Previous 11 - 20 Next
The word, "Chickenshit" refers to the gold trim on a brim of a field-grade officer's saucer cap. It denotes an officer who is focused on the minutiae of military life, rather than what is important. It has nothing to do with cowardice (i.e., being a "chicken"). The remark makes no sense in any context. The Administration does not like Bibi because he makes them - and particularly SoS Kerry - look foolish and impotent by blatantly ignoring the concept of "occupied territories," as well as any Arab territorial rights in Jerusalem. The Administration wants to maintain the fatuous illusion that it has embarked on a viable "roadmap" to a "two-state solution," which is more and more manifestly impossible with Bibi in power.
In response to:

Israel and the War of Words

David1454 Wrote: Oct 30, 2014 10:32 AM
Speaking of a "war of words,"... It is not surprising that many in the West are re-considering their support of Israel in light of its words and actions in recent years. Indeed, the fundamental question of whether any people can come to a place and declare that place to be exclusivey THEIR country (i.e., a "jewish state"), is one that is deserving of honest debate. How would we Americans feel if the immigrant Mexican populations of California, Arizona, and New Mexico declared that territory to be the new "state" of Aztlan, with only people of Mexican ancestry given full citizenship? Being opposed to the actions of the Zionists in that part of the world is NOT THE SAME -not even similar - to being an anti-Semite. Indeed, many American jews are extremely critical of Israel's treatment of the indigenous Arab population. And this is a "war of words," is it not? Calling any critic of Israel an "anti-Semite"?
In response to:

Turn Down for What?

David1454 Wrote: Oct 29, 2014 11:11 AM
I reject the premise that people get high because of angst. They just want to get high. I don't eat a Twinkie because I'm depressed; I eat it because it tastes good. Up until 1960, sexual mores were largely dictated by the biological fact that sexual intercourse could almost always result in a pregnancy - a pregnacy that would result in the birth of a child. Now that is no longer the case, so the moral paradigms are no longer based on real risks, but must stand on their own. The same is becoming true of recreational drugs. The fears of permanent damage to health are largely debunked, so this generation says "Why not?" Personal commitments are (now deemed to be) intrinsically temporary, lasting only until the parties become bored with one another, or find someone they like better. The culture scorns people who "stay in a failed marriage," as though keeping one's promises were a psychological problem requiring "counseling." It is (we are) A.F.U.
In response to:

Random Thoughts

David1454 Wrote: Oct 28, 2014 9:15 AM
The most frustrating thing in politics is how The People vote down candidates and propositions that are proven, logical, and wise. Scott Walker's re-election should not even be in question, but the People of Wisconsin are, collectively, an idiot. Worst example of the same phenomenon was the election a few years ago in California, where the Gover-nator proosed three common-sense changes to th state constitution and was shot down with them. They were not even controversial, but they impinged on the employee unions. Idiots.
There is a giant hole in the chart. Unless it accounts for the gigantic masses of people who work for GOVERNMENT - including military services - it is incomplete.
In response to:

No Risk in Global Warming!

David1454 Wrote: Oct 27, 2014 9:39 AM
Patrick Moore left Greenpeace a long time ago over thier irrational opposition to Nuclear Power (they originally promoted it as being environmentally friendly), and he should no longer be cited as having anything to do with that organization. I wonder if voiceofreason613 would like to explain why historical studies show NO LINK between atmospheric CO2 levels and climate. Or why all of the "scientists" publishing these papers just happen to be people who pine for government control of industrial activity - and always have. Or what difference it would make if every one in the U.S. parked their cars and began life as organic subsistence farmers - given what is happening in China, India, and other Developing countries like GERMANY(!), where they are building coal-fired power plants with reckless abandon. Any buying cars. And installing air conditioning in their offices and homes. It's all about giving government control over private economic activity. Everything else is a smokescreen. Can you say, "Watermelon"? Green on the outside, but pink on the inside.
The ad is nonsense. Does anybody believe that if we had a Republican senate things would be better for African-American in Louisiana? The actual message - that "we" are trying to catalyze the private economy so that peolpe (including "Blacks") can take care of their own needs - without Government - will not appeal to a demographic group that has been raised to believe that Government IS THE ANSWER to all their needs. I hope he is successful, but the ad is B.S.
Those Harleys, Victory's and Indian motorcycles are pure luxury items for most consumers. They are very expensive and very few people use them for actual transportation. Most of my neighbors who have Harley's use them as racks to store old rags, towels and stuff. Then once a year they start them up (after re-charging the batteries), and ritually say, "I'm going to have to ride this thing more."
In response to:

Nazi's Living on U.S. Government Dole

David1454 Wrote: Oct 24, 2014 9:29 AM
If those Nazi's paid into SS, why shouldn't they collect benefits? If "we" stop their benefits, then their contributions should be refunded, with interest (net of prior payments). Fair is fair.
In response to:

The Price of Papal Popularity

David1454 Wrote: Oct 21, 2014 12:53 PM
The issues aren't that complicated, but are obfuscated by those with an axe to grind. HOMOSEXUALITY (the inclination) is not sinful, but homosexual sodomy is. Just like adultery or fornication. Why is that so difficult to say or accept? And the Church's position on marriage is nothing more than to take the marriage vows seriously. We don't promise to love the person until we find someone we like better, or we get tired of them. It's nothing more than keeping solemn promises. And everyone is a sinner. No exceptions. Not complicated.
As a Vietnam veteral who also "pushed paper" while in a combat zone, I personally find nothing offensive about the remark. It is true enough and the voters can decide for themselves whether it is relevant to their vote.
Previous 11 - 20 Next