1 - 10 Next
In response to:

A Policy Change To Build Black Wealth

Michael2502 Wrote: Sep 02, 2013 12:35 AM
"We should also be aware that Social Security taxes are paid just up to $113,700 in income. After that you are free. So Social Security is clearly biased against wealth accumulation of lower income individuals." Exactly. I don't see why we all can't be grownups and realize that Social Security has nothing to do with getting out what you pay in, and therefore eliminate the cap on Social Security taxes altogether.
Next thing you know, it'll be illegal for Christian photographers to turn down porn shoots.
In response to:

Do We Really Want a Cold War II?

Michael2502 Wrote: Aug 09, 2013 2:10 PM
Hear, hear, on America's lack of moral authority, Pat.
Having read the Starr Report, I find it hard to believe that Clinton was giving that congressman on the phone his full attention while Monica was blowing him under the desk.
The story for Adam and Steve is for them to recognize that their relationship shouldn't exist in the first place and consequently deserves no government subsidies.
In response to:

The Question Should Be Why

Michael2502 Wrote: Jul 25, 2013 2:44 AM
Actually, I just learned that while "white" and "African-American" (i.e., black) are races, whereas Hispanic is not a race but an ethnicity. (So it's almost like alignment in D&D -- white Hispanic = Lawful Good).
That column was so innocuous it's insane that any atheist got offended by it.
I wonder where Lambro got his information? Try this recounting of the facts on for size: http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/2013/07/17/zimmerman-verdict-part-3-who-started-it/
In response to:

When Insanity Becomes Reality

Michael2502 Wrote: Jul 25, 2013 1:30 AM
Kinda torn on this. On the one hand, I can totally believe that some people's brains might be telling them, "I'm male!" when their bodies are female -- wouldn't surprise me one bit if biological errors like that occur in nature, same as other biological errors like homosexuality. The question is what should we accept as the reality -- the external nature of the child or the internal nature of the child? The Bible is clear: The external takes precedent over the internal. That's why both gay sex and cross-dressing are disallowed: If you're a man, you're supposed to act like a man, and if you're a woman, you're supposed to act like a woman. The imperfect natural processes that produce mistakes like LGBTI conditions are not supposed to govern how society behaves any more than defects in automobiles should be used to set safety standards. Sadly, that means (if we were able to enforce biblical standards in society) that would mean a lot of LGBTI people will be unhappy, not being able to freely express who they are. But that's true of all of us, generally speaking -- we bite back our anger, we curtail our deceit, we restrain our sexual desires. Just because we genuinely want something, even if we are biologically programmed through no fault of our own to want it, doesn't mean we should have it. Either you accept that there is a way society is supposed to work, or you don't. And "supposed to be" is the one category into which the LGBTI conditions simply do not fall. Consequently, it is not these abnormal conditions that should govern us. Rather, we should govern them, as far as the law will allow us -- which isn't very far anymore, sadly.
Ms. McAuley's new stance is a conservative one but not a Christian one. Christians care more about people's happiness in the next life than this life. How can any Christian endorse throwing out laws that discourage people from living in sin and consequently going to hell? After all, what government approves and subsidizes, it encourages. Ultimately we Christians have to ask which is more important: liberty or eternity?
1 - 10 Next