America hasn’t officially recognized the armenian genocide.
July 27, 2016 at 1:05pm
And Yom Hashoah is not the same as holocaust remembered day. Look it up. They’re on completely different days.
 July 27, 2016 at 10:00am
Interesting, but you’re ignoring the law of unintended consequences. Your proposal might work at first, but a company could also find other ways. They might raise the lowest wages, but might lay off workers in the process. They might look to replace workers with automation. In other words, the same issues plaguing minimum wage.
 July 26, 2016 at 12:05pm
His supporters booed a man for telling to vote for people who will uphold the constitution.
 July 26, 2016 at 12:03pm
Did nothing as Bin Laden rose to power: Clinton
Did nothing as ISIS rose to power: Obama (and Clinton).
 July 24, 2016 at 3:46pm
Actually blink, in dating that if someone’s going claim that science says something, I’m going to ask that they elaborate so I can decide for myself. I happen to know a lot about science myself so I’m always curious about what scientific methods are used.
In this case though, the methods used are more often than not dubious. They claim to have a model tying global temperatures to emissions, and yet that model can’t predict global temperatures. For that matter, it was developed be purposefully ignoring other factors. Global climate is incredibly complex, yet your “scientists” claim to have reduced it to a binary model.
Here’s a simple truth. The amount of CO2 in the air you breath hasn’t significantly increased. For your entire life it’s hovered at about 0.01% of the air you breath. In most places water vapor is more prevalent.
 July 24, 2016 at 8:27am
What science would that be? It’s not like we have experiments showing that, all else being equal, temperatures are higher with increased carbon dioxide levels.
The science used is fallacious. All they do is claim that “since A and B both happened during this small time window, A must have caused B”.
 July 21, 2016 at 9:32am
From the Republican platform:
Like the United States of America, the modern
state of Israel is a country born from the aspira-
tion for freedom and stands out among the nations
as a beacon of democracy and humanity. Beyond
our mutual strategic interests, Israel is likewise an
exceptional country that shares our most essen-
tial values. It is the only country in the Middle East
where freedom of speech and freedom of religion
are found. Therefore, support for Israel is an expres-
sion of Americanism, and it is the responsibility of
our government to advance policies that reflect
Americans’ strong desire for a relationship with no
daylight between America and Israel. We recognize
Jerusalem as the eternal and indivisible capital of
the Jewish state and call for the American embassy
to be moved there in fulfillment of U.S. law.
July 21, 2016 at 9:26am
What do you want him to say? That Trump is the most conservative candidate since Coolidge? That he’s the best suited to save America? If you voted for Cruz you’d know that he didn’t believe those things. Would you have him lie?
 July 21, 2016 at 8:22am
Not only do they wish to force an endorsement from someone they think is a liar, they already know that such an endorsement would be a lie. In short, they hate that the man they think is a liar didn’t lie.
 July 21, 2016 at 8:10am
He showed up didn’t he? He’s not challenging Trump or his nomination, right? He’s not running third party either and he specifically told people not to stay home on election day.
Here’s my perspective. For Cruz to have come out and named Trump a conservative would have required him to lie, because he doesn’t believe it. To say he thinks Trump is the best candidate the Republicans could hope for would also be a lie (he ran against the guy after all). And to say Trump is the only man who can save America when we all know he thinks otherwise, that would also a lie.
In other words, you hate Cruz for doing what many Trump supporters said was Trump’s strong point: saying what he truly believes and not what people want to hear. You want Cruz to lie to the American people on live television. You want him to betray his own convictions and abandon what he believes.
Sounds like something a liberal would do.
 July 20, 2016 at 8:48am
Christos likes to believe that everything that happens is part of somebody’s plan. That way, he never has to feel responsible when something bad happens. He likes to believe that he himself is powerless so as to duck responsibility.
July 17, 2016 at 9:42am
When America goes to war,we typically kill more of enemy than we permit the enemy to kill us. Why is it okay when any other country does that but not Israel.
July 17, 2016 at 9:38am
Actually I’m not so sure of that. When trump first proposed the ban I was against it because I couldn’t see how we would determine who’s a Muslim and I wasn’t sure banning people based on religion was legal.
That said, even back then I felt that blocking immigration from specific countries was perfectly fine, far easier to implement, and highly advisable. If you look at Pence’s statement, he supported the latter, which means he shares the same views that I’ve held all along.
July 15, 2016 at 1:56pm
So in summary, you propose we disregard the words of the Declaration of Independence, abandon the ideals this country was built on, abolish the constitution, and create a dictatorship. In short, you propose the absolute and complete destruction of America.
If you hate everything America stands for, why are you still here? Clearly you hate America as much as Clinton, Obama, and ISIS. You have no place here. The idea of America is the greatest innovation of America and you would have us discard it.
You are anti American.
July 15, 2016 at 12:15pm
You have made a fallacious argument. You have argued that because something didn’t happen is impossible for it to happen. I could argue that because whites didn’t invent gunpowder, they must be incapable of inventing gunpowder.
Let’s discuss south Africa for a moment. True it was developed by the British, but the British Empire rarely developed a nation for the same of bringing that country up to Britain’s level. For starters, the British had laws that discriminated against black South Africans. Moreover, the British developed the country using imported resources (or are you claiming that they arrived with nothing but clothing and had to make due with whatever was available). And lastly, the country was developed with the express goal of benefiting Britain.
Another example would be India. The British forced Indians to grow indigo for sale to Britain. When demand for indigo fell, Indians were left with crops they couldn’t eat.
Besides, if what you said was true, how do you explain Ben Carson?
July 15, 2016 at 12:36am
What do you expect? Give people an economic incentive not to work hard and that’s the result you get. What exactly is your point? What are you proposing?
Once again all you’ve done is outside my point. The welfare system that discourages progress among certain economic groups is already collapsing. Why? Because it’s counterproductive. You spend money to lose money.
And yet people struggle in in spite of it all and still succeed despite less than favorable circumstances.
And incidentally, if Europe was as supreme as you want us to believe, why did America seek independence? Why did America, having cut ties with the “innovative” Europeans, outstrip the globe in innovation for a time? And not only has Europe not been able to keep up, they keep falling further behind. Japan looks better than half of Europe.
July 14, 2016 at 8:00pm
Another thing. When I look back at European history, I don’t see 1500 years of continuous innovation. Many of the key innovations that transformed Europe came from elsewhere. Gunpowder and paper came from China. The number system that is the basis of modern mathematics was also imported.
And forget people who can’t innovate, for centuries the Catholic church stifled innovation. In the 15th century the literacy rate in Europe was less than 20%. That means that most Europeans had never even read the bible.
July 14, 2016 at 6:58pm
“A society cannot develop if it is held back by those who are incapable of making that development.”
A society that cannot develop to fulfill its needs inevitably perishes. Systems that holds back development eventually collapse or are forced to evolve or else are conquered by a more developed society. History proves this again and again. A society develops to meet the needs of its members or it doesn’t last. Period.
July 14, 2016 at 2:13pm
Your example fits the theory I provided perfectly. Did native Americans ever lack in resources? No. Moreover, they were nomadic in many cases, meaning they were smart enough to move to where the resources were. However, since the continent was scarcely populated, they rarely had to compete for those resources. Why develop farming if it’s cheaper and easier to simply be hunter gatherers? Farming developed in places where there wouldn’t be enough food otherwise.
The reason Europeans made advancements in America was due to the fact that they came from environments that weren’t overflowing with resources. In fact, the whole reason they came here in the first place was for that reason.
As for moving to where resources are in general, that only works if you have the resources to make the journey and if there isn’t someone else whose already claimed the new location. Lacking that, they have to made due with what little they have.
Take ancient Egypt, which at the time was more advanced than all of Europe. The Nile was a source of prosperity, but it was also the only such source for miles. There were the occasional oases but they couldn’t sustain a large population. Yet the Nile delta only had so much space. So, a society formed. One that had farming, irrigation, canals, and which used the river for shipping goods.
Supply and demand. Society develops when needed.