Previous 31 - 40 Next
In response to:

Megyn Kelly And The Abortion Phile

Mag14 Wrote: Dec 10, 2014 11:34 AM
"...something that should be given a great deal of consideration and soul searching, and it is something that only a qualified physician might be able to determine." Unfortunately we neither mandate consideration nor legislate soul searching. And it is qualified physicians who are deciding that a woman's mental health is grounds for late-term abortions.
In response to:

To The Left, Lying About Rape Is Just Dandy

Mag14 Wrote: Dec 10, 2014 1:41 AM
"But for the left, it's narrative first, facts second." Actually, that's a weakness of all human beings once a narrative has been established. Despite this failing I believe most on the left are willing to examine the facts that come to light and to agree that the Rolling Stone story and the Lena Dunham story were falsified (though they'll certainly be keeping the narrative close to hand for next time). This is not to excuse Rolling Stone, Dunham, or the Official Feminist McEwan from whom I suspect we'll not hear again: they are scum who not only put the narrative ahead of facts they actively deny or hide the facts.
Please reread what I wrote; I did not confuse the two terms.
While the gist of the article remains well considered, Prager does some strange gymnastics with the idea that the Bible avoids commanding us to love our parents because it is sometimes impossible but does command us to love our neighbor (surely that too is sometimes impossible with regard to specific neighbors). At the end of the essay we are told that it may also be impossible to honor a specific parent...so how is that different from it being impossible to love a specific parent? The Bible more likely assumes that you will love your parents, children, and family by default but will find it more difficult to extend that love to a neighbor.
What you refer to as the fall of the Soviet Union is really the shrinking of the Soviet Union. They ran out of money (or in Bush's parlance, 'they were pushed'). If diplomacy is the art of saying, "nice doggy" until you can find a rock, consider that Russia ran out of rocks. When you lose a real war the victors tend to dismantle your war machines and put mechanisms into place to prevent future build-up. When you lose a cold war apparently the victors assume you're eternally harmless and dismantle their own war machines. The fact is, we don't know where the threat is. That is why we put bases around the globe so that when one of the known unknowns becomes an actual threat we can use existing soldiers, planes, ships, materiel and supply lines rather than starting from scratch. This is why cities have numerous fire stations instead of one big one built where real estate is the cheapest. I'd love to turn over the world's policing to a better country or countries. But objectively? there aren't any.
In response to:

House Chooses New Cold War With Russia

Mag14 Wrote: Dec 08, 2014 9:28 PM
It's not a new cold war, it's the same old cold war and it is fought in the media and in the UN more than it is fought with guns.
Jacoby's article, regardless of where you stand on posting our military in foreign countries, is that such countries prosper by our presence rather than suffer as was often supposed before Kane's research.
If the West hadn’t encouraged a coup to overthrow a democratically elected government, the Russians might not be in Crimea. And as an added benefit, we wouldn’t have the risk of a military conflict with a country that has thousands of nuclear warheads and the ability to deliver them. Russia’s wanted Crimea back since they left with Ukraine. We’ve had the risk of a nuclear conflict with Russia since shortly after WWII. China’s greater ability to hit our Asian bases with missiles doesn’t make them a liability. It makes them the thing that deters China from hitting both our bases and the countries in which our bases were built. Defending South Korea from North Korea has certainly gotten easier the longer the South has had to develop (and the North has had to become ever more Third-World) but we still have the advantage of that base against China today and any other Asian threats tomorrow. Our debt does indeed exceed our GDP. This is due to many different kinds of Federal spending. The one spending that interests me less than the others if the only one actually listed in the Constitution: defense. Having said that, I freely admit that we could trim defense spending without compromising that defense, and should do so. But only in trade for trimming other spending since paring down defense would result in that money going to fatten other, less justifiable programs.
Having our military in other countries (ones we are at peace with) helps us respond to threats quickly. Otherwise mobilizing forces would take a very long time indeed. People rightly pointed out that Bengazi could have been addressed almost instantly. That is only due to the fact that we maintain air bases nearby. Our bases in Japan have helped prevent China from doing what they are currently doing (due to our weak president whose first instinct is to use the military for photo ops). Same with our forces in Europe keeping a lid on Soviet expansionism. Had we put bases in Poland and elsewhere it is quite possible that Russia would not be in the Crimea. Our Korean bases keep the Jong Ils from spreading his insanity and our bases in the Middle East act as lightning rods that draw Taliban attacks that might otherwise occur within our borders. Comparing wars and saber-rattlings around the world during the Bush years to those during the Obama years makes a compelling case that global reach, in combination with a strong president, decreases the likelihood of wars or provocations. When our nation was new there were no airplanes and most external threats could be dealt with at sea. We could easily whip up an army almost from scratch because we were a nation of riflemen. Now we need planes both for rapid response and for troop deployment. That means having our own airports and troops around the world. The military is the handmaiden of capitalism and has been since soldier-guarded caravans and warship-guarded convoys. We can cut our reach and forces but if we do piracy, coups and conquering will proliferate in that vacuum. Perhaps other nations will step forward, but none will do it as effectively as we did. And it will be THEIR interests that will be defended first, not ours. For over half a century the world has been a very dangerous place: for invaders. I like it that way.
In response to:

Black Crime and Police Killings

Mag14 Wrote: Dec 07, 2014 2:20 PM
Chapman is an idiot. This has been well established but this collection of loosely-connected feelings and suspicions by various people that he cobbles into straw-man ‘views’, ‘messages’ and ‘themes’ really showcases Chapman’s inability to make an argument. “When a white cop kills an unarmed black man.... Many whites, however, say it's the fault of blacks.” Um, no. Many people of various colors say it’s the fault of the specific unarmed black man because the officer in question had reasonable grounds to believe that the man that he was dealing with was both involved in criminal activity and was in fact either armed or presented a legitimate danger to the officer (e.g. trying to grab the officer’s gun). BUT these same people also believe that it is reasonable and proper that this officer be removed from most or all duties pending an investigation into his actions. “The fact that blacks make up a large share of the violent criminal population gives many whites the impression that violent criminals make up a large share of the black population. They don't.” Steve. Everyone knows this except for the most ardent unreconstructed racists – not ‘many whites’ as you claim. Is it possible you went to guilt school? “Black children afflicted with these disadvantages often take the wrong path as teens or adults. And when they turn out badly, people like Giuliani act as though whites bear no responsibility.” Steve, I don’t know how to break this to you but...whites bear no responsibility. We can’t swoop in and fix these social pathologies. We’re not invited, we’re not trusted, and in the end, these pathologies can’t be repaired from the outside regardless of how many ‘programs’ are enacted, money transferred, unearned opportunities mandated. You know that proverb about how it takes a village to raise a child? White people are not a part of the village we’re talking about. We’ve been trying to help for over a century. Things have steadily gone downhill. Oh, and ‘take the wrong path’? I think you mean ‘commit crimes’. “Conservatives are right to say that many of the problems afflicting black communities grow out of lamentable conditions in black communities. Their mistake is thinking that's the end of the discussion. It's only the beginning.” Steve can’t even make a convincing argument. Any ‘discussion’ he is involved in will just be the usual wallowing in guilt that has gotten us nowhere in a hundred years. No thanks.
In response to:

“Empathize With Our Enemies?"

Mag14 Wrote: Dec 07, 2014 12:30 AM
The ONLY reason to try to see things from your enemies perspective is so you can kill them more effectively.
Previous 31 - 40 Next