CommentsDisplaying StopWhiningAlready's 10 most recent comments.

• Should This Hockey Broadcaster Be in Trouble for His 9/11 Reference?

  May 11, 2012 at 8:58am

  Ron McLean is a fantastic announcer and commentator. He takes otherwise typical situations and makes them interesting. His job is to acquire and retain the attention of the viewers, often doing so by finding some common link between the teams, their fans and anyone who may have been caught with the channel on who might otherwise start looking for the remote. I find the phony-baloney outrage that someone would dare reference 9/11 in any manner and the forced pseudo-apology that followed to be far more offensive than anything he said on the air. I only wish it would have been Don Cherry. His apology would have been more akin to, “Give me a break and stop your belly-aching”.

• CNN: Is the Tea Party ‘Over’?

  April 24, 2012 at 12:28pm

  Over? Did you say, “Over”? Nothing is over until we decide it is. Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

  Germans?
  Forget it, he’s rolling..

  Hell No! And it ain’t over now. Cause when the going gets tough…

  .
  .
  .
  .
  the tough get going. Now Who’s with me?

• Nancy Pelosi Wants to Change First Amendment to Allow Regulation of Corporate Speech

  April 21, 2012 at 11:49am

  In reply to EP46.

  Bundlers pull people together at parties and other functions to donate to Political Action Committees. Political Action Committees are non-profit corporations. As corporations, under Citizens United, they can raise unlimited funds and are not required to disclose who contributed or how much.

  Why is this a good thing? Why do we want to make the process Anonymous? We should want to know where EVERY politician is getting their money, who every contributor is and limit contributions across the board so the wealthy and the poor have an equal voice.

  Pretend that Paul Ryan introduced the bill. Would that make it any different?

• Nancy Pelosi Wants to Change First Amendment to Allow Regulation of Corporate Speech

  April 21, 2012 at 11:43am

  In reply to EP46.

  Where, where, where does the language specify one group over another? Look, what are we talking about – a limitation on Political Speech from Any Non-entity. That would include unions, groups backed by Soros, PAC’s, Super-Pacs, ANY NON-Person. Imagine how that changes things for a moment? It places the power back into the hands of the people.

  1 man can control the voice of any company as long as he holds controlling interests in that company. So you tell me which is worse -
  Option 1 – George Soros (the Intividual) paying for political ads out of his pocket and contributing up to the statutory max of 2500 annually

  Option 2 – George Soros (and every Corporation, Non-profit, for-profit, Pac, super-Pac, PLUS all of the other groups that they fund as well) joining together in unision to support the same candidate.

  Which one of these has a greater influence on the political process? If you like the fact that a guy like that can wield such power (openly and cloaked through a myriad of corporate fronts) then by all means, let’s keep the status quo. Otherwise, a Constitutional Amendment is the only way to overturn a Supreme Court case like this.

• Nancy Pelosi Wants to Change First Amendment to Allow Regulation of Corporate Speech

  April 21, 2012 at 11:34am

  In reply to DarkHawke.

  You’re incorrect. Where exactly do you read that in the language?

• Nancy Pelosi Wants to Change First Amendment to Allow Regulation of Corporate Speech

  April 21, 2012 at 11:32am

  In reply to staggerlee32.

  You’re falling for it hook, line and sinker – exactly the reaction the Left wants. You read Nancy Pelosi wants to change the first Amendment and go deaf and blind from there. Wake up and read a book for crying out loud. My guess is that you have no fundamental understanding of the underlying case, have not read the opinions and really no clear understanding of how this changed our political process thus far.

• Nancy Pelosi Wants to Change First Amendment to Allow Regulation of Corporate Speech

  April 21, 2012 at 11:27am

  Time out folks…can we just stop and think for a moment??? Fine, Nancy Pelosi introduced it, but that in and of itself doesn’t make it bad. (I know, play the odds…, but still). Funny thing is, SHE is the one introducing it BECAUSE it’s supposed to piss off conservatives – even though most conservatives hate People’s United every bit as much as liberals. The only problem with her bill isn’t that it seeks to limit corporate speech, but that the limitation should be limited to corporate POLITICAL speech. Think about it…

  It was a bad decision and pretty much ruined our political process. Why else are political parties able to spend a Billion dollars to on a presidential Election? By baiting conservatives into hating this because Nancy Pelosi introduced it, Conservatives end up looking like the ones who want to crush free speech. Brilliant move by the Left. Prohibition was once totally legal, but it was changed by a constitutional amendment.

  Bottom Line, unless we want corporations to have the final say into our political process, which essentially consolidates power into the hands of a very small number of people who have the controlling interests in these corporations, we should consider some kind of Amendment limiting corporate speech.

• ‘Spiritual Incest’: Yoga ‘Guru’ Under Fire for Alleged Naked Wiccan Rituals & Misconduct

  April 17, 2012 at 10:55am

  In reply to mycomet123.

  The fact that I’m actually taking my own time to respond to your stupidity makes me almost as dumb as you. Read a book for crying out loud and educate yourself. Pagan religions are varied and diverse. Not all of them are as you have described.

• ‘Spiritual Incest’: Yoga ‘Guru’ Under Fire for Alleged Naked Wiccan Rituals & Misconduct

  April 17, 2012 at 10:51am

  Consenting adults. Not sure what the big deal is. People can worship a pair of dirty shorts for all I care. Why does it matter? Who are we to judge? Sounds to me like he figured out a great way to stay in shape, meet women and earn a living. That people are stupid and decide to buy into his philosophy is their problem. Get over it people.

• ‘I’m Going to Be Fired’: Bob Beckel Detonates a High-Volume ‘What the F***’ Live on Hannity

  April 17, 2012 at 2:11am

  There goes Boortz again, stirring the puddin. Way to go Neal!