Previous 21 - 30 Next
In response to:

CBS Apologizes for Anti-American Show

sam allen Wrote: Mar 25, 2013 2:33 PM
This episode gave me a great opportunity for me to talk to my kids about propaganda and communism. For them it was a great educational opportunity. I thought it was pretty terrible of Amazing Race to do it, but they probably got their itinerary from government and being leftists themselves simply did not see how offensive it was.
Here is the funny thing. Kim is probably a megalomaniac who really wants attention, not unlike Rodman himself. I mean how could he not be given that he was raised by a megalomaniac who was raised by a megalomaniac. On the other hand, President Obama could possible have a great affect if he did just call Kim. Because of the autocratic nature of Kim's government, he probably has the ability to affect great change in his country and if by massaging his personal ego he could be convinced to lessen the oppression of his own people then a phone call would probably be worth it.
You failed to mention that they are also the victims of a much higher percentage of homicides. Oh and TX Gal, most of those crimes happen in places with the toughest gun laws. The law abiding citizens do not have guns, while the criminal elements and gangs go out of their way to get guns illegally. So will more gun laws really stop the violence in these neighborhoods? Perhaps it is time to allow the law abiding citizens to legal defend their neighborhoods.
Here is the math. Up until the time her husband was elected, Michelle claims that she had never before been proud of her country. So until that time her feeling of disfavor toward America outweighed any feelings of favor. Did she love her country or not? Apparently not really, by her own admission. So only now after her husband is elected has the balance been tipped and now she is proud of America. Up until last week, Rush has extolled the virtues of America regularly for 25 years and probably well before that in his private life. Now he proclaims that because of problems changes that he sees, he is ashamed of the country. A life lived extolling his country versus a whole life lived not being proud of her country. Who is unAmerican?
"Prosecutor's assistant" is exactly right. I have seen this born out in a number of cases in our local courts.
Unless you have the money to hire your own attorney you may as well not even have an attorney. It costs the DA nothing personally to take a trial to court, but it bankrupts the average family. In the meantime, because of the proliferation of laws and regulations the prosecutor with the full weight of the law can make life miserable by threatening your family or looking for any number of other offenses. Even though the local judge was pretty fair, they really do not have the power. By the time it gets to the judge it is already plead out most of the time because the DA can threaten such huge fines and jail time, just like this case. It may be legal, but such unrestricted use of power is often immoral.
"Worse, prosecutors have nearly unlimited discretion in choosing what charges to file." Yes, we have too many laws on which to act, but this sentence is where I have really seen the damage done. On almost all levels of government the prosecutor has tremendous power that is virtually unregulated by the people. As a pastor, I have been to court with a number of people and seen minor offenses of drug possession get handled as major cases. In another case, I saw what was at most a manslaughter case (where a man was stabbed while choking his girlfriend), and yet she got charged with 2nd degree murder. She took a plea agreement, because the public defenders are a joke.
In response to:

A Raw, Public Deal for American Worker

sam allen Wrote: Jan 29, 2013 11:31 AM
So someone with a stable job who is very skilled in that position, can be out of work with little or no warning in under a month, and the people who made that decision face no personal, monetary, or professional consequences. Treating people simply as commodities is not right, and while in the short term these types of decision may make a company more profitable, it makes out culture less human. CEO's and managers become callous. Workers become jaded. Families are ripped apart because of lack of stability. I think a laissez faire system could work if we had moral people up and down the ranks, but frankly our culture no longer has a moral code, so the economic system reflects this.
In response to:

A Raw, Public Deal for American Worker

sam allen Wrote: Jan 29, 2013 11:25 AM
In our small community in central Minnesota we have several small companies that employ between 100-250 people. When they go from private local ownership to being bought out by large multinationals (as several have), I then get really worried because the decision being made about the future of the company are now thousands of miles away. Any local personal who has invested their time, talents, and life in that company for years, is now at the whims of people who don't know them and do not necessarily care about them. As a result not long after the ownership change has taken place, several companies have uproot completely, not because the company is losing money, but because various other concerns.
In response to:

A Raw, Public Deal for American Worker

sam allen Wrote: Jan 29, 2013 11:19 AM
Bill, I know you are going to receive a ton of criticism from laissez faire types who see that monetary influence as the only way to measure anything of value, but this situation highlights a problem I have been seeing with our current system. Ownership as represented by stockholders is so far removed from the consequences of the decision of the company that they (we as mutual fund holders) can not see any other stakeholders in the company. Large corporations become very similar to governments then because the decisions that people with the power make do not really come back and hit them personally. In the past, if you owned a company in a community, you had friends that worked for you. You had more than a monetary interest in them.
In response to:

Piers Morgan Wants to Amend Moses

sam allen Wrote: Dec 28, 2012 2:47 PM
Michael, perhaps Warren was not as elegant as you would have liked in his responses to Piers, but none of us is perfect. He was fairly clear about the authority and perspicuity of scripture versus the changing opinion of the modern world. Also, please do not use John 7:53-8:11 in an article defending scripture. The manuscript evidence is clear that it was not originally in the text. It is a great story that seems consistent with the character of Jesus, but it should not be used to make theological point like it was scripture. Treating this passage like the rest of scripture leaves you open to the charge that you are not careful with the text which I know you are in other areas.
Previous 21 - 30 Next