Comments Posted By Dan
Displaying 1 To 10 Of 30 Comments


For liberals like Klein, Frank Rich, Paul Krugman et al the country would be so much better off if the slack jawed people who live in America would just mind their own business, pay their taxes and let the really smart, Ivy League guys run the country

Comment Posted By Dan On 26.01.2010 @ 09:15


If you think "death panel" is overboard. YOU ARE DEAD WRONG.
In every country where national healthcare exists, there is inevitably a government panel that decides based on cost etc whether someone will get care or not. They make life and death decisions by putting people on waiting lists or denying care, hence the DEATH PANEL!
You flat out lie when you say no one has proposed this.
Health panels that decide care ARE IN THE BILL!
Obama is on video saying he is in favor of a single payer system.
Obama's czars which he appointed are in favor of govt panels deciding who lives and who dies. IT IS IN THEIR WRITINGS!


Comment Posted By Dan On 8.08.2009 @ 18:50


Can you point out what social issues came up in this election? Abortion? Aside from a single speech by Palin and a desire on the part of liberals and the media to paint her as hoping to imprison all women who have an abortion (she's never even tried to raise the issue as governor), abortion played no role in the right's electoral strategy this year - against the most pro-abortion candidate ever to run! Did gay marriage really play more of a role than it did in 2004 when it helped bring out voters? Not outside of CA. Did embryonic stem cell research play a role? Not with John McCain, who is in support of it. Immigration? Not with a candidate who disagrees with much of his party on the issue - no one dared bring it up.

4% of voters said moral issues was the most important factor driving their vote this year. I think it was 20-something% in 2004. That means that millions of oogedy-boogedys are more pragmatic than they are given credit for and realized the economy was the most important issue.

This election tells us absolutely nothing one way or the other about the role of social issues in the electorate today.

Comment Posted By Dan On 22.11.2008 @ 18:48


What the devil are you talking about, saying Pfleger is a "serious Christian."

What he is, is something you may have forgotten, but that is a "serious" fricken Heretic.

He's seriously pushing heresy, specifically liberation theology, which heretically blends the gospel of Marx, class struggle, with the words and the kingdom of the second person of the Trinity.

That heretic should have been defrocked and excommunicated years ago, cast into the outer darkness, "where there is wailing, and gnashing of teeth."

Nor should he have been accepted back into the fold, not until he pulled a Henry at Canosa, outside the castle doors for three full days, in the snow.

And even then he should have been shipped off to the Roman Catholic equivalent to St. Helena's, stripped of the privelege to publish, stripped of the privilege to so much as communicate with anyone off the island. There, in silence, and anonymity, making reparation for the many poisions and heresies he preached to the unwary.

Comment Posted By Dan On 6.06.2008 @ 01:46


Let us look at McCain’s conservative credentials:
-IMMIGRATION: he wrote the bill granting amnesty to illegal immigrants (co-sponsored by Ted Kennedy)
-SOCIAL SECURITY: he voted to give your social security money to illegal immigrants
-TAXES: he voted against the Bush tax cuts multiple times (he has since flip-flopped and has campaigned as a lifelong tax-cutter)
-RHETORIC: he routinely engages in Democratic class warfare against big companies in America, particularly the “evil” drug companies who research cures to debilitating diseases for a profit
-ECONOMY: as recently as December 2007 he admitted “he does not know the economy very well” and needed to get better at it
-1ST AMENDMENT: he wrote the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that was declared to be an unconstitutional infringement of the 1st Amendment (co-sponsored by ultra-liberal Democrat Russ Feingold)
-2ND AMENDMENT: he was called the “worst 2nd amendment candidate” by the president of the NRA
-ENERGY TAX: wrote a bill (co-sponsored by his buddy Lieberman) imposing a massive tax on energy which, according to the Department of Energy, would drastically raise the price of gasoline and put 300,000 Americans out of work
-GLOBAL WARMING: supports radical global warming legislation which involved him voting with every Democrat; think only America is responsible to take action, not other superpowers
-JUDGES: he joined forces with Democrats (Gang of 14) to block the Senate Republican’s attempt to confirm conservative, strict constructionist judges
-WAR ON TERROR: fought with Hillary Clinton to demand that terrorists be given a full American trial
-GAY MARRIAGE: he joined liberals to fight against a federal marriage amendment supporting the institution of traditional marriage
-CHRISTIANS: campaigning in 2000, he famously described Christian leaders as “agents of intolerance”
-PRO-LIFE: he filed an amicus brief against pro-life advocates in Wisconsin
-BI-PARTISANSHIP: he met with leading Democrats in 2004 to discuss the possibility of being John Kerry’s Vice-President
-PROFESSIONAL ETHICS: ringleader of the infamous Keating 5 ethical scandal which cost US tax payers $160 billion (Google it)
-PERSONAL ETHICS: McCain cheated on his first wife after she had a severe accident that left her partially disabled. He then divorced her and married his multi-millionaire mistress, whose daddy bought McCain a spot in the Congress

Vote Romney. This liberal, old fraud McCain can’t fool this conservative!

Comment Posted By Dan On 31.01.2008 @ 02:07


Well, the party seems to be reverting back to its old ways. Bob Dole anyone?

Actually, given the uphill struggle it is likely to be to take the White House in what appears to be a Democratic year, putting forward a long-time Senator to lose gracefully may be the best strategy. Four years (or eight?) in the opposition might help the party decide what it really stands for, and resolve the tensions between the social conservatives and the fiscal and defense conservatives.

Besides, having the Democrats actually take executive authority might make them take the war against the jihadists and their fellow travelers seriously. That would be a good thing for the country and their party, though it might also split the Democrats from much of their base.

But voters faced with a choice of a Democrat versus a nominal Republican who plays me-too on a number of key issues to remain popular with the Washington insiders, can anyone see them choosing the Dem-lite over the real thing?

Comment Posted By Dan On 20.01.2008 @ 10:29


Republicans did not obstruct Clinton's judicial appointments, whereas the Democrats have held up many Bush judicial and administration appointments. In facing a Democratic president the GOP would be crazy not to take the high road and yes, challenge some individual appointments, but for the most part allow the choice of the American electorate to govern. The contrast would be obvious over time and would go a long way toward rebuilding confidence in the party.

If Obama is in fact elected, I would expect the margin of victory to be sufficiently large to put behind all the tiresome "stolen election" chatter. Republicans in Congress would of course need to participate in debating the terms of new initiatives. But respecting the outcome of the election while arguing for the party's principles is the only way to avoid the trap the BDS-afflicted Democrats have fallen into. Do we really need to create a Republican analogue to Pat Leahy, Carl Levin, Barbara Boxer, Jack Murtha, etc.?

It may take a while to develop a coherent policy platform, but the voters will punish mindless negativity in the long run.

Comment Posted By Dan On 7.01.2008 @ 10:44


"Patriot Said:
1:51 am

McCain’s problem is that he’s against torture. It’s not just a problem because torutre works – but because we need to make sure that the scum who hit us on 9/11 suffers."

I'm glad you call yourself a patriot, otherwise I would find your comment quite objectionable. Go die in a fire.

Comment Posted By Dan On 3.01.2008 @ 07:54


I can't afford it right now, but I donated $250 because it's that important. There are difficult times ahead, and we need a leader with high principles and dignity to pull the country together. Fred Thompson is the only option who meets the test.

Unfortunately, the website signs contributors up as a Friend of Fred with a system-assigned password, and profile management does not give a way to change the password.

Comment Posted By Dan On 27.12.2007 @ 14:53


Hi Rick. Sorry for being late to the party on this one. My condolences on your loss.

You edged right up to a hugely important point in your "big government conservative" (BGC) argument but didn't go all the way, namely: The BGC phenomenon is the creation of the Republican party. Under Delay and Bush there was an explosion of earmarks and the biggest new entitlement program since LBJ, not to mention the resulting deficits. Conservative commentators were shamefully silent as all this happened so the implicit message was "we love big government as long as we're the ones making it big!" They sold GOP small-government credibility for a generation and the chickens are just starting to come home to roost. For a similar reason I suspect Ron Paul is making lots of noise among those looking for the second coming of Ross Perot. Perot ended up freaking out but despite his spectacular self-immolation keep this in mind: He got 20% of the vote and a few years later the budget was in balance.

Comment Posted By Dan On 26.12.2007 @ 12:26

Powered by WordPress


Next page »

Pages (3) : [1] 2 3

«« Back To Stats Page