1 - 10 Next
In response to:

Pope Francis -- Against the West?

Yan5 Wrote: Mar 26, 2013 1:16 AM
Acts 17 28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. 29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God... Matthew 3:38 which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. Yep, even in the King James version.
In response to:

America Nears El Tipping Pointo

Yan5 Wrote: Dec 06, 2012 12:17 AM
Ridiculous. How could Republicans reach out more to the white vote than they already have? Didn't you read the article? Republicans already own the white vote. Why don't you explain what you mean by 'race realism,' if you can, so that people can have a discussion with you. That phrase admits of many possible meanings. Does it refer to the observation of racial differences? Or to policies which you believe are justified by those differences?
In response to:

America Nears El Tipping Pointo

Yan5 Wrote: Dec 06, 2012 12:06 AM
Your posts point out a reality that it is no longer productive to publicly discuss in the manner in which you discuss it. If the intelligent people who determine public policy won't come to their senses after reading Charles Murray then how will buffoonery help turn the tide? The deed is done. Now, put your efforts into thinking about how to best preserve as much of civilization as can be preserved for the future. Or if that is a vain undertaking concentrate on your personal salvation.
In response to:

America Nears El Tipping Pointo

Yan5 Wrote: Dec 05, 2012 11:02 PM
"On it's current trajectory this nation will suffer a second Civil War resulting in it's dissolution. The result will be multi-national 'nations' constituting separate elements of those too different. Get ready for Americus and Africus....AMEXICUS" Rubbish. Iraq hasn't divided; why would the United States of America? We already tried that nonsense once. We will change in ways yet to be foreseen, but not that way.
In response to:

America Nears El Tipping Pointo

Yan5 Wrote: Dec 05, 2012 10:56 PM
Yes, we know. The best of us are prone to sophistry, when a strong desire--like a belief in man's natural equality and infinite malleability--contradicts an obvious truth. Our immigration policies have indulged fantasies about the nature of man, and the United States and the rest of Western civilization will forever and permanently reap the results. OK? Satisfied? There is no undoing what has been done. Now, let's get back to life and politics. Harping on this subject is no help to us whatsoever.
In response to:

Stirrings of Secession

Yan5 Wrote: Dec 03, 2012 12:58 PM
The Civil War certainly settled the question for the time being; though it is not a question that can ever be permanently settled. Force is certainly one factor that answers the question. Force helped answer the implicit question posed in the Declaration of Independence: 'when in the course of human events it becomes necessary....' The colonists that penned and lived by those words believed that time had come; England obviously felt otherwise. The contest between the 2 views was settled largely by force. When does it become necessary to separate? That depends. So long as there is no world court able to determine when an allegedly consensual contract is permitted to be revoked by one of the parties, war will mostly decide.
In response to:

Stirrings of Secession

Yan5 Wrote: Dec 03, 2012 12:36 PM
The Onion did a very funny piece on this topic the other day. According to the faux news source, President Obama decided to allow 10 states to secede, 'but no more.' Do you really think President Obama would allow a single state to secede peaceably from the Union?
In response to:

Stirrings of Secession

Yan5 Wrote: Dec 03, 2012 12:34 PM
The whole point of the Constitution was to create a union stronger than 'a loose union of sovereign states.' We already had that under the Articles of Confederation. It was because of deeply experienced shortcomings of that type of union that the Founders decided they needed something different.
In response to:

Stirrings of Secession

Yan5 Wrote: Dec 03, 2012 12:29 PM
Your definition of 'national' bespeaks historical amnesia. 'National' usually means the overcoming of the obstacles of geography, racial differences, historical differences and so on, to form a union. Yugoslavia was a nation; it has splintered into ethnicities. The countries of Europe were not mono-racial. There are many different kinds of Germans; the French comprise Gallic predecessors, germanic Franks, and other western Germans; the English comprise French Normans, Danish, Anglo-Saxons, Britons and others; the UK of course is even more diverse; Italy is such a diverse mix of peoples that at one time the definition of 'Italian' was viewed as nothing more than a convenient construction. Nationalism cements diverse groups into one.
In response to:

Stirrings of Secession

Yan5 Wrote: Dec 02, 2012 11:35 AM
'whenever the dissolution of the Union arrives, America will have reason to exclaim, in the words of the poet, "FAREWELL! A LONG FAREWELL TO ALL MY GREATNESS." --John Jay, Federalist No. 3 Whether it were legal or not, secession is a BAD IDEA.
1 - 10 Next