Previous 21 - 30 Next
In response to:

How Foreign Is Our Policy?: Part II

Kenneth L. Wrote: Apr 02, 2014 3:03 PM
"...BY no means certain..."
In response to:

How Foreign Is Our Policy?: Part II

Kenneth L. Wrote: Apr 02, 2014 3:01 PM
Dr. Sowell says "...it is my no means certain..." My words are that "...it is difficult to prove..." I think we are both right in this assessment. That is not to say that we shouldn't be aware of the possibility, nor that a man can't be judged by his actions as well as his words. It's just to say it's difficult to prove evil intent without a mind-reader. Some Marxists are simply naïve. But my main point is that this is not to say that he should not be removed from office. He is incompetent. Do you disagree? And I think it is beyond doubt that we are "really in trouble."
In response to:

How Foreign Is Our Policy?: Part II

Kenneth L. Wrote: Apr 02, 2014 9:35 AM
"Critics who say that President Obama is naive and inexperienced in foreign policy, and blame that for the many setbacks to American interests during this administration may be right. But it is by no means certain that they are." Dr. Sowell, I think you are making a distinction without a difference. While it is horrible to imagine that Obama, or anyone, would deliberately subvert the best interests of our country, it is difficult to prove what is in the man's heart and mind. And I recall many actual sophomores, at the age of sophomores, whose understanding of foreign policy was more or less at the level of John Lennon's lovely song "Imagine." In any case, I was taught that one of the elements of ethical practice is competence. It's the reason for continuing education requirements of professionals. As this president is clearly incompetent, regardless of the reason, he is guilty of unethical performance in office. If we had an adult in politics in either party they would take steps to remove him.
"...points Mr. Schlichter makes or not..." Sorry.
We're quickly lost in the weeds, as usual, nit-picking based on every liberal narrative whether it directly bears on the points Mr. Hawkins makes or not, and chasing every red herring like the recent "white males get paid more than woman and minorities." I'll tell you what to think about: if this country is destroyed from within in this age of lightning fast communication and a world economy, who is going to become the next "last best hope of earth"? China? Russia? Tired old Europe? My view is that this country came into being at a unique time--bright people with really good education following the enlightenment period in our intellectual evolution as humans. The chances that another country like this one will form is about equal to life evolving from primordial soup into something as advanced as human beings. Zero. And if it happened it would take millions of years. We should attempt to preserve this until something comes along that can be proven to be better. stedes, et al, you'll get what you deserve if you're not careful.
Fact is white males on average get paid more than woman and minorities for the same work. stedes, this is simply not true. If you factor in experience, hours worked (by male medical students, for example), etc., this canard has been debunked a dozen times. Why do you repeat it here? "Fact is" women are finishing college in greater numbers than men at both the undergraduate and graduate/professional school level, and among younger workers women are pulling ahead of men in terms of promotions and salary increases. Not good enough for you, maybe, but no excuse for repeating a lie. If you want to use the "same work" comparison, make sure you are talking about equal work.
oldshortfatboy Wrote: I'll wager that you're going to get some comments on that. Culture and religion are sensitive subjects. But it should be possible to identify elements of each, and take them out of religious or cultural context. Anthropologists attempt to look at culture objectively and simply observe what works and what doesn't. Mr. Hawkins is pointing out very nicely the most important things that have worked for the U.S. Except for geography, these are things within our control, and we must work assiduously to protect them against the attack by Obama and his allies.
In response to:

How Foreign is Our Policy?

Kenneth L. Wrote: Apr 01, 2014 7:48 AM
Judging by his actions, and his own words (written in his autobiographies), we must consider the possibility that he is doing what he is doing deliberately, with malicious intent. The realization of malice helps to focus opposition, which becomes nothing more than necessary defense of our priceless legacy.
In response to:

The Problem Is Liberalism, Not Racism

Kenneth L. Wrote: Mar 31, 2014 11:09 AM
You put poor Congressman Ryan in a bad position, KY. Responding to Ms. Lee's comments would be akin to reacting to a child's faux pas. It's better left to speak for itself. Ryan will only be further vilified by the same ilk if he responds, and we can't expect to media to weigh in in any helpful way. Lose, lose, and lose again.
I agree with Ms. Wright. Anybody in the public eye should know enough not to call a black man an "ape." And it's inevitable that Rumsfeld will be identified with the Republican Party, like it or not. There is no question that Republicans have not been as focused, disciplined, or even as articulate or intelligent as the Democrats as far as politics is concerned. And this is a shame, because if it means we live with Democrat policy we all suffer grievously.
God bless you, Steve, you're an idiot. There is a difference between helping a neighbor and employing a public entitlement policy that condemns generations of poor to a life of dependency, hopelessness and illiteracy leading to incarceration. Helping neighbors, according to Arthur Brooks, is what conservatives do in larger numbers. So you are also an outlier, unless you're just a liar.
Previous 21 - 30 Next