The difference between Koppell and Olberman types is that one gives editorializing in all its editorial frankness so there are no mistakes as to bias, and the other passes off a subtler bias as objectivity.
The pay gap has nothing to do with employer discrimination; it has to do with choice. Let's employ a little common sense: statistically, women are the likely of a family to forego a career for more time with the family, and maybe it's because they want to.
Liberty is never fully paid off, and to be deserving of it, one must be willing to fight for it on the battlefield, in the halls of Congress, by involving yourselves in your communities. Such a struggle is not a burden, it is a privilege.
Judges are either partial to the Constitution or they aren't; they either believe that the document is perfect in its form and that rights like free speech don't ebb in and out of style - or they believe that it's an anachronistic document in a world that needs a malleable, living Constitution.
I think that God has blessed each of us with innate gifts, and if I've demonstrated any ability to not stick my foot in my mouth on air or in the written word, then I will take that and stand for liberty on the right side of God.
Conservatives don't need to look for 'hope' in a person because people are imperfect. Conservatives put their stock in the ideology ushered forth by our Founding Fathers, the ideals that keep us free men.
As a kid spending weekends in the Ozarks, I remember my granny's preacher shaking his fist, his jowls waving in the wind not unlike a bloodhound's, excoriating the congregation and condemning it to hell.
Liberal talk on the radio doesn't perform well because it is not a sequestered to a niche - it's everywhere in the media universe. Conservative talk radio, on the other hand, performs well because the radio is the only place, besides Fox News, that people can go for right-sphere opinions.
Facing fewer subscriptions, ratings drops, et al., media is catching on: people don't want endless editorializing. They want the facts, Jack. If you're going to be op/ed, at least be up front about it.
We can avoid liberal candidates by filtering them out at the local level, nipping their ascension to power in the proverbial bud by assuring they don't get nominated in the first place - and we can't do that until we infiltrate the party, beginning at the most basic levels.
The biggest threats to faith aren't anything outside of it: they come bearing the name. It's why I find it especially important to call it out - also why I find it especially repulsive when people who crow the loudest about being Christians and use it as a money-making scheme utterly betray the faith when not on camera or in a crowd.
Each justice enters the Supreme Court possessing a record of opinion by which he or she is measured, and that without threat of election or outside influence, they will apply the Constitution as they always have; thus, it's ridiculous to assert the opposite.
I was at St. Louis's very first tea party and stood across the mighty Mississippi on the Arch steps with a bunch of wide-eyed, virgin protesters who were just as shocked as I was to see the amount of people who had assembled.
Even if feminists tear down the bogeyman patriarchy and dominate men in all areas of life, they still won't be happy because deep down, they'll know it's a false victory. Achievement obtained by lowering your opponent to your standard as opposing to rising and surpassing their standard of output isn't achievement. It's mediocrity.
Most evangelical Christian conservatives I know would at least be uneasy about the prospect of the government picking up the slack of caring for the poor due to Christians' abdication of their role in society as dictated by Scripture.
Don't do anything to upset the victimhood apple cart, because then young women may want to think for themselves, and the entire racket of feminism ran by women who butter their bread by playing Chicken Little to the subsequent generation would be penniless.
Bureaucrats want you to think that the system is too complex because they want you to be stupid about it and uninterested in it. They work very hard to create as many levels as possible away from the simplistic government our Founding Fathers formed for one simple reason: they don't want you to know what they are doing.
The Democratic party, respective to health care, is like a person who was sent into the store to purchase a gallon of milk and some butter for the evening's meal and instead walked out with a 'Gladiator' DVD, a can of Easy Cheese, and some Homer Simpson house slippers because how funny are they?