Meanwhile, the Left spouts crap about the administration that would probably get them jailed in England, never mind most other countries in the world. Their right of free speech, activity, or anything else is obviously not seriously impaired.
For years, the primary role of the Republicans in Congress was to make noise and get the coffee. Did you worry about "loss of rights" back then?
If Kerry was President, and both houses comfortably Democratic, with the Republicans back in their box in the corner, squeaking, you'd be perfectly content, wouldn't you? Because then, in your view, the government would be "moderate."
The Democrats don't want balance. They want to run things. That's just fine with me. That's politics. It just makes me nauseous to hear all the pious bleating about "fairness," "balance," from a party that wouldn't know what either was if it bit them.
Current Events » in reply to So if one's party doesn't win an election, one loses all rights?
You know, the "looming theocracy" crap got old about two years into Reagan's first term.
The whole thread (24 posts)
- So many lies, so much spin...
- You want to pick judges, win some elections.
- Let's keep the marrow of my bones out of this (ick)
- So if one's party doesn't win an election, one loses all rights?
- Yes, and since the last election, all Democrats have been rounded up
- Not at all. But only the PRESIDENT nominates Federal judges.
- You know, the "looming theocracy" crap got old about two years into Reagan's first term.
- You want to pick judges, win some elections.