en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/666201 Comments by katiebird http://biggovernment.com/bshapiro/2012/02/23/romney-goes-occupy-the-1-need-to-pay-fair-share/#IDComment300034375 BTW, if Santorum doesn't pan out, I'm all on board for Newt. Despite his flaws, I think he'd make a great president. I love the proposals he is putting forward, and he really takes it to Obama. If Newt starts rising in the polls no doubt the Establishment will throw another hissy fit, but ABR for me. ABO for the general. Thu, 23 Feb 2012 21:19:33 +0000 http://biggovernment.com/bshapiro/2012/02/23/romney-goes-occupy-the-1-need-to-pay-fair-share/#IDComment300034375 http://biggovernment.com/bshapiro/2012/02/23/romney-goes-occupy-the-1-need-to-pay-fair-share/#IDComment300033003 Thanks for saying this, Ben. You may have redeemed yourself after the Santorum articles that everybody was mad about. Thu, 23 Feb 2012 21:17:14 +0000 http://biggovernment.com/bshapiro/2012/02/23/romney-goes-occupy-the-1-need-to-pay-fair-share/#IDComment300033003 http://biggovernment.com/bshapiro/2012/02/17/the-santorum-surge-two-problems-for-conservatives/#IDComment295243331 I fail to understand how you can equate Mitt's conservative trespasses with Santorum's. Mitt is the grandfather of Obamacare, for crying out loud! That is an instant disqualifier in my book. Santorum has some bad votes out of 4000. But he never proclaimed himself a liberal, like Mitt. He has never been pro-choice, like Mitt. He never advocated for the mandate, like Mitt. He never caved to political pressure and created gay marriage in a state, in fact he has been on the frontline of social issues from day one. And Santorum never advocated for cap and trade which Mitt STILL believe in. And, the National Taxpayers Association has also given Santorum an A on fiscal issues. Santorum is also out right now effectively advocating for true conservative issues. What is Mitt doing? Mitt is a northeastern liberal who has become conservative because it is convenient. How can you possibly equate Santorum and Mitt? Sat, 18 Feb 2012 00:17:31 +0000 http://biggovernment.com/bshapiro/2012/02/17/the-santorum-surge-two-problems-for-conservatives/#IDComment295243331 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2012/01/31/five-best-picture-winner-blu-ray-review-four-must-owns-and-crash/#IDComment280188015 I thought the premise of "Shakespeare in Love" was absolutely brilliant, but failed to reach it's full potential. The one fatal flaw: the two characters supposed to be "in love" are actually in lust. The writer gives us no reason why they want to be together except to do the hokey-pokey. Truly great romances such as "An Affair to Remember," "Pride and Prejudice" and even "You've Got Mail," give us much deeper reasons why the couple must be together, aside from physical attraction. Tue, 31 Jan 2012 23:27:08 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2012/01/31/five-best-picture-winner-blu-ray-review-four-must-owns-and-crash/#IDComment280188015 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/cftoto/2012/01/30/annie-hall-vs-midnight-in-paris-deconstructing-allens-ideological-descent/#IDComment279208868 Hated both movies, and anything Woody Allen has ever done (except maybe a few chuckles in Sleeper). His work only reflects a nihilistic, narcissistic, smug, elitist, atheist and anti-traditional values point of view. His movies do nothing except leave me bored at best or feeling like listening to nails on a chalkboard at worst. Here is my take on "Midnight in Paris:" The Owen Wilson character, while somewhat charming, was fascinated like a school boy with a bunch of self-absorbed 1920's characters. The 1920's characters were portrayed as a superior group of people because they loved art and literature. These people with no apparent responsibilities connected to real life, loved to drone on and on into the pompously high reaches of the intellectual stratosphere where only the truly great dwell. The only time they come down to earth is to get a refill on their alcoholic beverages and look for their next exciting and sophisticated lover who will help them further understand the meaninglessness of life that can only be truly appreciated by the enlightened few. Oh, and the Tea Party sucks. Tue, 31 Jan 2012 02:09:42 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/cftoto/2012/01/30/annie-hall-vs-midnight-in-paris-deconstructing-allens-ideological-descent/#IDComment279208868 http://biggovernment.com/cjohnson/2012/01/28/will-gingrich-superpacs-and-dncs-latest-medicare-fraud-attack-draw-romneys-blood/#IDComment276966195 Hear, hear. I too am LDS and I'm extremely disappointed the more I learn about Mitt. What is further disconcerting is to see fellow Latter-day Saints begin to use the same false justifications that Mitt uses for some of his liberal positions. For example, using the principle of agency to be pro-choice (a logic that was debunked by Elder Oaks himself in the 90's). Mitt isn't just hurting the Republican party now, he is setting a terrible example for gullible Latter-day Saints who are accepting his sophistry and moving further to the left. Sat, 28 Jan 2012 15:59:20 +0000 http://biggovernment.com/cjohnson/2012/01/28/will-gingrich-superpacs-and-dncs-latest-medicare-fraud-attack-draw-romneys-blood/#IDComment276966195 http://biggovernment.com/cjohnson/2012/01/25/author-romney-cleared-abortion-stance-with-reagan-pollster-church-before-challenging-kennedy-in-94/#IDComment274194652 Our finances are terrible because we have become an immoral people- willing to sacrifice a baby's life for a moment of pleasure, taking no responsibility for our actions and reshaping the culture to fit what gives us self-esteem. The fact that our politicians are able to spend taxpayer money to bribe citizens is not unrelated to this lack of morality. Wed, 25 Jan 2012 17:48:02 +0000 http://biggovernment.com/cjohnson/2012/01/25/author-romney-cleared-abortion-stance-with-reagan-pollster-church-before-challenging-kennedy-in-94/#IDComment274194652 http://biggovernment.com/cjohnson/2012/01/25/author-romney-cleared-abortion-stance-with-reagan-pollster-church-before-challenging-kennedy-in-94/#IDComment274191395 We're talking about a human being, not some random thing like a virus in a woman's body. All laws are based on morality, it just depends on which morality you are choosing. We are not free to hurt others. Abortion is taking the life of another. Wed, 25 Jan 2012 17:43:55 +0000 http://biggovernment.com/cjohnson/2012/01/25/author-romney-cleared-abortion-stance-with-reagan-pollster-church-before-challenging-kennedy-in-94/#IDComment274191395 http://biggovernment.com/dcommandatore/2012/01/14/does-this-obama-appointee-believe-childrens-vaccines-cause-autism/#IDComment264171787 I am a conservative and I believe the science about vaccines is not settled. This does not mean that I am anti-vaccine and I really don't appreciate other conservatives calling me a flat earther. Vaccines, our bodies immune system and health in general is extremely complicated. I have read many reports of parents who have successfully helped their autistic children through heavy metal chelation therapy, through a gluten free/casein free diet and through balancing out the gut dysbiosis. I personally have health problems that have been untreatable through traditional medicine and I have found success through non-traditional means. There is much the scientific community is still learning. I think the author of this article is doing more harm than good by demonizing those who are trying to find solutions to autism and using scare-mongering tactics. Just because you question the safety of a vaccine does not mean you are advocating giving up all vaccines, there can be much more balanced approaches- starting by identifying children who may be at risk due to already compromised immune systems and by possibly giving fewer vaccines at one time which can be extremely hard on the body. Just as it is stupid to think the earth is flat, it is stupid to think that chemicals and solutions we inject into our bodies can have no effect on our overall health. And I'm sorry, but the one study that was done claiming to disprove a link between vaccines and autism seems very weak science indeed. If people really feel that changes happen to their children after having a vaccine, there need to be numerous and thorough studies before the theory is adequately debunked. It is our health we are talking about! Sat, 14 Jan 2012 15:29:45 +0000 http://biggovernment.com/dcommandatore/2012/01/14/does-this-obama-appointee-believe-childrens-vaccines-cause-autism/#IDComment264171787 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jhanlon/2011/12/30/the-ten-best-movies-of-2011/#IDComment251289341 Midnight in Paris...blech. Self absorbed phony intellectual main character loves to hang out with fellow elitists and talk about "art" and really "deep" stuff. Oh, and conservatives are stupid, evil and only care about shopping. I think the best movie of the year was "War Horse." Excellent story and characters, hit on some real history and emotionally grabs you at the end. And there wasn't a drop of insults or condescension toward anyone in the whole movie. Sat, 31 Dec 2011 05:39:42 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jhanlon/2011/12/30/the-ten-best-movies-of-2011/#IDComment251289341 http://biggovernment.com/mikeflynn/2011/12/19/393640/#IDComment242202648 So that must make you a Mitt supporter, right? No mandates there, no none at all. Tue, 20 Dec 2011 01:26:38 +0000 http://biggovernment.com/mikeflynn/2011/12/19/393640/#IDComment242202648 http://biggovernment.com/mikeflynn/2011/12/19/393640/#IDComment242066314 This list against Perry is ridiculous compared to the baggage Newt and Mitt have. And Santorum? He couldn't carry his own state. He lost his last election by 19 points. He is not a viable candidate. Maybe this post is a way to endorse Mitt without the embarrassment of endorsing him, kind of like National Review did. Mon, 19 Dec 2011 22:09:42 +0000 http://biggovernment.com/mikeflynn/2011/12/19/393640/#IDComment242066314 http://biggovernment.com/mikeflynn/2011/12/19/393640/#IDComment242038570 I'm for Perry 100%. He does more than blow hot air (like some candidates). He has the best record of actually advancing conservatism. Is he perfect? No, but he is as close as we are going to get this election. And he is absolutely electable. No, he is not perfectly electable but we have to make a calculated risk here. Both Romney and Newt have severe electability challenges (Romney 1%, Newt divorces and other stuff). When looked at as a whole I think Perry has the best electability chances. In fact, talking with my semi-lib mother last night, she doesn't want Obama anymore. She has reservations about Mitt because he seems to have no grounding principles. Newt scares the crud out of her. She actually seems open to Perry, FWIW. Perry all the way! Mon, 19 Dec 2011 21:26:07 +0000 http://biggovernment.com/mikeflynn/2011/12/19/393640/#IDComment242038570 http://biggovernment.com/publius/2011/09/10/sunshine-state-could-decide-gop-nominee/#IDComment191996453 Cain and Santorum need to pull out too. Although, I like having Gingrich, Cain and Santorum at the debates. Huntsman? Not so much. Unfortunately, he has enough money to go the distance so we're probably stuck with him Sat, 10 Sep 2011 18:33:02 +0000 http://biggovernment.com/publius/2011/09/10/sunshine-state-could-decide-gop-nominee/#IDComment191996453 http://biggovernment.com/cstreet/2011/09/10/the-social-security-ponzi-scheme-may-be-wedge-issue-with-young-voters/#IDComment191982886 I think this "Ponzi" issue will come to be seen as Mitt's Waterloo. He's been offending conservative voters right and left, but for some reason, he's been able to maintain a credible position as the presumed GOP front-runner. The poll on Perry's remarks at NRO says it all- nearly 90% on this internet poll of conservative voters say Perry was right to say what he did. Mitt and Karl Rove haven't caught up to the current mood of the conservative electorate or the electorate in general and are still campaigning as if it's 2008, or even 2000. The only reason we haven't been able to talk about SS truthfully in the past is because Democrats demagogued the issue and Republicans let them. But now that we've hit a wall with a long-standing economic crisis, people are waking up to see what a scam this really is. It is no longer the third rail. Those who pretend it is will be lost in the dust. Perry may not be perfect (who is), but he is going to win the nomination going away because we simply want someone courageous enough to speak the truth. Let the chips fall where they may. A candidate who appeals to truth and inspires us to reach for something better is always going to be preferred (if they can get their message out) to a candidate who appeals to fear, lies and the coarser human attributes. Sat, 10 Sep 2011 17:44:08 +0000 http://biggovernment.com/cstreet/2011/09/10/the-social-security-ponzi-scheme-may-be-wedge-issue-with-young-voters/#IDComment191982886 http://biggovernment.com/nnichols/2011/08/21/a-palin-announcement-on-september-3rd-looks-more-likely/#IDComment185385995 Go Perry! Mon, 22 Aug 2011 04:13:56 +0000 http://biggovernment.com/nnichols/2011/08/21/a-palin-announcement-on-september-3rd-looks-more-likely/#IDComment185385995 http://biggovernment.com/publius/2011/08/20/rove-palin-will-run/#IDComment185138924 Totally agree about Rove. He disgusted a lot of us that night. From here on out I say any conservative pundit or office holder who gives red meat to the liberal media about any of our candidates ought to be primaried or thrown to the curb. Sun, 21 Aug 2011 05:18:37 +0000 http://biggovernment.com/publius/2011/08/20/rove-palin-will-run/#IDComment185138924 http://biggovernment.com/publius/2011/08/20/rove-palin-will-run/#IDComment185138520 I'm a member of your group. But according to some you may as well hate her if you don't worship the ground she walks on and think she is going to win in a landslide. I think she's fallible and has serious electability problems. Sun, 21 Aug 2011 05:16:24 +0000 http://biggovernment.com/publius/2011/08/20/rove-palin-will-run/#IDComment185138520 http://biggovernment.com/publius/2011/08/20/rove-palin-will-run/#IDComment185138259 I just don't get it. What on earth makes you people think she is going to win in a landslide? Just because she adheres to conservative talking points? Just because she's pretty? Just because you all want revenge on the mainstream media and the Establishment? She's a great lady. I like her a lot. But she is not a conservative Messiah any more than you know who is a liberal Messiah. Get over it and stop the hero worship. Sun, 21 Aug 2011 05:14:38 +0000 http://biggovernment.com/publius/2011/08/20/rove-palin-will-run/#IDComment185138259 http://biggovernment.com/publius/2011/08/20/rove-palin-will-run/#IDComment185111214 I don't think Palin has made up her mind yet. I think she had a plan, but now Perry's entry into the race makes it more complicated. A candidate has to go after the front-runner, and with the front runner Romney, Palin would have no problem going after him (there is so much meat on the bone, after all). But what does she do with Perry? The libs are going after Perry. The establishment is going after Perry. If Palin goes after Perry she is implicitly supporting the people who are going after him, (like the Establishment, that she hates). What does she attack him on? What does she bring to the table that he doesn't already have? He's more experienced, every bit as conservative, and can take it to Obama. I heard today that Palin is being pressured to run by Todd Palin. That makes sense that her spouse would be her biggest fan, would be convinced she can win and would want her to run to get even will all those that have dissed her. But deep down Palin must know the risks that she takes by getting in, both to herself and to the party. There is a serious risk of dividing the Tea Party, which could give the nom to Romney (which would be a disaster). There is also the risk that if she loses and something like that happens, she would be blamed and lose credibility and her position as a King-maker. I think deep down she wants to run. Whether she does or not, at this point, I think is a toss-up. Whatever happens, conservatives need to pick the most conservative electable candidate who can win. In my book that is Perry. Experience really will count with independents who don't want to go down that road again (albeit with a conservative this time instead of a liberal). If Palin really wants to be Pres she has plenty of time to build her resume and her career and take it on again in the future. She has a lot to offer the country. I hope she chooses wisely how to best wield her influence. Sun, 21 Aug 2011 02:26:05 +0000 http://biggovernment.com/publius/2011/08/20/rove-palin-will-run/#IDComment185111214