Previous 11 - 20 Next
In response to:

My Problem With the Republican Party

Think Freely Wrote: Mar 10, 2014 8:31 PM
The main goal should be to draw into the election the vast majority of people who do not currently vote because they have lost faith that their vote will actually change anything. The success of the tea party in 2010 was Precisely because NEW voters came into the roles for the very first time. We need candidates who appeal to those voters - the currently unlikely voters. This is why the current republican party does not like the tea party. It upsets their current power base by bringing in people known to disagree with them. The primaries are still the place to run the election. The key is how to use new tools to reach these non-voting people. I know many of these personally. They want a candidate they can truly trust. At the same time, I would rather vote for someone who agrees with me 80%. But I remember clearly the congressman (democrat in 1994) from Oklahoma who would talk conservative at home and then vote radically liberal in the congress. He lost to Tom Colburn who spent 6000 dollars on his own campaign.
In response to:

Who is Richard Greenleaf?

Think Freely Wrote: Mar 10, 2014 12:28 PM
Well, Mike's column is the third hit, way to go!
I see, so this means that she understands that what she did was illegal and explains why she is pleading the 5th.
A right is only good when it is defended against those it offends.
But this is precisely about freedom of Religion. Our founding fathers fled to the new world to escape persecution and to be able to worship God according to their conscience. That is the freedom enshrined in the restriction on the Government's establishing a particular denomination as the State Church. It is enshrined in the restriction on the government to in any way restrict the free exercise thereof.
They crucified him because he pointed out that what they did was evil. It was Jesus who pointed out that in the beginning that God created them Male and Female and that what God has joined together let not people separate. Matthew 19:1-12
Yes, that is right. There is no reason to interfere with that freedom.
This is hardly the path of a Democratic America. A democratic america voted in 30 states to define marriage as between one man and one woman. But unelected judges are forcing them to accept a position against their will. The unelected media is propagandizing the moral acceptability of homosexuality and the unelected business community only sees dollars as worthy of worship.
Oh, I see, but these customers can stand in judgement - to the point of total disenfranchisement of a business. Hypocrite. All you can do is call names. You don't dare engage in any actual debate about the principals involved. The major point is if a person should be forced to engage in an activity or promote a point of view they find reprehensible. In other words, should a Gay owned printer be forced print materials for Focus on the Family?
@Rich, "You don't debate at all. You lecture on what you believe to be correct and refuse all other arguments." No, I do debate. I have linked laws on obscenity. I have pointed out the debasement of society. I have pointed out the effect on police and trials of actual rape victims. I have clearly shown that this is a line that should be drawn. The arguments in return are based on the thought that government cannot be trusted. That government is essentially evil and must be avoided. I have pointed out that these are arguments for anarchy. Libertarians want to isolate sexual activity as though it is a “victimless” crime. When the victims are pointed out, they ignore them and turn their backs. I am not arguing for a general censorship on all porn, but for the blocking of this type of rape porn. I am lecturing? I am being called a communist – that is a lecture toward me. I am being told that my arguments will empower evil governments. That is a lecture toward me. I am being asked to prove unprovable contentions that have clear logical connections but are not allowed to be investigated. I agree, that the essential moral quality of a people cannot come from Government. But I am arguing that if we cannot draw this line. If we cannot clearly as a society say – this is too far. That we are lost in anarchy and ruin. Perhaps we are lost and I am a fading Jeremiah.
No, I do debate. I have linked laws on obscenity. I have pointed out the debasement of society. I have pointed out the effect on police and trials of actual rape victims. I have clearly shown that this is a line that should be drawn. The arguments in return are based on the thought that government cannot be trusted. That government is essentially evil and must be avoided. I have pointed out that these are arguments for anarchy.
Previous 11 - 20 Next