Previous 11 - 20 Next
In response to:

Poll: Huckabee Clear Favorite in Iowa

Nathan223 Wrote: Sep 14, 2014 10:43 PM
I don't like that Huckabee is probably going to be the best option for us social conservatives next go around. I'd prefer someone who had a stronger record on immigration and fiscal matters. However, I'm definitely not throwing my support behind another McRomney or the foreign policy insanity of the Pauls (Rand isn't that socially conservative either, or at least doesn't emphasize it).
rnaber: The thread is about David Cameron's condemnation of ISIS.
"Can you show me where that is written in our Constitution?" Somehow, I don't think David Cameron is all that concerned about what's in the Constitution of the United States.
He also brought up the old "religion of peace" canard. I can't wait for UKIP to humiliate these people in next year's parliamentary elections. It might galvanize the right in the rest of the English speaking world too.
1) Probably not, even thought they want to be. Spain and Belgium would vote no, if not others. 2) They'll probably freeload off NATO protection like Ireland does. Scots are freeloaders. 3) The "Nationalists" (actually a bunch of internationalist socialist scumbags) can't answer that question. They won't get the Pound and the probably can't get the Euro in a currency union, which means they'll probably float both like they're a third world country, which is what they'll become after a few years of socialist rule up. 4) No. The new country would be the Kingdom of Scotland with Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth the I and II as the Queen. The Irish aristocracy is still part of the British peerage, but this would be a bit different as Northern Ireland is the rump state of the former Irish portion of the Union. 5) Likely, Scottish soldiers will remain in the Army. Citizens of the Republic of Ireland are still eligible for service in the British Armed Forces, so I do not see why Scotland would be any different. Dual citizenship would be practically irrelevant as they would most likely become a Commonwealth Realm, and being a citizen of a Commonwealth Realm gets you most of the privileges of citizenship in all the others, including the right to vote and sit in parliament if you are a permanent resident.
In response to:

The Sacking of Ray Rice

Nathan223 Wrote: Sep 11, 2014 4:35 PM
There is such thing as proportionality of force. Coming back with more force than demanded is against the law. One factor in that is relative size and strength, regardless of sex. Petite women (as an example, I don't think she is petite) get a lot more latitude in how much and what type of force they can use to defend themselves than NFL linebackers, and with good reason. They need that equalizer, but NFL players generally do not. What Rice was distasteful, possibly criminal, but she stuck with him and that is her prerogative. It's not our business if she does not want to go after her now husband. The mitigating factor of her starting the altercation also does reduce his guilt, but it doesn't change the fact he used disproportionate force. "Once a woman has started an altercation with a man, they deserve no special protection, either under the law or in the court of public opinion." The law should not treat people as absolute equals simple because they aren't, at least not in the relevant sense. The entire purpose of the law is to make a society where the strong do not take advantage of the weak, and if the law treats people as equals then you wind with a law that defeats its own purpose. "Whether or not you believe it's okay for a man to hit a woman should be a matter of personal morality" Hardly a conservative sentiment. Falling back on moral relativism is a cop out at best. A modern liberal one to boot.
I was not a big fan of Bush, especially later on in his tenure, but he was certainly a better leader for that moment than anybody the modern Democratic Party can put up. I mean, Obama is probably one of their better leaders. Imagine someone else. To top it off, there is no one else in the Western world that provides much leadership either. Obama says we will lead the coalition against ISIS? I can only imagine that will have all the makings of a tragic farce in some future history drama.
In response to:

The Sacking of Ray Rice

Nathan223 Wrote: Sep 11, 2014 3:01 PM
I have no problem treating women differently than men, especially when it comes to physical violence. They are, after all, the weaker sex. However, that is not an excuse to go on witch-hunts and eliminate female responsibility. She chose to stay with him. There is no need to for a national outrage festival over a domestic altercation. Also, abortion is a system of eliminating female moral agency as opposed to some exception to the female victimhood narrative. Abortion could never be justified as a female responsibility, as that would be crass and only the most amoral amongst us could go along. It would essentially be saying abortion was an exercise of raw power over the unborn. Instead, typically it is justified as the abrogation of female responsibility for promiscuous sexual behavior. As if her choosing to have sex when not ready to care or even bring to term a child somehow makes her a victim, of the "patriarchy" I suppose.
The Islamic State isn't Islamic? Well, I guess the Pope isn't Catholic either.
I'd rather watch the country burn than appeal to any trash that would let Cosmo magazine positively influence their vote.
Also teenagers, especially with these silly demands for a higher minimum wage.
Previous 11 - 20 Next