Previous 21 - 30 Next
In response to:

Truth 1725

Lib at Heart Wrote: Sep 26, 2012 11:32 AM
Quite often true. But can moral relativism and moral absolutism co-exist? That is, does every action have a moral absolute, or does moral absolutism cover only certain things? For example, there is a moral absolute against murdering someone. But what about littering? Hunting for sport? Cross-dressing? Can a person hold a morally absolute stance on some things, but a morally relative approach to others?
In response to:

Truth 1725

Lib at Heart Wrote: Sep 26, 2012 11:07 AM
Ah, the old "But wait, I can find an example that contradicts yours, so that means your argument is completely wrong" ploy. I didn't see Robert say ALL atheists are good decent people. But because you pick a few high-profile people, you can suggest that Robert's statement is wrong.
Seems like Mitt's gone into hiding since the primaries were over. He was campaigning hard then. Not that I'm bothered by his lazy approach. Just curious is all. I can't recall a presidential candidate who seemed less energetic about the campaign.
As a former Ohioan, I thank God for Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincy. (Actually, helping in the elections are about all Cleveland is good for.) Having said that. I've seen a lot of the rural conservatives changing their tune in recent years. Many friends and relatives back home who have been lifelong Republicans have been voting Democrat the past 4 to 6 years. And Most continue to do so today, even though they are still registered Republicans. (Except my mother-in-law...she actually switched affiliation!)
In response to:

10 Reasons Mitt Will Win

Lib at Heart Wrote: Sep 25, 2012 4:14 PM
I almost wish Romney would win the election. It would guarantee Democrats in the White House for the next generation, assuming there was a country left to govern after Mitt got through with it....
Watching Mitt's presidential campaign, I can't understand how he ever made it through the primaries. Does the man know how to campaign? It seems more like a hobby to him. If you can't put all your effort into this battle, what are you going to do as president?
In response to:

Gov. Romney Was Correct

Lib at Heart Wrote: Sep 20, 2012 11:40 AM
"Poor" people will always exist. There is no economy, with the exception of communism, where all people will have the same wealth (and even in that system, if it were perfect, there would be those more well off than others). The question is not can we eliminate the poor, but how can we help them. Raising their taxes, making life more difficult for them...those are not the answers. As a taxpayer, I do not begrudge those who do not pay taxes. I'd never want to trade places with any of them. Even if it meant I didn't have to pay taxes.
In response to:

Gov. Romney Was Correct

Lib at Heart Wrote: Sep 20, 2012 11:13 AM
Idahoser wrote: "NO income tax is fair. If you must have it, then it must be ONE rate paid by ALL, no exceptions. That's what "Fair" looks like." No, fair is when everyone is left with enough to have a decent living after taxes. The millionaire can afford to pay 35 percent of his income in taxes far more easily than the poor man can afford to pay 5 percent. I have yet to see a rich man who cannot afford the basic necessities due to the tax burden. Yet conservatives want to take more money from those who are already living paycheck to paycheck. And a single rate for all means that the poorest people would be giving the most. Of course, in your reality, that may be "fair." After all, they are only poor because they are lazy "victims," no?
Well JC, if you want to ignore God's word, that's up to you. But you can't deny what's clearly stated in the Bible.
"love thy neighbor" ....yep, bet that sounded really lame to Jesus and his apostles too.
I can't. That writing gives me a headache. I'll say this for Townhall, I may not agree with the content, but with a few exceptions, it's well written. I was just very disappointed with this article. I had expected so much more.
Previous 21 - 30 Next