Previous 11 - 20 Next
Amen, brother!
Interesting. This from the woman who has spent her entire life denying that there are any fundamental differences between the sexes (hence her support for a coed military, making VMI and the Citadel coed, attacking any general stereotypes about the sexes etc). Apparently, like all feminists, she's only for equality of result and for seeing the sexes as the same, except when she says they're not. A second rate intellect whose only distinction is that she isn't Sotomayor, who is a third rate one and a clear example of affirmative action.
So what is our interest? Do you really think throwing the only democracy in the Middle East under the bus is going to solve our problems in the region, or that Islamic fundamentalism is not fundamentally about Islam and thus about us first? I'd be more inclined to listen to the point of view people like you claim to represent if you actually laid out a case. The absence of one suggests it isn't really our national interests you're talking about.
First, there is a legitimate case to be made that foreign aid should be reviewed to all nations, including Israel. This requires an evaluation of what our interests are and tailoring aid to it. Second, foreign aid is relatively small and Israel's amount isn't going to break the budget. Third, perhaps if we let Israel simply go ahead and completely destroy its enemies, it could reduce its own defense spending and thus allow us to eliminate foreign aid.
In response to:

President Joe Biden? Hmmmm...

amirvish Wrote: Jul 15, 2014 5:58 PM
Rather a President Biden than a President Hillary Clinton. At least Joe would be entertaining and likely not try to do too much.
I like Michael Tanner but disagree with him on this issue. Open borders are not an option and the amount of immigration the nation accepts is an entirely political decision that our citizens are entitled to make. The nature, composition, countries of origin, and quantity of immigrants we admit will have a profound impact on our society and that is why we retain the right to limit or completely stop it. Historically, we have always had long periods of very limited immigration while we assimilated the last wave of mass immigrants. Today, or since 1965, we have had virtually unlimited immigration, mostly from 3rd world countries and especially from Mexico. To say this is not affecting our country's basic nature and politics is false, quite apart from the effect on wages.
In response to:

When the Last Republican Leaves

amirvish Wrote: Jul 04, 2014 1:27 PM
I agree. By conceding the point that government should be providing this type of benefit, even if on a somewhat more sound basis, we accept our opponents' premise and have little basis to resist more activist government. People need to pay for their own health, old age and everything else.
In response to:

The Wrong Type of Values

amirvish Wrote: Jul 04, 2014 1:25 PM
Individual rights, properly understood, do not clash. What was at issue here was whether the owners of a company who are providing health insurance for their employees can decide the scope of what they are going to pay for. Period. No individual woman employee was in any way prevented or denied her rights because no one, male or female, has a right to someone else's property, person, time, labor or good opinion, only to their own. Women are still free to use their wages to purchase whatever they want to buy, contraceptives included. The government has no business providing, let alone dictating the contents of, health insurance.
In response to:

A God-Given Right To Break the Law

amirvish Wrote: Jul 02, 2014 2:36 PM
Justice Ginsburg's confusion and hypothetical example would be easily dealt with if one understood that it is not religious beliefs, but any individual's belief about whom they wish to associate with, or employ, or serve, that matters. That's because there is an actual individual right to property, contract, associate and the like. In other words, individuals and the businesses they own have a right to discriminate, on religious, secular, rational or irrational grounds. The left doesn't understand this because it doesn't understand what a right is. A right is legal recognition and protection of an individual's freedom to think, and to act in a non-violent, non-fraudulent way. There is no right to anyone else's time, person, property, labor or good opinion. Period. Anything else violates the very notion of a right. So, yes, individuals can discriminate as much as they want. Government, however, can't discriminate in the protection of rights.
In response to:

Marriage and its Discontents

amirvish Wrote: Jun 22, 2014 11:17 PM
It's interesting to note that had someone back in the late 60's said of no fault divorce, "How does letting a couple end a marriage easily threaten in any way your stable, secure marriage" there would have been - and still is - no answer. And yet, having made no fault divorce legal, marriage has been affected far beyond anything that gay marriage will do to it. That's because once marriage became easily broken, indeed unilaterally broken (like no other contract) and frivolous reasons adduced to dissolve it, everyone's marriage became that much more conditional and vulnerable. Maybe this won't happen with gay marriage; but the advocates of no fault divorce were pretty sure they were doing a good thing. The law of unintended consequences (or Kipling's "The Gods of the Copybook Headings") suggests otherwise.
In response to:

Being Pro-English Is Also Pro-Immigrant

amirvish Wrote: Jun 06, 2014 11:31 AM
Actually, we're not all immigrants: the original colonists were settlers and everyone born here is not an immigrant.
Previous 11 - 20 Next