1 - 10 Next
In response to:

Multiculturalism Is a Failure

clidke frawley Wrote: 10 hours ago (9:10 AM)
Let's say for a moment I accept your premise (I don't, but let's pretend we agree). What is your proposed solution? Right now, they have stated that their mission is to establish a global caliphate and to force conversion on everyone and kill those who refuse to convert. In addition, their belief system includes such gems as FGM, stoning women for adultery, the death penalty for homosexual behavior, complete lack of women's rights (though men have the right to rape them), death to anyone who would leave the religion, death to anyone who insults the prophet and on and on and on. What do you suggest we do? Pursue diplomatic solutions with an enemy who says every single day that nothing less than complete destruction of Western civilization will satisfy them?
Replying to myself as I forgot to mention....I disagree with you assertion that the beliefs and actions of a fringe group must be accepted as tenants of the faith just because the fringe group decides to usurp the mainstream group's name. There is no such implication. If the mainstream wants to clear that up, though, and the fringe won't cooperate, then the mainstream can either whine or change their name, as I said above. Or ignore it, I suppose, and have to constantly explain that they don't agree with the fringe. Whatever they choose is fine with me, but it is entirely up the members of the faith to define themselves.
I would agree with that line of reasoning, because anything else makes freedom of religion meaningless. If the government gets to decide who is a 'real' Christian or Jew or Muslim, there is no freedom of religion. What you then have is the government approving certain religious beliefs and determining that others are illegitimate. Ideally, when a faction of a particular faith decides to follow a belief systems that differs markedly from the mainstream of that faith, they create a new branch with a new name "Reformed Baptists", or whatever, which distinguishes them. As free people, however, they are under no obligation to do so and if they decide to be jerks and continue to use the mainstream name, then the mainstream has to consider changing their name to separate themselves from the fringe. And please do not argue that the mainstream having to change their name is unfair. Of course it's unfair. Life is unfair. All sorts of jack assess perpetrate all sorts of unfairness on others. You can whine about it or you can just fix the problem.
"Overpopulation" is not even close to the main threat. It is also self-limiting. If and when we ever got to the point where there is not enough food and fresh water for everyone, people will die until we reach a sustainable level. This will probably never happen. And even if it were a threat, what solution would you propose? Anything apart from trying to convince people to have fewer children would be tyranny.
Here's an interesting thought: The left keeps insisting that any business open to the public must not discriminate, or violate anyone's rights. I'm thinking of the bakers and photographers forced to provide services for gay weddings. If these businesses cannot deny the 'rights' of gays--which are not even delineated in the Bill of Rights, then certainly the same logic applies to businesses and guns. As a conservative, I disagree with the government forcing businesses to do anything, but it would be interesting to put this argument up against the 'you must provide services to gays' argument.
In response to:

Racial Irrationality on the Right

clidke frawley Wrote: Aug 20, 2014 11:20 AM
I agree that the police, National Guard--whomever--needs to stop the rioting and looting by whatever means necessary. I recall the '68 riots in Chicago and Mayor Daley issuing the 'shoot to kill' order, which calmed things down pretty damn fast. However, I do think militarization of the police is a problem. The police didn't start dressing like Rambo and using MRAPs in response to violence they couldn't control. Instead, the Feds provided them with this stuff and they are finding every excuse they can to use it, often inappropriately. When police show up at a peaceful protest with armored vehicles pointing rifles at citizens they are not protecting the people they are threatening them. Such displays of 'us vs. them' serve to inflame the situation rather than to preserve order. When police in full SWAT gear show up pre-dawn and bust down someone's door for a suspected minor offense (like small scale drug possession), they do not advance the cause of justice. In fact, there are countless incidents of them getting the wrong house, shooting family pets, and even shooting innocent people, not to mention terrorizing children and adults alike. Such actions further the perception (and perhaps reality) of the police being a military force to keep the populace in line, rather than the traditional role of serve and protect.
While I question the need for a second autopsy, I am also concerned about Holder's (and others) comment that the police department needs to be more racially diverse. I'm not opposed to diversity on the force, of course, but there are 2 problems with his statement. First, it suggests that white officers are racist. If all cops, regardless of color, are doing their job correctly, the officer's skin color should not matter. By saying the force needs more diversity in response to this shooting, Holder is implying there was some sort of racial bias in this incident and that if more cops were black this 'problem' wouldn't exist. We have no idea yet if this had anything to do with racism and it increasingly looks like it did not. If a black officer shot Brown, would this protesting be going on? Would charges of racism be flying? Holder is simply fanning the flames of racism by insinuating that if a white cop shoots a black person we should automatically assume there was a racial motivation. This is stupid. Secondly, Holder has jumped to that assumption that more black cops are needed without even asking why the composition of the force is the way it is. Maybe black people are not applying to be police officers in Ferguson. Maybe black applicants are not passing the tests. Who knows. The point is, before declaring that more diversity is needed, one must ask what more diversity would accomplish and why there is a lack of diversity today. Simply demanding that the composition of the force reflect the composition of the community is stupid. Should we do that with the NBA? I think Asians are grossly underrepresented in the NBA compared to the percentage of the population that is Asian. Should we start a campaign to get more racial diversity in the NBA?
Is that also why ISIS is beheading Christian children? And why they are brutally raping and enslaving Christian women? Is that why they are hanging the men, or shooting them execution style? Is that why they are burring Christians alive? Is US 'meddling' the reason they are surrounding tens of thousands of Christians on a mountain to either die or come down and be beheaded, crucified, raped or crucified? Your questions also seems to imply that before any US 'meddling', Islamist were perfectly happy and peaceful. This is not reality as even the most cursory examination of history would tell you. Since it's founding, jihad has been a core principle of Islam and they have never stopped. That the US happens to be their target du jour at the moment has much more to do with our ability to stop them than it does anything we have done. And finally, "millions hate us"? Maybe. But millions more would risk their lives just for the chance to live in America. This has been the case since our founding. Ever wonder why? Why do so many millions of people from all over the world risk everything to try to come to America and not, say, Finland? You really need to stop reading Zinn and Chomsky. The 'Blame America First' left has absolutely no idea what they are proposing to destroy.
With all due respect, this is your failure and should not result in government regulation. It is your responsibility to understand what you are signing or committing to and if you aren't going to read the fine print then it's all on you. Asking the gov to step in and save you from your own laziness or ignorance is what fosters a dependent society and an out of control behemoth of a government. Learn to take care of your own business and don't expect anyone else to do it for you.
I am a woman who agrees with you. I have a master's degree, I work full time and I earn significantly more money than my husband. Still, we celebrate many of the traditional aspects of our 'roles' as husband and wife. He likes to be the gentleman, and always opens my car door, he places our order at restaurants (after asking me what I want, of course), he opens doors for me, etc. I like to cook and enjoy making romantic dinners, I pick out lots of his clothes, and I handle most aspects of our social life. We also are pretty traditional in our parenting. We like it this way, and there is nothing wrong with that :-)
1 - 10 Next