1 - 10 Next
In response to:

Gay Marriage and the Limits of Tradition

upside22 Wrote: 16 hours ago (5:04 PM)
There is one reason and one reason only for the homosexual push for being allowed to civilly "marry" and that is to push their agenda for acceptance by society as being "normal". "Look at us! We can marry just like heterosexual couples. We are normal too!" If it wasn't for this push for acceptance by society as being "normal" we could have had "civil unions" in place 25 years ago. Same rights, same privileges as "civil marriage". But no, that wouldn't further the agenda of being accepted as "normal". Homosexuality may be "natural" but it will *never* be normal. It is too far out on the edeges of the Bell Curve to ever be normal.
In response to:

Gay Marriage and the Limits of Tradition

upside22 Wrote: Aug 31, 2014 8:34 AM
What the author seems to miss is that MORALS are those beliefs and traditions that contribute to the survival of a society. You do *not* overthrow morals of a society without putting at risk the survivial of that society. It really *is* that simple. Civil marriage is a *entitlement*, not a right. It is just like food stamps. Society *chooses* who it wishes to bestow entitlements on. If it could not choose then we should all be entitled to the same number of food stamps every month, no means testing allowed. *Marriage*, on the other hand, is not an entitlement, it is a natural right. And not a single state has banned homosexual marriage. They have just decided to *not* betow an entitlement upon those marriages.
You are full of malarky! Inversion doesn't get corporations out of paying their "fair share". Did you bother to read the article at all. What happens today is corporations keep their foreign earnings overseas where they are earned. NO US TAXES ARE PAID ON THAT OVERSEAS MONEY. With inversion NO US TAXES ARE PAID ON THAT OVERSEAS MONEY. There is no net impact on taxes paid to the US with an inversion. The Marxist Democrats in this country think they have a Divine Right to any money whereever it exists on the planet -- all to fund their Marxist Utopia. It's the same Divine Right the Kings and Queens of Spain used in the 1400's to rape the New World of its riches. In point of fact the Marxist Democrats have no legitimate claim on any of the money paid to BK by a poor farmer in Vietnam. VIETNAM has a right to tax that money for the benefit of the Vietnam farmer. The US has *no* right to tax any of that money to build a Marxist Utopia.
In response to:

Hey Obama, David Cameron Has a Strategy

upside22 Wrote: Aug 29, 2014 2:16 PM
Cameron came back off vacation after the beheading of Foley. Cameron worked with his people to develop a strategy. Obama? Not so much. 6 minutes after the end of his comments on Foley he was on the golf course laughing and having a good time.
In response to:

A Problem Bigger than Ferguson

upside22 Wrote: Aug 27, 2014 8:48 AM
We don't need more welfare to fix the problem. Institute some sensible changes to the current welfare system. For instance, you cannot get any form of federal welfare unless: 1. Every child has a baby-daddy on the birth certificate. 2. You are either married or receiving child support for every baby (or have a death certificate for the baby daddy). This means welfare will still be available so the liberals will have nothing to scream about. Existing recipients can be grandfathered in. But it *will* mean a change to the incentives associated with welfare. No longer will the incentive be to break up the black nuclear family but, instead, it will be to keep it together. The Marxist Democrats will scream to high heaven over such a change because it will mean losing political power in the black community. But their screaming will identify them for what they are -- hypocrites!
In response to:

A Problem Bigger than Ferguson

upside22 Wrote: Aug 27, 2014 8:35 AM
Your answer is to be found on the south side of Chicago where even the police fear to tread -- leaving the black community a truly awful mess where the Law of the Jungle prevails with only the strong surviving, and even the strong don't survive for long.
I do like the idea of the permanent dye markers, however!
And now the idiot liberals want to swing the pendulum back to where police officers are out-gunned by bank robbers with body armor and fully-auto AK-47's (California) or by snipers in a tower (TX) where the police have to borrow hunting rifles from private citizens in order to effectively respond? Seems like the liberals just can't make up their minds!
It appears to me that the *real* objective being pursued by the protesters is REVENGE and not justice!
It's like the author of this post and several posters didn't actually watch the video of this incident. 1. Journalists have no special dispensation to remain in an area being cleared by police for the safety of the public. 2. The journalists refused to comply with a legitimate order from the police. 3. The police *DO* have the right to arrest those who refuse to follow legitimate orders from the police. I saw nothing wrong in what the police officer did in this situation. I would have done exactly the same to someone disobeying a legitimate order. There were a limited number of police officers trying to clear the area. To stand around arguing with two idiots who thought that they had some kind of special dispensation would have been counterproductive to public safety. There were other areas that needed to be cleared.
1 - 10 Next