1 - 10 Next
In response to:

The Left's Contraception Deceit

jdelligatti Wrote: Mar 26, 2014 3:32 AM
If the girl in that picture only realized the statement she was really making about her personal perspective, which is that she can't conceive of saving herself for the kind of guy who would say "we're pregnant" if she got knocked up. She also doesn't think unborn babies are killable. I'm glad our country is starting to get it together on that topic. Thanks Rand Paul and others who spearhead that effort.
In response to:

Utah Not Recognizing Gay Marriages

jdelligatti Wrote: Jan 09, 2014 1:49 AM
Time to throw out that LGBT activist judge. Homosexuals cannot marry - it's impossible. Recognizing homosexual relationships as marriages would be deceiving the public. I can't even fathom how a judge could rule that a homosexual relationship could have any legitimacy at all. There is nothing in the Constitution that says that the public must adopt that lie. If you want to be considered married, you have to qualify like everyone else - and that means finding a mating partner of the opposite sex that you agree to be with for the rest of your life. I may want to be a fighter pilot; but if I don't qualify, there's nothing in the law that says that the world must still afford me the equal right of being a fighter pilot. It's not about rights or about some equality issue - it's about a special kind of responsibility placed on the heads of heterosexual couples who choose to mate - and about society's obligation to foster and not hinder the fulfillment of that obligation. How could a real judge miss that fact?
Misspoke over and over and over... . At some point, he needs to be charged with fraud.
Looks like TownHall could use some more writers. It's easier to boycott than to add additional support - especially in an economy like this. Apple and Netflix both lost about 25 percent since advertising "gay pride" sections to their media selections - and that's during a time where all stocks are getting the artificial boost from hyper-inflation (due to Obama doubling the dollar supply). This is not a "conservative" vs "liberal" situation - it's a "moral" vs "immoral" situation. It just happens that the immoral party has found a comfortable home within the Democrat party - the party historically supporting racism and sexism - now abortion (a facade of women's rights), and alternative sexuality (a facade of racial/civil rights) – both which are actually "population-reducing" agendas in disguise. And the Democrat party can't get rid of the immorals without losing a huge chunk of its activism power. In the short term, they infiltrated the Ron Paul party to try to keep Mitt Romney from becoming the nominee (a blatant voter-supression campaign – remember the "no 1144" efforts?). They did get their payout of legalized marijuana and same-sex marriage passed in some of the already weaker states; however, they can't survive long-term within the Republican party (which has too much activist strength on its own - namely the core Romney supporters). Ultimately, they did help get Obama reelected too - proving their value and paying their rent to the Democrat party. The "immorals" aren't just people who act immorally, they're people who promote immorality. They're the Occupiers, LGBTP (alternative-sexuality movement), the Atheists, and the socialist/nationalists. They're lazy, immoral, and devious – choosing to lie and mislead, and to infiltrate, and to damage the efforts of their opposition rather than take the high road, honesty, open coordination with party officials, and hard work like the Tea Party has done in the Republican party. Sure, most people have a natural disposition to moral weakness in one area of their life or another. This becomes more of an issue of differentiating between those who acknowledge weakness vs those who actively promote gross immorality. This new holy war becomes more defined as the Immorals vs the Immor(t)als. Again, this is not simply a Republicans vs Democrats issue.
Why would we care what people who are here criminally and who have no respect for our laws think about our morality or our moral laws?
In response to:

Sex and the Military

jdelligatti Wrote: Jun 12, 2013 4:50 PM
The article notes that "The real question is whether either sex functions as well with the other sex around. If you don't think either sex finds the other sex distracting, you are ignoring thousands of years of experience around the world." DADT essentially devalued virtue in the military. It already had enough problems, but this made it worse. Fraternization instances have also skyrocketed according to a recent Navy retiree familiar with the issue. During the DADT policy enactment and its later repeal, all military men instantly became non-consenting pornography to the homosexuals among whom they now trained. Shared showers, stall-less toilets, tight "butt-to-groin" formations and other close physical activity now provide unavoidable opportunities for homosexual excitement and encounters. As where straight men couldn't go through bootcamp with a spouse or girlfriend, now homosexuals could. Homosexuals can be stationed together and can openly go on six-month deployments with a sex partner - a romantic cruise for a testosterone-filled sex fiend basking in an immodest co-ed environment. Imagine the implications of having co-ed living, showering, tent-sharing, and physical activities in the military. That's what homosexuals essentially have. With this increase in on-the-job sexual freedom and lax attitudes surrounding sexual morality and sexual fraternization, it doesn't only affect homosexuals, it affects everyone serving in the military - including heterosexuals.
In response to:

Boy Scouts: A Disheartening Betrayal

jdelligatti Wrote: Jun 04, 2013 5:11 PM
Born that way or not - the killer gene may present some unusual urges for the unfortunate person born with that gene; however, the gene isn't what makes a killer kill. And regardless of the origins of this unfortunate gene, killing ought not be esteemed with the same valor as a court sentencing to death or death by natural causes. Likewise, regardless of whether or not someone's homosexuality is due an inborn disposition or inclination, it's morally wrong to express, promote or act on. Everybody has temptings to do things that are not good. We ought not say that simply because someone has an urge to do something, that they ought to automatically feel good and like those potential actions are acceptable to society. What does the action contribute to society and even to the people involved. Somehow, homosexuals have managed to find special exception from morality, from guidelines, and from fundamental and morally based laws. I can't send my girl to cub scouts or bring my wife to boot camp with me, but a homosexual has a free pass - and in all reality, an added risk and burden imposed on those who accommodate their behavior. I'm extremely disheartened to see the BSA drop "morally straight" as a value and a protection for the boys. After three generations of BSA Scouting, I have to quit, and my boy won't be allowed to participate either. The BSA endorsement of alternative sexuality has trumped my religious identity and values. I say it's easier for a boy to deny his sexuality than for me and my boy to deny God and the values and motivations to choose the right that were instilled in us - and perhaps our innate and immutable disposition to denounce evil and to promote good.
Ann, I appreciated your article until I got to the part about homosexuals... . I know homosexuals. What they do is immoral. They may do other things that are good, but none of those good things somehow make the immoral things good by virtue that they happen to be embodied in the same person.
Why doesn't Obama give them his paycheck seeing as how he's made millions off of his books (which were marketed off his presidency).
lol -10% is nothing compared to four years of unemployment and unsteady employment due to his stupid economic policies and lack of dedication to freeing up the private sector. I and my family suffered because of him.
1 - 10 Next