1 - 10 Next
I find it interesting at the arguments presented by many conservatives here in this article. After it clearly said D'Sousa admitted to violating the law and stands for some punishment, the first thing most conservatives did here in the comments was to finger point to the left side of the aisle, implying hypocrisy on the part of the left. Unfortunately, accusing the other of hypocrisy is not an argument. At least not a valid argument that contributes to the article. I think it might be productive to examine why and upstanding conservative such as D'sousa justified his conduct. It also might be productive to examine that it seems there is not much difference in conduct between conservatives and progressives.
mshandy, Your accusation that "conservatives (whom I am not a fan of on many issues btw) love seeing children die because of lack of gun control" is outrageous. It is a fallacy to put arbitrary motives upon a group based on one view. Think about these examples: Do abortionists particularly love seeing fetuses die because they practice abortion? Did Pres Obama hate gays before he changed his mind about same-sex marriage? Do minority advocates like seeing Asians not enter colleges they qualify for because the advocates support affirmative actions policies for other races? It is disgusting how you impugn motives upon those with whom you disagree with. A disgusting tactic.
It is quite likely that the criminals were somewhat familiar with the store and thus knew about the sign. The articles point stands: criminals are going to do what they are going to do regardless of signs or not! The signs are meaningless to accomplish anything.
In response to:

Marriage: It's Complicated

c5c5c5 Wrote: May 21, 2014 10:32 PM
Unfortunately MoreFreedom, conservatives cannot live and let live when there are no rights violations. They are quite willing to use government to preserve their ideals even if the cause of their concern is not violating the rights of anyone. Too bad for conservatives that society and culture continue to change...
In response to:

Marriage: It's Complicated

c5c5c5 Wrote: May 21, 2014 10:23 PM
We do not need marriage to maintain legal property and inheritance rights any longer.
In response to:

Marriage: It's Complicated

c5c5c5 Wrote: May 21, 2014 10:20 PM
What is your proposal to keep children from being exposed to homosexuality? Will it involve force?
I think the author of this article exaggerated the drama when he said that Hugh Hefner would have blushed at the passages in the book. I assure you, Mr. Starnes, Hugh Hefner would NOT have blushed.
In response to:

Uninstall Firefox

c5c5c5 Wrote: Apr 08, 2014 3:34 PM
Mc, This is the problem of being a purist. If you examine most business's donations/gifts/causes supported, you will probably find things you cannot stand. And And do not forget business partners may have causes/statements you find objectionable. Thus you will end up not partaking of anything (or a very extreme few) because of being that pure. Most standard mutual funds or other investment options have companies that support causes we may not agree with. (There are a few investment options tailored to Christians and their purported stands that Christians take, but again, these are few and rare and probably not that great in results since they are so limited.) Unless one wants to live as a recluse or hermit, it is very difficult if not impossible being a purist because of the intertwined nature of economics.
In response to:

Uninstall Firefox

c5c5c5 Wrote: Apr 08, 2014 3:26 PM
That would be true Stan if marriage was available to only those that needed it to reproduce and to survive. That has not been the case for a long time. Marriage is open to anyone for any reason now. I can understand therefore why gays would want to be treated the same as heteros - to marry someone they love. Again, if it was strictly about procreation, then so be it. Marriage is not just about procreation anymore. The definition of marriage already changed on its own, without legislation and without any movements. The law is now catching up.
In response to:

Uninstall Firefox

c5c5c5 Wrote: Apr 08, 2014 3:20 PM
Richard, If your sources are true (I have not checked), then he could have stayed on. It may not have been comfortable, but he could have stayed employed.
1 - 10 Next