1 - 10 Next
"There's a certain racial component to this for some people. I don't think this is the thing that is a main driver, but for some, there's a racial animus." Some people? Who specifically? Why doesn't someone in the media challenge statements like this and ask him specifically to name the racists? What a bunch of cowards hiding behind broad, unprovable allegations.
Dave's advice on the 401k vs. Roth is woefully inadequate. He doesn't know anything about Jennifer's current income or tax rates. Any presumed future tax advantages the Roth has over the 401k could easily be offset by the current tax advantages the 401k has over the Roth (401k contributions and company match are tax-deferred and will reduce current tax liability, while the Roth contributions will not). Based on the description ("several years before I retire"), Jennifer is very unlikely to accumulate the $1 million Dave uses as an example to illustrate the healthy tax advantages the Roth has. Since it's much more likely that the account balance at retirement, for either the 401k or the Roth, will be more modest, the relative future tax advange of the Roth will be much smaller than Dave discusses. In some circumstances Dave's advice might be correct, but his over-generalization in this case missed the mark.
The President is a politician to his very core. Don't be surprised if we get a very well publicized announcement of her release from prison - aproximately 2 weeks before the November election.
CAIR - where are you on this one? According to your mission statement your purpose is: "to enhance understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding . . ." Do you have the courage to speak out against this atrosity, or will you bow in silent submission to you Islamic masters?
This entire article can be reprinted with The Houston Chronicle substituted for the PD in every sentence. It is incredible how out of touch the Chronicle is with its readership, but because it has no competiton, it has no incentive to change or consider other viewpoints..
Eric: I'm not sure if I would qualify as an "OT type" in your eyes, but I am a Christian and there is a simple explanation to you apparent dilemma. Put very simply, the OT Law is no longer in effect for the NT Christian. There is no longer "an eye for an eye" (which, by the way, was a radical change in the law that existed at the time - it was more compassionate - in that it allowed only proportional justice - not the cold-blooded random taking of human life that you seem to believe). See the following verses: Romans 7:6 - "we have been released from the law"; Galatians 3:25 - "we are no longer under the supervision of the law" Galatians 5:18 - "you are not under law" Ephesians 2:15 - "by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations" There are several others: Col. 2:14; Heb. 7:12; Heb. 8:13, but I suspect your own head is spinning and you've already tuned me out. To answer your next question, Jesus' admonitition "to turn the other cheek" was given to individuals and has nothing to do with the established government's ability to administer the death penalty. You're probably not interested, but see Romans 13:1-4.
In response to:

From Greatness to Whiteness

HouTex Wrote: Apr 22, 2014 11:50 AM
Christianity has freed more slaves than any other cause in history by operating on the hearts and minds of slave-owners.
In response to:

A Letter from Africa

HouTex Wrote: Mar 11, 2014 10:12 AM
I presume not. His word says: "there is no one righteous, not even one" - Romans 3:10. "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Romans 3:23.
In response to:

Willie Robertson for President

HouTex Wrote: Aug 23, 2013 11:11 AM
Willie is the real deal. He's speaking tonight (8/23) at a fund-raiser in Houston on behalf of the Arms of Hope children's home in Medina, TX.
In response to:

The State V. God

HouTex Wrote: Jun 27, 2013 9:53 AM
There is no Equal Protection aguement to be made here. Homosexuals have always had exactly the same right to marry as heterosexuals. The law simply requires that both parties be of legal age, not already married, of mind sound enough to consent to being married and be of opposite sex. Homosexuals that meet those requirements are, as they have always been, as free to marry as heterosexuals.
1 - 10 Next