Previous 11 - 20 Next
It's about time conservatives rejected these absurd attacks, rather than cowering and making excuses whenever a liberal shouts "racist" or "Nazi".
Any WW2 Nazi would have to be in their 80s or older by now. And someone who was an 18-year-old Nazi in WW2 probably wasn't a decision-maker, more likely he was a mindless follower. How many of these people are still alive? And meanwhile, people who owned slaves before the Civil War are still living the good life!
Muslim terrorists burn down villages, cut off people's heads, rape little girls, and torture children to death. The West responds by sitting around trying to think of mean names to call them. I'm sure they're quaking with fear right now at the thought of what nasty name John Kerry might call them next. Maybe if their behavior gets really outrageous, he'll write a strongly worded diplomatic note.
I understand the sentiment, and Obama has surely made the problem worse, but America has had this problem for a long time. We sold out Poland after World War 2. We stranded the anti-Castro Cubans on the invasion beaches in the early 1960s. We abandoned Vietnam in the mid 70s. We stabbed the Shah or Iran in the back in the late 70's. Briefly under Reagan, and again briefly under Bush II, the U.S. stood up for its friends and faced down its enemies. But those were aberrations. Obama has just returned to the historical norm. Years ago, when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, I saw a news report where the liberal reporter compared this to the U.S. response to the occupation of our embassy in Iran. He was just glowing how this showed the world the difference between America's "measured, legal response" and the Soviet's tough, violent actions. He seemed to actually think that this would help U.S. foreign relations by proving that we were nicer people. But, umm, it seems to me that the lesson that the world learned is that if you offend the Soviets, they send an army to burn your country to the ground. If you offend the U.S., we publish strongly worded letters of complaint. Which kind of country would you rather have as a friend, and which as an enemy?
We respect people of all religions and beliefs. That's why everyone who believes something different from us must be censored and silenced.
In response to:

The Other America

mjohansen Wrote: Dec 11, 2014 12:50 PM
Our government subsidizes laziness and incompetence at every level: from handouts to big corporations to handouts to people too drunk or high to get jobs, from free health care for people who don't feel like buying medical insurance to under-priced flood insurance for rich people's beach front homes. And yet, somehow, the country continues to function. It's only possible because the majority of people either don't realize how easy it is to take advantage of the system, or have too much pride to do something they know is dishonest.
In order to insure that our next president is someone who will fight for individual freedom and respect for ordinary Americans, we need to get a small group of the elite together to pick the best candidate, because if it's left up to the people they may choose the wrong candidate. The only way to protect our freedom is to blindly follow self-appointed leaders.
Change the dates to the 1800's and replace every occurrence of "abortion" with "slavery", and I think you'd have an article that is equally true. Back then the Democrats were hard-core pro-slavery just as they are hard-core pro-abortion today, and the Whigs were theoretically anti-slavery but uninterested in pushing the issue, just like the Republicans today on abortion. It took the creation of a new party to get anything to change. In his inaugural address, John Buchanan, the president before Lincoln, talked about the need to get over divisive issues like slavery and talk about the things that were really important: his example were improving our relations with Europeans who opposed our war with Mexico, and resolving the vital Constitutional question of whether the federal government can finance a highway in California. Anybody today think those questions were more important than slavery? I suspect future generations will be baffled how Americans could debate tax policy and medical insurance while all around them millions of babies were being systematically killed.
I have one minor point of disagreement: If someone face hardship for breaking a law that is fair and just, yes, he brought it on himself. But if someone faces hardship because he broke an unjust law, or was singled out by government officials for persecution, whether because of racial or political or religious discrimination, or a personal grudge, that's a different story. Personally, I have some sympathy for illegal aliens because I believe our immigration laws are too restrictive. (Yes, I realize I'm out of step with most of my fellow conservative on this point. Or they're out of step with me. :-)
I don't want to put words in Mr Hawkin's mouth, but nowhere in this post did he say that EVERY bad thing that happens to you is your own fault. He just said that many things are. Sure, there are people who have worked hard all their lives and are now unemployed because of large scale economic forces outside their control. But there are also people who are unemployed because they've been fired from every job they ever had because they don't bother to show up for work, they keep getting caught stealing from the company, they start fist-fights with other employees, etc. Surely it is reasonable to say that we should try to distinguish the true victims from the irresponsible, and give charity to the former but not the latter.
But is he being responsible about his work-from-home job?
Previous 11 - 20 Next