Previous 11 - 20 Next
Liberals never seem to learn from experience. When I was involved with the school lunch program in the late '70s, they couldn't get kids to eat the kind of lunches Michelle wants served. Finally, they decided to give the kids what they would eat, but to try to make it as wholesome as possible. Hamburgers and pizza were school lunch menu staples after that for a long time. At least most of it didn't end up in the trash can. No matter how wholesome the food is, it won't do any good if the kids don't eat it.
In response to:

Clash in the Cornhusker State

jdick Wrote: May 09, 2014 9:27 AM
When will Tea Partiers like Erickson learn that the "establishment" Republicans are interested in winning above all else. Of course, they're often wrong about who can win, but Tea Partiers don't have a sterling record in this regard either. I don't think ideology has a big role among the establishment. It's just that the establishment places winning above ideology (way above, to the point of almost ignoring ideology) and the Tea Partiers do the opposite, nearly ignoring winning potential and focusing only on ideology. Can't we strike a balance here? Wasn't it Regan who said "support the most conservative candidate who can win"? Whoever said it, it's good advice. Cruz probably couldn't win a Senate seat in New Hampshire, but Brown might be able to. Brown isn't my favorite candidate, but I'll take him over a Dem any day.
In response to:

Putin Fears Frack Attack

jdick Wrote: May 06, 2014 10:44 AM
I support the export of gas and oil products, but behind-the-scenes efforts should be under way to convince the Europeans to use fracking to access their gas and oil reserves. It would clearly be in their interest to do so.
I have often argued online with conservatives who have a quandary similar to yours. I have similar thoughts, but I don't have much trouble resolving the contradiction. The way I see it, there never has been and probably never will be a political candidate I think is perfect. Admittedly, some are closer to perfect than others but, to some degree, we're always voting for the lesser of two evils. And with the large number of low-information voters these days who have no clue about the issues, a candidates' electability becomes a very big issue. So, we're placed in the uncomfortable position of placing a candidate's electability ahead of the merits of his policies. It seems to me, however, that the Dems, as a whole, are so bad that any Republican, even a real RINO, is better.
I can't think of a better man to head this effort. I have wondered for a while why a select committee had not been formed. Only two reasons I can think of: 1. Boehner didn't want to step on the toes of committee chairmen who could claim some jurisdiction. 2. The leadership didn't think the time was right to maximize the political effect. The standing committee chairmen have had their chance, so a select committee is in order. I don't know about the political timing, but it could be good for the 2014 elections.
That's really lame - We can't produce any real data, but we know yours is wrong. Even low-information voters should be able to see how lame that is.
In response to:

Getting Repeal Right

jdick Wrote: Apr 29, 2014 3:27 PM
I would go with what's politically popular. If you repeal, you'd probably want to put something in its place. For example, tort reform, interstate sales, etc. So, if the electorate doesn't like the notion of repeal, enact a bill that "changes" Obamacare but, in effect, replaces all of it with what you would have enacted if you really repealed. No difference in substance, just in the form. Yeh, it's a political ploy, but much of the electorate is too uninformed to notice.
In response to:

China's Economy Slows Down

jdick Wrote: Apr 21, 2014 12:10 PM
I don't see how China's economy can succeed over the long term. It is far too centrally managed. All the major resource allocation decisions are made by government bureaucrats instead of a free market. That can work for a while, but not over the long term.
AmyDB, I'm talking about the nature of relationships, primarily sexual relationships. The nature of the heterosexual sex act does not change despite the presence of infirmities that prevent procreation. Likewise, the nature of homosexual sex and homosexual relationships do not change despite the fact that AI can help a homosexual woman have a baby. The nature of the relationships, especially in regard to sexual activity, does not change with any of these conditions/events affecting whether procreation actually occurs. Heterosexual sex is the same act with or without procreation. The important distinction is that heterosexual sex CAN produce offspring on its own (and often does) whereas homosexual sex CANNOT produce offspring on its own.
I'm not confusing anything. Parenting ability is a different subject entirely.
Homosexual unions are different from heterosexual unions is all I'm saying. Saying one is superior is a subjective judgment; I'd like to stay with facts and analyses thereof. Actually, polygamy seems to me to be closer to a "natural" marriage than does homosexuality. All I'm saying is that homosexual unions are different in such a way as to prevent them from being true marriages because they cannot produce offspring on their own. Whether they are superior of inferior depends on your viewpoint.
Previous 11 - 20 Next