User Profile: HappyStretchedThin


Member Since: January 09, 2011


123 To page: Go
  • [47] October 1, 2016 at 11:04am

    The very phrase “Planned Parenthood” is a deceptive edit. Abortion is a euphemism. If they labeled what they do accurately, no one would ever patronize them.

    Responses (2) +
  • [7] September 14, 2016 at 4:16pm

    grimz, would you believe the facts if you saw them? In my experience it’s liberals like yourself who are more likely to refuse entry on facts. However, if this isn’t merely a rhetorical question on your part I invite you to peruse the following. I chose it because the Atlantic is far from being a right-wing rag:

  • [8] September 14, 2016 at 4:11pm

    So wait, Jordan. Your solution to poverty is to thin the herd? If so, you stand revealed, sir, as the world’s most pessimistic cynic.
    But maybe you’re not really claiming that’s the best solution to poverty. Maybe instead you are just trying to provoke me into realizing that I need to put my money where my mouth is and support babies that come from unwanted pregnancies. Fair enough. Since you don’t know me from Adam, I spare you the details other than to say that I’ve personally supported more of precisely those kinds of charitable efforts than you will ever know and likely with a higher percentage of my income than 99% of liberals like yourself.
    But let me play your own game and throw a provocative and revealing question back at you:
    Do you know what the wait list is for couples who want to adopt?
    If your logic is that we should provide good homes for every child we allow to come into this world, then I’m afraid you’re upside down: the supply of couples outweighs the demand for adoptions by at least 3 times.
    More likely, you’re simply cynical and only believe in freedom of choice so long as women choose the way YOU want them to. If so, you are truly deplorable.

  • [18] September 14, 2016 at 11:27am

    Yes, but liberals are also prone to parroting and groupthink. In reality, many of them are on the fence, and just need one of us to stand up strong, take them by the hand, and show them a better way. We can’t give up hope. Every conscience saved saves a baby and an adult.
    Here’s a video I was using previously which also does a fantastic and accessible job of exploding the PP 3% myth:

    Responses (5) +
  • [72] August 28, 2016 at 7:36pm

    Yes! And I guarantee, NONE of these “progressive” women would want to live in the kind of societies where female breast-baring is the norm. Most women are married off barely into puberty, men have a lock on positions of power, polygamy is more common, etc.
    The real problem here is that the ideology of these progressives prevents them from seeing the FULL equality they already have with respect to what clothing they’re required to wear in public–men also must keep their sexual organs covered. As with all progressives, they’re screaming inequality where none exists.

    Responses (2) +
  • [78] August 27, 2016 at 8:00am

    It’s more insidious than merely whether they’re able to handle working with others, kaydee. This is about a consistent inability to hold someone else’s truth–or any truth–out for objective analysis without first passing it through an emotional filter. When truth doesn’t penetrate unless emotions pass off on it first, all decisions tend to be subordinated to this impenetrable emotional barrier. It’s okay to engage emotions as part of proper decision-making processes, but it makes for permanent emotional immaturity when only emotionally pre-screened truths are allowed in for you to adapt yourself to. The safe-spacers don’t understand that for emotionally mature adults, everywhere can be a “safe space” because we choose not to feel offended at everything, even offensive things. We’re generally confident being ourselves wherever we are. It’s much healthier.

    Responses (4) +
  • [4] August 26, 2016 at 11:32am

    You guys have this all wrong. Being able to open pickle jars is ALL Hillary’s qualified to do. Jimmy’s completely unaware of the irony that he’s putting that forward as proof positive of presidential ability.

  • [88] August 3, 2016 at 1:19pm

    Interestingly, for those who get the French of this, the exact words were: va-t’en Satan.
    Rev. Hamel used the familiar form to a SINGULAR, rather than the more respectful/egalitarian and/or plural “vous” form. He commanded them like you’d command a child or a pet.
    And “go away” could be said in a hundred ways, in French as in any language. This particular form of “go away” was a little more like “get the H out of here”.
    His may have been the only spine of steel remaining in France…

    Responses (1) +
  • [25] July 20, 2016 at 11:37am

    Meh. They have free speech rights too–even if all they use them for is to make idiots of themselves in public. They were insulting, to be sure, but I’m not sure why anyone would be afraid that someone might actually be convinced by the arguments of a band whose most influential lyrics were “doo doo doo, doo doo doo doo”.

  • [9] July 16, 2016 at 9:37am

    The headline here is misleading: Pence doesn’t want a religious purity test for incoming refugees or immigrants. Instead, quite rationally, he wants border and immigration controls placed on states whose internal controls haven’t managed to handle their terrorism problem adequately yet. The reason for denying anyone entry would be based on security reasons and would apply by geography, not based on religious reasons and applied by bigotry.
    Huge difference.
    I’m not a huge Trump fan, but this distorting the serious policy proposals of him and his surrogates, usually out of context, serves only Hillary, I’m afraid.

  • March 21, 2016 at 5:19pm

    argyle: you wrote what you wrote, and are only owning a part of it. I’m holding you accountable for all of it. The idea that you were just trying to help broaden the audience is belied by your implication that NO comfort or LITTLE comfort is possible on the face of the words themselves. If what you’re NOW claiming is your motivation were true, there would be NO NEED to belittle the words.
    And speaking of owning words: I’ts Joseph, not Johnathan, and LDS doctrine is NOT to follow HIS visions, but rather to follow CHRIST. The correct analogy would be to Peter, John, Paul, or others who had visions, and yet whose “followers” or ” disciples” we, as Christians, are not.

  • [2] March 21, 2016 at 5:12pm

    The twisting of doctrine is not on mcsledge’s part:
    1. The LDS doctrine of inheritance through the tribes of Israel is about ADOPTION, not necessarily blood heritage. You’re the one who’s twisted that.
    2. The Ezekiel passage clearly establishes that the sticks represent writings AND kingdoms that will be joined, not JUST kingdoms that will be joined. You’re the one who’s twisted that.
    3. The prophecies in Ezekiel are both for Israel AND for the world at large, since the blessing to Abraham was that through His seed ALL the world will be blessed. In the chapter in question (37), there are FREQUENT references to the scripture being applicable to the heathen, prophesying how the heathen would react, directing the faithful to be gathered from among the heathen, etc. It’s clearly applicable to MORE than the Hebrew nation. You’re the one who’s twisted it.

    Mf25: Not a single one of your assertions has any truth to it. I can personally list respected scholars in appropriate fields (history, archaeology, linguistics, and ancient scripture) who find plenty of external evidence to the truth of the Book of Mormon’s existential, referential, and theological truth and accuracy. As to its content and the Gospel it teaches, as a scholar and a student of it myself, I can supply you my witness that it teaches basic Christian theology and confirms the Biblical Christianity with which I’m ALSO intimately familiar. Burden on you to SHOW I’m wrong (not just assert it with no support).

  • March 21, 2016 at 4:50pm

    Due respect, but you’re overstating the commonalities between Bible translations and especially denominations by a LONG shot.
    Bible: As a translator myself, I have a keen sense of what can get “lost” in translation. The fact that the best scholarship may have gone into establishing which of the extant letters are authentic and into determining a sort of average baseline for the translation work to begin from STILL produces some wildly different notions on central points of doctrine.
    Churches: the deity of Christ holds us all together, yes. That His is the only name under heaven by which we can be saved, is common, mostly (some even omit THAT seemingly basic requirement), but the manner of salvation, the need for authorized representatives to perform rites and officiate in covenant-making, the organization of the church, the nature of the Holy Spirit, the nature and purpose of the family, and the literality of the resurrection are HUGELY contested between the different confessions.
    We absolutely SHOULD insist on our commonalities and work in solidarity to support each other. I applaud your desire to do so in posting what you did. But by denying important differences, you are also closing yourself off to the possibility of a truth that’s not merely relative in the way you suggest. I humbly submit to you that God is NOT the author of confusion. Men have introduced MANY distortions of His true doctrines and ways.

  • [1] March 21, 2016 at 4:41pm

    Due respect, maybe you think I’m overstating your implications/inferences/suggestions, but the “unfortunately” and “little comfort” phrases DO imply that you chose not to take the lesson on perfect love casting out fear as a neutral truth, but instead evaluated it negatively in comparison to the Paul quote. You could have, instead, kept the emotionally judgmental language out of it and came at truth positively, saying something more supportive, like: “Yes, perfect love DOES cast out fear. I ALSO found it in the Bible, which adds even MORE comfort to the truth you shared. Thanks for sharing.”
    Also, please don’t insult the intelligence of your readers: you DO have an orientation to the source. Otherwise there would be no need to deploy the ” followers of Joseph Smith” epithet. The implication that those who believe that Joseph Smith was a true prophet in our modern times are somehow “his followers” like Muslims follow Mohammed, and Christians follow Christ is insidious and purposeful in an attempt to discredit JS as a source of ANY kind of truth. Since you are aware that the quote above came from the Book of Mormon, you CANNOT escape responsibility for that implication, because you ALSO know that the LDS conception of a true prophet is that NO ONE follows the prophet, but rather follows CHRIST as the prophet himself points to. This is the pattern with Peter, James, Paul, even Agabus…

  • [1] March 21, 2016 at 4:28pm

    Due respect, you’re overspecifying the scope. BOTH make the same point: fear and perfect love can’t coexist in the same heart. The fact that Mormon takes that loving motivation to speak the truth despite a danger is secondary to the lesson on love that BOTH he and John make.
    Due respect, you’re overstating what belongs in canon and applying a NON-biblical standard to the Bible itself. First of all, there are PLENTY of books in the Bible written by/attributed to prophets who did not live with Jesus personally. They’re called the Old Testament. And once we get beyond THAT inaccuracy, let’s get to the more fundamental one: who decided the canon should be closed and/or limited to people who lived personally with Jesus? Paul lived during His time and was witness to SOME of the events of His ministry, but didn’t live WITH Him. NONE of the writers of the New Testament left ANY clue in their writings to the effect that the pattern of God speaking through prophets and apostles should end, except John the beloved who either appears to have broken his OWN rule by writing his Gospel AFTER the Revelation, OR you’ve misinterpreted the “not adding to THIS book” verse to apply to the WHOLE Bible, rather than narrowly to Revelation.

  • [1] March 21, 2016 at 1:22pm

    Brilliant point, Wil. I’m wondering though: would you apply the SAME logic to the different translations of the Bible? What about the different doctrines between Christian denominations?
    If the truth from God is the water, and arsenic is the man-made poison that can distort the truth so badly that it kills you, what is your standard for determining whether a given translation or a given denominational credo has drops of “arsenic” in it?

  • [3] March 21, 2016 at 12:59pm

    argyle. Why manufacture an offense here? Are you so invested in attempting to debunk LDS claims that this scripture is of divine provenance on a parallel with your quote that you MISS the fact that the fundamental truth of the statement is EXACTLY as comforting?
    It’s more important to be interested in truth than in one’s own (probably WAY distorted) opinion of where it comes from. No worries, though, everyone else reading this can see how consistent the truth is with itself, despite your insistence that the source is suspect.

    Responses (14) +
  • [332] March 6, 2016 at 11:17pm

    “Full investigation” to this woman means “What difference does it make?”

    Responses (2) +
  • [3] March 4, 2016 at 2:24pm

    Thanks for the heads up Salt.
    I think I fell for it.
    But even in doing so, I exposed the twist behind his trolling deception.
    Glad you’re on the case.

  • [14] March 4, 2016 at 10:57am

    You understand neither the constitution nor Cruz, and may even BARELY have a handle on basic Christian theology if you actually believe what you wrote. Christ said render to Caesar that which is Caesar’s. The Constitution protects lack of belief in God just as much as it protects belief in any given God. Cruz knows this and would no more lock this legislator up than he’d lock up a Christian for praying in public.
    If these AZ legislators wanted to publicly denounce Mendez’s “prayer”, they have the right to do so, and SHOULD point out how offensive it was to their own privately held beliefs.
    But for them to declare it unfit as an opener for conducting government business runs afoul of the 1st amendment because it amounts to govt imposing a PARTICULAR form of worship as the ONLY appropriate form.
    Let me be clear: as a Christian myself, I want to convince all of the Mendez’s of the world of their ERROR, but force never was persuasion, and the God I worship wouldn’t want to be worshiped by force anyway.
    May your zeal grant you success in converting many, both to Cruz and to Christ, my friend, but please change your direction and manner, because in this particular thing, you’re dead wrong.

    Responses (1) +
123 To page: Go