Join the discussion below, or Read more at Hampton Roads Daily Press.
#986237 Sep 20, 2013
Because we read it after we passed it...
"Home Depot sends 20,000 employees into Obamacare"
#986238 Sep 20, 2013
Why go to work...
"Welfare Pays More than Minimum Wage in 35 States: Q&A with Cato's Michael Tanner"
#986239 Sep 20, 2013
I think he has a talk radio show. Ask Fetch, she listens to Limbaugh, and Levin, maybe she fits Walsh in at lunch time.
#986240 Sep 20, 2013
Give it up Jane; what's next? A regurgitation of Michelle Malkin?
#986241 Sep 20, 2013
How Modern Liberalism is Causing the Decline of Western Civilization
So because of modern liberalism having taken over our educational institutions, what you're left with is not really adults, but citizens of voting age who cannot judge their own positions but are virulently antagonistic to any position other than their own.
Why? Because when you've been brought up to believe that indiscriminateness is a moral imperative, any position other than their own must have been arrived at through the employment of discrimination.
This is why Bush is Hitler; this is why Reagan is Hitler; this is why Giuliani is Hitler.
How is Rudolph Giuliani like Hitler to a thinking person? In one way: Hitler discriminated against the Jews; Giuliani discriminated against the crack-addicted prostitutes mugging people in Times Square.
Hitler discriminated against the Catholics; Giuliani discriminated against the criminal overlords.
Hitler discriminated against the gypsies; Giuliani discriminated against the terrorists on 9/11 & beyond.
In other words, any form of discrimination is wrong.
The Modern Liberals know that theirs is a position arrived at through the moral imperative of indiscriminateness; therefore, any position other than their own must have been arrived at through the employment of discrimination.
So this makes you not just wrong on your issues & your stances.
They don't even think about your issues & your stances. They don't have to. Even if they were willing to, even if they were able to, they don't need to.
Would you sit and contemplate Hitler's Social Security policy? No, you would fight Hitler.
So what you're left with is, after 10, 12, 14, 20 years in these indoctrination centers--and it's not a coincidence that the longer you stay in the indoctrination process, the more morally inverted you become, so that to become head of the Ethnic Studies Department, you have to argue that the Islamic fascist terrorists are the good guys & the victims of 9/11 were all little Eichmanns--is people who quite literally cannot differentiate between good & evil, right & wrong, better & worse.
But indiscriminateness of thought does not lead to indiscriminateness of policy.
Indiscriminateness of thought invariably leads the Modern Liberal to side with evil over good, wrong over right, and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success.
Why? Because in a world where you are indiscriminate, where no behavior is to be deemed better or worse than any other, your expectation is that all behavior should lead to equally good outcomes.
When, in the real world, different behaviors lead to different outcomes, you and I know why-- because we think.
We know why communities that promote teenage promiscuity tend to fail at a greater rate than communities that promote teenage abstinence:
Teenage promiscuity & teenage abstinence are not the same behaviors. Teenage abstinence is a better behavior.
Forget the moral component for a moment; let's just talk practicalities.
If your boy's out messing around, he's not home reading a book.
If your daughter's down at the abortion mill again, she's not at the library studying for the SATs.
If your son's in a hospital bed somewhere dying of AIDS, he's not putting together his 5-year plan.
You and I recognize why communities that promote teenage abstinence do better than those that promote teenage promiscuity in their music, in their movies, in the schools.
But to the Modern Liberal who cannot make that judgment--must not make that judgment--that would be discriminating. They have no explanation.
Therefore, the only explanation for success has to be that somehow success has cheated.
Success, simply by its existence, is proof positive to the Modern Liberal of some kind of chicanery & likely bigotry.
Failure, simply by its existence--no other evidence needed, just the fact that it has failed--is enough proof to them that failure has been victimized.
“Peace on Earth”
Since: Sep 08
#986242 Sep 20, 2013
You reich wingnuts really have a problem facing reality. Your claim was that Obama was the one supplying surplus military equipment to police agencies. The FACT that this has been going on since 1972 is NOT "irrelevant". Truth just keeps biting you in the backside and you can't handle it. Pathetic.
As far as our police agencies definitely deserve all the help they can get. Supplying them with humvees is certainly appropriate given all mudslides, snowstorms, and floods we have seen of late. Sure beats those old 4x4's that kept getting stuck in the mud.
However, if we stopped mass producing military vehicles to replace perfectly good ones, there wouldn't be any surplus to sale. Hmmmm.
#986243 Sep 20, 2013
So the mindless foot soldier like the college students that are planted at Obama rallies or those who soil the local park as Occupy Wallstreeters, which is what I call the non-elite, will:
Support the elite's blueprint for utopia,
Will side with evil over good, wrong over right, and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success, out of a sense of justice.
As I said at the beginning, they're not evil. It's just a mindless acceptance without any true Socratic desire to talk about the REAL CONSEQUENCES.
It's meaningless to them, and it's why John Lennon said utopia was all the people living for today.
By the way, it's not a coincidence that those who live for today now have so much debt.
What is debt? It's the failure to repay a promise from yesterday.
And they vote themselves nothing but more and more entitlements, which is what? Stuff for me. I'll worry about who pays for it later.
The same is true of good and evil.
Since nothing can deemed good, nothing can be deemed evil.
That which society does recognize as good must be the beneficiary of some sort of prejudice.
That which society recognizes as evil must be the victim of that prejudice.
So, again, the mindless foot soldier will invariably side with whatever policy, mindlessly accept whatever policy seeks to tear down what is good--America, Israel, Wal-Mart--and elevate what is evil until everything meets in the middle and there is nothing left to fight about.
Take an issue in the news and think like a Modern Liberal, and you will see how, once you've been indoctrinated into this mindset, there is no other choice.
Remember, I said it was inevitable.
Once you belong to this cult of indiscriminateness, there is no other conclusion you can come to than that good is evil and that evil is the victim of good.
We all know it's official policy at the Leftist media outlets to never call Islamic Jihad, al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, Harakat ul-Mujahidin, or any of the other Islamic fascist terrorist groups around the world "terrorists," and you know why.
In fact, it's even in official memos to reporters ordering them not to use the appropriate word.
That reason is that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Who are we to employ critical, rational judgment?"
But, as a very minimum standard, can't we at least agree that in order to be called a "freedom fighter," you have to be fighting for freedom?
We knew what Osama bin Laden was fighting for; he's told us. It's not freedom; it's an oppressive theocracy in which women are covered from head to toe and beaten if their ankles become exposed, and unless we all change to his religion, we are considered the offspring of pigs and monkeys to be decapitated.
People like Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore will call Osama bin Laden a freedom fighter because being indiscriminate quite literally leaves them unable to tell the difference between freedom and having your head hacked off.
That's how sick this mentality is.
So, if The New York Times and CNN and Newsweek and the rest of the leftist media outlets are right and there is no objective difference between the terrorist and the freedom fighter, why is it that you and I teach our children that George Washington is a hero and Yasser Arafat and Saddam Hussein are villains? You and I know why because we think.
Saint Petersburg, FL
#986244 Sep 20, 2013
If it's liberal, It's ghetto.. The usa bent over and punked by Harry and Pelosi...
It's the culture...
#986245 Sep 20, 2013
No dumbazz__the poster said, "the point was that the war was officially over in 1973 under Nixon." Obviously the poster was wrong.
The US sustained 168 casualties in 1974 and 176 in 1975*(a number of deaths from previous years were officially recorded in 1975)
It's worth noting that the US continues to pay for that war in veterans disability payments and medical services/benefits. Perhaps your familiar with the Hampton Veterans Affairs Medical Center.
#986246 Sep 20, 2013
Why Liberals are Intolerant
George Washington risked his personal fortune to personally lead his troops into battle: battles fought nobly against other uniformed warriors for the purpose of creating the freest nation in the history of the world. Pretty noble, pretty heroic stuff.
Yasser Arafat, on the other hand, stole his people's money, sent 14-year-olds out to fight his battles: battles fought against kids and women and civilians in pizza parlors and Passover ceremonies, all for the purpose of maintaining his corrupt dictatorship. Pretty villainous stuff.
But to the folks at The New York Times, there is no objective difference between the terrorist and the freedom fighter.
So why do we teach our children that George Washington is a hero? The only possible explanation is that he is a white Christian of European descent.
If there is no difference between the behaviors of the freedom fighters and the terrorists, then why do we teach that Yasser Arafat and Saddam Hussein are villains?
There can be no other reason than they are darker-skinned Muslims of Middle Eastern birth.
So when push comes to shove and after 18 United Nations resolutions and 10 years of having our airplanes shot at in direct violation of our very clear agreements, after Saddam Hussein had invaded Iran and invaded Kuwait, bombed Saudi Arabia and bombed Israel, committed atrocities against the Kurds in the North and was committing genocide against the Marsh Arabs in the South, we finally, reluctantly go to war to liberate those poor people.
You and I know why because we think: because we make critical, rational, moral judgments.
But to the Modern Liberal, to the mindless, to those who cannot discriminate between these behaviors, the only possible explanation for us going to war is some nefarious cause: because we're evil and Saddam Hussein, therefore, is a victim.
So they will rush there, as we've seen, and act as human shields to protect his rape rooms and his torture chambers because they won't judge rape rooms and torture chambers, for that requires critical and moral judgment.
And if you listened to the chants of the mindless minions as they marched down the streets in their anti-America rallies, which the forged document users and the Leftist press euphemistically called "anti-war rallies," you could hear their chant:
"One, two, three, four, we don't want your racist war."
What race, exactly, comprises Iraq? What are they talking about? They don't know. It's not a factual statement; it's not an accurate statement.
Didn't we just recently go to war to protect Muslims in Kuwait? Didn't we bomb the Christians of Europe to protect the Muslims of Europe?
What is this based on? It's based on the reality that once you subscribe to indiscriminateness, anything other than indiscriminateness is the evil of having discriminated.
Since: Dec 08
gauley bridge wv
#986247 Sep 20, 2013
EKG glove hooks to smartphone. Sends EKG to your doctor from home.
“Peace on Earth”
Since: Sep 08
#986248 Sep 20, 2013
Wrong once again. You are batting a big fat ZERO.
All the Volstead Act did was "set down methods of enforcing the Eighteenth Amendment, by defining which "intoxicating liquors" were prohibited, and which were excluded from prohibition.
The Eighteenth Amendment SPECIFICALLY established the prohibition of alcoholic beverages by declaring the production, transport and sale of alcohol illegal."
Your arguments keep getting buried by FACTS. Time for you to stop fighting windmills.
Since: Dec 08
gauley bridge wv
#986249 Sep 20, 2013
Scientists from the University of Sheffield believe they have found life arriving to Earth from space after sending a balloon to the stratosphere.
After it landed, scientists discovered that they had captured a diatom fragment and some unusual biological entities from the stratosphere, all of which are too large to have come from Earth.
#986250 Sep 20, 2013
You mean the way Rappers distrubute wealth in the Strip Clubs,On Molly, Jewelry, High Priced Cars,Drugs,Value less Homes etc ....
#986251 Sep 20, 2013
Moscow pulls away from Kerry-Lavrov deal on Syrian chemical disarmament. Assad gets to keep his WMD Russian leaders finally picked apart the Kerry-Lavrov understanding for Syrias chemical disarmament - less than a week after it was unveiled in Geneva last Saturday. Thursday, Sept. 19, they slapped down a string of coordinated obstructions. One knockout blow came from President Vladimir Putin, who commented dryly that he could not be 100 percent certain that the plan for the destruction of Syrias chemical weapons would succeed.But everything we have seen so far in recent days gives us confidence that this will happen. I hope so, he said.http://www.debka.com/arti cle/23295/Moscow-pulls-away-fr om-Kerry-Lavrov-deal-on-Syrian -chemical-disarmament-Assad-ge ts-to-keep-his-WMD
To dispel that hope, Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu followed up with a denial of any plans to destroy the Syrian chemical stocks on Russian soil.
Then, in an interview to Fox News, Syrian President Bashar Assad, in sync with Moscow, asked mockingly:It [the destruction of poison chemicals] is very detrimental to the environment. If the American administration is ready to pay this money and take the responsibility of bringing toxic materials to the United States, why dont they do it?
Since Russia and the US are the only countries with the industrial-scale capacity to destroy chemical munitions, and their import is banned under US law, Assads chemical arsenal is safe.
In fact, Germany alone has offered to send a small number of chemical experts to Syria, No one else is ready to oversee the complicated dismantling and removal of an estimated 10,000 tonnes of dangerously poisonous materials, pay for the operation or accept the materials on its soil.
US Secretary of State John Kerry, seeing his understanding with Sergey Lavrov slipping away, made a desperate attempt to save it. He called a news conference at the State Department Thursday to declare that it was essential the deal be enforced with a binding resolution and that the UN Security Council act on it next week, when the UN General Assembly holds its annual meeting in New York.
Kerry did not indicate how the US administration would react if the deal fell through or whether the US military option would be revived.
But it was already clear that his deal with Lavrov was going nowhere, even to the few Obama sympathizers who had hailed the president for finally managing to get Moscow on board for a solution of the Syrian war and the removal of Assads chemical arsenal.
#986252 Sep 20, 2013
Bernard Forand wrote:
Noticed your disdain for liberalism. Im liberal as you are not. So lets take a simple look at what I represent and what you represent.
1. broad-minded: tolerant of different views and standards of behavior in others
2. progressive politically or socially: favoring gradual reform, especially political reforms that extend democracy, distribute wealth more evenly, and protect the personal freedom of the individual
3. generous: freely giving money, time, or some other asset
My great-aunt was liberal in her bequests.
4. generous in quantity: large in size or amount
a liberal helping
5. not literal: not limited to the literal meaning in translation or interpretation
a liberal interpretation of the rules
6. culturally oriented: concerned with general cultural matters and broadening of the mind rather than professional or technical study
a liberal education
7. of political liberalism: relating to a political ideology of liberalism
n (plural lib·er·als)
liberal person: somebody who favors tolerance or open-mindedness
[14th century. Via French < Latin liberalis < liber "free"]
Word Key: Synonyms
Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Now to define your state of existence we just have to access the acronyms of these definitions. For example Broad Minded acronym Closed Minded
tolerant of different views and standards of behavior in others acronym; Intolerant of the views of others and standards of behavior in others. LOL That sure sounds like a BIGOT to me. Now think you can do the rest all by yourself and expose yourself as to what you really are Admire Churchill do yee?
The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries. The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is. Winston Churchill. LOL sounds like a liberal
#986253 Sep 20, 2013
Bloomerberg for President, a true moderate!
Candidate of the No Fun Party
Since: Dec 08
gauley bridge wv
#986254 Sep 20, 2013
From earlier today.
Nearly half of US jobs could be at risk of computerization, Oxford Martin School study shows
Transport, logistics, and office roles most likely to come under threat
September 19, 2013
The probability of computerization (0 =none; 1=certain) for the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2010 occupational categories, along with the share in low, medium and high probability categories. The probability axis can also be seen as a rough timeline, where high-probability occupations are likely to be substituted by computer capital relatively soon. Note that the total area under all curves is equal to total U.S. employment.(Credit: Carl Benedikt Frey and Michael A. Osborne)
Nearly half of U.S. jobs could be susceptible to computerization over the next two decades, a study from the Oxford Martin Programme on the Impacts of Future Technology suggests.
The study, a collaboration between Dr. Carl Benedikt Frey (Oxford Martin School) and Dr. Michael A. Osborne (Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford), found that jobs in transportation, logistics, and office/administrative support are at high risk of automation.
More surprisingly, occupations within the service industry are also highly susceptible, despite recent job growth in this sector, they say.
We identified several key bottlenecks currently preventing occupations being automated, says Osborne.As big data helps to overcome these obstacles, a great number of jobs will be put at risk.
The study examined more than 700 detailed occupation types, noting the types of tasks workers perform and the skills required. By weighting these factors, as well as the engineering obstacles currently preventing computerization, the researchers assessed the degree to which these occupations may be automated in the coming decades.
The probability of computerization for the occupation types ranges from recreational therapists (the lowest ) to (thankfully) telemarketers, the highest probability
Saint Petersburg, FL
#986255 Sep 20, 2013
You reichtard making up a lie to justify a lie... Yes Hiltler was a liberal and I wish someone had an answer to your addiction to ghetto.
If it's liberal, it's ghetto...
It's the culture...
#986256 Sep 20, 2013
Modern Liberals would not agree with these other Churchill quotes:
"We contend that for a nation to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle."
Socialists think profits are a vice; I consider losses the real vice.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodilehoping it will eat him last.
"Some see private enterprise as a predatory target to be shot, others as a cow to be milked, but few are those who see it as a sturdy horse pulling the wagon."
"You have enemies? Good. That means youve stood up for something, sometime in your life."
We (The British) have not journeyed across the centuries, across the oceans, across the mountains, across the prairies, because we are made of sugar candy.
You ask, What is our policy? I will say; It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us: to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy. You ask, What is our aim? I can answer with one word: Victoryvictory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival.
If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.
The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.
Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fall, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth lasts for a thousand years, men will still say,This was their finest hour!
Add your comments below
|BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09)||1 hr||Maverick 808||237,732|
|Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08)||5 hr||Mothra||63,392|
|Nancy Pelosi (our demented gal).||6 hr||Willie Wackoff||6|
|Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09)||6 hr||TRD||71,396|
|Four letter word game (Dec '11)||6 hr||GEORGIA||2,486|
|Review: 24hrTrash||7 hr||Steve smith||1|
|Meryl Streep is a worthless know nothing bitch.||8 hr||Redred61||18|
Find what you want!
Search Chicago Forum Now
Copyright © 2017 Topix LLC