1 - 10 Next
In response to:

For What It's Worth

Francis W. Porretto Wrote: 8 hours ago (5:14 AM)
Compromise BECOMES a dirty word when it's applied to principles -- e.g., the principle that the law, including the Constitution, which is the Supreme Law, binds everyone equally. Compromise in politics is only acceptable when it's applied to the choice of means to a unanimously-agreed, morally and ethically sound end. Two parties may agree sincerely on a principle such as the Rule of Law, yet disagree, and usefully compromise, on the best means to attain it. If they disagree on principle -- in this case, one side maintaining that the law must be obeyed and enforced, while the other claims that it needn't be by certain persons or in certain cases -- compromise becomes an evil to be avoided.
"Whether it’s church liberals or political liberals, they have at least one thing in common—they often speak one way, but walk in the opposite direction." When you dare not speak of your true motives and all your policy prescriptions have been repeatedly demonstrated to be destructive, you can't afford to speak plainly or honestly. "I pray regularly for our leaders, including Mr. Obama." I pray that some day Americans will realize that they DON'T NEED OR WANT "LEADERS." But that day might be rather far off in the future.
"If you're a foreigner in this country without authorization, you may be a hardworking, upright and taxpaying person, but you live in daily terror of making a fatal misstep." So! It's wrong that lawbreakers should fear the consequences of breaking the law? Tell us all, Mr. Chapman: Which *other* laws would you apply that evaluation to?
"Science Avenger" is a religious zealot. His position isn't scientifically based; it's an article of his faith. Such persons never confront adverse evidence; instead they attack the person who presents it. In short, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for his response.
The point of a law such as I-594 is to create a justification for future harassment by law enforcement, should the State ever deem it to be in its interest. New York's many owners of supposedly illegal firearms aren't registering theirs, either...but you may take it as a certainty that New York knows who they are -- and now, if it ever needs a reason to arrest them, it will have one. "Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against -- then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. there's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can be neither observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted -- and you create a nation of law-breakers -- and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with." [Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged"]
The way to respond to a hostile question is with an even more hostile question. Thus, in response to Chris Hayes's: "Are we going to see you as a Fox News contributor or writing for a conservative outlet next? I mean, can you tell me right here that that's not the way this is going?" ...Attkisson could have replied: "Why Chris, are you saying that you work for this station because it's the only one where you can get paid for spouting your unreflective left-liberal opinions?" ...or: "Are you saying, Chris, that left-liberal journalists such as yourself, who work for left-leaning outlets such as this one, are no more than Democrat operatives with bylines and talk shows?" Always put a hostile questioner on the defensive. They're seldom ready for it.
In the usual case, a registered American voter declines to vote for one of the following reasons: 1. He's come to despise politics; 2. He disapproves of all the candidates for whom he might vote; 3. He's come to disbelieve that his vote matters. It's simply implausible to view declining to vote as an endorsement of the status quo.
When assessing the statements of Main Stream Media "journalists," it's most useful to view them through Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds's filter: i.e., as "Democrat operatives with bylines."
The Democrats' obsession with abortion and birth control is part of their "divide to conquer" overall strategy. Put it side by side with their racialist harangues to blacks and their "anti-nativist" pitch about legalizing illegal aliens, and the pattern becomes clear at once. Expect all such tactics to be intensified now that they no longer have control of a house of Congress.
Yes, the Democrats are racists to the core. Race is the one and only issue on which they have "traction," though they never have deserved it. So why don't conservatives give them Hell about it? Fear?
1 - 10 Next