User Profile: Lawrence7

Member Since: May 04, 2011


  • March 13, 2013 at 11:46pm

    BTW this is nothing more that government bullying private organizations into doing something they don’t want to do, all for the purpose of appeasing other privately motivated special interest groups.

    What precedent does this set for the government dictating other private organizations who want to define their own specific identity … and practice specific beliefs? Which special interest groups get government backing and which special interest groups don’t?

    Responses (4) +
  • March 13, 2013 at 11:41pm

    BSA can reject homosexuality and lose corporate sponsors, or they can accept homosexuality and lose a whole bunch of members. Question is, which is the better option, losing sponsors or losing members … is there any point to sponsors if there are no members?

    Keep in mind the BSA primary focus is their members, not their sponsors. I hope BSA makes a wise choice in this matter.

    Responses (1) +
  • February 28, 2013 at 2:30pm

    Okay, so, a State Rep. answering honestly and bluntly is “angry” because he doesn’t agree with a constituent. And a pastor called to serve a congregation is pursuing her “political activism” in response to his rejection of her ideas.

    Anyone see anything wrong with this picture? Is Fulbright a pastor a political activist? I see a conflict of interest here.

    Is it appropriate to label conservative detractors as “angry” simply because they disagree with a liberal opinion? I think not.

  • February 28, 2013 at 12:22pm

    The laws regarding marriage as defined by a male and female legal union do not discriminate against gay men marrying a woman, or against a gay woman marrying a man.

    Conservatives for the most part would accept (some grudgingly) laws allowing gays to partner with each other as long as it didn’t require changing the definition of Marriage as between a male and a female.

    Maybe what we need to do is eliminate legal Marriages all together and create a new form of personal partnerships, and thus return the historical institution of marriage back over to the churches.

    Gays would gain a lot of ground if they would stop attacking the ideological institutions which disagree with them (forcing others to change), and instead focus on their own immediate personal concerns.

  • February 28, 2013 at 12:16pm

    Quote: “In an e-mail response, she explained that the GOP should be celebrating and acknowledging that it is a party of intellectual diversity. This is true not only on the same-sex marriage front, but also on a myriad of other important issues.” …. These is a Liberal / Libertarian point of view, to be sure, but not conservative. S.E.Cupp may be calling herself conservative but this quote reveals she is not.

    Quote: “Cupp doubled-down on the notion that there is no singular conservative view on gay rights:” … uhm, yeah, there is. The conservative point of view is that gay’s do not require special rights that the rest of us currently do not have. This is a matter of definition, or re-definition of the concept of marriage as between a male and a female. This rule has nothing to do with one’s personal choices regarding their sexual orientation.

    Responses (2) +
  • February 15, 2013 at 10:56am

    And… in true liberal straw-man/mis-direction… NOBODY EVERY SAID IT WAS … A gun is an “Offensive” weapon that average people can used in a “Defensive” action against bad guys who are tougher than them.

  • February 14, 2013 at 4:06pm

    A liberal main-stream-media source publishing something in poor taste and offensive to the sensibilities of patriots and conservatives? Say it isn’t so …

  • February 8, 2013 at 11:41am

    Attacking stereotyping, by using stereotypes, priceless. Thanks for the chuckles, Margyt.

  • February 6, 2013 at 4:51pm

    cbrian1978, your not a parent, are you?

  • February 5, 2013 at 2:16pm

    and you challenging God in anger is foolish.

  • February 4, 2013 at 5:04pm

    Okay sorry, I said this twice. Since it took almost 15 minute for the browser to update the comments I thought maybe my fist post didn’t go through.

  • February 4, 2013 at 5:02pm

    The whole Illuminati stuff sounds pretty hokey.

    However, given all the close up shots of her no-no place I was half-expecting a pole to pop up out of the stage and see her twirl around it. I wasn’t sure whether to clap or to throw $1 bills on the stage. A pretty risqué performance any professional pole dancer would be proud of.

    Responses (1) +
  • February 4, 2013 at 4:49pm

    The whole Illuminati stuff sounds pretty hokey.

    However, given all the crotch-shots we got from the close ups I was half-expecting a pole to pop up out of the stage and Beyonce take a twirl around it. I wouldn’t have known whether to clap or to throw $1 bills on the stage. A pretty risqué performance any professional pole dancer would be proud of.

  • February 4, 2013 at 11:12am

    Truth is we have millions of ex-military and/or retired-military people running around in society, causing no problems, and in most cased contributing as much if not more to society than the average citizen. We don’t hear about these millions, though. What we hear about are the few hundreds of people who are causing problems, and would probably be a problem to society without their military experiences.

  • February 4, 2013 at 11:05am

    PTSD from military combat service is a serious issue. The military aspect of PTSD is not, however, the only issue behind many of these tragedies.

    As a form military commander, myself, I know that many people come into the military with mental and/or emotional disorders which are often treated but often slip through the cracks of the command leadership. The military studies these statistics, but few if any real news reports report on these greater issues. Much easier to just write an easy shock-piece about a crazy ex-marine gunning people down due to PTSD, and without an serious research it leaves the public to run wild with their imaginations.

    We used to have a strong Medical and Chaplain’s element of our military focused on dealing with these issues, but in some of the greatest blunders of modern politically-correct military cost savings endeavors we’ve shrunk these medical and emotional support efforts to the bare minimum. Leaving combat soldiers with minimal medical support and virtually no emotional support mechanisms. Pile all this on with inadequate supplies for personal hygiene and food, as well as stress revealing recreations, (in no small part a consequences of spending cutbacks, inadequate administrative support from the highest leadership offices, and the penchant to use the military for any manner of politically correct social re-engineering initiatives) and we wonder why some people have problems re-entering society?

    Responses (1) +
  • February 1, 2013 at 12:21pm

    The Clydesdale / Budweiser one almost made me cry.

    Responses (1) +
  • January 22, 2013 at 9:00pm

    Eliminating any constitutional amendment while keeping the others makes about as much sense as a Christian based culture deciding to eliminate one of the ten commandments.

    It takes all of our Amendments to achieve what our founding fathers intended, eliminating any one of them effectively renders the constitution impotent in the face of that precedent. Once we sacrifice one amendment there is no reason to stop eliminating all of them.

    Responses (1) +
  • January 17, 2013 at 10:04am

    Yeah, lets put all of the most dishonest people in charge. That’ll fix it.

  • January 11, 2013 at 12:16pm

    My wife has worked up to shooting one of the newer 45 ACP with a 13 magazine. All I can say is the fate of any intruder getting between her and the children is totally in God’s hands if she is ever compelled to empty her clip in defending the children and herself.

  • January 10, 2013 at 2:41pm

    Luckily, Kelby Smith, 34, owns a permit to carry a concealed handgun and was able to shoot the robber…

    Luckily, he has a constitutional right to own and carry a handgun and was able to shoot the robber… the fact he has a concealed carry permit isn’t the main point here.