Previous 21 - 30 Next
In response to:

Jonathan Gruber: Honest Liberal

doc, aka Rich Wrote: Dec 12, 2014 11:37 AM
Pat says "What is it that pushes the nation leftward even when conservatives win at the ballot box? The permanent powers and the deep state." With a republican democracy (US) our government is a reflection of us. Should culture shift recede like the tides, one can expect our governmental policies to shift direction. Unfortunately as the face of our government reflects our electorate, it also accumulates statist powers our electorate permit them ... just like a snowball gaining mass while it rolls downhill. There's no way to guarantee that if and when the electorate wish to change direction that our government will permit it. To this we have to observe the longer term evolutionary cycles of prior history ... and ours may not exhibit cyclical behavior, but die in economic collapse or revolution to birth yet another form of replacement. What a pity, as we'd historicallyt done so well. ut that won't be up to us, but our children, or children's children to decide.
In response to:

Jonathan Gruber: Honest Liberal

doc, aka Rich Wrote: Dec 12, 2014 11:28 AM
Pat says "Why, even when conservatives win elections, does the nation continue to move inexorably leftward?" Pendulums move inexplicitly in a single direction ... until that direction is uphill. Then their rate slows, and eventually changes course. Then for some equal length era it'll seem to move consistently in the opposite direction. Politics is the science of mass populations that tend to "learn" a direction ... beyond any reason. Think of cattle stampeding. However, like pendulums, course changes only occur once it's moved to an equally unstable state in the opposite direction. Sad, but such behavior is what the science of populations has revealed about people. Culture is not a reasoned object, but the sum of the population by volume.
In response to:

The Cop-Killing Cult of Larry Davis

doc, aka Rich Wrote: Dec 12, 2014 11:17 AM
There are no 2 snowflakes alike. People are like that ... they're all different. But numbers matter, and statistical majorities can control cultures. Who is in control of the black culture? Apparently hip-hop gangsta rap, out of wedlock mothers, drug dealers, and the grievance industry. Shame for all the really brilliant or even the law abiding majority of individuals in their culture, but those in cultural control have been on a trajectory of self-destruction for decades. Same thing for Muslims, until the majority wrestles cultural control away from the extremists. Subcultures take control of larger populations by intimidation and by apathy. It ain't gon'na change as the most powerful African Americans in our nation ... the president and the AG ... both buy-and tolerate their culture's self-destructive behaviors.
In response to:

The College Rape Club

doc, aka Rich Wrote: Dec 11, 2014 7:24 PM
Appreciate the exchange. We don't agree, but that's ok. Even in your example, I'd disagree theft is the same as failure to return. I'll stick to words (where the words stand for specific crimes, each with prescribed penalties) and that blurring words ... extending them to multiple different meanings is a decidedly bad idea. I don't sense we disagree on right vs wrong, but clearly the names or labels of various aspects of sexual assaults we disagree.
In response to:

The College Rape Club

doc, aka Rich Wrote: Dec 11, 2014 3:34 PM
So a man breaks into your house and assaults you, is charged with both breaking and entering and assault. But you say, if you INVITE him in, and he then assaults you, he's still charged with both breaking and entering and assault instead of only assault? If you invite someone into your home you can't charge him with breaking and entering. I disagree with expanding rape to include consent. I define rape as without consent.
In response to:

The College Rape Club

doc, aka Rich Wrote: Dec 11, 2014 1:32 PM
I are in full agreement that violation even after initial consent is criminal, but we only disagree as to what to call the committed crime. If rape is defined as violation without consent, then you can't call it the same criminal act if it is after consent. The rape epidemic is rationalized by expanding the scope of actions that are today called rape. I am not suggesting that they aren't criminal, but would like to see the def of rape maintained for violation without consent. IMO complaints against Kobe for rape were dropped after it became established that the activity was consentually engaged. Why do you think charges as 'rape' did not proceed?
In response to:

The College Rape Club

doc, aka Rich Wrote: Dec 11, 2014 10:39 AM
Excellent. My only contribution would be to add the one sensational case Ann didn't mention. The Kobe Bryant 2003 accusation. People had been chanting over and over that even during sex, a woman can say "No" at any time, and unless an attacker stops that it's rape. Well, if a woman starts with "yes", then we don't have an attacker, we have a partner. If a woman decides during consentual activities that she doesn't like it or it's too rough, then injuries are not rape, they're assault. Assault can be anything from being slapped to being beaten senseless ... the severity of a case depends on the specifics. But the severity can't nor shouldn't be heightened by turning an assault into a rape AFTER THE FACT. Kobe had allegations of "Rape" following what had begun clearly as activity between 2 consentual adults. Rape has not become epidemic by merely expanding the definition to include consentual acts on one side or perceived offense at nothing more than verbal utterance at the other side.
In response to:

What's Rule of Law?

doc, aka Rich Wrote: Dec 10, 2014 3:40 PM
revolution?
In response to:

What's Rule of Law?

doc, aka Rich Wrote: Dec 10, 2014 3:38 PM
Walter Williams has some of the most insightful essays I've ever read. I have some favorites (such as socialism is slavery) that I keep for reference. This one is a keeper. I've felt that there's something unwholesome about the Sherman AntiTrust act, being used a century later to label any common company behavior illegal for any company that the justice department decides needs to be punished. Laws that are not the same for EVERYONE under their jurisdiction should be repealed. Unfortunately we have laws that violate this basic principle now into their 2nd century of existance.
In response to:

What's Rule of Law?

doc, aka Rich Wrote: Dec 10, 2014 3:38 PM
Walter Williams has some of the most insightful essays I've ever read. I have some favorites (such as socialism is slavery) that I keep for reference. This one is a keeper. I've felt that there's something unwholesome about the Sherman AntiTrust act, being used a century later to label any common company behavior illegal for any company that the justice department decides needs to be punished. Laws that are not the same for EVERYONE under their jurisdiction should be repealed. Unfortunately we have laws that violate this basic principle now into their 2nd century of existance.
In response to:

Climate Catastrophe

doc, aka Rich Wrote: Dec 10, 2014 3:22 PM
I read more into "THERE IS NO EVIDENCE of Global Climate Warming Change." than you'd intended.
Previous 21 - 30 Next