1 - 10 Next
In response to:

The College Rape Club

tgwWhale Wrote: Dec 11, 2014 1:44 PM
Of course you nailed it, Vince. The single primary purpose of the 60's revolution was to remove all moral loading from acts of sex (and drugs). In reality a great part of all sexual acts have some elements of coercion, seduction (dishonesty), or prostitution (sex in return for favors). In the old days "rape" was understood quite clearly as one person forcing himself sexually on an obviously unwilling other person. Criminal law guarded against rape; it was the old moral rules that provided SOME protection against sex involving some coercion, seduction, or prostitution. Now the old rules have been discarded, and so the term "rape" is getting applied by the progs to all sex that has any elements of coercion, seduction, or prostitution (or, according to some feminuts, all acts of heterosexual sex). This is, or course, hogwash; but this expansion of the definition of "rape" has allowed the term to be applied to nearly any sex act -- and this has led to false claims of rape by "Jackie" and her ilk, as they seek their 15 minutes of fame as "victims."
In response to:

Is Law Optional?

tgwWhale Wrote: Dec 09, 2014 1:59 PM
Dr. Sowelll is partially wrong in this piece. He holds that "law is not the place for amateurs." Thus, I assume, we should rely on the professionals. But those "professionals" are a huge part of the problem. Professionals in the field of law are called LAWYERS. And fear of lawyers and the (often absurd) lawsuits they bring is a major reason why mob rule is allowed to flourish. For example, in the UVA case, one of the reasons that the school immediately took the side of the accuser was surely political correctness -- the accused were male, and probably rich and white, as frat boys commonly (not always) are; while the accuser was female. Certainly a second reason they so acted was fear of bad publicity. But undoubtedly a third reason they acted as they did was fear of lawsuits. The university would undoubtedly have been sued (and still might be) -- the "deep pockets" principle (all and several liability) would have had the lawyers crawling out of the woodwork (and up from the sewer drains) in uncountable hordes. So UVA stifled the frats, thus taking the position held by the mob, and thus contributed to mob rule.
In response to:

Americans Hate a Loser, GOP

tgwWhale Wrote: Dec 08, 2014 7:46 PM
McClellan may have won battles, but he lost campaigns. And that is what counts. It is true that he won most of the battles during the Peninsula campaign, but he lost the campaign when he wouldn't counterattack after Malvern Hill. Similarly, by allowing Lee to escape at Antietam, he won the battle, but the compaign should be described as a draw. By the way, Lee was also quite good at winning battles but not campaigns. ("Why does he fight battles?" an exasperated James Longstreet is said to have muttered after one of Lee's victories. Grant was not the battlefield commander that Lee was -- maybe not even the equal of McClellan -- but he knew how to win campaigns -- and thus wars.
Schlichter is a raving idiot, or else a Dim mole. Anyone who backs Christie has no notion of how elections work. Christie might run comparatively well on the East and Left Coasts. But he would lose the states there anyway. The Dims could run the Thing From the Black Lagoon, Count Dracula, a Denubian Slime Devil, or even a Hildebeast, and still carry places like NY and CA. Meanwhile, here in flyover country (where the Repubs have a chance), 90%+ of the Repub vote is from social cons. You run a pro-abort like Christie, and your base stays home. Romney lost in 2012 at least in part because he was a Mormon, and not a small number of evangelicals stayed home rather than vote for him. The number that would stay home instead of voting for a pro-abort like Christie would be much larger. Romney is a proven loser, Christie anathema to the base. Yet those are the two Schlichter wants. And to silence those critics who will get on my case because I didn't give my opinion: I would vote for any social con except maybe Bush, but in my heart, I will always want Sarah Palin. I know she's not running and I know she likely wouldn't win if she did, but she's the most real of the whole bunch, and she stands for what I stand for more than most of the others. After her, Jindal or Cruz or Walker; but I will always like Sarah.
In response to:

Mary, Mary Quite Contrary

tgwWhale Wrote: Dec 08, 2014 1:18 AM
Maybe it's true that 10% of the votes for her were fraudulent. She may not have represented the people of Louisiana, but she probably represented the zombies very well -- and cemeteries tend to vote 100% Dem.
One of the big problems with "climate change" is that the data used to calculate global temperature change is "cooked." It's fudged. That's what the Climategate scandal was all about -- the so-called "scientists" at East Anglia were fudging the data to make global warming appear to be real. But using unfudged data, it's different, I looked up average temptertures for Green Bay, WI (because I live near Green Bay), and using raw data -- simply reports from the local airport weather station, averaged out -- January through November 2014 average temps were 3.28 degrees (F) below normal. That is huge for a variation from average temperatures. Just from going outside, I knew the year was cold; but 3.28 degrees is a ridiculously high variation from normal. Now the Algorians will point out that conditions at one weather station do not necessarily match those for the entire world. But it starts getting suspicious when they keep talking about warming (e.g., "2014 has been the warmest year ever recorded"), and all I experience is cold. Also, the Algorians will claim that the cold is due to "climate change," just as warming would be. The trouble with that is that their computer models, based on the greenhouse effects of CO2, predict ever warmer temps. Their models are wrong, as Beisner points out, in that they predict warming and the official temp numbers are flat. But the models are much more wrong when the temps are going down. It disturbs me immensely when the lefty liars keep telling people how we're all gonna die due to Global Warming, and people believe them, when all you have to do is go outside once in a while to realize that what they're saying is a pack of lies.
So, once again, some morally-bankrupt libertarian fool proclaims, "Dump the social cons!" Where I live social cons provide at least 95% of the Republican vote. I would guess that the percentage is lower elsewhere, but I would doubt that the Repubs could elect as much as a dog-catcher in West Podunk without the social-con vote. If the Repubs dump the social cons, it is the Republican Party, not the social cons, that will go away. As for Maxwell, think of this statement of his: "35 states have legalized gay marriage." Actually, very few states have legalized gay "marriage." In most cases it has been imposed by an imperial judiciary -- precisely because the voting power of social conservatives makes passing it through legislatures impossible.
In response to:

Fascist Fact Checkers Can Apologize Now

tgwWhale Wrote: Dec 02, 2014 3:33 PM
Crud is a commodity, but it is totally free, because it is spewed in such overwhelming amounts by progs. So the supply of Crud always exceeds demand, except by Obozo-supporters, who seem to have an insatiable appetite for Crud.
In response to:

Fascist Fact Checkers Can Apologize Now

tgwWhale Wrote: Dec 02, 2014 3:29 PM
Almost all the OPEC countries need high oil prices to keep afloat. If the Saudis keep the spigot open, it will ruin those other countries. And if Russia, Venezuela, and so forth are ruined, it will warm my heart. If we have to cap some wells for a while -- don't worry. Some day the price of oil will go up again, and we will uncap the wells and get back to drilling. Meanwhile, I will enjoy paying lower prices for gas. The Saudis will take a bath now for selling their oil cheap, and take a bath later when they try to raise the price and find they can't. And meanwhile they'll have a lot less money to fund terrorists. The Saudis LOSE, we win. Low energy prices were one of the reasons that the economy did so well in the 1990's. The Saudis and the Gulf states kept the supply up (and thus the price down) for 10 years to thank us for saving their back ends from Saddam. Low energy prices will be good for the economy today as well. So: Low oil prices mean we win, but the Russians lose, the commies in Venezuela lose, the terrorist-funders in the Middle East lose. I like that all around! DUMB PROG!
In response to:

Emanuel, Drooling Over Death

tgwWhale Wrote: Dec 01, 2014 10:18 AM
It was Nietzsche (of all people) who understood this. He proclaimed that "God is dead" and then understood that this left us "beyond good and evil." In other words, if you leave God out of the picture, there is no REAL standard of right and wrong. So Emanuel and his ilk treat human life as having value because people can produce stuff. Thus for them, people lose value when "creativity, originality, and productivity are pretty much gone." Such utilitarianism is pretty much what you're left with when you've decided that first, there is no God (or at least, no God that matters), and yet, as a socialist, you think that "we" have to pay for everyone's health care out of limit resources. It's only if you buy that old idea that "God" created all people in His image, and then "God" (the only Son, no less) died to save those people, that you can consistently come to the conclusion that all people have infinite value -- even unwanted unborns, or old people lost in dementiaville, or even Barack Hussein Obozo and Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel.
1 - 10 Next