User Profile: Silvertruth


Member Since: April 03, 2012


123 To page: Go
  • [5] April 16, 2015 at 12:42pm

    This is a memorial near where I live.
    That CALIFORNIA community doesn’t seem to have an issue with depictions of the weapons of war, injured/fallen soldiers and lists of names of the fallen and in what conflict.
    That community gets it, the imagery and emotions created by it is what makes it important, not sanitizing it and making it ‘comfortable’ to look at. War should never be comfortable, it should make us squirm and wonder if what we are doing is really worth the cost in blood and lives shattered.

    Kirk said it better I think…

  • [14] April 15, 2015 at 10:57am

    Not everyone who disagrees with homosexuality is a homophobe despite the LGBT community trying to define it that way.
    The mechanism that determines sexual preference is still so elusive that no major study has been able to even approach it, they only know what it isn’t. Yet, here we are creating special classes of for it. No other ‘group’ of that sort has been given this ‘right’ in American history, so it’s okay to be skeptical, that is unless skepticism is reserved for those of collectivist ideologogy.
    You cannot call for tolerance from an intolerant position. That is called Hypocrisy.
    You cannot claim to be for choice when you remove choice from others to get yours. That is called Oppression.
    You cannot claim to clamor for equality when you actually seek to be raised superior to others. That is Intellectual Dishonesty.
    I warned many times that opening this up would present a Pandora’s Box of issues, but I wasn’t against it. We will not see the end result of Homosexual marriage for many decades. I don’t know if it will be a net positive or negative then, but I do know that crowing about it now and punishing others for their beliefs will certainly back-fire in the future if it ends up being a net negative. What comes around goes around.

  • [1] April 13, 2015 at 5:05pm

    You are supposed to separate which side you have each weapon on to make certain this doesn’t happen, and usually you also are trained to shoot with the opposite grip on the taser as accuracy isn’t as big of a deal in taser range. If you are too comfortable with your grip, you aren’t using the taser and it’s supposed to make you stop and double check yourself.

    Clearly it failed in this instance and both men will pay the price for their choices that lead to this result. Like all accidents, it took a series of failures to reach the result.

  • [7] April 13, 2015 at 10:50am

    It’s not fear mongering. Vaccines happen on a life schedule. If your child is not old enough for a given vaccine, they are totally vulnerable to a given threat vector that is carried by a vaccinated or unvaccinated person.
    People choosing not to vaccinate their children DO NOT have a valid rational reason. There is no possible side effect of vaccination worth the risk of the real condition. The ‘fear mongering’ is on the side of those that are afraid of vaccination.
    The science, both empirically and statistically support (by overwhelming numbers) the evidence on the vaccination side. There is no rational choice on the opposing side. It’s an emotional choice to not vaccinate your children. Is that a valid reason, perhaps, but don’t claim it’s backed by rational decision, it isn’t.
    So if you want to argue that parents should be allowed to make decisions for their children because they are the parents, and the cause of the decision is irrelevant then do so. However, it must be framed that way. To frame it in the context of a supposedly “sound choice” regarding lack of vaccination is a poor choice of standards to raise as that banner doesn’t fly well.

  • [3] April 9, 2015 at 5:48pm


    You have to make the assumption that everyone is sheep or cattle to jump to the conclusion you did. The sheep and cattle aren’t fans of the sheepdog when it’s herding them, but a wolf or other predator comes near, they all love that sheepdog.

    It’s the same way with people, but we aren’t sheep or cattle, no matter how much anyone might like to characterize them as such. What we have is a penchant for mob mentality and group think. Both of which can be dealt with by rational engagement done long enough to let us think on our own. Some of the more converted to a given ideology or line of thought might prove more difficult but even then, there are only so many valid lines of reasoning. You might have a countless amount of ‘conclusions’ drawn from those few lines of reasoning, but at some point, everyone usually can agree to disagree and walk away whole.

    I’m not a fan of Sean Hannity because like all of us, he stops pursuing a line of thought to make a conclusion, right or wrong. I feel it’s important to be open minded even if we think we really know the end of a given story. Humility blunts a great deal of my criticism of someone and Mr. Hannity isn’t known for his humility, just like Mr. O’Reily or Mr. Limbaugh. It doesn’t make them wrong, only human.

  • April 8, 2015 at 10:45am

    Not exactly, the Indiana bill was originally not a copy of the 1993 legislation as it extended protection to private businesses, the Federal bill did not. It was close though. The changes signed later make it closer to the 1993 bill, which was a cop-out to me.

    Conservatives are usually fact-based in their responses and it takes a while to get all the facts so they are slow out of the gate. The other side tends to immediately jump to emotion and dubious charges that only stick because they have a mainstream press that pushes the same agenda.

    Real journalists would have picked apart the uproar before it even it simmer, but instead the mainstreamers fan the flames. It takes a while for reasonable discovery and rejoinders with the truth behind them to start overcoming the hysteria.

  • April 6, 2015 at 6:43pm

    So all of the centralized doctrinal churches are cults and the small “Born Again” churches that share a tentative connection to each other aren’t? That’s a pretty impressive point of view.

    Technically, the largest religion on the planet is the only one that is not a cult, by the definition of a cult and at this point it would be a toss up between Buddhism and Islam, so all Christian denominations are cults, again, by the actual definition of the word. By some evangelical definitions, it’s “anyone we don’t like”. Typical.

  • [17] April 6, 2015 at 6:20pm

    Also HP, Sexual Orientation (Preference) can and DOES change over the lives of many people. Gay today, straight tomorrow. Straight today, gay tomorrow. The examples are countless. Many people are simply either bi-sexual or confused about their preferences, and as with all preferences, they can and do change over time.

    You can find innumerable examples of this ‘change of heart’. If there was ‘no choice’ in the matter, the change could not occur. It is a protective fallacy to argue sexual orientation is immutable, it is not. This is one of the reasons why genetic arguments fail and it is wishful thinking on the part of the LGBT and Heterosexual communities. Sex is a highly complex neural mechanism. Emotion, rationality, as well as dozens upon dozens of other factors are at play.

    What is not at play is that homosexuality is a genetic dead end and if it were not for the complexity of it, would have been bred out of the animal kingdom eons ago. So, we know it is complex and evolving, that is all that can be proven at this point.

  • [41] April 6, 2015 at 6:11pm

    Classic strawman folks. It’s not about interracial marriage. Not even close.

    Sexual Preference is a PREFERENCE and not a racial trait. Sex, in and of itself is also a preference, you can easily live without it, however, society has accepted that it is part of living and considered a reproductive right. Those definitions are now changing, and nobody, Christians included are saying they can’t change.

    What this is about is how to conduct business contracts. The Militant LGBT are targeting Christian businesses ONLY to get revenge for a perceived historical attack of the homosexual preference. The ladies above clearly realize this and choose not to go along with it.

    Several studies have cited this is NOT genetic. It is a complex combination of factors that generate preferences of this type. Few people care what you do in the bedroom, but a wedding is a very huge milestone in life and the Militant LGBT are unwilling to be happy with just being allowed to marry. Now they want to FORCE Christians to accept their lifestyle and choices by using the power of law and government.

    This is as morally reprehensible as anything Christians might have foisted upon the LGBT community. They are NOT declining to serve LGBT people, only declining to participate in an event that they do not agree with. Might as well force them to cater a KKK rally! We have truly lost our sense of tolerance and love of each other.

  • [4] April 2, 2015 at 1:14pm

    Atheism is a religion. The only non-religion is Agnosticism. It was already protected by the religious comments.

    Only really stubborn Atheists continue to claim it is not a faith. It requires just as much faith to say “There is no God(s)” as it does to claim “There is a God(s)”. Agnostics don’t take a stance on God other that “I’ll believe it when he/she/they show up and prove it.”

    Responses (2) +
  • [17] April 2, 2015 at 1:04pm

    Awesome for her and the dealer… great AD and result.

    As for the doctor joke, yup, funny but I’d like to point out that Obamacare was not foisted on us on April 1st, so while it read like a joke, we had no right to expect it to be one. We are the fools.

    Responses (1) +
  • [147] April 2, 2015 at 12:58pm

    That would be very ‘un-Christian’ and not the path to take unless you want to continue in this vengeance war.

    The pastor’s position is not new. For a long time it has been said that a religious ‘business community’ be formed and that contentious issue services be done by contract/membership only. This makes those services a ‘private club’, and as such, can reject members based on their following of the charter rules. Perfectly legal.

    The next salvo from the militant LGBT wing will be to launch boycotts of the private business group and demonize it. When that fails, as it will, their next option will be to try and pressure additional taxes, fines and ‘licensing costs’ against members of that organization using their Government proxies at the city, county, state and national level.

    If that succeeds, you will see the next US Civil War.

    Responses (16) +
  • [1] March 31, 2015 at 1:56pm

    Lion is mostly correct but the perspective is skewed. The South had many chances to move it’s economy from being slave based to the incoming modern manufacturing processes that were just coming on-line (this is very early industrial revolution). Each time their answer seemed to be “Slaves are cheaper!” and in fact, they were. So, it was an economic decision to keep the slave trade going, as it was back in 1776. Some of the tariffs on the goods were an attempt to force them to stop using slaves, it wasn’t greed. The North was no more evil than the South in this, it was all very human.

    There was no single issue that caused the US Civil War, it was a complex, multi-dimensional series of issues that begat moves and counter moves to gain resolution and/or position BEFORE going to war. Nobody really wanted the war, but nobody was willing to work it out to both sides satisfaction. Thus, one side had to be militarily defeated before it would be fully resolved. Most wars could be defined in this manner.

    It is super simplistic to fall into the trap of trying to identify the ONE thing that started/cause the US Civil War. Attractive though that trap is, it is an illusion. You have to put yourself into the entire context of the time.

    Lincoln had an impossible set of choices, he did not have an answer to the problem of the Pandora’s Box he was handed, an he knew it. He did his best. It’s up to us to solve the problem.

  • [34] March 19, 2015 at 4:42pm

    The photographer just needs to switch over to a certified user ratings base (you can’t post a rating unless the business certifies that you have used their services).
    The Chamber of Commerce is silly, you don’t have to join them to be in business in most places. Start your own ‘Chamber’ and be done with it.

    Most people that operate businesses that are going to hold to ethics like this should start their own business club, only offer services to their members or to the public at an increased rate with a ‘guest’ membership that meets their ethical/moral standards. That membership is revocable upon violation of the standards. End of problem.

    Responses (5) +
  • [3] March 19, 2015 at 11:23am

    Well, I’m all for fluff pieces, but a fluff piece about a fluff piece with a side of fluff? I’m all ker-fluffled!

  • [35] March 17, 2015 at 7:10pm

    Kel-tec has a better version of the same concept. It’s not new.

    Responses (8) +
  • [48] March 17, 2015 at 7:08pm

    I’ll bet the 30% that got it right were patriots…

    For someone that is supposedly educated, you cannot compare an ‘unknown’ group of ‘patriots’ to a specific % result from the general US population. There is no connective data and it reduces his entire argument to hyperbole.

    Real patriots know their country’s history and its documents. This guy is a total poser.

    Responses (3) +
  • [5] March 17, 2015 at 4:29pm

    I’m utterly disgusted by this video. Those were barbarians and the one with the phone needed to be arrested too for inciting a riot as she was egging on the attacker for her 5 minutes of internet fame.
    If that was my daughter and son being hit like that and not having started the fight, yeah, I’d be after those ‘kids’ as well.
    I actually might applaud the one guy that held the attacker back the first time, if she got away on her own, it’s understandable, but he should not have let her go easily until those kids were out of sight. If he let her go, then I would retract my applause.

  • [14] March 12, 2015 at 7:35pm

    100% Awesome there. Kudos to all involved. I love that Downey played mostly in Stark role but stepped out for the most human comments.

  • [10] March 12, 2015 at 7:17pm

    Cartridge use predates the Revolutionary war, while it was not an “all inclusive” device, recall that many of the Founding Fathers were inventors and quite aware of armament advances.
    It takes a stupendous amount of intellectual acrobatics to think the Founders intended for firearms to be ‘freely allowed’ but hey, it’s okay to restrict what they shoot. That is a dyed in the wool ideological thought process beyond rationality.
    It is clear in every single early writing on the topic of the 2nd Amendment what the intent was: the US Citizen should be able to deal with a Tyrannical Government.
    Recall that we weren’t even supposed to have a standing army! We the people were intended to defend our own lands, neighbors, towns, cities, states and nation. THAT is why it is written the way it is.
    Cannons, mortars and other heavy artillery were owned by wealthy persons and LOANED to the militias as needed.
    What has changed in this country is NOT the intent of the Constitution but the morality of the people governed by it. Everyone is afraid of everything. Fear rules us now, not Freedom.

123 To page: Go
Restoring Love