Yes, they hate them some big political money, sure
Tom Steyer is Virginia’s $8 million man.
The California billionaire spent nearly that much from his personal fortune to make an example of Republican Ken Cuccinelli for his arch-conservative views on the environment. The sum is more than three times the investment that’s been previously reported, and it nearly matched what the Republican Governors Association, the largest GOP outside spender, put into the Virginia governor’s race. It is more money, on a per-vote basis, than the famously prolific conservative donors Sheldon and Miriam Adelson spent in the 2012 presidential election.
Remember the Democratic Party is the party of the “working man” and the GOP is the party of the rich man. Just another Leftist lie that suckers fall for. Stacy McCain lays the blame on the Environmental Industrial Complex
On most issues, I am Conservative, I know this because on most issues I agree with other Conservatives. But what of issues where I disagree with the majority of Conservatives? I am Libertarian on those issues? Or are the other Conservatives NOT Conservative on those issues? One such issue is school uniforms. Most Conservatives I hear comment on the topic seem to think school unis are DA BOMB, as the kids say these days. Me? I think school unis are obnoxious and fall into the Collectivist mentality Liberals adore.
I got to pondering this after reading this piece at Chicks on the Right
According to this, the Keller school district in TX has implemented some new dress code policies for its students. Starting with this school year, skirts or shorts must be at mid-thigh and not shorter, yoga pants or leggings have to be covered by a long top, no tank tops are allowed, and undergarments can’t be exposed. Plus, no visible tattoos or piercings (other than ear piercings) are allowed. Hats are banned.
I don’t know about you all, but I think this is kinda awesome. Uniforms would be more awesome, but this is a good first step. Have you SEEN what high schoolers wear nowadays?
Well, I agree in dress codes, and I agree that short skirts, shorts, etc are unfit for school attire. I agree that tank tops ought to be out, and do not get me started on baggy britches that expose drawers. But why would school unis be awesome? To me they take conformity too far, and squash Individualism, which is the backbone of Conservatism. I like people to express themselves, and see no real benefit in everyone looking the same. To me, this is just another sign of one of the problems with today’s America. Everything is scripted, boring, stale, and anyone who strays outside those boundaries is seen as weird, or dangerous somehow.
Yes, I know, unis are good because “discipline”, yeah, so I hear. Working in the restaurant business for years, I have seen first hand that everyone dressing alike does not equal discipline. Neither does demanding that servers and bartender give scripted sales pitches rather than genuine greetings, but that is another rant for another day. You know what does enforce discipline? Having a few simple rules, rules that are enforced. I get a few simple rules on how to dress at school, I get that enforcing those rules works. But seriously, trying to plug everyone into a cookie cutter mentality? No thanks!
But, I am adding Chicks on the Right to my blogroll, because, those ladies do rock, and maybe they will add this blog to theirs. I mean really can you be a truly Conservative blog and NOT link Ed and I?
You want to “sell” Conservatism to Blacks? Hispanics? Young folks? Gays? We will NEVER, I repeat NEVER get there by pandering to these groups. So how will we get there? By coming together, and focusing on the core values that unite Conservatives, Libertarians, and Republicans. 90 Miles From Tyranny posts a good video We need MORE of this
Dana Loesch sums it up very well Skip ahead to 7:30
Sorry to Kincaid, who I really am not too familiar with, I know, shocking that someone might not know such a “legend”, but, what can I say. In the video, Kincaid makes his arguments, some of which I agree with, but, some of it is BS, again, sorry, I am not fond of beating around the bush. Yes, I agree, I want the Boy Scouts to be able to control who joins and who does not. They are a private group, and in America the right of a group to have its standards should be fundamental. Yes, there are Gay activists who are pushing hard for Leftist statutes, and to silence any speech they disagree with. Yes, we ought to fight against those tactics and activists.
Kincaid whines along with the fellow interviewing him, never heard of him either, in the video because some Conservatives are criticizing his piece on Twitchy, Michelle Malkin’s site that covers who is tweeting what. They sort of accuse Malkin of “bowing to pressure” and wonder how, oh how could a Malkin site ever dare allow criticism of Kincaid. Well, genius, Twitchy covers who is tweeting what, and from reading the tweets listed a lot of Conservatives disagree with you, I know, how dare they! They are probably all Gay cross dressers who wear real fur to Tea Party rallies, and cling to their guns.
My fault with Kincaid is that whatever legitimate points he has are lost when he says there is no such thing as a Gay Conservative. REALLY? You might want to tell this guy that because he damn sure acts like a Conservative, but, again, what do I know? Sorry Mr. Kincaid, but if someone is pro 2nd amendment, pro-life, for smaller government, lower taxes. fiscal sanity, and votes for Conservatives, they are CONSERVATIVE! If they hold those values they are CONSERVATIVE! Yes, you can be Gay, or an Atheist, or Left-handed or even a midget wrestler and still be Conservative Mr. Kincaid. See, I do not understand Homosexuality. I don’t. I mean how can a guy watch that Salma Hayek dance in that vampire movie and not have thoughts about, well, you know. I do not get that. I also do not know if Gay people are born Gay, or choose to be Gay, or become Gay from watching too many cartoons. I do not know, and I do not really give a flying damn. What they are is not my business, nor is it yours sir.
As to Gay marriage, I would say let the states decide. Yes, Mr. Kincaid, that is Federalism, either you believe in it or not pick a side or shut up. I would also say let the federal government mandate that no states, nor Gay activists may sue other states to force that state to adopt or recognize Gay marriage. Or maybe the very best thing is to get the government out of marriage, I have never believed that taxes ought to be used to reward or punish certain behaviors. Really why should your marital status have any effect on your tax rate?
What I DO care about is this. People like you, who think they can judge someone’s Conservatism based on one aspect of their life agitate me. You agitate me because you make us all look like idiots. People who wish to have certain moral standards that every Conservative MUST AGREE ON really agitate me. Sorry Mr. Kincaid, but Conservatism is not a religion, although many Christians are Conservative in their political ideals. Sorry Mr. Kincaid, but you have a phobia, or a fetish, or something going on there. As a final point I wonder what other issues Mr. Kincaid would dismiss someone from being a Conservative over? Maybe my Daley Babe posts disqualifies me? Maybe all the work Ed and I put into this blog do not count because we like attractive women? Maybe I should check with Mr. Kincaid, who, apparently is the sole arbiter of who is and is not Conservative? Or maybe I should just chalk up Kincaid to being an ass hat? Yep, option B works for me.
Let’s face it folks, too many big names, like Karl Rove, care more about their $$$ than moving Conservatism forward. It is not really about doing what is best for the country, it is about establishing, then preserving their place in the pecking order. There are some very dedicated Conservatives out there that put principles over politics, and personal fame. Many of those are bloggers. And yes, bloggers can engage in self-promotion, nothing wring with that. It is when self-promotion starts to dictate what you say or write that it becomes problematic, can you hear me Ann Coulter?. And, most bloggers I link and like are more concerned with helping the country than helping themselves. I am honored to be amongst those who do this every day, each in their own way, not as much for themselves, but for America.
Another blogger who I think balances self-promotion with sincere patriotism is Stacy McCain, and he has some solid advice on how to deal with Karl Rove and his Super-Pac
Until we get down to cases — in a clear-cut situation where a Republican primary pits a solid conservative against a Establishment RINO type hand-picked by Karl Rove — there’s no point getting all angry or frightened about it. Look for an opportunity to beat one of Rove’s picks, to teach the Establishment a lesson, but in the meantime, keep your powder dry.
Great advice. I had my fill of White Board Rove a while back. I always distrust people who seem to be concerned with pimping themselves than anything else. That and Rove always struck as one of those people that gets way too much credit for greatness. One of those people that makes you ask yourself “How in the Hell did they get where they’re at?”
Stacy McCain also notes that one of the critics of Rove is Newt Gingrich. Newt? Really, I guess Dede Scozzafava is just a distant memory, sort of like Newt’s wedding vows to his first wife.
No doubt that Conservatives will agree with that headline, and why wouldn’t they? I mean Conservatism’s main message is the smaller the government the better. But, as with any rule, there are the exceptions, and some “Social” Conservatives are all for the government sticking its nose out of their business, until, of course, they are offended by something, and then, well they cannot wait for the FCC or some other agency to save them from some offense. Rob Port at Say Anything links to Roger Simon’s piece that I think hits the right tone
Roger Simon writes that those who truly value limited government should stop seeking government solutions to social problems.
It’s interesting how some of those who most vociferously object to government interference in our economic affairs are most desirous of government interference in our personal ones.
I’m referring of course to social conservatives, who want to legislate our morals and values according to their views. …
The social issues, whatever your position, are best dealt with outside the governmental realm.
I realize this is an unattainable goal and that government will always intrude in our private lives to some degree, but we must fight against it as much as possible for several reasons.
To begin with, social conservatives will be vastly more successful at having their views accepted if they make their case extrinsic of government.
To clarify here, I do not think most Social conservatives want the government to get involved, but certainly many do, and they are not doing anyone any favors by abandoning their Conservative brains. Rob Port sums it up nicely
Conservatives would do better to embrace the idea that individuals are allowed to make decisions, even if the decisions made are ones we necessarily like.
Exactly! Freedom does mean that some will make decisions we dislike, or that offend us, that is part of a free society. And things like using taxes to punish, or reward certain behaviors is something a government ought never do. Likewise, every “Blue Law” ought to be repealed, as should sodomy laws, what consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes is their business not yours, or mine, and certainly none of government’s business. And remember this, some of the biggest nanny state type laws come from city councils and county commissions, or from state legislatures.
Of course it should be this one, but, Matt has a great blog Conservative Hideout, and he has some great links to share to whet your political appetite. Also check out Sentry Journal, for John’s tale of your neighbor’s campaign signs. Say Anything has tons of great links too Captain’s Journal looks at Christians, guns, and self-defense
Just some ideas for some Sunday evening reading
Oh the poor Left. The poor, poor deluded, ignorant, backasswards Left! They have convinced themselves that the Nazis, the Fascists are “Right-Wing” and therefore Conservative somehow. Nothing could be farther from fact. Bob Belvedere has a great post up today responding to the gross mischaracterizations of Conservatism by the Left
For nearly eighty years now, the Left has engaged in one of the most successful Big Lie campaigns in it’s history.
They have been able to get the vast majority of the people who have lived in this country [and in the other countries of The West] since the 1930′s to believe that Fascism is a Right Wing system of belief. The Left has deftly convinced Americans that Fascism is nothing like Communism, that the former is crude, militantly nationalistic, and only interested in absolute power and brutal control ['Deutschland, Deutschland, über alles...'], whereas Communism / Socialism is merely seeking to bring about Equality, Liberty, and Fraternity ['Imagine no possessions...']. Nothing, of course, could be further from the truth: Fascism is merely a transitional stage between mild Statism [Modern Liberalism] and Socialism. In other words, it is decidedly a belief system of the Left — grown as it was in the sterile laboratories located in the minds of Leftists like Benito Mussolini.
In it’s successful effort to distance itself from Herr Hitler and Il Duce, the Communist Propaganda Machine was able to get people to see Fascism as a Right Wing phenomenon, and this has the benefit of allowing them to label any conservative a Fascist at will — a very useful tool in politics, as we have seen. The Progressives in America have adopted this practice, kept this meme alive. Because of World War II, people have ever since associated Fascism with the Nazis, so, therefore, anytime you accuse a person on the Right of being a Fascist, a certain set of images enters the brainwashed mind of the hearer.
The Truth, of course, is quite different, but, as we have learned the hard way, the Left believes that Truth is relative and is only useful as a servant for their ends.
The above introduction is the necessary lead-in to the following…
The man who murdered innocent Sikh’s yesterday in Wisconsin, Wade Michael Page, is being described by law enforcement officials as a ‘Neo-Nazi’ and ‘White Supremacist’. All the indications so far are that he was.
In many people’s minds, this automatically makes him a Right Winger.
Of course, this is how the droogies of the Left, who mindlessly repeat the pablum-filled bromides of their thinkers, feel and they have expended much energy inmaking this point endlessly over the past day, and will, I’m sure, continue to do so forever and a day. William Jacobson is spot-on:
Needless to say, the MSM and left-blogosphere have concluded the shooter was a white supremacist/neo-Nazi based on tattoos and being a former member of what they describe as a “skinhead” band — which they then obscenely generalize to be “right-wing,” a way of trying to link him to the political right. This is the age-old tactic. If Page was a white supremacist/neo-Nazi/skinhead, then he stood against everything the political right stands for.
Then there is, of course, the Mushy Middle, the Ignoramentariot, those people who can not be bothered to do the homework required to be a proper citizen because it would interfere with their funtime, just ‘know’ that Neo-Nazi = Right Wing = conservative and that White Supremacist = Right Wing = conservative. I mean, come on man, we all know it’s, like, true — it’s a given, every body knows this.
Go read the entire piece, it is well worth the time invested. In conclusion, Bob underscores the point that Nazism, Communism, are both of the Left because they are forms of Totalitariansim, and the Left are the Totalitarians, not the Right. As I have said before the basis of Conservatism is Individualism, individual liberties, and the belief that those rights are Natural Rights. And such rights do not come from, nor can they be restricted by government. The Left, on the other hand puts their faith in Collectivism. Collectivism denounces individual rights, and firmly believes that all rights are collective, and come ONLY at the behest of government. This belief is rooted in Marxism, and yes, Nazism as well.
Think of it this way Nazism=Collectivism=Totalitarianism, and Communism= Collectivism=Totalitarianism. So, if the Left wants to say that this evil bastard that slaughtered innocents is a Nazi, or Fascist, then I agree. But, unlike those on the Left, who are seeking to gain a political advantage by playing the Nazi/Fascist Card, I am well aware of what that really means. It means that Wade Michael Page has more, far more, in common with the Left, than the Right.
Well, there are many. Here are just a few I thought of sitting here this evening
Conservatives believe abortion kills an unborn child, therefore they oppose it. Liberals believe abortion kills an unborn child as well, they just do not care.
Conservatives believe that self-defense is a fundamental human right, therefore they fully support the Constitutional guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms. Liberals believe self-defense, and gun ownership encourages self-reliance and individualism, therefore they are for disarming the citizenry.
Liberals believe that people who want everyone to get a tax cut are greedy. Conservatives believe that people who want to mooch of the success if others are greedy!
Conservatives believe that skin color, gender, and sexual orientation are unimportant, and that it is personal character that truly matters. Liberals are obsessed with labeling everyone, and hyphenating as many Americans as they can.
Conservatives and Liberals both cherish diversity, but in different ways. Conservatives view different ideals, ideologies, and opinions, and backgrounds as diversity. Conservatives also do not mind dissent, they welcome the chance to debate. Liberals, on the other hand see diversity as people having certain ideals based not on opinion, but on gender, skin color, or sexual orientation. Liberals also LOATHE any opinion except theirs of course.
Conservatives define freedom of speech as every American having a perfect right to voice their views. Liberals define freedom of speech as anyone toeing the Liberal line having the right to speak.
Both Conservatives and Liberals see the Constitution as a living document. Conservatives view the Constitution as a living document that actually means what it says, and that is the supreme law of the land. Liberals say the Constitution is living, meaning that it can mean anything a Liberal wants it to mean.
Conservatives believe that competition is a good thing. Liberals believe competition is bad because it might hurt someone’s feelings.
Conservatives believe history is important because it teaches us about where we have been, and that we can learn from knowledge of history. Liberals believe history is important because they can twist it to teach children that America is a racist, sexist, greedy nation that needs more Marxism.
Conservatives are more optimistic and Liberals are more pessimistic.
Conservatives are more charitable. They believe in giving THEIR money. Liberals are less charitable and tend to believe that real charity is the government taking other people’s money to spend on social programs Liberals favor.
There are more I might add later but I close with the BIGGEST difference between Conservatives and Liberals.
Conservatives are Individualists, meaning they believe that the rights defined in the Constitution are Natural, or God-give rights, that government cannot take away. Liberals are Collectivists, meaning that they see individualism as a dangerous thing. They also believe that all rights should come ONLY from government, and that individual rights are secondary to the “common good”.
What secret meeting? It does not matter, because it did not happen. So, I am glad, that Ed and I were not invited, because if it never happened, how could Ed, who is sensitive, or I be offended at being so coldly overlooked?
Also, Bob Belvedere was not invited to the non-event! Because let us be honest any party without Bob, Ed or I would pretty much suck, and if the Lonely Conservative and Zilla or William Jacobson were not there? Come on! Besides why would a bunch of people who fight for Conservatism every damn day really matter right?
This cartoon at An Old Broad’s Ramblings got me thinking
When I say that Liberals suffer from Consistent Inconsistentitis I am referring to the Left’s inability to stick to certain core principles. The Left says one thing, then does another. The Left says they stand for one thing today, then next week, not so much.
The Left loves to say catchy phrases like “power to the people”, yet, everything the Left pushes for usurps power FROM the people, and gives it to the government.
The Left claims to be the fiercest defenders of freedom of speech, yet they are always calling for more government control of “hate speech” you know, speech which disagrees with Liberalism. Speech codes on college campuses? Shouting down Conservative speakers? Where IS the Left’s consistency?
Oh, and how about tolerance? Inclusiveness? Sensitivity? I could write for three weeks straight and not even begin to touch the many examples of how the Left is the exact opposite of what they claim to be. If you need proof, just look at how the Left treats women, Homosexuals, Hispanics, or Blacks that dare to be Conservative
The most glaring example of this is the Left’s stand on abortion. The Left says that a woman’s right to control her own body is sacred, unless of course, we are talking about universal health care. This is why the Left is so frustrating to us. Frankly, I love to debate political issues, it can be enlightening, but, debating with the Left is a beating of epic proportions. Conservatives do not mind debating, or even disagreeing, but it boggles our brains when someone cannot manage even a shred of consistency. If Liberals wish to be taken seriously then they must learn to pick an ideological position, and STICK TO IT!
YES! Thank you! The fact is this, the most qualified guy in this race is not Mittens Romney, sorry Christie, sorry Ann Coulter. Sure, newt has his faults, but Mitt has his, and so does Prince Christie for that matter. But, if you look at what Mitt and Newt have done to advance Conservatism, Mitt loses! And, let us remember just how important winning in November is. Let us remember what we have now, as a president shall we?
CNS News reported:
President Barack Obama says the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade is the chance to recognize the “fundamental constitutional right” to abortion and to “continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.”
Because a woman cannot have dreams if we respect human life? Moral retardation run amok!
Ann is hopelessly devoted to Mr. Romneycare, and does not mind taking cheap shots at the Tea Party apparently. What a hack! And, today’s Daley Douchebag!
Ann Coulter already told us that Tea Partiers opposed to Mitt Romney were just a bunch of “birthers” (emphasis mine):
Pemmaraju pressed Coulter on Romney’s conservatism, adding that the Tea Party has resisted him strongly, an indication he may not be as conservative as she thinks. Coulter replied that the Tea Party was “wrong about this” because “they’re looking at who is going to go around bombastically demanding to see Obama’s birth certificate or calling him a Kenyan,” instead of substance. She added that “Rick Santorum and [Rick] Perry are very bad on illegal immigration” despite being considered more conservative.
Bill quick at Daily Pundit sums up my feelings pretty well.
And Coulter is just another fellating tool of a hack propagandist drowning in the tank for a shit sandwich named Mittens Romneycare.
What can I add to that? Nothing!
Rick Santorum, as I have said has lots of good points, and is right on lots of issues, but he is just a bit, OK more than just a bit TOO Socially Conservative for my taste. Consider this
Here is what Santorum told NPR about the role of government in 2006:
“This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I don’t think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. They have this idea that people should be left alone … [that] government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. … Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone.”
Yes Rick, I do believe in personal autonomy, and should be left alone by government, And yes Rick, what goes on in my bedroom, which, sadly ain’t much of late, is damned sure none of the government’s business! Sorry Senator Santorum, but you are wrong on this. The government that governs best governs least, and yes Rick, that includes our sex lives.
Donald Douglas has the video, and I must say, Hannity seems really rude and agitated over what he sees as the GOP eating its own. Michelle tries her best to talk him down by pointing out that this is NOT new, it happens during the primary process. More thoughts after the video
The first thing I have to ask is what is Coulter smoking of late? First, at CPAC, she says Romney will doom the GOP if nominated then she says he is the only hope we have. In part, I suppose, we must consider that Coulter is given to making hyperbolic statements, and she never runs from an opportunity to engage in a bit of self-promotion. So maybe she is just doing it for the publicity. However, as Michelle, who unlike Ann cares more about Conservatism than publicity, points out, Romney is hardly a Conservative, much less the MOST Conservative candidate in the field, as Coulter claims. Sorry, but something is off with Coulter, there is some reason she is so into Romney after being so into Christie, when she was completely anti-Romney.
Now, to the point that Hannity seems stuck on. I do not know what he expects. Should these debates be just giant group hugs? There is nothing dangerous in the candidates mixing it up, and that is certainly not going to hurt the eventual nominee. Further, Hannity seems to think that just because any of these candidates would be better than Obama, no one should point out their faults. Come on Sean! Newt has a history of putting politics over principles, that disturbs a lot of us. Others support Newt in spite of that, and that is fine. Mitt changes positions like a porn star. Again, to many that is a big issue. My candidate, Perry, has his detractors too, again, that is OK. We can fight this out, and still get behind the eventual nominee. Hannity seems to be having problems grasping this.
One more thing in closing. Did it seem to anyone else that Sean and Michelle were genuinely angry with each other? Sean cut Michelle off, and was snappy, that is unlike him. Michelle seemed surprised at Sean’s demeanor, and I wonder if she was upset, she seemed so.
Duane Lester does it in style, taking a letter-writer in Des Moines to the woodshed
However, this letter by Bill Leonard leaves me wondering if he’s a liberal or a conservative. I really don’t know, since nanny-staters reside on both sides of the political spectrum. Bill isn’t my type of conservative, if he’s leaning right, but if he leans left, his dependence on the government for control is right on target:
Does it make sense to take $60 million from the billfolds of Iowans to gain $13 million in taxes?
Well, of course, say advocates of online poker, the latest proposed gimmick for separating you from your paycheck. Iowans should be able to go broke from the comfort of their living rooms via computer without having to waste money driving all the way to a casino.First off, no one is “taking” $60 million from anyone’s billfolds. The free people of Iowa, and the surrounding states, choose to enter these gambling establishments, knowing the likelihood of losing every penny they wager is higher than winning the jackpot. So in the first five words, Bill shows flaws in his premise, but let’s continue:
Where does it stop? Should I be allowed to eat Cheetos and drink Mountain Dew? No, you’ll get fat and weigh down an already overloaded health care system. BANNINATED!
Should I be allowed to read “Catcher in the Rye,” or even more controversial books like Ann Coulter’s, “Godless?” No, Holden Caufield will corrupt our youth and Coulter says things we consider hateful and wrong, so you’ll be misinformed. BANNINATED!
The fact is, in a free society, some people are going to engage in behavior or activities that you don’t approve of them doing. As long as it doesn’t hurt anyone not involved, it’s really none of your business.
Conservative Hideout does a great job picking the Useful Idiot every month. And this month, the winners are………….
It shouldn’t be a surprise, but the Occupods won the fight for Useful Idiot of the Month for October 2011. Of course, being Communists, they won it collectively.
I don’t know what else can be said. I’ve been covering them ruthlessly. It isn’t all that often that the hard left completely exposes themselves, so I simply cannot let them go. There is too much to be documented, and I intend on showing you as much of it as I can. Here is a sampling of these posts…
Go check out what is compiled there, and spread it around
A NY Times columnist that clearly has no grasp about what Conservatism, the Tea Party, our out Founding Fathers were about
With Tea Party conservatives and many Republicans balking at raising the debt ceiling, let me offer them an example of a nation that lives up to their ideals.
It has among the lowest tax burdens of any major country: fewer than 2 percent of the people pay any taxes. Government is limited, so that burdensome regulations never kill jobs.
This society embraces traditional religious values and a conservative sensibility. Nobody minds school prayer, same-sex marriage isn’t imaginable, and criminals are never coddled.
The budget priority is a strong military, the nation’s most respected institution. When generals decide on a policy for, say, Afghanistan, politicians defer to them. Citizens are deeply patriotic, and nobody burns flags.
So what is this Republican Eden, this Utopia? Why, it’s Pakistan.
Now obviously Sarah Palin and John Boehner don’t intend to turn Washington into Islamabad-on-the-Potomac. And they are right that long-term budget issues do need to be addressed. But when many Republicans insist on “starving the beast” of government, cutting taxes, regulations and social services — slashing everything but the military — well, those are steps toward Pakistan.
What an ignorant ass! Talk about going off on a tangent, good grief!