1 - 10 Next
In response to:

The Irrelevant President

Brubaker15 Wrote: Sep 10, 2014 11:25 AM
Students of history will note that for the first 160 or so years of its existence, the United States was not a major player on the international stage. World War II changed all that. The industrial and military might of the United States were brought to bear against the Axis Powers with devastating effectiveness. The world took note. The message was clear: "Don't mess with Uncle Sam." The US correctly came to be seen as a "superpower." It prevailed in Cold War. Then, along came the community organizer, and in less than six years he has managed to erase the power, influence and respect that generations of Americans had earned on battlefields around the globe. Regardless of who next occupies the Oval Office, they will be leading a nation whose stature on the world stage has been grievously -- and probably permanently -- diminished. To paraphrase FDR, "Obama is a name that will live in infamy."
In response to:

Favors and Loot for Sale

Brubaker15 Wrote: Sep 10, 2014 10:20 AM
Currently, there are 435 members of the House of Representatives. With a population of approximately 317 million, the formula of one representative per 30,000 citizens would result in 10,567 members of the House. How would that improve the legislative process?
The NFL and NBA are also big business -- and they have real playoffs. What's your point?
In a way, it's actually a return to the pre-BCS era of AP and UPI rankings -- essentially a popularity contest that is won in the media as much as on the field. Now, instead of a collection of sports writers and coaches deciding who's the champion, a 13-person committee will decide who gets into the "playoff." Yes, between those four teams, the matter will be decided on the field, but the crucial first cut is once again nothing more than a popularity contest. I had hoped for something better.
You might want to do a bit of reading on the subject. The so-called "Triangular Trade" involved slave ships from Britain that sailed for West Africa carrying trade goods such as cloth, guns, ironware and drink that had been made in Britain. The goods were then traded for men, women and children who had been captured by slave traders or bought from African chiefs. In the West Indies enslaved Africans would then be sold to the highest bidder at slave auctions. With the money made from the sale of enslaved Africans, goods such as sugar, coffee and tobacco were bought and carried back to Britain for sale, thus completing the three legs of the triangle. Slavery on English soil was unsupported in English law, but it remained legal in most of the British Empire until the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833.
Making preposterous accusations concerning matters about which you obviously have no knowledge simply makes you look foolish and racist.
In response to:

Must We Have a Dead White Kid?

Brubaker15 Wrote: Aug 15, 2014 6:07 PM
The facts that seem undisputed -- and in these situations that is so rare -- are that an unarmed 18-year-old named Michael Brown was walking in a street....There are some other facts that have received far less notice in the press. For example, that 18-year-old "teen" was a 6'4" 300lb man who was quite comfortable walking into a convenience store, helping himself to a box of cigars and physically shoving and intimidating the clerk who attempted to stop him. Fortunately, all of that is recorded on an unusually clear security video. The theft had no direct bearing on the later confrontation with a police officer, but I believe it demonstrates Brown's disdain for the law and his willingness to resort to force, and it therefore tends to support the officer's assertion that Brown assaulted him and attempted to take his gun.
In response to:

Polls: Obama, Obamacare Hit New Lows

Brubaker15 Wrote: Aug 01, 2014 4:23 PM
The only poll that matters will be taken on November 4th. On that day, there won't be any "generic" votes, and Democrats will be crying the blues.
It's funny precisely because it's so awful. Kinda sounds like something Pee Wee Herman might have written.
Rush Limbaugh's comments regarding Sandra Fluke weren't actually attacking her possible promiscuity. Fluke made very public claims that the absence of health insurance coverage for contraceptives would impose great hardship on women. Limbaugh's logical and bitingly humorous retort was to point out that she must be doing a booming business if she needed so many contraceptives that their purchase imposed a hardship for her. She was, after all, at the time a student at one of the most expensive law schools in the country. Talk about hypocrisy.
1 - 10 Next