1 - 10 Next
In response to:

The Third Rail of Domestic Violence

None251 Wrote: Sep 12, 2014 8:43 AM
What really seems to be the third rail is to what extent the woman participates in a domestic violence situation. No one seems to want to point out how she slapped him on her way to the elevator. How she seemed to swipe at him again on the elevator, followed by spitting and charging across the elevator as he BACKED away. The video I looked at showed two people engaging in similar behaviors. He is bigger and stronger, but that does not excuse or invite a woman to hit and provoke. Lets get out all the images of woman hitting men that are prevalent in our popular culture. Lets educate little girls that hitting little boys is not permissible. We have a double standard. Watch just enough movies and TV and you will see a woman slapping or hitting a man and he is expected to accept it. NO!! Stop all the hitting so we can address those individuals, men and women, who think that hitting without provocation is permissible.
In response to:

The Sacking of Ray Rice

None251 Wrote: Sep 11, 2014 1:13 PM
The thing that is lost in all this is that she hit him on her way to the elevator. She hits him again in the elevator, spits at him and charges across the elevator as he backs away. It is then that he popped her. Lets be totally honest about all this. It is all well and good to fit it to the paradigm of men being totally responsible for domestic violence. But when honestly seen in the light of really watching what went on, it becomes clear that there were two in this tango. She was angry and provocative. He was angry and knocked her cold. If it was simply that he punched her without any provocation then fine, crucify the son of a you know what. But that wasn't the case. Is it the case that women get to hit, spit, provoke, but men are to keep their cool? The difference in many of these disputes isn't the level of anger. It is the degree of violence that a man is able to generate. I would believe that she was swinging to hit him with as much force as she could generate. The fact that a man generates more force doesn't excuse the woman's participation. Let me add, I do believe that there are some men who without provocation are abusive and violent. But lets not let women off the hook for their part in many domestic disputes and violence just because they swing less hard.
Economic patriotism? IRS investigating churches? CIA spying Senators? NSA spying on everyone else? IRS involved in targeting political opponents? What is next? Night of the Long Knives? Wake up!!
In response to:

Lambs to the GMO Slaughter

None251 Wrote: Jul 29, 2014 8:43 AM
Go to PubMed and search GMO food risk. Find the data that support Norris's hysteria. Please, find it. He does not recognize that he has unwittingly joined forces with the Ehrlich et. al. camp; 40+ years ago we were all going to have starved by now. Now, the problem is that we are feeding too many people. Hey Chuck, go to Asia or Africa and tell some mother that her children should starve. He mentioned 60 countries/EU. He sounds like these folks who say that all scientists agree on global warming, except that they all don't. He didn't mention the countries of Central, Latin, and North America, or of Asia or Australia. The EU? He wants to harken to the EU? Guess he is with Breyer who thinks we should bend our reading of the Constitution to fit what the EU does.
Wow, you must think that whatever you say is settled science. I love all the 'stuff' you say as if you know what the heck it is that you are talking about. You should run for president, you're like Obama, you believe your own BS. You run through all this stuff as if it is designed to impress and then you run smack dab into the most ridiculous statement one can imagine someone with the least bit of knowledge saying - but our expert - dhensley - says it. "With no CO2 in its atmosphere...the moon is much colder than the earth..." Well yes, but it is also much hotter too. So you see CO2 works both ways so your conclusion is really meaningless. It can make it warmer and it could make it cooler. I will say your post was good for a laugh if not as fertilizer.
I wonder if this is his take on Snowden as well?
In response to:

Remembering D-Day

None251 Wrote: Jun 05, 2014 10:09 AM
If you read anything about the D-day landings you will find that the opinion expressed by many of the participants was that one of the reason the British had an easier time was the reliance on amphibious tanks. The Americans were skeptical of Hobart's Funnies, which was only reinforced by the sinkings to which you refer. Those sinkings were a direct result of the thing you point out should not have taken place - transfers too far from shore. Finally, this thing about that generation being unique, or greatest, is simply not true. It is the story of Camelot writ large. Just one more overblown example of the story of the great crusade. I am in no way denigrating; the heroism, dedication, and sacrifice were all there. But were those qualities anymore in view then than on Christmas Day evening 1776? Than among Haslet's and Smallwood's men in Brooklyn? Or among Thomas's men on Missionary Ridge? Jackson's troops in the Valley? The Marines at Belleau Wood? The men of Chosin? Ia Drang? Besides, the fact remains that it was the previous generation - Marshall, Patton, Eisenhower, Roosevelt, Higgins, etc - who made the machine run. The boys at the front were the cogs for sure, but the machine was their father's. Let's get over this greatest generation bull dupe and recognize that they were simply the next generation in a long line, and the preceding one in the continuation of that line. Great men if you like, but sons, and grandson's of similar stock. Father's and grandfather's of even more.
Not to be one to defend the WH, but has anyone considered double cross? Think about it. All the 'it really doesn't add up' suddenly add up. What better cover than someone who seems to be a malcontent, possibly a deserter, and whose father seems to side with the Taliban. I realize this explanation pulls out the rug for those who just want to rail against Obama, and I can say that is always an enjoyable endeavor, but it is possible there is something more to this than meets the eye. Read a bit about 'Bodyguard'.
In response to:

What was D-Day?

None251 Wrote: May 29, 2014 9:09 AM
Really? Imagine for a moment, if Hitler had not attacked France, then Mussolini would not have undertaken his North African adventure. Now imagine that Hitler invades the USSR. Roosevelt was hesitant to supply the Brits early in the war. Imagine if Britain was not under attack, but the only the Russians. Do you think there would have been a Murmansk run? The point is that the Russians alone probably would not have been able to defeat the Germans. You are left with the conclusion that it was a common effort. Fail not to remember the resources, that could well have been unleashed on the Soviets, that were lost in the Battle of Britain. Do not forget the amount of materiel that was supplied to the Soviets, primarily from the US. Did the Soviets, through the contribution of space and men contribute more than an equal share to the defeat of Germany? Ok, fine with me if you answer yes. NOW, remember the war in the Pacific. How much did the Soviets contribute to that effort? How much by the Brits? How much by the US? This thing about the Soviets being largely responsible for winning WWII is short-sighted at best. If you really want to give credit, I think the best place to start would be with that little island nation that stood alone for a year (June 1940 - June 1941). They held the place in the doorway. Could they have succeed alone? Probably not. But I believe neither could Russia. That leaves just one thing for you army major (and lets remember, there are those who graduate at the bottom of every class) to answer; without US involvement in both Europe and the Pacific, without us materiel support to both the Brits and Russia, how do you think the whole thing would have ended? The Russians bled, that is true, but they are not largely responsible for winning the WORLD war.
In response to:

Millionaires Need Your Help!

None251 Wrote: Apr 03, 2014 1:46 PM
I understand the questioning of this farmer/employers sob-story, but I am alarmed at Coulter's answer (whether tongue in cheek or not) of suggesting that the employer be billed for the needs/costs beyond the work place of his employees. Careful now Ann!! Remember unintended consequences. That suggestion is just the kind of nose of the camel that progressives love. Yeah, lets mandate this or that benefit that we can offload the cost while getting the credit. Yeah, lets make employers be responsible for all the health care needs... oops, done already, how about groceries? What sounds good in one context will certainly be applied to another later on.
1 - 10 Next