Previous 11 - 20 Next
In response to:

Liberals Declare War on Working Poor

bigbill10 Wrote: Aug 23, 2014 5:54 PM
Who would you prefer to have serving you at your local restaurant, a young, attentive attractive teenager (black, white or otherwiise) or Robbie the Robot? A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage would strongly favor Robbie. And all of those young, attentive, attractive teenagers (black, white and otherwise) can do the math themselves: $15/hour x 0 hours = ZERO! Didn't the Liberal/Progressives learn elementary math by third grade?
"Rights" which the Government hath givith, The Government may taketh away. If that's not from the Bible, it should be.
In response to:

Obama Satire? Still Objectionable

bigbill10 Wrote: Aug 22, 2014 9:40 PM
I can recall way back in 1958, about a thousand years ago as history zings by, that the Left of that time was absolutely apoplectic with Ike playing golf while the World burned (I think it was Lebanon, at that time). Being in high school, I didn't understand much about recent world history, but I remember the absolute (and I thought unwarranted) anger directed at the President at that time. I still think such judgments are over-simple. I look to what a man does, not how he plays or doesn't play. I wish our current president had been on the links a lot more than he was over the last few years and not screwing with our government and businesses. Now though, it's time for him to put away the clubs, turn in the cart and put his long big-boy pants on. I'm praying for him-through clenched teeth, but I am praying for him (and us).
In response to:

Obama's Small-Screen Worldview

bigbill10 Wrote: Aug 22, 2014 9:29 PM
I don't think that most people in England or France in 1940 were confident of the ultimate failure of Fascism and Nazism and the triumph of representative democracy. They looked forward to a very dangerous and evil adversary....and wondered if we, if they, had the strength and moral courage to deter it. I don't think Lincoln was confident of the abilities of his generals to win the Civil War. If anything, he lost his confidence early and is was only through pure will that he could continue. In late 1862, he said in despair "If there is a worse place than hell, I'm in it." The World is not naturally good. If anything, mankind always tends toward evil and it is a constant effort needed to arrest and reverse its rampages.
It's always a temptation to accept any information that supports one's position and to reject any that refutes it. But old adages still apply: --there's a sucker born every minute. -it's an ill wind that blows no-one good. - What is the difference between truth and advocacy? Truth before advocacy is as powerful as an oak tree.. Advocacy before truth is a weak reed. Putting the cart before the horse (advocacy before truth) is as American (and human) as Lemon Meringue Pie.
About 40 years ago, I joined the local Jaycees, a philanthropic men's organization. Their opening meeting creed included the belief that "Government should be of laws, rather than of men". That seemed self-evident way back then. Current events have totally trashed that concept and the trashers are now demanding a "government of men"-Their Men, of course. A crime of A against B is a crime. A crime of B against A is not a crime, but justice. People are being judged by the color of their skin rather than the content of their character (now who was it who popularized the opposite of that statement....?) There is no forgiveness for Liberal/Progressive "Social Sins"-only eternal punishment. They are absolutely blind to their own hatred and judgement. But then that's why hate is bad-it blinds the hater to truth. I work very hard on not hating them. Sometimes I succeed.
If one person picks up a book-any book-and says that the book "orders" him to kill other people, we shouldn't blame the book for the murder, we should blame the murderer, the person-whether that book is the Koran, the Bible, The Communist Manifesto, or The Book of Mormon. Books don't incite people, people decide to attach their incitement to books, often regardless of the actual words in that book. Even if a given book orders me to kill my (Jewish/Muslim/Christian/Atheist/Animist/Hindu) neighbor, it is illogical to blame that book, should I act on that "order". If another person "orders" me to do so, then that person does share in the guilt of my eventual act, although I am still the ultimate perpetrator. But I should point out the words in a specific book that a murderer has used to justify such murders and to ask other people who read that book whether they would also use those words to justify other killings or destructive acts against others. But in all cases ultimately, it's the peoples' living attitudes and opinions that count-not the dead words in the book. Ask people who identify themselves as Muslims whether the words in the Koran cause them to seek to kill other people or support others that do-that's the only thing that matters-their intentions-and actions-not the words in the book.
In response to:

No Facts, No Peace

bigbill10 Wrote: Aug 21, 2014 4:04 PM
No Justice, No Peace! Really? How about this: No Truth, No Justice!
In response to:


bigbill10 Wrote: Aug 21, 2014 10:52 AM
This current murder is simply a continuation of a violent religion expressing itself for the last 1400 years There are times when this war was cold (or perhaps tepid would be more accurate) for a century or more, but it would always flare up again in a new place and time. The murderer and his compatriots can easily find quotations in the Koran that support their violent ways. Thankfully, 90 percent of Muslims in the world don't practice such hatred. But then, probably 90 percent of the Muslims in the world don't...or can't read the Koran in its original Old Arabic language, the only one that counts, apparently. It's sort of like what Christianity was like in 1200 AD when most Christians were illiterate and deferred to the clergy for reading and interpreting the Hebrew/Greek/Roman Holy Bible. In fact, for centuries on-end, The Church (ya, that one....) made it a point to prevent common people from reading the bible directly-too dangerous-and in a perverse way, they wee right. If people starting referencing God's Word directly, they'd soon be out of their phony-baloney jobs. The Church even burned people at the stake or threatened-to for trying to translate the Bible into common languages. It's possible that Islam will also turn "tame" in the future, but I wouldn't bet my life or the World on it. As some sage once said, "Keep your head down and your powder dry".
Officer Wilson is rapidly being re-fashioned (transformed?) into Emmanuel Goldstein. George Orwell was right, just thirty years off on the timing.
In response to:

Clouded Judgment

bigbill10 Wrote: Aug 21, 2014 8:35 AM
Sin is not man's greatest moral failure. For each sin there is one more step-blindness to that sin. And those little cases of blindness lead to a general moral blindness. THAT is man's greatest moral failure. Thank you for a new and very interesting perspective on man's greatest moral failure of the 20th Century.
Previous 11 - 20 Next