Latest comments

In response to: We're Down But Coming Back

Jack Jodell [Visitor] · http://jackjodell53.wordpress.com/
Sorry to see you have not yet returned, Burr, but am hoping you will do so quickly. I FINALLY discovered my error regarding my site and am now once more back in business, thank God!
PermalinkPermalink 02/20/16 @ 14:17

In response to: Child Has Amazing Details of Previous Life

JMyste [Visitor]
Infidel,

That is not anti-scientific. It is a-scientific.

Sentience is not adequately explained by science. Whether it is reused is NOT scientifically answered by science (I am aware of some faith-based articles from the realm of science that tried and failed).

-- This from someone who is known for rebutting and shunning all things spiritual. I just found your comment narrow-minded and aggressive enough to take offense on the behalf of others. If you claim knowledge in the absence of data, then you are religious. Others don't necessarily share your faith.




PermalinkPermalink 02/16/16 @ 15:00

In response to: Letting Ill Enough Alone

Chris [Visitor]
Libertarianism is pure junk science, that's all it is. The failures are piling up all across this country and we need to stop it in its' tracks and kick it to the curb.
PermalinkPermalink 01/19/16 @ 19:39

In response to: We're Down But Coming Back

I knew Rush Limbaugh was working on some covert project. I had no idea it was this though! :)
PermalinkPermalink 01/18/16 @ 13:56

In response to: We're Down But Coming Back

Infidel753 [Visitor] · http://infidel753.blogspot.com
Glad to see you're coming back up.
PermalinkPermalink 01/18/16 @ 05:42

In response to: Since Congress Won't Act on Guns, Obama Will

Jerry Critter [Visitor] · http://critterscrap.blogspot.com
If "the courts don't strike down an unconstitutional executive order, ..." perhaps your opinion that it is unconstitutional is wrong. After all, it is the courts that determine constitutionally, not you.
PermalinkPermalink 01/07/16 @ 10:45

In response to: Since Congress Won't Act on Guns, Obama Will

If a president issues an executive order and the courts uphold it, I don't see how impeachment would be appropriate. No actual law--as opposed to a law that people merely *wish* the government would recognize--would have been broken. But I suppose that refusing to fund it would work.
PermalinkPermalink 01/06/16 @ 22:05

In response to: Since Congress Won't Act on Guns, Obama Will

I think the only way around this problem, if the courts don't strike down an unconstitutional executive order, would be for congress to not fund the order when applicable. If the order is especially egregious, I suppose the House could always draft articles of impeachment. I don't see congress having the intestinal fortitude to ever do that though.
PermalinkPermalink 01/06/16 @ 11:44

In response to: Since Congress Won't Act on Guns, Obama Will

Judicial politicization is irrelevant. Our system is and always was run by fallible beings and there is no way around that. There is no mystical force to make the government operate "as intended" or to interpret legal documents "correctly." There are only more people, entrusted with the tasks of deciding law and checking each other's power.

Do you have some other system in mind to prevent presidents from issuing executive orders that you believe to be constitutional?
PermalinkPermalink 01/05/16 @ 22:45

In response to: Since Congress Won't Act on Guns, Obama Will

Ryan, I agree that the courts should be able to keep the president’s power in check when he issues un-constitutional or extra-constitutional executive orders. Sadly, our courts have also become so politicized that this is not always the case.

I have no problem with any president issuing an executive order if it constitutionally falls within the purview of his executive branch duties, such as in his role as commander in chief, or in the situation of a national emergency.

What I disagree with vehemently is when a president issues executive orders to bypass congress because there isn’t the political support to pass his agenda otherwise. This becomes particularly egregious if the executive order is an infringement upon the people’s Bill of Rights.

Gun control issues can definitely be in that gray area.

President Obama previously acknowledged that he did not have the constitutional authority to change immigration laws, on multiple occasions. He then proceeded to do precisely that by executive order.

The presidency should not be an office for a “ruler” to dictate how the country is governed by executive fiat.

And yes, I do not care what political affiliation a president has if he oversteps his constitutional bounds when issuing such executive orders.
PermalinkPermalink 01/05/16 @ 08:54

In response to: Gutter Politics, Sexism and Clinton Derangement

I do agree with the main point of this article. It is disgusting and beneath people to be making personal attacks against Clinton. It is counter-productive and unnecessary also. There are plenty of real issues which can be used to thoroughly discredit Hillary as a presidential candidate without having to resort to juvenile ad-hominem attacks.
PermalinkPermalink 01/05/16 @ 08:33

In response to: Child Has Amazing Details of Previous Life

Infidel753 [Visitor] · http://infidel753.blogspot.com
Oh for fuck's sake, what is happening to the liberal internet? First Crooks and Liars starts posting astrology, and now this. Can't we leave the anti-science moron crap to the right-wingers?
PermalinkPermalink 01/04/16 @ 15:11

In response to: Since Congress Won't Act on Guns, Obama Will

"No, it is not President Obama's place to do this by usurping power through executive orders on an issue which he doesn't have authority to enact."

I have no idea how to determine the legality of executive orders, but clearly some are fine while others are not. Obama and his advisors also understand this, otherwise his orders would go much further and be more frequent. Moreover, in the case that he does go too far, the courts can strike them down, so the president's power is still kept in check.

So I ask you: what makes this particular order a case of usurping power? Or are you simply against executive orders in general, including those from all prior and all future presidents?
PermalinkPermalink 01/04/16 @ 11:39

In response to: Room in Public Square for Message of Love

Is it so unreasonable to expect those who accept a position that serves and is funded by a diverse public to have a better sense of what is appropriate and when it is so? Rep. Allen could have encouraged love and peace without reference to Christianity or encouraged Christianity without using his political position. This is not difficult to understand. Just as many Christians would object to a Muslim representative's video (or even just a Muslim representative) encouraging consideration of Islam during a Muslim holiday or an atheist representative's video (or even just an atheist representative) encouraging dismissal of all religions in the name of peace and progress, it is not unreasonable for non-Christians to object to this video.

As for the vitriolic and threatening messages that he received, one has to remember that this is the internet. In my experience, Christians--especially conservative Christians--are no better toward atheists or other groups online. It seems to me that the ones who need to hear the message most are not atheists, but those who disregard it even as they claim to believe it.

It's also amusing to hear about love and peace from Republicans, but since I don't know Rep. Allen, I have to give him the benefit of the doubt here.
PermalinkPermalink 01/04/16 @ 11:22

In response to: Child Has Amazing Details of Previous Life

Hindus hate her! Learn this girl's one weird trick for remembering past lives!

Readers were also interested in: Heaven Is for Real.
PermalinkPermalink 01/04/16 @ 10:40

In response to: Since Congress Won't Act on Guns, Obama Will

Yes, the gun show loop hole should be closed. No, it will do little to nothing to stop gun violence. No, it is not President Obama's place to do this by usurping power through executive orders on an issue which he doesn't have authority to enact.

More symbolism over substance yet again. Yeah, he has an "impressive" legacy indeed.
PermalinkPermalink 01/04/16 @ 09:54

In response to: Islamic Imperialism vs. Gun Control

Jerry Critter [Visitor] · http://critterscrap.blogspot.com
"... We must prioritize combatting radical Islam over reducing general gun violence."

Interesting quote given that we killed 27 of our own people with guns on Christmas Day. That is not acceptable gun violence.
PermalinkPermalink 12/30/15 @ 16:42

In response to: Islamic Imperialism vs. Gun Control

Exactly, Trey. The main point of the quoted article was that far more people have been killed by guns than have been killed by terrorists, yet we don't seem to be making the prevention of gun deaths much of a priority. Imagine if we responded to terrorism simply with thoughts and prayers. LaFerrara avoided this issue so that he could rant about radical Islam.

I agree with some of what he says and I am skeptical of the effectiveness or even just efficacy of many gun control proposals, but what he wrote is basically a non-sequitur and he doesn't actually show that "the Left simply doesn’t take national security seriously" anyway. He implies that the Left believes that gun control will "prevent future San Bernardinos [and] stem the increasing domestic security threat from murderous Jihadist Islam," but that isn't true at all.

Additionally, without establishing a reason why we can't fight both terrorism and gun violence effectively, his argument is weak. This would have been better:

"The huge difference between gun deaths and terrorism-related deaths can be attributed to the time, effort, and resources that we have put into fighting terrorism. We cannot afford to also do the same to prevent more general gun violence and additional gun control laws won't do the trick either. Since we must make a choice, we should choose the option that prevents the greatest catastrophe (i.e. 'a single WMD attack on a major American city'), keeps an ideological threat at bay, and reduces fear in the public. We must prioritize combatting radical Islam over reducing general gun violence."
PermalinkPermalink 12/30/15 @ 12:39

In response to: Ending the Middle East Disaster

I am also not convinced that leaving them alone for 50-100 years is the solution and I am skeptical of any plan described as "the real way out," "not complicated," and something that "no one with a real political voice...has had the courage to state."

However, I absolutely agree that the idea that they hate us for our freedom is idiotic and harmful and that conservatives, whether justified in their opposition to liberal plans or not, do much more harm than good with their paranoia, hatred, and warmongering. How can any reasonable person expect Trump's comments and proposals, for example, to improve relations?
PermalinkPermalink 12/30/15 @ 12:01

In response to: Ending the Middle East Disaster

Trey [Visitor]
Kind of with you on this one, T.Paine. As long as Israel exists and is a major foreign policy concern, we're not going to leave the Middle East.

As far as his third point... that's extreme. How about we all just tone down our rhetoric to be a little less doom-saying and cartoonish? How about instead of saying the Republican party needs to stop its "march to fascism" we just insist on all sides tone down the hyperbole. You don't win converts by comparing the other side to Nazis. Unfortunately, this sort of rhetoric appeals to certain people within the echo chamber.
PermalinkPermalink 12/30/15 @ 11:55