Previous 11 - 20 Next
It should be obvious to all that this old man is a danger to himself and everyone around him. He CERTAINLY can't be allowed to carry a "weapon" onto an aircraft, now can he? And I don't care WHOSE friend he is. Can the TSA get any dumber???
Political correctness is overcoming any and all intelligence in this country. Everyone should simply refuse to participate. I do, and I highly recommend it to everyone else...
In response to:

Touchy Topics

GRusling Wrote: Sep 04, 2013 10:00 AM
It's simple - people are different - even when they look the same. Like-minded people have something to say to each other, and often such like-mindedness falls along racial/ethnic lines due to similar backgrounds. At other times the like-mindedness stems from shared work experience. A farmer probably has little in common with a steel worker, even though their ethnic background is the same. An electrical engineer probably doesn't have much to say to a pig farmer, and vice versa. At the same time, two electrical engineers of different races probably have a lot to talk about. I've never found "race" to be much of a barrier when common interest brings people together. To me, any disagreement on that issue is nothing more than a straw-man...
In response to:

Thinking Through "This Town"

GRusling Wrote: Jul 18, 2013 10:12 AM
The Truth? Absolutely. But not the WHOLE truth by any stretch of the imagination...
In response to:

Go See Copperhead

GRusling Wrote: Jun 24, 2013 4:52 PM
Indentured Servants were usually "indentured" by their families, not by themselves. While not slavery by definition, it was often very little better. When a person committed him/herself to the service of another it was called "Apprenticeship" and could be terminated by either party. A person was usually "indentured" to pay off some DEBT which could not otherwise be discharged, and that's a fact. Many children were "indentured" in Europe to get them passage to the New World, by parents who had nothing to offer to the next generation. There was usually a "term" or a certain age involved with the indenture, but it could be difficult to enforce when it finally arrived...
In response to:

Go See Copperhead

GRusling Wrote: Jun 24, 2013 4:37 PM
FYI - The VERY FIRST slave owner in the British Colonies was a BLACK MAN! Throughout colonial history there were MANY FREE BLACKS and a number of them OWNED SLAVES of their own! Slavery has never been "racist." Not in America or anywhere else on this planet, including the many places where it is still practiced...
In response to:

Pandering Is Bad Politics

GRusling Wrote: Jun 24, 2013 3:59 PM
“We’re in a demographic death spiral as a party, and the only way we can get back in good graces with the Hispanic community, in my view, is pass comprehensive immigration reform. If you don’t do that, it really doesn’t matter who will run, in my view.” Senator Graham is not only wrong in his expressed opinion, he's demonstrably wrong in regard to how the Hispanic Community will respond to this new "Amnesty." If Republicans cave on this, they will lose credibility on this issue since our INDIGENOUS Hispanic Population has NO DESIRE to see all these people competing with them for the few good jobs in our communities. What Republicans NEED TO DO is show up among our Hispanic population at some time OTHER THAN ELECTION TIME and ask what they can do to help them. I live in a part of the world that's about 80% Hispanic and the only time we see ANY politician is when they're stumping for votes. Having voted "democrat" all their lives, they continue to do so because no-one comes to educate them on why that may not be in their best interest...
In response to:

Supreme Court vs. Supreme Authority

GRusling Wrote: Jun 24, 2013 3:32 PM
When those who have chosen a path divergent from the conventional path, demand that "The Children" of those who object be taught that this "new path" is natural and normal and MUST BE ACCEPTED as a legitimate option, they overstep their bounds and are subject to being ABRUPTLY ARRESTED and DENIED the freedom to so indoctrinate "The Children" of those who strongly disagree with them and their chosen path. Personally, those who mess with "MY KIDS" may find themselves suddenly subjected to PHYSICAL FORCE AND VIOLENCE which they will not enjoy! FYI - Requiring some FORCE OF LAW to "require" me to accept what you like/want/desire is NOT "Non-Violent." Teach your own children whatever you choose. Attempt to teach your deviant sexual pattern to MY CHILDREN and I will come down on you like a ton of BRICKS! Does THAT answer your question???
In response to:

Supreme Court vs. Supreme Authority

GRusling Wrote: Jun 24, 2013 3:15 PM
The "Crackpot" here is the Gay community which is demanding that Government create LAWS to require everyone to APPROVE of their lifestyle. By simple contract (as simple as any marriage license) they can do anything any "married" couple can do, and enjoy every "government benefit" any married couple can enjoy without resorting to any of the contentiousness of demanding "CHURCHES" bestow "APPROVAL" on their union. That's what this is all about. The Christian Community is simply declaring that it will not abide by any such law, no matter what element of government creates it...
In response to:

Supreme Court vs. Supreme Authority

GRusling Wrote: Jun 24, 2013 2:59 PM
Each State has authority to decide by a majority of it's people, what will and will not be acceptable within its boundaries. The 1st Amendment denies such authority, in this instance, to the federal government. Both the 9th and 10th Amendments reinforce the 1st on this subject. Whatever may or may not be accepted as "marriage" is a matter left ENTIRELY up to the "States" and/or "The People" since nothing in our constitution or any of its Amendments relegates "marriage" to the authority of our federal government. Marriage "Licenses," for what they're worth, are issued under "STATE" authority, and it has never been otherwise. "RIGHTS" simply exist, and are neither GRANTED nor CREATED by government, at any level. Some "rights" are, by law, protected by government, while others are simply acknowledged. Marriage is not a "Right" by any definition. Certain societal "allowances" for the benefit of "families" are created by government. These are subject to the whim of men in government and may be adjusted from time to time, but no "LAW" can be created to declare a "RIGHT" which is not found to exist prior to the creation of "government," which is nothing more than the consent of individuals to abide by a certain set of rules. Many things, if not most things, are not subject to the whim and will of majority opinion. Marriage is among such things...
In response to:

Supreme Court vs. Supreme Authority

GRusling Wrote: Jun 24, 2013 2:35 PM
If government creates a "right" to marriage of any sort, then the religious community is and will be REQUIRED BY LAW to recognize and accept it! If that's not a slap-in-the-face to Christianity (and Islam, by the way) then I don't know what you would call it. CHURCHES would be required to conduct homosexual marriages even though their religion condemns the very essence of such acts. "GOVERNMENT," in its entirety, which includes the Supreme Court is COMMANDED by the 1st Amendment to "make no law" where religion is concerned, not in support of or at odds with, and that's just exactly what the Supreme Court Decision should point out...
Previous 11 - 20 Next