Previous 21 - 30 Next
In response to:

School Bans Christian Club... Again

mjohansen Wrote: Oct 06, 2014 5:57 PM
The first amendment doesn't say that the government can ban religious speech as long as it bans all religious speech. It says that the government cannot ban speech on the basic of content, period. Not only can you not allow a religion you like while banning a religion you dislike, but you can't allow non-religion while banning religion. In any case, the school DOES have a religious club: The Gay-Straight Alliance. It takes a position on homosexuality, which is a subject about which there is a great deal of religious debate today.
In response to:

Dr. Emanuel's Death Wish

mjohansen Wrote: Oct 06, 2014 5:46 PM
Yes, it will be amusing to see if Mr Emmanuel really sticks to this commitment when he gets to 75. I wonder if he will say that he is different, that while he may be getting old and sick he still has much to contribute to the economy or too society, unlike all those other doddering old people. What makes his remarks disturbing, though, is that these are not the philosophical musings of a random college sophomore, but the words of someone highly placed in the administration with the power to turn his beliefs into national policy. When he says that he doesn't want medical care after he reaches 75, what he really means is that YOU should not be allowed to receive medical care after YOUR reach 75.
In response to:

Women Lying to Women

mjohansen Wrote: Oct 03, 2014 2:47 PM
A salesman came to my house recently and tried to sell me an alarm system to protect my home and family from burglars. Well of course I threw that jerk right out. How dare he tell me that I should buy an alarm system to protect myself! Why isn't he telling burglars not to rob people, huh? If I want to leave my front door wide open when no one is home, I should be able to do that without having to worry about being robbed! If I want to put my life savings in a plastic bag and leave it on the sidewalk, how dare anyone tell me that this is somehow "inviting" robbery! That kind of talk is just condoning theft culture. The REAL solution to robbery is not for people to lock their doors or keep their money in a bank, but to have public service announcements on television that tell people that robbery is wrong, and to put up signs at the city limits of every town saying "No robbery allowed here". Only then will crime end.
People often say how terrible it was that we used to have "sideshows", where people who were born with physical abnormalities would be put on display to be gawked at, or even laughed at. We're so much more advanced today. Now people deliberately cut off body parts, and instead of getting them psychological treatment, or even laughing at them, we applaud them for their courage and creativity.
In response to:

Bomb or Occupy -- or Neither?

mjohansen Wrote: Oct 02, 2014 2:48 PM
Well, wars don't necessarily end because a defeated AGGRESSOR believes it would be futile to resume the conflict. They can also end when a defeated victim of aggression concludes that further resistance is futile. But yes, wars don't end until one side or the other concludes that continuing the war any longer is futile. SOMETIMES that result can be achieved with one stinging defeat. But often it requires the total destruction of the enemy. Politicians often say they will "send a message" by lobbing in a few bombs or making one quick commando raid. But such actions do not destroy the enemy's ability to continue the conflict; they might just incite them to ratchet up the level of violence. Such "messages" cause death and destruction, often on both sides, while usually accomplishing nothing. If you want to totally destroy an enemy and leave them with no ability to continue the fight, go to war. If you want to send a message, get an email account.
I don't know ... scammers who promise people something for nothing ... Democrat politicians. Sounds like pretty much the same thing to me.
So Republicans created an ad that is original and clever while still getting across key points AND that offends feminists. Sounds like a win/win to me.
In response to:

Reagan Had It Easy in the Cold War?

mjohansen Wrote: Oct 01, 2014 1:22 PM
The present state of world affairs must be absolutely baffling to liberals. Obama did just about everything right. He made his world "apology tour", accepting blame on behalf of America for everything that has gone wrong in the world for the last 400 years, so that everyone would see that Americans were now nice people and qualified to become citizens of the world and they'd all want to now be our friends. But for some baffling reason, terrorist attacks continued, and the Russians still invaded the Ukraine even when Obama asked them to pretty please not do that. Obama withdrew U.S. troops from Iraq so the Iraqis could live together in peace and love and harmony without the U.S. there to incite violence. But for some unexplainable reason, the violence just got worse. Etc. Even though Obama had all the right policies, they didn't produce the results that any rational, thinking person -- i.e. a liberal -- would naturally suppose that they would. It just doesn't make sense.
In response to:

Open Hearts, Open Minds, and Open Legs

mjohansen Wrote: Oct 01, 2014 1:14 PM
Funny how these liberal churches say that they are abandoning doctrines like sin and Hell so that they can appeal to more people and be more popular. And when they do it, they're membership goes down. Could it be that atheists have no reason to join a church no matter how much it waters down the teaching of the Bible, and people who actually believe something don't want to be members of a church that does not? Yes, if you say nothing but platitudes, you will not offend anyone. But you won't excite anyone either.
In response to:

Open Hearts, Open Minds, and Open Legs

mjohansen Wrote: Oct 01, 2014 1:11 PM
Well, they can deny the existence of sin and of Hell. I don't think they have the power to make these things actually cease to exist.
In response to:

Open Hearts, Open Minds, and Open Legs

mjohansen Wrote: Oct 01, 2014 1:09 PM
Please list the Bible verses that define a war of aggression. Then please list the Bible verses that describe a war of aggression as the worst sin of all. Then explain how the Iraq war met this definition. Include quotes from U.S. political and military leaders stating that the goal of the war was to annex Iraqi territory, or show on a map what portions of Iraq were annexed by the U.S.
Previous 21 - 30 Next