User Profile: Eric-n-OTown

Eric-n-OTown

Member Since: August 31, 2010

CommentsDisplaying comments newest to oldest.

123
  • February 27, 2014 at 5:50pm

    Actually, yes, yes it is, for the individual. It is not, however, OK for the State to do it. It sucks, yes, but if I am not free to associate with those whom I choose, and disassociate from others, than am I really free? A man must labor to put food on the table and a roof over his head, but to make him labor for those he does not wish to labor for makes him a slave. And THAT is unconstitutional.

  • February 27, 2014 at 5:37pm

    Jesus loved the whore, and saved her from unjust punishment by an angry mob. But when he did, he didn’t send her back to the brothel, he forgave her for her sins, and told her to sin no more. Conversely, how well, exactly, did he love the money changers in the temple? I don’t recall that being a loving, accepting conversation…
    If you cannot understand what a moral objection is, than there is no point in having a conversation. Does not an Innkeeper have the right to refuse to sell a room to a couple if he knows that the man and woman are married, but not to each other? Where is their civil right to engage in their behavior as they see fit? They don’t have one, because their sexual behavior is not a civil right. At least not to a point to force a business owner to do business with them against his moral teachings.
    Maybe things will change with time, but the activists aren’t willing to wait. They want it all, and they want it now. Let’s just ignore the MILLENNIA of objection to homosexuality and demand that society change its views on a dime and just all get along. If only everyone could evolve to your level of humanity overnight. Wouldn’t the world just be a wonderful place?

  • February 27, 2014 at 5:20pm

    First and foremost, a person’s sexual proclivity is not in any way, shape, or form the same as their gender, race, or any other genetic trait to which they cannot hide from the public. What you do behind closed doors is your business, but when you bring it into the public square, the public has every right to react to it.
    As far as a business refusing service to a gay wedding, let me try and make what I consider an equal comparison: a guy goes to his regular florist, and orders flowers with a racy note attached for a woman the florist knows is not his wife. The florist has moral objections to this behavior and refuses to provide the flowers, telling the man he will have to go elsewhere for it. Does he not have this right? And this conversation should be just as simple. Like it or not, a large number of people still have both moral and natural objections to homosexuality, and by ‘natural’, I mean that it goes against nature, as procreation is not possible between two men, or two women. That’s not meant to be insulting, it’s just fact.

    We live in a free society, or at least we used to. To quote Andrew Wilkow: “your freedom to be you includes my freedom to be free from you.” Bigotry will always exist, because we will never as a society agree on everything. I can’t even count how many times I’ve heard the bigoted term ‘*********’ referring to those that believe in our Constitution and limited government. But I’m sure many of you have never condoned that kind of

    Responses (2) +
  • January 17, 2014 at 1:40pm

    There is no “right” to vote. Go ahead, show me where in the Constitution that it outlines that ALL citizens have a right to vote? Voting is a privilege, and all you have to do is look at the state of affairs of our nation today to understand why. Equal protection under the law does not mean that we are all equal, just that we be treated equally. Requiring, for example, that you must be a net-positive tax payer (you paid in more than you got back at the end of the last year) in order to vote provides equal protection. So long as you are a productive member of society, contributing to the tax base, you get to vote. This eliminates “zero liability” voters from the rolls; people who do not face any consequences for their vote (voting for costly programs that they’re never going to contribute to paying for) will never concern themselves with what it costs. Admittedly, this will be near impossible to pass, as the atmosphere of our current politics lends itself to pandering to the zero liability voter to ensure that one gets into and stays in office. As far as requiring ID goes, though, I would love for someone to articulate to me how even 1% of the population wouldn’t have ID, when it’s required to do pretty much everything BUT vote right now. Bank account, flying, driving, credit, GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE, all these things require ID. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. The argument against requiring ID to vote is ludicrous, when one considers how necessary an ID is in th

  • January 16, 2014 at 3:34pm

    The driver was from Florida, according to the local paper: http://tbo.com/list/columns-tjackson/jackson-gun-owner-unarmed-unwelcome-in-maryland-20140112/, specifically the statement that “Florida may have codified his Second Amendment rights”… I live in FL, and our CCWs are issued by the state dept. of fish & wildlife, not directly by law enforcement. That said, it’s a great question to ask how did this LEO know that he was a gun owner?! I suspect that it may be the FBI that is providing the information, as our background checks go through them. No matter, the fact that this information is being shared without our knowledge, and then being used to TARGET AND HARASS us is a gross violation of our rights. This needs to be addressed, and I have already been in touch with my State Representative to get answers. I would suggest that others do the same, this should be a warning shot across the bow to all of us just how far gone our rights really are.

  • January 10, 2014 at 11:38am

    Checked with my dad (another of Elvis’ first cousins), and he said that he would say that is him. Can’t think of a better source to go to than that. I’ve seen lots of family pictures, though (and in a few myself), so I don’t see what the big deal is here, other than that it’s a new picture. Cool, just don’t see why it’s such a news story.

  • September 5, 2013 at 10:19am

    Very impressive! It can be done, I have lost nearly 75 pounds since the beginning of the year doing nothing more than eating the proper amount of calories for my weight and lifestyle. Like this young lady, I did no exercise, in fact, I work in front of a computer 8+ hours a day and spend most nights relaxing at home. Mowing the yard is about all the exercise I get on a regular basis. It’s amazing how little food we really need on a daily basis depending on our activity level. I feel great, don’t tire as easily, and am more alert, definitely worth the effort, I just wish I would have taken a photographic record like this young lady did!

  • August 23, 2013 at 4:06pm

    It’s called freedom of association, and it is a right. This has been the problem with discrimination laws that reach beyond the government (in other words, only the government is prohibited from discriminating); it took nearly fifty years, but discrimination laws are finally showing their true nature: to deny you your freedom of who you choose to associate with. State imposed discrimination should ALWAYS be illegal, you cannot avoid your government, as the force of government (laws/guns) puts the individual at an unfair advantage and denies the individual their freedom.

    And yes, again, freedom of association is a RIGHT. It ranks up there with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (that list was representative, not all-inclusive, hence the precursor of “that among these are…”). Absent of government, an individual has the freedom to choose who he associates with and conduct trade. If he doesn’t like his neighbor because he’s German, he can go to his Italian neighbor for what he needs. It is his individual right to do so, and you may abhor it, but the same holds true if his neighbor was a female, another race, homosexual, old, handicapped, etc., you get the point. Society will hold that individual responsible for their actions by their choice to engage with that individual in commerce. That’s how things work in a free society, it’s not always pretty, but it’s better than being forced to violate your conscience in the name of political correctness.

  • August 9, 2013 at 12:54pm

    The process of creating the baby is natural, yet we do it in private. Both men and women evacuate waste from their bodies, it is natural, yet we have a proper place and means of doing so. It is not out of the realm of decency and consideration to others to ask a mother to cover herself and her nursing child in public. We’re not animals, and it is not unreasonable to ask a woman to be discreet when feeding her child. “Reasonable accommodation” works both ways…

    Responses (2) +
  • August 7, 2013 at 9:27am

    Like it or not, it is a private business and if one truly believes in limited government, they have every right to make this policy. Now, what could be argued is their imposed deadline; the complex entered into a contract with their tenants for a specified period of time (usually an annual contract), with the provisions governing the terms under which both parties agree. If the contract allows for the complex to change the rules mid-way through the term of the contract, then the tenant has little-to-no recourse. I doubt, though, that this is the case.

    The tenants may have a legal argument that the complex is breaking the contract and they may be due damages as a result. Hard to say, I’m not an attorney, but as far as the complex’s right to make these rules, that’s their business. As other posters have stated, they’ll pay the price when crime goes up and the value of the property goes down. In the meantime, current residents should start looking for another place to live, I don’t think they have a legal ground to stand on for the long-term…

  • August 5, 2013 at 5:09pm

    The simple truth here is that we’ve created an environment where intervention in near-impossible for fear of the litigious consequences. First and foremost, when the school system offers to provide transportation for your child they assume responsibility for the health and well-being of that child; there’s a reason why there’s a rear and roof exit on school buses. This instance of violence is just one example of what our PC society has done to civilization. The bus driver had every right to intervene under Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, and he should have. The problem becomes what tools did he have at his disposal to ensure that he would be able to handle the conflict? At 67 he probably felt there was little he could do to protect himself should the attackers turn on him, as the district undoubtedly prohibits bus drivers from carrying any kind of personal protection. This does not have to necessarily be a firearm, a taser would have done the job, but it goes beyond that. These boys had no fear in attacking the other student. None. They knew the bus driver wasn’t going to intervene, and their fellow students certainly weren’t; there will probably be no response at home, and the legal system will more-than-likely spit them back out with minimal impact unless the public makes a big enough stink for a proper prosecution. There is a lack of discipline and respect with the majority of this generation. I don’t know if we can recover it any time soon, but we have to star

    Responses (1) +
  • August 5, 2013 at 9:22am

    Why is this even news?

  • August 2, 2013 at 10:31am

    An armed society is a polite society…

  • July 25, 2013 at 12:39pm

    The truth hurts. It’s time to route out the Progressives from the Republican party. We don’t need, want, or have any use for them. Let THEM start a new party, why should we?

    Responses (1) +
  • July 23, 2013 at 10:43am

    Detroit is the epitome of Margaret Thatcher’s statement: the problem with Socialism is eventually you run out of other people’s money. Sorry Larry, but we’re not buying your snake oil any more.

  • July 22, 2013 at 11:50am

    John McCain is an idiot. Five bucks say he doesn’t even know that the Zimmerman trial wasn’t about stand your ground…

  • July 19, 2013 at 12:01pm

    I would recommend you read up on your history, and study the life of Frederick Douglas. You have been grossly misinformed on a great many things, and are doing yourself and your community a great disservice. There is no denying the atrocities that were committed in the past, but they weren’t exclusive to America, and they certainly weren’t exclusive to black people. All that said, we live in the present, and in the present, the President of the United States is a black man. He was not elected because black Americans outnumber white Americans and out-voted whites, but because all Americans judged him on the content of his character (or at least fell for the line of BS he offered), not the color of his skin. Take the tinted glasses off and see the world for what it is: imperfect, with people who form prejudices on their life experiences, not because of skin color. Had Trayvon been lighter skinned, he may have been mistaken as Hispanic, but the end result would have been the same had he chosen to engage in a physical confrontation. To say that this would have gone any differently because of the color of Trayvon’s skin color is ignorant of the facts, and willfully disingenuous.

  • July 17, 2013 at 4:07pm

    Blocking people from freely traveling on public roads is not “peaceful” protest, it is passive aggressive, and is not legal. This is getting out-of-hand, and there’s no one to blame but the media and the POTUS (for inserting himself into a local issue) for the civil unrest as a result of the ruling.

    Responses (1) +
  • July 17, 2013 at 4:02pm

    The First Amendment is clear: “CONGRESS shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” (emphasis added) This overreach by the Supreme Court, and to a greater extent Federal Courts is outrageous. I hope this community continues to defy this organization, we need to settle this issue, once and for all. There is no freedom FROM religion, just like freedom of speech is not freedom from offensive speech, freedom of the press is not protection from embarrassing information being published (so long as it’s factual), and freedom of assembly isn’t only in designated areas!

  • July 17, 2013 at 10:29am

    “Rand went on to explain that she meant “social engineering” in the sense that Zimmerman would not have been arrested were it not for the outcry from minority groups and the White House. Society needed a little push, she added”

    Nudge, Push, Shove. Now where have we heard that before in regards to ‘Social Engineering’?

123