1 - 10 Next
In response to:

Challenge: The Road to Bondage

Roc1929 Wrote: 2 hours ago (7:52 AM)
Please folks! Stop leaving out the most important step in the sequence: From abundance to selfishness. I don't know when this got dropped off, but my copy of Fall of a Republic goes back 30 years. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency1 from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage. Doesn't anyone remember the "Me" generation?
Resentment turned to anger turned to hate, along with fear, has become a political weapon. Hate and fear are dynamic while their opposites, love and contentment, are passive. So if you want to build a constituency and mobilize people you need only give them something to hate or something to fear. Love and contentment will result in their sitting back and enjoying their good fortune. Because of this reality, Democrat politics has degenerated into the demonizing of opponents and scaring the public with issues for which no one has a viable solution. Then the demagogues can claim that they have the solution and that if you just throw out their evil opponents and give them control life will be wonderful. They claim that if they are in charge they will ensure social justice, end poverty, homelessness, hunger, illness, crime and war. Oh, I forgot, and they would also guarantee total freedom. Wouldn’t that be paradise? If only you would support them and put them in charge. This is how all the tyrants of the 20th century came to power, Lenin/Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Castro to name the most famous. This is the route the Democrats are taking to create a one party government.
In response to:

Irresponsible 'Education'

Roc1929 Wrote: Oct 15, 2014 7:38 AM
Great article! One of Dr. Sowell's best. To read how how the world went from being barbaric to approaching becoming civilized, go here: http://www.meetup.com/westend912project/messages/boards/thread/18244772
In response to:

Poverty

Roc1929 Wrote: Oct 08, 2014 10:28 AM
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." Benjamin Franklin, On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor, 1766 “There is nothing new in the world except the history you do not know.” Harry S. Truman
In response to:

Bill Maher, Ben Affleck and Islam

Roc1929 Wrote: Oct 07, 2014 11:41 AM
I believe that you are talking about the Recusancy laws in England from 1593 to 1829, and you are right but wrong as it was, that did not extend beyond England. And this points up the problem that our Founder's sought to avoid with the Establishment Clause. The problem is when civic authority and religious authority reside in the same body. (Jefferson referred to the Altar and the Crown.) Religion is concerned with the effect of our behavior on our immortal soul. Judgment for violating religious tenets takes place before God in the afterlife. The only penalty in this life is excommunication or denial of sacrament, neither of which harms our body or purse. Government is concerned with our temporal existence. Judgment for violating civic authority (man-made law) takes place on earth during our lifetime and results in penalties against our person. Combine the two in one body and you have tyranny. For a further exposition, go here: http://www.meetup.com/westend912project/messages/boards/thread/23490642/0#74558002
In response to:

Bill Maher, Ben Affleck and Islam

Roc1929 Wrote: Oct 07, 2014 9:58 AM
I’m not an expert on world religions so maybe someone can help me with this. Some religions have split off into sects. In Christianity, for instance, you have Catholics, Lutheran, Episcopalians, Baptists, etc. In Judaism you have Hasidic, Orthodox, Reform, etc. Islam has Wahhabis, Sunni and Shi`ite, etc. Can anyone name any religion other than Islam in which two sects, Sunni and Shi`ite, are at war and try to kill each other? And yet we keep hearing how Islam is a religion of peace. Sounds like cognitive dissonance to me. And, sure there are peaceful Muslims but peaceful Muslims are irrelevant: Watch video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYjiSaV5VoE
In response to:

Use Mercenaries to Fight ISIS?

Roc1929 Wrote: Sep 25, 2014 8:40 AM
Mercenaries fight for money, patriots fight for their families and way of life. At some point the mercenary decides that his situation and what he is up against isn’t worth the money. Then he is nowhere to be found. Rome found that out. When they couldn’t man the army with Romans they hired mercenaries. When the going got tough the mercenaries got going: To safety. This contributed to its fall.
In response to:

'Not Islamic'?

Roc1929 Wrote: Sep 23, 2014 10:44 AM
It may already be too late. Watch the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-3X5hIFXYU
In response to:

'Not Islamic'?

Roc1929 Wrote: Sep 23, 2014 9:38 AM
I’m not an expert on world religions so maybe someone can help me with this. Some religions have split off into sects. In Christianity, for instance, you have Catholics, Lutheran, Episcopalians, Baptists, etc. In Judaism you have Hasidic, Orthodox, Reform, etc. Islam has Wahhabis, Sunni and Shi`ite, etc. Can anyone name any religion other than Islam in which two sects, Sunni and Shi`ite, are at war and try to kill each other? And yet we keep hearing how Islam is a religion of peace. Sounds like cognitive dissonance to me.
In response to:

Do We Need Corporal Punishment?

Roc1929 Wrote: Sep 21, 2014 12:37 PM
Comparing reason capable adult Marines with emotion driven children is pure sophistry. The problem is that we don't make distinctions anymore. We don't seem to be able to tell the difference between a punch in the face and a slap in the pants. Let me clear this up. A punch in the face is assault: A slap in the pants is an exclamation point.
1 - 10 Next