User Profile: 1FreeVoice

1FreeVoice

Member Since: December 28, 2012

Comments

123 To page: Go
  • [1] December 18, 2014 at 10:33pm

    An article about conservatives fear of Liberals, given various incidents that have occurred might be an appropriate counter.

    Facts and details to back up the reason for concern, and notes of any connecting themes or patterns would also be included. A book called The Gift of Fear by Gavin de Becker would be a good resource in sifting and organizing some of the material. He is an expert at threat evaluation.

    Just an idea.

    Responses (1) +
  • [3] December 18, 2014 at 10:25pm

    Comedy shows sometimes have better material than the news, and depending on the venue may skewer both sides. Humor is an subversive of the totalitarian state. Saying that she gets her info from Comedy Central may be doing an injustice to the venue… though I am not personally familiar with it.

    Responses (2) +
  • [25] December 18, 2014 at 10:23pm

    They reacted this way to a member of faculty an authority figure openly stating her hatred of republicans. Would they react so mildly if the article was about someone’s hatred for Democrats and their agendas? I doubt that it would be a good idea for someone to try it without a golden parachute in their back pocket- and hired security ahead of time.

  • [1] December 18, 2014 at 6:56pm

    Perhaps for much the same reason ‘man bites dog’ stories make headlines- it’s unusual and the rare gets more attention than the normal.

  • December 18, 2014 at 6:52pm

    I’m starting to feel left out. When will they announce special protections for cisgender heterosexuals? (Look it up.)

    I thought that the government was supposed to have fair laws that apply to everyone, not special groups with special protections. Sauce for the goose is supposed to be sauce for the gander, right? Gender etc. shouldn’t matter.

  • [7] December 18, 2014 at 5:58pm

    Ask one of them if it is OK to kill someone who is killing or trying to kill their children… or someone else’s children. They will probably say ‘yes’, but will still think it is wrong for thousands of mothers to have guns. The bad guys may have guns but good guys are supposed to be ‘better’ than that. It is OK to kill in defense of your children’s lives- just not OK to have the means to do so.

  • [1] December 18, 2014 at 1:37pm

    Bear scat looks more like a pine cone sized lump of small nodules packed together.
    Mmmm. If I remember correctly small in this instance would be grape sized give or take.

  • December 18, 2014 at 1:27pm

    Wait, I thought Bill Nye said he supported having the government ( or some organizing body) decide what is appropriate for people to believe, so they can stomp out some of the superstitions that are holding us back. He was on the cover of some magazine and the article said that he thought having so many people with superstitious beliefs was bad for our economy or something.

    I have to say I found his argument fundamentally flawed. Under the current system what someone else believes does not hold him back at all. If they have beliefs that negatively impact their performance that would hold THEM back but he can progress without interference. Under some system he seems to prefer what someone else believes COULD hold him back; he would have to satisfy someone else that his thoughts or beliefs were acceptable to them or else… what?

    Sometimes the people in charge would be right and sometimes they would be wrong; no one is right all the time. When they were wrong they would be wrong for EVERYONE and deviation would presumably be punished even if you were right -perhaps especially then as a warning not to mess with the People In Charge.

    Rather than having a scattering of more successful people as evidence others might want to change in some way, they would have sameness. Right or wrong there would be no evidence of another way to think or do things, or greater/less success in doing so.

  • December 18, 2014 at 12:46pm

    “In this respect, Cuba is more like North Korea than it is China,” Royce said. He said both North Korea and Cuba extract most of people’s wages for government use, and predicted that this is why efforts to boost trade and travel to Cuba will fail to help regular Cuban people.

    “Ordinary Cubans will not be economically or politically empowered unless Cuba’s economic system changes;

    ============

    Coming soon to an IRS office near you!

    Maybe this is part of why our President thinks that our country can get along with theirs… he and his friends are trying to push the US farther along the same path.

  • [4] December 17, 2014 at 8:44pm

    Ordering people to financially underwrite something they view as evil is simply wrong. Would they compel members of the NAACP to offset costs of membership drives for the KKK? No- but based on what principle? That it’s something for the government to stay out of, or that they don’t like the KKK?

    Big Picture:

    The government is trying to encourage what they see as good and discourage what they don’t like. From taxing cigarettes to making you pay for your neighbor’s birth control, almost anything can be viewed as good or bad. If the government can take such measures “for the public good” then that gives them control over … everything you might want to decide for yourself.

    Not treating you like a grown up and letting you decide what is in your best interest is of course for your own good – you might like something they don’t want you to. Both the Left and the Right have things they like and things they dislike. Free will seems to top the dislike list sometimes, for both sides.

  • [3] December 17, 2014 at 2:16pm

    Always remember: “It’s _____ ‘s fault!”

  • [6] December 17, 2014 at 1:52pm

    Years ago I had a moment when I recognized something I might be doing that could influence my kids to think of race as significant in some way. Have you ever met someone new and been describing the encounter to someone else? I caught myself starting to mention the race of the person I had met.

    I made a promise to myself that I would stop mentioning race/skin tone unless it was in a conversation where it would be appropriate to mention the color of someone’s eyes or hair. I am not aware of failing that promise to myself since.

    I am sure that was not a stand alone decision but fit into the rest of how I approached “race relations”. Perhaps it contributed to my success in raising color blind children. My youngest made friends with a neighbor of another race and considered her a big sister until we moved. My son also seems fairly oblivious to such ‘differences’ and seems to judge people based on how they act.

    Unlike many young people today, I do not forget the origin of the word ‘slave’ comes from ‘slav’ as in people from the slavic countries carried into slavery by the Romans when they were out conquering the world.

    The practice of slavery in one form or another likely extends into prehistory. In Africa various tribes made war on one another and raided each other for slaves, and to rescue their own who were enslaved by the other group. It went back and forth over countless generations; slavery is not a vice singular to the Americas.

    Responses (1) +
  • December 17, 2014 at 1:22pm

    “Whither thou goest I shall go, your people shall be my people and your God my God.” I hope I remembered the quotation accurately.

    I once heard this about Ruth:
    Ruth was a Moabite who married a Jew; she is named in the ancestral lineage of Christ. The Jews and the Moabites hated each other; there was sporadic fighting. Moabite was a word charged with negative emotion- like ‘******’. The story of Ruth and her being named as an ancestor to King David was introduced as a challenge to the (racial?) tensions of the time.

  • [8] December 17, 2014 at 12:41pm

    “Because she didn’t see me as the first lady, she saw me as someone who could help her. ”

    Someone else would have worn that with pride, not anger.

  • [2] December 16, 2014 at 6:22pm

    “maybe they should elect better people to govern.”

    “…Our children are worth saving and protecting and if it’s not a priority to the powers that be, then bring someone else in here who won’t make excuses. …”

    I dare to hope that is part of what was being said.

  • [1] December 15, 2014 at 5:06pm

    ‘Fruit of the poisonous tree’ applies to court evidence… should something similar apply to the media?

  • [2] December 15, 2014 at 2:06pm

    When celibates are assumed to be heterosexual much of this was in the background as understood and accepted. Celibates were accepted, welcomed and respected in the community. I think that when Protestants walked away from the idea of a celibate leadership that they lost something, not necessary but useful, that the Catholic church had explored and made use of for over a thousand years. It would not have lasted that long without some reason; the human sex drive is powerful.

    We may be on the edge of discovering part of a “why” that has not been addressed in quite this way for a long time. Go back to pagan times and there were options and acceptance of homosexuality outside of the Church. There was a long period where the Church was dominant and only within the celibate clergy could someone gay find acceptance and welcome. Now there are again options outside the Church and out of the closet in a new era and environment. Does celibacy still matter?

    Some people are choosing celibacy and the Church. They are freely choosing something they see as good for themselves. I would encourage them to explore this and share what they learn with others. What is truly good is good for you. Celibacy is unisex, and it can be beneficial for heterosexuals too. Waiting for the right person is only part of it; how does what they learn about celibacy short/long term (committed or less so) affect heterosexuals?

  • [1] December 15, 2014 at 1:19pm

    How would Brooks feel if his local government put up a sign saying, ‘Happy Birthday, Mohammed. We love you!’?

    Why not try it and see? The Freedom From Religion types will still have a hissy fit, but they usually don’t mess with people known for taking heads etc. If you can get them to back away slowly from the M. sign, then by logic (and surely law) they must allow the other to stand as well.

    There may be drawbacks to the strategy. I’m not sure it would be a good idea in the long run… but it would likely work.

  • [10] December 15, 2014 at 12:58pm

    Jury nullification comes to mind. Gee, I wonder why?

  • [1] December 15, 2014 at 12:54pm

    Trivia Quiz:
    What country is known for attacking indirectly through proxies…. and has invested heavily in buying influence in Ivy League colleges? By influence, I primarily mean Professors whose salaries are paid by them directly or otherwise.

    hint 1: Oil.
    Hint 2: Decades ago they started something that hurt the US and others … there was an international alliance against them and even the Russians were prepared to throw them under the bus and welcome American intervention in one of “their” regions. The US then cut a deal that left them un-invaded. We ended up leaving the gold standard and linking dollars to oil -that we did not control.

    Responses (2) +
123 To page: Go