1 - 10 Next
In response to:

Mistakes of the Past Are Back

Anthony305 Wrote: Sep 26, 2014 12:29 AM
What if the whole point of invading Iraq was to attract terrorists, to bring them to battle, kill their people and deplete their resources? What if, in the present circumstances, we equip, train and assist the Kurds and Sunni tribes to destroy the terrorists in their areas, and in the bargain, guarantee them sovereignty, and independence from the corrupt Shi'a government in Baghdad?
In response to:

GOP Bordering On Victory

Anthony305 Wrote: Sep 26, 2014 12:07 AM
The trouble here is that the corrupt morons that run the Republican party have sold out to Tom Donohue and other big-money contributors to the party establishment. They have promised amnesty, and are still trying to whip their elected officials into line, using their control of the party's campaign money to force support for the program they've already sold, but haven't yet been able to deliver. The solution is to purge the entire party leadership establishment. Nothing good is going to happen as long as these people are selling government, and using the money to control Congress.
What I was trying to say is that he's a figurehead, the face of the movement; things are getting done, but not necessarily at his personal instigation, more by the organization that he represents. The higher levels of every department, agency, commission, board, etc., in government are packed with people of a similar Marxist outlook; they don't need any direction from above to impose their program on us. With the news people assisting, and covering for them, we have no idea what all they're doing.
You're giving Obama far too much credit. I don't doubt that he's knowledgeable about the Marxist philosophy that's been hammered into him by his family and associates since he was a kid. He's certainly studied Alinsky, but he's not really proficient at applying Alinsky's tactics. Obama isn't good at anything, or informed enough to properly manage anything; he's a creation of the news industry, and the horde of commies that surround him--an empty suit, with a teleprompter and a herd of speech writers.
In response to:

The Emperor’s New Climate

Anthony305 Wrote: Sep 24, 2014 12:01 PM
The problem is that the leadership of the Republican Party needs to be overthrown, so that people can be elected who will dismantle the tyrannical, unaffordable structure of government that has been built over the last hundred years.
Republicans shouldn't be pandering to any group--not women, blacks, Muslims, Spanish-speakers, the "poor", or anyone else. The Democrats already have the ignorant, non-thinking, emotion-driven and "something-for-nothing" voters, and are likely to keep them. If the Republicans are to provide an opposition, they must go for the rest, and use their campaigns to educate people about what our unaffordable, tyrannical government is doing to them (rather than for them), and gain support by making more people see that the present level of government is a more of a burden to them, than a benefactor, and that there simply isn't the money to continue on the present course, even if it wasn't destroying our freedom and prosperity. It's not possible to out-pander the Democrats, and would be even more destructive to the country, if it was.
That should be even more of an incentive to vote against the self-serving, corrupt, imperious bastards that control things; there will never be a chance of good government, until these people are removed from positions of power.
Congress must give its approval to this (or any other) particular military action, and prescribe its limits, hopefully excluding any US involvement in the Syrian civil war (which seems to be the only reason Obama wants to intervene). This is not an emergency where immediate action is required, and there is no time for consultation. A president has command authority, but only in actions authorized by Congress.
In response to:

Immigration Is American

Anthony305 Wrote: Sep 17, 2014 11:09 AM
Stossel seems to be operating from the premise that people have a right to come here and that immigration is needed, he's wrong on both counts. Immigration was a positive thing when much of the country was unsettled and everyone who came was obliged to be self-supporting. We are now an overpopulated welfare-state; we don't need any more people, and we don't need the financial burden of supporting those who come here to bum. Some immigration should be allowed, but at nowhere near the present level, and it should be within the law and highly selective. We don't need hordes of unskilled, illiterate Afghans, Mexicans, Somalis, Chechens, etc.; immigrants should be self-supporting and an asset to the country, not potential criminals, terrorists and bums, or a source of cheap, unskilled labor (we already have that, if we'd quit paying them to lay in public housing and breed).
In response to:

Post-9/11: Protect the Freedom To Warn

Anthony305 Wrote: Sep 13, 2014 4:43 AM
The great majority of so-called security measures instituted since 2001 are a fraud, nothing but theater to give the appearance of "doing something". Security at airports, seaports, military bases, etc., is generally run by buffoons, under rules that make it impossible to do much more than create a lot of hassle and expense. It would be a great improvement if all security was left to the people who actually run these places; at least, they might have some idea what to look for without being constrained by political correctness, and balance what actual security is possible against the unnecessary inconvenience to their employees and customers. In the case of large port installations and military bases, with thousands of people and vehicles coming and going, real security is impossible; there is no way to know who, or what is coming in. DHS needs to be disbanded, and TSA eliminated; government can't do security any better than the thousands of other things it mismanages.
1 - 10 Next