Previous 11 - 20 Next
In response to:

What Drives Anti-Fracking Zealots?

Kenneth L. Wrote: Sep 22, 2014 10:53 AM
What drives the ani-fracking zealots? The usual: ignorance.
In response to:

What Drives Anti-Fracking Zealots?

Kenneth L. Wrote: Sep 22, 2014 10:52 AM
"The all-inclusive title would have us believe that all environmentalists are dishonest, flawed persons." Chip, you miss the point. No, they are not all dishonest. And their flaw is one of a well-meaning useful idiot. It's not evil, just pathetic. Consider an analogous issue. Transporting oil by train is far more dangerous than transporting it by pipeline, but there is hysterical opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline by well-meaning environmentalists. By the way, Chip. Where do you stand on the Keystone pipeline?
Many of these comments make a lot of sense, but there are a couple of misconceptions that explain the seeming contradictions: 1) When conservatives support immigration reform, it's for high-tech, engineering, science and math, etc., not for "landscaping and gardening help for the rich." It has been shown that each immigrant in these jobs creates an additional 3 or more jobs needed in support roles, to maximize their productivity. John McCain, Marco Rubio, and their ilk are no conservatives. Politicians in general are ill-equipped to deal with this issue. 2) Milton Friedman was right. We can't have open borders and a welfare state that competes against entry-level jobs. 3) Black and "Native" Americans do indeed have a unique history. It's a history of oppression by an incompetent government employing mainly liberal/progressive/socialist Democrat policies.
In response to:

Why Do Liberals Love Obama Anyway?

Kenneth L. Wrote: Sep 22, 2014 10:24 AM
Duh! Lib/Prog/Socialist Democrats have painted themselves into a corner. If you oppose the anointed one on anything you're a racist.
In response to:

Your 'To Do' List to Save America

Kenneth L. Wrote: Sep 19, 2014 8:44 AM
You have reasoned your way to defeat. What you miss is that politics is a perverse process, and being right doesn't carry the day. You should listen to Ann and Thomas Sowell when they write on this subject. If we lose the Supreme Court we've lost the USA.
In response to:

Your 'To Do' List to Save America

Kenneth L. Wrote: Sep 19, 2014 8:33 AM
johnm h Wrote: "Of course we should challenge in primaries and of course we must vote against all Democrats in the general election." john, this is the right answer, of course. But Ann (and Thomas Sowell, if you're questioning her gravitas) is writing about political realities. We know these are realities because we read on this very site people who promise to simply stay home if their libertarian or TEA Party candidate loses the primary. They refuse to vote for RINOs. Another "right" answer is that everyone has to vote in these primaries. 12%, 20%... These turnouts aren't going to cut it. And wishful thinking isn't going to get Christine O'Donnell or Sharon Angle elected. Finally, Harry Reid is an almost perfectly evil, self-interested politician. We're not going to prevail against him unless we get him out. And Ann is absolutely right about the courts. Harry Reid is a temporary evil. A liberal Supreme Court could transform this country in a permanent way. Like it or not, it is imperative that we acknowledge the political reality and get the Senate majority to stop judicial activists from taking away our constitutional rights and imposing their politically correct orthodoxy (free speech, guns, etc.). It's life or death, john.
Heretic, I agree that Townhall readers a generally well-informed conservatives and thus do not suffer from ignorance or racist beliefs to the degree that liberal progressive socialist Democrats do. But there is a great deal of ignorance in the country. I think Kerwick's point is much like Thomas Sowell's point when he writes about unemployment rates and illegitimate birth rates prior to the 1960s. It's to surprise those ignorant of history to help them overcome the tendency to make racist assumptions based on what they observe in the present. The change in violent propensities can be emphatically shown to be related to perverse public policies pursued by government at all levels since the late 1960s. Recognition of this (and, in fact, ownership of this reality by Democrats) could go a long way toward helping us begin the long process of recovery from our worst social pathologies.
In response to:

When Corporations Flee

Kenneth L. Wrote: Sep 16, 2014 8:13 AM
"The sheer size of government is the major factor in all this corruption." Not only corruption, but reduced GDP. Imagine we're a small group on a desert island. If 10% of us are employed by government we make less food, housing, means of transportation, technology, etc. Our standard of living suffers. Imagine that we put 20% or 30% to work for government. Even disregarding the gross inefficiency of and harassment by government, it's obvious that we need fewer unproductive people and more productive people to improve our standard of living. Who furthers that goal? Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and their ilk, or Governor Moonbeam?
In response to:

Voter Fraud and the Loss of Pretense

Kenneth L. Wrote: Sep 13, 2014 8:32 AM
"The New Georgia Project, which touts itself as a nonpartisan voter registration group, faces allegations “including forged voter registration applications, forged signatures on some applications, and voters told they were legally required to re-register.”" Isn't that interesting. Reminiscent of Acorn during a presidential campaign by the same party, continuing their protestations that voter fraud isn't a problem. It's a problem alright--a problem going back a long way, and at least back to the Kennedy/Nixon election in my lifetime. These people are simply shameless criminals.
kmasssey, if I can understand your poorly edited comment it seems you are suggesting that blacks had a uniquely bad situation, even compared to other minority groups. Granted. But have you read Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams on this subject? Between the Civil War and the 1950s, blacks were doing very well. Families were intact, unemployment rates were low, and economic well-being was improving. Unfortunately, something got in the way of that progress. Beginning in the 1960s black unemployment, violent criminality and incarceration rates and out-of-wedlock birth rates skyrocketed. This coincided with the beginning of the Great Society entitlement programs after passage of the civil rights and voting rights acts. What happened? It's dangerous to find causation in a correlation, of course. But fifty years into this disaster, don't you think it's time to try something new? To imply that Jim Crow is responsible for what we have now is absurd, But more important it's counter-productive in the extreme. These people need help, and you are defending the status quo. Why?
In response to:

Ignorance Fuels the Calls for War

Kenneth L. Wrote: Sep 04, 2014 5:13 PM
Obviously there is no format on this and other online comments threads that would permit space for in-depth discussion. Nevertheless, it is disappointing that so many words are written that don't even address the issue under discussion. I have written that Chapman's thesis seems to me to be black/white thinking in that it ignores the passage of time and relevant history. Nobody argues that we should work hard to preserve a state of war. But to say, in sophomoric and pop-culture fashion, "war is not the answer," PEACE," "Make Love not War," "COEXIST," and all the other drivel on bumper stickers and in popular song does not provide a solution. We were attacked by Japan after working assiduously to isolate ourselves, and this was half a century before the explosion in communication technology and trade. The worst-ever attack on the mainland of the U.S. was on 9/11. To say we should avoid war is to say nothing. And to say "Ignorance Fuels..." a thing is utterly obnoxious.
Previous 11 - 20 Next