Previous 11 - 20 Next
In response to:

15 Things I Hate About Politics

Ken6565 Wrote: Aug 16, 2014 10:48 AM
Republican unity necessary to beat the Democrats requires the existence of a center-right coalition. But that coalition can't be based on center candidates always being the nominees with the right voting for them only because they have nowhere else to go. That's not even good for the center people--if the political tension is between center and left, the result will be something center-left, whereas if it is between right and left, the result will be--center! So the center people can't bolt when there's a right candidate, and the right people can't stay home crying about "RINO's" when there's a center candidate. Ideally, the candidate should be someone moderately conservative, not dead center. The conservative base will know that the candidate is with them on most things while the moderates will be comfortable that he isn't far out. In Massachusetts, Scott Brown ran as a center-right candidate in 2010. The moderates liked him, the conservatives liked him, and he beat a liberal Democrat. But in 2012, he tried to run dead center. The conservatives felt like he was abandoning them, and had some justification for that feeling. So they didn't work for his re-election and many stayed home, and a really radical Democrat--worse than the one he beat in 2010--was elected. Should they have stayed home? No--they should have turned out the way they did in 2010. But should he have abandoned the base in an effort to cruise for left-of-center votes? No. Ya dance with the one that brung ya--Scott Brown didn't, and paid the price.
No, they don't accept that the courts' interpretation is the correct one. It wasn't the interpretation ANYONE gave to the First Amendment until 1962. Take a step back. What was the First Amendment's provision on freedom of religion about? It was about the oppressive actions of state churches in Europe to suppress other religions. It was not about making agnosticism the official state religion. Now--when you disagree with a court ruling, do you step back and say, "Gee, that's the law of the land! I mustn't ever challenge it again!" But liberals have a curious view of law and precedent. When they lose, that means that they have to try again in a few years. But when they win, it is holy writ, THE LAW OF THE LAND, and conservatives must give up, shut up, and go home. Why is such a double standard valid? Is it fair to say that your answer is, "Because we're the good guys and you're the bad guys"?
In response to:

An Open Letter To Moderate Muslims

Ken6565 Wrote: Aug 12, 2014 3:41 PM
I agree with much of what you say. But in the 1933 election which brought Hitler to power, the Nazis got about 37% of the vote. So the Nazis were not less than 10% of the population. Similarly, in eastern Europe, we heard often that Communists were about 10% of the people. But in a free eastern Europe, Communists are pretty steadily getting somewhere around 25% everywhere except in the Czech Republic, where a conservative political culture has become dominant and Communists are marginalized. In East Germany, the PDS--the re-named Communist Party--is the dominant party in many areas. More people support the bad guys, be they Nazis, Communists or Muslim fanatics, than we tend to think.
I was saying we should leave Syria alone. There are very few good guys carrying guns there. Assad's a bad guy, but at least he protects the Christians where his troops still control. And supplying the rebels was what got our men in Benghazi killed. In Iraq, our war to depose Saddam was fine. But the de-Baathification policy was a disaster. We should have told Tariq Aziz, "Your boss is gone; you take over, and form a government." Aziz was a Christian. He wouldn't have allowed anything to happen to the Christians, and he had the reputation of keeping his word, something incredibly rare in that part of the world (it's the reason only the Kurds are reliable in Iraq--they actually believe in keeping their word). But we wanted anyone who'd been high in the Saddam government out of there--we were following the model of post-WW2 de-Nazification. That could be done in Germany, a land where competence is almost universal; in Iraq, de-Baathification meant kicking out anyone who knew anything, and that has just played out in the Iraqi Army's inability to stop ISIL or even hold onto its weapons. The work with the tribal chiefs during the surge worked well enough, but they warned that exactly this would happen if we pulled out completely. That's what we did, and that's what happened.
In response to:

The Mockery of 'Black Jesus'

Ken6565 Wrote: Aug 09, 2014 11:19 AM
Yes, they hate black men so much that they elected Tim Scott to the Senate in South Carolina. It's not that this president is too black for them; after all, Scott is quite a bit blacker than Obama. It's that this president is incompetent, and left-wing into the deal. I am originally from Massachusetts, but I deal with southerners all the time, in the Carolinas, Alabama and Mississippi, and they are very intelligent people. I used to share the stereotype you are trying to convey, and found out differently. Either you hung out with the stupidest of the stupid on your trip through the South, and you can find them in Massachusetts, Illinois or California as well as in Alabama, Georgia or Florida, or you've taken the propaganda of Southern Poverty Law Center at face value, or you're wilfully smearing a whole group of people--something that you would object to furiously if someone did it to a group of people you like.
Wrong. Obama failed to set up a status of forces agreement to keep a US presence there.
In response to:

Why Won't Obama Just Leave Ukraine Alone

Ken6565 Wrote: Aug 05, 2014 7:45 PM
Congressman Paul, I'm an admirer of yours. But do you think that if the US de-escalates, the Russians will, too? Please! You know better than that. You're not a fool.
In response to:

Is Thinking Obsolete?

Ken6565 Wrote: Aug 05, 2014 7:43 PM
The whole point of a war is to keep your own civilian casualties lower than the other side's civilian casualties. That's what war is about. If you're not protecting your own people against the attacks of another people, why are you at war?
In response to:

Cease the Cease-Fires

Ken6565 Wrote: Jul 29, 2014 5:06 PM
Here's what you do. You bomb the hell out of the entire boundary of the Gaza Strip with bunker-buster bombs that break down those tunnels. Then you excavate a ditch about 30 feet deep the length of the border. Then you go into the tunnels that are exposed that way with flamethrowers.
I keep trying to understand what this president thinks he's doing. All I can come up with is that he thinks that his agenda is self-evidently right and that any opposition is solely based on racism and a desire to beat him personally. It just doesn't occur to him that someone actually thinks he's wrong.
It is so fascinating that perhaps the two smartest men to be president were two such flawed men as Nixon and Clinton. Ronald Reagan never had their mastery of minutiae, but he could form, and carry out, a broad vision of foreign policy. But the man I think will, two generations from now, be recognized as the single most capable president of the second half of the 20th century is someone nobody even thinks much about now--George H.W. Bush.
Previous 11 - 20 Next