Previous 11 - 20 Next
In response to:

Obama’s 5 Worst Foreign Policy Decisions

Chip. Wrote: Aug 30, 2014 3:47 AM
His five WORST decisions? I appreciate the abundance of diplomatic choices of words within the mainstream media, including TH here, I really do, but wouldn't it be better to find a diplomatic way of calling a spade a spade? In fact, I am vexed, even disgusted, that plain speaking journalists express what has long been obvious, which is that Obama is very effective in making decisions that support his unspeakable positions. That's why when the sunni hits the fan, it's good time smiley golf time.
In response to:

Militarization of Police II

Chip. Wrote: Aug 30, 2014 3:30 AM
The way in which blacks riot in the cities these day, or would riot if they could, the police either need military grade equipment, or the support of the military to prevent loss of lives and maintain order. So if those who fear the police having such equipment, such as the Libertarians discussed in this column, since the fear is based on the concern that this would better allow the police to function as an occupying military force, imposing/coercing citizens into accepting a new form of rule, something other than typical law abiding American who values his Constitutional rights would want (ie fundamental transformation, whether it be Obamaism, Communism, Nazism, Napoleonism, Fascism, or the various strange ideologies of many another un-American power), then it would be better to let the police have what they need to do their jobs. Or they could just move to cities where there are no black communities and cops can still do their jobs with only small arms. During the 1992 LA Riots, 59 people were killed and over 2,000 were injured. Thousands of buildings were burned, hundreds were destroyed. And order was only established after the National Guard, and the Army, and the Marines had been called in and positioned to support the police. In Ferguson, the recent riots were far more under control, there was much less damage and almost no loss of life, and the police had very little military backup, but they did have their heavy equipment to get the job done. The Libertarians should at least be happy that the military was not needed and the police local to the area could deal with the rioters. So they just smile and .. be happy, and Have a Nice Day.
Naw. The woman was right, but it shows that extreme diversity, as in Muslim living with Christians, is a weakness in a society, not a strength. Assuming the local Muslims there might similarly contribute to society in a big way to, say, a beautification project, the last frigging thing I would want to look at on a public street sign would be a "Yield for Muhammed's Fine Hilall Cuisine" sign, or a "Yield for your Friendly Neighborhood Mosque of Winooski" sign. I'd rather move to Ferguson.
Scooter and Ray, these are both very apt points on this subject. The most so I have yet seen so far as specific examples, which are the most useful.
That question was to you, Corlyss.
I speak of historical realities since 1965, not "projections". However, I would be VERY interested what the basis might be for these projections of yours, that the historical trends in demographics will not simply continue their present course until the extinction of white people. If these new projections have a real-sounding basis, that would be good news. What you got on this?
Why don't you give it a try. Compare the number of men in all of ancient Rome's legions, around the reign of Augustus Ceasar, compared to the number of people in the general population. And compare that ration to the number of men mobilized in the United States during the Civil War or WWII, compared to the size of the general populations.
Interesting column. Maybe Krugman figured out that in ancient times, men were not so easily induced into a war as in modern times. Their armies were almost always smaller in number relative to the general population, and wore armor and ate fresh meat and bread. Nowadays it is all about ideas which people lap up. And so now whole nations are mobilized. And those nations who oppose them must conduct war similarly or lose. Mathematical equation. It's not about who is right or wrong, but just that ideas make wars more dangerous. Who would have guessed that the blessings of modernity, technology and plenty, would create societies more open to sacrifice all for war? Paradoxical. But thinking outside the box might be a path to peace.
In response to:

Scotland's Future Hangs in Balance

Chip. Wrote: Aug 28, 2014 3:59 AM
I think..methinks I should say here, that there is a certain need and right of a distinct people to have their own country. Certainly the English would not like the Scotts, Irish or Welsh running their government....And the English understand this. Perhaps they all would do well as part of the same Commonwealth, or else some other way remain aligned together militarily and economically, not as a single unit, but as strong allies and partners.
In response to:

Blacks Must Confront Reality

Chip. Wrote: Aug 28, 2014 3:51 AM
I suppose that we can also derive from these statistics that more than half of all people murdered in the US are murdered by blacks.
Why would BHO destroy what he worked so hard trying to create? Anyone doubt BHO created the "Islamic State"? This column shows it is common knowledge: "...despite the U.S. having contributed significantly [at BHO's insistance] to the Islamic State's creation in Syria in the first place." A few divisions of US forces would pass through that whole land area in a matter of days and the "islamic State" would be about as helpless and alone as a senile old rabbit in the middle of a pack of hungry wolves. But BHO loves his fellow Islamic dirt bags--the dirtier the better-- and so we know that won't happen.
Previous 11 - 20 Next