Liberty University

User Profile: seljo1701a

seljo1701a

Member Since: February 19, 2012

Comments

  • May 19, 2014 at 10:36am

    Also ignored in all of this is history:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996

    Take a close look @ the Communications Act of 1934. This is what caused 30-40 years of stagnant technology in the phone industry. The current FCC “net neutrality” is dejavu all over again.

    You think ANYONE is going to invest in new network hardware if they are forced to just give it away to others? That’s why the telecom industry did nothing all those years. No ROI.

    It also is what spawn the Cable industry: they found a way out of “common carrier” status that allowed them to make a ROI on new infrastructure.

  • May 19, 2014 at 10:31am

    That first video has a lot of it right… until it blames the “evil” cable company for all that’s wrong.

    Facts that are ignored in the video:

    1) The *government* created the monopoly IN THE FIRST PLACE! http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa034.html Please read this in detail.
    2) The (whichever) cable company *does* own the cables up to your house (but likely not in your house, unless you have an apartment) Why should they be forced to give or lease that (huge) capital investment to anyone else?

    The FCC is following the SOP of government: create a problem and then offer more government to fix it (and create more unintended problems in the future).

    If we all want cheaper, faster, freer internet, we should get the government out of the monopoly granting business and let competition rule.

    Some background info (but ignores private property rights of the companies who invest in the networks):
    http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/28/why-is-european-broadband-faster-and-cheaper-blame-the-governme/

    Now maybe these cable companies signed away their rights to the network by placing them in public right-of-ways. In that case, then the British/European approach may have some legitimacy.

  • May 19, 2014 at 10:30am

    That first video has a lot of it right… until it blames the “evil” cable company for all that’s wrong.

    Facts that are ignored in the video:

    1) The *government* created the monopoly IN THE FIRST PLACE! http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa034.html Please read this in detail.
    2) The (whichever) cable company *does* own the cables up to your house (but likely not in your house, unless you have an apartment) Why should they be forced to give or lease that (huge) capital investment to anyone else?

    The FCC is following the SOP of government: create a problem and then offer more government to fix it (and create more unintended problems in the future).

    If we all want cheaper, faster, freer internet, we should get the government out of the monopoly granting business and let competition rule.

    Some background info (but ignores private property rights of the companies who invest in the networks):
    http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/28/why-is-european-broadband-faster-and-cheaper-blame-the-governme/

    Now maybe these cable companies signed away their rights to the network by placing them in public right-of-ways. In that case, then the British/European approach may have some legitimacy.

  • April 29, 2013 at 11:31am

    3-5% of the population isn’t going to reverse “the slide into poverty with 48% of kids being born into single parent households!” And, obviously, homosexuals can’t have children together…

    As to your point of “56-60%” of traditional marriages end in divorce… Assuming your stats are correct (which I think it is a little high) doesn’t mean it’s ok.

    “Two wrongs don’t make a right.”

    That argument is a juvenile as it gets. “He stole my cookie, so I hit him, mommy!”

  • April 29, 2013 at 11:15am

    Don’t fool yourself. Civil Unions are not a magic bullet to avoid this either. The issues isn’t “recognizing couples equally” or “equal benefits.” I am a fed civilian employee, and I know my insurance asks for a “partner” not a spouse. No proof of legal marriage is required; only a S.S.# and name. So, most of the “legal” arguments about benefits coverage are red herrings, as are most of the other arguments pro-homosexual marriage. The federal benefits are provided by PRIVATE entities, who already, in large part provide the coverage desired by these “non-traditional couples.”

    The arguments in the supreme court boiled down to equal protection arguments regarding fed inheritance tax laws. This could be fixed without a special “carve out” for homosexual couples: just eliminate all inheritance taxes, or at least allow one tax exempt heir to be named in a will. Problem solved without fundamental transformation of society. The point is the transformation, not the purported “rights.”

  • April 18, 2013 at 11:18am

    Even more scary than the database is the fact that “closing the gunshow loophole” means outlawing ALL private, person to person sales. It’s the only way to close that “loophole.” To do that, a database would be a very powerful tool for tyrannical government. Not only that, do you they won’t just change the law via “regulation” after passage like they did with healthcare, and have been doing via the EPA for decades?

  • April 18, 2013 at 11:15am

    PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE make this your campaign in 2014. DESTROY your party, PLEASE!

    This is what Rush has been talking about: “an event that will bring down this administration,” if they try to campaign on this, they will commit political suicide. Conservatives everywhere better realize this is a winning campaign issue as well, and use this (political) weapon with deadly accuracy (politically speaking, of course).

  • April 18, 2013 at 10:59am

    Not if the rest of their party go bat-scat crazy on it. It will be easy to paint them all with a broad brush. It is the Dem’s “war on women.” They want women to be defenseless, unarmed victims. That is the path to victory for conservatives. Take it. We can probably even clean out some rino’s… those who voted for the bill in the first vote. They think they can “vote for it before they vote against it…” Sound familiar?

  • April 18, 2013 at 10:56am

    Bring it on Dems. This is a losing issue for anti-gun pols. PLEASE DESTROY your party by making this the center piece of your 2014 campaign!

  • September 10, 2012 at 10:29am

    The “pre-existing condition” argument is a straw man. As some one astutely stated, most ppl in this category had insurance when the condition became known, and now want to change jobs, or lost their old one and looking for a new one. The issue is not pre-existing conditions, it is medical insurance tied to the employer. Why do I have to change insurance, just because I change jobs? I don’t change auto insurance, or homeowners based on employer…

    It’s b/c of history, Daivs-Bacon and unions forced employers to start offering these “fringe benefits” in lieu of higher salaries. I’d rather just get a stipend from my employer for med ins, or higher salary and buy my own, not considering the ridiculous tax schemes that have now arisen around this stupid structure (employer provided med ins.).

  • September 6, 2012 at 1:49pm

    While I sympathize with the plaintiffs in this case, those who act as if it couldn’t happen here in the U.S. have another think coming. Some states allow the employer to fire “without cause” (even just for looking at the boss wrong). That doesn’t mean that the former employee couldn’t file a lawsuit, but it would be a battle if this situation occurred, and I don’t know that it has precedent. I’d be afraid the wrong court here would rule the same way.

  • August 24, 2012 at 3:01pm

    The real issue here is why do the R party leaders allow Missouri to have open primaries, and no run-off (or any state for that matter). This situation is the result not only of Akin’s foot-in-mouth, but from the tender-box environment created by 3 or more candidates in the primary and the winner (Akin) only won by plurality, not majority. This leaves a majority of people in the party without the guy they voted for (and not happy), so the knives come out at the first opportunity. If there had been a run off, it is likely that a coalition would have formed around him or one of his opponents, and if he had still won, much less likely for the long knives scenario we see now.

    It’s too late to take him off the ballot, so this continual cry him him to step down is pointless. The R’s have to figure out how to win now, in this reality, or they hand it to McCaskill.

  • August 21, 2012 at 3:43pm

    I 2nd your motion to disarm judges’ guards/bailiffs if they decide to disarm the public! If it’s good for the goose…

  • August 21, 2012 at 12:29pm

    Everyone is hysterical (word used INTENTIONALLY) over his remark and totally missing his main points, which are factual, pro-life positions:
    1) pregnancy from rape is rare (b/c of the physical damage caused in many cases)
    2) 2 wrongs don’t make a right (killing a baby b/c it is the result of a rape: rape was wrong #1, killing a baby #2)

    Should we kill a quadriplegic who is hit by a drunk driver?! Same thing. Bot are innocent victims.
    Obviously, rape resulting in pregnancy is not impossible. That wasn’t the point. (BTW, I just heard a nurse say she was taught this idea that the trauma of rape prevents or otherwise spontaneously aborts the result of rape naturally in the 70′s or 60′s… maybe this is what he heard of. Is is true? I dunno.)

    Rape is a horrible crime, not just because of the physical assault, but the potential for lasting physical and emotional scars due to a pregnancy, or an abortion. He didn’t say it “just right” so he should be crucified? The RINO’s are jumping him, b/c he was not their chosen one, and even conservatives not familiar with the race are joining, out of ignorance. Is it not true that some claims of rape are, in fact, untrue as well?

    Maybe it would be wise to allow the primary runner up to take over. Maybe not. I haven’t seen the polls, so I couldn’t say. But the hysteria needs to stop, if R’s want to win this seat. He doesn’t need friendly fire on top of everything else. Make the arguments to step down in privat

  • August 21, 2012 at 11:43am

    Everyone is hysterical (word used INTENTIONALLY) over his remark and totally missing his main points, which are factual, pro-life positions:
    1) pregnancy from rape is rare (b/c of the physical damage caused in many cases)
    2) 2 wrongs don’t make a right (killing a baby b/c it is the result of a rape: rape was wrong #1, killing a baby #2)

    Should we kill a quadriplegic who is hit by a drunk dirver?! Same thing. Bot are innocent victims.
    Obviously, rape resulting in pregnancy is not impossible. That wasn’t the point.

    Rape is a horrible crime, not just because of the physical assault, but the potential for lasting physical and emotional scars due to a pregnancy, or an abortion. He didn’t say it “just right” so he should be crucified? The RINO’s are jumping him, b/c he was not their chosen one, and even conservatives not familiar with the race are joining, out of ignorance. Is it not true that some claims of rape are, in fact, untrue as well?

    Maybe it would be wise to allow the primary runner up to take over. Maybe not. I haven’t seen the polls, so I couldn’t say. But the hysteria needs to stop, if R’s want to win this seat. He doesn’t need friendly fire on top of everything else. Make the arguments to step down in private, preferably 1 on 1.

  • August 21, 2012 at 11:32am

    Amen, Tigress. Everyone is hysterical (word used INTENTIONALLY) over his remark and totally missing his main points, which are factual, pro-life positions:
    1) pregnancy from rape is rare (b/c of the physical damage caused in many cases)
    2) 2 wrongs don’t make a right (killing a baby b/c it is the result of a rape: rape was wrong #1, killing a baby #2)

    Should we kill a quadriplegic who is hit by a drunk dirver?! Same thing. Bot are innocent victims.
    Obviously, rape resulting in pregnancy is not impossible. That wasn’t the point.

    Rape is a horrible crime, not just because of the physical assault, but the potential for lasting physical and emotional scars due to a pregnancy, or an abortion. He didn’t say it “just right” so he should be crucified? The RINO’s are jumping him, b/c he was not their chosen one, and even conservatives not familiar with the race are joining, out of ignorance. Is it not true that some claims of rape are, in fact, untrue as well?

    Maybe it would be wise to allow the primary runner up to take over. Maybe not. I haven’t seen the polls, so I couldn’t say. But the hysteria needs to stop, if R’s want to win this seat. He doesn’t need friendly fire on top of everything else. Make the arguments to step down in private, preferably 1 on 1.

  • August 13, 2012 at 10:14am

    Joe,

    Where was this reasoning when Madoff was arrested?

    It’s the same pyramid scheme, just different perpetrators. I’ve known this since I was 16 and got my first job and middle school history class. When my “history” book showed and *actual* pyramid diagram showing the #ppl putting in 1940 v. 1990… even my youthful mind was able to grasp what S.S. was.

    Pyramid schemes always collapse, and it’s never pretty. It’s simple math. Eventually, you run out of new marks to sucker in. S.S. has only lasted this long because it has forced ppl to become suckers under penalty of law.

  • August 9, 2012 at 3:58pm

    Verce… speak of the devil

    by that, I refer to the small weanie comment. You sound like you’re an expert.

  • August 9, 2012 at 1:12pm

    I hear ya. This is more propaganda. The use a technicality that as many as 11% of “virgins” carry this. Of course, burried in the overly verbose article is the fact that, essentially any contact with genitalia can pass the virus. “Well, I’ll be dawg gawn, Sue-Anne, I ain’t think I could catch nuttin’ from ya that-a-way… We never *really* did ‘it’…”

    How stupid do they think we are?

    Ammo to be used against those who are opposed to mandatory vaccination, or those who accurately state that people who are not sexually active are at virtually no risk of this disease.

  • August 9, 2012 at 11:01am

    Where are all the Islamic/middleast countries? They don’t appear anywhere…