@AP: What aspects, specifically, are outdated? And I’ll save you the trouble of looking ignorant: keep in mind that the Amendments have addressed outdated ideas such as slavery (since liberals LOVE to use that as an example, which was never codified in the Constitution to begin with), and women’s right to vote (again, not codified since there were women and black men that owned property at the country’s founding).
Even repealing an amendment has been done (prohibition), so if it’s outdated, and SOOOOO many of your fellow American’s are in line with your way of thought and WE’RE the minority, propose an amendment to the constitution, have it pass Congress and the President, and then get it ratified by the states. It has been done as recently as 1992 (27th Amendment). I await your reply…
September 30, 2015 at 5:03pm
And thank you Dream for your civility. And Allens, your point is well-made, but flawed in that we all have the right to feel secure in our homes, conveyances, and places of employment; if the business owner does not feel safe with firearms openly displayed by his patrons, then his right to feel secure while providing for his livelihood (however misguided he may be) is being violated. I just want the law applied equally; if you can refuse to serve me because I’m carrying a firearm, I should be able to refuse you service because of your sexual orientation (for purposes of the points being made in this conversation). Yes, you also have the right to feel secure outside of your home, but you do not have the right to the business owner’s services.
 September 30, 2015 at 4:46pm
I can’t help but recall President Obama’s statement just the other day regarding our First Amendment protection: “religious freedom doesn’t grant us the freedom to deny our fellow Americans their constitutional rights.” Yet businesses every day all across this country deny us our Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, not for religous freedom, but because of their own fears and lack of understanding. Personally, I’m all for the return of businesses being able to refuse the right to serve any one, for any reason, and yes, that includes currently protected classes. Why? Because I believe in the right to freely associate with whom I choose, and in letting the marketplace determine your success based on the demographics you serve. This idea of “public accomodation” is rediculous; the only entity that has no right to refuse service is government, because it is actually owned by the people (or at least it used to be). There was a time in recent history for these laws (the Civil Rights Era), but that time has passed; people have had the freedom and opportunity to relocate and/or create communities that represent themselves beyond the need for forced acceptance. All that we are creating with our current laws is animosity towards each other, and it needs to stop.
You're all about "business's rights" when they're denying gays wedding cakes, but all about the individual's rights when it comes to open carry laws.
I'm a hard core conservative, but this blatant hypocrisy is embarrassing. Today you're about individual rights, and tomorrow you'll be about business's rights to deny services.
 September 30, 2015 at 4:33pm
For the record, the Colorado Theater shooter chose that particular theater BECAUSE it was a gun-free zone. There were several other theaters much closer to his apartment that he could have committed his crime in, but he targeted that one, knowing that no one (aledgedly) would be able to do anything to stop him. So yes, post a sign on your door stating that you’re a gun-free zone, and you are advertising yourself as an easy target for an armed criminal. No one here is spouting anything as stupid as you are, claiming it to be “insane logic” except you. The rest of us understand exactly what this policy communicates to criminals.
 April 17, 2015 at 9:49am
Bull Sharks can easily live in brackish water (which is exactly what you and the city of Bonita Springs has), in fact they go into the inter-coastal waters to breed and give birth. Baby/young Bull Sharks actually live in the inter-coastal waters until they’re large enough to fend for themselves, pulled by instinct to deeper, more salty water as they mature. I seriously doubt that it is chumming that is bringing in this shark; most likely it is a female new to the area and looking for good breeding grounds. Regardless, the residents need to stay vigilant, and stay out of the water if no one is looking out, but really it’s no different than going to the beach. There, the water is clear enough to see them.
 February 16, 2015 at 10:33am
Crime Hills… it always amazed me that MetroWest was built right up to the edge of Pine Hills. It amazed me even more how long it took for the crime to bleed into MetroWest in the outlying complexes.
We need a better response by Law Enforcement on these types of events; without a proper response resulting in multiple arrests and strict prosecutions to set the example these events will only continue and escalate until serious harm is caused.
Florida is a conceal carry state, it’s only a matter of time before an armed citizen is confronted by a crowd like this and has to act to defend their life and property. Any good lawyer can cite this instance as an example of a reasonable fear in the case of a fatal shooting of a rioter (let’s be honest, that’s exactly what this crowd was), as gunshots rang out, people were robbed, and property was stolen.
 January 29, 2015 at 10:56am
We are a Constitutional Republic, not an Anarchist State. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” That is the basis under which we fought a revolution against the most powerful army/navy in the world at the time.
We’re not talking about the right of a woman or family to choose whether or not to have a child, we’re talking about protecting the right of the unborn child who was created, endowed with those same inalienable rights that justifies our existence as a free, self-governing people.
Of all the purposes of government, no one purpose can be any more critical than to protect the life and liberty of the most vulnerable of its citizenry! It is the very basis of the need for government above all else: protection; protection from the tyranny of the majority, the tyranny of power, and most of all, the tyranny of “convenience”.
The act of creating a life is a deliberate, specific act; it may not be the intended result of the act, but is a known fact the result is probable.
If you want to throw around “rape and incest” (even incest is consensual, disgusting as it may be), then we can write laws specifically outlining the exception for the result of a violent, reported crime, but those laws will be written in a manner to prevent false reporting, again for the purpose of “convenience”.
 October 16, 2014 at 9:39am
OK, I found the article from the home page by doing a search for LBJ. Scroll down and it’s there; I don’t know why the direct link isn’t working, but the article is there.
The problem with your statement is in the presumption that the corporation is some how responsible for the employee beyond the workplace. “Underpaid employees are now forced to go on public assistance”? First off, who are you to say they’re underpaid?! Even the “poor” in America have it far better off than the poor in many other countries (thus explaining the rush on our border, despite such “deplorable” working conditions here). This guy is complaining about $15 an hour when workers in the fast food industry are demanding that wage! But let’s get back on point…
Companies don’t “privatize their profits while socializing their costs” as you put it (sounds like the makings of an Occupy chant); the people elect a government that will give them handouts because they don’t have any skin in the game. These people demand expansion of these programs, and these same people refuse to take accountability for their decisions in life. If these program didn’t exist, perhaps people would be more responsible with their money, reevaluate what is and isn’t a priority, and for those who pay the taxes, they’d have more in their pocket from not paying for these programs in the first place.
Your statement infers that it’s somehow the company’s fault when a worker must go on public assistance. How exactly does that work? Does Paul deserve more than Mark because Paul has a large family? We earn what the market dictates we’re worth for the job that we do, and what we’re willing to take.
July 31, 2014 at 10:56am
I used to work in retail, and though I don’t remember the number of digits necessary, I do know how to avoid being scammed in the future: The sales clerk should ALWAYS be the one making the phone call to the bank. That’s how I was trained to do it, and it should be standard procedure. Never take the customer’s word for it that the transaction is OK; speak to the bank rep. yourself and get the digits from them. We had authorization telephone numbers for all of the CC companies we worked with, and those were the only numbers we called when we needed authorization. Training, training, training…
 July 10, 2014 at 11:09am
You may have to wait in line. I’d think her father would be the first in line for the honor.
Agreed. Dad gets first crack at the loser. If there's anything left for anybody to take a crack at then I'm a nun.
 July 10, 2014 at 11:06am
Being that she’s only 18, the chances that any nude pictures that may exist of her are limited to being taken in the past year (or less) is highly unlikely. If they did exist it is more likely that they are of her as a minor, therefore the pedophile inference. Worse, due to her age, if they did exist, there would be no way to guarantee that they were taken of her as an adult, making it even more likely that he is engaging in encouraging pedophilia and the sharing of child pornography. While I’m sure he is not intending to endorse pedophilia in his hateful tweet, due to her age, he certainly left that possibility open.
 June 26, 2014 at 5:03pm
This insanity has got to stop. If police dogs are protected by laws against harm by criminal acts, than so must our pets (and to many of us, members of our families) be protected against excessive force. It is common for citizens to have dogs for protection of property, and unless you have a warrant to enter the premises, it should be just as much a violation to harm our animals as it is for us to harm theirs.
I get it, there was a missing child, but that does not give law enforcement carte blanche to go anywhere and everywhere in violation of our rights. To those who are defending this officer’s actions: if he believed his search required breaking into your home because you didn’t answer the door, and your teenage son/daughter was home alone and didn’t hear the knock at the door, how would you feel? How would you feel if your son/daughter was shot and killed when startling the officer coming around the corner to investigate? Would there be outrage then? Yes, I know, we’re talking about the difference between a human and an animal, but there’s a connection with the animal, and to those of us with animals (especially with no kids), it would be a devastating and senseless loss. Did the officer not have pepper spray? All the LEOs where I live do… Why was a lethal response the first response when looking for a lost (not kidnapped) child? This was just wrong, plain-and-simple… I’ll climb down off of my soapbox now.
Don't forget boston when the COTUS was thrown out for the benefit of society,,,,,,,we are either a country of laws or not.......
You have to wonder,Did the cop go on this property KNOWING a dog was there ? If so,reading and accessing the situation properly A critical part of a Cops job, And as they are all trained to do,I believe pepper spray IF needed would have sufficed....OR did he know the Dog was there so he readied his service revolver ?
OR did he have no clue a dog was there,but had his revolver out while looking for this child ?
What IF this child had "startled" him,which is what I believe the Dog did, IF this was indeed the situation,otherwise,why not call animal control to help calm/restrain)
I believe The cop knew the dog was there,had his SR at the ready because of it, and then shot the dog because he could,the Dog lives there,the cop was in the wrong,PERIOD ! If they could call the guy to tell them they shot his dog,they could have called him to put the Dog in the house while they searched.....This dog could have been protecting the scared little kid for all this Dufus cop knew....This guy should be personally sued in Civil Court when he Dogs Owner is done with the keystone twits.
 June 13, 2014 at 2:16pm
There is no Constitutional authority for the Federal government to run a highway system. You can skew Article 1, Section 8 “To establish Post Offices, and Post Roads” to justify this to an extent, but it should be at best limited to the needs of the Postal Service. And there’s no need for a four lane highway to haul mail.
A proper application of the clause, in conjunction with regulating “Commerce…among the several states”, would be setting a Federal standard as to what constitutes a road: minimum width of a lane, minimum load capacities, etc., so that vehicles used for carrying the mail and commerce between the states could be designed to a Federal standard, allowing vehicles to freely travel state to state without worrying about whether they can safely travel across state lines. By the way, we already have this…
This would lead the management and funding of the Federal highways to the states. This puts the spending at the local level, where the local populace can (ideally) effectively manage how the money is managed and spent. I bet if we did an honest audit of our current Federal Highway Department, you’d see a lot of money going to the bureaucracy instead of to actual highway spending. At the state level there’s a better chance that the residents would demand better management.
Again, this if for “Federal highways”, as we already have state & county roads. Reduce the size of the Federal government and put more control in the hands of the states and
May 23, 2014 at 10:20am
This concept of “no winners or losers” is an extrapolation of from each according to their ability, to each according to their need. It is meant to equalize the playing field and remove individuality; your individuality does not matter, it is the collective enjoyment of being together that matters, nothing else. By encouraging children not to excel, they settle into mediocrity, and lose ambition, and without ambition, you’ll more easily conform to how the government wants you to be. This generation that is being raised up in this ideology are going to be ill-equipped to compete in the world, and will find themselves being subservient to government throughout their lives.
Try to see through, or past your Beckien indoctrination. I always experienced field day as a very unpleasant annual milestone because I was chubby and uncoordinated. Nonetheless, I was doing cancer research at Georgetown University at 14. I'm thinner now, and I don't really care anymore who runs faster, but what good did those experiences do? I became a "winner" despite those events, not because of them. I suppose you could argue that those small humiliations created the drive for me to succeed in other domains, but that is neither how I perceive it now, nor how it felt then. This isn't an effort at some kind of leftist indoctrination, it is just the result of people who had experiences like mine coming into positions of power. We live in an increasing technocracy. You better be nice to the chubby kid...you are going to be working for him one day.
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
Your example is ridiculous because it would never ever happen. Minding your own business and not behaving in a judgmental manner toward your customers is an essential part of a florist's job.
To quote you "We live in a free society, or at least we used to", so why do I have to do business against my free will with anyone I wish not to?
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