1 - 10 Next
"But here’s the biggest giveaway: Do you really think the Post Office is so smart that they would actually create something that automatically puts zip codes on envelopes when they could hire thousands to do it for more money? "I didn’t think so either. "It’s the United States Post Office…come on. "They have a union. ‘Nuff said." Full disclosure: I am a Postal Employee and a conservative. No, it's not a contradiction in terms; there are a lot of us. If Ransom thinks his remarks above approximate reasoned argument it is truly pitiful. If we would rather hire more people to put zipcodes on envelopes, why do we spend so much money on optical character recognition research and equipment? If his argument is correct we should have more employees now than we had in 2000? There are a lot more addresses today, but we have 200,000 fewer career employees. And no, the decrease in career employees has not been matched by a comparable increase in non-career employees. The Postal Service is a wholly owned government corporation. Yes, we have our own law enforcement arm. Be glad we do. If the Postal Service goes away, who do you suppose will protect the sanctity of FedEx or UPS? According to the Ponemon Institute, the Postal Service is the fifth most trusted company in America to protect your privacy. The Postal Inspection Service is one of the reasons why. The congressional requirement for the Postal Service to pre-fund seventy-five years of health benefit coverage for future retirees, many of whom have not yet been born, and to do it in ten years, is a burden no other company or agency in the country bears. It is a major factor in our current financial situation and its elimination would help. However, the elimination of that unreasonable requirement would not solve all our problems. The nature of communications has changed dramatically in the past twenty-five years, but Congress has not given us the flexibility to implement a business model suitable for today's rapidly changing market. Do you really think either FedEx or UPS want the Postal Service to fail? Neither one of them has the infrastructure to do what we do, and they know it. We in the Postal Service know we are an easy target, but Ransom would better expend his efforts helping us solve our problems rather than sniping at us.
In response to:

Go Therefore

Bob502 Wrote: Mar 21, 2014 7:55 PM
I think you are the one who missed the point. He may not think kindly of people who work on their tans, but his main point is that they are going somewhere else when there is so much to do close to home. If all he knows about is mission trips to sunny places he is woefully uninformed, and therefore still wrong. Many mission trips are to places that could never be described as major tourist attractions. He should know that. My own daughter went to bask on that spectacular Ugandan seashore. Or let's consider those who go to Florida for spring break. Here’s the situation, hundreds of thousands of college students will congregate on Florida beaches. Erickson's proposal: ignore them and do some service at home. But many churches and para-church organizations with clearer vision see an opportunity. Here are all these young people with nothing but time on their hands. Let's go tell them how they can know God. My question for Erickson: is Christianity an avenue for social service or is it the means by which sinners can be reconciled to a holy God? I think he might say it’s the latter, but I’m not sure he really believes it. I must apologize to you, however. I meant to click on Reply and I carelessly clicked on Flag as Offensive. I am sorry. There was nothing offensive in what you posted.
In response to:

Go Therefore

Bob502 Wrote: Mar 21, 2014 12:56 PM
It is not often that I have to say of a columnist on Townhall.com that he is wrong, but Mr. Erickson is simply wrong. Are there more things that people could do in their local communities? Of course! Is that relevant to the question of mission trips? No! There are always more things that can be done wherever we are, and there always will be. But if we yield to that argument we will never do anything anywhere else. Erickson’s is the same argument that too many parents have used to try to talk their children out of going overseas as missionaries. “There are plenty of unsaved people here at home. Why do you have to go to Africa?” I wish it were not the case, but my own grandparents used that argument on my uncle, fortunately unsuccessfully. This is a tiresome old story, and probably as old as the Christian Church itself. There were likely people in Antioch who said, “There are lots of pagans right here. Why do Paul and Barnabas have to leave?” If their point of view had prevailed, who knows when, if ever, the gospel would have made it to Europe and thence to America. Certain it is that the world today would be much different, and probably much worse. Erickson’s argument has a certain appeal in the short term. But God, and fortunately a great many churches, are looking to the long term, that generations yet unborn my know the Lord. Youth mission trips are an important part of that vision.
The fact that there may be extremists both left and right cannot negate the fact that she is an extremist on the left. Your objection is both irrational and childish. It's the "So's your old man!" argument. Can we not we not agree that what she wrote is stupid and dangerous without trying to excuse her by noting that she's not the only idiot in the world? She is wrong, and no amount of "but other people are wrong, too" can change the fact that she is wrong. Sadly, your misguided attempt to bring "fairness" into a discussion where it has no place is typical of the fuzzy thinking we see so often on the left. It is one of the reasons the left is so dangerous. How can people who have trained themselves to substitute nebulous feelings of fairness for critical thinking possibly hope to make good decisions in the voting booth, or good policy decisions when elected?
There is not a single person on the planet who really wants justice. If God were treat each of us according to what we deserve, not one of us would take another breath. The bumper sticker that says, "Want peace? Work for justice" is dead wrong. If you want peace, work for mercy. The day will come when God will enforce perfect justice, and the Korns of this world are not going to like it.
I don't have much time for either Bill Nye or Ken Ham. Nye excludes the possibility of a Creator from the gitgo and then calls himself open-minded. As G. K. Chesterton said, "The point of having an open mind is to close it on something solid." Nye has closed his mind on nothing. Ham, on the other hand, embraces the young eath view of creation without recognizing the enormous biblical and theological difficulties inherent in that belief. In any given debate at least one side must be wrong. But in this case, they both are.
In response to:

What Changed the Vikings?

Bob502 Wrote: Feb 26, 2014 6:20 PM
Although it is true that you cannot convert anybody to saving faith at the point of a sword, it is also true that the sword can initiate a cultural environment in which such conversion can happen. This has not been uncommon throughout history/
Among the many failures in this whole debacle is the failure of journalists to practice the first rule of investigative reporting: Follow the money. There's a lot of money to be made in predictions of catastrophic global warming. There are new "green" products to be sold, book royalties, speaker's fees. In academia there are grants to be won, journal articles to publish (or perish), departmental chairmanships to be achieved. What does it matter if it's all bogus? "By the time everybody figures out it's a scam I'll be rich, retired or dead." On the other hand, there's not much money to be made by saying that nothing much is happening. Science claims to be self-correcting, and most of the time it is. But not always, and rarely quickly.
In response to:

Global Warming Rope-a-Dope

Bob502 Wrote: Jan 26, 2014 11:39 PM
To their everlasting shame, the anthropogenic global warming fiction (read scam) would never have grown legs if the press had followed the first rule of investigative reporting, "Follow the money." There is a lot of money to be made in climate catastrophism: grant money, alarmist books, articles sold to popular magazines, "environmentally friendly" products. Academics covet the respect of their peers that comes with articles published in peer reviewed journals. Politicians like the aggregation of power. And, of course, you can sell more newspapers when the sky is falling. But there's no money to be made in telling folks that the climate has changed before, may be doing it again, and there's not much we can do about it. And what academics would pass up their shot at a department chairmanship just because everybody will realize they were knuckleheads twenty years after they're dead.
In response to:

7 Lies Liberals Tell Young Americans

Bob502 Wrote: Jan 19, 2014 12:52 PM
We are not, repeat NOT, spirit children of God (whatever New Age meaning that may have). We are created in the image of God, so every person is of infinite value; but that is not the same as saying we are inherently good. We are not. John Adams said that the Constitution was written for a moral "and religious" (you left that part out) and inadequate for the governance of any other. He was not claiming that people are basically good; he meant that the Constitution is inadequate for the governance of people whose religion, or lack thereof, leaves them without any understanding of absolute right and wrong. In other words, the Constitution is inadequate for the governance of today's post-modern, "there are no moral absolutes" liberals. That is why the Constitution is so inconvenient to a man like Barack Obama, who lies even more than Bill Clinton, and about much more serious things.
1 - 10 Next