Previous 11 - 20 Next
In response to:

The Real Lessons of Ferguson

Raymond, (Ret) Wrote: Nov 26, 2014 9:47 AM
Those certainly are lessons to be learned regarding what the protesters are protesting. But in an effort to draw attention to an issue that are trying to legitimize, these rioters seize an opportunity to protest an incident in which it played no part. Everyone, including the prosecutor and our President, is lecturing us on 'the lessons we need to learn' from this incident to change things so this does not happen again. The President told us that there is 'distrust between the police and communities of color'. Strangely, none of them even mention the two biggest lessons to be learned from this incident. How about a little 'root cause analysis'? (1.) Don't rob stores. (2.) When encountering the police, don't initiate violence by attacking them. That is not to diminish the extent to which what the President said may have some validity but Michael Browns encounter with the police was because he robbed a store, not because he was black. Had he not done so, that encounter with the police, problematic or not, would not have happened. Neither was he shot because he was black. He was shot because he attacked the police during the encounter his action precipitated. Had he not done that he would have only been justifiably arrested rather than shot to death. Had the race of either or both participants been reversed, it would not have transpired differently. If you are going to protest racism, which admittedly there is reason to do, your case would be greatly enhanced if you did so, not just peacefully, but in reaction to an occasion in which race actually played a roll so that the particulars of the incident have some bearing on the issue at hand. It may also be useful to consider the extent to which false allegations of racism and support of them, worsen rather than improve the situation. The question is do you want to resolve the problem or do you just want to vent your feelings about it and proclaim your righteousness in a way that makes it worse not better.
Worse yet, he devotes not a single word to the two most appropriate and productive lessons to be learned from this incident. Lessons that might actually change things so this does not happen again. The President told us that there is 'deep distrust between the police and communities of color'. but did not point out that if you don't rob stores you do not precipitate an encounter with the police, problematic or not and if you do not initiate violence during encounters with the police you are less likely to be injured or killed as a consequence. Had the race of either or both participants been reversed, it would not have transpired differently. If you are going to protest racism, which admittedly there is reason to do, your case would be greatly enhanced if you did so, not just peacefully, but in reaction to an occasion in which race actually played a roll so that the particulars of the incident have some bearing on the issue at hand. It may also be useful to consider the extent to which false allegations of racism and support of them, worsen rather than improve the situation. The question is do you want to resolve the problem or do you just want to vent your feelings about it and proclaim your righteousness in a way that makes it worse not better.
In an effort to draw attention to an issue that are trying to legitimize, these rioters seize and opportunity to protest an incident in which it played no part. Too clever by half.
Given what Obama just did regarding illegal aliens, I do not find it credible that these hecklers would have felt compelled on their own to do this. To me they are clearly a plant to create the impression that not deporting illegal aliens has more significant support than it actually has. As even Obama admits in his response, it makes no sense at all to heckle him to do what he has already done other than to give him opportunity to point and boast out that he has already done it. And just as an added bonus, her gets to look like the adult in the room who knows how to take and handle criticism with class and style as he 'adlibs' his carefully constructed and rehearsed response without benefit of his monitor. Shamefully disingenuous manipulation.
In response to:

Beware of Our Betters

Raymond, (Ret) Wrote: Nov 25, 2014 10:01 AM
All of the talk from the left about Gruber is about what he said and what part he played in and influence he had regarding how Obamacare was constructed and presented. By doing so they avoid confronting what it means the Obama administration did. Gruber and his snarky, arrogant, self-aggrandizing strutting in front of his peers is not the issue. It is clear beyond denial that the Administration did what Gruber said they did. Focusing all of the attention on him is the only way they have to avoid admitting that.
In response to:

Beware of Our Betters

Raymond, (Ret) Wrote: Nov 25, 2014 9:49 AM
Liberals make much of 'the spirit of the Constitution' and how it, more than the actual words, are preeminent. Therefore, those words must be interpreted to support what the liberals believe is the Constitutions spirit. Conveniently, liberals believe, or content themselves to claim to believe, that 'the spirit of the Constitution' is liberalism itself.
Everyone, including the prosecutor and our President, is lecturing us on 'the lessons we need to learn' from this incident to change things so this does not happen again. The President told us that there is 'distrust between the police and communities of color'. Strangely, none of them even mention the two biggest lessons to be learned from this incident. How about a little 'root cause analysis'? (1.) Don't rob stores. (2.) When encountering the police, don't initiate violence by attacking them. That is not to diminish the extent to which what the President said may have some validity but Michael Browns encounter with the police was because he robbed a store, not because he was black. Had he not done so, that encounter with the police, problematic or not, would not have happened. Neither was he shot because he was black. He was shot because he attacked the police during the encounter his action precipitated. Had he not done that he would have only been justifiably arrested rather than shot to death. Had the race of either or both participants been reversed, it would not have transpired differently. If you are going to protest racism, which admittedly there is reason to do, your case would be greatly enhanced if you did so, not just peacefully, but in reaction to an occasion in which race actually played a roll so that the particulars of the incident have some bearing on the issue at hand. It may also be useful to consider the extent to which false allegations of racism and support of them, worsen rather than improve the situation. The question is do you want to resolve the problem or do you just want to vent your feelings about it and proclaim your righteousness in a way that makes it worse not better.
Just seven versions of the Democrats adolescent 'Republicans have cooties' mentality
I cannot believe that intelligent people on both sides do not realize the folly of seeking short term, single issue, political gain by abusing rather than resolving this lack of specificity in constitutional separation of powers and the rule of law that has and will come back to bite them. Either side has an opportunity here to rise above the fray and deport themselves as statesmen rather than politicians by focusing on the larger issue. If not for honor and integrity they might consider that doing so just may benefit them politically.
I hate to appear to compliment Stephanopoulos but at least somebody has asked the right question whether or not it received an honest and cogent response. All of the controversy and debate over President Obama's executive action on immigration has been short slighted and partisan. But this is not, or at least should not be, a partisan issue. It is the injection of partisanship into the matter that makes it a problem rather than a difficult but much needed opportunity to jointly develop a clearer agreement on the entire issue of the extent of Presidential powers and executive actions. Both sides site the other as having done something they criticize the other side for doing in order to justify their side having done it. As if both sides doing something wrong makes it right or unchallengeable. It is ridiculous and unproductive. The question that must now be answered, independent of political party affiliation, is; 'given this executive action by President Obama and all of the past executive actions taken by Presidents, just how is it to be determined what a President can and cannot do with future executive actions'? What are the guidelines? What are the limits? Are there any? What is the criteria? Where are any of them codified? How is any form of consistency and predictability to be achieved? Unless and until that is done the default will be, as it has been this time around, whether or not one approves of what the President is doing and/or whether or not one approves of the President who is doing it. The Constitution is then moot because the President can do whatever a sufficiently large and loud segment of the population want him to do. Worse, there is no acceptable way to determine if that unquantified criteria has been met nor is there any recourse even if it is not. Not even the Supremes Court, which is already far too politicized, would suffice as it would have no Constitutional foundation on which to base its ruling. It would be left to do so on the same arbitrary criteria of personal approval or disapproval of what is being done and who is doing it. It is all tantamount to dispensing with the Constitution and replacing it with a single rule which decrees that there are no rules except those that are made up as we go along by those with enough influence to make it stick. That is not a living Constitution. It is a dead Constitution.
President Obama is not depending on any of the rationale he or his sycophants have offered for his actions on immigration. They are just cover. He is relying on public sympathy for the plight of illegal aliens as bolstered by the MSM, academia, and other leftist propaganda, success on demonizing Republics for being greedy, uncaring elitist, (what I call the 'Republicans have cooties' tactic), and the expectation that no matter what happens, the effect of what he did will not be undone and it will have succeeded in soliciting the votes of Hispanics and those who support anything regarding Hispanics they can claim speaks well of themselves for supporting whether or not it is legal or effective. BTW, apparently Hispanics did not flock to the voting booths for this mid-term election. Traditionally there have been two reasons in the past for people not voting; (1.) they weren't interested enough to do so or, (2.) they did not like either candidate enough to bother. In this age of special interests and victimization, a third even less palatable reason has emerged. That is that they do not think which candidates wins has anything to do with them as special interest victims. That, of course, is because they were previously of the 'don't really care' group but have come to vote lately because, if and only when their special interests are being addressed. In other words, they really don't care about anything but themselves, making them prime candidates to vote Democrat when they when and if they do bother to vote. Worse, they are given to understand that such an attitude is perfectly acceptable because, after all, they are unfair victims of life totally independent of their own efforts.
Previous 11 - 20 Next