◄Dave►

◄Dave►

70p

218 comments posted · 16 followers · following 9

7 hours ago @ RobertRinger.com - Next Up: Indiana · 0 replies · +1 points

Agreed. With both Cruz and Kasich now out of the game, it is Hillary’s turn in Trump’s sights for his wild politician destruction derby. It should be even more entertaining than the preliminary rounds. It appears that “Anonymous” is ready to help with an outline for the opposition research:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wK2K5v5bm0Q

How many of those scandals had you forgotten? How many have young voters never even heard of? What are the chances that they soon will? This is going to be continuously amusing to watch, especially the dilemma of the #NeverTrump cabal, as he systematically rips the bark off her, on the way to his overwhelming victory in November… 😀 ◄Dave►

6 days ago @ RobertRinger.com - Western Civ in the Cro... · 1 reply · +2 points

It is much worse on this side of the pond than the author could imagine. It is as if 10,000 years of human experience went for naught, now that this latest generation of spoiled, over-schooled, and undereducated children have arrived on the scene, to tell us independent thinkers how we should be living our lives. ◄Dave►

1 week ago @ RobertRinger.com - Reality Therapy · 1 reply · +1 points

Agreed! 'A+' Regardless of the merits, that was probably the most gracious response to criticism I have ever encountered on the internet. And, your reply to it was also pitch perfect, Paul. Well done, both of you! ◄Dave►

1 week ago @ RobertRinger.com - Is Cruz Cracking Up? · 1 reply · +2 points

Are lawyerly judicial opinions all that mere voters, who still revere the Constitution, are permitted to care about? If Cruz is a natural born citizen (NBC), then so was Winston Churchill. So is Prince Albert II, the current reigning monarch of Monaco. Does that make any sense?

Then, whatever was all the fuss about, over the question of whether Obama was born in Hawaii or Kenya? According to the legal opinions you cite, it could have made no difference to Obama's eligibility either way. One hell of a lot of people, on both sides of that dispute, sure thought it did. Why did a great many judges, including the SCOTUS itself on multiple occasions, dodge making a ruling on the matter?

One thing is indisputable: Until he renounced his Canadian citizenship two years ago, after deciding to run for POTUS, Canadian born citizen Cruz spent the first 44 years of his life as a certified NBC of Canada. If he was also simultaneously a NBC of America, then the term has no useful distinction whatever, and our Founders were foolish for even employing it in the Constitution.

In any case, those voters disagreeing with you and your court opinions, have every right to reject them as dispositive, and continue to refuse to vote for a candidate they reckon ineligible for the office. They also have the right to campaign against Cruz for that reason alone if they wish, and stating their opinion on the matter is not a 'lie,' just because a couple of lawyers in black robes have different opinions. ◄Dave►

1 week ago @ RobertRinger.com - Reality Therapy · 3 replies · +1 points

OK, I'll bite. What exactly do you mean when you use the term 'Money?' ◄Dave►

1 week ago @ RobertRinger.com - Is Cruz Cracking Up? · 0 replies · +1 points

Yes, of course, Richard. The right of self-defense goes without saying. I also reserve the right to be rude, to those busybodies insisting on pestering me with their nonsensical beliefs, and/or unwelcome prescriptions for how I should live my life. :) ◄Dave►

1 week ago @ RobertRinger.com - Is Cruz Cracking Up? · 0 replies · +1 points

Privacy is no longer my thing, and hasn't been for many years. Apparently, I am even less concerned about it than either of you. I always participate on the internet under my real name. If anyone is curious, it is displayed rather prominently at:
http://www.thoughtsaloud.com/2009/04/16/my-john-h...
…in an open and rather contumacious message to the Feds. Hiding from nothing, I now even permit my devices to report my GPS location when asked.

My point was that keeping the sheeple voting for the lessor of evils, is so critical to the continued success of the oligarchs' Incumbrepublocrat duopoly, that internet voting might trigger unintended consequences, if too many were to give up voting over their own privacy concerns. Australia long ago made it a crime not to vote. I suspect that the only thing holding our politicians back, is the lack of clarity over which wing of the duopoly would most benefit.

That said, currently the Progressives get their knickers in a twist, if their lo-fo voters are even asked to identify themselves and/or prove they are citizens entitled to vote. It is hard to imagine them ever permitting the level of personal scrutiny you are proposing, RS, especially if doing so would make it harder for them to rig an election.

Then again, I really don't intend to ever vote again, and would encourage others to also boycott elections, so pondering this subject is only an intellectual exercise. Perhaps I should just use your assurance that there will never again be the expectation of privacy in the act of voting, as additional ammunition for my anti-voting arguments. ;) ◄Dave►

1 week ago @ RobertRinger.com - Is Cruz Cracking Up? · 0 replies · +1 points

Oh, good grief. I am not "pro-abort"; I am anti-coercion. I probably find most abortions as distasteful as you do; but I find the notion of Piously Correct busybodies empowering the government, to force an unwilling woman to bear an unwanted child, even more egregious.

I was using the word 'atrocity' as a moral term, not a legal one. I know of no law proscribing atrocities. Like 'sin,' or 'good,' or 'bad,' the generality 'atrocity,' is in the eye of beholder. Many regard availing oneself of the option to abort a pregnancy as atrocious, even though doing so is currently perfectly legal.

In many cases, so do I; but it is patently ridiculous to claim that these women are not making a choice. I have not heard of any women being kidnapped, and forced to undergo an abortion procedure against their will. How are those voluntarily ingesting an abortifacient, being coerced and victimized? You may consider their choices foolish, bad, and even atrocious; but they are freely made choices nonetheless.

Many choices in life are rife with potential serious consequences. Any decision is another term for choice. In today's STD riddled hook-up culture, the decision to have unprotected sex, with someone whose sexual history is unknown, is itself a risky choice for women and even men. The choice to jump out of a perfectly good airplane, involves the calculated risk that one's chute might not open. Suicide, by definition, is choosing to experience dire consequences, as an alternative to perhaps less bearable pain.

Trump is a neophyte politician, who has not yet learned to resist answering hypothetical questions. Yet, I found the question reasonable, and his answer perfectly legitimate. Those wishing to ban the act of terminating a pregnancy, need to answer it themselves. One thing that is absolutely unpreventable in this society, is access to supposedly controlled drugs on the black market. Just try to ban abortifacients, and they will instantly become ubiquitous on the street, and probably easier for a teenager to obtain than they are now.

If abortion was made illegal, and it became known that a woman deliberately aborted a pregnancy all by herself, was a crime committed? If not, then abortion itself clearly would not really be illegal, and you folks are only fussing over physician-assisted abortion. If so, then what should be the legal consequences for her dastardly contumacy? If they are somehow less than a speeding ticket, what would be the point of another routinely unenforced statute? It would make about as much sense as the silly laws against suicide. ◄Dave►

1 week ago @ RobertRinger.com - Is Cruz Cracking Up? · 2 replies · +1 points

Richard, your "Ahimsa" somewhat reminds me of my own "Gospel According to Dave: Do Right, and Leave Others Be." ;) ◄Dave►

1 week ago @ RobertRinger.com - Is Cruz Cracking Up? · 4 replies · 0 points

Personally, I would much prefer a laissez faire stateless society, where everyone cooperated on a volunteer basis, and no one could impose their values on others. Yet, the Marxists and religionists are unlikely ever give up pestering their neighbors to conform to their model of the world. If we must suffer a government then, I agree with Voltaire that the best form of government actually is a benevolent dictatorship - tempered by an occasional assassination.

I'm afraid our Republic is long past any reasonable hope of a revival. Overhauling Congress, or even creating a viable third party, won't do it. It matters not which candidates ostensibly win or lose. It is the entrenched, unelected, tyrannical bureaucrats, who make and enforce all the rules and regulations, oppressing every segment of our society, that win every election.

Any serious effort to return to the true Constitutional Republic designed by our founders, would first have to convince both the Marxists and religionists, to abandon their efforts to empower the government to coercively enforce their values and lifestyle choices on others. I honestly don't see how this could ever be accomplished.

Assuming it might, then somehow the Civil Service System would have to be abolished, and replaced with the old original Spoils System. This way, in a 'change' election, we could throw ALL the bums out of office. No government job, or function for that matter, should have any expectation of lasting longer than two years. The very notion of a government employees' union ought to be laughed out of existence. Remember when Reagan fired the striking air traffic controllers?

Until these basic changes in the current nature of the present government are somehow made, there is little point in even voting in their sham elections. Doing so only legitimizes their tyranny, and permits the winners to claim a voter 'mandate' for their agenda, even though most were not voting 'for' them or their agenda; but 'against' their opponent's. They were merely expressing their opinion, as to which of the candidates the oligarchs allowed on the ballot, was the least onerous and/or the lesser evil. ◄Dave►