Previous 11 - 20 Next
In response to:

Putin Is Mentally Unhinged

tgwWhale Wrote: Dec 27, 2014 10:43 AM
"Why worry about the mental health of foreign leaders?" Well, the fact that some of them have the Bomb comes to mind... I do agree with many that our own leader is a narcissist. But I doubt he's whacko enough to start nuking people because someone insulted his eternal greatness. As for Putin -- no, I don't think he'll start nuking people. I do expect he'll just gobble up another small neighbor when things go wrong for him. As for that Kim clown in North Korea... who knows? Yes, I am concerned about the mental health of foreign leaders.
In response to:

The Communist Resurgence

tgwWhale Wrote: Dec 26, 2014 10:34 AM
We do not "starve the people of Cuba with our sanctions." Cuba could trade with all of the rest of the world. And in any case, Cuba is very rich in agricultural resources; no one should starve there, no matter what the US does. The people of Cuba are poor for one reason and one reason only: the Communist thugs who run the place.
In response to:

The Communist Resurgence

tgwWhale Wrote: Dec 26, 2014 10:30 AM
Obozo does all of those things because as a committed leftist fool he sees every issue according to the same pattern or meme: there are big guys, there are little guys, the big guys pick on the little guys, and so the big guys are the bad guys. Always. (The Communist terms for "big guys" and "little guys" are "oppressors" and "oppressed.") By this way of thinking, we are always the bad guys because we are always the big guys. It's always our fault. In Obozo's mind, the suffering of the Cuban people is our fault, not the Castros'. All of his other stupid and evil policies tend to stem from the same stupid misunderstanding of the way life works.
In response to:

Damnable Lies

tgwWhale Wrote: Dec 23, 2014 8:55 PM
The problem with your argument is that two generations ago, the black people in the U.S. did not have the horrendous cultural problems (crime, etc.) that they have now. If these cultural problems were due primarily to average group IQ, then we would have to believe that the average IQ of black Americans has fallen precipitously over two generations. If that is the case, then IQ could hardly be linked primarily to genetics, since the genetics of the black people of the US could not have changed so much over just two generations.
Maybe this hasn't been brought up yet, but I would guess that Sony's pulling of the movie was done on the advice of their LAWYERS. That is: if a terrorist bombed a movie theater to protest this movie, after threatening to do so ahead of time because of the content of the movie, wouldn't Sony be liable under all-and-several liability? And since their pockets are the deepest, they'd get the biggest lawsuit -- $billions, I would guess. You know -- "Call 1-800-BAD-FILM" -- you've all seen the ads. Whenever something like this happens and people wonder why a some person or company behaves so much contrary to what we might expect (e.g., wouldn't a media company stand by their first amendment rights?), generally lawyers are at the bottom of it.
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.
Previous 11 - 20 Next