Previous 21 - 30 Next
In response to:

What Have You Said in Private?

Ms Kelly Wrote: Apr 29, 2014 6:16 AM
"I am convinced that they (cameras) are indispensable to apprehending violent criminals, as they were in the case of the Boston Marathon terrorists." We could have a completely crime free nation if that were our first priority. Lots of countries with far less freedom and privacy than we, have much lower crime rates. We could have a system where prosecutors get convictions in 99% of cases like they do in Japan, but all rights of the accused would be lost. It was inevitable that surveillance cameras would be used for mischief. There is no way to demand compliance with standards when cameras will pick up dirt on high profile individuals. The temptation is just too great and human beings can't be trusted with the power to intrude into the private moments of others.
If you are going to understand why liberals don't speak out about the atrocities against women in the Muslim world, you must be prepared to look at liberalism for what it truly is. I doubt these women who have been loyal lefties for many years are ready to do that.
I absolutely agree with this author's last sentence. Regardless of what you may think about the details of the Fair Tax or any other consumption tax, the bottom line is this: A consumption based tax puts the power of government back in the hands of the people. A flat tax won't do this. This alone should be reason enough for the implementation of a consumption based tax system.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry. The Democrats are ALREADY an atheist party!
You're the only one here with your head on straight, Capt Call. I agree with your statement completely.
There are a lot of details left out of the above article. I wish it had been more in-depth. I am interested in the story, but there isn't much information here.
In response to:

What’s a Little Vote Fraud?

Ms Kelly Wrote: Apr 01, 2014 4:10 PM
"There is … this corrupt attitude that is beginning to gain total acceptance in some corners of government and academia, that accepts criminality in American elections in the name of payback time.” I think that is a fine idea. My suggestion is that conservatives pinpoint anyone even SUSPECTED of voter fraud and assassinate them. That will stop the problem p.d.q.
In response to:

When the Pollsters Missed a Revolution

Ms Kelly Wrote: Apr 01, 2014 4:05 PM
"It's true that events like the insane Vietnam War, the insane War on Drugs, and the JFK assassination can change one's mind, right quick." So can getting married, having a mortgage, having to earn a living, creating children and looking at how the future will effect those children.
In response to:

When the Pollsters Missed a Revolution

Ms Kelly Wrote: Apr 01, 2014 4:02 PM
There can be a thin line among generations. I was born in 1949. I would have been 13 in 1962. I was a rebellious and adventurous kid running off to California in 1968, living on the street and taking some foolish risks. My sister was eight years older than I. Born in 1941 (she would have been 22 in 1962) fresh out of college and looking for her first job she was very conservative, still a virgin at that age and very cautious and conventional. Big difference in just a few short years.
This isn't as bad as the electronic voting machines that were pre-set to a default setting for Obama during the last two elections. If voters failed to notice and correct the mistake, their vote automatically went to Obama whether they wanted it to or not.
"Yee is a huge gun control proponent. Maybe he was just trying to get rid of the competition". This was said as a joke, but I think it is probably true. Remember how marijuana was criminalized to rid William Randolf Hearst of competition from hemp based paper? Look it up. Absolutely, one of the reasons for suppressing gun sales is to get rid of the competition and drive the price up even more.
Previous 21 - 30 Next