In the early 2000s, conservatism–excuse me, neoconservatism–was mainly focused on implementing austerity and fostering the War on Terror abroad. After the election of Barack Obama, we saw right-wing discourse shift in a libertarian direction.
Of course, I would be amiss if I didn’t mention the Gray Lady of liberalism herself, The New York Times. On Sunday they came out in support of not one, but TWO candidates for Democratic nominee: Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren. Here’s some choice bits from their so-reasonable-it’s-actually-insane reasoning:
Something I’m calling “identity journalism” has taken over the Democratic primary debates in 2019. Watching the third in a series of who-knows-how-many “debates” among
Shuffling through my iTunes library recently, I switched to searching Artist by alphabet mode to help me find a song whose name I couldn’t
Amid oh-so-clever ads for beer, cars and snack foods, one Super Bowl LIII ad stood out yesterday—the sober message presented by the Washington Post:
What was not mentioned was that Trump not only did not express empathy for federal workers, he did not even acknowledge their existence.
When a local station runs a story about the Susan G. Komen efforts to fight breast cancer, is it liberal because it involves empathy, or is it conservative because it bypasses the entity with the greatest resources to fight cancer, the federal government?
The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
Words like cowardly have been used to describe the person who wrote the anonymous op-ed to the New York Times.
About that “shocking,” anonymous op-ed in the New York Times: What I find most amazing about all this talk about how the president is