1 - 10 Next
In response to:

America's Question: Cut or Crash?

KrankyMike Wrote: Aug 13, 2014 11:03 AM
Just goes to show that there some small silver lining to every dark cloud: we won't be able to fund the EPA any more.
In response to:

Get Ready for Denials

KrankyMike Wrote: Aug 13, 2014 10:58 AM
Mexico cannot possibly be mean and racist. Can we have the same border security that they do? Oh good. That means that we can turn away illegals at gunpoint. Let's also adopt their voting laws while we're at it: No one not born in Mexico can vote in Mexico. Ever.
In response to:

Is ISIS 'An Existential Threat'?

KrankyMike Wrote: Aug 12, 2014 6:42 AM
Was Nazi Germany an existential threat to the United States in 1936? Were they even an existential threat in until 1941 when the US declared war on Japan and Germany was obliged to declare was on us because of the Tripartite Pact? Sometimes it is better to nip cancer when it is small, rather than wait for metastasis.
Hugh, You can say that we are not at war with all Muslims, but Islam is at war with us. This has been true since the Battle of the Trench in 627 AD, where Mohamed slaughtered all the men of the Jewish Banu Qurayja and took the women and children into slavery for refusing to convert. The Quran is not at all ambiguous. All the world must convert or die.
In response to:

WWI Demons Live

KrankyMike Wrote: Aug 07, 2014 1:38 PM
Exactly. Germans felt that they had been unjustly defeated. Germany was not ruined by the war, but by the treaty. Thus, they felt the need to try again.
In response to:

WWI Demons Live

KrankyMike Wrote: Aug 07, 2014 9:08 AM
A lesson we learned in WWI and applied in WWII was that an enemy had to be defeated utterly in a war. We did not defeat Germany in WWI: we had an armistice rather than an unconditional surrender. German soldiers were allowed to walk home with their weapons. We figured out that this was a bad idea by WWII and fought both Axis powers to complete and ignominious defeat. Now we seem to have lost our senses completely and demand that everything be a proportional response. We have seen the results of these cancerous tumors being allowed to live on and fester in Korea, Iraq, the Middle East, and many other places. When the response is "proportionate", there is no real downside to adventurism: "Nothing ventured, nothing gained," as Saddam must have said in 1990. The consequences of aggression must be devastating or future aggression will not be deterred. For example, the proportionate response of Israel to the rocket attacks serves no purpose other than to prolong the conflict. When they bulldoze Gaza into the sea, the attacks will stop.
Last Sunday, we had a free-will offering at our church to support people who were planning to go on missions to Africa. Afterwards on the way home, my wife and I discussed the greater need to evangelize in our native New England, where secularism is on a jihad. On the other hand, it is wise to spend your limited resources where they will do the most good. Christianity is on the rise in Africa, and it is often a truer church than the one at home (no gay bishops or marriage, for example). Evangelism here at home is opposed by the culture, the government, the Freedom from Religion Foundation, Planned Parenthood, (I could go on), and all their legions of prostitute lawyers who will sell their services to any cause as long as it pays well. The ground at home is stony and hard, while the ground abroad is still fertile.
In response to:

The Loophole is Obama

KrankyMike Wrote: Jul 31, 2014 9:20 AM
Not with our current military. Obama has promoted his own quislings into the command staff. They are more likely to stage a coup to make Obama dictator for life.
In response to:

The Loophole is Obama

KrankyMike Wrote: Jul 31, 2014 8:41 AM
I have to agree with anonymous. The founding fathers, at least according to Benjamin Franklin and James Madison, intended impeachment as a tool to be used in order to maintain the balance of power, not as a weapon too drastic ever to be used. "High crimes and misdemeanors", does not refer to "high" (very serious) crimes but to crimes and misconduct by "high" persons, defined as anyone who is in an office of authority by virtue of an oath or affirmation. It was a term of art in English common law to cover nearly any action a public official might take that would displease the legislature. Early in our republic, officials were apparently not well versed in their Blackstone and conflated the term to mean actual crimes, declining to impeach anyone except in the most extreme circumstances. The modern media and Democrat party has doubled down on this concept such that anything short of serial murder (except by a Republican, of course) fails to rise to the level of impeachment. The result is that there is now almost no way to reign in the abuses of a left-wing president or justice. Legal scholars have pointed out that even lying to the public in connection with official duties technically constitutes an impeachable offence by the president. We should have impeached this guy within weeks of taking office.
In response to:

The Loophole is Obama

KrankyMike Wrote: Jul 31, 2014 7:41 AM
Obama wants to be impeached. He believes that the resulting backlash is the only thing that will save him and his party. He will keep pushing the envelope of legality until the Republicans have no choice. It's frightening to think of how far he might go, and worse, that he will get away with it.
1 - 10 Next