Yeah, but interpret that ‘device’ section. Is that like a trap or automated device or something like a firearm? I mean is it saying you can beat the tar out of someone with a wiffle bat but not a regular one? I dislike legal sections like that, they are vague.
May 21, 2015 at 1:20pm
Problem is your entire scenario system is a straw man argument. “In God We Trust” favors nobody, it’s just a statement. A true atheist should not care about the words and only care about the value of the cash. God does not exist to them, so the words have no meaning.
If you want equal treatment of everyone, start with some confidence in your self and in your beliefs. If “In God We Trust” bugs you, you have the confidence in your beliefs about on par with a Christian that just thinks Christ was a cool dude and nothing more.
Nobody is really offended here, this guy is in it for the self-promotion.
 May 21, 2015 at 11:39am
No, you can’t shut off water and power to a legal renter. They are considered legal until the eviction process concludes. However, you are not obligated to repair damaged systems. You can also legally call for a ‘termite fumigation’ of the premises whereby they are legally required to vacate. Once you get the all clear from the termite people you can refuse them re-admittance until the rent is paid up. This works in some states but not all as once they leave they have technically abandoned their squatters rights even though they were forced out.
Landlords can use loopholes in the law as well but usually there is a price affixed.
good to know. never would have thought of that. I've often wondered why the landlord doesn't just surveil the place until they leave and go in. nobody can stay indoor forever. Sooner or later they need food and beer.
"Legal" being the operative word there.
It is horrible. Check them out and it still happens that they end up bad tenants. I gave up and got rid of my rentals. Could not afford the $2000 every time they moved out. Roaches where roaches never lived before...Dog tied to the Air conditioning unit..Dog tied to the sprinkler system owned by the golf course...That one cost me...Father who co-signed moved his bed into the diningroom..So much for the father...The list goes on
May 20, 2015 at 3:35pm
How your respond to another’s comments about you usually determines how you actually see yourself.
 May 20, 2015 at 2:06pm
That’s it! You’ve nailed it on the head. All Nazi references in all future debates result in an automatic loss! Whoo Hoo! Let’s all generalize and toss out rational logical associative thinking so we can more quickly reach stupidity together! You’ll have to pardon us if we have some catching up to do with you there Exrepub. Don’t worry, society is rapidly coming to your point of view though, unless you’re a collectivist talking about the Tea Party, then I guess it’s an automatic ‘win’. Dang, I’m all confused now…
 May 20, 2015 at 1:52pm
Constitutionally speaking, that is the main thrust of the 2nd Amend, Blackdiamond, but it’s not the whole story so your “Period” is not proper.
Also, the Clergyman in the article is confusing gun ownership with Christians advocating violence, and they are not the same. American’s own firearms for many legal purposes, all are in alignment with traditionally understood Christian principles. Certainly some faiths take different literal or philosophical readings of the scriptures to mean there is some level of rejection of a few of those purposes but that is up to those faiths to determine the correctness of that. Blanketly saying Christians should not own firearms because of XYZ argument is an exercise in futility. No one person other than GOD gets to make such proclamations. So the idea is absurd.
A firearm is just a tool, like a hammer or circular saw. I could use both those to take someone down as well. Unless you’re a nail, a hammer isn’t a super-common tool of violence. Firearms are harmless until they are placed into situations where they can fulfill their purpose, and that purpose is usually decided by whom is operating the tool, for good or evil.
You cannot put the firearm genie back in the bottle, no government can. The only other rational solution is to allow the genie to be openly available so the field is leveled for all.
 May 18, 2015 at 1:36pm
While I understand the sentiment, it’s not appropriate to respond to this horrible person with that kind of punishment.
No, I’d have that guy mucking out stalls and cleaning sewer pipes because at least when he got out of them, the last piece of SH&T was no longer in there. Bring back indentured servitude for people like this…
Dogs are personal property and can be treated as the owner wishes. Animal abuse laws are an unconstitutional infringement on our freedoms.
I would like to see the scum bag clean out those stalls without his finger tips and nails let's yank a molar every 10 minutes.(just for fun)
Some things are best ignored. One of them just made a needy appearance.
remember millie, animal abuse such as this is tied to those who abuse and murder humans as well. Private property or not, it was one sick s o b that did this.
 May 18, 2015 at 1:28pm
“… I’m gonna be like you Dad, you know I’m going to be like you…” as the song goes. That’s all this study really shows.
The daughters follow the mothers example, no surprise there. That’s why there is no effect on the boys, what mom does isn’t as impactful on them. The study shows, when stripped down, essentially nothing.
Positive or Negative is up to whomever looks at the outcome, as Ms. Voss points out.
What would’ve been more interesting is to see if the loss of traditional gender roles has had an impact on society as great as what each ‘side’ claims. That would’ve been a meaningful study…
I'm showing my age, but a long time ago on the Mike Douglas talk show, a child actor named Mason Reese (about 9 at the time) had just been interviewed and was still on the guest couch when Harry Chapin performed that song. The little boy started sobbing so hard, they couldn't comfort him. I was only a child at the time, but I never forgot it.
And please, call me Donna. :)
 May 18, 2015 at 1:15pm
I think you are missing the point. The role of the police is to enforce the law. We give them some leeway on how to do that and when to make arrest calls. That is NOT up to you or me. We don’t wear the badge we don’t take the responsibility of putting our lives on the line every day for this. You have no right to assume the officer was wrong either way.
I think the officer was well in his rights to arrest her and ‘scare her straight’. You give her a good talking to, a quick tour of the jail cell she might be inhabiting and then send her home. That’s an old-school lesson that works on most kids.
Now the lesson she has is that she can get away with anything if she gets others around her to back her up and back an officer down just because officers are afraid of some communities now.
So who won here Patty? The law or mob rule? Sounds like you support mob rule because certainly you can decide what is best from your computer AFTER the incident rather than someone who is there.
By the way, that ‘ego’ you are talking about is called “Command Authority” and the second an officer loses that, lives are in jeopardy as this situation shows. That could’ve turned ugly fast. If you treat officers nicely, honor their requests, you tend to get that “Command Authority” toned down to nice levels. If you get in their face, they have no option but to increase it.
 May 18, 2015 at 1:04pm
No, she is actually using bullying to demonstrate to bully what their behavior does. The only thing that can stop a bully is a bigger bully, but modern politik think doesn’t believe that, it believes that you can stop bully’s with soft words, nice feel good stories, and gentle persuasion. You can see what their success rate is over the last two decades…
 May 18, 2015 at 1:02pm
Because the NEA isn’t about standing up for teachers or students, it’s about the NEA and nobody else. They say what is politically correct, politically opportunistic, politically convenient. There’s nothing of those three available here, so they say nothing.
 May 13, 2015 at 8:10pm
Youth is folly, a proving ground for what you will become. Most people do not become set in a faith until later in life.
While true that our youth influences it, it is not the sole arbitrator of what our beliefs will be, in fact, it is usually true that we become the opposite of our younger selves.
The common Winston Churchill quote is, “If you’re not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you’re not a conservative at forty you have no brain.” which speaks to that point.
 May 13, 2015 at 7:43pm
While the Jehovah’s Witness faith can be harder to live, it is one of the more doctrinally simple faiths I’ve studied. Much of it’s success is with people that like that kind of faith and there are a lot of those folks out there.
Mormon’s tend to be very open outwardly but fairly shy doctrinally because some of the doctrine is different from standard ‘Christian’ doctrine that spawned out of Catholicism. You kind of either make it in that community or don’t. It’s a strongly self critical faith, I haven’t seen many others that are so internally focused on their own doctrines that they have the kind of separation anxiety issues over things like the LGBT stuff, which is somewhat odd for a strongly lead faith.
Evangelicals are a hard bunch to bunch together and I think you did a good job of summarizing them but I also think to try and lump them together so tightly does them an injustice. Those strong, wildly divergent doctrines all come from a similar root line of thinking but one side of the bush gives you strawberries and the other side walnuts… it’s hard to communalize them.
The mainline groups appear to want to go with the flow. Popularity is a strong pull but as others have commented, it usually dilutes the message to irrelevance.
I do feel the data does support a shift in faiths, but also confusion and loss.
 May 13, 2015 at 6:02pm
I’d advocate that the rise in porn is due to what feminism has done to women and men both.
Women are told that one night stands are ‘good’ and committed equal marriage is ‘bad’ because you should not shackle yourself to a man, they are only good for a quick pleasure escape then on to battling for the future. (So real sex is the new addiction for women, but only transient relationships)
Men are told they are mean rapists that only exist to beat up on and damage women in order for them to get ahead in life. So, they should always hear ‘no’ from women unless they are cute and the superior female thinks it’s a good idea to have sex with him for a short while. If that is not the case, men should go play with themselves and stay away from women. So, welcome video games and porn. The men are doing exactly what they are told.
Congratulations feminists, you have reached your stated goal.
 May 13, 2015 at 5:50pm
And this is the kind of reply you get from a person that sees death as the end. Nothing that came before merits honor or respect, nothing at all after the point of death. So nothing is owed to those that went before, and nothing owed to them once they die.
Congratulations, THAT is an awesome display of the faith of the void/nothingness. Wear that big fat zero proudly!
 May 13, 2015 at 5:42pm
Donna Carol Voss-
I have to admit, I’m impressed that you are directly responding with grace and humility to those posting here in the comments section. I have not seen this from any other Blaze writer, so mega kudos for bravery and keystroke communion!
You seem to be saying the numbers shift be basically explained by just those leaving the churches that are advocating a less ‘literal’ take on the scriptures and moving to the more literal ones? I mean, nearly all the religions you mention are very strong on literal translations of the Bible (to the point where some view them as having too strict of interpretations!).
Follow that thought with Mormons staying about the same and Jehovah’s Witnesses actually growing strongly as well (both are fairly strict doctrinally and generally speaking, harder to follow faiths in action and cultural unpopularity), it would seem to support the idea that people are looking for the more strict faiths to make up some of that gap, or that seems to be your point or related to it.
So, I like your theory but in truth, I think people are losing their ability to declare themselves, to be seen as what they feel rather than who they should be. Social pressure is mounting and the media is driving the LGBT agenda with full force. I think this will eventually backfire on them but I guess people have to have revenge for what they feel is ‘being wronged’.
I actually enjoy this part more than writing the articles, which for me are just a jumping off point in the conversation.
Your Jehovah's Witness point is great. I made a mental note to go back later and study why their religion is growing so well when others aren't. I have talked to many a Jehovah's Witness since I absolutely love hearing about other religions, and you're right, I think it's a pretty hard one to live, even harder than mine. I couldn't tell you why the Mormon numbers are so flat. Our church is in upheaval with the debate over gay marriage and ordination of women to the priesthood. All I know are the people struggling and leaving. If an equal number are coming in, I don't see it, but then the church doesn't take someone's name off the rolls unless they specifically request it.
I don't know that the increase in the Protestant Evangelicals was because other faiths switched denominations, at least I didn't read it that way. I was just thinking there's something about the Evangelical churches that is pulling in people who are searching for a religious home.
And maybe whatever it is can be overdone. To be honest, and I won't name the church, one of those Evangelical churches I listed (and I went on every single church website and read their doctrine in their own words) has such an ignorant and brutal way of seeing gay people that it made me cringe.
There's a lot I admire about Jehovah's Witnesses, it's a very internally consistent faith. The Mormon LGBT question is a minefield and ordination of women to the priesthood is a grenade. I've found that individual Mormons decide first whether they agree with LDS doctrine, next how much of it they agree with, and finally what they're going to do about their disagreement if they have it. I wrote a blog post not too long ago called "It Hurts to Be Mormon Right Now" that got 100K views. What I found most interesting was the comment thread where certain Mormons had no idea anyone else was struggling and others wrote about how they were afraid to tell anyone they were struggling because it would break up their marriages, families, etc.
I don't know nearly as much about Evangelicals, only that the writings of Paul are very important to them if I'm not mistaken. I didn't even know they could be grouped, and just today a Baptist emailed me and said the Baptists do not consider themselves Protestant because they trace their church back to Jesus with no apostasy and no protest against the Catholic church.
Jehovah's Witnesses are not a secret organization that hide what we believe. We openly publish the scriptural reasons for our stand on virtually every issue. I appreciate the comments here as they are honest in their viewpoints. But to clarify understanding, anyone can freely visit www.jw.org to deepen their knowledge of the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Thank you for a nice conversation.
 May 13, 2015 at 4:54pm
I’m kind of torn on the whole thing. There is logic to both concepts, keep or give back. I think the best response would be to try and contact the owners and work out some kind of deal with a finders fee. I’m not one to look for a buck, but there is value in the discovery on both sides and generally most honorable people will work it out.
Yes, he could keep it all and still be a moral person, he bought the property “As-Is” and that is not immoral to find out it’s worth a ton. What if it was a custom hand-crafted work by a famous person? Would he have to give it back once that was discovered? No, it was bought as-is.
Yes, he can give it all back and not be a fool. There is a lot of possible very personal family history there. If so, giving it back is an act of kindness and charity, not foolishness. If the other family has honor as well, they will only take what’s truly valuable to their family history and needs turn back the rest to the person who bought it fairly.
[-1] May 13, 2015 at 4:44pm
So, being persecuted more is somehow proof that you are following Christ? Or, perhaps I’m over thinking this, maybe you just believe that being persecuted in a Nation whose first founding doctrine protects the right of belief is a good thing?
I’m confused by your logic.
Now, if you are agreeing that persecution is bad, no matter what, then I’m on board with that. If you feel that legalizing persecution is even worse, then I think you’ll find common ground with the minister there.
 May 13, 2015 at 1:58pm
We’ve been trying to disarm them, but these guys obviously overlook one critical item: The police are also US Citizens and allowed to keep and bear arms under the 2nd amendment. The reality is that we should all be armed if we are willing to accept the responsibility of carrying a firearm. Disarming police officers is just inane drivel from id10ts.
 May 13, 2015 at 1:55pm
Their position is, if we stop online ammo sales, it will prevent a crime. There is absolutely no evidence of this. It’s entirely emotional with no basis in reality other than a bunch of wishful thinking.
Personally, the next conservative thinkers looking for election need to be able to step up and shred these kinds of arguments. You need to have someone strong enough to go to one of these ‘announcement’ rally’s and say “Find me the bullet that killed someone that was purchased legally on-line, fired from a legal firearm, and could not have been purchased or loaded in some other way, then bring up this bill!” That’s what we need.