User Profile: neither1

Member Since: September 01, 2010

CommentsDisplaying neither1's 10 most recent comments.

  • @ rangerskippy

    I’ve been following this story since The Blaze first started reporting it. You’ve been a sober voice throughout. I couldn’t agree with your assessment of this guy and the situation any more. Although I never served in the uniform, military or other wise, I did show the video to my dad. My dad retired from the USMC after 35 years having started his career in Korea. His opinion: “Seen guys like him a hundred times. That’s a guy with something to prove. We tried to 86 them as fast as possible. They get people hurt”.

    I know my father’s opinion obviously may mean nothing to anyone else but I was amazed at how fast he was able to size this guy up.

    Again, thanks for your service and your level head. It’s been a real asset to the conversation.

  • Ha! All these comments about martial law, cowards and “I woulda got my gun and…” blah, blah, blah are hysterical! Time to turn out the lights in the compound boys, the generator is running low. Check your survival seeds, take off your foil hats, masturbate to your guns and get some sleep.

  • What??

  • Ok, define government money. I own a small business and we get tax breaks on various spending. Large corporations get larger breaks than me. Actually, all business write offs are money from the government. If you own a house do you take a mortgage deduction? Do you or anyone you know take the earned income tax credit? Do you take any deductions on taxes? Do you take public transportation?

    That is all government money, just as a very small example. So, what do you define as government money and who should have their constitutional rights taken away? By the way, if you’re trying to take voting rights away, you’re no conservative.

  • @Snow leopard

    I get what your saying when you say, “they hate us for our freedoms”. I get it because it makes sense to us, in our culture. I’d argue, though, that’s not the reason they hate us. At least that’s not their motive. I think first you have to understand a concept to be against it. I think, if I read the above “experts” correctly(Experts? Ok, I’ll take the Blaze’s word for it) the point they are making is that, for the most of the Middle East, they have little or no concept of freedom. I really believe that you have to be taught to hate. Again, one of the things that I come away from the above article with is that, they are simply taught to hate and who to blame. Whether that starts in the mosque, in their texts or from their leaders, it’s alive and well. Read Thomas Friedman(like him or not) in today’s New York Times. His opinion piece is entitled “Look in the Mirror”. It’s an interesting opinion. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/opinion/friedman-look-in-your-mirror.html?ref=thomaslfriedman

  • Right! The New Black Panther Party is a bunch of racist, ignorant, militant, aggressive, self-indulgent cowards who actually believe whites are evil. They are a drag on society.

    So, let’s be just like that and hang chairs from trees that represent a black man, no less the President, and then tell everyone, “if you don’t like it, don’t come down my street”. Genius!

    Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from ridicule and scorn.

  • Ahhhh, you don’t see a problem with that? I think you’ve just illustrated the problem that people are having with this video.

  • No. It’s not all just semantics. One of the men on the panel specifically mentioned a point that may engage in semantics, but for the rest of the argument they address specific points. The specifics matter. You say these men have an agenda and that is to sell books but you fail to ascribe an agenda to Barton. He does have a specific agenda and it’s not neutral. Personally, I think Barton is hardly credible. Just because he’s a nice guy who means no harm doesn’t mean he isn’t doing harm. Intent matters for nothing.

  • I’m confused to your point. What does atheism have to do with what is being discussed?

  • Here’s the thing, the Massachusetts Fair Housing Law states:
    THE FAIR HOUSING LAW DECLARES THAT IT IS ILLEGAL TO DISCRIMINATE ON THE BASIS OF RACE, COLOR RELIGIOUS CREED, NATIONAL ORIGIN, SEX, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, AGE, CHILDREN, ANCESTRY, MARITAL STATUS, VETERAN HISTORY, PUBLIC ASSISTANCE RECIPIENCY, OR HANDICAP (MENTAL OR PHYSICAL)

    So, does the bishop’s email, which says: ““I just went down the hall and discussed it with the bishop. Because of the potentiality of gay marriages there, something you shared with us yesterday, we are not interested in going forward with these buyers. I think they’re shaky anyway. So, just tell them that we will not accept their revised plan and the Diocese is making new plans for the property. You find the language.”

    Obviously sexual orientation played a part in the denial of sale. Is it discrimination according to state law, then?