Previous 11 - 20 Next
I'm not sure about getting "shot on site," but allowing people to have armed assemblies in such an environment is ridiculous and a threat to law and order.
Whatever happened in this shooting, the rioting is unjustified and simply lawless behavior that cannot be tolerated. It's an attempt to enact a political will through mob violence. Such is simply not acceptable in a society that aspires to law and order. The mob enacting its political will is more damaging to social order than even if the police officer is guilty and he gets away with it. All it will do is teach those inclined to such behavior that they can enact their will through mob violence.
In response to:

Is the Criminal Justice System Racist?

Nathan223 Wrote: Aug 17, 2014 4:31 PM
Good point. Difficult to fake those stats. As far as the death penalty, I blame liberals for that. Let's get real: White liberals in wealthier neighborhoods are the most opposed to the death penalty. Surprise! People who murder in such neighborhoods are less likely to have the jury recommend death because of such do-gooder liberals refusing to hand out the appropriate sentence.
In response to:

Is the Criminal Justice System Racist?

Nathan223 Wrote: Aug 17, 2014 2:51 PM
Most of these statistics show why there is the saying "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." These stats are utterly detached from context that makes it seem that the "system" is racist. The reason why blacks are more likely to get caught with drugs than whites is because they tend to be in circumstances where getting caught for such crimes is more likely. Blacks tend to live in poorer, higher crime areas in the first place. Such neighborhoods, white or black, are more likely to be patrolled by cops. Of course it's less likely for suburban white kids smoking pot in their parents' basement to get caught than the black kid who is smoking dope on the porch in Harlem. Cops don't patrol suburban basements because law and order there does not require as much police intervention. This is also compounded by an education system that teaches blacks that they are oppressed and really entitled. On one hand, they are told they are oppressed, on the other, the cops crack down on crime in their high-crime neighborhoods. This leads to a vicious cycle of rebellion against authority due to supposed oppression that is really the cops going about business the way any rational person would, which is not to say the cops are justified in every instance of their exercising authority, though I'm sure there are plenty of white people who have been the victim of poor exercise of law enforcement authority as well. They just don't make the press because it is not convenient for a liberal Democratic agenda.
There's your problem. There was no dictatorship. In fact, it was so much the opposite that some of the colonists had a conniption fit and started rioting when the British Parliament had the audacity to impose some minor tariffs.
"I've seen the evils done by rulers." None of the worst rulers in history were monarchs. If you want to associate the thousand years of European history where monarchs ruled with the likes of North Korea, which I have seen republicans do, go right ahead. Such an association is nothing but ignorant bigotry. "I've seen apparently sane people squander countless hours on movies, TV programs, literature, games, and so on ad nauseam populated by kings and princesses and slaves and wizards." God Forbid people like Royalty!! Get a hold of yourself. You see decadence. I see an ordinary longing for a bit of life's mystery and the natural order of things. As for "slaves" you just added that in despite the fact it was King George III who offered freedom to slaves, not George Washington, and the UK abolished slavery before we did and without violence. "Royalism may not be a big movement in this country, but we're not many steps from dictatorship. If you think that it can't happen here, you're dreaming." You're clearly more interested in getting out your pent up rage rather than perhaps examining the decline of our civilization from Christendom to today's decadent society. You ever consider that we wouldn't be on the verge of dictatorship if we had retained the monarchy. We rebelled over a few pence tax on some tea, and yet the Federal government instituted more oppressive taxes almost immediately. How shocking we're only a couple years ahead of the UK (a UK with zero practical authority for the monarchy) on that front. Hardly a great recommendation for a system of government.
There is little suggestion that the rule of judges is the ideal form of government in Scripture. Originally, the people of Israel were ruled directly by a prophet of God. It was a true theocracy. Obviously, this is ideal. However, we lack prophets. Furthermore, the establishment of the throne of David was God's revealed will for Israel from the beginning. Indeed, it was essential in the history of salvation. The reason too why Jesus is "King of Kings" is that a king who reigns as a king ought to reign is an image of Jesus' reign. This imagery is impossible under a republican system of government. For that reason and many others, that was why monarchy was the dominant form of government at the height of Christendom.
Hold your horses Matt. What's your big beef? It's not like Royalism is a serious movement in the United States. How can you be sick to death of something you've never even experienced?
I'm an Anglican, and that is simplistic view of the history of the Church of England to say the least. And the reason making Catholics prominent is worse than making Protestant prominent is because Roman Catholicism is false and Protestantism is true.
Yes, I am, and I do. I simply believe that America is a British nation and wish the monarchy was restored. Will that every happen? Probably not would be a severe overstatement of those prospects.
"Monarchs use the treasury to enrich themselves and their cronies..." Some might have, but not all. Certainly not as much as the modern politician uses it to buy votes. It's very simple, when the monarch runs out of money and his country enters economic decline, he has to live with the results, or at least his own flesh-and-blood do. Politicians have no incentive to do so outside of it being the right thing to do, but the right thing to do seldom gets anybody (re)elected, even rarer than the birth of a truly benevolent, intelligent heir to a throne. For a democracy, we have to rely on the majority of the population becoming intelligent and moral voters. Regardless of other incentives inherent in the familial possession of the state, we are far more likely to get a good leader by luck of the draw than democratic elections.
Previous 11 - 20 Next