1 - 10 Next
In response to:

The Suicidal Hashtags of the West

wordkyle Wrote: Dec 17, 2014 2:18 PM
I've wondered for the last several years at the lack of a self preservation instinct among my people -- Liberal Americans when it comes to defending the country, and Republicans when it comes to winning at government. Liberals jump to the defense of those who attack us, many of whom fit a pretty specific profile. A Liberal college student excuses and defends the mugger who took his wallet, saying that because of his white privilege he *deserved* to be robbed. Republican leadership hems and haws about immigration policies which everyone predicts will benefit Democrats and hurt Republicans. They conduct polls which ask what national issues are uppermost in the minds of voters, then either ignore those concerns or introduce legislation that exacerbates rather than resolves the issues. Another person's stupidity only bothers me when it affects my well-being, and stupid people seem to be more and more in charge of our world.
In response to:

Climate Catastrophe

wordkyle Wrote: Dec 10, 2014 1:36 PM
Stossel's argument makes sense from the point of view that humans surviving is a good thing. Problems arise when those who think that humans are a problem, and that the planet would be better off without humans, influence public policy or -- God forbid -- actually take control of making that policy. Such nutcases used to be called out for what they were, or Darwin Awards-esque consequences removed them before they became a problem. Oh, how we long for the good old days.
The Republican party has shown its willingness before, to engage in deranged self-immolation. GOP leaders are partners with the Left in considering "survival" a lower-level characteristic. It would be absolutely consistent for them to win the majority and then hand Democrats a weapon which Democrats took away from Republicans.
In response to:

A Reply to Rush Limbaugh

wordkyle Wrote: Dec 09, 2014 12:38 PM
Far be it from me to disagree with Mona Charen's better-informed opinions, but she doesn't mention one pertinent point. Many, if not most, Republican voters feel betrayed by Republican leadership. We feel as though Republican politicians tell us one thing when campaigning, yet govern in ways antithetical to our own beliefs and values. Democrats do the same thing, of course, campaigning on smaller government (tax cuts, more "efficiency" etc.) but Democrats seem much more forgiving of a win-at-all-costs mentality that forgives lying. When elected Republicans do things that they said they were against, many Republican voters throw up their hands in disgust and give up trying.
"Obama was unmoved by the voters' angry rejection of his presidency, policies and programs." I disagree. I believe that Obama's vanity was shaken by the results of the election, as well as by his being made a pariah by Democrat candidates who didn't want to be near him while campaigning. Obama has shown himself to be arrogant and narcissistic. These last few months -- including his bottomed-out poll numbers -- might have humbled a normal person. Instead, Obama is angry and throwing a tantrum.
In response to:

For What It's Worth

wordkyle Wrote: Nov 24, 2014 4:29 PM
Well, as I said, I understand why *politicians* want to do such things. I normally respect Galen's opinions, but I don't understand his passing comment about Republicans and a "comprehensive" bill.
In response to:

For What It's Worth

wordkyle Wrote: Nov 24, 2014 1:30 PM
A question: Why does immigration legislation have to be "comprehensive?" Why can't the various facets of the subject -- employers hiring illegal immigrants, government services for illegal immigrants, securing the border better, etc., be addressed separately? I understand why politicians may not want to for their own purposes, but why does Galen write disdainfully of Republicans who haven't proposed something "comprehensive?"
The increasingly accurate perception is that Obama is a narcissist who has felt entitled his entire adult life. During the 2008 campaign we saw that he doesn't have supporters, he has followers. Children sang songs about him, Hollywood celebrities swore allegiance to him, and he was awarded the Nobel prize for what he might do in the future. All of this supports his view of himself. When he took office, he immediately dismissed Republicans as irrelevant to achieving his goals. The realities of Washington politics irritate him, because why should he have to compromise? The 2014 elections were a personal affront, as Democrats shunned him and the American voters rejected his policies. Now he has the Executive Order and government agencies at his disposal, to execute his agenda with the imperial power he has always thought was his. Hopefully future Americans will look back on Barack Obama not as a "nice guy," but as a petulant spoiled child who used divisive politics to further his personal agenda, and who assaulted the constitution to feed his ego.
In response to:

Voter ID Myth Crashes

wordkyle Wrote: Oct 28, 2014 8:23 AM
It's the ratchet effect. Democrats advance their agenda when in power. When Republicans take charge, instead of reversing what's been done (much less advance a Conservative agenda) they simply slow it. The Democrat changes have been institutionalized, waiting for the next Democrat takeover.
1 - 10 Next