Previous 11 - 20 Next
Okay, but I still think it will go nowhere. There are no John Deans in the Democrat party and this executive branch will not convict itself..
And we should feel save in just accepting them at their word that all such recovered emails are being forwarded and not just those they read and determined didn't indicate any wrongdoing on the part of anyone in the IRS. When Nixon tried this sort of thing we thought the American people would not let him get away with it. Now we know that it was the MSM that would not let him get away with it but that same MSM will let Obama get away with it.
In response to:

The Cancer of Multiculturalism

Raymond, (Ret) Wrote: Feb 25, 2015 11:20 AM
To have multiple cultures is to have no culture. A culture is that set of practices accepted by its members that guides them in their interactions with each other to promote mutual understanding and minimize confusion as to intent and expectations. To whatever extent those practices are not common that understanding decreases and that confusion increases. Cultures evolve in much the same way that Darwin observed biology evolves. The engine that drives both is whatever works best in the existing circumstances. The results of practices are observed and those that succeed are mimicked because they are seen to succeed. New ones may well be adopted from new members of other cultures if and when they work but which ones cannot be dictated or hand picked. It depends on their compatibility with all of the other practices in a culture. That does not mean that one practice was better then another. Each worked in the different circumstances under which they arose. But neither does that mean that all cultures are equal. It is the consequences from the sum total of all cultural practices that matters and that sum total may well be better for some cultures than for others.
It is long past time when this obstinacy is brushed aside every time it is uttered by pointing out that no one is blaming all of Islam for anything and conducting the debate as though they were is just a transparent obfuscation of the real issue which the WH chooses not to confront. It is about some Muslims currently committing acts of vile terror in the name of Islam. It is not about some Muslims not doing so not is it about accusations that other groups have done so in the past. Whether or not those Muslims who are doing this are right or wrong about their religion requiring them to do so is immaterial. You want to experience how weak of an argument that is? Go to the funeral of some terrorist victim and try reassuring the sobbing widow/widower/mother/father./child by telling them they need to understand that those who killed their loved one was wrong about Islam being the reason. How can the left regurgitate this nonsense standing there with their bare faces hanging out, firmly astride their moral high horse, claiming to be the party of compassion and caring?
In response to:

Giuliani Versus Obama

Raymond, (Ret) Wrote: Feb 24, 2015 10:18 AM
Strange how the left, firmly astride its moral high horse, lectures the right to dismount theirs. I cannot think of a single issue separating the left from the right regarding which one side could accuse the other of riding their moral high horse.
In response to:

Giuliani Versus Obama

Raymond, (Ret) Wrote: Feb 24, 2015 10:13 AM
It is not so important whether or not Giuliani thinks Obama loves America as it is whether or not our enemies think Obama loves America. It seems to me he has done everything possible to depose them of that notion.
"Johnson said the leaders argue their religion is about peace and brotherhood and “resent” that Islamic State is “attempting to hijack that from us.” Then it seems to me that they should be talking to the terrorists who claim that they are doing what they are doing in the name of Islam, not with us who are the victims of it. And I repeat, Democrats have no problem using the term 'Republican extremists'.
How can it even be suggested much less be believed that someone who offers it as his goal to 'fundamentally transform' something loves it the way it is? Perhaps that could be possible with a goal of 'tweaking' it or even 'patching up its flaws' but not with transforming it at a fundamental level. I suppose it could be argued that he loves what he wants this country to become but I question even that. He may perhaps tolerate it more. But love it?
One of Obama's loudest ,(and most surly), apologists is Bob Beckel. He routinely says that the difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals believe government can make peoples life's better and conservatives do not. True enough as far as it goes but typically it allows liberals to grandly judge themselves by their noble intentions and by so doing imply their opposition does not share those indisputably good and proper intentions. Certainly, if government can make peoples life's better, then it surely should do so. But as with other ideological divides between the left and the right, there are two sides to the coin. Government can also make peoples life's worse. And not just materially as seems to be the entire focus of liberalism but also spiritually and emotionally. Having material things sounds all well and good and certainly lacking in them greatly is not desirable. But to play off of an old conservative joke regarding the lefts views on education. 'it does not matter so much that little Johnny knows that two, plus two equals four, the important thing is how does he feel about that'. Having material things is not all there is. How do you feel about having them? There are, essentially three ways. You might deserving of them as a consequence of your own actions and contributions. You might deserving of them as your just due for simply being. Or you might feel undeserving of them. I propose,. Bob, that the real difference between liberals and conservatives is the extent to which the first of those is considered good and necessary to a fulfilling life.
You just do not understand do you? Liberals lie for your own good. They sacrifice their integrity by lying because that is the only way they can get you to accept their guidance that you so desperately need. You insist on acting in your own best interests like the human species evolved to act complete with all of the problems and unfairness inherent therein instead of acting in the best interests of the collective by which all those problems and that unfairness would evaporate. It can and has been done you know. Look at insect colonies such as termites and ants. There, all members apply themselves at what they are best qualified to do independent of individual reward and from which all members benefit. Of course if whatever that is, is not what that member would really like to do that would be bad. But that is resolved simply by not endowing any member with a sense if individuality. At least all members benefit equally and that makes it worth while. Well, not actually all. Worker insects might spend more energy than do, say, nursing insects in which event they would need to consume more of the collectives supply of nourishment. (Or the other way around. I don't presume tyo know which is harder.) But that is in perfect keeping with the Communist Manifesto of 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need'. I'm sure someone on the left can explain why their implementation is 'from each according to his ability, to each equally'. Perhaps that. along with that bothersome sense of individuality is why it has never worked.
All participants in healthcare plans will post claims against their policies. Some more than others but all to some degree. Therefore healthcare plans do not fit the model necessary for insurance to work. Back in the day it worked because it was not a healthcare plan, it was catastrophic illness and hospitalization. That fit the model. But when it is expanded to routine healthcare it does not work anymore than would, say, 'daily sustenance insurance'. Healthcare plans are socialism where everyone shares in both production and consumption. What they pay for it will, of necessarily, be more than what is returned to them by the amount the healthcare agency spends for its own operating costs. Therefore, of necessity and by design, it raises the cost of healthcare. That may be acceptable to some but don't call it insurance.
Previous 11 - 20 Next