1 - 10 Next
The next time will be the first time...
And here I thought the moderates were the ones who sharpened their swords before they cut your head off...
Are you suggesting Fast & Furious Part 2? Now that's a conspiracy theory worth spreading around...
In response to:

URGENT: It's Not Islam

houdini1984 Wrote: Jan 10, 2015 12:33 PM
Of course we can make that distinction. Those KKK members who claim to be followers of Christ are obvious liars, since they can point to nothing in Christ's life or words that support their racial intolerance or violent tendencies. To argue otherwise demonstrates either a profound misunderstanding of Christ's example and commands, or a willful attempt to muddy the waters of any serious discussion. Muslims who engage in violence can point to the example of their prophet and instructions found in their Qur'an and Hadith. Their founder was a violent man who spread his faith through conquest and oppression. Today's Islamists follow that example well. So yes, the violence flowing from the Muslim world of today has its origins in Islam. In contrast, there is nothing in Christianity that even remotely justifies the actions of groups like the KKK.
"To kill that baby in utero absolutely is murder!" It always has been.
Typical leftist pseudo-science, of course...
Michael Reagan? What article are you reading> David Limbaugh wrote this one. Never mind the fact that you're wrong. Those of us who were alive back then and paying attention understand that there is no myth about Reagan's record. It's a matter of historical fact.
"You and I didn't harm the poor in Cuba by issuing sanctions that starved them to death. That was the dictatorial federal government and its water carriers in the Republican Party." Nice try, but that's absurd. The Democrats have had full control of the levers of federal power often enough during the last 50 years that they could have reversed the laws and policies had they so desired. No, if you want to blame parties, blame both. If this was such a major Democratic issue, why wasn't the embargo lifted when Dems controlled the entire Congress and Presidency after Obama was first elected?
Nonsense. The enemy in the 1980s was a newly-radicalized Iran that directly threatened our oil interests in the Gulf. We had no love for Hussein, but Iraq was a useful tool to thwart Iranian ambitions at the time. He fell out of favor when he was no longer needed for that role. You see, that's the thing that leftist Americans never seem to grasp: nations have no friends. We only have interests. That's why today's friend of necessity may become tomorrow's enemies should the reality on the ground change. Democrats used to understand that, remember? After all, FDR was cozy as a newlywed bride with Uncle Joe during the war - but only because we shared a common enemy at the time. That's how mature leaders manage foreign affairs.
"The person who should be most concerned about this action is probably Raul Castro." Why is that? Did normalization of relations with China bring an end to its communist regime? There's no reason to believe that Raul is in any danger from this action, since the Chinese have demonstrated that controlled economic interaction with the outside world in no way hinders a tyrannical government's ability to oppress its people. With that said, I am not necessarily opposed to pursuing this path through a combination of legislative moves and executive branch diplomacy. If, however, this unilateral action is an attempt to circumvent the current laws regarding trade with that island dictatorship, then it should be opposed as yet another usurpation of legislative authority.
1 - 10 Next