1 - 10 Next
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.
In response to:

Do We Need Corporal Punishment?

Roc1929 Wrote: Sep 21, 2014 12:31 PM
Thank you.
Over the years much damage has been done to the Constitution. The most damage was done in 1913 with the 16th and 17th Amendments and the Federal reserve act. The 16th made it possible for discrimination in taxation: Something prohibited originally. The 17th took away states rights by Senators being elected instead of appointed by the states to protect states rights which was an important factor in bringing sovereign states on board. The Federal Reserve Act was passed through subterfuge and lead to the fiat money being circulated to day. For more detail go here: http://www.meetup.com/westend912project/messages/boards/thread/8036303
1 - 10 Next