1 - 10 Next
In response to:

Against Terrorism -- But for What?

Soho1950 Wrote: Jan 24, 2015 1:36 AM
I could have phrased it better. What I should have said is that the terrorists' goal isn't ONLY to get us out of their land, but to destroy us as well. Buchanan seems to be stuck on trying to find a justification for us warring with the jihadis. The justification is self-defense, pure and simple. Your concern about nukes is well founded by the way. What's been happening around the Mideast in the last few years should serve as a warning that the only thing keeping operable nukes out of the hands of these loons is the fact that they haven't overthrown the government of Pakistan - yet.
In response to:

Against Terrorism -- But for What?

Soho1950 Wrote: Jan 23, 2015 1:36 AM
Amazing, simply amazing. The goal of Islamist terrorists isn't to get us out of their lands, it's to destroy everything and everybody in the entire world that doesn't bow down to Allah. Buchanan is becoming increasingly out of touch with the world. His foreign policy theories would be laughable if they weren't so dangerous.
I don't favor federal funding of abortions either. Just one point here - any override of the veto has to be done in Congress. SCOTUS has no power to overturn a presidential veto.
Isn't Liberal logic an oxymoron?
A governmental entity deciding whether someone holds "bona-fide" religious beliefs is precisely the sort of thing prohibited by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The district gets the Royal Bonehead Award for adopting this policy to begin with - it was a sensible decision on their part to repeal it.
We're not talking about tax dollars supporting a religion - we're talking about displays which relate to the holiday at hand. If your local government is purchasing these displays, then you might have an argument, but most nativity scenes are donated and erected by local churches or civic groups. As for the rest of the annual complaints, there are apparently a lot of non-Christians who don't realize that Christmas trees, Santa Claus, etc. have only peripheral connection to the Christian meaning of the holiday, and aren't considered "religious" symbols in their own right. As to Christians being offended by Satanic displays - that goes without saying, but I don't recall any ACLU or FFR- backed lawsuits to have those displays removed.
I believe there is another viewpoint from those of us who don't claim the law is unjust or immoral, but simply don't see why such an infraction rises to the level where it's required to take a perpetrator into physical custody over a violation of it. Give the guy a citation and send him on his way. Having said that, there is the fact that resisting arrest never ends well. Was there too much force used? Perhaps. Should Mr. Garner have resisted arrest? Definitely not. Was this about race? Only in the minds of those that seek to capitalize on it for their own purposes.
And those are her positive qualities.
Way to go, -42. The Democrats appreciate your support.
Could you provide some clarification on the difference between degenerates and criminals and social activists?
1 - 10 Next