Previous 11 - 20 Next
Doherty/Townhall, why is this the main story? Are you that intellectually defunct that you've got nothing else, ever? Are you incapable of analyzing real political issues? Most of you are very young, so the answer is probably "yes." You don't understand complicated things, so you harangue on the easy, concrete issues. While your country goes into real decline. If this Gosnell/late-term abortion angle doesn't manage to turn the tide of public sentiment, will you then drop it? Because that would seem to be proof that you lost and can never get the public to reject abortion. You are also calling millions of Americans monsters and murderers. Aside from it defying reality, I've noticed it's not going over well with the general population.
In response to:

Was George W. Bush a "Bad" President?

Wendy60 Wrote: Apr 28, 2013 4:31 PM
Exactly! He was not by any stretch of the imagination a good President. In addition to his compassionate socialism and being talked into a war of self-sacrifice (Iraq) by the Straussians, he is responsible for the financial crisis because he let his bureaucrats implement mark-to-market and had no clue what was going on. Then, when the markets went into a death spiral, he "abandoned free market principles to save the free market," i.e., implemented more socialism. He destroyed the GOP. He is a complete failure by all objective evidence, but the Straussians and his cheerleaders, including some gullible conservatives, want us to think that he was a good President despite everything because, shucks, he was such a good guy.
We have got to start rubbing it in people's noses that there is actually an Islamist movement and this attack was perpetrated by them. We have got to fill the silence that the left is leaving here and not let the left get away with painting the picture as a secular crime. Get in everyone's faces, make sure they hear that this was done by an Islamist sleeper cell, not a couple of lost boys who didn't feel they fit in.
He's actually German with an advanced science degree and in a relatively high position in the company. It is amazing how they compartmentalize logic and reason to work only. When it comes to politics, irrationality reigns.
A code word for what? And why are they calling themselves that? Why did they create their own unique ideology, and what should we call it?
Nope. Augustine originated the concept when he mistranslated a Biblical passage from the Greek. That is why the Eastern Orthodox church does not believe in original sin. The passage was in their language and they knew what it meant.
A European colleague would not even mention Islam and immediately started in on an anti-war position grounded in moral relativism: He took the stand of "where do you draw the line?" if you respond to violence or something like that. Then he launched into an incoherent spiel that seemed to be about balance-of-power among secular nation-states. Totally disintegrated and cut off from reality. Europeans are totally intellectually and morally bankrupt. They have nothing. Brits are better than the Continental Europeans, but they are on the way down too.
Democrats, leftists, and people who are left-leaning are bending over backwards to frame a picture of these being two lost boys who threw their lives away senselessly. They are desperately evading the word "Islamist." When this story broke, I asked someone at work about the suspects, and he said they were Chechnyan. When I asked if they were part of the Islamist movement, against all reason and logic, he said they were Muslims, but there is no evidence that they were into that.
The election in November proved that libertarians are the bottleneck. Political analysts looked at all the demographics and concluded that it was the libertarian-associated demographics who did not show up to the polls, while evangelicals showed up as usual. In talking to people around that time and after the election, I realized it too. What this means is that from now on, the Republican Party has to produce candidates that small "l" libertarians (i.e., Tea Party and independent types) can rally around. If they don't, they can't win another election. This is the reality. I have ground my teeth over such relatives and acquaintances who did not vote for Romney in such extreme circumstances as we are in today, but there it is.
That you do not see it is really scary.
Well, I am certainly never okay with the government being the daddy. Forced wealth redistribution is inherently evil. Private wealth redistribution - if someone wants to voluntarily give - that is just fine. But marriage is a moral-legal relationship, one of mass popular demand, so the law has to presume certain rational standards. One of those presumptions is that if they have children, the man will help provide the means. This is rational because a rational man would want to help raise the child in the best conditions he could give them, and no rational woman would agree to a marriage that did not have such standards. Women don't say, yeah, I'm fine with a husband who would leave me the bill for everything that happens.
Previous 11 - 20 Next