1 - 10 Next
What does "fiscally progressive" mean? I am guessing you mean government money to the poor, or perhaps universal government-run healthcare, but am asking clarification. Also, if that is what you mean, do you still support 'fiscal progressiveness" when it means the government has to borrow money to make those payments? I'm curious because most Christians I know consider it a moral responsibility to stay out of debt, and would find it objectionable for the government to incur debt we cannot pay.
I have no problem with whatever sexual behavior consenting adults choose to engage in, but I would encourage you to drop the "It's NATURAL!" argument. Tsunamis, arsenic, poisonous plants, earthquakes, floods, radiation, Ebola, birth defects.....All natural, none of them good.
So your theory is that Brown did nothing at all, Wilson dragged Brown into his SUV, and then shot him both in the car and as he was running away? And Wilson beat himself up?
In response to:

What Ebola Has Revealed About Us

clidke frawley Wrote: Oct 06, 2014 8:13 AM
Excellent point. I completely forgot about his cutting off flights to Israel. There was no outcry from the left then--tells you a lot.
In response to:

Multiculturalism Is a Failure

clidke frawley Wrote: Sep 17, 2014 9:10 AM
Let's say for a moment I accept your premise (I don't, but let's pretend we agree). What is your proposed solution? Right now, they have stated that their mission is to establish a global caliphate and to force conversion on everyone and kill those who refuse to convert. In addition, their belief system includes such gems as FGM, stoning women for adultery, the death penalty for homosexual behavior, complete lack of women's rights (though men have the right to rape them), death to anyone who would leave the religion, death to anyone who insults the prophet and on and on and on. What do you suggest we do? Pursue diplomatic solutions with an enemy who says every single day that nothing less than complete destruction of Western civilization will satisfy them?
Replying to myself as I forgot to mention....I disagree with you assertion that the beliefs and actions of a fringe group must be accepted as tenants of the faith just because the fringe group decides to usurp the mainstream group's name. There is no such implication. If the mainstream wants to clear that up, though, and the fringe won't cooperate, then the mainstream can either whine or change their name, as I said above. Or ignore it, I suppose, and have to constantly explain that they don't agree with the fringe. Whatever they choose is fine with me, but it is entirely up the members of the faith to define themselves.
I would agree with that line of reasoning, because anything else makes freedom of religion meaningless. If the government gets to decide who is a 'real' Christian or Jew or Muslim, there is no freedom of religion. What you then have is the government approving certain religious beliefs and determining that others are illegitimate. Ideally, when a faction of a particular faith decides to follow a belief systems that differs markedly from the mainstream of that faith, they create a new branch with a new name "Reformed Baptists", or whatever, which distinguishes them. As free people, however, they are under no obligation to do so and if they decide to be jerks and continue to use the mainstream name, then the mainstream has to consider changing their name to separate themselves from the fringe. And please do not argue that the mainstream having to change their name is unfair. Of course it's unfair. Life is unfair. All sorts of jack assess perpetrate all sorts of unfairness on others. You can whine about it or you can just fix the problem.
"Overpopulation" is not even close to the main threat. It is also self-limiting. If and when we ever got to the point where there is not enough food and fresh water for everyone, people will die until we reach a sustainable level. This will probably never happen. And even if it were a threat, what solution would you propose? Anything apart from trying to convince people to have fewer children would be tyranny.
Here's an interesting thought: The left keeps insisting that any business open to the public must not discriminate, or violate anyone's rights. I'm thinking of the bakers and photographers forced to provide services for gay weddings. If these businesses cannot deny the 'rights' of gays--which are not even delineated in the Bill of Rights, then certainly the same logic applies to businesses and guns. As a conservative, I disagree with the government forcing businesses to do anything, but it would be interesting to put this argument up against the 'you must provide services to gays' argument.
In response to:

Racial Irrationality on the Right

clidke frawley Wrote: Aug 20, 2014 11:20 AM
I agree that the police, National Guard--whomever--needs to stop the rioting and looting by whatever means necessary. I recall the '68 riots in Chicago and Mayor Daley issuing the 'shoot to kill' order, which calmed things down pretty damn fast. However, I do think militarization of the police is a problem. The police didn't start dressing like Rambo and using MRAPs in response to violence they couldn't control. Instead, the Feds provided them with this stuff and they are finding every excuse they can to use it, often inappropriately. When police show up at a peaceful protest with armored vehicles pointing rifles at citizens they are not protecting the people they are threatening them. Such displays of 'us vs. them' serve to inflame the situation rather than to preserve order. When police in full SWAT gear show up pre-dawn and bust down someone's door for a suspected minor offense (like small scale drug possession), they do not advance the cause of justice. In fact, there are countless incidents of them getting the wrong house, shooting family pets, and even shooting innocent people, not to mention terrorizing children and adults alike. Such actions further the perception (and perhaps reality) of the police being a military force to keep the populace in line, rather than the traditional role of serve and protect.
1 - 10 Next