1 - 10 Next
In response to:

Au Revoir, Jon Stewart

David1454 Wrote: Feb 19, 2015 9:15 AM
The neurotic insistence that the fears of WMD's were based on lies has ended any discussion on the more important issue: Even if he did, did that justify overrunning a country and tossing out its government? If Iran is someday proved to have functional nuclear weapons will we claim to have a "right" to overrun Iran and depose its government? On what basis? On whose authority?
It could be a fun presidential campaign, with R's constantly pointing out idiots and failures who had multiple degrees with various honors from Ivy League Schools. Starting with Barry O'Bama. Suffice it to say, anyone clueless enough to vote for HRC would vote against Scott Walker regardless of his academic bona fides. It's a non-issue.
In response to:

NBC's Ridiculous Williams Suspension

David1454 Wrote: Feb 13, 2015 9:35 AM
Williams will never be back. Some transgressions are so antithetical to the standards of a profession that they simply cannot be covered up or forgiven. No one will ever take a journalist seriously who has been guilty of such a pompous, self-aggrandizing lie. His position is one of privilege, not merit, and this was career suicide.
In response to:

50 Shades of Cultural Poison

David1454 Wrote: Feb 13, 2015 9:28 AM
When I read this book (shared with my wife over Kindle) I was infuriated by the young woman’s willingness to degrade herself, over and over, in exchange for the few crumbs this sadist was willing to dribble into her feckless hands. But my wife liked it, and bought the sequel. I was and remain, dumbfounded. That this piece of vile trash is celebrated is yet one more manifestation of a culture gone to the dogs.
The great irony of American Liberalism is that they seek to control peoples' lives through endless rules, fees, regulations, and "incentives," but when you point out that people change their behavior as a result of government policies (e.g., increased taxes, extended unemployment compensation) they DENY that it ever happens. "NO ONE would ever decline to look for work because of extended UEC!" Right. Never happens.
In response to:

Substituted Morality

David1454 Wrote: Feb 13, 2015 9:16 AM
This is one of those issues where Conservatives and Libertarians have to take different roads. The State has no business looking into the moral aspects of private interpersonal relationships between competent adults. In fact, most lesbian couples have little or no sexual component to their relationships, and it doesn't matter (to the civil authorities) anyway. If you want to "respect traditional marriage," then do so in your churches, synagogues, and mosques and temples, and recognize that that is a private choice that you and others make, not a mandate for the general public.
In response to:

Substituted Morality

David1454 Wrote: Feb 13, 2015 9:14 AM
This is one of those issues where Conservatives and Libertarians have to take different roads. The State has no business looking into the moral aspects of private interpersonal relationships between competent adults. In fact, most lesbian couples have little or no sexual component to their relationships, and it doesn't matter (to the civil authorities) anyway. If you want to "respect traditional marriage," then do so in your churches, synagogues, and mosques and temples, and recognize that that is a private choice that you and others make, not a mandate for the general public.
If the USSC rules "against" gay marriage, the result will be that the issue remains with the states. And as with abortion, its legalization throughout the country is just a matter of time, because given the "full faith and credit" clause, even holdout states like Utah will have to recognize marriages performed in other states. The battle is over, over, over. Deal with it.
In response to:

Fairness and Justice

David1454 Wrote: Feb 11, 2015 8:15 AM
The reason why the "inequality" chorus gets so much support is the perception that many of the people at the top of the financial pyramid are not there through hard work, productivity, or any meaningful contribution to anything. They are traders, manipulators, dealers, bankers, and lawyers who simply manage to position themselves where they will reap huge, unimaginable windfalls regardless of what happens. This perception is not entirely mistaken. But of course, the flip side is the belief by most people that there is a fixed amount of wealth in society and if one person has "too much," then there must be victims somewhere who have been abused or cheated out of something. Can't help ignorance.
In response to:

Borrowed Valor

David1454 Wrote: Feb 06, 2015 8:39 AM
A "hero" is someone who voluntarily risks his life in order to save or protect his comrades (or country). Even assuming the most extreme circumstances, a journalist who exposes himself to danger in pursuit of a story is no hero. Maybe a good journalist, but that's about it. Any soldier who voluntarily goes to a combat zone to accomplish a mission is a "hero" to one extent or another. But there are degrees of heroism. For example a pilot who drops bombs on the enemy falls into the general range of heroism, but comes nowhere near the footsoldier who risks his life to help take over a town held by the enemy. A pure sniper falls somewhere in the middle. The danger to himself is limited - a bit more than the pilot and quite a bit less than the footsoldier. Throughout history, nations and kings have relied mostly on YOUNG men to do their fighting, because young men are - to put it bluntly - crazy. You can get a 19-year-old to do things that a 30-year old would refuse. Any 30-year-old, married solder who is fighting in the thick of things in any war MUST justify that action with serious and all-encompassing hatred for The Enemy. Otherwise he just couldn't do it.
1 - 10 Next