Previous 11 - 20 Next
"Electing Romney won't change a thing either"? That statement speaks volumes to your ignorance.
As long as you're speaking for yourself, no problem. Myself, you're the problem, anyone who could come up with such mindless dribble has to be part of the problem, because you never have solutions, just more questions unrelated to the issue. Ask yourself whether you're part of the solution. If you have to ask, then you're not, you're part of the problem.
"there’s been disturbing reports recently that he’s got a ... secretive Bermuda corporation that no one knows anything about". Well, there you have it; "disturbing reports", rumors. And where do these disturbing reports come from? Some liberal hack in the media, or did Wasserman Schultz just make it up? This is typical liberal playbook tactics: it's not the lack of evidence, but the seriousness of the accusation that demands an investigation. And even if Romney has offshore bank accounts, SO WHAT! Why is that important? What does that have to do with anything? cont'd below
cont'd We have a man-child Marxist in the White House who's bankrupting the country, destroying the economy, the middle class, small businesses, and we're supposed to get hung up on whether Romney has a bank account in Bermuda? This is just another example of how devoid of ideas the liberals really are.
In response to:

Obama's Swiss Cheese Campaign

Rich1519 Wrote: Jul 04, 2012 7:37 AM
"populist rhetoric"? There's nothing "populist" about this rhetoric. It's nothing more than a pure, unadulterated attack on success. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't it against the law for American politicians to accept campaign contributions from foreign nationals and/or countries? Yet George Looney is in Switzerland doing just that on behalf of Oblabla. "Like Obama's favorite imported Swiss cheese, it reeks." Where I come from that kind of cheese is called "fum-unda cheese", fum-unda his balls.
In response to:

We are not France. Say it with Me

Rich1519 Wrote: Jul 01, 2012 7:38 AM
Ransom wrote: "I don’t know about John Roberts being sly as a fox." Well, it depends on what the definition of the word "sly" is. It seems that over stepping ones Constitutional authority doesn't take much slyness at all, just intellectual laziness. What Roberts did was usurp congress' constitutional authority to make law by rewriting the law to make it constitutional. In order to do so Roberts had to redefine the word "penalty" to mean tax, rewrote the law substituting "tax" for penalty, then found the law constitutional because congress has the authority to levy taxes. Without the rewrite, the law would not have been constitutional because the government can't penalize a person for NOT participating in commerce.
There is no right of secession in the Constitution. If you think there is, please site the Article or Amendment that the right to secede is mentioned in.
In response to:

Obamacare Affirmed: The Aftermath

Rich1519 Wrote: Jun 30, 2012 7:44 AM
The only thing Roberts did was rewrite the law to make it constitutional. He had to redefine the word "penalty" to make it a "tax" in order to do so. Yes, his opinion put a limit on the extent to which the commerce can clause be used to legislate or regulate, but what he in essence did was rewrite a specific law to save the law, and give congress the authority to tax us for choosing to Not participate in commerce. In this case, they are taxing us for being alive. And if congress can tax us for being alive, are we free individuals, or are we owned by the government; it's slaves. cont'd below
In response to:

Obamacare Affirmed: The Aftermath

Rich1519 Wrote: Jun 30, 2012 7:44 AM
cont'd In a broader sense, they can now force us to pay a tax on a car, or a house, or a candy bar at the local Hatji Mart even though we've chosen not to buy one. BTW, where does the Constitution give the high court the authority to rewrite law for the purpose making said law constitutional? The Constitution gives congress legislative power, not the court. The lesson from Marbury v Madison is that the court has the Authority to decide the constitutionality of a law, the lesson from Roberts is that the court has the Responsibility to rewrite bad law to save it. If Roberts' intention was to avoid accusations of making this an activist court, he couldn't have done more toward that very end. cont'd below
In response to:

Obamacare Affirmed: The Aftermath

Rich1519 Wrote: Jun 30, 2012 7:44 AM
cont'd For sure conservative talking heads are trying to spin this twisted decision into something positive, Roberts is supposed to be our guy, what else are they to do? But this is not a case of "if life serves you lemons, you make lemonade", it's a case of you can't make chocolate out of dog shi'ite.
"Republican activist Rob Eno imagined a counter-scenario: Suppose Nancy Reagan invited President Obama to debate Mitt Romney at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in California. Would anyone fault Obama for declining such an offer?" Different scenario, Rob Eno leaves out the important qualification of Nancy Reagan abstaining from endorsing a candidate. Now if Nancy Reagan agreed to that qualifier and Oblabla declined, then yes he would be faulted, and rightly so. If on the other hand Nancy Reagan took the position Vicki Kennedy did, then most likely he would not. As it is, with 3 other debates pending, 1 declined here or there really won't make much; if any difference.
Previous 11 - 20 Next