Disqus - Latest Comments for jacaldwell

Re: Obama’s DHS Chief Threatens Migrant Flood If GOP Rejects Amnesty Bill

jacaldwell — Thu, 12 Jun 2014 20:04:22 -0000

Congress can roll over and be this guy's bitch, or they can defund the DHS and put an end to this BS

Re: How Ad Blocking Helps Liberals Hurt Conservatives

jacaldwell — Mon, 09 Jun 2014 19:14:45 -0000

Don't encourage the laziness and ignorance of this post. There is no left-wing cabal trafficking right-leaning sites with pop-up blockers in an attempt to drive up page traffic while denying ad impressions.

If this site is so worried about CPM ad dollars then they should start creating their own compelling content rather than scraping snippets of other site's content and then linking to it after serving 6-8 banners per page. This site isn't a content creator but a content aggregator that makes banner money off of other publisher's content - then has the never to complain about ad blockers.

Newsflash - right-leaning people use ad blockers, too.

Re: How Ad Blocking Helps Liberals Hurt Conservatives

jacaldwell — Mon, 09 Jun 2014 18:45:43 -0000

Wow; this is just one of the most uneducated post on ad blocking that I think that I've ever seen; and I've seen a lot.

Intermingling truths with pure BS won't change either. True that this and many many many other web sites are advertising supported including a significant number of liberal content sites.

One difference that I seem to notice more on right-learning sites such as this is that when I "X" or close out a pop-up ad that covers the content your banner partner makes sure that I get another pop-up or at the least a pop-under. Don't you know what "no" means?

Ads are just a part of the Internet and a revenue mechanism for content generators; we get that. If we don't want what the ad is selling - regardless whether *you* "think" it's a liberal or Republican or conservative ad and regardless of the leaning of the site's content - we don't want what's being sold.

If people are more aggressively employing ad blockers on Patriot Post and other right-leaning sites maybe it's more to do with the poor "marketing" practices of the site - including this one - than liberals. You are your own boogey-man.

Re: What's the Outcome Expected from an Article V Constitutional Convention?

jacaldwell — Mon, 05 May 2014 21:00:27 -0000

If politician's don't adhere to the Constitution that they took an oath to uphold, what makes anyone think that those politicians would follow any new amendments anyway?

Re: Texas Is Permanently Shutting Abortion Clinics and the Supreme Court Can't Do Anything About It

jacaldwell — Mon, 05 May 2014 16:46:55 -0000

ah ha! I knew it! in favor of abortion; against the death penalty. hypocrisy much?

Re: Texas Is Permanently Shutting Abortion Clinics and the Supreme Court Can't Do Anything About It

jacaldwell — Mon, 05 May 2014 16:45:41 -0000

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" - sounds pretty straightforward to me. You can always read the Federalist Papers for context and original intent.

Re: Texas Is Permanently Shutting Abortion Clinics and the Supreme Court Can't Do Anything About It

jacaldwell — Mon, 05 May 2014 16:38:30 -0000

huh, have you noticed that there seems to be an over representation of men talking about "women's health" and aborting babies? I wonder why that is.... chivalry or cheaper than child support?

Re: Texas Is Permanently Shutting Abortion Clinics and the Supreme Court Can't Do Anything About It

jacaldwell — Mon, 05 May 2014 16:33:20 -0000

Well, Mr. Constitutional Scholar, then it shouldn't be too hard for you to cite where the Constitution calls for, let alone states a Separation of Church and State.... I'll wait....

Re: Texas Is Permanently Shutting Abortion Clinics and the Supreme Court Can't Do Anything About It

jacaldwell — Mon, 05 May 2014 16:32:11 -0000

actually Sanger was in favor of aborting babies; black babies, but babies nonetheless; so I guess that makes you a racist, too huh? While it would be easy to chalk your comment up to Godwin's Law, I'm guessing you believed Mengele worked in a vacuum.... you know, you talk real tough for someone that's been born and not willing to give the same opportunity to others

Re: Texas Is Permanently Shutting Abortion Clinics and the Supreme Court Can't Do Anything About It

jacaldwell — Mon, 05 May 2014 16:20:33 -0000

Just because you don't see it as murder doesn't mean that it's not. Just like you calling rape "rough sex" doesn't make it so, either, does it?Taking the life of an innocent isn't self-defense, so let's call it what it is.

Re: Texas Is Permanently Shutting Abortion Clinics and the Supreme Court Can't Do Anything About It

jacaldwell — Mon, 05 May 2014 16:17:42 -0000

Sure, but you're making a choice for someone not able to make their own choice all the while calling it "choice". When you make the choice to engage in unprotected sex you run the risk of creating life. Abdicating your responsibility by ending the life you created may be your choice, but odds are not the choice of that life that you created, is it?

Re: Texas Is Permanently Shutting Abortion Clinics and the Supreme Court Can't Do Anything About It

jacaldwell — Mon, 05 May 2014 16:13:10 -0000

And where does the Constitution say that it's okay to murder the unborn.
I'll bet you're against the death penalty too, aren't you?

Re: Texas Is Permanently Shutting Abortion Clinics and the Supreme Court Can't Do Anything About It

jacaldwell — Mon, 05 May 2014 16:12:00 -0000

1. Tell that to Planned Parenthood and the late Margaret Sanger.
2. As Daniel Moynihan once said, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
3. Where does the Constitution reference a separation between Church and State other than Congress not establishing a national religion?
4. I would guess given the choice the unborn would make a different choice of what to do with their own body.
You know, it's all real easy for someone that's already been born to make comments like yours, isn't it?

Re: Emails: IRS Leaders Colluded with Holder DOJ to Jail Political Opponents of Obama

jacaldwell — Fri, 18 Apr 2014 12:53:23 -0000

Even the "democrats" with an (R) behind their name.... Why don't we just remove progressives from each party and consider their positions and voting records instead of the color of their jersey; just a wild crazy thought....

Re: Emails: IRS Leaders Colluded with Holder DOJ to Jail Political Opponents of Obama

jacaldwell — Fri, 18 Apr 2014 12:08:02 -0000

I'm a little confused; in one moment the author says, "So when you sit out the next election because you couldn't find the perfect Republican candidate, don't act surprised when this corrupt, lawless, totalitarian Democrat Party comes after you and your group." and then in the next states, "The radicals in the Obama administration today attack us confident that the Republican "leadership" will do nothing to stop them."?

So what is it? Vote for anyone with an (R) following their name, but don't expect anything from them? How does one reconcile that?

Or is it just better if liberty is lost at the hands of "your own team" than the other "team"?

Re: Is a Post Constitutional America Just Around the Corner?

jacaldwell — Tue, 15 Apr 2014 20:19:38 -0000

"Conservative" and "Republican" are not mutually exclusive, and being one does not automatically make you another. I think this distinction should be made because to suggest that "Conservative Republicans" refuse to challenge a lawless president is lazy and disingenuous. Now, if one were to say "Liberal Republicans", "Progressive Republicans", "Moderate Republicans", or "Establishment Republicans" you might have something.

That aside, what makes anyone think that lawless politicians that ignore the Constitution at almost every turn now are all of a sudden going honor any new amendments brought about by a Constitutional Convention? Unless, of course, those amendments make them all supreme rulers....

WE are the enforcers of the Constitution, and it will be enforced when we start doing so; by the ballot box or bullet box....

Oh, and thanks for placing two of the same video on auto-play in the post, because it's not distracting enough to have just one, but the second just a second or two out of sync makes it much more impressive.

Re: Christie: 'Irresponsible' to Shut Down Government

jacaldwell — Fri, 27 Sep 2013 18:51:29 -0000

Hey Ed, It's almost 7PM in DC. That means that the government is shut down and will be for the next 2 days.... oh, the humanity #theskyisfalling #theskyisfalling and they would have gotten away with it, too, if it weren't for those pesky kids #andyourlittledogtoo

Re: Christie: 'Irresponsible' to Shut Down Government

jacaldwell — Fri, 27 Sep 2013 18:18:12 -0000

Ed, you're not seriously suggesting that John McCain or Bob Dole are conservative, are you? And again, what's with the name calling? I haven't called you any names, so what gives?

As I said, DOMA is the law of the land, too, but you don't seem to mind that not being enforced, but you've got your panties in a bunch that obamacare might not be enforced (via funding).

Re: Christie: 'Irresponsible' to Shut Down Government

jacaldwell — Fri, 27 Sep 2013 16:46:00 -0000

Of course; I just want to see what it takes to get Ed to admit it.... :-)

Re: Christie: 'Irresponsible' to Shut Down Government

jacaldwell — Fri, 27 Sep 2013 16:44:53 -0000

okay, you're confusing me now, Ed; at first you said obamacare WAS the law of the land, then you say that it's NOT the law of the land, then circle back again to say that it IS. Which is it? I'm getting dizzy....

DOMA was changed or tossed by obama, not Congress, and even if the Supreme Court found parts of it unconstitutional, the rest should still be in effect and therefore enforced; but it's not - selective enforcement of the "law of the land". What the difference between the executive branch (that does write but is changed with enforcing the law of the land) selecting not to enforce the law of the land, and the House, which was duly elected - fair and square - and controls the purse strings, selecting not to fund obamacare?

Because if it's not the law of the land then what's wrong with stopping it from becoming; and if it is then what's wrong with defunding it if the majority of American's don't want it?

when questions become uncomfortable, or you don't want to honestly answer, then insult the person asking the question, right, Ed? Now where have we seen that played out before?

I'm trying to have an adult discussion with you about what is and isn't the "law of the land" and what is or isn't off-limits with the enforcement of the "law of the land" and you waste time by talking about this conservative or that conservative that you don't like, all the while casting insults my way.

I'll say this real slow so that you can better grasp it; republican voters stayed home not because of Romney's religion or address, but because he is a squishy moderate, just like McCain (and Bob Dole, and....). You can harp the Rove line all you want, it doesn't change the fact that conservatives are no longer holding their nose to vote for a slower ride to socialism than will come from a Lib....

Re: Christie: 'Irresponsible' to Shut Down Government

jacaldwell — Fri, 27 Sep 2013 15:59:51 -0000

come on, Ed, you know that I'm not obsessed with DOMA beyond it being the "law of the land" and using that fact to point out that the "law of the land" line only applies to laws that you or your messiah like while ignoring those that you don't. Why you chose to run from that is beyond me.

The Supreme Court also ruled that the obamacare individual mandate is a tax, so what?

Ever read Irving Kristol, Ed? (Reflections of a Neoconservative: Looking Back, Looking Ahead, 1983 - Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea, 1995 - The Neoconservative Persuasion: Selected Essays, 1942-2009, Basic Books, 2011) It might do you some good to learn what is and isn't a neocon. A simple rule of thumb from there might be that anyone to the right of a neocon might be considered a conservative. We can discuss the fringes if you really need the mental masturbation (or masterbaition if you prefer a more Joycean play on words).

You know what the problem is, Ed? You don't like to be held to a single topic or the corner that it puts you in; Libs usually don't.

But back to DOMA, so you admit that it's the law of the land? And you admit that people that didn't like that law attacked (and somewhat) overturned the parts that they didn't like. But to do the same to obmamacare is "bad"/"wrong" because obamacare is the "law of the land" and because the Senate is full of Libs, then the House that's not full of Libs - and the people that elected the House - just need to STFU because obamacare is the "law of the land".... Did I diagram that right, or should we go off on a tangent or otherwise change the subject?

Re: Christie: 'Irresponsible' to Shut Down Government

jacaldwell — Fri, 27 Sep 2013 13:54:37 -0000

Ed, I own a marketing company. While the media might love Christie, the conservative base of the GOP loathes him. If all you had to worry about were votes from the media, Christie still wouldn't stand a chance because the US media is farther Left than Christie.

The media attacks those they don't like as unhinged because if they can make it stick - and it seems as though you enjoy helping with that - then LIVs can feel good about voting against them (not for the other guy). Hannity and Malkin aren't conservatives; they might try, but are just a shade to the right of your basic neocon. And O'Reilly is nothing but a populist simp who's losing his grasp of populism. Savage is a smart guy, but a bomb thrower, and your beloved media makes it easy for you to discount Limbaugh.

I agree that the right has had a problem with many of its messengers, but it's also had a problem with it's "Karl Rove" message of liberal-lite progressive-right.

But just for fun, let's get back to the central premise of this conversation, that being laws of the land. Is or is not DOMA the law of the land, and if it's not when was it repealed and by whom?

Re: Christie: 'Irresponsible' to Shut Down Government

jacaldwell — Fri, 27 Sep 2013 13:33:48 -0000

And the House is attempting to do just that, so what's the problem? and they're attempting to do it legally and fair and square, rather than by executive order.

I'm not sure if you've noticed, but the US media is decidedly liberal, so short of supporting a liberal agenda, I don't know what anyone from the GOP could do to be liked by them. Chris Christie and John McCain are case-in-point.

The last thing the GOP needs is to emulate the sophisticated statesman-like methods of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.... (or Maxine Waters, or ...)

Re: Christie: 'Irresponsible' to Shut Down Government

jacaldwell — Fri, 27 Sep 2013 12:59:34 -0000

but DOMA is the law of the land, Ed, and made the law of the land by that unabashed conservative Bill Clinton. you can't have it both ways; you can't claim "law of the land" for something you like, then ignore "laws of the land" that you don't. are these "laws of the land" or are they "suggestions" of the land?

but since you attached a government shutdown to your law of the land comment, with more liberal legislators than conservative ones, how can it be that the republicans can be responsible for any sort of government shutdown? as we're often reminded, they control only one half of one third of government

as you said, elections have consequences, and the American people have chosen a more conservative House of Representatives (that control the purse strings). The House is doing the will of the people - the 70%+ of people that don't want obamacare - and they're doing it "fair and square". You can't just whine because they don't fund things that you want, now, can you?

Re: Christie: 'Irresponsible' to Shut Down Government

jacaldwell — Fri, 27 Sep 2013 12:32:14 -0000

okay, then let's just focus on DOMA