User Profile: Canada_Goose

Canada_Goose

Member Since: August 31, 2010

Comments

123 To page: Go
  • [-2] July 3, 2015 at 12:35pm

    “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”.

    How does that square with slavery or interment?

    Responses (3) +
  • [2] 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”.

    Responses (1) +
  • [2] June 30, 2015 at 11:17pm

    @misundestandbothsides

    4.8M views for a 3 minute speech during a Springfield, Missouri council meeting – I’d say that would qualify.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8JsRx2lois

    Even Mr. Hallowell called it “viral”.

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/10/22/pastors-shocking-gay-rights-speech-stuns-politicians-and-goes-viral/

  • [3] June 30, 2015 at 6:09pm

    Agreed.

    Yet they somehow get Mr. Beck’s daily incoherent ramblings.
    Honestly, half the time I can’t follow the man’s train of thought.

  • [6] June 30, 2015 at 3:51pm

    The infamous speech by Rev. Dr. Phil Snider, channelling preachers from the 1950s and 1960s substituting “Gay Rights” for “Racial Integration”

    Responses (5) +
  • [18] 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.

    Responses (1) +
  • 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.

  • [1] 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.

    Responses (2) +
  • 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?

    Responses (2) +
  • 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.

    Responses (1) +
  • 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.

    Responses (5) +
  • [3] 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.

    Responses (5) +
  • [1] 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.

  • [2] 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.

    Responses (1) +
  • [-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

    Responses (4) +
  • [2] 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.

  • [1] June 18, 2015 at 12:44pm

    Mrs. Clinton should send Mr. Trump a thank you for the endorsement.

123 To page: Go
Restoring Love