Previous 11 - 20 Next
In response to:

Debt Capital Diplomas

David1454 Wrote: Jun 23, 2014 10:22 AM
All good points. Having gone through this myself, with my son, and with dozens of my friends and relatives, the one thing that can be easily improved is Parents assuming the role of Parents. All decisions about college must be rational and realistic, and an 18-year-old is seldom mature or knowledgeable enough to think things through. Every option should be on the table, including military service, working full time and going to school at night, finding employers who are willing to help with tuition, community colleges for the first two years, living at home and commuting, and foregoing the college of one's dreams. Even taking a year off to work and save some money should be an option, as long as it is clear that it is not a "party" year. And college major is also a choice that should be realistic. Fine Arts? Maybe not. 18 years old is old enough to vote (a collosal mistake on the part of Congress), but in our culture, most 18's are far from being "adults." Allowing a kid to make stupid mistakes about college is short-sighted and leads to a lot of the problems discussed in this article.
In response to:

Marriage: Plastic or Gold?

David1454 Wrote: Jun 19, 2014 10:49 AM
...but the question is, how does the state's sanctioning of gay marriages harm those who are (or would be) in a "traditional" marriage? The existence of civil gay marriages makes it less likely that gays will enter traditional, loveless marriages just to appear normal, and more likely that gays will be monogamous - which is a good thing, eh? American (and Western) tradiitonal marriage is taking a severe beating these days, but it's not because of the debate over gay marriages; it's because our culture disdains serious, mature commitments like marriage, and encourages people to keep searching throughout life for their next "soul-mate."
In response to:

Marriage and the 'Wrong Side of History'

David1454 Wrote: Jun 19, 2014 10:37 AM
The proper analogy is government-sponsored gambling. Gambling went from an "immoral" activity that was "rightfully" prohibited by law, to one that allows government to siphon off money for worthy causes,funded by a relatively harmless vice. The moral objection to homosexual marriage is that it implicitly condones various forms of sodomy. But looking around that the many, many productive and contributing gay Americans, all of that sodomy seems to be relatively harmless, even though it may still be considered "sinful." we simply have to keep in mind that the institution of "marriage" that our Churches sanction is not necessarily the same institution of marriage that the states sanction and recognize. And it doesn't need to be.
In response to:

Slavery Reparations

David1454 Wrote: Jun 18, 2014 7:59 AM
One shouldn't comment here without reading the article in Atlantic. The gross injustices to hard-working, strivng, "midde-class" blacks withn many of our lifetimes is difficult to read without cringing. But the bottom line, as Dr. Williams points out, is that any attempt at "reparations" at this time will quickly turn into a scam that benefits mainly the poverty pimps.
Terrible, uninformed, inappropriate advice. $1,500 for THREE timeshare weeks is not outrageous, and you CAN'T have a good time for three weeks in three different resorts for that money. The timeshares can either be sold or rented individually for a profit each year (or used). Their cash value may be modest ($5-10 thousand) but it is not NOTHING. Ask around the family and see if anyone wants to buy them from the estate.
To borrow a phrase from a presidential campaign from long ago, "Where's the beef?" Although this woman has a nice resume there is absolutely no trail of noteworthy accomplishments, whether you are looking at her 8 years as First Lady, a Senator, Secretary of State, or perpetual candidate. Nothing. Where's the beef?
For the purposes of discussion about "choosing" to be gay, you have to consider male homosexuals and lesbians as separate categories. Lesbians are not attracted to other women in the same sense that gay men are attracted to other men. To be candid, many lesbians "choose" to be that way because they are so repulsive to men that a woman-woman relationship is their only option.
In response to:

The Boondoggle Express

David1454 Wrote: Jun 02, 2014 10:45 AM
All mass transit loses money, in buckets, when all costs are line up against farebox revenues. It can only be justified on a very functional, low level basis. Does it get people to work efficiently; does it significantly reduce auto congestion and pollution, and so on. This train will do neither. It will probably cost as much as a discount airline, and when all the mayors of the little hamlets along the way use their political influence to get train stops, the travel time will be 4-5 hours, each. way. This is a complete boondoggle from the word, "Go." The only reason it has any traction (sorry, I couldn't resist) at all is because the Democrats in power envy the rail systems in Europe and don't understand (because they are stupid) why we can't do the same thing here.
Keynsians (and virtually all Democrats) refuse to acknowledge the fundamental difference between a GOVERNMENT job, which sucks wealth out of the economy and dribbles a little bit of it back, and a PRIVATE SECTOR job, which pumps value into the economy. This is not to say that all government jobs are a waste, just that they can never be a net benefit to the economy.
In response to:

Feminism: Still Considered Man-Hating

David1454 Wrote: May 23, 2014 8:55 AM
There is some HUGE irony in this discussion. Liberals always try to win ideological arguments by claiming that words can mean whatever they want them to mean. Marriage includes man-man and woman-woman relationships because I SAY it does. If I say CO2 is a "pollutant" then, by golly, it is a pollutant, even if I'm producing it with my own huffing and puffing. And so on. And now it's outrageous that this woman sees a specific meaning for "feminist" (basically, man-hater) and rejects it. May I call myself a "masculist"?
In response to:

The Misinformed Case for Voter ID

David1454 Wrote: May 15, 2014 8:12 AM
If you have the ability to register to vote, then you have the ability to obtain and carry SOMETHING to prove who you are. Essentially all states with Voter ID laws have provisions for everyone lacking a drivers' license, passport, or whatever. Undetected voter fraud, especially in big Eastern cities, has been the norm for generations. My own mother (now long deceased) was an "inspector" at the polls and participated in casting votes for dozens of deceased people after the polls had closed in every election. Yet because this was never "proven," according to Democrats, it never happened.
Previous 11 - 20 Next