Previous 11 - 20 Next
It was a failure of the intelligence community but Obama has complete faith in it? That makes no sense whatsoever but it begs the question why should the intelligence community or the people have any faith in Obama? He indisputably did not heed his own administrations clear and persistent warnings. Given the continued questioning, saying 'we have been through this'; only confirms that their previous explanations were not adequate. I suppose they will next blame the news people for not asking the right questions at the right time in a way that they would have been forced to answer comprehensively. By now even his supporters must surely be chagrined at such disingenuous machinations and groan inwardly as they are yet again charged with defending the defensible. Given their loyalty and adoration he could so easily have turned this all around by simply acknowledging personal fault and pledging to make it right. As my sainted Mother used to say he 'lies when the truth would do him the most good'. Such arrogant narcissism is truly pathological. But having gotten to where he has without doing or contributing anything, I suppose it is inevitable that he attribute it to simply he being him. As he is still he, the fault for any failures must, then, lie elsewhere.
More indispensability that his supporters will be obliged to defend. Surely, they have to be getting awfully tired of it. As with Bill Clinton, they just cannot lower the bar far enough that this snake cannot find a way to slither underneath it.
In response to:

Random Thoughts

Raymond, (Ret) Wrote: Sep 30, 2014 9:40 AM
The value of diversity lies in process, not results. It's rejection can degrade the result but its acceptance does not, in and of itself, improve it. Input from a diverse source may or may not have value but that distinction is independent of its disparity. Neither including it nor excluding it on the basis of its disparity is valid. This is a particularly difficult notion to reconcile without sounding dogmatic on the one hand or illogically overextending it's significance on the other. I am not sure I can do it justice but were you to assemble your own heart surgery team you would do so on the basis of each participants competence and experience in their role in the heart surgery, not on the extent to which they contribute to an equally represented diversity of gender, ethnicity, race, sexual orientation, religious affiliation or any other secondary attribute. Here is where it gets tricky. Just as you would not include on the basis of any of the latter, neither would you exclude for those reasons. It is in the process not the result where diversity plays a roll and then only to the extent that it not be used to influence one way or the other. Requiring diversity in the result is just as problematic as not allowing it in the process.
"‘sending him back to Iran did not violate his right to life since Iranian authorities may have been unaware of his religious conversion.’ The decision further went on to ‘reason’ the Iranian man could probably avoid any danger (i.e. stay alive) by keeping his faith a ‘private matter’ (i.e. secret). And someone could get away with murder if nobody knew it had been committed but that is hardly honorable advice.
Democrat voters do not think; they feel. Feel me?
In response to:

Well Done, The Economist

Raymond, (Ret) Wrote: Sep 29, 2014 9:25 AM
Is that a salute?
My heart truly goes out to this poor lady and the rest of her family because I can not imagine what the other side of the story could be that would offer him any redemption or her any solace.
We can take some solace in the burden he places on his supporters to continually contrive new ways to defend the indefensible. They do more for him than he has done for them. They surely must be getting awfully tired of it.
In response to:

Progressives’ Moral Equivalence

Raymond, (Ret) Wrote: Sep 28, 2014 10:58 AM
Quite right. They claim to fear it for the reason I stated but it is actually to cover up their disdain for it which would reveal their intolerance. I think liberals reject the notion of God because they can not concede there is an authority higher than them.
The argument that it is not Islam because, we are told by everyone accept other Muslims, not all Muslims approve of it contradicts the lefts presumption that any action by the right that they can characterize as mean-spirited is because everyone on the right is mean-spirited. As I have observed before, the great thing about being a liberal is that it does not demand consistency and so never requires you to come to an unwanted conclusion.
Moral relativity is the means whereby the left presumes to occupy the moral high ground by declaring that tghere is no such thing.
Previous 11 - 20 Next