gdp's Comments

HillBuzz.org : Have You Discovered Your Talent Yet -- And Are You Ready to Employ It in the 2012 Elections?

Sun, 26 Feb 2012 20:35:19 +0000

My personal opinion is that we must try to wrangle the Republican party back to fiscal conservatism, individual liberty, constitutional protections, and honoring rights to privacy. The reason is because the Democrats currently have too many advantages. If you've been reading Hillbuzz for awhile then you know what I mean. They are better at mobilizing the vote, the are better at agitating, they are better at solidifying support behind a particular candidate or policy through manipulation of wedge issues. A good example: Washington State was in the news recently for legalizing gay marriage. What didn't make the news is that the state Congress was in an emergency legislative session called specifically to address Washington's financial crisis. So, a special legislative session is called, and the first order of business is to legalize gay marriage. Why would that be? Why wouldn't they wait for a normal session to legalize gay marriage? The answer, in my opinion, is that the current Democrat governor is on her way out, and there is a tough election coming up with a strong Republican candidate. By passing gay marriage NOW, it gives opposition groups time to put an anti-gay marriage initiative on the ballot, thereby creating a wedge issue and mobilizing a huge voter block in Washington to come out and vote Democrat. The country is full of examples like this. The Democrats play a game of strategy, and they think at least four years ahead. Obama's election was proof of that. Splitting the conservative vote into two parties might one day give rise to a more conservative America, but in the mean time, I think the Democrats will have their way with the Presidency. It splits our already disadvantaged election architecture into two parts, each weaker than the former whole. Instead, I feel the Republican party needs to STRENGTHEN itself, and it should start by listening to people like Kevin. Then what we need is articulate constitutionalists who can attack progressive ideology and promote capitalism and freedom in a truly Reagan-esque fashion. I'm OK with the current GOP field, but none of them light my fire like Reagan. I think the GOP has some rising stars though. People like Rubio, West, Haley, and even Christie. The future looks bright ahead, as long as we can get through these dark days.

HillBuzz.org : Is the USA really being governed according to the dreams of a Luo tribesman from the '50s?

Fri, 24 Feb 2012 21:46:02 +0000

I believe this is the direct link to the Kindle version: The Roots of Obama's Rage<img src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=hillbuorg-20&l=as2&o=1&a=B0042FZRGQ" width="1" height="1" border="0" alt="" style="border:none !important; margin:0px !important;" />

HillBuzz.org : HillBuzz Open Thread: Friday February 24th, 2012

Fri, 24 Feb 2012 21:43:38 +0000

Thanks for the suggestion! We will definitely do that.

HillBuzz.org : HillBuzz Open Thread: Friday February 24th, 2012

Fri, 24 Feb 2012 21:43:05 +0000

I think that as long as you link over from Hillbuzz, we do get a small commission on whatever you purchase, even if it's not the exact product. Thanks for the support!

HillBuzz.org : The Mystery of Willard "Mitt" Romney's Missing 2008 & 2009 Tax Returns: Did He Make Money Off the Ob

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 14:12:35 +0000

Please pray for my Aunt Margie, whom I'm visiting today. She has bone cancer and is now in a hospice, and she is in a lot of pain. Dear God, relieve her of her pain and please make her final days on this earth pleasant ones.

HillBuzz.org : GREAT MERCIFUL ZEUS: What is Mitt Romney hiding on his 2008 and 2009 tax returns, which he refuses t

Mon, 30 Jan 2012 00:08:44 +0000

They've been saying (even before SC) that FL would present a problem for Newt, due to its larger size and Romney's massive funding compared to everyone else. I'm concerned about his poll numbers, too, but not giving up yet. Polls also show that Santorum supporters would most likely vote for Newt if Santorum dropped out of the race. Given the winner-take-all rule in FL, I've been trying to convince as many Santorum supporters as possible that switching their vote to Newt will help keep Romney from taking all 50 of FL delegates. I hope many of them are smart enough to figure that out on their own. Phone-banking is still going on down here and Newt will be all over the state on Monday. Anything's possible.

HillBuzz.org : FORBES: Best Buy Will Be Out of Business Soon

Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:21:27 +0000

His lower left jaw is also swollen, OR ...... he's storing a nut in there. Bwhahaha. I just have to ask this. Why the long face, Jon F''n Cary. What a waste of the air we breathe.

HillBuzz.org : Governor Palin Would Vote for Newt Gingrich If She Was A South Carolinian

Mon, 23 Jan 2012 13:02:26 +0000

if ratty matthew knowles calls his wife tina a queen thenwhy did he efff around fr years with women who are much darker than her? camp knowles is pathetic and fraudulent and lower than a snakes belly. i hope bey really did cry for 3 days after the comments made by Etta.

HillBuzz.org : The Iowa Caucus: Picking Presidential Candidates Through Chaos and Ineptitude

Sun, 22 Jan 2012 19:07:38 +0000

This is the real shock the elites don't even want to acknowledge to themselves. Some day all us geniuses, (insert my name here) after having bemoaned the "huge mistake" of her withdrawal, will come to see what we've really known all along: She is a freakin' phenomenon and a brilliant cultural revolutionary with uncanny political instincts: In short, real.

HillBuzz.org : A Message From Future President Allen West: Barack Obama, Do Not Play the Race Card in 2012

Tue, 17 Jan 2012 07:20:19 +0000

"Future President Allen West". I like the sound of that. As unexcited as I am with the 2012 GOP lineup, I am thrilled for the future of the party with people like West and Rubio on the horizon.

HillBuzz.org : Hypocrisy's Name is WordPress: Check Out Jane Wells' Screed Against SOPA's Censorship While Recallin

Mon, 16 Jan 2012 09:02:16 +0000

You make a really excellent point. I knew WP was arguing against SOPA, but I hadn't really put two and two together regarding their treatment of Bare Naked Islam. I do find it ironic, and all too common, that liberals tend to think that censorship is terrible, UNLESS they are the ones doing the censoring. THEN it's considered "noble".

HillBuzz.org : Sunday Open Thread: January 15th, 2012

Sun, 15 Jan 2012 18:38:59 +0000

This might be a repost but if it was, but I just saw it today. Australia doing it right. http://silentsspeech.wordpress.com/2011/01/01/aus...

HillBuzz.org : Martial Law in America: NDAA Signed Into Law

Mon, 2 Jan 2012 04:10:23 +0000

By my reading, section 1022 reaffirms that U.S. citizens and all peoples in/on U.S. soil are not subject to the action of indefinite detention. In the Red State post you mentioned, the author is clearly concerned with section 1021, but that section specifically states: "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States." So like I said, it is concerning that the U.S. would grant itself power to indefinitely hold U.S. citizens captured in foreign nations, but the treatment of those on U.S. soil does not appear to be impacted by this law at all. I certainly don't discount that this law is the kind of slippery slope, sloppy legislation that should never be passed, but I do believe it's reach has been somewhat misrepresented by the inference that it would extend to U.S. soil.

HillBuzz.org : HillBuzz Open Thread: New Year's Day 2012

Sun, 1 Jan 2012 18:35:34 +0000

Happy New Year Kevin! I've been just a lurker these last few months but still enjoy reading HB on a regular basis. "I bet if you drew a ven diagram of the Mayan Calendar Obsessed and another of Obama 2008 Enthusiasts, the area of overlap between the two circles would be massive." ^^ Love that :) ^^

HillBuzz.org : HillBuzz Open Thread: New Year's Day 2012

Sun, 1 Jan 2012 18:32:32 +0000

I posted on this in a different thread (Kathleen's). I went and read the text for myself because one of the few members of Congress I felt I trust voted in favor of this. After reading the text itself, it is my opinion that - while still concerning - the language does NOT grant indefinite military detention of Americans or anyone else arrested on U.S. soil. It does appear to grant indefinite military detention of U.S. citizens captured on foreign soil, IF they meet the classifications of the section as a "covered person". To meet those classifications they must have participated in 9/11, or be involved with/supported by "al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces". This does bother me. I feel a U.S. citizen is entitled to the rights set forth by the Constitution regardless of where they are arrested. However, it is not, by my reading, the doomsday scenario that has been bandied about on television lately. It does not appear to significantly alter or extend authority, especially since we can already (apparently) legally assassinate a U.S. citizen on foreign land without any public process (Awlaki). Check the bill out and read Sec 1021 and I'd love to hear your thoughts. Like you and many others I was HIGHLY concerned about this legislation, until I actually read it. PDF link: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/p... Or head to http://thomas.loc.gov and search for H.R.1540.ENR

HillBuzz.org : Martial Law in America: NDAA Signed Into Law

Sun, 1 Jan 2012 18:23:01 +0000

Happy New Year Kathleen, KD, & HB in general. It is my understanding that, supposedly, the final version of this bill does not actually extend indefinite detentions any further than is already technically legal under other laws already passed. It, from my reading, does NOT extend to U.S. citizens taken into custody on U.S. soil, even if they are somehow classified as "terrorist". The section in question is, I believe, Sec 1021 of the final bill approved by Congress & signed by the President (other versions had the section number different). Here is the link to the text: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:7:./te... If the link dies (I think the site only keeps them for a temporary time period) then you can search for [H.R.1540.ENR] or try the PDF link: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/p... Anyway, section 1021 specifically states the "covered persons" to be those who were involved in 9/11, or "substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces." The section further states that "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States." These and other provisions in this section do, in my opinion, prevent such actions against U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. I would also like to state that I believe such authority, had it been granted, would have been in clear and undeniable opposition to the 6th Amendment and would have subsequently been struck down the first time it was challenged. Like cate007, I noticed one of the few representatives I consider trustworthy had voted in favor of this bill, so I had to go look it up for myself. Though I am still not entirely comfortable. It does concern me that a U.S. citizen captured on foreign soil may be held indefinitely. It does concern me that the bill uses the term "a belligerent act .. in aid of such enemy forces", since the word "belligerent" is largely a matter of opinion/interpretation. However, I am no longer concerned that the government could arrest and detain any U.S. citizen, or even any legal, non-citizen resident, indefinitely, or try them in military court instead of civilian. I just do not see that in this bill. But if your reading of the text is different then by all means I'd love to hear your take on it.

HillBuzz.org : Your "WTF?" Moment of the Day: Obama And His Slaves

Tue, 20 Sep 2011 18:32:30 +0000

I don't think I would EVER in my LIFE let someone hold an umbrella for me, unless I was literally incapable of holding one myself, and even then only if it was a true necessity to not simply let it rain. And this man holding the President's umbrella is apparently a staff sergeant. How insulting.

HillBuzz.org : Live Blog Transcript of Obama's Economy-Rescuing Jobs Speech September 8th, 2011

Fri, 9 Sep 2011 06:47:16 +0000

Liberals always seem to group those ideas with which they do not agree into these stark black or white buckets. I noticed Obama doing this during the speech, presenting any alternative to his ideas as though they equate to the demolition of our entire government structure. It's as if it's either all Obama's way, or you must be trying to instill anarchy. I was arguing with another liberal today about taxation, and she made the comment that conservatives just want no taxes whatsoever, another completely false generalization. It's a curious behavior and I'd be interested to see if others have observed the same among their liberal friends/foes. It really seems as though this particular tactic pops up whenever the liberal is losing the argument. I wonder if that is giving us a peek into the mindset of Obama's team.

HillBuzz.org : HillBuzz Open Thread: Thursday September 8th, 2011

Thu, 8 Sep 2011 20:14:29 +0000

Newt's problems go well beyond his personal issues, though his personal issues are in no way small. I applaud your personal proclivity to give the man a second chance, but there is no denying that his "baggage" will turn a lot of people off on the national stage. For my part, I'm tired of politicians who are obviously politicians. Newt is obviously a politician. He proved that by supporting the RINO in NY23, who threw her support behind the Democrat after she quit the race rather than support the conservative candidate who was creaming her in the polls. Newt's position was that "we don't know better than the local Republican party" (paraphrasing). That totally turns me off. But regarding Newt's personal life, he recently went on the Christian Broadcast Network and told them that his infidelity was due in part to him working too hard because he loved America too much. Really? That just rings so hollow to me. Yeah, his overworking may have led to a disconnect from his wife and a connection to someone he saw more often, but please don't tell us that you cheated on your wife because you love your country too much. That's just total crap. And, forgiveness or not, that puts his personal life back on the playing field. Newt could have said "that part of my life is over and I won't talk about it except to say I made mistakes and I am certainly not perfect". Instead he had to make this ridiculous statement, essentially making the issue fair play.

HillBuzz.org : HillBuzz Open Thread: Thursday September 8th, 2011

Thu, 8 Sep 2011 09:22:01 +0000

Unfortunately I wasn't able to watch the debate, because fortunately I do not get MSDNC. So I appreciate the transcript and this summary. I think your assessments of the candidates are pretty much right on. And the fact that so many uber-liberals I know consider Huntsman the "sane" choice just further proves your point that he's set up as a spoiler candidate and is certainly not the right choice for the Republican nomination.