Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
He was one that was thinking about, although I he's probably not as bad as some. But really – would it be better for the RINOs to switch parties? I ask this as an honest intellectual question – would it be better for the Republicans to regroup into a small but highly dedicated and principled core, or to maintain varying degrees of conservative credentials so as to maximize positions of power? On one hand, the conservative message could be pure and unadulterated; on the other hand, it would mean the Republicans would be out of power on committees and large influence within the federal government.
Negative but unfortunately realistic comment. Was hoping Paul would encourage and change the GOP so the RINOs will be gone.
If RINOs have not been pushed out by now, chances are they won't be in the future. Probably because the people voting for them are in part centrists/leftists. If the RINOs were to get kicked out, they may very well be replaced by Democrats so there is an overall decrease in size in the Republicans in Congress. Is this what we want? Perhaps.
I think this helped raise his profile on a national level. Yeah, it was a risky/bold move that can easily be criticized now, but notable historical figures are filled with those who made risky/bold moves that can easily be criticized at the time.
Having now watched the first two seasons (the third comes out this summer), I must say that this is one of my favorite series on television now. It gets better as it goes along.
Yeah but in the article in the Washington Times, did you see the reaction from we the people? 1817 thumbs up, 4 thumbs down, for this comment:Hey Old Guard,Go to pasture and senescence.http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2013/mar/7/graham-mccain-blast-paul-filibuster/
Kind of think it was a publicity stunt. I can't say if it was meant to be self-serving, to bring greater attention to a controversial program, or to inspire people that the Republicans go to extreme measures to fight tyranny.
I sort of agree with Donnie, but I would add that in order to divorce the word from political/emotional implications, it needs to be defined more narrowly. Here is the standard dictionary definition:"the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group." This definitions seems to rule out mere "racist" wars, since racism/bigotry could be a motivation for war but without the intent to annihilate an entire group. Besides, if racism/bigotry were the grounds for genocide, then we could probably call virtually all wars throughout history "genocides" since these have probably been present in one form or another. But to do that would seem rather ridiculous.I agree that it's a made-up term, but I don't think that negates its usefulness, since it distinguishes a certain type of activity from other activities.And then, there's the implications of the word. Should perpetrators of genocide be punished any more than those who commit the same type of actions but without intent to systematically annihilate? Should its victims be treated any more sympathetically compared to those who suffer from malicious enemies not engaged in genocide? That, in my mind, is the real crux of the matter, and where politics enters into the picture.
I think you meant this link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21636723Well, what can you say? Thus is the result of the Foodstamp President, who has made it clear that re-fashioning America according to his liberal-socialist dream takes precedence over economic recovery. His solution to raise the minimum wage may sound nice, but in the long term this would merely result in businesses raising their prices, thereby forcing people (including the poor) to pay more anyway. As for the story itself, I am guessing that the family has encountered several problems specific to its situation. The article said the family pays $1326/month for its house, which may mean they have over $200,000 left on their mortgage. It seems that this family should be renting, not owning a house. I would expect that they could rent a decent-sized apartment or house in Iowa for under $1000/month, particularly since real estate prices there cannot be all that expensive relative to other areas.
Yes, I know we are talking about a girl who was 11 when she saw Schindler's List, a film she also played a role in. Am I the only person who thinks it is strange that she claims to be traumatized by seeing a work of fiction of which she was a part?I will not say anymore before you start beating me up for being insensitive too. I just wonder how we as a species have not only survived, but managed to become the dominant species on earth given the manifest weakness of our psyches to trying times and events.
When I see certain movies with child actors, I sometimes think that those kids really should not be watching the movies they were in because it has inappropriate scenes for kids of their age. I don't think that Schindler's List is a movie that is appropriate for young people, either. I think the girl in question was only in a few scenes, and so it's understandable she would not have seen the other, more gruesome scenes. Then again, I am of the belief that children/adolescents should not be subjected to the underbelly of the world - all of man's hatred, violence, sexual perversions, and the like - too soon. They'll see it soon enough (it is pretty much inevitable) but there's no need to rush it.
Yes, Apollo 11 – I copied what was contained in the url. I thought it awfully late for a second Apollo mission but didn't bother investigating more.
Syria's sites are feeling the effects of its civil war.http://www.freep.com/article/20130303/COL21/303030091/1081/col
I have to agree with Aeth here. If Brazil has the means why can;t they join the club. Tjhey are not a threat to the US and West. If anything they are another member of the club. It is not like they are coming out of nowhere with this. You guys do know that Brazilian troops fought with the Allies in Italy in WWII don't you?
My original post was not a claim that Brazil was not justified in obtaining a nuclear sub, but instead a question of why, and whether it was good or bad. I am not particularly persuaded by the argument of "why not?", since there are some pretty good generic reasons why the proliferation of more advanced military hardware around the globe is not a good thing.
As to statistics, I remember a line about "numbers don't lie but liars use numbers." Any use of statistics or numbers in history are suspect and historians must be careful about using figures and most hedge when they do use numbers, especially about such things as war dead and population. That does not mean we must eschew demographic and casualty data because they are inherently unreliable. It means that historians must be careful about their assertions regarding such things. We have to use them, or what should we use in their stead? Vague statements like a lot, and a few don't seem to cut it.
I would agree with that statement. I am not of the school that may assert we cannot come up with any statistics for pre-modern history. Historians may disagree on number, but that's part of the normal process of historical scholarship, and it (hopefully) leads to more research which provides greater evidence for more exact numbers.
