User Profile: 1FreeVoice

1FreeVoice

Member Since: December 28, 2012

Comments

123 To page: Go
  • June 26, 2016 at 4:20am

    Isn’t Trump facing federal fraud charges, and …something else I can’t remember right now…

    Arguably BOTH of the major candidates are in fact criminals.
    One or both may be convicted.

    There are many other people who stood on that stage in the debates and who I did not agree with 100% . With greater -or less – enthusiasm I would have voted for any one of them.

    It is about a lot more than that with Trump. If you haven’t figured out that much by now you are either in denial…or too dumb to pour piss out of a boot with instructions printed on the bottom. Perhaps I’m just prejudiced, but I expect Republicans to be smarter than that; Denial is more likely. Try therapy, your emotional issues are interfering with your ability to safely navigate your life.

  • [5] June 26, 2016 at 3:51am

    UnderstandBothSides
    Are you familiar with a story in the New testament where a woman was brought before Jesus, and they said she had been caught in the act of adultry?

    According to the law she was to be stoned to death; they asked him to judge her. If he supported the traditional sentence, he would expose his ministry of compassion as a fraud; if he ordered her set free he would be going against religious law and could be condemed for that.

    He began writing in the dust…it is not recorded what he wrote, but traditionally it is said or sugested that he was writing the sins of her accusers. He said “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” One by one they slipped away. Eventually he asked who remained to accuse her and when she answered no one, he said: ‘neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more’.

    Where is the equivalent passage in Islam …which has not been superseded by a later addition that overturns it?

    I do not claim that such things are absent from history or from the history of a people’s growing understanding of God. The Jews did not remove older parts of their religious history, they added to them.

    To claim that the Christian Bible supports the opression of women because they record it as part of their history is like saying American law currently approves of and supports slavery because it is part of our legal history. Get a better argument.

  • June 26, 2016 at 3:15am

    Most of Islam is politics, not religion.

    A Taste of Islam on YouTube

  • June 26, 2016 at 1:03am

    According to Islamic doctrine, Muhammad speaks for God. If M. speaks for God, then anyone who disagrees with him is disagreeing with God. Even if God comes down and tries to issue corrections, his incarnation or prophet would be killed as a heretic/blasphemer.

    Think about that for a min. Then reflect on the life and times of the man in question.
    Do you know his biography, the short stories about what he said or decided under various circumstances? NOT someone you would want moving into your neighborhood.

    One of the distinguishing characteristics that sets him apart from other prophets is that he changed customs to make formerly unacceptable behavior OK. ( Think child bride still in the playing with dolls stage …called to his bed. ) Usually prophets point to previously accepted behavior and call people to a higher ethical standard that condemns it.

    Next, the formal acceptance of ‘the ends justifies the means’. If something is good for the spread of Islam, it is good. Most religions try to lead people away from this kind of thinking. Obviously there is more that could be pointed to as …questionable at the very least.

  • [5] June 25, 2016 at 2:06pm

    Instead of sacrificing human lives for the greater good, he wants to sacrifice human interests for the greater good.

    As long as he isn’t interested in them, it’s no loss… right?

  • [11] June 25, 2016 at 12:29pm

    Don’t you love the part where he says:

    ” My genertion has more entrepreneurs than ever before. So we can really work together to build a new world by…” telling our government to stop letting us innovate and push one top down plan or program that will command obedience from everyone …whether they think it is the best solution or not.

    Does he even listen to himself?

    Responses (1) +
  • June 24, 2016 at 8:14pm

    You can charge someone with attempted murder even if the attempt fails. Supporters of this change are trying to facilitate human rights abuses.

    The consequences are forseeable and foreseen, though the timetable for how quickly freedom of speech would be infringed, ( & when, where, and how ) are not predictable with my available data set. Someone with different knowledge and experience might make an educated/informed guess.

  • [3] June 24, 2016 at 8:04pm

    It is the same as their views on other foreign policy….

    These things are True no matter who is in charge of making a decision:

    The United States is the elephant in the room…no matter how gracefully he dances, he’s got big feet and there is always someone in the way.

    There is a difference between abuse of power and use of power. Even standing still has consequences… especially in a world constantly in motion.

    No matter how fair you try to be creating a win-win deal where everyone involved benefits, you cannot please everyone all the time. Someone will be affected Who was not involved, or their rivals may gain more… or Something.
    .

    if we are not in charge of decisions that affect us, someone else is… and their interests can get our feet stepped on when the two conflict.

    It Is better not to be stepped on…
    Our leaders are supposed to protect our interests from being stepped on, not decide they don’t give a flip who is deciding things for us.

    Other countries already have leaders negotiating for their interests …
    we need people looking to OUR interests.

    ——-

    Freedom of speech is a human right, whether protected by regional laws or not. NOT all countries have the same track record on human rights protections. What kind of fool would entrust protection of any portion of our human rights to those who do not even protect the rights of their own citizens?

    Responses (1) +
  • [13] June 24, 2016 at 12:00pm

    Let’s try to immagine a sitution in which everyone in this situation is telling the truth as best they see it.

    The table limit is 45 min. Probably no one else had overstayed and they were the only ones being asked to leave. Time flies when you are having fun, they may have been having a good time and not realised how long they tied up the table. The restaurant may have been preparing for the lunch rush, which would explain why not all of the tables were full and they were still asked to go. They wanted to wipe down the table and be ready to seat someone else soon. Even if they were told this, they say themselves that it was a time of heightened tensions in the community. They were feeling a bit oversensitive, and thought of another explanation for why they were asked to go which they rememberd as the “real” reason.

    No one needs to be scamming or lying at all. I could be wrong, the illustration above may not describe the actual situation… but it could.

    That said, my first reaction was much the same as yours. Time will tell.

  • June 24, 2016 at 4:31am

    I am a human rights extremist.
    Constitutional rights are human rights.

    Osama Bin Laden was not a citizen, but if he came to the United States (alive) he would have had rights of due process.

    Hitler would have freedom of speech.

    Atheists and abortionists have freedom of religion inclusive of the right to to speak, live, and act in accordance with the beliefs and worldview which inform their actions…just as Christianity informs mine.

    The KKK, La Rasa, and the Black Panthers and Skinheads have freedom of assembly.

    Hetrosexual Pride groups have the right to petition the government for redress of greviences.

    Democrats have the right to NOT be thrown like lawn darts from high buildings by their pet victim d’jour, the poor misunderstood Muslim fundamentalist(s). They have the right to fight back in defence of their lives inclusive of the use of deadly force, and the government has no authority to infringe on their calliber of choice or the tools most suited to survival.

  • [5] June 23, 2016 at 11:29pm

    An appropriate answer:
    Great! Will you be making a co-pay on my new rent at the nicer digs?
    My rent is $___ for 2 bedrooms. The landlady pays for serious background checks on anyone before she lets them in. I may not like the neighborhood, but the building is OK and the rent is right. The average rent for a small apartment in a nice area is … $ in ___ (which would have a commute of ___ according to Siri. ..that’s an extra 15-20 min each way) For 1 less bedroom and an extra 873 a month + added commute I can live in a place YOU like instead of spending that cash on a tutor for my kid and saving for college. Are you going to cover the hole in my budget or hire armed security for me? The rate on that is… What is that Siri?

    Why do you approve of DIY home repairs, but not DIY safety and security? Why wouldn’t you want to know that you can look out for yourself in a pinch? Do you like feeling helpless? It’s not what I prefer; I want to look strong and confident so no one wants to mess with me and they go looking for a soft target … Open carry or concealed I don’t broadcast an undercurrent of uncertainty checking the shadows of a parking garage, just alertness.

  • [41] June 23, 2016 at 11:07pm

    Even if they do not file charges, they have changed the power dynamic in the family away from the parent and toward the kids. “You better let us stay up and watch this movie or we will tell CPS you ___ and they will believe us, won’t they?… What are you going to do about it lame-o. You can’t lay a finger on us, or else. ”

    These people are seriously clueless. No mention should have been made of even the possibility of charges unless there was OBVIOUS cause.

    Then again, they are all about centralizing control. Discipline should not be in the hands of parents, but the State. If they run wild and need to be put down like wild dogs, that’s OK The Dims think they were expendable anyway.

    Parents are not allowed to use their own knowledge and judgement; that is for elites who know better than ordinary people. The State will step in and solve the problem they helped create. Don’t worry, they will tell you what to like. Sort of like Obama’s ‘ If I like your plan you can keep it’, or Trump saying it’s going to be Grrrrreat! You’re going to love it…I love my ideas and I’m so smart. I have a very good brain…

    Responses (1) +
  • [1] June 23, 2016 at 7:09pm

    I am doubtful that Dr King’ s formula is universally applicable… There are people who rationalise unjust actions in order to still view themselves as good people, and there are others who own the fact that their actions are unjust, but they want what they stand to gain from it and if they are monsters in pursuit of power they accept that price. I think peaceful oppoosition will only work with the first group. The others will simply kill and take what they want, intimidating the survivors into submition to be used or discarded at leisure.

    On the other hand…over a longer timeframe (2k years) …Haven’t Christ’s deciples been using a very similar model and changed the world a soul at a time? Without forgiveness, former skinheads would never have left their groups because their old friends would have kiled them and there would have been nowhere to escape TO. Change can and does happen.

    Think back if you know enough history to make the mental jump… The strength to take what others have was admired, makers and creators were essentially ‘sissies’. Military action to take land was considered an appropriate way to settle things. ….We live in such a different world that a visitor from that time would see heaven on earth.

    In reply to the contribution Letters for a Red, White and Blue Moderate

  • [-1] June 23, 2016 at 1:33pm

    I recommend all 3 books, and can point you toward several more.

    The first of that set looks at the history of Law, at the differences between evolved and constructed order, at the bias toward intentional, constructivist organization which limits the use of our reason by what the organisers know… and evolved orders which can become very complex beyond what any individual mind can comprehend and alllow multitudes to use their knowledge to best effect whie minimising conflict between multiple and disparate objectives by allowing them to work around each other rather than picking sides and prioritising one over the other.

    The last book examines problems with the democratic systems now common, and what the founders might have chosen as additionnal safeguards of Liberty if they had acccess to the history that has unfolded since their time. Perhaps not the best description, but it will serve.

  • [22] June 23, 2016 at 12:39pm

    Why is race given preference instead of….poverty for example? Someone whose family has been living on public assistance but who has excellent grades, study habits, etc should get more of a break than the son of a corporate executive who happens to be black..

  • [2] June 23, 2016 at 2:07am

    Hi Joel,
    I think you would really like the second book in
    Law, Legislation and Liberty vol. 1-3 by Hayek.

    It addresses so called “social justice” as being a label without content or definition. His argument is not that social justice is based on flawed assumptions, but that it is…nothing at all. ” The emperor has no clothes.” Supporting that argument in the face of fervent religious conviction and claims of moral superiority is challenging, to say the least. It’s worth a look.

    In reply to the contribution The Quiet Collapse of Moral Relativism

    Responses (1) +
  • June 22, 2016 at 11:00pm

    “They don’t seek the truth because they believe the other candidate leaves them no choice but to vote for …”

    Much the same could be said of some Trump supporters…They don’t even want to hear it because they would vote for a cat President and astrologer interpreter before voting for Hildebeast.

    There would be some who would hesitate before claiming she is better than some serial killers on death row. Some minority might even argue in favor of the convicted felon as a better choice…at least as a ‘devil’s advocate’ mental exercise. That does not make either the serial killer or Trump desirable as Presidential material….even if you think both at least a marginal improvement over Hillary.

  • June 22, 2016 at 10:47pm

    We had about a dozen better choices…and didn’t consolidate around anyone else fast enough.
    If the polls started with an elimination round

    Which candidate do you NOT want to see on the ballot,

    that should have kicked him out fairly early.
    Early on, Trump had about 1/3 support at best
    and 2/3 of the public voting for people NOT like him….

  • [2] June 22, 2016 at 12:20pm

    I find it concerning that they want to infringe on a human right, but only. offer due process to Americans. Other people are human beings also deserving of human rights… which is what human rights are.

    Your human rights include the right to live. For a government to have the right to pass a law implies the right to enforce it; the same can be said for your rights. Your right to live includes the right to defend your life … up to and including deadly force.

    The government does not have the right to infringe on your gun rights.

    I think that perhaps a secondary list, indicating that someone’s privileges have been suspended for 72 hours and in the absence of judicial process (proving them to be a security risk/danger) will be removed from that restriction might be reasonable. This does allow quick response to a developing situation or concern.

    Once someone is put on “the list” there is no easy way off. Forgive me if I have no confidence that due process will not remain an issue.

  • June 21, 2016 at 7:22pm

    JRook
    I will provde definitions and you provide names for these:

    1. Quick & sloppy mental shortcut heavily dependent on avilable data, statitical corelations and consiously or unconsciously noted associations. Evolved as part of human pattern recognition.

    . Variable to match new input. Must correlate to reality or adjust until it does or it will fail to function as a shortcut to reasonably accurate decisions (more often than not).
    .
    .
    .
    2. Mental get-out-of-jail-free card that allows someone to still think of themselves as a good person even though they desire to aquire or maintain domination/power over others. Applies to someone out of power who wants to abuse power over others as well as someone clinging to power who abuses existing power/authority/social position.

    can involve defining others as deserving worse treatment or not deserving better based on the group they belong to rather than individual actions or behavior.

    May accidentaly correlate with reality, but facts not required. Resistant to adaptation, it can be essential to positive self-image and evoke hostility of self defense if challenged.

123 To page: Go
Restoring Love