Comments for Big Dogs House

Comment on Church Tries To Exorcise Obamacare Demon by Blake

Blake — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 16:25:29 +0000

The one thing progressives still can’t wiggle out from is the fact that, FROM THE MOMENT OF CONCEPTION, the embryo is a human being.
That is because, from the moment the sperm and egg meet, the result, if left to come to term, will not be a frog, a mouse, or even an ape- it will be a human being.

Comment on Obama Goes From Stopping To Defending Super PAC Money by Ferd Berfel

Ferd Berfel — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 02:42:29 +0000

I think Adam also made “a comparison” when he said, “That’s probably when they realized the Democratic SuperPACs were not on the level with Republican ones and decided it was time to flip on it.”
Why is Adam’s comparison ‘legit’ but BD’s not?

Comment on More Redistribution Of Wealth by Ferd Berfel

Ferd Berfel — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 02:29:27 +0000

“I read this somewhere and it is true, if you rob Peter to pay Paul you can always count on Paul’s support.”
This may explain the ‘popularity’ of Ron Paul.

For those who need to have the obvious conclusion to this type of government explained in detail, they need look no further than Greece. The first democratic society lasted several thousand years. Then, Greece wed democracy to socialism, and then lazy fools voted themselves the treasury.

Comment on Obama Goes From Stopping To Defending Super PAC Money by Big Dog

Big Dog — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 11:42:07 +0000

My intention was not to compare it in the level of seriousness but to indicate that just because something does not yet exist changing positions is not justified when it finally does exist.

Comment on Obama Goes From Stopping To Defending Super PAC Money by Adam

Adam — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 03:05:20 +0000

I agree that Obama flip-flopped on it. No one can deny that. I don’t think it merits the seriousness of an abortion comparison but a flip nonetheless.

Comment on Obama Goes From Stopping To Defending Super PAC Money by Big Dog

Big Dog — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 13:02:42 +0000

No but PACs existed and the issue of Super PACs was on the burner because it was before the courts. It matters not whether they existed, he said they were a threat and then he signed on. Suppose abortion was illegal and a politician said that it should be illegal and that it was a threat to our society. Then it becomes legal and that same politician supports it and encourages it because it will help him get elected. There is no real difference betweeen jumping on that bandwagon for political purposes and jumping on the Super PAC bandwagon for the same reason.

Comment on Obama Goes From Stopping To Defending Super PAC Money by Adam

Adam — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 21:28:03 +0000

SuperPACs didn’t exist in 2008 and in 2012 it’s a whole new ball game. Obama’s stance was against it until at least as late as November of last year. That’s probably when they realized the Democratic SuperPACs were not on the level with Republican ones and decided it was time to flip on it.

Comment on Don’t Muck It Up by Big Dog

Big Dog — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 20:07:57 +0000

Perhaps but some of the private emails I got were not flattering. He can do what he wants and he was given plenty of space here to say what he wanted. I only redacted things that were obviously vulgar (and I don’t think he was ever one who did that) so he had free reign. I even tolerated those long cut and pastes he is so fond of providing (as if pasting the words found on the Internet makes it absolutely correct). I tolerated that after I asked him not to do it. Hell, if he wanted to keep a log he could have kept a site with all his canned cut and pastes and then just linked to them.

I wish him well. If he has something to say he can start his own blog.

Comment on Obama Goes From Stopping To Defending Super PAC Money by Big Dog

Big Dog — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 20:04:56 +0000

Obama had the super Pacs before, labor unions and the media. The spend a lot of money and give him lots of free ads (by talking favorably about him and pushing the agenda). I don’t care about the PACs. It is an exercise of free speech to spend your money on that stuff. I don’t think individuals should be limited. But the big issue is that Obama said it was a threat to our Democracy and he is doing it which means he does not care about the threat he claims exists. He shows he will say or do anything to get the office and is not as principled as he claimed to be. This is not the first issue (public funding was another).

Obama spent a lot of money last time and some of it came from questionable (and likely illegal) places.

Comment on Obama Goes From Stopping To Defending Super PAC Money by Adam

Adam — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 19:58:28 +0000

This is definitely a flip-flop on his part and he understands that fully and doesn’t care. I don’t know where I come down on SuperPACs so much but it is disconcerting to see the amount of money being spent by these groups. SuperPACs spent over sixteeen million dollars on the Florida primary alone and that’s just for the GOP. Sixteeen million? That’s nuts and I think it’s things like that which Obama is willing to flip over. These groups are going to spend billions on this election.