Previous 11 - 20 Next
In response to:

What Would Braveheart Do?

amirvish Wrote: Sep 16, 2014 5:42 PM
Pat misses a crucial distinction between our Declaration of Independence and the independence movements around much of the world: our Founders explicitly stated ways in which the British government had violated political and individual liberty, and based their case for the legitimacy of government on how well it performed its only true duty: the protection of our inalienable, natural, individual rights. Our entire theory of government rests on this. The Founders did not shout, "America! F*ck, yeah!" and base independence on race, religion, ethnicity or any other form of tribal style nationalism. The reality of blood, soil and language in Europe and elsewhere is real enough - and it may be better that foreign states founded on such a basis will work better than others. But it is wrong to equate that with our political foundation. And, in the case of Scotland, the reasons are utterly frivolous.
This is exactly what has happened in the armed forces with respect to standards, albeit without the involvement of the "Justice" Department. Despite legislation mandating equal treatment, the armed forces have used the equal effort concept to avoid having women fail in massive numbers, and they have lowered all standards too.
In response to:

Libertarians, Ferguson, and "Racism"

amirvish Wrote: Aug 25, 2014 4:41 PM
Racism is fundamentally the belief that the content of one's character is determined by the color of one's skin. It is wrong in the same sense that saying 2+2=5 is wrong; and it is morally wrong because it involves judging someone not on what they are but how they look. That said, the author is right that it is not the be-all-and-end-all of discussion: private citizens have rights and those - including association, contract and property - allow them to be as racist or not as they want. It is no crime to refuse to deal with someone for any reason, even a stupid one.
In response to:

Part One: The Problem With The Right

amirvish Wrote: Aug 15, 2014 6:04 PM
Well said.
If we elect our second affirmative action President, we will have richly deserved all that follows from it. "Fool me once, shame on you; Fool me twice, shame on me."
In response to:

Tolerate or Be Stamped Out

amirvish Wrote: Aug 08, 2014 11:58 AM
The solution to all of this is simple (assuming no one continues to respect actual individual rights): simply adopt the methods and reactions of Muslims and all of this anti-Judeo-Christian, anti-traditionalist behavior by the left will stop.
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.
Previous 11 - 20 Next