User Profile: MilesF

Member Since: December 13, 2010


  • [2] September 27, 2016 at 7:03pm

    Cruz did both. Stated reality and endorsed. He not only said “I’m voting for Trump” but he said twice in his statement that if you think Hillary would be disaster then you should vote for Trump, too.

    Responses (1) +
  • [2] September 27, 2016 at 6:56pm

    The article incredibly makes it seem as if Cruz never answered the question “What new information do you have?” Cruz said that Trump has promised to stick to a publicized list of good candidates for the Supreme Court, and he has promised to take good positions on several issues. You are entitled to argue that these promises are worthless or otherwise criticize Cruz’s reasoning, but the article pretends that Cruz did not offer any arguments at all. This is dishonest.

    Responses (1) +
  • [9] April 8, 2016 at 10:12am

    Actually, minorities have benefited from America’s greatness, once government discrimination—usually promoted by Democrats—got out of their way. Minorities did do better during the years after Reagan was elected. The decline gradually started under Bush 41 and continued through Clinton 42 (which we may soon have to distinguish from Clinton 45) through Bush 43 right up until the Obama administration sealed the decline for all Americans.

  • January 13, 2015 at 12:44pm

    Buck, the way you misspelled Vladimir, you might be thinking of a villain from the “Harry Potter” series.

  • [1] January 13, 2015 at 12:37pm

    Would riddleman have been wrong?

  • [4] January 13, 2015 at 12:20pm

    The government commissioner has it backwards. The baker, in this scenario, is the slave, the government is the slave-owner, and the gay couple are trying to rent the slave from the government.

  • [3] January 13, 2015 at 11:38am

    I’d love to. Seems as if our federal courts, most senior senators, representatives, administration, along with their various business and banking cronies, plus the IRS etc. are all corrupt in exactly the way that Palmer talked about hypothetically in 1999.

  • [1] January 13, 2015 at 11:19am

    Some think Glenn is reading too much into this, but he is not saying just that the 1,000-year-old Orthodox Christian narrative has a life of its own. (Though, to some extent it does in that it has appeal.) He’s saying that Vlad Putin is using this narrative for his own power-grubbing ends. And that it might just work.

    As to the history, while some points might be quibble-worthy, the thrust is correct.

    1 The Romanov Czars (Romanov = Roman, & Czar = Caesar) were related by marriage to the Eastern Roman Emperor in Constantinople and were very conscious of this.

    2 Kiev was once the capital of the Russian Empire. If Putin were only interested in seaports, he would stop at the Crimea, but he wants to gobble up Ukraine slice by slice until he gets Kiev. He wants to be able to say that he has restored the Russian Orthodox Christian Empire. That makes sense of his otherwise weird determination to take over Ukraine above other goals and despite risks.

    3 Combine the above with communist KGB officer Putin’s professions of Orthodox faith and use of Christianity to get influence in the world as well as over his own people, and you have a clear-at-last picture of an opportunist with a plan. And he’s Oscar Mike.

  • June 26, 2014 at 2:21pm

    I don’t understand. What does the cross slip on, and whose cousin does it kill?

  • June 26, 2014 at 2:12pm

    So, you were expecting a miracle conversion?

  • July 31, 2013 at 6:06pm

    @teadestroyer (BTW, that’s what the tea party does: destroys the tyrant’s tea) “Please, please, please, please start a 3rd party. Heck, ask Sarah Palin, or Rand Paul or Allen West to run for Fuhrer.” Is that what your beloved leader has changed the name of the job to? We want it to go back to being just humble “president.”

    For the rest, I think we’re in a delicate place in the history of our republic. It might be too late to start a new party or too late to change the GOP, or both. Fortunately, the GOP has already been “infiltrated” by conservatives (who have been and used to be in the party- ever hear of Goldwater or Reagan?).

  • July 4, 2013 at 4:23pm

    Randomousity said: The so-called “natural law” has several problems with it.

    The problem is, What are you going to replace it with? Random is wrong that natural law is fickle and relative. Man-made law that is based on it can only change when people believe they have misunderstood, or now understand better, natural law. That makes change slow but more solid, reliable. This is what happened when religious people began to realize that slavery is an affront to natural law for sound reasons. It is the progressive, relativist ethos that opposes natural law with whim and caprice, making over the world based on a narrow, rigid system informed by human striving for power, unchecked by any over-arching values.

  • July 4, 2013 at 4:07pm

    To Randomousity, Re: “The so-called ‘natural law’ has several problems with it.” But the problem with doing away with natural law is, What do you replace it with? Contrary to your suggestion, natural law is not relative;, it depends on a standard that is outside human caprice. Natural law was actually used to oppose slavery, because God made men free. Where we descend into relativism is when we abandon natural law in favor of what humans think is going to be fair. That means that in one time and place, government decides that gays are subhuman and deserve persecution, while in another time and place gays are a group that has been wronged and that deserves special privileges. And I am talking about socialists in both cases. The only thing that natural law discovers is unchanging values, and it bases the rule of law on them. This does not mean that the law cannot change, especially with new insight into the unchanging values. (See for example, the recognition that God made men free.) It is not right to persecute people for any reason; all people should be judged on their personal conduct, not on what pigeon hole they can be plugged into. But the rule of whim that we get from social relativists relies only on what gets them to their predetermined goals, goals they decide without any appeal to over-arching values. They can and do change their policies toward people depending on whether people are useful in achieving their goals. Especially individuals. Just ask George Zimmer

  • June 29, 2013 at 6:33pm

    Rabidpatriot missed something. These plainclothes agents were not with the local police dept. They were from the state alcohol commission. Ordinarily, they might need guns to take on moonshiners, but they had six brave agents armed at a city store to chase down underage beer drinkers. In other news, the IRS is arming their agents for SWAT service.

  • July 10, 2012 at 7:03pm

    Yup, Farakhan no doubt admires Scientology’s expertise at controling its followers’ minds. Then there is the appeal of Scientology’s ultimate Mother Ship narrative that perhaps dovetails with Farakhan’s own tale. But isn’t Elijah Mohammed spinning in his grave as Louie Farakhan embraces whitey?

  • [3] July 10, 2012 at 6:57pm

    Why call names? I think that Mr. Freeman thinks he is God in the most humble way possible, although his claim is considered blasphemy in Christianity, Judaism and Islam. They used to burn people at the stake or stone them for making this claim. But wait, that means this is not a new or unusual claim at all: Indeed, better men than Mr. Freeman have made this very claim. But though it is always taken as arrogance, it is merely an awareness – however or whether it is understood – that God must be able to see the world through the eyes of each of us. That does not make each of us God in an omnipotent sense; it just makes us his instruments. There is a grain of truth in what Mr. Freeman says – as Enrico tries to point out – though it sounds as if Mr. Freeman is confused or ambivalent about the nagging thought that he – and, if we are all the same, then each of us – might be an extention of God’s will and being into the physical world. Anyway, this is a perennial idea, and better men than Mr. Freeman have explored and advocated it. (And some of them have been killed for being impolitic enough to blurt it.)

  • July 10, 2012 at 6:33pm

    Could be a mistake in the article: Verhoeven thinks there were no parables? The Jesus Seminar agreed – by majority votes on each parable – that most of the parables (or parts of them) really were told by Jesus. Maybe Verhoeven was a dissenter and voted against all of the parables, but I doubt that.

    The story about the rape by a Roman soldier is a very old story. It was spread by early enemies of Christianity, but there is no more scientific reason for an atheist to believe it than to believe the official Christian story.

  • May 29, 2012 at 11:26am

    Yes, you and Jawga61 are racists.

  • May 29, 2012 at 11:16am

    Hunter says that President Obama is largely being judged based upon his race. To the extent that this is true, it is only Hunter and fellow race-conscious African-Americans (well, many white liberals, too) who are doing so. The conceit that this is how he is being judged is the principle dodge of those who agree with Obama’s ideology so blindly that they refuse to recognize criticism of the president’s ideas as criticism of his ideas and insist that it must be racism, instead.

  • December 17, 2011 at 11:14pm

    Paul did not go third party in ’08. I don’t know why he would this time.
    If he does win the Republican nomination, I’d have to vote for him. We all would, I suspect. I’d worry, though. I don’t think it’s a sure thing that he couldn’t beat Obama, but it might be a squeaker. It’s just that Obama has been so awful that anybody would be better, and too many Americans would agree with that assessment for them not to vote for whoever the Republicans put up against him.