1 - 10 Next
In response to:

The Media and the Mob

SFLBIB Wrote: Aug 20, 2014 5:23 PM
and it's going to get worse. Holder is in town to make sure the grand jury comes to the "right" decision. If they don't, he will file a civil rights violation suit to get jurisdiction and prosecute from a federal position. It has been done before [Rodney King affair], and I predict it will be done again.
In response to:

The Media and the Mob

SFLBIB Wrote: Aug 20, 2014 5:14 PM
That's why the Army's service pistol was a .45.
In response to:

The Media and the Mob

SFLBIB Wrote: Aug 20, 2014 5:12 PM
" The ignorant can be fooled incredibly easily. " Just look at the last two elections as proof of that. No one ever stopped to ask "Hope for what?" ... "Change what?"
In response to:

The Media and the Mob

SFLBIB Wrote: Aug 20, 2014 5:09 PM
I haven't found an article that states what model pistol he was carrying. I thought six shots was the max it would hold. Do you have more info? Thx.
In response to:

Exposures

SFLBIB Wrote: Aug 13, 2014 4:54 PM
Not only that, but it violates the Golden Rule.
In response to:

Exposures

SFLBIB Wrote: Aug 13, 2014 4:52 PM
We just continue knock off over 1 million babies to solve 1% of the problem.
In response to:

Saving Private Bryan

SFLBIB Wrote: Aug 13, 2014 4:37 PM
I would highly recommend that ALL students at Bryan get a current copy of their transcripts, whether they have graduated or not. If the school does go belly-up, it might take quite a while to get a copy, if at all.
The law has to treat persons similarly only those who are in substantially similar circumstances. The law does not, and cannot, treat an 18-month old girl the same in all respects as an 18 year-old man. When it comes to marriage, a white person and a black person of opposite sexes are in the same situation as two white persons of opposite sexes. The Virginia statute prohibited only mixed-race marriages involving a white person. Two non-white persons of different races could get married under VA law. The law treated similarly situated persons differently. Hence the law was overturned. Homosexuals are not even close to being in a similar situation as heterosexuals because of the state's interest; i.e., a compelling, public interest. What is society's compelling public interest in it? One is the proper bearing and rearing of the next generation of citizens and taxpayers. If it weren't for children, there would be no need for marriage; same-sex arrangements have only personal purposes for marrying, but the government doesn't care who you love and want to live with. The government has no interest in those based on sodomy. Reynolds v. United States was the 1878 Supreme Court decision that upheld the constitutionality of anti-polygamy laws. It was a landmark decision. It defends the idea that American democracy rests upon specific family structures, which are legitimately protected by law. Polygamy leads to the patriarchal principle, . . . which, when applied to large communities, fetters the people in stationary despotism, while that principle cannot long exist in connection with monogamy. ... For all their differences, Brigham Young and Chief Justice Waite would have agreed that monogamy and polygamy give rise to divergent governing principles. Polygamy Versus Democracy You can't have both. by Stanley Kurtz Likewise, same-sex "marriage" will lead to divergent governing principles of which we are just beginning to encounter. Having said that, let me add that a court that can place a white man's right to property over a black man's right to freedom and a woman's right to liberty over an unborn's right to life is a court that can rationalize anything.
In response to:

Menstrual Activism

SFLBIB Wrote: Jul 28, 2014 4:56 PM
Problem? What problem? They have to diversify their faculty because ... "diversity is our strength." Now all they need is a course in wet dream activism, and they'll be good to go.
In response to:

Defining Life

SFLBIB Wrote: Jul 26, 2014 1:19 PM
This is the exact same debate using the exact same arguments as the Valladolid debate in which Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda argued that the Indians [in the New World Spanish colonies] were less than human and required Spanish masters to become civilized. His opponent, Bartolomé de Las Casas, maintained that they were fully human and that forcefully subjugating them was unjustifiable. It is also the same debate as the Dred Scott case where the Supreme Court agreed that slaves were not fully human. It is also the same debate as the Roe v. Wade case where the Supreme Court agreed that the pre-born are not fully human. Anyone notice a pattern here? Whenever the decision of who is a human is subjective, it will necessarily exclude some weak segment of society [usually because someone’s financial interests are at stake]. That's why the determination must be based on objective criteria, or criterion: so no one is left out. All this talk about when brainwaves start is subjective, and who knows if that is really a good determination in the first place? The baby's heart starts to beat before the mother knows she's pregnant anyway. Can a heart start beating without brainwaves operating? The best we have now is the human genome. If it [whatever "it" is] has a complete human genome, then it is human, and all human beings are due equal justice i.e., life, liberty, and property [in that order] from all other human beings. The Supreme Court must have forgotten this because it placed the mother's right to privacy [liberty] above the baby's right to life. Just like in Valladolid, Dred Scott, and Roe v. Wade, they were just rationalizing to be expedient, when big bucks were at stake. And all this business on “forcing your beliefs on others” is just a smokescreen. In any organized society, someone’s views are going to prevail. We were supposed to have solved this in 1789. So if you expect the same basic human rights, life, liberty, and property, as others, you have to accord them the same.
1 - 10 Next