CommentsDisplaying InconvenientLogic's 10 most recent comments.

• ‘I Had an Abortion’ Shirt Sales Stir Controversy at University of North Carolina Wilmington

  April 20, 2012 at 12:32am

  My answer: all the rest of us can wear one that says “I wasn’t aborted.”

  Just sayin’…

• Atheists Sue to Stop Display of Cross at World Trade Center Memorial

  July 26, 2011 at 11:31am

  In reply to InconvenientLogic.

  I also happen to believe the symbol is truth as well, but there’s no arguing with any sane person that the object, outside of the symbol, is truth – that it did happen, and it happened that day…

• Atheists Sue to Stop Display of Cross at World Trade Center Memorial

  July 26, 2011 at 11:27am

  The fact that this cross was created by events during the attack itself, along with its obvious significance, makes it an excellent candidate for the memorial regardless of any indication of an impression of endorsement of Christianity by the government.

  You can’t argue that it was created that day by those events, which makes it relevant; and you can’t argue that it is significant since even the atheists find issue with displaying it.

  The object itself was born that day by the terrible events of that day, and was/is a significant symbol to some folks (a majority, I’d wager) that while God relinquished the power to effect those terrorists’ decisions that day by granting them free will, He does want us all to know that He is with us and wishes to help us heal.

  The object itself is truth (not the symbol, but the steel itself). I’m even okay with a plaque that reads, “I’m just sayin”…

• Woman Seated Near Beck at Movie Claims Innocence…But What Does Twitter Tell Us…(With UPDATES!)

  June 29, 2011 at 12:53pm

  In reply to I.Gaspar.

  Best. Article. Ever!

  EXCELLENT work, Mr. Baker…

• Meet the 17-Year-Old Fighting ‘Big Government’ and Traffic Cameras

  June 24, 2011 at 3:54pm

  But really, aren’t we (in a way) saying here (in concept) what the dems say about illegal immigrants? If the law on the books says you should pay a fine in the form of a ticket when you violate it, would it not be better to work to change the law that we find annoying or absurd, rather than yelling about that law’s enforcement (via cop or camera)? If you roll at a right turn on red, you broke the law. The fact that they can actually see you do it really doesn‘t mean that you didn’t do it all those other times.

  I think we should be willing to own up to our violations when we’re caught, otherwise we’re no better than the folks who think we should ignore those pesky immigration laws. Change them, I say. I’m not a fan of speed limits, personally. I’m a fan of a severe penalty when you run someone over with your car. There are WAY too many layers of nanny – in just about every situation under law in this country.

  A stain is a stain. It shouldn’t get mad at the flashlight for shining on it, right? Perhaps the streets don’t need to be monitored at all anymore because those laws are no longer necessary… People should be safe because of the CONSEQUENCES of not being safe…

  Just my $.02

• 43-year-old Man Fused to Chair for 2 Years by Urine and Feces, Dies

  March 31, 2011 at 2:35pm

  In reply to ares338.

  Regarding the response from ‘firstHat’:

  Absolutely correct. I think it’s vitally important to know where you stand, and the responses here against such (in some ways) a simple case to evaluate – as far as personal responsibility versus criminal negligence – are very telling. Some folks want to condemn the roommates – but how can you be sure the roommates weren’t on a mission to help this man? Perhaps, despite their best efforts, he was determined to become what he became. And others would liken this to animal cruelty, but the difference is that domesticated animals must be cared for to some degree – they actually do rely on their owners to care for them because they are unable to ‘hunt’ their food, or ‘find’ their water when the bowl is dry.

  I think it’s the combination of both sides that has been and will be our downfall. The fact that I believe this man had the right to live the way he wanted to live, but because of the nanny-side people, that means I have to foot the bill for his medical care via my taxes, bogs the system down because the two are mutually exclusive. It‘s like throwing a car into a river and then abandoning the idea of a car because it didn’t work as designed while floating down the river…

  You have to choose one side or the other – and evaluate every case individually before rendering judgment. Since we don’t know if this man was insane or not, we can’t accurately judge whether there should have been an intervention. But I do think, more important than the story being posted, is the sense you get from the responses. I’m learning a lot about the Blaze readers just by reading them all…