My oldest brings us two plus minutes of... well... just watch:...
4:56 PM |
1 comments
The House ethics committee found Rangel guilty of multiple house rules. CNN has a breaking news article on the topic but so far it doesn't contain any more information than...
12:19 PM |
16 comments
A picture is often indeed worth a thousand words, so no need to say much else. Hat tip: Hot Air....
12:10 PM |
5 comments
If you're Newsweek, you claim the job's too big... for any man:Can any single person fully meet the demands of the 21st-century presidency? Obama has looked to many models of...
6:31 AM |
41 comments
Unbelievable. Congressman Charlie Rangel (D-NY), accused of a stunning array of corruption charges, involving lots and lots of money gained through illicit means (tax evasion, unreported income, unjustified benefits, and...
6:00 AM |
44 comments
They had me at... How can Americans create private sector jobs? The solution to America's jobs problem lies not with budget-busting federally mandated "stimulus" programs. Ah, your smal-government lower-regulation...
8:27 PM |
7 comments
That's Obama's description of Tȟatȟáŋka Íyotake aka Chief Sitting Bull in a new book he's written for children called Of Thee I Sing: A Letter to My Daughters: President Obama's picture...
8:26 PM |
10 comments
Before the Sarah Palin fans out there get up in arms, hear me out. My main point is this. Sarah Palin would be much more effective supporting causes like fiscal...
5:00 PM |
35 comments
Over the weekend, my colleague Rick posted a piece about the latest strain of violence in Iraq -- the deliberate targeting of that nation's relatively few Christians. And that got...
4:00 PM |
10 comments
Well, it seems that everyone's upset about the new airport security measures -- either the body scanners that essentially strip you naked, or the "patdowns" that pretty much equates to...
2:00 PM |
39 comments
Comments (5)
Two points:Given t... (Below threshold)1. Posted by eddie bear | October 29, 2006 11:15 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Two points:
Given the liberal tilt of R2000, this poll actually mirrors other Post Michael J Fox results which show Talent gaining ground.
As for the Liberatrians, they are just people who only seem to want to help sink Republicans (see the WA Gov race in 2004 and Realclearpolitics.com since Ryan Sager has joined). Why? I don't know.
1. Posted by eddie bear | October 29, 2006 11:15 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 29, 2006 11:15
2. Posted by clark | October 29, 2006 11:47 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Maybe because Republicans are screwing up the country?
2. Posted by clark | October 29, 2006 11:47 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 29, 2006 11:47
3. Posted by Kcredeye | October 30, 2006 9:01 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
....or, perhaps more people have taken the time to research Clair's voting record, and some of her personal past.....
3. Posted by Kcredeye | October 30, 2006 9:01 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 30, 2006 21:01
4. Posted by The Libertarian Guy | October 31, 2006 2:10 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
No, we don't run just to "screw up Republicans". Would you say the same for Greens running against Dems?
The two major parties view interlopers like the LP, Greens, Constitution Party, et cetera, as "vote-stealers". That implies an *ownership* of a vote, and, by extension, the voter him/herself.
Votes are not entitlements. They must be earned.
Why do we do it? Why do ANY third-party candidates/voters do what they do?
Because the Brand X parties don't offer a product we want to buy. We are being sold a bill of goods coming from two sales forces, and they both include the following components:
More government control, because Reps/Dems both consider Americans too stupid to run their own lives...
More government programs, because we can't make it on our own without food stamps, socialized health care, or being told not to run with scissors...
More taxes, to fuel the ever-hungry creature called "bureaucracy"...
More laws, when existing laws aren't enforced.
Before the "anarchist" tag gets mis-applied, let me be clear: Most libertarians want a SMALL government. By definition, an anarchist wants NO government. Huge difference.
I suspect the Reps/Dems don't like Libertarians, not because we espouse smaller government, but that we don't want *enough* government to make the Reps/Dems feel powerful enough.
Some of us refuse to color inside the lines, or to use our own coloring books. We're not freaks, just... different. In a good way.
4. Posted by The Libertarian Guy | October 31, 2006 2:10 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 31, 2006 02:10
5. Posted by The Libertarian Guy | October 31, 2006 2:14 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Sorry, forgot to put the whole URL in. Been a long day, and the coffee hasn't worn off yet.
BTW... is coffee illegal yet? If not, I'm sure some paternalistic nanny-statist will try to criminalize it. I want some trans-fat-laden food, too, but that's next to get the axe - for "the common good".
Speaking of the Food Police, someday we'll be reduced to grumpy, yet healthy, people who can't smoke or enjoy bacon, and forced to subsist on filtered water and boiled, unsalted tofu. Thanks a lot, busybodies.
5. Posted by The Libertarian Guy | October 31, 2006 2:14 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 31, 2006 02:14