1 - 10 Next
War? I think the GOP has probably been pretty obstructionist, but why has that happened more this presidency. Has the GOP gotten more radical? Not really when looking at the actual leaders in the House and Senate and what they believe. No, this president is the most radical leftist ever elected. Furthermore, he and his team have virtually never tried to work with the GOP on anything of significance. It seems that his version of compromise is "give me everything I want." I think the GOP has basically given up working with the Dems. Obamacare is the prime example of this. The Democrats wanted it so bad that they decided to make this major change in government and society with NO support from the opposition. I think for many in the GOP that was the final straw. At that point it is just war. I think Barack Obama came in viewing his political opponents as enemies, and the GOP after being fired on so many times simply has decided that if he really means this is war, then we have to fight that way too.
Sentiment not science drives a good deal of public policy. The revenue from sport hunting is often the best thing for game populations. It gives local people an incentive to keep the game alive and to use land for game preserves instead of encroaching on it with development and farming.
In response to:

Ron Paul Ruins a Great Economic Rant

sam allen Wrote: Oct 05, 2013 7:25 PM
The disconnect I see in the comments versus Shedlock's point is one of perspective. When considering consumable goods, inflation definitely seems to be higher than reported by the big reports, but Shedlock has really educated me over the last couple of years about the overall picture and how that influences whether or not hyper-inflation is really going to hit. The macro-economics of credit as a portion of the overall money supply is simply not understood by most people.
I find it sadly humorous that homosexuals and lesbians would be or are offended by being compared to people who would have different sexual desires than the norm. Are they really that prudish? Now that they have achieved social acceptance are they now the new defenders of the new normal? My only problem with the Governor is not using this as an opportunity to really push back and show people how ridiculous it is to use the logic of tolerance while begin completely intolerant of other forms of sexual expression. The real point here is not homosexuals and lesbians fear of alternate sexual expressions, but rather that their bad logic will be exposed. Yes, openness to refining marriage in favor of same-sex couple will open up the same legal arguments for all other kinds "marriages."
Primary argument in favor of same-sex marriage: Consenting adults should be able to marry who they love. How does this not apply to siblings who love one another romantically or people who are polyamous (seek love from more than one other person)? Why should the same logic not apply to others? How is it not rank discrimination against all other forms of love not to allow marriage based on other desires? Why should only homosexual and lesbians be affirmed in their identity and not all others? This is not a slippery slope argument because this argument does not go further down the slope, rather it is the exact same argument made toward other desires. Of course, it does reveal that the logic used to justify same-sex marriage when applied fairly toward people that have other desires will effectively destroy marriage as a meaningful legal institution.
Great article Jonah. Andrew Fletcher said, “Let me write the songs of a nation – I don’t care who writes its laws.”
I completely disagree with you Mr. MacKinnon. I think these liberal arts schools should completely divest themselves of all fossil fuel energy stocks, especially those companies that are making any kind of profit. They instead should put all of their money into very futuristic, idealistic, and ecologically moral companies just like Solyndra. Then when the stocks fail those schools will lose a good portion of their endowment funds cause them to have to raise the tuition on these wonderfully informed students.
In response to:

Martin Luther King Jr.'s Real Message

sam allen Wrote: Aug 29, 2013 8:21 AM
You simply cannot guarantee economic outcomes by legislating them.You cannot guarantee positive rights because in the process you end up trampling freedom for others. I am actively involved in helping out people on a daily basis but I have learned the trying to help by giving benefits when people have not earned them ends up not helping them. Often or good intentions do not meet reality. Here are some examples: minimum wage laws to provide a living wage often make it impossible for businesses to hire more people so they automate or leave. The people most hurt by not having lots paying entry level jobs are those poor who need a start. When government gets involved in business through tax law and choosing winners and losers, it ends up favoring the really large businesses who can curry favor with official. The people most helped by government interference with economic freedom are the super rich, and the people most hurt are those trying to start up. You talk about unions and yet this is another example of government collision that often ends up helping the privileged who are already in the union while damaging any businesses and workers who do not want give there money to union bosses. All of your good intentions do not makes a good reality. The founding fathers understood that powers aggregated in the hands of anyone will be used for the benefit of the few, and being a benevolent government employee does not make you immune to those temptations.
In response to:

Beware Warrior Cops

sam allen Wrote: Aug 21, 2013 11:04 AM
We can blame government some for this, because power always wants to accumulate more power and so government grows. On the other hand, we can also blame ourselves. Freedom can only really be enjoyed by people who are responsible enough to handle freedom. So in places where personal responsibility has gone out the window and all social structures have broken down (think about the Australian young man that was killed because 2 others were bored), then society will choose security over freedom. Freedom without responsibility leads to anarchy. The founders knew this and that is why they understood the need for a moral populace if they were to be truly free. Responsible and moral people do not happen by accident. They are produced by a society with defined values that promotes those values. You can cry all you want about government intrusion into our lives, but if you are unwilling to define and promote a specific moral code that works to produce moral values, which lead to responsible humans, then you are fighting a losing battle against human nature. I guarantee you that people prefer security to anarchy. If we will not be ruled by internal checks, we will be ruled by external one.
In response to:

Blurring the Lines of the IRS Targeting

sam allen Wrote: Jul 05, 2013 10:35 AM
I listened to an NPR report the other day on this issue, and I thought the same thing. I knew that they were intentionally trying to soften the blow on this one. Not that I believe that their reporters are specifically trying to act like opinion journalists, but rather that because this story went against the grain of their political leaning they went looking for "the other side of the story."
1 - 10 Next