1 - 10 Next
Brings to mind the time I tried to politely ask my wife if she couldn't dress a little sexier when we went out together. She replied that she didn't think it was appropriate to dress immodestly in public. So I said okay, I understand that, how about dressing a little sexier when we're home alone together? She replied, "What's the point of getting dressed up if we're not going out?" (BTW My idea of "sexy" was pretty much "something other than sweat pants, army boots, and a flannel shirt.")
Umm, no. When my wife left me, the court split everything we had pretty much 50/50: She got all the assets, and I got all the debts. Plus I had to pay her alimony and child support for 17 years. The divorce decree said that she could not take the children and move out of state without prior approval from the court, but she did anyway, cutting me off from my children. I am not an isolated case.
I've often had conversations with liberals where I'll say, for example, "You know, if you make it to easy to collect unemployment benefits, some people are going to decide that it's easier to collect unemployment than to work." And the liberal instantly howls with outrage, "How dare you poor people like that! No one WANTS to be unemployed! Everyone wants to have a job. But our corrupt evil capitalist system just makes it impossible ..." The idea that there might be some number of lazy people in the world strikes them as crazy and impossible and an insult to all the poor and unemployed people.
The argument is doubly stupid. Because even if we accepted that what he said back in 2012 was a mistake, then it still proves that an intelligent person reading the bill could reasonably conclude that this is what it meant. So his present statement that anybody saying that that is what it meant is crazy is just ... crazy. But not to worry. I'm sure Obama will just declare that he has a pen and a telephone and he is amending the law to say whatever he decides he wants it to say today.
In response to:

How Our World Fell Apart

mjohansen Wrote: Jul 24, 2014 5:28 PM
America was hired to do this job by NATO in 1946.
What if Israel bombed Rockville, Maryland? Well, I assume Maryland would just put up a sign that says "No Bombs Allowed", and then of course the Israeli planes would have to turn around and go home.
If Israel DID bomb Rockville, Maryland, would Rockville have the right to shoot back?
What an interesting line of reasoning! It would be obviously immoral to attack and kill innocent people who were doing you no harm. Therefore, it is immoral to defend yourself when attacked by a hostile army. Yeah, that makes sense. Oh, and by the way, when we say that it would be wrong to kill innocent people who are not doing you any harm, of course that doesn't mean that we condemn Hamas for attacking and killing innocent Jews who are not doing them any harm. That's different.
In response to:

Defining Life

mjohansen Wrote: Jul 23, 2014 4:39 PM
Umm ...yeah.
1 - 10 Next