1 - 10 Next
In response to:

Adams v. UNCW Heads to Trial

Cary17 Wrote: Apr 08, 2013 12:29 PM
"Qualified immunity" is such an ugly term to begin with... There's no question about UNC Chapel Hill's administration's policies. But most of NC doesn't agree with those policies... these are largely NYC transplants, in fact. (I'm a former resident of that area, the greater Raleigh Durham area, and love it, though I'm now a Texas resident.) Dr. Adams has been targeted, no question... and I want this to go through to its maximum potential consequence for those who did these things. We need to stop "bending over and taking it" from those who don't represent us... because it's "easier." Dr. Adams has done what most of us NEED to do ...Remember... sometimes "peace" is just another word for "surrender."
In response to:

Maybe Republicans Should Try Being Popular

Cary17 Wrote: Mar 07, 2013 2:46 PM
To be fair, "Hispanics" are not of lower IQs than others, in general. The issue is that most of the higher-IQ hispanics either (a) come to the USA legally, or (b) have productive, useful, contributing lives in their home nations and thus don't need to cross the border at all. I happen to work with a very smart software developer who is a native Mexican (though now a legal US citizen). His IQ is quite high. But the appeal to illegally cross the border... that mainly is a matter of appeal to those who cannot succeed in life through more... "regular"... means. Those who are living in poverty in their home nation. Most, though by no means all, of these are of the ones I THINK you're referencing...
In response to:

Brown Shirts at ECU

Cary17 Wrote: Feb 21, 2013 9:47 AM
I would respond to this by making my own T-shirt, which would say something like this: "Gay? That's your private business, unless you choose to make it my business."
In response to:

Eat More Chicken and Your Skin Will Thicken

Cary17 Wrote: Feb 04, 2013 11:08 AM
Look, describing a PSYCHOLOGICAL ISSUE (such as "cutting" or "homosexual behavior" or "narcissistic personality disorder" or the like)... which are certainly REAL issues... with a PHYSIOLOGICAL ISSUE (which is what real addition, including alcoholism, is)... that's just NONSENSE. If there weren't huge taxpayer-funded grants going to people to "study" these newly-discovered "additions," we'd recognize them for what they are... SYMPTOMS of known psychological issues. I have yet to meet a homosexual who can't point to some disfunctional situation or event in their past. The boy who lived without a father and whose mother and grandmother expressed their spite and hatred of men... the girl who was sexually abused by her stepfather, etc.
In response to:

The OFA Exception to Political Speech

Cary17 Wrote: Nov 02, 2012 12:08 PM
Okay, we see the Soros Phone-and-Computer-Bank posters out in full force today, attempting to flood Conservative sites with cut-and-paste garbage. The funny thing is that these idiots are only trying to block out serious conversation... not to even make their own points. They're merely trying to silence dissent. Remember... "dissent is patriotic?" Except, of course, if it's dissent against THEIR GUY, or THEIR AGENDA. In which case, "dissent is evil and wrong." Does that about sum it up? Arty and Bobby and the rest of the Hitler Youth can play as much as they like. The grown-ups will still keep on defending them, preventing them from being lined up against the wall (as all "useful idiots" are... see the Menscheviks... eventually).
In response to:

The OFA Exception to Political Speech

Cary17 Wrote: Nov 02, 2012 12:04 PM
Are you just cut-and-pasting from the Soros phone-and-computer-bank talking points lists?
In response to:

The OFA Exception to Political Speech

Cary17 Wrote: Nov 02, 2012 12:03 PM
and continuing... I have no love at all for Herbert Hoover, who was ideologically (and in particular, economically) on the exact same page as Franklin Roosevelt, and who, by reversing the policies of Harding and Coolidge (who gave us the "roaring 20s"), gave us the Great Depression (which FDR just exacerbated, all phoney claims to the contrary notwithstanding). Harding cut spending by 50%, cut taxes by 40%, and turned the depression of 1920 into an economic boom. Hoover increased taxation and increased spending even more, and gave us the Great Depression. FDR doubled down on Hoover, and even with WWII, we were economically depressed until FDR was out of office.
In response to:

The OFA Exception to Political Speech

Cary17 Wrote: Nov 02, 2012 12:03 PM
and continuing... I have no love at all for Herbert Hoover, who was ideologically (and in particular, economically) on the exact same page as Franklin Roosevelt, and who, by reversing the policies of Harding and Coolidge (who gave us the "roaring 20s"), gave us the Great Depression (which FDR just exacerbated, all phoney claims to the contrary notwithstanding). Harding cut spending by 50%, cut taxes by 40%, and turned the depression of 1920 into an economic boom. Hoover increased taxation and increased spending even more, and gave us the Great Depression. FDR doubled down on Hoover, and even with WWII, we were economically depressed until FDR was out of office.
In response to:

The OFA Exception to Political Speech

Cary17 Wrote: Nov 02, 2012 12:00 PM
Furthermore... farm subsidies are not established by the Executive Branch. They are established by CONGRESS. The President has ZERO constitutional authority over this issue, other than having the ability to veto spending bills. So... if a democrat-dominated Congress pushed through "Farm subsidy" bills... how is that the fault of the President? Don't get me wrong... I object to GWB's utter failure to use his veto powers. He should have vetoed many, many bills which came to his desk, but he failed to do so. (CONT)
In response to:

The OFA Exception to Political Speech

Cary17 Wrote: Nov 02, 2012 12:00 PM
Furthermore... farm subsidies are not established by the Executive Branch. They are established by CONGRESS. The President has ZERO constitutional authority over this issue, other than having the ability to veto spending bills. So... if a democrat-dominated Congress pushed through "Farm subsidy" bills... how is that the fault of the President? Don't get me wrong... I object to GWB's utter failure to use his veto powers. He should have vetoed many, many bills which came to his desk, but he failed to do so. (CONT)
1 - 10 Next