@SpaceSprockets: “so he chose to harm them back” How did he harm them? Oh, he trapped their cars for a little while? How is that harm?
He shouldn’t have to put up a barrier on his land, especially if the barrier ends up costing him some of his livelihood (which it would). People that have no respect for private property rights get exactly what’s coming to them.
 November 17, 2015 at 1:21pm
The Barbari Wars provide the answer. You go in with no mercy. When they finally agree to peace, you ceasefire. The next time they attack, you repeat the process.
 November 16, 2015 at 4:15pm
“What can we do to be responsible gun owners and still be ready and what does market offer?’”
The market doesn’t offer anything better than the human brain. What can you do and still be ready? Educate your children. Train your children.
Stop making the gun something to hide away from your children. Teach your children about the gun. Teach them the dangers. Teach them how to use it. Get them use to having the gun around. Then they won’t try to find it and play with it because they’ll understand it.
Then, when it’s really needed, it’ll be ready and waiting and you won’t have to mess with anything.
JediKnight the biggest problem with the kids is their lack of ego. They let their friends talk them into doing wrong things out of a lack of their knowledge of WHO they are and how important that is to you and their other parent.
When kids are empowered by their parents with training in whatever they can handle and have an interest in they are better able to tell acquaintances "NO!" to whatever the 'dare' is.
 November 16, 2015 at 12:16pm
It might actually be a good thing if they did do that. Then people would know exactly what Hitler believed and what those that still follow his ideology believe.
Fight speech with more speech, not less. You’d probably have a problem with the President having copies of the Quran distributed. But that’s exactly what Jefferson did so the people of the US would know why we were fighting the Barbari Pirates, Muslims.
November 12, 2015 at 12:09pm
Just because he isn’t talking about him anymore doesn’t mean Beck doesn’t know about it. Why continue talking about him when all his listeners and viewers are well aware of who funds these movements? There’s only so many times you can go over the same connections before it gets tiring.
 November 10, 2015 at 7:33pm
I remember something similar. At grandma’s house, we were not allowed any dessert unless we finished our plate. We were also suppose to finish everything on our plate, no matter if we were full or not. We don’t do the exact same thing anymore, but we do make sure our kids finish their plates (even if they’re finishing it the next day).
 November 10, 2015 at 5:53pm
@Poser: No, but he could sign an EO :-P
Who’s being criminalized for saying “Merry Christmas”? I haven’t heard of anyone.
 November 10, 2015 at 5:51pm
I’m pretty sure I had to work Christmas day when I worked in retail and I wasn’t paid time and a half. Blockbuster Video thought people would want to rent movies that day and they were right. I’m also pretty sure that while it’s a federal holiday, it’s not a legal requirement to be paid more on that day. In fact:
“California law does not require the employer to pay any additional pay if an employee works on the
day of a holiday unless it is part of their common practice or if the employee has worked in excess of a 40 hour, 8 hour per day work week.”
So no, employers aren’t required to pay more or give the day off paid in full. It’s up to each individual company. This explains why so many retail employees are constantly telling people to stay home. If we stay home, they’re less likely to have to work the following year.
Sadly, you seem to think it’s a great thing that the holiday drives the economy. You seem to think it’s a great thing that the federal government has mandated that day off with extra pay (even though they haven’t). You claim to be a Christian, but your entire comment is so far off of Christianity that it’s not really even funny.
Celebrate Jesus’ birth. Not a driving force of the economy. Being a driving force of the economy is exactly what’s wrong with it nowadays.
Aah, Blockbuster. Didn't they bite the dust years ago? I know it was due to advancing technology, but maybe employees with bad attitudes helped it along faster.
 November 10, 2015 at 12:52pm
The Constitution doesn’t grant you rights. It protects the rights you already have.
 November 10, 2015 at 12:47pm
Audiographical means you can quote back what you hear. Perfectly. Also, not every libertarian agrees 100% with Ayn Rand. We wouldn’t be libertarians if we agreed with every other libertarian 100% of the time.
I don't even agree with Ayn Rand 100%. That being said, pandering to values voters is the opposite of everything she stood for.
November 10, 2015 at 9:31am
@SpeakSoftly: LOL, no she didn’t. She fired thousands and sent the jobs to China. That’s not at all the same thing as replacing them with H1Bs.
As far as Disney and SCE are concerned, they’re bringing in low or no skill tech workers and forcing existing employees to train them. That’s not at all the purpose of the H1B visa program. They aren’t the only ones doing it either, they’re just the highest profile ones.
There probably is a shortage of high tech workers in the US, but it’s because people don’t want to get retrained in high tech. There is no shortage of jobs available, but there’s a lot of people that are use to working manufacturing (ie an assembly line) that don’t want to retrain for high tech (programming, engineering, etc). If you can get those people to retrain, they can fill the existing jobs.
November 9, 2015 at 7:39pm
That’s a pretty major butterfly to squash (Heroes fans will understand this).
[-1] November 9, 2015 at 7:31pm
“Millennials want lower taxes, reform of the cost of education, refinancing of the student loan debt, more jobs that are worthy of their expensive college degrees, and entitlement programs that will be around when they need them.”
The govt only belongs in one of these issues (lower taxes). The govt has no business involving itself in any of the other items in that list. If millennials want the govt to fix all the rest, then they haven’t learned a damn thing during the current administration.
Get the govt out of those items and the market will fix itself. Get a college degree worth having (something in technology or engineering ought to do) and you’ll have no problem finding a job in your field. As long as millennials continue to obtain degrees in some form of “liberal arts” they’ll continue to find themselves working minimum wage jobs (that is until the cost to automate gets lower and they become easy to replace).
 November 9, 2015 at 1:01pm
She doesn’t need advice. She needs to parent. The solution is right in front of her face, but she doesn’t want to do it. Take away the sports. Yep, the whole team gets lets down, but oh well. Tell her that not only are you going to stop her from doing sports, but she’s going to tell the whole team why she can’t do sports for a while. So you take away the sports and give her a bit of embarrassment at the same time.
November 4, 2015 at 3:14pm
Nothing prevents employers from continuing a drug free workplace. They can continue to drug test employees. Perhaps they can alter their policies for an amount of marijuana currently in their system. Most places already don’t allow employees that are drunk to be on the job. I see no reason why they can’t implement similar policies for marijuana use. Simply put, no smoking on the job and if there’s more than X in your system when you get to work, suspend or fire them.
Companies need to set their own policies and stop depending on the govt to tell them how to run their businesses.
November 4, 2015 at 3:12pm
“Colorado already issued a news story that I read online by a legitimate media source that stated their traffic offenses of impaired on both weed and alcohol spiked up.”
Yes, there was an increase. There are also penalties in the law for driving under the influence. Do you really think banning marijuana keeps people from driving under the influence? It doesn’t. Education will keep people from doing that. Informing people that driving under the influence is a crime and is dangerous will keep people from doing it. Some will do it anyway. When they’re caught, they should be penalized.
Banning marijuana because a few people are driving under the influence is foolish.
 November 4, 2015 at 3:07pm
@freedomcheerleader: You assume someone is a “druggie” because they want to consume marijuana in a form other than by smoking? Do you assume cigarette smokers or vapers are druggies because they’re addicted to nicotine?
 November 4, 2015 at 3:05pm
Sorry for your loss, but this statement
“If this were to pass you are going to see more high drivers on the road because the media, Hollywood, and even some politicians have pushed how safe it is.”
is simply not true. No one is pushing marijuana as being a safer alternative while driving. Is it safer than alcohol to use? Sure. Is it safer to drive while under the influence? Absolutely not and I’ve not heard anyone suggest otherwise. Even the propositions that get passed all have varying language regarding driving while high.
Keeping it illegal does nothing but jail people who have done nothing wrong but break a stupid law.
 October 30, 2015 at 2:21pm
Correct, 5000. That was a regular angel. Lucifer is an Arch Angel, which is much more powerful than a regular angel.
 October 30, 2015 at 2:20pm
“If its true, then there must be sin in heaven and angels must have free will.”
There is no sin in heaven, but angels do have free will (just as everyone does).
“It is said that angels are unlike men in that they do not have a free will.”
Who said that? Of course they have free will. The ones that were cast out are the ones that sinned by rebelling against God. Heaven is sin free. The remaining angels continue to have free will, but they are obedient in the perfection that is heaven.
To be clear, Satan (Lucifer) didn’t simply rebel “just because”. The stories I’ve read indicate that the angels and arch angels, of which Lucifer is one, were given a glimpse of the baby Jesus as mankinds savior and told they must worship him. Lucifer refused as he viewed mankind as below them in stature and therefore Jesus in human form is not worth his worship. He was therefore cast out of heaven.
So basically you are saying that the potential is there for a saved soul in heaven to commit a sin and become unsaved. I thought this life was the test for eternal life. It would seem eternal life is the eternal test.
I also wonder about the root of evil. Angels / man must have an evil nature. If there was no evil, no demons before Lucifer, then who/what tempted him to the sin of pride?
The point of free will is that man must, via faith, choose God. Angels on the other hand would have no need of free will. They know God exists, they are already in heaven. So if they are in heaven and with God, how could they choose sin? Is a paradox.
Lucifer refused to worship Adam, as Lucifer considered Adam inferior because Adam was made from clay and Lucifer from light and Lucifer was created before Adam. Some will say Adam and Jesus are very much the same, others will disagree with a different interpretation.