User Profile: GroverCleveland

GroverCleveland

Member Since: November 20, 2012

CommentsDisplaying comments newest to oldest.

123
  • April 20, 2014 at 6:13pm

    There are no pagans. You are not a pagan. There is no such religion, no such tradition. The word is from the latin and refers to country-dwellers, backward people whom early Christians found difficult to convert because of their ignorance and their zealous attachment to their own household gods. I think when you hint that you are a “Pagan,” the phrase you’re actually looking for is “crashing bore.”

  • April 20, 2014 at 6:07pm

    Either way, it’s idiotic, childish and pre-scientific. http://ow.ly/vY1JL

    Responses (1) +
  • April 19, 2014 at 9:01pm

    Are you a ten-year-old?

  • April 19, 2014 at 8:59pm

    Wait, which land did Harry Reid sell? Where? For how much?

  • April 19, 2014 at 8:57pm

    What’s wrong with you? You have violent fantasies. Is that not obvious?

  • April 19, 2014 at 8:55pm

    If Bundy does not recognize the federal government, what is the basis of his citizenship?

    Responses (1) +
  • April 19, 2014 at 5:20pm

    Maybe look at a few points of view, folks: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/18/opinion/egan-deadbeat-on-the-range.html?_r=0

  • March 31, 2014 at 2:41pm

    Yes, it’s nice to choose. But when an industry that is fundamental to the basic health of the nation operates such that millions have no options at all–that is, they simply can’t avail themselves of care–then the idea of choice becomes moot. Then it’s time to rethink the basic structure. Also, it’s ludicrous to suggest that in a republic “Most people want the freedom to choose whatever policy they want or don’t want.” Disappointment and a certain amount of coercion are inherent in our system. You don’t get to “choose” a policy of driving without auto insurance, because the risk you might pose to others is too great; your personal liberty is outweighed by your responsibility to others. Examples of this are legion. You should know that.

  • March 31, 2014 at 2:29pm

    Why?

  • March 31, 2014 at 2:27pm

    Not sure you’re aware of what it is to be a “slave.” How will the ACA enslave you?

    Responses (1) +
  • March 31, 2014 at 2:07pm

    Many of you claim that the “hidden” goal of the ACA is to destroy the medical insurance industry, or more broadly to shut down the health care “system” as we now know it. This claim raises a few questions, to wit: (1) Who’s side are you on? Are you all seriously defending an industry that since at least the Nixon administration has run rough-shod over poor and middle-income Americans, running them into bankruptcy, pricing services and medications out of their reach, refusing to cover critical procedures and drugs–all for the sake of high profits? (2) What on earth is wrong with reining in or even destroying such a capricious, wasteful, greedy monster of an industry? (3) And even if it were the case that the ACA was just a cynical ruse to dismantle “market-driven” health care and replace it with a single-payer system, would that be so catastrophic? Would that be so bad? Even conservative economists understand the fundamental value of Human Capital; a healthy workforce is essential to a stable economy; a workforce not mired in its own unmanageable debt (stemming from, say, medical costs) is also essential–or at the very least, desirable. The unavoidable truth is this: prior to the ACA, the state of health care in the U.S. was a bloody mess, a shameful embarrassment to a modern free enterprise system. Why, then, are the majority of you taking such a bloodthirsty interest in the failure of a program which is nothing more than a proposed alternative to abject fail

    Responses (1) +
  • March 21, 2014 at 12:22pm

    הוֹגֶן = “fair” in Hebrew. The claim that there is no equivalent word for this or that English phrase in another language, and therefor no equivalent concept, is an old dodge. The concept of fair treatment or fair play–or the lack thereof–is a common feature of the Hebrew scriptures. That the god of the world need not deal fairly with his people, but that the people must deal fairly with one another in order to do god’s work is a strong theme in rabbinic tradition. Lapin is not simply making a mistake here, he is telling a willful lie. Think about it. Have a look at the Old Testament. Then ask yourself whether the idea of “fairness” is really absent from the Hebrew language and from the culture that language has kept alive. Then ask yourself: “if he must begin his argument with willful deception, how strong could that argument be?”

    Responses (1) +
  • March 21, 2014 at 1:16am

    This might help some of you poor kids begin to understand: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-will-cross-the-climate-danger-threshold-by-2036/

  • March 12, 2014 at 6:39pm

    So we’re clear: all you hard-working “blazers” would like to continue to show your love to your employers by your willingness to work over-time hours without being paid for them? This is about removing a loop-hole in the language that governs who is entitled to over-time and when. It is not about forcing employers to “offer” over-time. You guys get that, right?

    Responses (1) +
  • March 11, 2014 at 8:21pm

    This has nothing to do with the ACA. Neither is it a proof that the FDA is tyrannical. It is, however, another example of how the profit motive is not suited to every aspect of our lives. Healthcare, and pharma, are perfect examples of industries that should operate outside the capitalist agenda.

    Responses (1) +
  • March 11, 2014 at 8:09pm

    It’s not true. “writeonbrother” is an idiot.

  • March 3, 2014 at 11:17am

    How about Mountain Meadows, where Mormon zealots murdered around a hundred and fifty men, women and children after luring them from their camp under a flag of truce? They killed everybody in the Fancher party who was “old enough to tell the tale.” And in the end, though the conspiracy was directed from the very top of the Mormon Hierarchy, and endorsed by the president and “prophet” Brigham Young, the Mormons betrayed and threw to the dogs one single, half-hearted brother conspirator, John D. Lee, to atone for the crime. Though an army of perhaps one hundred Mormon fiends murdered these innocent emigrants, John Lee was the one they tried, convicted and executed for it. Not just zealots, they were cowards, liars and paranoid fanatics.

  • February 26, 2014 at 6:18pm

    When did evolution become a “leftist cause?” And When did American Protestants start treasuring the Hebrew bible as a literal reconstruction of their “Christian” heritage? Clarence Darrow professed the Christian faith, yet during the Scopes trial in 1920 he made a national laughing-stock of William Jennings Bryon when he brought him to the witness stand and made him explain to the world how a literal interpretation of the old testament would actually work. Thereafter Bryan became the quintessential old Christian fool; it was a healthy dose of reason against the insidious, creeping stupidity of old-fashioned, small-town bible-thumping. That was nearly a hundred years ago. A century of science, discovery, dialogue and healthy rationalism. Yet here we are toward the end of that century, with well over half of the posters on this site using the fruits of science and rational thought (ahem–your lap-top) to argue with foaming mouths over the literalism of the story of Noah!

  • February 26, 2014 at 5:27pm

    The various institutions of marriage throughout the world and throughout the ages have been established and modified by societies, and they have served those societies in different ways. In the history of humankind, the bible (and therefore the “word of god”) is a more or less recent artifact. Marriage is not a biblical or a Christian phenomenon. It is a global one, and a changing one.

    Responses (1) +
  • February 26, 2014 at 5:13pm

    And of course, if the framers had meant to openly refer to themselves in the preamble it would in fact have read: “We the federal government.” Virtually the entire assembly present at the making of the U.S. Constitution served at the highest levels of the federal apparatus, both before and after the document was ratified as the foundation of all subsequent law.

123