Overstock

User Profile: jfhunt

jfhunt

Member Since: September 01, 2010

Comments

  • January 21, 2013 at 2:53pm

    Personally, I believe that only those individuals who have a serious organic disease should be treated with psychotropic drugs. Most people who do not have an actual biochemical/metabolic problem, that is those who are emotionally troubled, especially children who have difficulty dealing with life are plain and simply lacking love and human kindness – or a stable environment. Love and kindness cannot be derived from paying an hourly rate to a psychiatrist or counselor, who views you as a “meal ticket” or “job” and has hundreds of patients just like you. So, the counselor says “here takes these pills” and the pills will numb you to the fact that your life is not as you expect it should be.

    Plus, many boys who won’t act as as compliant as little girls are drugged simply for acting like normal young boys – it is often done to “woosify” and control them in a PC “War on Boys” (read the book). Some of these boys we will see later as angry, sometimes violent, young men who might feel they are victims of our current PC society. I am only part joking when I ask if the PC crowd will next diagnose “manhood” as an illness and, therefore, grounds for disarming normal men, or worse sending them to a Gulag?

    However, even emotionally troubled people, who simply can’t deal with a loveless, chaotic life will see their lives more positively and satisfying when they understand their importance to Jesus Christ the Savior while they understand the greater scheme of life

  • January 10, 2013 at 2:10am

    I do not understand this wrangling over exactly what arms would be legitimate for citizens to own under the 2nd Amendment. I have heard liberals say that only an old musket could be owned and others say RPGs should be legal. However, it would seem to me that the framers of the Bill of Rights would have intended the side arms of the average infantryman. In 1789, yes, it would have been a musket, yet today in 2013, it would more likely be an M16 or and analogous weapon now carried by an infantryman..

    I have heard that such a concept is the same one accorded to modern-day Swiss citizens who hold and train with automatic infantry arms. (Plus, liberals just love to follow European social models, too.)

  • October 12, 2010 at 3:25pm

    I would have the same attitude toward MILITANT ADULTERERS as I do toward MILITANT homosexuals. When someone makes Militant statements they give an invitation to a public response – such discourse is protected and should be encouraged. Political correctness is designed to encourage silence and chill discourse in the face of a militant advocacy.

    I would not discriminate against adulterers or homosexuals. However, I do not want my children to be taught that either of these so called “lifestyles” is equivalent to self-control and moral behavior. Paladino and I would teach that such sexual behavior is destructive of individuals and the social fabric. We would also teach them that some people practice such destructive behavior, while we should not discriminate against them for their poor choices while being careful that we are not seduced by it.

  • October 12, 2010 at 3:14pm

    Pallidino is correct, but, as usual the media, including Fox, does not understand the nuance of a Christian attitude toward homosexuality: Followers of Christ hate the SIN, while they love the SINNER.

    To be very specific, I believe, a scriptural attitude toward homosexuality is condemnation of the act, but understanding of the sinners’ fallen nature, and patience if they are struggling to overcome sin as we all do. Homosexuality, and all sin, is a symptom of distance from our Father, and which makes our Savior necessary. However, Christians treat homosexuality with greater concern primarily because of the necessary response to MILITANT homosexuals. A militant adulterer’s movement has yet to be started. Although more repulsive to most, in scripture homosexuality appears no more egregious than adultery to our Father. Both are serious sins.
    That said, most of us are born with genetic or environmentally induced propensities to one sin or another, and we often must struggle all our lives to overcome them without complete success – for example, thievery, selfish manipulations, lying (even the little ones count), materialism, pride, drunkenness, heterosexual conquests, and, yes, disdain for struggling sinners.
    A “Christian” life includes a struggle to be more like Christ, our Perfect Example. I believe, in all instances we should make a distinction between “struggling” sinners and those whose far greater sin is prideful, contemptuous, and militant defiance of God. But, struggle we must. We do not, with clear conscience, give-in to our various lusts, make them “civil rights”, and force all others to accept and “celebrate” our sins with a smile.

  • October 6, 2010 at 3:27pm

    America was founded as a Nation understanding its reliance on God – and the worldview of the founding documents was that of Christianity Grow up and deal with it, because you can’t deny it if you review the facts.

    Any model for society that does not firmly acknowledge our dependence on God as it basis leads to tyranny. When a regime treats society as THE COLLECTIVE and not as INDIVIDUAL CREATIONS of God, it does not acknowledge individual rights sees the individual as no more than a resource to be controlled and disposed as necessary for the benefit state.

    So, we ought to be very careful to elect people who fully understand that the founders relied on God while they developed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Among the those documents it is acknowledged that “we are ENDOWED BY OUR CREATOR” with “UNALIENABLE RIGHTS” codify the basis for our God-dependent civil society.

    They are the most powerful documents written since the Magna Carta. They acknowledge our Creators intentions, codify our conformity to His intentions, and state our rights as created human beings. So, we should not allow seductive, state-centered leaders to convince us to exchange our God-centered “individual freedoms” for their “collective gifts”. Because, in the end we will be subdued by tyranny such as Nazism, Communism, and many others “isms” that see mankind as resources of the state rather than individual with God-given rights.

  • October 6, 2010 at 3:24pm

    The Tea Party has it right! Any model for society that does not firmly acknowledge our dependence on God as it basis leads to tyranny. When a regime treats society as THE COLLECTIVE and not as INDIVIDUAL CREATIONS of God, it does not acknowledge individual rights sees the individual as no more than a resource to be controlled and disposed as necessary for the benefit state.

    So, we ought to be very careful to elect people who fully understand that the founders relied on God while they developed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Among the those documents it is acknowledged that “we are ENDOWED BY OUR CREATOR” with “UNALIENABLE RIGHTS” codify the basis for our God-dependent civil society.

    They are the most powerful documents written since the Magna Carta. They acknowledge our Creators intentions, codify our conformity to His intentions, and state our rights as created human beings. So, we should not allow seductive, state-centered leaders to convince us to exchange our God-centered “individual freedoms” for their “collective gifts”. Because, in the end we will be subdued by tyranny such as Nazism, Communism, and many others “isms” that see mankind as resources of the state rather than individual with God-given rights.

    In reply to the story Is the Tea Party Too Religious?

  • October 4, 2010 at 6:40pm

    I am now an engineer, but was a former IBEW Journeyman Electrician. The IBEW Inside Wiremen Locals has a long history of working closely in collaboration with the contractors organizations. If they cant get the work we didn’t work. Construction unions are a “different animal” than most shop or government unions.

    So, speaking of unions, I think the combination of largely MONOPOLISTIC big business and their unions (Auto, Utilities) can drive out business, while government unions receive wages plus job protections that are breaking taxpayers at every level.

    And, that is my opinion as a former construction superintendent (17 years) and I’m still a non-participating union member. Our hourly wage, if working full-time, was solidly middle class. However, we voted, designated, and paid health and retirement benefits out of (subtracted from) our negotiated hourly wage. In addition, once hired we expected no job guarantees; no “seniority, etc. Plus, we only got paid when we worked – that is, we had no paid holiday, vacation, sick, or personal days off, which is typical for construction unions.

    If benefits were similarly paid out of negotiated wages, and wages were paid only for time worked – for ALL OCCUPATIONS – I think such benefit costs would not be spiraling out of control and overall productivity would be greater.

    In addition, related to the productive vs. non-productive issue, income from wages should be taxed at a far lower rate than income from non-labor activities (interest income and short-term trading). If so, I think we would have a less speculative and more productive economy.

    Production is true wealth, not moving fiat money around the system as if we were Las Vegas gamblers. Besides, I don’t think wages were ever intended to be taxed – I don’t believe wages are “profits” or a “return” on capital investment. Yet, taxation by government and speculation by banks are turning us into serfs!!

    And, I’ll say one more thing while I’m on a rant. Assuming something like the current tax code, if we want to reduce our dependence on a socialist government, then we need to take care of each other. If we don’t, the socialists or communists will rightly fill the void with theirforced and ineffective “programs”. The good book instructs us, forcefully, to take care of those in need (that’s NEED, not WANT).
    Well, we now have tax deductions for certain contributions. The deduction is 1 to 1, dollar for dollar for all types of eligible non-profits.

    However, I say we encourage or facilitate contributions to such “charities” that provide food, clothing shelter, or medical care to the poor by applying a 1 to 1.5 or 1 to 2 deduction – or whatever ratio it takes to encourage charitable donations sufficient to cover the need. We have been going in the wrong direction lately. Such a change would “prime the pump” to start the reign of “charity” rather than maintain the current reign of oppressive bureaucracy.

    I am now just an engineer and don’t pretend to be an economist, so you can take all this babbling with a grain of salt – but, I guess my opinion can’t be much worse than those of the “suits” with whom we are now forced to contend.

  • September 17, 2010 at 5:26pm

    Were they outraged when fake documents were produced by Dan Rather to smear GWB just before the election?

  • September 17, 2010 at 5:13pm

    He is promoting the goals of UNITED NATIONS AGENDA 21. There are even maps of the USA with most of the USA shown as Wildlands. The plan is in place and Obama is implementing it. Check these links:

    United Nations Agenda 21 Videos
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8YCLzlpDlw&feature=related
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJp0P6eggXU&feature=related

    Wildlands Proponants Website with Explanations of Intent
    http://www.stewardsofthesequoia.org/Wildlands_Project.html

    Wildlands Project Video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVTGK1uYqJo

    International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI): Local Governments for Sustainability
    http://www.freedomadvocates.org/

  • September 14, 2010 at 6:36am

    Speak English, cover yourself, and stay out of the locker room!!!

  • September 14, 2010 at 6:06am

    The AP compiled and ran this story?? Really??

  • September 14, 2010 at 5:59am

    Wait a minute, I got a better idea. How about a constitutional amendment that precludes LAWYERS from holding public office. Then do away with the IRS. The result? All the politicians and tax lawyers would need to get real jobs. I know (light bulb over head), maybe they could pick tomatoes peaches and do all those “jobs that Americans won’t do”.

  • September 14, 2010 at 5:52am

    You’re absolutely correct. Don’t let her try to slip out of the box she’s built for herself in the past. Start compiling and cataloging the Hillary video and transcripts now!!

  • September 14, 2010 at 5:43am

    Stop the crocodile tears. The DOJ is as crooked as Obama and an investigation is appropriate when you have a credible whistle blower – not to mention the crimes committed at polling places that were right in the face of the whole nation on video tape during the 2008 elections.

    Move along, move along, nothin’ to see here … YEAH, RIGHT

  • September 9, 2010 at 12:31pm

    What??!!!. The emails are too well written to be an accident, he says??!! If we don’t agree with him, we must be illiterate and need “our handlers” to give us red meet and write notes for us.
    Once again these arrogant liberals are so ignorant that they think we are are a bunch of hillbillies, all toothless an’ grinin’ an’ hatin’. No wonder they are so confounded by it all …

    Responses (1) +
  • September 8, 2010 at 6:28pm

    A wise and true Christian would likely visit them as they gather at the church, pray for them where they are and offer to help them avoid that life if they are willing – they may secure a soul or two. Never forget the objective! Are we to accuse those who sin or give them the good news and thereby saves souls, Don’t forget, one of the many names of Satan is The Accuser.

    Responses (3) +
  • September 5, 2010 at 11:11am

    Does it look like Mr. Sharpton is preaching to FORCE a specific RACE-BASED POLITICAL CANDIDATE from the pulpit of a CHURCH? Well wait a minute here, can other, say primarily WHITE churches, preach specific politics from the pulpit and yet maintain their TAX EXEMPTION?

    CONCLUSIONS based on the video:
    1) Mr. Sharpton is a RACIST
    2) Mr. Sharpton is a TOTALITARIAN
    2) The IRS and GOVERNMENT are both RACIST and TOTALITARIAN