“There is a little bit of an identity crisis in conservatism now. Conservative voters are trying to figure out who the conservative candidates are and the candidates are trying to figure out who the conservative voters are,”.
“This election is about who can govern and make a difference. Competence is a central theme.”
Actually the wing-nuts are trying to figure out who the biggest clowns are and the clowns are trying to tamp downing their clowning just enough to attracts the largest numbers of wing-nuts, but still remain serious enough to appeal to a larger more and more sane electorate.
As far as “governing” and “competence”, since when do “conservatives” view these as positive attributes?
July 2, 2015 at 3:49pm
The individuals you reference were unjustly jailed and persecuted for their views and not for being born a certain race or ethnicity.
You analogy does not hold
July 2, 2015 at 12:48pm
Aside from the “clown in blackface” comment which was over the top and uncalled for Mr. Takei is 100% right.
Justice Thomas should look up the meaning of “dignity” in the dictionary”. According to Merriam Webster, the first definition is “the quality or state of being worthy, honoured, or esteemed”.
Other “undignified” people who were incarcerated (like Corrie ten Boom, Deitrich Bonhoeffer, and unnamed millions) agree with Justice Thomas. Man does not “bestow” dignity… every person made in the image of God (which is everyone) is dignified because of that fact. The “state of being worthy” is NOT bestowed by the State. Mr. Takei’s descendants were certainly as dignified as he is, even though those who imprisoned them “told” treated them as if they were not.
Nobody cares what a Canadian Socialist thinks.
Some words have gradations of meaning. For instance, the definition you use says “worthy, honoured, OR esteemed.” It does not say worthy, honoured, AND esteemed. Read that definition again and think about it. They weren’t honoured. They weren’t esteemed. But they were worthy, as any human being is, of the right to life and liberty. Are you saying slaves or people in internment camps were unworthy of freedom? I think they were worthy of freedom.
Maybe you should have kept reading the Merriam-Webster definition. The same page has a “Definition of DIGNITY for Kids: the quality or state of being worthy of honor and respect.”
So, Mr. Thomas is saying, in a way that even the Merriam-Webster kids can understand, is that slaves were worthy of honor and respect… not because they were slaves, but because they were human beings.
Also, I am not sure what interment has to do with internment. Canada_Goose should look up the meaning of “interment” in the dictionary. According to Merriam-Webster, the ONLY definition is “the act of burying a dead person.” Do you see dead people?
 July 2, 2015 at 12:59am
Another Blaze headline fail.
Do they actually read the A/P stories they “curate”
“Japanese players gathered at the other end of the field in celebration — and relief — in realizing how close they came to squandering a chance to defend their Women’s World Cup title”.
I don't think many folks on here got that. LOL
Yet they somehow get Mr. Beck's daily incoherent ramblings.
Honestly, half the time I can't follow the man's train of thought.
“What I am feeling in myself, and what is happening to my physical body, to some extent, and what is happening to me mentally, is not a depression, is not a death. It is a transformation. It is a transcendence.”
~ Glenn Beck on his metamorphosis, October 8, 2010
So infamous no one has ever heard of the speech nor this Rev/.Dr.
4.8M views for a 3 minute speech during a Springfield, Missouri council meeting – I’d say that would qualify.
Even Mr. Hallowell called it “viral”.
 June 30, 2015 at 3:51pm
I worry about the future of our country, any accurate reading of the bible should make it clear that gay rights goes against the plain truth of the word of god, as one preacher warns man and over stepping the boundary lines god has drawn by making special rights for gays and lesbians has taken another step in the direction of inviting the judgement of God upon our land. This step of Gay Rights is but another stepping stone toward the immorality and lawlessness that would be characteristic of the last days.
This law represents a denial of all that we believe in and no one should force it on us. It’s not that we don’t care about homosexuals but it’s our rights will be taken away. And un-christian views will be forced on us and our children for we will be forced to go against our personal morals.
Outside government agents are endeavoring to disturb God’s established order that is not inline with the Bible. Do not let people lead you astray.
The Liberals leading this movement do not believe the Bible any longer but every good substantial bible believing intelligent orthodox Christian can read the word of God and know what is happening is not of God.
When you run into conflict with god’s established order you have trouble. You do not produce harmony. You produce destruction and trouble and our country is in the greatest danger than it is ever been in its history.
The infamous speech by Rev. Dr. Phil Snider, channelling preachers from the 1950s and 1960s substituting “Gay Rights” for “Racial Integration”
June 29, 2015 at 10:11am
I say go for it since in the US there are no state level constitutional bans on marrying bacon.
Mr. Vaughan conveniently fails to mention that 31 state constitutional amendments banning legal recognition of same-sex unions have been adopted. If these were never passed the Supreme Court would never had to take up this case in the first place.
 June 29, 2015 at 9:18am
I think Mr. Huckabee is confused. The rainbow flag is not a religious symbol and therefore is not in violation of the first amendment or the separation of church and state.
Also everyone knows there is already a Christmas tree inside the White House.
Huckabee isn't confused. He's pandering to his mouth breathing constituency.
The flag itself is not Biblical, but the rainbow is most certainly a gift from God, promising that the earth will never be destroyed by flood again. That is most certainly in the Bible, while the Christmas tree is not. Your argument is lame.
June 29, 2015 at 9:15am
Does this mean that a Muslim county clerk can refuse to issue licenses or permits for anything which does not comply with Sharia law?
Same answer as my reply to Dismayed Veteran above.
June 26, 2015 at 8:13am
Oh I forgot one single ironic tidbit.
Justice Roberts used Justice Scalia’s own dissent in the last major Obamacare case against him. To defend making the subsidies available to consumers everywhere, Justice Roberts cited a line the dissent to the 2012 decision in favour of Obamacare, in which Justice Scalia said, “Without the federal subsidies . . . the exchanges would not operate as Congress intended and may not operate at all.”
Justice Roberts used the line to argue that it “is implausible that Congress meant the Act to operate” in a manner to limit the subsidies only to those states with state-operated exchanges, as the challengers in King v. Burwell argued.
The President from the get go has also held to the idea of universal healthcare, run and controlled by the federal state. He and other Dems have they are not going to be able to achieve this all at once. Which brings us to PAACA and state exchanges. Grueber has admitted that the general thought process was to limit subsidies to the exchanges opened by the states to thus force the states to capitulate or have their citizens lose out on the great benefits of the PAACA. They though that this threat alone was enough to get the individual states to comply. Everyone has asked why after 4 years of advanced warning could not the government get a working website together? The answer is that they did not have four years because it was thought that the states would do all of the hard grunt work for them and they did not forcing the Feds to jump and do something.
Four state exchanges have failed and most are close to being financially feasible. It was next to impossible for any of them to succeed because you can't change reality. And that OK by the Dems because in the end that was the objective; get 50 states to creat exchanges which, which are bound to fail, and then have the Feds come and claim that the only remidy to the crisis created by the states is for the Federal Government to implement Universal Healthcare. The Emperor has no clothes but for too many beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
June 26, 2015 at 7:59am
First off, none of the congressmen on either side interpreted the law to mean that subsidies would be available only on state created exchanges. That is simply not what they voted for or against.
Second, if what you’re suggesting was indeed the case the law would be unconstitutional because the Federal government cannot coerce the states into doing something they don’t want to do. There is case law precedent for this.
This was the argument justice Kennedy used in his questioning. Essentially asking the challenging attorney if the entire law is unconstitutional if their argument was correct.
But putting that aside just reading Justice Scalia’s opinion you get the clear impression that he loathes this law and will do anything in his power to overturn it and that is pure judicial activism.
[-4] June 26, 2015 at 1:32am
Justice Scalia has become the quintessential activist/partisan hack justice.
Just because he characterises the majority decision as absurd and untenable doesn’t mean that it actually is. He clearly dislikes the ACA, it is painfully evident in his reasoning.
The case before the court was a one of interpretation of the statute and was very different from the individual mandate challenge which was a constitutional question. Justice Roberts’ majority opinion is a conservative interpretation of the statute by a conservative justice in a majority conservative court.
Really? English is a second language in Canada? Scalia is an activist because he can read plain and clear English language? Seems to me the activists are on the other side of this decision. The guy who essentially WROTE the language has explained that the intent of using the term “the state” in this passage was to FORCE “the states” (no general government implication there) to adopt exchanges so that their residents would be assured of federal subsidies. It is pretty obvious what Gruber intended with the language. The court has failed reading comprehension 101. Scalia appears to be in the minority operating as a judge instead of an activist.
Your a fool, maybe a Russian plant?
Oh I forgot one single ironic tidbit.
Justice Roberts used Justice Scalia's own dissent in the last major Obamacare case against him. To defend making the subsidies available to consumers everywhere, Justice Roberts cited a line the dissent to the 2012 decision in favour of Obamacare, in which Justice Scalia said, "Without the federal subsidies . . . the exchanges would not operate as Congress intended and may not operate at all."
Justice Roberts used the line to argue that it "is implausible that Congress meant the Act to operate" in a manner to limit the subsidies only to those states with state-operated exchanges, as the challengers in King v. Burwell argued.
One thing I know about Canadian Geese is that they crap all over prime waterfront real estate. Literally.
So, Goose, since geese are marginally more intelligent than turkeys, could you share with us how YOU would write a dissent so as not to be called a "quintessential activist/partisan hack justice"?
 June 23, 2015 at 5:17pm
So in the drug addled mind of Mr. Limbaugh the battle flag of Gen. Robert E. Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia, which was btw never the flag of the Confederate States of America, is essentially the same as the American Flag.
No, Goose it is an attach upon tradition is what he was talking about! Me think you have the diseased mind!
From his mind spring a number of nonsensical barbs of stupidity to which people here lap up like a thirsty dog to a pot of piss water
Nice try. You know that's not what he said and the rest of us know that you know it.
Robert E. Lee was also against slavery unlike you Canuckistanis.
 June 23, 2015 at 1:09am
Actually it’s the stupidest question since the first day Rush came on the air since the answer is obviously “no” for anyone actually hearing him ask the question.
 June 22, 2015 at 11:41pm
Perhaps Mr. Limbaugh can also explain how long the SC House and Senate have e been under GOP control and how many Republican governors the state has had since January 1975.
Oh and maybe the loveable furry little fuzz ball with one side of his brain tied behind his back (or buried in an old empty bottle of oxycontin) can cosnerva-splain to all the empty skulls full of mush why Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms became Republicans.
I can guarantee that when the final votes are counted far fewer Democrats will have voted to keep the confederate battle flag flying over the state house. The vote may very well be unanimous since the issue has become politically toxic to the GOP.
Grand Kleagle Robert Byrd remained a Democrat, as did all the other racist Dixiecrats other than the 2 you just named.
[-3] June 20, 2015 at 10:43pm
Hey why not? Let the state decide.
After all SC was the first Southern state to declare its secession and later formed the Confederacy. The first shots of the Civil War were fired in Charleston by its Citadel cadets upon a civilian merchant ship Star of the West bringing supplies to Fort Sumter. The white population of the state strongly supported the institution of slavery long before the war.
So you can definitely count on the good people of the Palmetto State to make the right choice
As a Canadian you will never understand true freedom. Bless your heart.
Go to hell you Canuck piece of shyght.
Goosed, Makes one wonder how much supply that a six man garrison really needed. Strikes me that it would have been far more economical to purchase supplies on the local economy. Supply ship or not it was accompanied by war ships and meant to be a threat to then actual fellow Americans.
Menwhilst... back inthe AFRICAN-CONTINENT.... EACH VILLAGE $$OLDOUT THE NEXT-VILLAGE TO BE SLAVES...WHICH THEN $$OLDOUT THEIR NEIGHBORING-VILLAGE TO BE SLAVES... which then $$oldout th..... .... .... ... .. . THE AFRICANS made it easy...they did all the "work" themselves. The SLAVERS juss-sat-back and collected the cash and SLAVES!!
 June 18, 2015 at 12:50pm
Because, putting aside style, on substance his views really do not differ that much from current mainstream conservatism.
Aside from Mr. Paul, on immigration, trade, defense, the economy you name it, Mr. Trump is a parody of a generic GOP candidate.
 June 18, 2015 at 12:44pm
Mrs. Clinton should send Mr. Trump a thank you for the endorsement.