Previous 21 - 30 Next
We have heard apologists for activist courts (like Dahlia Lithwick and Chuck Schumer), and now we'll hear those defending the AG. The objection in each case is the same: how will you feel when the dancing shoe is on the other foot, and the executive or the judge is ruling in his/her wisdom to outlaw abortions, eliminate Miranda rights, declare Obamacare unconstitutional, etc., cleaning up a lot of business that the Congress has lost the courage to deal with?
In response to:

Western Anti-Semitism

Kenneth L. Wrote: Aug 06, 2014 9:49 AM
There you go using logic. I'm not surprised you're retired--probably older than dirt. LOL By the way, even the cessation of military response would probably not satisfy the Jew-haters. They are offended by the dislocation of refugees, the difficulty getting jobs if you live in Gaza, the "blockades," and wall--every aspect of self-defense--all of which has now been exhausted by debate lasting almost 50 years if you count only the actions of Israel since the 1967 War. And no matter how overt the refusal of "Palestinians" to accept the most reasonable two-state solution and leave Israel alone, Israel gets to be the bad guy. Go figure. It's an embarrassment to the civilized world.
Where to begin... Warren is, of course, a liar AND a moron. If a corporation volunteered its profits to a charity in numbers so large as to put its survival in jeopardy its stock holders, via the board of directors, would fire the management and perhaps sue to get the money back. The SEC would investigate and, in today's brave new world, would probably institute prosecution hoping to extort a big fine to keep their budget flush. But our geniuses in the Senate feel that they need to encourage more extra-legal action by our executive. How would they feel if they had a President who took it upon himself to outlaw abortions, or teach actual history and math in public schools?
In response to:

Western Anti-Semitism

Kenneth L. Wrote: Aug 06, 2014 8:41 AM
So much has been written about this latest Israeli defense of itself against the thousands of rockets fired into Isreal, recently reaching even Jerusalem. What's so controversial? If the U.S. were being relentlessly attacked by some group firing rockets at El Paso or Seattle, wouldn't we take steps to defend ourselves? And if Mexico or Canada were unwilling, or not up to the job, would we not take care of it ourselves? And when we did, I'm sure ericynot1 would say we had invaded a country that is not our enemy. Such is the level of discourse in 2014...
In response to:

Western Anti-Semitism

Kenneth L. Wrote: Aug 06, 2014 8:30 AM
Thanks, Duke.
ZealousConscript, you have written some amusing stuff. But it doesn't make any better sense than the nonsense offered by ericynot earlier on the thread. You are offering a false dichotomy of either give up defending one's borders or commit genocide. That's ridiculous, which is why there has been widespread ridicule directed at you this morning. Israel has embarked on a very focused effort to destroy tunnels which illegally cross their border and to destroy rocket launchers that have been shooting thousands of rockets into Israeli cities, finally reaching even Jerusalem. This needs to be done. The rockets are not originating in Palestinian factories. They come from Iran. Israel is under attack by opportunistic enemies playing a smart game of terrorism and politics. Schlichter's point is about excessive sensitivity to what is now called "optics." Those making any sense on this issue argue that Israel has every legal right to defend itself, and that the negative press and resulting negative image are unfortunate effects of a huge double standard mote in the eye of an anti-Semitic West. See Bret Stephens in the WSJ this morning. If you have the brain and/or fortitude, let's hear your plan for ending the violence in the Middle East. And suggesting that "make love, not war," daisies in the ends of rifles, granny dresses and marijuana are the answer... Bzzzzzzzzzzzz. You lose.
I suspect I'm a lot older than you. In any case I would say that your historical reference period is terribly short. The U.S. never "invaded countries that have not attacked us" unless you interpret the actions of Iraq to be in that category, and that is questionable. We were attacked on 9/11 and those harboring the people who did it were de facto enemy. "Defense industries" are a necessary evil if we are to have a stable, peaceful world. Necessary, but not sufficient, as we are proving with our recent feckless foreign policy.
Several arguments can be made about when we stopped. Some would say 1973, others would say when Obama decided to "lead from behind." There has been a progression of weak, unintelligent and unintelligible policy which has led us to the current impotence. Enjoy, eric. This will not end well, I promise you.
ericynot1 Wrote: "I'm curious, Mike. Many people ridicule Chamberlain for his 1938 "Peace for our time" pronouncement blowing up in his face. But what do you think he SHOULD have done vis-a-vis Hitler? Just declare unilateral war on Germany?" The answer to that is easy, eric. When you draw a red line you should enforce it. If Europe had had the courage when Austria was annexed to tell Hitler "no" none of what followed would have been necessary. Perhaps Chamberlain had no options because Europe lacked any intestinal fortitude and integrity. We've been fortunate on this planet in recent decades that the U.S. was able to act in this role without help. When we stopped you saw the chaos and violence escalate immediately. The question you should be asking is how and when will it stop.
Corbett, I've read your recent posts, essentially summed up in this one. The problem you have is that there are equally relevant factors on the other side of this argument. You say stop sanctions, killing, invading, and so on. Hard to argue except that your response to Joan reveals the flaw in your logic. People did kill us on 9/11, first attack on our soil since 1941. We can argue and argue about all the causal events in history back to the Crusades, but I think our most relevant error in recent history has been to give up our "wars" before they're finished, starting with the humiliating end to the Viet Nam conflict. In for an inch, in for a mile. Otherwise we invite the kind of nose-thumbing aggression against our allies and ourselves that is becoming almost universal, and which may result in the 3rd World War and/or the end of civilization.
Nah, you're wrong. I win. Back to work.
Previous 21 - 30 Next