Previous 11 - 20 Next
You need to listen to what the idiot said. He's basically right...Britain didn't win two world wars.
In response to:

Libertarians, Ferguson, and "Racism"

Geoff34 Wrote: Aug 25, 2014 3:41 PM
The suffix "-ism" (or in the case of an individual "-ist") typically connotes the presence of an ideology as a primary element of identification. Thus, a "racist" is one whose belief system centers primarily around racial beliefs more than, or to the exclusion of, other types of beliefs. Thus, in practical terms, a "racist" is essentially an ideologue, who believes that the most important factor, perhaps even the only factor, involved in governing people's beliefs and behavior, is their racial background. There is nothing in the Libertarian philosophy that would tend to support such belief system. While Libertarians may have an issue with excessive legal restrictions on citizen's individual liberty, and with excessive use of police force, I doubt they support racist anti-police sentiment, per se. It's just not a Libertarian talking point.
Why doesn't Holder just take the money he would spend on this stupid investigation and use it to build another golf course somewhere close to the White House? In the long run we'd all save money on BHO's recreational trips, and it will have the same relevance to ISIL. I'm sure they're just shaking in their boots at the thought of being investigated by Holder and his buffoons. What is there to investigate? Is it illegal to behead a journalist? Here, yes, there, no. So who cares what Holder and his stooges discover in their idiotic investigation? If the administration wants to "hold them accountable" the don't need investigations, they need B-52s (and, of course, balls). Now THAT would be "accountability!"
In response to:

Marijuana vs. Scotch and a Low IQ

Geoff34 Wrote: Aug 21, 2014 12:48 PM
The studies to which this refers are either incompetent or political hit jobs. Consider for a moment: How could one even design a study that could rationally conclude that pot lowers one's IQ, causes loss of motivation, etc, etc? It would necessarily REQUIRE a control group. That is, there would have to be, at the least, a group who smoked pot regularly and frequently for several years, and another, otherwise similar, group, that did not. Both groups would have to have their IQ, motivation, brain imaging, etc, done both before and after the years of use. Such a study would be both unethical and illegal. Otherwise though, there is no way to know if the pot smokers were different before smoking (it's equally feasible that aberrant brain structures CAUSED them to become pot smokers, as that their smoking caused the development of abnormal structures, for example). Think about the dopers you knew in high school: were they the highly motivated kids before they did dope? It's quite plausible that low motivation CAUSES kids to smoke pot, rather than the other way around. Relying on garbage studies like these only muddies the waters and make the science behind this less likely to be trusted.
I predict Holder et al, will continue to have autopsy after autopsy after autopsy, until either they can get the anti-white cop results they want, or there is too little left of the remains to do another autopsy, whichever comes first.
I think much of the problem lies in the fact that so many people today still foolishly think the US is a "racist" country, and that white folks, especially those in positions of authority, regularly abuse their authority and abuse minorities. Yes, I know that there are a disproportionate number of black folks behind bars. But that alone doesn't mean they are there because of racists or a racist "system." Given that this statistic is a nation wide one, consider the magnitude of the conspiracy theory this would demand. Unlike the state of things in the 1950s, '60s, an even early '70s, we no longer have segregation, we no longer have a white dominated society. We now have a Black President and Attorney General, Black and Hispanic congressmen, news reporters, lawyers, DAs, cops, judges, jurors, police ombudsmen, citizens groups, etc. To maintain such a "racist system" nationally, would absolutely require that most, if not all, of them be part of a huge, very secret, anti-minority cabal, operating right under everyone's nose. That is utterly ridiculous, and anyone who gives it any thought at all must immediately realize it. Since the incarcerated minorities are almost never those who have embraced traditional (read "middle class") American values, it leaves us with a strong suspicion that perhaps there is something about the cultural values being inculcated in minority groups, that makes it MORE likely they will run afoul of the law. Well, maybe we should consider the lionizing of the "Thug life" so popular in Rap music and the gang culture. That seems like a much more likely culprit, and one that does not require us to believe an absurd conspiracy theory.
It is perfectly reasonable, even laudable, to tell our troops how to be more sensitive to the local customs while they are serving overseas and interacting with another culture. If women don't want to dress in a way that locals find acceptable, they can stay on-base; in the same way, male service members can refrain form doing things, while off-base, that the local customs find offensive. Knowing how to greet locals in their own language is generally a plus, and a friendly thing to do. That said, the same EXACT argument applies to those from other cultures who are living in OUR culture. So it is totally out of line for our troops to be told to be more sensitive to FOREIGN (Muslim) customs here at home. It would have been more appropriate to send an E-mail asking the Muslims to avoid the mess halls and restaurants during meal hours if they can't eat until sundown and watching us eat would be annoying, or to advise them to avoid public places like beaches and malls, if they would be offended by seeing our women dressed in what Americans consider attractive, even sexy, attire. This sword cuts BOTH ways folks.
First, she urges the black kids to learn about him in school, see him as a hero and role model, and emulate his behavior; then she complains that those same black kids are being incarcerated at a higher rate than white kids, and aren't growing up to take part in the "American Dream." D'ya think there might be some connection there?!
I fail to see why women, as a group, should rate, or require, special privileges or protections under the law. Violence is already illegal against everyone. Everyone includes women. If violence is more prevalent against women, which I rather doubt (I suspect it is just more often reported by them, if that), then maybe they should learn to protect themselves better. Do we need a special law to protect guys who are under 6 foot or 130 pounds? Why do you think women, per se, would be more subject to violence than men are? Probably because it is easier to get away with it, since they typically do not (either because they will not or can not) fight back as effectively as men. How about they stop avoiding even thinking about violence, or waiting to be protected by someone else, and start learning to defend themselves better? Martial arts and shooting classes have been open to women, as well as men, for many, many, years. But they have to sign up. And they have to embrace the need to defend themselves, and to take responsibility for themselves, before they will sign up for training. My experience is that those who sign up, tend to be either from self-reliant families, or else have already been the victims of violence and decided not to let it happen to them again. Instead of passing more ineffective laws, why don't we start advocating that ALL women (yes, including our own wives, daughters, and girlfriends!) learn to defend themselves, rather than start passing more stupid laws that won't be followed anyway, at least not by the guys they are meant to stop. The rest of us guys aren't the problem, and never have been. More laws will just lead to further infringement of the law-abiding guy's rights. When we feel that our rights have been TOO infringed, you will start seeing "non-violent civil disobedience" in the form of ignoring the law by not giving up our guns. "Well," you say, "then the police will just come to your house and TAKE your gun(s)." THAT'S when you will start seeing "violent civil disobedience."
Excuse me, Frank, but did you actually READ the study? It found that legalization did NOT lead to increased use by teens. So there is no longer any need to do research, I guess, since you already KNOW the truth, and don't want to be confused with the facts, right? I'd be happy to consider remarks criticizing the study based on the way it was done, or the conclusions reached (if they don't follow), etc., but just saying you disagree and therefore the study is wrong, is pretty arrogant and narcissistic don't you think? Why should anyone believe YOUR point of view? What data do you have to back it up? Remember, "Opinions are like noses (OK, I cleaned that up a tad), everybody has one and they all smell." DATA, on the other hand, can be studied, replicated (or not), and used for rational argument.
Zsofia is right - she needs some help with her parenting skills! I would consider a parent who is unable or unwilling to teach his/her children anything about guns, gun handling, and gun safety, to be in need of some personal instruction in those areas before they're a competent parent. Failing personal knowledge, getting someone with expert knowledge in to speak to the young man seems reasonable. But I'm astounded that while we may all think parents need to be able to teach their children good conflict resolution skills, or good Math or English skills, we no longer see the need to teach gun safety skills as important. Well if you don't think gun handling is important enough to learn enough yourself, to be able to teach your kids, then you obviously don't think gun handling is a very important topic. In that case, perhaps you should avoid taking any political stances on the topic either.
Previous 11 - 20 Next