.
"Obama Demands 'A Better Politics,' Lectures Nation on Demonization" while vowing to veto anything the Republicans might propose. I saw an AP story on the SOTO than began 'Refusing to bend to the new Republican congress, President Barrack Obama,...,' had a Republican President acted similarly, the article would have begun 'Refusing to cooperate with the new Democrat congress,..., Of course, that begs the question 'why should an AP "news" story comment at all on anything other than what the President actually said.
In response to:

Early Presidential Prospects

Raymond, (Ret) Wrote: Jan 21, 2015 10:46 AM
I take your point but with exactly what do they agree? That Democrat programs truly help the disadvantaged or that saying so will get them elected? It could be both but I doubt it. The evidence that Democrat programs do not help the truly disadvantaged is abundant and nowhere more so than in the Democrats still using the notion that they do to solicit the votes of those who would not need help if they actually did. I believe them to be too cynical and self-interested to actually hold principled beliefs, no matter the validity of the principle. They are all seeking to get elected more than to accomplish anything having done so other than to get re-elected.
In response to:

Early Presidential Prospects

Raymond, (Ret) Wrote: Jan 21, 2015 10:26 AM
Should not the left disapprove of Elizabeth Warren? They are the ones who advocate special programs to assist minorities in recognition of the extent to which their minority status must have adversely affected them. Whether or not Elizabeth Warren is truly of American Indian heritage is moot because no one knew it during the time such knowledge would have affected her progress in life. That idea only surfaced after the fact because she claimed it in order to get the special treatment that the left believes she would have deserved if it had been known before. That alone speaks poorly of her character but beyond that, her getting that special treatment may well have denied someone else from getting it who was adversely affected by their known American Indian heritage
In response to:

Early Presidential Prospects

Raymond, (Ret) Wrote: Jan 21, 2015 10:15 AM
I would be interested in your definition of 'far left', having never heard a liberate even acknowledge it's existence.
The first thing is that it should not be called 'the state of the union address'. It should be called what it is, 'the state of the presidency address'. That would better set the expectations that account for the attention it receives and provide a better perspective on which to understand and critique it.
Previous 11 - 20 Next