Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: 2MAR$ who wrote (66489)	3/12/2015 10:19:02 AM
From: Greg or e	Respond to of 69300

'It is said that a fish as large as a man has a brain no larger than the kernel of an almond. In all fish and reptiles where there is no great brain development, there is also no conscious sexual control. The lower down in the scale of human development we go the less sexual control we find. It is said that the aboriginal Australian, the lowest known species of the human family, just a step higher than the chimpanzee in brain development, has so little sexual control that police authority alone prevents him from obtaining sexual satisfaction on the streets.' (Sanger, "What Every Girl Should Know" 1920, p. 47).

To: 2MAR$ who wrote (66489)	3/12/2015 10:49:40 AM
From: Greg or e	1 Recommendation Recommended By Brumar89 Respond to of 69300

Speaking of Marxists... Barack Obama: A Man For The Ages! Ann Coulter Everyone says President Obama is a feckless commander, weak in statecraft, especially compared to the great leaders of the Western world, such as Reagan and Churchill. I believe this does Obama a great injustice. It's so easy to react the way a great leader would. Sure, Obama could have left a small contingent of American troops in Iraq, preserved America's victory, and prevented the entire region from collapsing into chaos and terror. He could have refrained from issuing empty "red line" threats to Syria. He could call ISIS "Islamic." But anybody could do that -- even ISIS calls itself "Islamic." (Note for scholars: That's what the first "I" stands for.) These are the obvious answers. Obama could do it, too. But let me hasten to add: Those guys -- unlike Obama -- never won a Nobel Peace Prize. The genius of Obama is that he takes a much more nuanced view of the world. Rather than lament that Reagan, Churchill and other great men aren't our leaders in this increasingly dangerous world, we should really be lamenting that Obama wasn't in charge in their day. Take Paul Revere. He warned the Minutemen: "The British are coming!" True, that worked out OK. It got the job done. Revere conveyed the essential information, albeit in a bumper-sticker phrase, susceptible to ugly stereotypes. But what if it had been Barack Revere! Prepare to be dazzled. If Obama had been able to apply his intricate, coruscating mind to the situation, he might have cried out, as he galloped through the streets that fateful night: Good evening, everybody! I want to say a few words on a number of topics and take a few questions! First, beginning with the No. 1 thing most Americans care about -- the British are -- well, it would tempting to say they're "coming," but that would be painting with too broad a brush. Is the entire British Empire coming? Is Bombay coming? Bengal? The Turks & Caicos? This is something I just recently heard about on the evening news! The truth is, "We found out that certain forces are marshaling." We are not at war with the British Empire. We are at war with people who have perverted the British Empire! Our military action has to be part of a broader, comprehensive strategy to protect America's working families and strengthen the middle class! And that starts with the Minutemen building on the progress that they've made so far and forming an inclusive force that will unite their towns and strengthen their security forces! And I've asked Secretary Kerry to continue to build the coalition that's needed to meet this threat. Which, by the way, is COMING! See? One could say, "The British are coming," but Obama's way is so much better! Now let's take Churchill's much-slobbered-over "fight them on the beaches" peroration, the nub of which was: "We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender." How would Prime Minister Obama rally the nation? I put forward in the past an all-of-the-above war strategy, but our war strategy must be about more than just winning one war. And, by the way, it's certainly got to be about more than just taking one beach. Now, I know there's been a lot of controversy surrounding the proposal to fight on the beaches because any number of natural habitats would be disturbed and permanently endangered if beaches are to be used as a venue for armed conflict. There are, for example, 19 different nesting birds on South Coast beach alone. And the EPA, at my direction, is going through the final stages of evaluating the proposal. That's how it's always been done. But I do want to be clear: Allowing troops to land on beaches and fields and streams requires a finding that doing so would be in the long-term interests of our nation. And our national interest will be served only if this project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution. The net effects of a beach landing's impact on our climate will be absolutely critical to determining whether this project is allowed to go forward. It's relevant. And we will not surrender. Again, we have a choice: A reductive, blood-and-soil harangue, or Obama's more nuanced appreciation -- of the Nazis, yes -- but also the costs to a coastal habitat. Finally, let's consider Reagan's exhortation at the Berlin Wall: "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" Right off the bat you notice there's nothing at all collaborative in Reagan's speech, no "join with us in working together to achieve a compromise we can all live with by studying the possibility of removing this wall." Obama might have said: Mr. Gorbachev, this wall has come to assume a certain kind of symbolic significance which should not obscure the fact that it is a much more complicated problem than putting up a fence. Whether these walls and fences are effective is questionable. Our own experience with fences has hardly been a resounding success. Walls are costly to build and costly to maintain. Our country has decided against building a fence on the Mexican border after government reports showed that it would cost $200 trillion to maintain. What is the long-term impact of these expensive and ineffective border walls? As one of our American poets, Robert Frost, wrote: Before I built a wall I'd ask to know What I was walling in or walling out, And to whom I was like to give offence. Something there is that doesn't love a wall, That wants it down. Again, Reagan got the job done -- if by "job," you mean "contribute to the collapse of communism, thereby destroying the greatest genocidal killing machine in human history." But we're talking buzzwords -- primitive, Cro-Magnon, base-pleasing, declarative, bumper-sticker nonsense. Reagan has achieved far too much glory in history for that speech. Sure, Reagan was against the wall. But what was he for? How much more could have been accomplished if Obama had been there! truthrevolt.org

To: 2MAR$ who wrote (66489)	3/12/2015 10:58:14 AM
From: Greg or e	1 Recommendation Recommended By Brumar89 Respond to of 69300

First they came for the Jews President Obama does not stand up for Jews murdered by Islamic Terrorists. President Obama does not stand up for Christians murdered by Islamic Terrorists. Is there anyone President Obama will stand up for? Ben Shapiro explains why the answer is probably 'no.' TRANSCRIPT: After a Muslim terrorist shot up a kosher supermarket in the hours after the Charlie Hebdo massacre, President Obama spoke out. He said: It is entirely legitimate for the American people to be deeply concerned when you've got a bunch of violent, vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris. Randomly. Obviously, the shooting of Jews in a kosher supermarket was not random. In fact, we have proof: the shooter called the media and stated, “I targeted them because they were Jewish.” Why didn’t Obama acknowledge the reality of Islamic anti-Semitism? Because were he to do so, he would have to acknowledge that Israel is right and its enemies are wrong, that no territorial concessions would buy off Muslim religious fanatics. He would have to realize that whether radical Muslims attack Jews in Jerusalem or in Paris, they’re attacking Jews, not stand-ins for Israel. He doesn’t want to acknowledge that. Instead, he and the European community want to pretend that Israel is not part of Western Civilization. And the Islamists notice. And they escalate. After Muslim terrorists from ISIS beheaded some 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians, the President released a statement condemning “the despicable and cowardly murder of twenty-one Egyptian citizens in Libya by ISIL-affiliated terrorists.” Do you notice a word missing? The word is “Christians.” Why didn’t the President acknowledge the reality of Islamic anti-Christian bigotry? Because were he to do so, he would have to acknowledge that Western Civilization is not at fault for Islamic terrorism, and that no amount of diplomacy or economic bribery will buy off Islamic terrorists. So, instead, the President pretends that all religions are equally violent, as he said at the National Prayer Breakfast: Lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ….There is a tendency in us, a sinful tendency that can pervert and distort our faith. Forget that the Crusades were defensive in nature, that the Inquisition with all of its horrors was an attempt to stop mob executions, that abolitionists and civil rights leaders alike were religious Christians. Focus instead on the fact that today, not hundreds of years ago or decades, Islamists are murdering Christians en masse in Iraq, Libya, Nigeria, Sudan, and Syria. First, they came for the Jews, and Obama did not speak up, because he was not a Jew. Then, they came for the Christians, and Obama did not speak up, because he is not a Christian. Now, they come for Western Civilization. And Obama will not speak up because he is not an advocate of Western Civilization. He is a believer that Western Civilization is exploitative; that terrorism is caused by imbalances between the West and the rest; that if only the West would minimize its arrogance on the world stage, peace would result. And so we cut the military. And so we make way for an Iranian nuclear program. And so we hamstring Israel and Egypt and insist that ISIS is not Islamic. They are coming for the Jews. They are coming for the Christians. They are coming for Western Civilization. By the time the radical Muslims come for those who think like President Obama, there will be no one left to speak out.