Previous 11 - 20 Next
He pointed out that the oath of office requires congress to defend the Constitution, including the 2nd Amendment, against all enemies, foreign or domestic. The "traitors" are the ones who take that oath but attack our constitutional rights from within. Senator Rubio is not a "traitor" for calling them out. As for "pandering," all he has done is write an article to describe his position on an issue currently being debated in congress. That's not "pandering," it is simply choosing sides. Again, the ones "pandering" are the ones proposing feel-good legislation that will do nothing to solve the actual problem.
In NY, our canal system is dependent on the Thruway tolls. The toll booths were supposed to be dismantled after ten years, but the canal could not be kept open if it was purely self-funded; so we have one more group that continues to lobby for tolls. As for the tolls themselves, trucks use them and are charged more than cars. Since a large portion of the goods we buy are delivered by trucks that travel on toll roads, the cost of those goods includes delivery which includes tolls. And like all taxes, the cost is passed on to the consumer. If they stopped collecting tolls, prices would go down but some other tax would go up.
In response to:

A Real Term Limit

layopinions Wrote: Mar 20, 2013 9:19 AM
This is all well and good, but there is a whole other layer beneath the surface - staffers. Many of these staffers remain even when the representative changes over. If we are to have elected officials with limited experience by design, then the staffers will become even more important and influential as they guide the freshmen through the political process. We may get rid of career politicians only to replace them with interchangeable puppets. Besides, we already have term limits - they're called elections. If they're not working then we need to change ourselves, not the rules. Demand real primary challengers within our own party for a start.
In response to:

Whatever Happened to Free Obamacare?

layopinions Wrote: Feb 04, 2013 1:07 PM
Yes, it's sarcasm. It's sad, though, that it isn't completely obvious. Unfortunately there are people out there who would write this kind of thing and actually mean it.
In response to:

Official Lies

layopinions Wrote: Jan 30, 2013 9:36 AM
"The Social Security trust funds contain nothing more than IOUs" While that's technically true, the "trust fund" is already counted in our national debt. We could borrow money to pay SS recipients without affecting the total debt. For example, if we borrowed $65 billion from China to pay SS this month, that would add $65 billion to China's debt holdings, but subtract $65 billion from the SS trust fund. The sum of the two doesn't change. Put another way, it's like taking out a home equity loan to pay your mortgage. Your total debt wouldn't change, but your mortgage would get paid. If SS recipients don't get their checks, it has nothing to do with the debt ceiling. When the "trust fund" runs out, that will be a different story
In response to:

The Teenage Horror of 'Parenthood'

layopinions Wrote: Jan 25, 2013 12:18 PM
As with most progressive positions, the pro-choice stance is all about avoiding responsibility for your choices. Both the Left and the Right value the freedom to choose. The difference is that liberals also demand to freedom from the consequinces of their choices. The Right understands that with the freedom to choose comes accountability and responsibility. The CHOICE to have unprotected sex was already made. The CHOICE to have an abortion is nothing more than avoiding the consequinces of that first CHOICE - or rather, making the baby suffer the consequinces so you don't have to. They CHOOSE for the baby to sacrifice his ACTUAL LIFE so that the mother does not have to sacrifice her WAY OF LIFE... and they call it freedom. How sad.
In response to:

The Atheist Response to Sandy Hook

layopinions Wrote: Jan 15, 2013 11:46 AM
"As atheists, we truly feel awful for you. And we promise to work for more gun control..." First of all, that's a huge assumption. I would propose allowing concealed carry by responsible teachers and administrators. But other than that, why would an atheist write this; to rub salt in the wound? Just because we cannot offer consolation doesn't mean we would go out of our way to upset them further. Why wouldn't a Christian write this if they were "being honest": "Matthew 7:14 says that few will find the narrow road that leads to Heaven. Unfortunately that means that most of you will burn and never see your children again unless they, too, join you in the eternal fire."
In response to:

The Atheist Response to Sandy Hook

layopinions Wrote: Jan 15, 2013 11:28 AM
As soon as you realize that your actions and your life affects others around you and theirs affects you, it does not take "spiritual benefit" to motivate you to be a good person. If someone could prove to you that there is no God or afterlife, would that make it ok to murder your neighbor and eat the food from his pantry? Of course not. Actions still have consequinces even if there is no final judgement and most people would rather live in a world where we help each other than one where it's every man for himself.
In response to:

The Atheist Response to Sandy Hook

layopinions Wrote: Jan 15, 2013 11:23 AM
"Also, if you are an atheist who helps others then you are a fool." When deciding how to live your life, most people (regardless of their religious beliefs) come to realize that the "Golden Rule" is a pretty good guide. The most logical and reasonable way to make the world a better place is to "treat others how you want to be treated." There are many motivations that lead to this same conclusion: - Make the world better for me - Make the world better for my kids - Make the world better for everyone - Go to Heaven after I die Isn't that last one just as selfish as the first?
In response to:

The Atheist Response to Sandy Hook

layopinions Wrote: Jan 15, 2013 10:14 AM
"They would have to acknowledge that, in terms of consolation, there is no comparison between 'The dead do not suffer' and 'Your child lives on, and you will be reunited with her.'" Fine. I readily acknowledge that atheism doesn't offer much in the way of consolation but that doesn't make your religion true. Is the purpose of religion to ease suffering? For me, the lack of an afterlife makes this life MORE precious, not less. The fact that a human life only takes up a "tiny speck of time" is not an atheist-only view. Don't you also believe that our life is short compared to the eternal afterlife? I choose to do what I can to make THIS life better for those around me. Is that so bad?
In response to:

A Hundred Percent of Nothing

layopinions Wrote: Dec 19, 2012 12:52 PM
Well, part of the problem is the maximum size. Several of those "boxes" are continuations of the previous box. Fixing that would solve some of the "consolidation" problem, but that's out of his hands. In fact, there are several other improvements that most other forums have that would make TH a lot better; but that's a separate discussion. I understand that point that you think he is posting too much, but as long as he's on topic I have no problem with it. What bothers me is the spam posts of random talking points that have nothing to do with the main article.
Previous 11 - 20 Next