Previous 11 - 20 Next
"business as usual" is Harry Reid, at the moment. Grab that life vest, Sloan!
Whether this is naked politics makes no difference. He's being forced to bend to the will of the voters. This is a good thing, is it not?
This endless argument makes me suspicious that those arguing for a third party candidate are explicitly trying to subvert the conservative cause: 1) We have seen the success rate of multi-party systems. The notorious Italian Parliament is one. More recently we've had al Maliki's Iraq. A two party system is far more responsive to the voters, and will most often achieve a near-"mandate" in the form of a large plurality if not a majority of the vote. Difficult as this might be to accept, the forced binary decision will ultimately (we pray) push the pendulum back from the brink to which the evil Obama has brought us. 2) Democrats are exponentially more evil than the most ineffectual or unintelligent Republican. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi... I rest my case. 3) Democratic majority in the Senate can accomplish virtually permanent damage to the U.S. (in conscious or unwitting conspiracy with Obama--see Thomas Sowell today) by confirming circuit court judges who will advance the progressive agenda unconstrained by the need to face the voters and stand for election. 4) If we can't agree that the above needs to be addressed, maybe it's already over and the U.S. is already well-into its inevitable decline. Without a real consensus for the minimum required for our survival, we're dead. Obvious, no?
"...including the states!" Sorry. And one other thought: the deduction of taxes paid to other entities has been under attack here and there. Consider that if everybody assesses its own rates, taxes can literally exceed 100%. And before you roll your eyes and dismiss this as a ridiculous, purely theoretical possibility, understand that it has been a reality in the regulation of some financial services corporations when assessments to support government run "excess of loss" funds are taken into account.
There seems to be a gradation of provisions in our 70,000 page tax code that runs from deduction to loophole to unpatriotic, improper evasion. This has always been true: simple tax avoidance schemes are not permitted to be done for the tax purpose only, but are permitted with an acceptable fig leaf. This is typical of liberals' preferred approach to law. Keep it complicated so it can be selectively enforced against political enemies. I would like to see a chart on which Secretary Lew marks off the differences among tax deductions from the personal exemption, the dependent allowances, charitable contributions, etc., to expense depreciation and deduction (including taxes paid to other entities included the states!). The complexity of the tax code, and the hot political rhetoric surrounding this issue are unacceptable in a free country. How do board members exercise their fiduciary responsibilities to their owners, customers, and even employees (you and me!) in this environment? Buffet is a brazen dissembler, but Lew, Obama and others are overtly evil politicians. The rule of law is in danger on many fronts, none more serious than this one.
In response to:

Random Thoughts

Kenneth L. Wrote: Sep 30, 2014 7:20 AM
"The biggest issue in this fall's election is whether the Obama administration will end when Barack Obama leaves the White House or whether it will continue on, by appointing federal judges with lifetime appointments who share President Obama's contempt for the Constitution. Whether such judges will be confirmed by the Senate depends on whether the Senate continues to be controlled by Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid." Thomas Sowell This subversive nonsense must be suppressed. As LD states above, "When people behave and obey the edicts handed down from their rulers, everyone benefits." It's a matter of survival of the collective! Wake up, people.
Michael Hillinger, where are you? This is essentially the Bjorn Lomborg, the Copenhagen Convention, argument. It's a risk-reward analysis, a cost-benefit analysis. As the harm of climate change becomes less and less able to be defined, the idea of condemning developing areas to more time living in poverty, disease, famine, and every kind of deprivation seems cruel in the extreme.
Witness the effect in the performance of our President.
It's ironic that the citation and application of disparate impact requires racist and sexist assumptions by the liberal/progressive pundits and politicians who are so enamored of the theory. The tragic effect of these assumptions is that underperforming groups are never given the help they need to close a gap, but instead are given special exemptions that allow them to gain advantages over others without accomplishing the real underlying learning or tasks that would help them gain success in the real world.
In response to:

Who Wants War?

Kenneth L. Wrote: Sep 23, 2014 5:27 PM
Corbett Wrote: According to you, we need to eradicate Islam from the world -- killing 1/3 of the world's population. ericynot1 Wrote: ISIS is a morbid group of no more than 50,000 thugs. Corbett, I did not suggest any such thing, and ericynot has illustrated ynot (cute, huh?). You are guilty of a straw man argument.
In response to:

Who Wants War?

Kenneth L. Wrote: Sep 23, 2014 12:52 PM
Excellent comment. Thank you. We need to deal with the current reality. All the gum-flapping about why "they" hate us is a waste of energy.
Previous 11 - 20 Next