1 - 10 Next
You can also counter with - then businesses should not be allowed to be "minority" businesses. If a business is allowed to be a "black" business or a "woman's" business (which entitles them to special tax breaks and tax payer subsidized funding) then why can't a business be a "Christian" business?
#3 - better yet, ask them how the definition of "assault weapon" today compares with the definition of "assault weapon" in 1980.
DoctorX - Do you feel the same way about the Abomination and Holder? I am just wondering.
You mean like the liberal "War on Poverty" launched by that staunch conservative, Lyndon B. Johnson? That "If the government doesn't get involved, people will starve." That one???? The one that has enslaved millions and millions of Americans since it's inception?
bigbi1|10 - Please, go back on your meds and let them treat you. You are obviously delusional.
Bingo! The whacko leftists never wanted it to be a success. They need it to fail to finish the "fundamental transformation of America" from a free country to one enslaved by the government. I for one will die a free man. (Get the hint NSA/Obama?)
In response to:

Standing Up Against Wealth-Shaming

RSava Wrote: Jan 30, 2014 7:08 AM
And your point? It does not mean that you need to forgo wealth to enter the Kingdom. It means you need to love God above all else. The man in the story loved his money more than anything else. The point of the story therefore is not that money is bad, but that the rich man’s focus was wrong. God does not hate rich people. He provides the wealth. He does not want rich people to love their money more than Him. Look at Abraham. God gave him all he had, he was an extremely wealthy man. But he loved God above all else and God continued to bless him. (BTW, how come the Occupy crowd didn't go protest people like Bill Gates or Warren Buffett? Orders from the Imposter-in-Chief told them not to?)
In response to:

The Inequality Bogeyman

RSava Wrote: Jan 28, 2014 7:40 AM
You have obviously never read Mr. Sowell's columns on the sham idea that is known as "income inequality". You state: "Simply put, if the gap between the rich and the poor is widened EVERYONE suffers, if the gap is kept narrow, EVERYONE benefits." This is a false statement. If the gap is kept too narrow there is no incentive to try and reach up.
In response to:

The Inequality Bogeyman

RSava Wrote: Jan 28, 2014 7:34 AM
It is an Ad Hominen attack because clonginus read that term on the Huffington Post or some other left wing blog and thought "Hey, I can use that big term I read the other day ...."
Yes, I see a lot wrong with it. But the Smiths have to keep up with the Jones! (Haven't had a car payment in 8 years now, just bought our third vehicle for cash. Used but a great buy. But those that use the BMW or the new F-250 as a status symbol will never understand. Oh, and our mortgage was paid off 4 years early!)
1 - 10 Next