1 - 10 Next
...I'll grant he was inarticulate and didn't qualify his statement, but I'm really not sure how it's exactly a "gaffe". It just sounds to me that while he considers gay marriage not as reprehensible as child molestation (which victimizes children), he still considers it as unnatural and misguided as incest (which is a similarly "victimless crime" that nonetheless has consequences). ...Or are you saying that this is somehow a bigoted or foolish stance to take, Ms. Seman? If so, I think you want to examine your knee-jerk reflexes. They're misfiring.
Uncle Sam Walton. Wal-Mart IS the face of America. A model of efficiency, prosperity, and frugality centered on allowing people to pursue what benefits them best in each their own way. The "evil" side of Wal-Mart is always a reflection of what government forces it to do, such as seek overseas production to lower costs because stateside-built products are made too expensive by regulation. Their "monopoly" of the market is the result of lack of competition, because competitors are finding it harder and harder to get any momentum in an economy in which the government squashes small-business ventures. Wal-Mart's problems are rarely, if ever, the result of bad policy purely from the company itself. It's time we started looking at those who are really to blame.
Whoa, whoa, WHOA. This from the same Ginsburg who argued that the U.S. Constitution is inferior to those used in third-world countries? What kind of two-faced B.S. is this? The Constitution doesn't say jack-squat about ANY kind of marriage, and has nothing to do with marriage. How in God's name did she ever pass bar with logic like that?
He never limited it to women. That was something Ms. Andrews inferred for reasons unknown. Mr. Mises went out of his way to condemn sluts of both genders; he did not discriminate. Read the article she linked to, if you doubt me.
That's what I'd like to know. Apparently I can reply to comments but can't make any of my own.
How so? Are you saying that we should not have the freedom of speech to express our disapproval of what we see as immoral behavior? Is the right to fornicate more important to you than the right to hold and express an opinion? Real champion of freedom, you are.
Screw the AP guidelines - he's a man, whether he likes it or not. Well... a male, anyway... Anyone who gets themselves diagnosed with gender identity disorder is basically admitting to having a screwed up MIND... and given that the mind is so much more plastic and mutable than the body, why on Earth would we consider damaging the body for the sake of the damaged mind to be the healthy approach to treating such a disorder? It's ludicrous in the extreme.
"Arms" is defined as weapons and ammunition. It's the first definition in almost any dictionary, even before those limbs we carry them around with. A discussion of that wouldn't get very far. And while there's no actual LAW, per se, by executive order all destructive devices must be registered and a large tax applied, supposedly under the National Firearms act of 1934, but liberally expanded upon. The license to own is specific to each item owned, (meaning you need a separate license for each device) and granting of the license is subject to the approval of the - get this - the TREASURY Department.
Everything else you said was spot-on, but I simply must comment on a brief tangent. ...Why WOULDN'T the right to bear arms cover rocket launchers for private citizens? Don't just dismiss it as ludicrous, ask yourself seriously. ...Is it because they might kill people with them? No, they can do that with regular guns. ...Is it because they might kill a LOT of people with them? No, they can do that with pipe bombs they can make in their garages. ...Is it because private citizens aren't responsible enough to own destructive devices? No, they can own cars - and it's not as if the government is any MORE responsible. ...Or is it just because somehow you trust the government more than the citizenry to have such power? For a libertarian, you might want to get a little introspective on that.
Why embryonic stem cells? Really? The best advancements in stem cell therapy have come from adult stem cell research - and if you REALLY REALLY wanted the cells to work like embryonic ones, you can get ones of equivalent behavior just as easily from placenta and umbilical blood. Adult stem cell therapy works so well because it is PERSONALIZED medicine. It takes your base genetic code from a healthy part of your body, and applies those blueprints to an unhealthy part of your body, thus restoring the unhealthy part to health. That's a simplified explanation, but it's also pretty darned close to how it works. It's darned near like magic. Embryonic stem cells cannot do that because they AREN'T part of your body. They're someone else's. Adult stem cell therapy: Zero chance of tissue rejection by your immune system - because your body is unlikely to attack ITSELF. Embryonic stem cell therapy: High chance of tissue rejection by your immune system - which will become hostile when invaded by tissue that is clearly from another distinct organism.
1 - 10 Next