Apparently, he’s convinced the administration to unilaterally ban hairbrushes and shampoo.
 July 24, 2015 at 10:51am
The religion of Rome, as with all Christian religions, is based on historical fact. While the weaknesses of its practitioners are apparent, the faith is there still. I find it interesting you would condemn their faith instead of the insistence of the secular in attempting actions — sex — without consequences.
 February 18, 2015 at 10:00am
It’s more “Do what you wish, as long as it makes you happy, and if someone complains, the government’s got your back.”
The needs of the one are forced on the acceptance of the many.
 February 6, 2015 at 9:46am
As a long-time (former) New Mexico resident, I’m stunned that something like “Brokeback Mountain” is considered the most iconic film shot in that state, when such films like “The Cowboys” or “3:10 to Yuma” or “Silverado” or “Young Guns” or “No Country for Old Men” were made in that state. What was the criteria here? Whatever you could remember after 1980? Or is it advancing some agenda?
Yeah, No Country for Old Men --THAT's iconic! Gets my vote...
 January 20, 2015 at 9:28am
Yup. We banter about phrases such as “on record,” yet we write about scientists who “believe” it is one of the hottest years on record.
“Pie Jesu Domine, dona eis requiem.”
 December 10, 2014 at 9:31am
Your devotion to the law is short-sighted and frankly frightening. If it’s your contention that the law trumps all — even the Constitution — then you’ve just leapfrogged the union into a despotic dictatorship.
Forced compulsion is heinous, regardless of its intent. And just because you want to define another person’s beliefs as discrimination doesn’t make it so.
 October 23, 2014 at 2:36pm
This is not now, nor really ever has been, about subsets of society knowing their place. That makes the presumption that the government has the power to dictate any and all actions of its populace.
What needs to be reinstated is 1) rights of the individual and 2) governmental agencies that respect those rights. Go back that far.
 September 30, 2014 at 10:54am
Sorry, I meant that hiding behind the law is invalid. Having dystypia this morning.
 September 30, 2014 at 10:53am
Grover, here’s why I said what I said. In an earlier post, you specifically describe the bakers as “not good people.” That right there is where any moral high ground is lost. You’ve cast aspersions on them, and then stand tall and say, “there’s no fear here.”
I also feel that hiding behind the law is valid. Yes, Oregon law states such ‘n’ such. It does not, however, trump the U.S. Constitution, which authorizes the “free exercise thereof” of religion, as well as the freedom of speech (this statement based on case law where in certain matters, federal law is tops in the heirarchy, particularly when dealing with issues surrounding the Bill of Rights). But more to my point, any law that compels a business, or a person, or group, or what have you, to perform in violation of your conscience or creed is inherently discriminatory itself. It begs the question, why is the bakers’ viewpoint less valid than others?
Extend that argument outward. Would this law require newspapers in the state to write stories that only were politically correct? Will state arbiters be put in place to verify that all writing contains valid, state-approved viewpoints and comments?
Using the law as a club to force acceptance is wrong, and will only lead to further erosion of rights.
 September 30, 2014 at 9:30am
Sez who? You the arbiter of when conscience applies and when it doesn’t? Either you believe or you don’t. Let the whiners worry about semantics and situational ethics.
 September 30, 2014 at 9:24am
Your moral relativism fall flat here, skippy. Of course there is fear; she’s not the only business owner that faces threats, criminal activity and reprisal from an entire segment of society for simply refusing to bake a cake. So for you to admonish her for her stance while at the same time approving of the vengeful and illegal response from the LGBT community, the bell of hypocrisy done been rung.
Why did this couple have to have baked goods from THIS particular baker? Are there no other sympathetic bakers in the area? Given the information from this story, one can only surmise that the retribution was intentional. So tell us again about fear.
 August 29, 2014 at 11:58am
Getting involved in other countries does not offer additional voters. Amnesty, however, does. Humanitarian policies that are self-serving equals the devil’s work.
 August 29, 2014 at 11:54am
Then please justify the bombing in Libya, drone attacks in the Middle East, troops in Uganda and Yemen, all without Congressional approval. We’ll wait.
While we’re waiting, are you against war, Bush, conservatism or generally anything that runs antithetical to the current president? Also, please explain what the Left actually is for. Extra credit: explain its constitutionality.
 August 29, 2014 at 9:24am
For them to “identify actual existential evil,” it would by extension identify actual existential good. You can’t continue your jihad against Christianity if you kinda sorta believe in it.
therealchon - I hope that isn't your "real" eyeball - now the NSA will have your iris id'd forevermore!
 August 14, 2014 at 3:19pm
I find it immeasurably scary that a federal agency is dictating terms and tactics — in a realm in which it has no jurisdiction — to a state. Holder as Judge Dredd is a future I don’t want to contemplate.
 October 24, 2013 at 4:27pm
Your point would be valid had he named the culprit, and if you assume Mr. Beck’s intention is simply to heap scorn on a working nurse. However, if you view the discussion as analogous to his point, then in makes sense.
Frankly, though, I don’t see a problem with a nuclear option when it comes to protecting my family.
October 4, 2013 at 12:55pm
With all due respect, PGBA, you can pound sand up your a$$. My father, a 45-year veteran of law enforcement, spent his career trying to keep people out of prison, trying to turn them to a better way of life — law-abiding and honest. For you to make such an ignorant, blanket statement like that puts you in the same category as the worm who was offended in the first place, and the mewling toady principal who made that stupid request. Your statements contain no proof, just conjecture, and that’s exactly why there are these types of occurrences.
You want to be a shining light of justice? Do it right. Don’t you dare lump them all together.
July 26, 2013 at 4:12pm
Messrs. Bulldog and Travis, please elucidate as to why your contributions are insults, denigration, and baseless, factless hyperbole. Your appreciation of music is immaterial in this context, as is your assumption that Mr. Nugent requires unceasing adoration to feel relevant. It’s astonishing to me that right out of the gate you felt the need to be so pedantic, and flaunt your ignorance. Unless, of course, it was to garner the attention you claim Nugent is seeking; that just makes you sad and pitiable.
June 17, 2013 at 5:12pm
It’s easy to understand the dismissive attitudes, given what happened the last time as “second-rate” actor got into politics …
You can be openly gay in the military, but not openly spiritual? Are we ensuring that there’s only one reason to get on your knees while serving, and possibly dying, for your country? The mind boggles that this is even an issue …
"You can be openly gay in the military, but not openly spiritual?"
You can be both. How did you even get the idea that you couldn't?
"Are we ensuring that there’s only one reason to get on your knees while serving, and possibly dying, for your country?"
You're making the wrong equivalence argument. The one being made is that your CO can't force you onto your knees to pray or swallow swords. If you do either under on your own time, without being forced to do so, it's fine.
"The mind boggles that this is even an issue"
It boggles my mind that people don't even bother to read the facts and jump straight to the outrage.