Previous 11 - 20 Next
George Bush committed us to a war on terror not a war on Islamic fascism (or whatever you want to call Muslims bent on world conquest). In both Afghanistan and Iraq, the new governments we installed both had Sharia in their constitutions. This would be the equivalent of allowing Nazism as a building block of post-WWII Germany. We must fight the oppression in the Mideast, in Russia, and South America with a clear declaration of principles based on human rights and freedom. For a soldier to risk all in the liberation of Iraq or Afghanistan to have his religion outlawed by government we made possible is insane.
I tell people I am right wing because I love everybody. I explain that conservatism is simply our best understanding of what works to create an opportunity society. That what I want for black, hispanic, etc. children is the exact same thing I want for my children. I try to point out that the state can't give anything to anyone without first taking that thing away from somebody else. Who chooses who gets and who gets taken? That's the problem with every liberal nostrum--the state becomes more powerful and the people less. We do need to speak loudly that our way is best for poor, black, hispanic, female, etc. We need to attract not repel.
In response to:

The Case for Libertarian Populism

Neale2 Wrote: Jul 04, 2014 9:10 AM
I believe that we have a problem of reverse causality. It is not that corporations necessarily want to deal with Washington to get guaranteed returns in as much as politicians have put themselves at the center of the economy. Through laws and regulations, every company finds itself at the whim of DC. Look at Obama's war on coal or the chokepoint efforts to cut off funding for industries the left does not like. Politicians spend half their time raising money, and they do that by calling on deep-pocketed donors. It is as much extortion as it is bribery.
In response to:

Let’s Get Rid Of Offensive Things

Neale2 Wrote: Jun 22, 2014 4:59 PM
While Obama's Narcissism is clearly evident, I don't think the trait is limited to democrats. There is something about politics that draws narcissists like moths to a flame. But the narcissism of Obama, Reid, Wasserman-Schultz, Hillary, etc. is so apparent, I can't figure out their popularity. How can people be so blind?
Nothing infuriates me more about this president than his pandering to the clueless. To use 'denier' to label anyone who disagrees with his radical agenda to centralize control of the economy to him and his cronies is the most disgusting piece of politics I've seen in my lifetime. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the current thinking about climate change, the idea that the science is settled is stupid. It's anti-science. It's against the foundations of the scientific method. Those who believe that anthroprogenic global warming is happening should be as disgusted as those who are skeptical that the president would stoop so low as to label the reasonable position of millions of people, including thousands of scientists, who question a theory that has failed to accurately predict anything, with those who deny the reality of the holocaust is completely unacceptable. Obama has no scruples. He will say anything, defame anyone, to push his worldview.
In response to:

Reid Has Become a McCarthy for our Time

Neale2 Wrote: Apr 24, 2014 7:45 AM
Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz are the leaders of democrats in the house and senate. What sets them apart is their willingness to say anything, no matter how stupid, incoherent, or dishonest, to defend Obama and fellow democrats. It is incredibly revealing that these three characters are in leadership positions. They all come across as disingenuous and not very bright, but they are tireless supporters of the liberal left that has taken over the democrat party.
In response to:

The Tipping Point We've Dreamed Of?

Neale2 Wrote: Nov 01, 2013 9:05 AM
It is not fair to hold the IT company to blame if they were not given the information they needed early enough in the process and were not allowed sufficient time because of political pressure. Not saying the bidding process wasn't flawed, but apparently the Obama administration was still making critical decisions that would impact basic architecture into the spring of this year. Nobody could get a project of this scale done in that restricted time frame.
Obamacare was designed to fail, but to do so in a way that it destroys the insurance market for healthcare. This will leave single payer as the only viable option. The fines are so low to encourage people not to sign up for care. There is no other logical explanation. If they wanted you to sign up, the fine would be larger than the price of the insurance. This will create a death spiral where the only people signing up on the exchanges will be people who have high medical costs. Healthy people will avoid the exchanges and pay a fee. Companies are already dumping or limiting insurance coverage putting millions more people into this completely unworkable system. Remember, the government is only setting up the exchanges; it is insurance companies signing people up. They can't charge more for people who will cost more. Those costs must be distributed to the healthy and the young. Insurance companies cannot stay in business if they can't attract enough healthy and young people to offset the high cost of people with prior conditions.. The only flaw in the plan is that the abject failure of the website is making people doubt the ability of the federal government to pull off something as critical and vital as running healthcare. But it does not matter to the democrats. They want single payer.
I fear you are wrong. It does not matter how much contradictory evidence emerges. They are making money/gathering power, and the media industrial complex (MIC) is in bed with them. Read the treatment of the new IPCC report in the NYT, CNN, etc. ACC is accepted "science" and those who disagree are paid stooges or besotted right wingers. For the general public who uses the MIC to learn about the world (or kids in school), there will never be an honest discussion of the facts, or the failure of climate models, or the routine violation of scientific best methods. So even though the IPCC admits that its predictions are wrong, it elevated its level of confidence in the theory that man-made CO2 emissions into the atmosphere is the primary cause of climate change. Once you start thinking this way, your mind becomes controlled by the narrative fallacy--you only see confirming evidence and disregard anything that runs contrary to the narrative.
Are you confusing Sebelius with Senator Warren?
Previous 11 - 20 Next