Skip to comments.
Frivolous Politics: Part II (Thomas Sowell)
Townhall.com ^
| 10/11/06
| Thomas Sowell
Posted on 10/11/2006 9:58:06 AM PDT by Gordongekko909
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-36 next last
Thomas Sowell strikes again! Ping in 30 seconds!
To: 2ndreconmarine; AlaskaErik; Alexander Rubin; Alissa; arthurus; balrog666; bamabaseballmom; ...
Thomas Sowell *PING*
FRmail me if you want on or off the Thomas Sowell Ping List.
To: Gordongekko909
Gyah! Off by four seconds. Maybe I'll copy the ping list before I post the article... that'll save me the time I'm losing by using my awesome new trackball mouse.
To: Gordongekko909
There are few writers in this day and age who write essays without a single wasted or unnecessary word. Sowell is one of them
4
posted on
10/11/2006 10:02:53 AM PDT
by
dirtboy
(Good fences make good neighbors)
To: Gordongekko909
Thank God for Thomas Sowell. A sane voice in an extra nutty time.
5
posted on
10/11/2006 10:05:30 AM PDT
by
RedRover
To: Gordongekko909
Some people say that there is no point voting because there is no difference between the two major parties, and the other parties have no chance of winning. Some people say there is no point voting because the votes were already tabulated weeks/days ahead of the supposed vote.
Re: DrudgeReport, 1998 mid-term elections.
6
posted on
10/11/2006 10:06:03 AM PDT
by
100-Fold_Return
(Soros hates MEGA-churches, Televanglists, and Wal-Mart)
To: Gordongekko909
The fallacy here is that we only have the two choices, a choice between bad and worse. That isn't so. If the federal government does not abide by the constitution, the states have the right to abolish it. Maybe we should be thinking in those terms.
7
posted on
10/11/2006 10:08:01 AM PDT
by
Dan Evans
To: Gordongekko909
"...the Republicans are disappointing and the Democrats are dangerous."Reminds me of one of my neighbors: "The Republicans are evil, but the Democrats are worse."
8
posted on
10/11/2006 10:14:14 AM PDT
by
onedoug
To: Dan Evans
From whence springs this right of the states to abolish the federal government?
To: Gordongekko909
The US Constitution. The states have a right to a Constitutional convention. The states created the Federal government, they can also abolish it.
To: Gordongekko909
"...Republicans are disappointing and the Democrats are dangerous."
As usual, when Sowell is finished, there is little to add.
11
posted on
10/11/2006 10:25:52 AM PDT
by
SaxxonWoods
(DEAN, YOU INSIGNIFICANT BAST@RD! . . .)
To: Dan Evans
In other words, abolish the Constitution of 1789? Hell, we can't even get rid of Social Security.
To: Dan Evans
That's the "important". Right now the "urgent" is upon us.
VOTE!
13
posted on
10/11/2006 10:51:27 AM PDT
by
chesley
To: Gordongekko909
Whatever the Democrats' new-found rhetoric about "supporting the troops," their track record for more than a quarter of a century has been one of consistently voting against military appropriations and appropriations for the intelligence services, as well as hampering the intelligence services with restrictions.We cannot let the rats get control of the house, which starts all appropriations. There goes the border fence (authorized but unappropriated as of now) and there goes missle defense, which is, in my opinion, the most important military technology today. There is little or no hope of containing Venezuela, NK, or China without a robust missle defense.
To: Gordongekko909
From the article:
"In general, Democrats are the only real reason to vote for Republicans. " Ann, is that you?
15
posted on
10/11/2006 12:08:22 PM PDT
by
William Tell
(RKBA for California (rkba.members.sonic.net) - Volunteer by contacting Dave at rkba@sonic.net)
To: Gordongekko909
In other words, abolish the Constitution of 1789? Hell, we can't even get rid of Social Security. That's because the Federal government created it. But the states are not the Federal government. They are a different political entity and they stand to gain if we do away with this greedy, intrusive, overweening monster that shows every sign of growing even larger.
To: chesley
First of all I seems to me that things work out better for the taxpayer if we have the White House and Congress are controlled by different parties. That way the president is not constrained by party loyalty from vetoing new spending bills.
Secondly, by not voting, I am signaling that there is potential vote for a party that would be more inclined to respect the Constitution.
To: Gordongekko909
If our prez gets another chance to appoint a Supreme and wants a non-lawyer, something many lawyers believe would be good for the Court, he should pick Sowell.
The steadfast thoughtfulness and intellectual rigor of his thinking is a rare quality.
To: Dan Evans
Whatever works for you. Me, I prefer to have the clout to roll back some of the "progress" of the 60s.
Liberalism is a one-way ratchet. Unless you can force them back. Fiscal restraint is an important consideration, but it isn't in the top 5 things I vote on.
19
posted on
10/11/2006 4:53:44 PM PDT
by
chesley
To: chesley
Whatever works for you. Me, I prefer to have the clout to roll back some of the "progress" of the 60s. Republicans have had control of all three branches of government for almost six years now. What have they managed to roll back so far?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-36 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson