Hmm, maybe Willie should sue Free Will Baptist Family Ministries for discrimination. Why should Willie’s lifestyle choices make any bit of difference in the business decision to let him speak or not? Those terrible folks at Free Will are discriminating against the Robertsons because of their lifestyle.
Gays/lesbians: take note. See the fallacy in this argument? You should…
October 10, 2013 at 1:32pm
What the picture is trying to say:
What is WRONG with you people? Don’t you have a HEART? Can’t you see the PAIN and MISERY in this little generic child’s posture, indicating that the government shutdown has so deeply hurt him that he will require many years of therapy? Bad Republicans! Bad, bad for hurting this poor, innocent child!
What actually happened:
“Here Timmy, put on this bear suit and hang on this fence right here. OK, hold still….got it. Now let’s go get some ice cream.”
August 23, 2013 at 5:43pm
Sadly, the business owners fell into the trap of the couple, and actually gave a reason for why they were refusing service. Then the State can determine if that refusal was discrimination based on some recognizable feature. If the photographers simply said no, which they can do, and not give a reason, then discrimination can’t be proven. The gays would have to show a pattern of refusal over time, and they are looking for quick hits, not long, drawn-out sagas, because they know that if the majority hears this, then they will be seen as the true bigots that they are.
This again is another attempt at mainstreaming homosexuality by forcing compliance through the law. The percentage of homosexuals in America does not justify the amount of “bending-over-backwards” we do for them.
Eventually the truth will come out. Eventually the true bigotry will present itself. I’m just getting so tired of waiting around for it.
June 24, 2013 at 3:44pm
@Darthmims There are a multitude of verses that depict very clearly the differences between men and women. Basically, what most people are referring to is that the Bible very clearly spells out gender roles. Does that make the Bible sexist? Does this mean that God thinks less of women than he does of men? The myriad of verses that discuss the difference between the sexes do nothing more than to acknowledge that there are differences. God does not make mistakes, so He intentionally created these differences. For us to ignore these differences and do as we please rather than to do as we were created is contrary to God’s will. There are many verses that discuss these differences, but the most hotly contested is Deuteronomy 22:5: “The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.” (KJV). The New International Study Bible makes the following observations regarding this :
Probably intended to prohibit such perversions as transvestism and homosexuality, especially under religious auspices. The God-created differences between men and women are not to be disregarded (see Lev. 18:22; 20:13).
So it may not be a specific verse that says girls can’t play boy’s sports, but the general theme of respecting your own God-given gender is pervasive throughout the Bible.
May 6, 2013 at 5:46pm
Sadly, this is the Age of the Low Information Voter, who Obama and his ilk were able to dupe into thinking that they would actually get more stuff under his administration. They still won’t get any stuff, but we won’t promise them stuff and they will.
This government was designed with the understanding that only smart people would be voting. Once people realize that they can vote themselves benefits from the public coffers, “…the face of the nation will change”. Only smart people realize that government exists for everyone, and it isn’t a just government that takes from one class of people to give to everyone else. That’s called despotism.
May 6, 2013 at 5:18pm
In the painting, you see someone obviously gay or a gay activist (the rainbow bracelet) coming to Jesus looking for assistance. Clearly, this would never happen. Gays know that they are living outside the tenets of the Bible, and they hope that God’s mercy extends beyond those words. For their sake, I pray that too.
Jesus would never do this. In fact, he would do exactly the opposite. He would give that man what he needed, and then he would tell him: “Go, and sin no more.” Jesus would never turn away from someone who truly is repentant and kneels before Him and asks for forgiveness. The idea here is that Jesus doesn’t accept gays, or somehow finds them disgusting. He finds no one disgusting. We are ALL God’s children. He died for ALL of us. And while the words of the Bible do not support the gay lifestyle (so therefore neither can the church), God is not a book, nor is He defined by one. You, and you alone, will be judged by your own actions when you stand before Him when He calls you home. We fallen humans have only the Bible to guide us. God is the only one who decides how God acts. Far be it from anyone to condemn anyone else’s lifestyle. Do not judge, lest ye be judged. None of us is the Arbiter. There is only One of those.
Instead of judging, why don’t you try to tell others what Jesus actually stood for? Tell them why he had to die on a cross. Tell them that they are already forgiven!
May 6, 2013 at 5:09pm
but that’s not going to happen. No one is going to target anyone. We realize that the things of this world, including this painting, are petty and distracting. God has already saved you through Christ who died for you. Can you imagine that? A father handing his son to criminals to execute? I couldn’t do it, but I’m not God nor am I Jesus. I can only marvel at the courage it must have taken to accomplish this, and know that God is infinitely more knowledgeable and loving and kind than I am.
As for laws, God is the only one who can give leaders authority. If leaders don’t defer to God, they have no authority, for the only true authority comes from Him.
So ignore the rabble. Don’t get caught up in the charades. Instead, re-focus on the God that saved you.
May 6, 2013 at 4:57pm
Clearly you are not conservative. Good job trying to throw everyone off topic, though. You’re nothing more than a Ron Paul whackjob supporter (not Ron Paul, but his whackjob supporters).
If we say that we disagree with this march, that we think it’s a bad idea, does that mean we’ve given up our 2nd Amendment rights? Not by a long shot. Those of us who DO THINK realize that this will do nothing more than to galvanize the left. They will say “Newtown, Sandy Hook, and Washington DC.” They will then move to redact the 2nd Amendment through legislation which will be graciously supported by this odd Supreme Court which does nothing to actually interpret the Constitution. Is that really what you want to risk?
I agree that this will eventually come down to civil war, because as you know, there is no middle ground between the two parties. Let’s not push the issue though.
March 26, 2013 at 1:59pm
@hammerofthor: While I can appreciate your analogy, guns are the only manufactured item available for public consumption specifically designed to kill people. Cars have a far more utilitarian purpose, so comparing the two is an exercise in absurdity.
We (gun-rights advocates and gun control advocates) need to get over the fact that guns are specifically designed to kill people. That’s a fact. We need to FOCUS on the fact that there are legally appropriate times to kill people: in self defense, and in opposition to tyranny. Additionally, you don’t actually have to fire a shot for a gun to have an impact. The mere possession of a gun in any given situation changes the dynamic.
March 22, 2013 at 7:19pm
So when you are too harsh with your kids, they rebel? Is that it? Clearly, you don’t have kids.
Have you ever stopped to think why kids join gangs? You think these parents are tough? Break the rules in a gang and they beat you till near-death. But kids willingly join gangs. Overwhelmingly, the kids in my town joining gangs have absentee parents (both working, don’t care, overwhelmed single parent, etc).
Kids WANT rules. They WANT boundaries. They WANT to know that someone will be there who will allow them to grow safely but will enforce their boundaries. When parenting is lax or non-existent, kids lash out in violent ways.
March 22, 2013 at 7:13pm
Ultimately, it doesn’t matter what you think. It’s what the parents think that matters. And as long as they aren’t doing anything illegal, immoral or harmful, it’s none of anyone’s business what they do.
March 12, 2013 at 3:26pm
(cont’d) and that makes you gain weight. So you then have to severely curtail your intake of proteins to avoid any of the sugars remaining as excess and making you gain weight, and it’s a losing battle. So, does fat make you fat, or do carbs make you fat? This is the age-old question. But look at our ancestors. They ate nothing but what they could pluck from the ground or kill. And they were lean, not fat. They never had “carbohydrates” until the agricultural revolution, where rice, corn, and wheat became the staples instead of meats and vegetables.
Sugars are not a poison, but sugars make you fat. Liquid sugars are notoriously bad for you. Does that make them poison? Not at all. But people need to know what they are consuming before they consume it. Drinking a Big Gulp of Coke and not knowing the sugar content is as ridiculous as trying to force people to limit their portion size against their will to try and control weight gain (and where’s the law that says I can’t buy two 16oz drinks and “chain-drink” them? Duh…
People will eat what they want. Parents will feed children what they want. If they do it in an educated way, they are intentionally endangering their children. The large majority are “low-information” parents and really have no clue except for what “Mr. TV man” said.
March 12, 2013 at 3:17pm
@woolonureyes: You make good points regarding sugar, but you are doing the same thing that Mika is doing, and you sound crazy. Sugar is not a poison, based on real scientific definitions of poison. Sugar is a carbohydrate. Other complex carbs you eat are broken down into sugars in your blood anyway, so refined sugar is just the same thing, but instantly available, no conversion necessary (i.e. “sugar rush”). Your body does the same thing with all sugars: insulin levels rise, sugars are immediately burned for food, and the leftovers are stored as fat. When you eat more protein, fat and plant fiber, the same things happen: insulin levels decrease, you use proteins for energy, and your body burns fat for fuel (because of the lower insulin levels).
Two other things quickly: One: fats do not make you fat. Whatever scientific kook came up with that years ago was a loon. Fats, pound per pound, are twice as calorie-dense as their lean muscle meat counterparts, so you still have to watch your caloric intake, but fats are necessary, not bad. Two: fats also contain cholesterol. Is that a bad thing? No, if you consume cholesterols, your HDLs and LDLs rise together, which is a net gain of 0. Your body uses cholesterols to make muscle.
Now, eat cholesterols and fats along with SUGARS (that’s sugar and carbs, which your body regards as sugar), and you end up with plaques and you gain weight. So eat your sugars along with proteins and the proteins are used, sugars are sto
July 31, 2012 at 2:00pm
Currently, it’s just too sensitive an issue for anyone to be carrying in the open. There are too many ninnies out there who panic at the sight of a weapon, and especially in a theater of all places. People are really jumpy already; there’s really no need to stir the pot.
Either way, he’s definitely an idiot: if he does have a CCW permit, he did a really bad job at it and he should probably have it revoked. If he doesn’t, even though open carry is legal, he should have been way more sensitive to the feelings of the ninnies around him and should have left his gun in the car for now.
What a load of BS. So, even if something is legal, he is an idiot for wanting the option of defending himself. Either the law is what is says or it is not. This is classic police harrassment. I feel for the people killed, but that does not negate mine or anybody else's right to carry. They chose to take their chances and go unarmed. That is not my or any other permit carrier's problem. Sorry.
No he should not have had to leave it in his car, but should have had it hidden and not seen by all. If someone had had a gun in the theater when the shooting happened less people would have died. Keep it somewhat hidden so 1. no one grabs it 2. no one freaks out 3. they don't freak out and call the cops on you. Also did he have his permit on him?
"Mapes was issued a citation for displaying a weapon and alarming another person". If there is a law agains alarming another person, we're all screwed. That would make me a criminal every time I walk my pitbull (he's as vicious as a bunny).
You win the debate.
If more law abiding citizens open carried, tragedies like the Aurora shooting could have been minimized.
January 5, 2012 at 5:03pm
If you approach Facebook the same way you approach everything you touch online or offline, you’ll be fine. Remember, locked doors keep honest people out. Privacy settings on Facebook are exactly the same thing. If someone wants to see that blog you had up 10 years ago, or that embarrassing post on Facebook that you *thought* you deleted, a few clicks will bring it right back to their screen. If it has *ever* touched the Internet, it will always be out there for someone to find.
For me, it’s a great tool to keep in touch with high school and college friends who are flung far and wide around the world in military service. Since my diagnosis of MS (and subsequent military discharge), I have to live vicariously through them. Facebook really allows me to do that.
So recognize it for what it is, and don’t expect that when you restrict a post to “Friends Only” that it will never appear anywhere outside your circle of friends.
December 15, 2011 at 5:59pm
It’s been said before, and we’ll say it again.
Police have a continuum of escalation that they are required to follow. He was doing his job, and he was following, correctly, his continuum of escalation. He didn’t skip any steps in the chain. He deployed non-lethal force.
Let’s stop right there and define non-lethal force. Non-lethal is something designed NOT to kill. Lethal force is designed to kill, and it does so effectively. Do some people die getting hit with a Taser? Yep. Does that make it deadly force? Nope. Do some people live when they get shot? Yep. Does that make it non-lethal force? Nope.
Why didn’t he just wrestle her to the ground as so many of you said he should have done? There would have been twenty witnesses who said he was feeling her up and trying to rape her in the middle of the street. Plus, it increases the likelihood that the officer will be harmed as well.
Did you know that sometimes a rescuer drowns when trying to save someone drowning? That’s why you’re taught to try to stay dry when trying to rescue someone drowning, until getting in the water is your last resort. Physical confrontation is the last step before deadly force, not the first. No arm bars, no joint manipulation, nothing. Reduce physical contact to only what is necessary, or you’ll find yourself going home from the hospital rather than the squad room, if you go home at all.
December 15, 2011 at 5:00pm
I am seriously glad that you all are here to keep the rest of us aware of the potential that anything can be misused. The police need tools that can be used to safely disperse a crowd, and calm a rising foment which can occur in a crowd in a snap.
I don’t necessarily agree that this technology is the answer. Non-lethal technology always has the potential to kill (just look at the taser used on someone with a weak heart), but the comments are right. If you don’t want anti-riot technology used against you, stay home. If you don’t want your kid accidentally hit by anti-riot technology, don’t take him anywhere near the dag-flippin’ riot.
Personal Responsibility and Personal Accountability is sorely lacking in this country. This trend INVITES socialism. “No need to be accountable for yourself; the Government will take care of everything!”
So you are saying, if you don't want to be abused by your government just STAY HOME and you won't get hurt...Blame the victim much? You got robbed? Its your fault for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. You got hit by a drunk driver? You shouldn't have been out past 10 pm. Raped? You must have done something to provoke it...
Accountability cuts BOTH ways...the government needs to be held accountable for how it treats its citizens. Right now there are no laws to protect the citizens against the potential abuse of these weapons...
Robbery, rape and hit-and-run aren't necessarily preventable. Going to a protest is. I believe that was the point she was trying to make.
August 27, 2011 at 7:40pm
Ultimately, the police are out there monitoring speed in order to keep everyone safe. A police officer on the side of the road, a person flashing his lights to slow people down, both accomplish the same thing, just like people using CB’s to call out where “smoky” was. The “Trapster” app for your smartphone comes to mind that will show you where all the speed traps are and will warn you as you approach one. Is this app illegal? Of course not, because the “spirit” of the speed law is to get everyone to drive safe speeds, much the same way as flashing your lights does, as does the officer clocking traffic. If you remove the “spirit” from the “letter” of the law, the law becomes meaningless.
The TV story also noted that these tickets get thrown out in court because they are not lawful. If upper police management were not knowingly condoning this practice, they would be seeing all these tickets being thrown out and would be re-training officers about what is lawful regarding flashing lights. The fact that this practice continues implies that police management understands what these officers are doing and approves, thus undercutting the law, and its enforcers, even more by trying to use it as a revenue-generating tool.
I think you know that the "spirit of the law" has now become the $ of the law. No-longer are Cops referred to as "Peace Officers" But Law Enforcement. When the leadership is wicked it does not take long for the whole govt. to become wicked right down to the local level.
What happens when the citizenry no-longer trusts the police? I don't want to even think about it.
"Those who give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither," Benjamine Franklin
April 11, 2011 at 4:55pm
Thank GAWD my son has a gluten intolerance.
If he didn’t, I’d tell them that he did. Doctor’s note, you say? Can’t get one. The only way to “prove” Celiac Disease is to take a biopsy of the intestines. And since I can “prove” it with a change in diet, my insurance company won’t pay for the test. Ergo, no doctor’s note.
Chicago parents, take note: rebel now! Tell the school your kid has a gluten allergy and until they start serving gluten-free meals (which the can’t because every bloody thing they serve is either breaded and fried, or *is* bread), you have to send your kids with their own meals. They can’t force you to prove Celiac unless they want to pay for the test. You win! Chalk another one up for the little guy!
April 11, 2011 at 4:47pm
So are you saying that gays aren’t born gay, they’re created by school lunches on plastic trays??? (j/k)
Nah, they’ve probably thought of that already. They may “look” like plastic, but they’re actually a composite of recycled toilet paper rolls from homeless shelters and silk from environmentally-friendly silkworms in a controlled, free-range silk factory. They only cost $69.95 a piece! What a bargain!