So it’s not all that surprising that the big government, nanny-state politicians would dream up another entitlement that would run contrary to the tenets of the SL, but providing up to two $40 coupons to all those that need a television set upgrade? Come on, I suppose the reason they didn’t actually propose buying every family a couple new digitally compatible TVs outright is because they felt strapped with all of those millions going to that dog gone war in Iraq.
Saturday, March 08, 2008
Pandering to the Slothful
So it’s not all that surprising that the big government, nanny-state politicians would dream up another entitlement that would run contrary to the tenets of the SL, but providing up to two $40 coupons to all those that need a television set upgrade? Come on, I suppose the reason they didn’t actually propose buying every family a couple new digitally compatible TVs outright is because they felt strapped with all of those millions going to that dog gone war in Iraq.
So it’s not all that surprising that the big government, nanny-state politicians would dream up another entitlement that would run contrary to the tenets of the SL, but providing up to two $40 coupons to all those that need a television set upgrade? Come on, I suppose the reason they didn’t actually propose buying every family a couple new digitally compatible TVs outright is because they felt strapped with all of those millions going to that dog gone war in Iraq.
Sunday, March 02, 2008
Feigning Concern for Marriage
Isn't it interesting how liberal secularists like to point out that Arizona law already protects marriage as the union of one man and one woman as if this is something they favor and find reassuring? This disingenuous ploy, most recently used in a Tucson Citizen Editorial, is hoping to put otherwise outraged Arizona voters back into hibernation until the pro-homosexual activists can maneuver to further erode the institution of marriage. They know very well that the existing marriage laws are vulnerable. That's why they fear reconsideration of the stronger constitutional amendment. One left leaning activist judge could overturn existing law overnight which is exactly what they are hoping. So spare us the duplicity.
Isn't it interesting how liberal secularists like to point out that Arizona law already protects marriage as the union of one man and one woman as if this is something they favor and find reassuring? This disingenuous ploy, most recently used in a Tucson Citizen Editorial, is hoping to put otherwise outraged Arizona voters back into hibernation until the pro-homosexual activists can maneuver to further erode the institution of marriage. They know very well that the existing marriage laws are vulnerable. That's why they fear reconsideration of the stronger constitutional amendment. One left leaning activist judge could overturn existing law overnight which is exactly what they are hoping. So spare us the duplicity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
