1 - 10 Next
In response to:

Michelle Nunn’s Gun Problem

Schism Wrote: Mar 15, 2014 2:34 PM
"...campaign already dependent on lightening in a bottle..." It's a woman running, so she's got to go blond to win??
I was going to note that being "one of the top 10 dangerous cities" is not something that happens overnight, so for how long have these specific cities been run by Dem's? Being originally from Detroit, I remember how long the massively corrupt Coleman Young administration had to run the city as far into the ground as it did.
Let me get this straight. A federal judge has declared that the federal government may act in direct defiance of an absolute Constitutional proscription on certain activities because the government has an "important...interest" in so acting. Hmmm. Wasn't this predictable?
Simply put, there are no policies that would prevent, or even slow, "cliimate change". No such policies are possible for any single nation. No policies adopted species wide would suffice. The only possible policies are those which would help individuals cope with whatever change occurred...and that change must first be recognized, which would be rather difficult since such changes occur over centuries, not 2- or 4- or 6-year election cycles.
In response to:

Alcohol vs. Marijuana (Part 1)

Schism Wrote: Jan 28, 2014 12:45 AM
Sorry Mr. Norris, but apparently you never studied Prohibition...or never learned anything from it. The fact that a drug has an effect on the brain (gets you "high") is irrelevant for common sense legal purposes. Either what I put into my body is my problem, or the government owns my body. Which works out better in the end? Getting high may indeed be a "bad thing". Passing laws against it, or the substances used for that purpose, is utterly futile, and damages our society in other ways that are truly immoral and destructive to the community as a whole. Prohibition at least required a national debate and the passing of a Constitutional amendment. The "War on Drugs" was foisted off on us right thru the back door, has lasted for over 60 years, and has devastated the lives of more people than can be counted, not including those killed, not by drugs, but by the drug "warriors", whether they were actually involved with illegal drugs in any way or not (and many weren't...they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time). The sheer scale of corruption, from the cops to the bureaucrats, to congressmen, all the way up to cabinet members, is utterly despicable...and directly traceable as consequences of the law itself. "Let's pass a law forbidding people to do this dirty, self-destructive thing." Doesn't work. Has never worked in all legal history right back to the Pharaohs. Inevitably messes up the whole culture. Viewed from a whole culture perspective, 95% of the problems associated with "illegal drugs" is directly related to the fact that they're illegal. They're illegal because many fine, intelligent, upright people are bound and determined to "do something" about those who display self-destructive behavior here in the "land of the free". Get it straight. "It is the right of every individual to go to hell in his own fashion." Like you, I don't like it when I see it right in front of me. Nonetheless, it is an individuals right...or he's not a free man. (No, that right does not include taking others with you on the trip. Another facet of, "Your rights stop at the end of my nose".) We can punish people for the actual harm they do to others. If we are not free to harm ourselves, and deal with and learn from the consequences, then we are simply not free.
In response to:

Politics Versus Education

Schism Wrote: Jan 14, 2014 12:33 PM
Or, just taking the general case and ignoring race, you end up with a 6-year-old in jail on a sexual harassment charge for hugging his teacher. A 10-year-old handcuffed and interrogated to the point of pissing his pants over money that someone else stole. A teen girl strip searched in school by a male officer over missing money. A 4-year-old arrested for sexual harassment for kissing a classmate. A 15-year-old arrested, handcuffed, perp-walked and jailed for "obstruction" for refusing to answer a resource officers' questions. I realize that Holder probably wasn't referring to cases like this, but his comments open up and area that needs to be addressed quite aside from any idiotic racial attitudes...on anybody's part.
Correction on that last. I see no convincing evidence that staying would have any long term beneficial effect, for them or for us.
Mr. Prager: In Iraq, we have achieved as much as we are able to militarily. We actually achieved that in the first 3 months, once the last of the Iranian Guard was defeated. Since then, we have been involved in "nation building", something at which we have proved relatively inept, primarily because of sheer arrogance. We declared to ourselves that we were so much better at "living" in general that it was somehow our duty to lift up the barbarians to our level, now that we had properly chastised them. Our greatest experiment in that direction was the "civilization" of the Indian tribes. I, for one, don't think that has worked out very well in spite of well over a century of effort. Viet Nam was another attempt at it, with political limitations that pretty much guaranteed failure. In Afghanistan, we simply have no excuse. The Afghani's have a culture that they like, that has existed for literally thousands of years. Alexander tried to change it, and they remember him and his efforts as if it occurred last month. They respect Alexander...but they refused to change for him. The Russians tried back in the 1970's. The Afghani's refused to change...and view the Russians with contempt. I fear they feel very much the same about us...and they are refusing to change. Arrogance, sir. People like yourself feel that we are so much better at everything than the poor, benighted savages that all we have to do is find the proper way to demonstrate the "right" way to do things and they will gratefully fall into line like good little junior citizens. Hasn't. Ever. Worked. All the way back to the Cherokee, the Sioux and Cheyenne, the Apache or the Seminoles. Are a bunch of people going to die if we just up an leave? Yes. Is much of it our fault? Yes. Will our staying change things in any significant way? I see no convincing evidence otherwise. Far past time to cut our losses...and theirs.
In response to:

One Nation Under Drugs

Schism Wrote: Jan 13, 2014 11:13 AM
You got it. We're responsible for the harm we do, not the harm we might do. "Prior restraint" is anathema to a free people. Wilbur and Orville, if attempting to fly today, would be stopped and prohibited from continuing to try based on what might happen if they fell out of the sky on somebody else. Government, leave us alone and watch us soar...or would you be too jealous?
In response to:

One Nation Under Drugs

Schism Wrote: Jan 13, 2014 8:06 AM
Amen, brother. Who would have believed just a few short years ago that legally allowing everybody and their cousin to carry loaded guns in public (concealed, no less!) could possibly lead to anything other than blood in the gutters and bodies in the street? Earlier, who in 1932 would have believed that repealing Prohibition would lead to anything but universal, drunken dissolution? "It's the right of every individual to go to hell in his own fashion." And yes, "Your rights stop at the end of my nose", so taking anybody else on the trip with you is a no-no.
1 - 10 Next