Previous 11 - 20 Next
In response to:

Still Kicking Around Nixon

mjohansen Wrote: Aug 06, 2014 3:53 PM
Schedule for a Democrat scandal: Step 1: Deny that anything has happened. If it doesn't blow over, step 2: Appoint a commission, and say that it's too soon to judge until the commission has completed its investigation. Step 3: Drag the investigation out until most people have forgotten about the incident. Step 4: If anybody does bring it up again, say that it's old news and they're just dredging up this old story for political points. The schedule for a Republican scandal is totally different, involving demand answers now and bringing it up over and over again for, apparently, at least 40 years.
The rule used to be, If a Republican is caught in wrongdoing, clearly and repeatedly identify him as a Republican. If a Democrat is caught in wrongdoing, don't mention his party affiliation. I see they've moved a step beyond that now.
In response to:

Patrolmen Without Borders

mjohansen Wrote: Aug 06, 2014 3:40 PM
I'm guessing that after the third call you would at best be ignored, and more likely charged with threatening a government official.
In response to:

Patrolmen Without Borders

mjohansen Wrote: Aug 06, 2014 3:39 PM
Umm, how about, "when what they want to do infringes on the rights of others"? Laws against murder, rape, and robbery are also "the government trying to prevent people from doing what they want to do".
Of course the mall owner has every legal right to ban prayer on his property. And I have every legal right to shop somewhere else. I think Christians should just start to stand up and say, "If a business publicly states that they don't like people like us, then we won't offend you by coming to you with our money". Let me make clear that I'm not calling for a boycott of any business owned by a non-Christian. As long as they're willing to be tolerant, I have no problem. It's when they announce that they will not allow prayer in their food court or people wearing Christian T-shirts etc, when they come right out and say that they find our faith offensive, then I say fine, I certainly wouldn't want to offend you. I'll go away.
It's certainly true that the mall owner has every legal right to ban prayer on his property if he so chooses. But this stupid ban is most certainly not the fault of people who engaged in aggressive evangelism. If the mall owner's real concern was preventing people from annoying other shoppers through aggressive evangelism, he could have banned aggressive evangelism. Just because people who pray might also evangelize doesn't mean that it makes sense to ban the inoffensive in order to prevent the offensive. That would be like saying that because someone at the mall beat another customer with a baseball bat, that therefore we will forbid people from wearing baseball caps. Frankly, I find it far more likely that the mall owner is an anti-Christian bigot.
Under other circumstances, I'd give him a pass. It might well have been a simple slip of the tongue. I'm sure CNN and CBS will not mention it or laugh it off as a slip of the tongue. Of course we all know what the media reaction would be if Sarah Palin or Ronald Reagan had said such a thing.
Well, yeah, one global dictatorship would presumably prevent future wars. We could have wide-scale brainwashing to force everyone to conform to government policy, and any trouble-makers who resisted could be shuffled off to concentration camps and there would be peace and harmony. Stalin accomplished something pretty close to this on a just slightly smaller scale. Of course, more people died in Stalin's concentration camps than in World War 2, but at least they didn't die in war, they died in prison. Well, tens of millions of them were starved to death to force them into submission. That's so much better than war, though.
That's right! Let's worry about the things that affect us here! No one from the Middle East is blowing up buildings or killing people here in America, so ... oh, wait.
You hear a lot of talk these days about launching a military strike to "send a message". No. This kind of thinking is what gets you the "cycle of violence", where A bombs B and demands they give in, then B bombs A and demands that THEY give in, etc. War is not a negotiating tactics. War is about forcing the other guy to agree to your demands whether he likes it or not. If you want to destroy your enemy, if you want to render them totally helpless so that they have no ability to do you any further harm no matter how angry they are, go to war. If you want to send a message, get an email account.
Legal immigrants from Asia: No! Illegal immigrants from Mexico: Yes!
Previous 11 - 20 Next