Previous 11 - 20 Next
In response to:

A Silly Excuse for a President

Curtis108 Wrote: Aug 03, 2014 7:16 PM
OK, I'll play your silly game. Precisely what, in the "Natural Law," states that men should not accept women as leaders? If the woman in question (1) understands what must be done, (2) knows how to do what must be done, and (3) can do what must be done, why should her gender or plumbing disqualify her from doing what must be donbe?
In response to:

A Silly Excuse for a President

Curtis108 Wrote: Aug 03, 2014 7:10 PM
Define "unnatural," Darby. It sounds more like you are concerned with the contents of someone's underwear than what they stand for, and we have more than enough "identity" politics already, thank you.
In response to:

An Open Letter to the Political Right

Curtis108 Wrote: Aug 03, 2014 7:01 PM
The hatred for the "establishment" ignores that the lack of an "establishment" Tea Party has already resulted in the loss of one Congressional seat. Establishments have their purposes, and to deny that leads to any candidate who wishes to to claim the "Tea Party" mantle.
Doctor, I suggest you refer to a copy of the US Constitution. Until the current Presidency, taxes were not the President's to raise, and many other things used to require a majority of 536 persons to enact.
Willy: Plwase explain exactly what the DJIA is, how it is selected, and how often it is changed, and why. Explain its relationship to the stock market as a whole. Then, explain precisely how the movement of the stock market today has any impact on the economy as a whole. After that, you may suddenly realize that the DJIA is not equivalent to the stock market, which is not equivalent to the economy. Simply because it is easy to measure and seems to support your view does not mean it is correct, valid, or useful.
Because McVeigh declined appeals and sped the process up as much as he could.
So you are willing to take the legal fiction of personhood to the point of giving a corporation religious beliefs. The owners of a corporation have considerable benefits granted to them by the state (the corporation is totally a creature of the law) and you are arguing that the corporation and the owners share beliefs -- though there is supposed to exist a "corporate veil" separating the personal assets and activities of the owners from those of corporation. I believe the situation is different for sole proprietors. Additionally, I believe the limitation put on the decision by the Court also leads to the conclusion that they see a difference between the corporation and its owners, limiting it to closely held firms.
Never mind Saddam USED chemical weapons and refused to account for them. Of course there were no chemical weapons in Iraq.
Ron Paul and everyone else is missing the main point here. As a corporation (closely held or not) Hobby Lobby has been granted an existence separate and distinct from that of its owners. This is the fundamental problem with "corporate personhood." The owners of the corporation are isolated from the actions of the "corporation." A sole proprietor might very well be able to argue for a religious viewpoint; a corporation probably shouldn't be able to. I don't have a serious problem with the concept of "corporate personhood," but it seems in this case the owners are isolated from any personal liability for the action of the corporation they control, so that it is logically questionable to permit their "religious objections" to color or control the corporation.
In response to:

A Primer on Race

Curtis108 Wrote: Jul 08, 2014 5:47 PM
Geezer: If salt water is truly 2.5 percent denser than salt water, does not increase the volume by 97.5% of the fresh water melted, leaving aside the dilution affects? Additionally, if I remember correctly, the temperature changes the density of sea water much more than salinity does, so that may have a larger effect than salinity does in any case. Has the rabbit been subdivided enough?
Previous 11 - 20 Next