Previous 11 - 20 Next
Not all anti-Christians are so irrational and crazy. That's why we should distinguish between secularism (which is negative) and humanism (which affirms positive values).
The US doesn't "occupy" Yemen. After WWII, the US did occupy Germany and Japan, yet this didn't cause German or Japanese terrorism. Not that occupation is necessarily a wise policy, the way it has been done is altruistic and sacrificing of American interests. 3 civilian deaths out of 55 is a very low level of collateral damage. Much, much lower than in previous wars. RP objects to the war the US is trying to wage against Al Qaeda and like-minded groups; he appears more concerned when the US actually does attack terrorists, and less concerned about American help to terrorists in Egypt, Libya, and Syria. Ron Paul has documented multiple links to white nationalists. Such as the neo-nazi Willis Carto, who rented his Spotlight mailing list to Ron Paul for fundraising purposes. Ron Paul does not represent American values so much as he represents anti-Israel, pro-neo-Christian and white nationalist values. He is utterly clueless on foreign policy and a crazy old man.
In response to:

AEI: Will Russia Invade East Ukraine?

kevin837 Wrote: Apr 21, 2014 3:57 PM
Economic sanctions by themselves tend to not be effective. Particularly when there isn't a worldwide consensus. Particularly when Europe is highly dependent on oil and natural gas and other raw materials from Russia. Sanctions are a prelude to war. The most effective sanctions are those enforced by military power.
Alcohol use also kills brain cells. What is the political point here? Townhall isn't a medical journal, it is devoted to politics. Hence, the name, "Townhall".
In response to:

Whose Side Is God on Now?

kevin837 Wrote: Apr 04, 2014 11:49 PM
Putin is conning Christians. He wants restrictions on abortion, homosexuality, and porn for one simple reason: they interfere with his goal of repopulating Russia, which has a lot of territory but a decline population. However such methods have limited effectiveness. If someone likes gay sex or porn, there is nothing the law can do to change that. Concerning abortion, he isn't outlawing it, but simply putting reasonable restrictions, similar to those in the US. Ultimately we have to face the fact that as technology and economics improve, people will want a more pleasurable life and raising children can interfere with that. Why not allow infertile couples the full range of technological possibilities, including artificial wombs or biological hosts of a similar species. This relieves the human woman of the burden of carrying a child. Many couples want to adopt but are unable, or unwilling to raise a problem child who may have bad genetics.
In response to:

Deflating Russia Can Be Done

kevin837 Wrote: Mar 23, 2014 4:09 PM
What's the point? The West has bigger fish to fry. We don't need another inter-European war. This one may spell the end of western civilization, due to declining demographics, culture, and economics. There is no way that Putin would pull out of Ukraine based on sanctions. Europeans have to buy his oil and other raw materials. Russia has other customers who would buy and in any event, oil is fungible and sanctions a mere nuisance. Russia will figure out how to do business without the US dollar. While Europeans squabble (if we count Obama as a European), Iran is on the fast track to getting nukes.
Washington's "list of rules" didn't include a prohibition on pot. He did grow hemp, the kind of cannabis that is virtually non-psychoactive. Back then, getting high from pot was not well-known. Though people often abused alcohol, to blunt pain that was not resolved through the-then primitive medicine. Pot and alcohol have health benefits, but generally pot has less harmful side-effects. You don't like pot because of it's image. One's man's "licentiousness" is another man's hobby. Personally I think karate is more threatening to health than pot, and religion alters consciousness more than pot. To each his own, live and let live. Of course we need some rules, but those rules should be agreed to, not imposed; unless we are talking about the common law. That is, the laws in common to all nations (Jus Gentium).
In response to:

Ann Coulter's Conservative Sell-Out

kevin837 Wrote: Feb 06, 2014 3:22 AM
Oh---the noblesse oblige. The author must be "to the manor born", and growing a lucrative crop in his greenhouse, to be so (ostentatiously) indifferent to working for money. I suppose he would have us all in a religious retreat, contemplating the angels. Meanwhile, back in reality, McCain was a putz and Hillary would have been better for two reasons: Bill Clinton the triangulater and the repellant personality of Hillary that would have galvanized congressional opposition. Like how they opposed Hillary-care. And we could do a lot worse (and not much better) if Alan Dershowitz were on the US Supreme Court. I say that as a Libertarian, though we are known to show up at CPAC as well. Islam is incompatible with freedom and humanism. Social conservatives of whatever stripe, terrorists whether Crusader or Jihader, are not the sort we ought to welcome into civilized society much less with a movement dedicated to freedom in thought, commerce, and personal life.
In response to:

Alcohol vs. Marijuana (Part 1)

kevin837 Wrote: Jan 29, 2014 3:48 AM
People specialize, which is why Chuck Norris is not an expert on everything. He's a martial arts and fitness expert, and good at acting. He's not a nutritionist. Wheat, even whole wheat organically grown, isn't that good; vegetables and a small portion of lean meat are better. Further, toasting at above 120 degrees F tends to destroy nutritional value of the bread. Pot is not physically addictive. Those who claim it is addictive, are fudging the definition of "addictive". They are including subjective mood as if that were important. Driving while intoxicated is a separate issue from legalization. We don't want people driving while drunk, nor do we want them driving while stoned. Although being stoned on pot is not a dangerous as being drunk on alcohol. Because alcohol is more debilitating, physically and mentally. Pot and alcohol should not be consumed by children or teenagers. Because their brains are being formed. Being stoned on pot may temporarily lower IQ by a few points, but because pot is far less dangerous than alcohol, potheads tend to have a higher IQ even with the alleged 8 point reduction.
In response to:

One Nation Under Drugs

kevin837 Wrote: Jan 16, 2014 8:27 PM
Where to begin....the ignorance compounded by arrogance displayed here is truly stunning. Let's start with numbers. Prior to I-502, the state had to prove impairment in order to charge someone with driving while impaired. Subsequent to it's passage, a "per se" limit was established for THC (but not for alcohol). That means, someone can be convicted for smoking pot hours (perhaps days) previously, regardless of whether or not they are impaired. To not realize this will increase statistics for conviction (without increasing impairment) evidences a kind of failure of thought which the author projects unto others. What better way to pave the road to socialism, than to encourage the kind of magical thinking evidenced here. A form a mental impairment not caused by drugs, but perhaps--almost certainly--by religious fanaticism. Scottie's pretty little head apparently has not wrapped itself around the fact that prohibition provides indirect subsidy to drug gangs, including those affiliated with Islamist terrorists. How many people will be maimed or killed, caught in the crossfire of this crazy war?
In response to:

Is America Going to Pot?

kevin837 Wrote: Jan 07, 2014 7:35 PM
Beer and whiskey have the same active ingredient: alcohol. Pot and cocaine are entirely different and have no ingredients in common. Cigarettes kill over 400,000 people each year. Yet pot does not directly cause any deaths. If people are inebriated, by whatever substance, they should not drive. Pat's thinking is so out of touch with reality, I wonder if he has the competence to drive a vehicle. He does not have the ability to drive a logical argument.
Previous 11 - 20 Next