Free Republic 2nd Qtr 2020 Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $9,803
Woo hoo!! And the first 11% is in!! Thank you all very much!! God bless.

Posts by Eagle Forgotten

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • If Trump Wins in 2020, Get Ready for President Don Jr.

    01/13/2020 9:55:21 AM PST · 1 of 88
    Eagle Forgotten
    Die-hard never-Trumper Rick Wilson writes a piece dripping with venom for the Trump "spawn" (as he calls them). If you're offended at this excerpt, don't follow the link, because the rest is much worse.

    Still, he raises an interesting question: Would either Don Jr. or Ivanka be a serious contender for the nomination in 2024? My inclination is to think that, despite the cachet of the Trump name, primary voters would go with Pence or someone else who's pro-Trump but not a Trump.

    Still, when Don Sr. announced in 2015, I thought he had no chance, so what do I know.

  • Wikipedia is biased against conservatives and conservative institutions

    11/27/2019 7:41:16 PM PST · 21 of 21
    Eagle Forgotten to davikkm

    I discovered that editing Wikipedia is a complete waste of time. The reasons are well set out in this thread.

    Conservatives should ignore Wikipedia (a lost cause) and instead build up the sensible alternative, Conservapedia:

  • Trump, GOP leaders face backlash over $1.3 trillion spending package

    03/24/2018 6:41:02 PM PDT · 78 of 94
    Eagle Forgotten to WilliamIII
    Hey, the GOP did show fortitude. They stood up for their base - big donors who want open borders - even though they knew they would catch hell from their constituents.

    Thank you! This is it in a nutshell.
  • I'm a Jersey kid. I can't vote. Here's what you can do about gun violence

    03/24/2018 6:24:10 PM PDT · 16 of 74
    Eagle Forgotten to Inyo-Mono

    Did you accidentally leave the word “not” out of your post?

    I know it’s a teensy little word but sometimes it makes a difference.

  • Romanian court tells man he is not alive

    03/17/2018 6:29:11 AM PDT · 11 of 17
    Eagle Forgotten to DUMBGRUNT

    If a deceased Muslim were to apply to enter the U.S., would he be covered by Trump’s ban?

  • 'President for life' not a bad idea, Trump says of China proposal

    03/04/2018 1:22:07 PM PST · 48 of 71
    Eagle Forgotten to WashingtonFire
    Term limits for the President were a con forced through by the Dummycrats who wanted to protect FDR being the longest serving President for ever.

    No, it was the GOP -- basically seeking posthumous revenge on FDR. The 22nd Amendment was approved by Congress in 1947, when the Republicans had the majority in both the House and the Senate. I don't know the partisan breakdown of the vote but to get the 2/3 it must have had a lot of Republican support.
  • Politico: White House, GOP Establishment Fear Crushing Alabama Defeat

    09/25/2017 11:54:04 PM PDT · 49 of 50
    Eagle Forgotten to pollywog
    Can you fill me into why he is going to be running again in December?

    It's because of a technicality in Alabama election law. Moore and Strange are duking it out to win the Republican nomination. The technicality is that there must then be a general election so that the seventeen Democrats in Alabama can feel that they had a share in the process.

    OK, there are more than seventeen, but not enough to give the GOP candidate any concern.

    Each party held its primary last month. On the Democratic side, a lawyer named Doug Jones got more than 50% of the vote, so he's the nominee already. On the Republican side, Moore placed first but fell short of 50%, so this month's event is a runoff between the top two finishers (Moore and Strange) for the right to clobber Jones in December.
  • Many College Students are ‘Book Virgins’

    06/27/2017 10:41:16 PM PDT · 68 of 91
    Eagle Forgotten to LibWhacker
    The author is a math virgin.

    From the linked article:
    And how many “book virgins” are there among entering college freshmen? According to NAS' David Randall—who drew upon NEA and Pew statistics—about 4 million, which represents about 20% of the entering freshmen class.

    If 4 million is 20% of the freshman class, then the entire freshman class is 20 million. The linked article is from June 2016, so the freshman class would be, roughly speaking, drawn from people born in 1998 -- a year in which the total number of births was just below 4 million. Cite: (That was typical. The number of live births was, to the nearest million, 4 million in every year from 1980 through 2009.) Of course, not all of those 4 million would go to college.

    Now, I know that many foreigners come here to study, but I refuse to believe that the freshman class consists of 16 million foreigners and only a quarter as many native-born.
  • Sarah Palin Suing New York Times For Defamation

    06/27/2017 8:59:32 PM PDT · 69 of 76
    Eagle Forgotten to Soul of the South
    The outcome may depend on where she is filing.

    She filed in federal court for the Southern District of New York. The judges on that court are a mix of Democratic and Republican appointees; one will be assigned to the case by random selection.

    Palin's bigger worry about the locale is that the pool of prospective jurors is heavily Democratic. The counties of Manhattan and the Bronx have been solidly blue since before we called such places blue. Westchester was historically Republican but has flipped; Clinton beat Trump, 65%-31%. The remaining (upstate) counties in the district are less populous and more evenly divided.

    She'll also have a problem proving damages. Sorry to disappoint the "take them for all they're worth" crowd, but that's not how the law works. If she were to win, which is by no means certain (the editorial might be protected opinion), she would not get punitive damages. Her damage award would be whatever amount would fairly compensate her for the harm she suffered. Did she lose any lucrative speaking engagements because of this? I doubt it. There's a good chance she'd recover only $1 nominal damages plus reimbursement of expenses (including court filing fees but NOT including attorney's fees).
  • Sandoval, Heller cite Medicaid concerns in opposing Obamacare repeal bill

    06/23/2017 7:51:00 PM PDT · 28 of 29
    Eagle Forgotten to Lurkinanloomin
    Heller needs to go just for his vote for Rubio’s amnesty bill.

    I'd forgtten about that. Thanks for the reminder.
  • Sandoval, Heller cite Medicaid concerns in opposing Obamacare repeal bill

    06/23/2017 5:10:51 PM PDT · 21 of 29
    Eagle Forgotten to DoodleDawg
    Do you really think Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, and Rand Paul are the kind who would "STFU and vote for it"?

    Good question. They'd face a tough choice. STFU and vote for it, or Obamacare continues and they get blamed for the failure of the GOP's bill. (The RINOs would not get blamed.)
  • Sandoval, Heller cite Medicaid concerns in opposing Obamacare repeal bill

    06/23/2017 4:57:07 PM PDT · 12 of 29
    Eagle Forgotten to sam_whiskey
    I don’t see what the way forward is on this. By my count that’s at least 6 votes against it, not even counting what McLame and Linda will probably do yet.

    Capito, Cassidy and Portman are with Heller in being very skittish about any Medicaid cuts. Collins and Murkowski have said they don't want Planned Parenthood defunded.

    Only way forward is if McConnell waters it down enough to appease the RINOs, then tells the conservatives that this is the only bill that can pass and they should STFU and vote for it. That might or might not work.
  • Sandoval, Heller cite Medicaid concerns in opposing Obamacare repeal bill

    06/23/2017 4:25:41 PM PDT · 1 of 29
    Eagle Forgotten
    Most of what I snipped was Sandoval and Heller RINOing about Medicaid recipients in Nevada.

    Heller is the only GOP incumbent who's up for re-election in a state Clinton carried. It may be hard to bring him around on any health care bill if all he can think of is what the attack ads will look like.

  • GOP Moves to Delay Obamacare Lawsuit

    02/23/2017 4:15:12 PM PST · 49 of 57
    Eagle Forgotten to Alberta's Child
    You're right that, in general, it makes sense to defer resolving an appeal where the parties are at odds but the difference might be rendered moot, so there's no reason to argue it out. To apply that principle here, though, implies that the Obamacare replacement might include the subsidies that are the subject of the lawsuit. These are subsidies that the Obama administration was providing but that, as the District Court ruled, aren't part of the Obamacare legislation that was enacted.

    So why can't Congress and the HHS dismiss the appeal and let the decision take effect? The only way that issue would become moot would be if the eventual GOP replacement plan were to increase the subsidies beyond what the Democrats enacted in 2010.
  • GOP Moves to Delay Obamacare Lawsuit

    02/23/2017 12:30:00 PM PST · 31 of 57
    Eagle Forgotten to Luircin

    I can’t buy “waiting for Gorsuch” as an excuse. The parties could just stipulate to the dismissal of the appeal, which would automatically reinstate the lower court’s decision.

    Even if some intervenor could establish standing (unlikely), the case is still only in the Circuit Court. There would be a briefing schedule, then after briefs there’s the wait for the oral argument, then the wait for a decision, then if someone appeals there’s another round of briefing. The case is at least a year away from reaching SCOTUS.

  • GOP Moves to Delay Obamacare Lawsuit

    02/23/2017 12:03:07 PM PST · 5 of 57
    Eagle Forgotten to Mr. Douglas
    Is it too early to bend over?

    The question is whether it's too early to change your sig line. :(
  • GOP Moves to Delay Obamacare Lawsuit

    02/23/2017 11:58:06 AM PST · 1 of 57
    Eagle Forgotten
    The District Court ruled against Obamacare, but the effect of its ruling was stayed pending resolution of the Obama administration's appeal. Now the RINOs in Congress don't want the appeal resolved, which means that the conservative victory will be stayed indefinitely.

    Says it all, really.

  • Rand Paul Will Oppose Republican Budget Resolution Against Obamacare

    01/05/2017 7:04:19 AM PST · 58 of 72
    Eagle Forgotten to xzins

    The bill includes setting the stage for repealing Obamacare but it does so in the context of the overall budget. The $9 trillion is the amount of additional public debt that the Republicans expect to incur over the next ten years (”additional” meaning it’s added to the debt already incurred). Obamacare is only a part of that.

  • Rand Paul Will Oppose Republican Budget Resolution Against Obamacare

    01/05/2017 4:13:45 AM PST · 51 of 72
    Eagle Forgotten to Drago
    I said that, instead of complete repeal, the GOP "could keep some of the deficit-reducers" in Obamacare. The article you linked agrees with that statement.

    The CNBC explanation appears to be correct as to the specific matter that Rand Paul was voting on. My impression is that it was to pave the way for total repeal, which would increase the deficit. Paul's point seems to be that he doesn't want a deficit increase now with a possibility of reduction later (a reduction that would come if they re-enact some parts of Obamacare).

    That Conservative Review article you linked is very informative about what kind of betrayal we should watch for from the Republicans in Congress.
  • Rand Paul Will Oppose Republican Budget Resolution Against Obamacare

    01/04/2017 7:22:21 PM PST · 38 of 72
    Eagle Forgotten to Drago

    There are other provisions of Obamacare that operate to reduce the federal deficit (such as cost containment provisions to help keep Medicare solvent). A repeal, without replace, would increase the deficit by about $350 billion (total) over ten years. Link:

    The effect of the “replace” part would of course depend on what the replacement was. They could keep some of the deficit-reducers to make repeal revenue-neutral. Alternatively, if they repeal everything else but keep the Medicaid expansion, then the deficit would increase by MORE than $350 billion.

    The $9 trillion isn’t solely the effect of repealing Obamacare. It’s the total additional deficit that Republicans in Congress expect to run over the next ten years.