Previous 11 - 20 Next
In response to:

GOP Bordering On Victory

Ken6565 Wrote: Sep 26, 2014 11:56 PM
We have already passed the Adrianople point. In the 4th century, the Roman Empire's boundary with the Germanic peoples was defined by a pair of rivers, the Rhine and the Danube. West of the Rhine and south of the Danube, Rome ruled; east of the Rhine and north of the Danube, the Germanic tribes were in charge. For some time, Germans had been wandering into the empire looking for a warmer place to live and a better chance of a stable life. They became farm workers, soldiers, even slaves; it was better than running around in the woods wearing skins, hoping you'd kill a boar that day. But in the fourth century, the influx, which had always been there, increased to a flood. Late in the century, the Romans began to get alarmed at the number of Germans, especially the Goths, within the Empire, and one emperor, Valens, resolved to do something about it. He assembled an army and went to drive the Goths out. Surprise--the Goths were able to put together their own army, crush the imperial army at the battle of Adrianople, and run amok through the empire. Only 32 years later, Rome was taken and sacked by a Gothic army, and from that time on, though the Empire still existed nominally in the west for about another 60 years, German chieftains dictated the governing of Rome. 98 years after the battle of Adrianople, the Roman empire in the West fell. The number of Mexicans living in the United States has reached a level at which anyone who attempts to stop what's going on will face political disaster. The western states, once a Republican bastion (look at the maps of presidential elections from 1952 through 1988), are now very problematic, because of an almost solid Hispanic vote for the Democrats. Taking a strong stand against immigration may be popular in Tennessee or Alabama, but it is already political death in California, New Mexico, Colorado and Nevada and will soon be so in Arizona. (Texas, with a better-assimilated Mexican population and a conservative political culture, is a somewhat different situation, but only somewhat.) If we were going to slam the lid on illegal immigration, the time to do that was 40 years ago, not now. They're here and they're voting.
Remember, issues aren't defined by what is true. Issues are defined by what the media report and how they report it. Until the day that a few of the oil millionaires go out and buy controlling interests in the networks, it won't change.
No, it won't. For them, he was convicted. End of case. The issue of campaign finance laws will permit them to fog over the real issue--was what appeared in the film true?
In response to:

Is It Ever OK To Spank?

Ken6565 Wrote: Sep 23, 2014 2:35 PM
The famous child psychologist Jean Piaget said that there is a period, roughly between the ages of 3 and 5, when spanking is the most effective form of discipline. Before that, they have no idea why they are being hit; after that, their growing ability to reason makes other forms of punishment more effective. There is certainly no justification for a physical punishment that leaves the child injured.
You forget that the American people get their information--and form their opinions--from the news media. TV, newspapers, etc., will make sure that any Democratic chicanery is either covered up or downplayed. But if Republicans engage in anything resembling the tricks the Democrats use, the media will trumpet that and make it seem like it's January 1933 in Germany.
I'd love to see what those 47% who would like fewer restrictions on abortion think are the present restrictions. The present state of the law is abortion on demand for any reason or no reason through six months, and for almost any reason even after six months. The present areas of conflict are as to whether the public should pay for abortions and as to whether doctors and nurses should be required to take steps to keep a baby alive. On July 4 of this year, my granddaughter was born at six months. She is alive and doing well. If our daughter had been inclined to kill that baby instead of having that baby--if she'd had an abortion instead of a C-section--the law would have said that was fine without even an inquiry as to the reason for abortion. It is hard to see how there could be fewer restrictions on abortion. But it tells you something that people in a southern state are pro-abortion. If they're pro-abortion in North Carolina, they're not anti-abortion many places at all.
In response to:

Mob Rule Economics

Ken6565 Wrote: Sep 13, 2014 3:01 PM
There are two ways to assess what someone's work is worth. One is: "How much will a willing employer pay a willing employee?" That's market value. But there's another measure. That is: "How much more would you, were the market to become more competitive for labor, be prepared to pay before the point at which you would eliminate the position?" In hard times, when people are desperate for work, the market will be far below what the work's value to the employer is. In a boom, the market is likely to be very close to that maximum that an employer would, if he had to, be willing to pay. I remember, in the mid-1980's, there was a McDonald's hiring people for $8.50 an hour because labor was short in the area and times were good.
We've known for a long time that Obama and his State Department like ISIS better than Fox News. Someone who wants to kill you is preferable to someone who opposes you politically.
It is time to smite the Amalekite.
The only proper response is--"For every one of our people, a thousand of yours. If you want a war to the death, a war to the death you shall have."
Even if she somehow gets a plurality in the primary election, if those who supported the third candidate in the primary then fall in behind her opponent, she still goes down.
Previous 11 - 20 Next