Comments by roflcopter

Written on Conn. gun law seen as model for Congress, states :

I give you credit for trying to pass along factual information and logical conclusions to people like Moonie who I consider beyond hope.
Most of the time I just skip over her comments since they are always the same George Soros conspiracy theory.
The kind of person who is prone to see conspiracies everywhere is not in my opinion capable of being reached with mere will need to catch Moonie on a day when she is not off her meds.... few and far between unfortunately....but good for you for thinking she is not beyond hope. Maybe the health care reform will make her meds more available...ha ha

Like you, I buy my health insurance for myself, and my wife gets hers through her employer ( she pays $480 per month and her employer matches that). The health reform will not affect us personally either.


Thanks Skinny. I think many of the people who post would get along with each other even with their very different positions, if they sat around a dinner table and shared their stories, experiences, opinions. Most people pretty much want the same thing - to be able to work and earn a decent living, to raise their family , to get a little enjoyment out of life.
I think we come to our different opinion sin large part based upon what life experiences we have encountered. People have more in common than what makes them different.
Good conversation. Thanks.


Paladin is deflecting rather than face the obvious - a properly done background check and/or limits on styles of weapons has the potential to save lives. So it is reasonable question to ask - how many elementary school children are you willing to sacrifice just so that guys can buy weapons they WANT but which they do not need to defend themselves or hunt?

"Columbine took place during the previous weapons ban" does not show that no lives were saved when other gun incidents either never happened, or a less lethal weapon was selected resulting in less deaths.

Since Oklahoma City we do not prohibit commercial grade fertilizers, but we do require the purchaser to show ID and the purchases are recorded. Fertilizer has a legitimate common use, assault style weapons do not.

Yes, the young kid was where the problem source lies, and his mother who kept guns around him, but better mental health evaluations will only catch some of the future tragedies before they happen. We are trying to reduce deaths with common sense regulations.
I am saying since there is no need for an assault style weapon just to defend your home against an intruder and no one carries an assault style gun under their jacket for self defense - it is reasonable to stop selling these weapons with no legitimate purpose if it has the potential to prevent elementary school children from being mowed down.

" We need to RIGOROUSLY enforce the existing laws" is a deflection again, because the existing laws allow assault style weapons and often allow gun show purchases without background checks.

Paladin, you have no worthy arguments.

OK I may own my own business, but I do need to get my butt to work eventually today.


( it was too long to post - continued...)

When my wife had one of her miscarriages and we knew the baby had died around 4 months in, she wanted them to induce labor rather than do a 'D and C'. We knew it didn't really matter because our baby had already died, but we couldn't stand the thought of it being cut up into pieces in the procedure. When he was still-born I held him in the palm of my hand, no longer than 7 inches long. I could see his eyelashes and his fingerprints. He looked perfect, but obviously something had gone wrong.

I am conflicted on the abortion issue. Personally my wife and I would always urge someone to have their baby and adopt it out - never consider abortion. But I don't know if my perspective on this is the only perspective - it is the most difficult topic for me to argue because it is not merely differing opinions - it is a defenseless life - when do we draw the line? We can't force our religious beliefs upon others, but we can still view abortion as wrong secularly.
Some even argue that using condoms defeats God's will. That seems no different than abstaining from sex certain times of the month for the very purpose of preventing pregnancy.

Scalia wrote about gun control ""Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. " All of our freedoms and rights overlap and conflict with other freedoms and rights. On abortion I am hesitant to assume that my personal view on abortion should be enacted into law for everyone else to follow. I prefer to let citizens make their own decisions when it comes to abortion and I wish Christians would be as fervent about funding preganancy centers as they are about yelling about abortion...but that freedom to decide for yourself has a life or death impact on a defenseless baby... and whether I view, or you view, or others view a 2 month fetus as "not life yet" doesn't mean it is not life.
It is a very difficult issue for me to form concrete opinion.


Paladin wrote: 'Any time someone uses the "if it prevents one death, it's worth it" that person loses all credibility with me.'

OK, Skinny has decided that one death is too many - thank you. I agree with you. ( now I guess we both lost credibility with Paladin - ha ha)

On the separate unrelated issue of abortion I will be honest with you and knowingly invite your scorn.
I argued with a friend who is in favor of allowing abortions once and said to her " Oh, that is how we differ. You think your daughter should be able to get an abortion because "it is her body". I don't think she should be able to get an abortion because I view the baby is a person with rights, you view the baby as your daughter's possession"

However, sometimes I might post a comment criticizing lawmakers for limiting abortion rights. I am offended by their certainty that THEY know what is right, THEY know better than some other citizen who has formed a different opinion.

But it is a difficult issue. My friend is a Christian too. Yet she views abortion from the perspective of her daughter having rights to her own body. I viewed it from the babys' perspective. I told her if Grandma was in the hospital unable to communicate with us, and we were wondering whether it was time to pull the plug...we would ask ourselves " what do we think Grandma would want?"
Why don't we frame it like that from the perspective of the baby - who has life, but has no voice?


in response to 1776:

Guns for me is just like putting on a watch and I am as comfortable with them as most people today are with their cell phone. They for me are a potential source of food, protection for myself and family and a recreational source of fun for me and my family. I grew up with guns and they have been a part of my life even before I cast my first vote. I trained and used guns extensively in the military and I took an oath to uphold the constitution, all of it not just some of it. The 2nd to me is just as important as the others.

I have never lost a loved one from a fire arm and if I did may feel different, but to be honest when I heard about the Newtown massacre I felt terrible but I would have felt the same if I had heard the same number of children were killed by an incompetent bus driver or if a meteor had hit the school. I know that sounds callous to some but like I said I never had that happen to me and if I did I may not feel the same, I don't know.

As far as what really happened at Newtown, that being a mental health person deciding to do harm to people with guns that was purchased by his mother I would say that if you don't really know guns don't buy guns, especially if you don't know guns and think that introducing them to a person who equally doesn't know guns and is mentally ill is a good idea, you shouldn't be buying guns! To ask me to give my rights because a mentally ill person committed a crime is not justified in my book. I believe its bull for someone that has never exercised a right to ask people who do to give up that right. The lady that thought once a magazine has been emptied is no good and as a result of emptying a magazine it would decrease the number of magazines in circulation is in no position to tell me anything about what I should have or shouldn't have when it comes to guns! She obviously was speaking strictly from an agenda point of view, if not she would have went out and shot a gun herself, at least that way she and the millions like her could have brought a valid argument to the table. Trying to ban something you were to lazy to find out about yourself is dangerous in itself!

There is no valid argument for banning semi automatic rifles or parts for those riffles in my book!
I will not lose one ounce of liberty in favor of the criminal, I just won't do it anytime or any day.

I like this last comment from 1776.

It is heart felt and honest. and I can't find a single falsehood within it - all factual.

1) he describes how he is familiar with guns and states 3 legitimate purposes fro owning a gun - hunting, self defense, and recreation.

2) he is proficient with a gun, not someone like my father-in-law that buys a gun but doesn't learn proper use and safety.

3) "The 2nd to me is just as important as the others".
He doesn't emphasize one part of the constitution over the others and here at least doesn't exaggerate what the 2nd Amendment covers. ( I think the common refrain " I am a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment" is a silly statement - as if someone only can support only parts of the constitution)

4) he admits that he has never lost a loved one due to a firearm accident, and admits perhaps he might feel differently if that had happened - you have to appreciate that kind of honesty and self-awareness.

5) he expressed feeling terrible about the Newtown tragedy, while others seem to want to pretend it didn't happen

6) he criticizes people who express their opinions but have almost no knowledge of facts. He used an ignorant gun law proponent as an example, I would have used an ignorant gun law opponent as an example - but we agree that ignorance isn't helping the conversation.

7) I agree with his last comments because of the qualifier " in my book".

No name calling, no lies about the facts, and personal opinion is expressed as personal opinion. Excellent.

We probably disagree on some things.
It is already established by the Supreme Court that the 2nd amendment gives citizens the right to own hand guns and rifles. It probably does not protect assault style weapons - that has not been clarified yet. Even Scalia wrote that "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose...." and there was no successful constitutional challenge to the decade long 1994 assault weapons ban.

But there was no over-extension of the 2nd amendment expressed in his comment. We should all post comments as carefully expressed as his.


Skinny, tell me how many elementary school children you are willing to see die so that guys are spared the inconvenience of background checks and limits on styles of weapons...

you finally answer in your opinion how many children you would be willing to sacrifice so that guys can go shoot up watermelons in the field....and then I will tell you my honest opinion on an unrelated issue - abortions.


I am not seeing any decent counter arguments.

Moonie is on her standard George Soros rant, Skinny is shifting the debate to abortion, and Paladin isn't on the board with any response.

Still waiting...the proposed background checks and ban on some weapons will produce an inconvenience to some people -

how many slaughtered elementary school children ( since Paladin suggests saving just one child isn't worth the inconvenience)
are we willing to sacrifice so that guys can buy assault style weapons so they can go to the range and blast watermelons into fragments?

Paladin brought it up and I think it is a reasonable question.


It will never be possible to measure how many children do not die...this is hypothetical so that Paladin can define how many dead children are worth avoiding the inconveniences of new gun laws...he said "if only one" was not a valid position.


Paladin, you bring up a good point.

"if it prevents one death, it's worth it" that person loses all credibility with me, you wrote.

I was weighing the proposed gun restrictions for what they may accomplish compared to what they cost in terms of inconvenience to the guys that want to buy assault style weapons to go shoot watermelons...

Let's say the new laws are frustratingly inconvenient, but they prevent 40 elementary school children deaths per year by keeping those weapons out of the hands of mentally ill the inconvenience worth the trade off?

I assume you would say yes.

What if the inconvenience saves 30 children per year? Is it still worth the trade off? I think so.

What if it only saves 10 children? Are 10 dead elementary children worth giving up so that guys can go shoot watermelons? No? What if it was your child?

So I say even if the inconvenience saves only one child it is worth the cost.
You disagree what number of children are you willing to sacrifice so that guys can shoot watermelons? Give us a number because it is a legitimate question since you say one life is worth the sacrifice.
What is the breaking point for the trade off? How many children are you willing to give up?

I am sarcastic about shooting watermelons because no one needs an assault style weapon to deter people from breaking into their houses, and it is not the style of gun you carry under your jacket for personal protection...those will always still be available, making assault style weapons merely 'extras' that guys want so they can play...


Agreed - criminals do not care about laws banning any particular style of weapon....

but of course that is not the point.

Background checks and laws against selling assault style weapons to the general population WILL make it much more difficult to obtain them, and nearly impossible for these young suburban nerdy kids who do these mass shootings to obtain them, since they do not have criminal connections to find them and buy them.

These proposals, if enacted, will not be a total prevention, but they will help.

Stricter gun law opponents say " Let's not do anything that prevents me from buying whatever I want so that I can go play army at the gun range... let's accept the occasional slaughter of many children as worth it so that I can buy my toys".


Things both sides largely agree on:

A universal background check law will keep guns out of the hands of some mentally ill people.
But background checks won't catch everyone who is unstable.

A future ban on assault style weapons might keep them out of the hands of young men similar to Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris, Adam Lanza, and Jared Loughner.
but it will not remove them from society.
The many guns already in possession will not be collected.
Criminals will find it more difficult to obtain these weapons, but many criminals will likely still be able to obtain and possess them illegally.

A ban on assault weapons and requiring universal background checks will merely reduce the number of mass shootings, not end them.

Both sides largely agree on these things.

What astounds many of us is that some people are so unmoved by the slaughter of 20 elementary school children that they are arguing against these laws
because they don't prevent ALL mass shootings.

If it isn't 100% then it isn't worth doing at all. Wrong.

If these laws only prevent ONE mass shooting, or only prevent ONE single unnecessary death, they are worth trying.

Stricter gun law proponents say "Let's try..."


Written on In Colorado, Obama presses for gun measures :

I agree that " you can't stop crazy", but I think that is a very weak argument -
as if we should just throw our hands up in the air and give up.

We do try to keep weapons away from crazy people so that they are less likely to cause harm. In some states buying commercial grade fertilizer requires showing ID and recording it, so that unusual amounts raise suspicion from law enforcement - this is an example of where we do not outlaw a substance, but watch over who is buying it. The fertilizer has a wide public use and it is impractical to ban it totally.
Guns are commonly used for self protection and hunting and also are not banned, but we do background checks to try to keep them out of the hands of felons and mentally unstable people, with some success though limited. Of course a kid who wants to kill people can drive a car into a crowd, or find some other way, but we want to make that more difficult, not provide them weapons to accomplish it easily.

Assault style weapons have no useful common purpose. Future sales can be banned to make them less accessible to the nerdy suburban young men that resort to these mass shootings.

The people who own these assault style weapons have no practical use for them. Commercial grade fertilizer has common use, and hand guns and rifles have common use. Do we really want to accept the occasional mass slaughter of elementary school children as worth the price so that some men can get their self worth over the big gun they own, and go blast watermelons at a range?

Written on Ohio school: Jesus portrait has been taken down :

A hanging portrait of Jesus doesn't convince anyone that Jesus is Lord - no loss to see it come down. If parents and churches can't raise their kids to have faith without public schools giving an assist, then something is wrong with the parents and schools.

The people who complain that this a making a big deal over nothing would be screaming like crazy if there was a portrait from another religion hanging in the school.

Written on Obama to return 5 percent of salary to Treasury:

The other side will complain that it is just for publicity and public relations...

if he didn't take a cut they would complain that Obama is not sharing in the pain.

same old same old

what is the expression...if Obama walked on water, the Right would complain that Obama cannot swim.

Written on In Colorado, Obama presses for gun measures :

Some things both sides largely agree on:

A background check will keep guns out of the hands of SOME mentally ill people, but some unstable people will still pass background checks.

A ban on assault style weapons might prevent SOME young men from acquiring them like Eric Klebold and Eric Harris, Adam Lanza, and Jared Laughner, but it won’t prevent all mass shootings.
The many weapons already sold will not be collected.
Young kids from the suburbs won’t have criminal connections to locate a black market, but determined criminals will always be able to somehow acquire the weapons they prefer.

It astounds me that there are people who are not horrified enough by the slaughter of 20 elementary school children that they are unwilling to TRY to prevent some future mass shootings.

They argue that if the new laws do not prevent ALL the future killings then the law is not worth trying. Wrong.
If the new laws prevent even ONE future mass shooting, or even if the laws prevent ONE single additional death, they are worth trying.

Doing nothing, not even trying, is not acceptable.

They seem to be arguing that the occasional slaughter of elementary school children is worth the price so that they can buy whatever style of gun toy they want to go to a range and play army. They consider it.

worth the price so that they can play with their toys.... pitiful.

Written on Customers pack Conn. gun stores after deal on laws:

ahhhh, a ban which does NOT ban hand guns, does NOT ban rifles, yet the morons against commonsense gun control say stupid things like:
"staying in a state that does not support us."
"If our products are so dangerous and so horrible that no Connecticut resident should be in possession of it,...."

I could understand them saying that if GUNS were banned, but of course that is not the case.

Written on NRA study suggests trained, armed school staffers:

"armed teachers"

I have seen too many close calls personally to think that this is a good idea.

Target shooting into a gully when I was a young teenager with my Dad - my Mom said she heard a whizzing sound go past her ear - a ricochet that went out of the gully.

My wife's father was proud of the 2 handguns he had just purchased from a friend. He couldn't get the clip to remove from one gun so he thought maybe if he pulled the trigger.... the gun fired, right down into the open truck of his car - thankfully there was a roll of carpet in the trunk that the bullet had to get through before it hit the thin metal gas tank.

My brother-in-law was closing up after a gun show where he sold accessories and a man asked about a specific holster. He had just brought them to his truck so he let the guy examine his personal holster. Unexpectedly the customer stuck his hand into the holster and the gun went off, lodging a bullet into the head of his 12 year old son. He died later that day.

Not especially careless people. My brother-in-law was exceptionally careful and safety conscious, but he had that momentary lapse of judgement everyone has occasionally - but this time it turned fatal.
People often try to dismiss the accidental shootings as carelessness and rare - but the number of accidental discharges by police officers is enough to disprove that assertion - mistakes happen all the time, and with guns they can easily prove fatal.

Put guns into the hands of busy teachers who are focused on teaching and managing crowds of kids and some kid will get hold of that loaded gun when she is distracted. It will cause MORE gun deaths than prevent them.

If we are talking about a couple teachers in an entire school, maybe the idea isn't as stupid as it comes across. Of course a trained and armed security guard ( and I mean trained, not a minimum wage 4 hour course person)would be safer and more effective than the 'armed' science teacher who is focused more on teaching and managing a crowd of immature children....but we wouldn't want to spend money on our kids safety, just give teachers guns instead.
Coming from the NRA the stupidity of this is not surprising anymore.

Written on Obama to propose $100M brain mapping project :

I remember how stunned I was when I first heard decades ago that black high school students ridiculed other black students who were studying, participating in class, and trying to get good grades.... they told them they were "acting white" and it the peer pressure was effective in humiliating students who had been trying to become informed.
Today it is conservatives, and especially southern conservatives it seems, who rejoice in remaining as ignorant as possible. I don't get it. I thought being informed and intelligent was a good thing, a moral thing, an American thing.

It is OK to fall for a lie the first time. None of us knows everything - but a lie repeated repeated repeated, when there is all this technology and reputable sources available to all of us to check out the facts, there is just no excuse for remaining ignorant.

Those black kids who made fun of their peers who were trying to improve themselves? Idiots. Harmful, jealous, and selfish idiots.

Conservatives who repeat stupid, easily
dis-proven lies that have been told like 'half the nation supports the other half who are takers', or 'death panels', or 'Obama is Muslim'.... they are exactly like those black kids that delighted in their ignorance and wallowed in it.

Written on Obama to propose $100M brain mapping project :

RichieRich that is so well written, I am laughing out loud. Thanks!

Written on Obama to propose $100M brain mapping project :

I think someday we will be able to help these people with compulsive disorders, sex addiction, maybe drug and alcohol addictions.
Imagine the return on the investment when we can cure people voluntarily and permanently and keep families intact, reduce prison populations, require less police forces, etc.
We used to think depression was demons....

Written on Georgia city council votes to require gun ownership:

So silly. Fools no criminal into thinking everyone owns a if this town had a crime problem anyway....

"feel good" legislation to make the goofballs proud of themselves.

Written on White House tries its hand at April Fool's joke :

I think it is funny that some of you are so bitter that a little joke bothers you....

Written on The South: A near-solid block against 'Obamacare':

Before the health care reform while inflation was between 2% and 4% since 2000, insurance premiums rose 9% every year.
Since the reform that increase has dropped significantly, and the reform isn't even totally in place yet. After the reform kicks in and hospitals are getting paid for what they now must give away for free, they won't be cost shifting that expense onto our insurance premiums like they do now.
It works in other countries already. Our system wasn't working. WE paid TWO TIMES what health care costs elsewhere for similar quality care.


you pay only $268 for 2 people for health insurance???? Wow I am jealous.

My wife pays $482 and her employer pays another $450 per month for her health insurance. I pay $357 for just myself per month ( which has a high deductible for me to meet each year before the insurance kicks in $350 is the bottom rung I can pay for insurance and I have zero preexisting conditions.
My 20 year old son costs me $193 per month.

You will benefit greatly from the health care reform because for only $268 a month for 2 people you are only getting the illusion of insurance. It probably has an annual limit of only $50,000 or something - barely enough for a single hospitalized event, then you have zero coverage. I am guessing you have individual insurance, not group insurance, so in the absence of the health care reform your insurer will drop you after you get sick and now have a 'preexisting condition'.



Dhimmitude is a made up word only around since 1982.

Dhimmitude is NOT in the health reform legislation.

When you confidently state
" It's on page 107 of the healthcare bill."
you show yourself to be a fool like those declaring that 'death panels' are in the reform.

"Check this out at if you doubt it."

I did. You didn't.
Snopes calls it a lie.

Happy Easter to you too.
You will make a much better witness for Christ if you stop lying.


in response to 1955mercury:

You don't consider this a reputable source?

Clue #1 The "source" you are citing as a reputable source is Yahoo Answers, where ANYBODY, even YOU can post answers to the questions. It is not a news organization, a medical association, or any other source where you at least know who is posting.

Clue #2 The person posting is anonymous - could be a medical professional, a policy professional, or a pimply-faced 15 year old kid.
He has chosen to identify himself as "entropy" and uses a photo not of himself, but of a bat face. That doesn't suggest an informed mature person.

Clue #3 He states that Obamacare is bad because it greatly increases the number of people on Medicare.

This "expert" doesn't even know the difference between Medicare and Medicaid.

Obamacare expands the number of low income people who receive Medicaid ...the only way to expand the number of people on Medicare is to magically make people become over the age of 65. How could Obama do that? David Copperfield hasn't even tried to do that.

I am still shaking my head in disbelief.


Autoguy, you are joking, right?

No, Yahoo Answers which has a post from an anonymous person going by the name Entropy and the photo of himself is the face of a bat, is not a credible reliable, verifiable source....

now I understand why you fall for such stupidity.


1955Mercury, I of course doubt any of the nonsense you post, so searched the data you cannot be found on any reputable site, only right wing blogs...

I did find a survey done by the Massachusetts Medical Society recently which showed that wait times ( these are wait times for NEW patients with NO urgent need to visit the doctor) and the wait times average 45 days for new patients. I have that much wait for my REGULAR doctor here if I have no issue that needs immediate attention.

Also, in Massachusetts 90% of doctors accept Medicare, and acceptance of Mass Health Medicaid ranges from 78% to 92% in specialties, and 54% of internists and 64% of family doctors. Not bad at all!! So much for the hysterics of the Right that doctors would choose to NOT work and NOT accept Medicaid!

Satisfaction with health care: 87% of residents are satisfied with the health care they received (61% very satisfied, 26% somewhat satisfied). Satisfaction has remained remarkably stable since the MMS first reported this data eight years ago.

Obtaining needed care: 78% said their experience in getting care, whether for a routine or serious problem, was not difficult, a jump of 21% from the previous survey in 2008.

Primary care appointments: 90% of residents reported seeing a primary care physician within the last year, marking the highest reported visitation rate since the MMS first asked the question in 2003. Among those who saw a doctor, 89% said the amount of time they waited for an appointment did not cause them any problems.


"But the Supreme Court ruling creates a scenario where hospitals can lose existing revenue with getting the replacement cash Congress intended, all while still having to treat the uninsured patients who can't get coverage."

In other words - must simplify for AIM readers - opposing the Medicaid expansion means South Carolina still gets uninsured using the ER for free ( driving up our premiums) while we do NOT get the benefit of the health care reform which pays that cost.

With stiff necked Haley, we still get to send our tax money in to Washington, but instead of our money paying for uninsured South Carolinians our money will pay for poor in Virginia, New Mexico, etc.

And we will STILL have to pay higher premiums here because of stiff necked Haley.

South Carolinians are famous for cutting off their nose to spite their face.
We never grow up.

Written on Confederate flag at old N.C. Capitol coming down:

I am sure the same people who post " what is the big deal about a flag" are the same ones that would be horrified if a neighbor raised an American flag and beneath it the flag of Iran to display his pride in his heritage.

Written on Lawmakers rush to catch up on gay marriage:

It is difficult for any of us to grow beyond what we were taught when we were younger. In the 1950's a mixed race marriage was shocking and we laugh at that.
It usually takes having a gay brother or gay child to force us to dig deep and evaluate our beliefs and prejudices. That is sad. Only when it is in our own personal interests do we usually finally reconsider whether we are doing terrible harm to a group of people or whether what we were taught is correct.

When that kid Tyler Clementi jumped off the George Washington bridge a few years ago, rather than "just choose" to not be gay, I had to rethink what I believe in. I do not want to be part of the problem - I do not want to take part in the Christians pointing out what the bible says and how we MUST obey God's laws....

while they keep the Sabbath at the low rate of 22% and tithe at the astonishing low rate of 3%
(source George Barna). How very selective of them. It is easy to tell everyone else that they are despicable in God's eyes, but not so easy to walk the walk.

I don't want to contribute to the pain and torment of more Tyler Clementi's. No more teen suicides on my conscience. I would rather face God and risk being guilty of too much compassion rather than too little.

Written on A boost for gay marriage: Justices question U.S. law:

MedicOO "amendment 2 - shall not be infringed...

tell me how it is that we infringe the right of prisoners who have paid their debt to society who lose the "right to bear arms"

tell how it is that we infringe upon the right of people who are not mentally fit to own weapons...

tell me how it is that I cannot own a tank, cannon, nuclear bomb according to "shall not be infringed"...

What about the right to free speech ....but we cannot yell "fire!" in a crowded theater...

It isn't a contract with 30 pages of definitions and is a broad description of rights which must be defined by the courts.


In the 1960's school children were taught to 'duck and cover' because we expected a nuclear attack. The threat was more real than we knew now that we have access to what really happened in the Cuba blockade and how close we came to those nuclear weapons in Cuba being used. ( tactical)

In the 1960's we had the assassinations of our president, MLK, and a presidential candidate. We had race riots ion the cities. We had a hopeless war in Vietnam, our children dying there, and protests all over the country.

In the 1970's we had OPEC, gas lines, stag-flation ( unusual inflation and a stagnant economy at the same time).

In the 1980's we had AIDS, a huge military buildup, and tripled our federal deficit.

What was someone saying about the good ole' days?

We've had a pretty good economy through the 1990's until the crash of 2008, yes two useless wars (but less deaths than over 50,000 in Vietnam) know that good ole' days that people talk about wasn't all good.
Often it is the Christians who yearn for the day that was an illusion when we were in it. People going to church on Sunday, putting on a false face while the adultery was hidden, teenage sex and pregnancy was hidden...I guess what they miss is that back then we HID all the sins and pretended that we were perfect.
I don't think God was impressed with the church people who had their faces contorted in anger as the hurled racial slurs at the blacks who wanted a decent education and to no longer be treated like second class citizens..

when were these 'good ole'days' again?


I have heard the awkward phrase many times
" I am a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment"...
as if we can pick and choose what parts of the constitution to uphold and other parts we can ignore? ha ha

The meaning of "I am a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment" is
" I get my misunderstanding of the 2nd Amendment from conservative pundits, and I follow their (mis)guidance faithfully"

The First Amendment protects us from government enshrining religious beliefs like "no gays can marry" into law...I wonder how many of the folks who proudly say
" I am a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment, will also support the 1st Amendment??? ha ha ha

Evangelicals have their Pick and Choose bible, now Tea Partiers have their Pick and Choose Constitution.


I found yesterdays arguments fascinating.

"Marriage is about procreation"

...if that is true, then childless marriages are illegitimate
and senior citizens getting married is a farce.

Marriage is not only about procreation...
but even there the argument about gay marriage isn't worthy -
gays raise children,
single Moms raise children,
straight couples divorce at a rate of 50 percent!!!
So much for marriage being about procreation......

Written on Court might sidestep major ruling on gay marriage:

Starflyer - nice post. I know the solid and non-hypocritical Christians are out small numbers unfortunately. Very inspiring, thank you.

For me, I know longer give much to my church since they seem to be working against what I consider to be God's will, and rather channel money into charities until I find a church I can support.

StupidShouldHurtMore - I love your name! Thanks for posting rational responses
to non-rational people here today.

Autoguy, I thought
"We aren't supposed to enshrine our religious views into law for everyone else to follow"
would indicate to normal people that I was referring to the
"shall not establish a religion" portion of the First Amendment. You totally missed the point.

Written on Court might sidestep major ruling on gay marriage:

I wish I could have been online today rather than at work to answer here, but 1776 I agree with you.

You said as a Christian you will obey the laws but not approve of gay marriage. yes. Exactly.

and you will show love to gays, but you will not endorse their lifestyle. Yes, Exactly.

I agree. We have the right to our own beliefs, and if we believe the bible is accurately recorded and homosexuality is sinful, then your position is what we should do.

About half the populations doesn't agree that it is a sin, and since it is a religious belief ( First Amendment) we shouldn't impose our beliefs upon others.

Actually I argued against gay marriage 13 years ago at our denominations national gathering. But what a church decides to do is within its freedom. It does not extend to others.

The turning point for me was when Tyler Clementi jumped off the George Washington Bridge a few years ago. I have read about too many gay people who rather than "choose to not be gay anymore" decide to commit suicide. I don't want to contribute to that kind of pain that drives people to suicide. I am searching for a different church than the evangelical one we have been heavily invested in for over 20 years because they do not show the love of Christ as much as they feel they need to "fix" people and pint out their sins. The love comes with many strings attached, and they are much more influenced by cable news than by the Holy Spirit.

I agree with your approach. Show doesn't mean you agree or approve, but show love. Draw them to Jesus by your compassion.

Written on Court might sidestep major ruling on gay marriage:

I've got to get off to work, but certainly some Yahoo will soon be posting about how we need to listen to God's law not man's law.... so I post this before I head out:

When Christians are asked if they attended church within the past week, about 45% say yes, that they have. That's not a very impressive showing for "keeping the Sabbath Holy", I know.

But it gets worse.
When researched in small towns and actually counting the people in all the local churches it is shown that although 45% say they attended church, in truth only about half of them actually did.
So not only did half of that 45% NOT keep the Sabbath,
but they also LIED about it.
Two commandments broken in one week.
( not some obscure debatable theological topic - the TEN COMMANDMENTS).

What percentage of Christians comply with the biblical mandate to tithe 10% of earnings?
80 % ? No.
Maybe 60 %? No.
How about 35 % ?
No, not even close.

Christians, who are so insistent on firmly supporting the authority of scripture and pointing out the failures of others to do so, tithe at the appallingly low rate of only 3 %! ( source: George Barna)

Those "good Christians" we see in the old black and white film of the civil rights movement over 50 years ago - their faces contorted in anger as they scream slurs against blacks - they thought they were defending their faith too, trying to maintain the separation of the races, and justifying it with select bible passages.

The good Christians today who are so quick to defend their faith against blessing gay relationships are just as selective
- they keep the Sabbath holy at a rate only of around 25%,
and only an appalling 3% of Christians tithe their earnings

- so the "truth" about the bible and the things we "defend" are extremely selective,

while we conveniently ignore the love and mercy themes of scriptures, and display our tendency to become the Pharisees which Jesus railed against.

Written on Court might sidestep major ruling on gay marriage:

1776, who promoted Proposition 8? Who brought into law so that those it affected had to go to court? Religious organizations primarily. Mormons contributed a huge amount to the effort to support Prop 8, mostly from Utah.

You can't go to court to challenge a law until it is passed. The Supreme Court doesn't hand out decisions until a court case brings an issue up.

If the faithful didn't put their religious beliefs into law ( against the constitution) then there would be no court cases against them.

Written on Court might sidestep major ruling on gay marriage:

1776, we the people are protected by the Constitution from the prejudice and bigotry of the majority.

If 'majority rule' was what we wanted to be ruled by, there would be no need for the Bill of Rights. Our current prejudices shouldn't be enshrined into law.

The Bill of Rights applies to all Americans.

Written on Court might sidestep major ruling on gay marriage:

The Bill of Rights applies to all Americans.

Written on Court might sidestep major ruling on gay marriage:

Every Tea Partier who loves the constitution
- if they REALLY love the constitution -
must be against laws telling us who can marry who.

We aren't supposed to enshrine our religious views into law for everyone else to follow.

I wonder how many "strong supporters of the 2nd Amendment" are actually going to defend the First Amendment. ha ha ha ha

Written on Court might sidestep major ruling on gay marriage:

I don't see any real difference in how many states once outlawed mixed marriage - how antiquated that seems to us now,
and today the way we are dealing with gay marriage.

Both times the laws against these marriages were motivated out of prejudice and unfounded fear.

If my marriage is threatened by anything, maybe it is the

50% divorce rate,

the high rate of infidelity,

the way kids today think nothing about having a baby together but think marriage is too much of a commitment ( I'll never understand that),

or maybe senior citizens living together without the benefit of marriage so they don't get reduced Social Security benefits

...maybe those things are a threat to the institution of marriage

....but two gay people who WANT to commit to marriage are certainly not a threat to my marriage,

just to the old fashioned limited perception of marriage....let that limited view die off like dinosaurs died off.

For some people it takes a distance of time to get a better perspective.

The 'good' Americans and 'good' Christians who were against marriages of mixed race 50 years ago couldn't see the prejudice within themselves either.

Written on Late night: Senate Democrats work to pass budget:

Both the Republican House plan and the Democratic Senate plan are jokes - starting points for negotiation, not seriously expected to pass.

Ryan's plan depends upon removing Obamacare - an obvious pie-in-the-sky dream which will never happen.

Paul Ryan's plan does depend on giving vouchers to seniors to buy private insurance rather than providing Medicare with its guaranteed coverage, and we know from his previous plans that his desire is to structure the vouchers so that they do NOT keep up with inflation, ending medicare as we know it.

Ryan's plan also doesn't reduce military spending which is excessive.

Republicans idea to balance the budget is to cut health care to people who need it but cannot afford it.

Democrats idea is to make health care more efficient and less expensive so that it becomes affordable.

Politics. You have to maintain distance, perspective, and a sense of humor so that you don't let it give you an ulcer.

Written on Dispute over worker wages snags immigration talks:

"The Chamber of Commerce has pushed for the workers – who would include maids, waiters, child care workers, home nannies and meat packer — to be paid one step below the median hourly wage scale in their respective industries. But the labor union wants them to be paid one step higher than the median. In the case of a waiter, for example, the difference would be between $8.93 per hour (or $18,600 a year) and $10.61 per hour ($22,100), according to the sources." ( Washington Post)

If you are against immigrants coming into the country, then why would you oppose insisting that any immigrants be paid ABOVE the standard wage American citizens are getting - this would make employers more likely to hire Americans than temporary immigrants.

Written on Sanford advances in S.C. race, Colbert's sister wins :

I gotta laugh at people who "think" like freebird...

Ending with "God help this nation" he starts with arguing that it is better to vote for the adulterer and serial liar Mark Sanford.

He incorrectly asserts that democrats are "infringing" on the Second Amendment, but the Supreme Court has already ruled that we have a right to own a hand gun or rifle, but that not all weapons are protected.

After arguing that Democrats are doing something against the constitution on the Second Amendment, he blasts Hillary for saying that we shouldn't be violating the First Amendment by putting our religious beliefs into law for everybody else to follow. That is some remarkable Constitutional scholarship.....

thanks for the morning laugh............

Written on Rand Paul: Immigration reform needs conservatives:

A big step forward for Rand Paul, but he will pay for it. Republicans will skewer themselves as they debate this in public and Hispanics will see them for what they really if Hispanics don't already know.

A second class status, less than citizenship, might suit Hispanics if it is temporary before they achieve full citizenship, but permanent 2nd class will disgust them,, not attract them.

And it is not amnesty of they have to pay a fine or pay back taxes, or go through some other hoops...

amnesty means forgiveness ( a Christian act, by the way) which does not require punishment or penalty. Most Republican proposals eventually granting citizenship are full of penalties and punishment first....which means they are not amnesty.

Written on Supreme Court: Must voters have to prove citizenship to register? :

I like ArcLight's example of voter fraud. While Republicans are screaming at the top of their lungs about illegals voting and the need for all sorts of photo ID needed to vote in person because of all the fraud they imagine..... the
example put forth is not of illegals, it is not of in-person voter fraud which photo ID would, the examples cited are 2 peopel who sent in mail-in ballots of recently deceased loved ones, and the other is a woman who voted for her relatives instead of having them come to the poll and vote for themselves - she had their permission. It is still illegal...but NO photo ID of citizenship papers would have prevented the fraud, the fraud which actually DID occur. Hilarious.


I know lots of people that against the more recent voter law changes requiring photo ID and proof of citizenship - but they don't want illegal voters, and they would support photo ID IF AND ONLY IF there were very good efforts to get that ID into the hands of all the voters BEFORE those restrictions go into place.

And the case in front of the Supreme Court now isn't for or against requiring photo ID, but about preventing LEGAL citizens from voting in the effort to prevent illegal voting.