1 - 10 Next
In response to:

God and the Constitution

Seventeen76 Wrote: Nov 14, 2014 10:43 PM
Actually, good liberals used to exist in the 1950s and 1960s. They fought for civil rights, they fought against communism, and they believed in individual freedom. Those good liberals are now Republicans. You're right, if will is not a Republican he is not a good liberal - he is a leftist, a racist, a bigot, and an Obama Democrat.
In response to:

One Nation Under Godlessness

Seventeen76 Wrote: Nov 14, 2014 9:41 PM
In retrospect (50-year-hindsight is always 20/20), it would have been better if the people in each community or school district had been given the opportunity to vote on whether or not to allow prayer in their local schools, rather than having unelected, unaccountable judges decide it for us. Maybe if we still allowed prayer in school, our children and our society would be more morally centered and less narcissistic. (repeat alert: just want to remove the spam from the top comment spot)
The Red part of that map recognizes that Democratic leadership is an unmitigated disaster. The Blue part of that map would probably be receptive if a true leader somehow were to rise from the weeds of the GOP. Until the Blues have a substantial and conservative leader to follow, our country will continue to "sing the blues."
In response to:

One Nation Under Godlessness

Seventeen76 Wrote: Nov 14, 2014 1:20 AM
In retrospect (50-year-hindsight is always 20/20), it would have been better if the people in each community or school district had been given the opportunity to vote on whether or not to allow prayer in their local schools, rather than having unelected, unaccountable judges decide it for us. Maybe if we still allowed prayer in school, our children and our society would be more morally centered and less narcissistic.
The Republicans now need to make a decision: in 2016 do they want to simply keep their majority in the House, or do they want to expand their majority in the Senate and win the White House? The answer to that question will be found in how they treat incumbents like Ted Cruz and Mike Lee in the coming 24 months.
Here's how it ought to work: -The Republicans pass a law, maybe the Keystone Pipeline, and send it to the President. He probably vetoes it. -The Republicans talk to the constituents of Democratic House and Senate members and point out that Obama vetoed a bill that is favored by a large majority of Americans. -They pass the law again, this time with more Democratic support. The President again vetoes it. -The Republicans go back to the constituents of Democratic members of the House and Senate. This time the bill is passed with enough bipartisan support that if Obama vetoes it, his veto will be overridden. Then do the same thing with the next bill. "Lather, rinse, repeat." It's a long process, but it's the Constitutional Process and Republicans should not be afraid to follow the Constitution.
So, are you anti-Catholic, or antisemitic? (I can't figure you out, sir)
Mr. The Original King, I'm curious about your take on Prager's overall point in this column. Clearly, the left has made the charge that last week's election results were a "repudiation of Washington's dysfunction." Clearly, the charge is false since, "Republican governors were elected in such liberal states as Massachusetts, Illinois and Maryland and retained in liberal Michigan and Wisconsin." By avoiding Prager's main point in the column, are you conceding that he is right? Are you willing to do so? At times, you seem to be intelligent and thoughtful, but generally you seem to just not like Prager on a personal level. Such personal animus might well prevent you from actually considering the validity of any of Prager's points which, in my opinion, does not reflect well on your personal character. Are you simply upset about last week's election results? I gotta say, I just don't get you.
In response to:

Coolidge in 2016

Seventeen76 Wrote: Nov 11, 2014 11:28 PM
One more thing: If you want to see marriage redefined so as to include, "any two people who love each other," please do not call yourself a conservative because you're not a conservative. True conservatives hope you will vote the right way and that you will be willing to work with conservatives to make this a better country, but please don't mislabel yourself as conservative if you are trying to redefine marriage.
In response to:

Coolidge in 2016

Seventeen76 Wrote: Nov 11, 2014 11:24 PM
You can only be married if "the consenting adult" is a person of the opposite sex; any other arrangement may be significant or important and worthy of legal protections, but it is not marriage. One-man-one-woman-for-life --- Christian marriage --- has been the American ideal since before the founding of this country. Marriage isn't about love, it's about families and it's about providing the best environment in which to raise the next generation in a society.
1 - 10 Next