I'll dead with connie later
z-fister you work quite the racist stereotype when you let your anger get hold of you. Your vapid commentary (sic) turns the spotlight on you buddy; you and the quality of your grey matter. You reveal yourself for all to see.
There is no question of President Obama's high intellect or that President Obama is stuck between fickle American opinion that wanted out of a 10-12 year war and now wants back in a new one, and like many President's before him in the end of his term, his thin confidence in his own original roadmap against that fickle public to stay the course of withdrawal.
When Bush the Younger fanned panic with mouthing about weapons of mass destruction a few of us said this is stupid and conniving, a ploy to get us into a war. All our Red and Blue friends said, "No! Georgie and Lon, (I mean Dick), are right. There is blood to pay for 9/11."
We started a war, on false pretext at that, and it cost us dearly in the lives of our youth, damage to our economy and our souls, and enmity of the Muslim world.
Now we stand at the brink of war again like fools blind to our past. We are stepping willingly into pointless futility and chaos for which our children will pay a heavy price. Why are we all so blind to history and captive to our own hubris? When you bury your son, daughter, husband or wife who died in this war, remember where you stood today.
zulalily get a grip. It is no different than most non-profits the city is involved with. It has nothing to do with a "black Chamber of Commerce." It is a classic case of management incompetency by the board of directors.
This is a stupid editorial filled with handwaving, and unsubstantiated smoke and mirror deceptions, if not outright lies. The TFP ought to be embarrassed for publishing it. My premiums are lower with ACA and deductibles the same. The same goes for other acquaintances.
There is no hard evidence premiums will rise and more than they would under private insurance plans prior to ACA. What you have as a copay depends completely on the type ACA plan you purchase.
If the state had opened the enrollment to medicare then the whole pool of insured dramatically increased almost certainly leading to stable or lower costs since hospitals would not be treating so many indigent people for free. As it is, medical costs have decreased or remained stable in the last year.
If the ACA exchange rose 33% (show us the numbers) I wonder how much more private insurance rose? What an insidious tract this teapartier writes.
Oh, June bug, honey, let us bring back the days of wine and roses, the ones of old I-am-no-crook R.M. Nixon (remember what Harry Truman said about him), then let's slide on past and come closer to the present and look at the days of old weapons-of-mass-destruction-bring-it-on-baby-what-crashing-economy George Bush the younger.
I don't believe you can seriously argue conservatism has a corner of public honesty, or liberalism on public deceit. There is too much lurid, political miscegenation going on.
Her fractured argument is like nails scratching the old blackboard. Here is her first argument:
"Liberals control universities, Liberals are liars, science is taught in universities therefore all science taught in universities is a lie."
Here is a second of her Daytonesque arguments: I, June, espouse a religion opposing science. My scientific opponents attack my religious interpretation of science as irrational. Therefore if some one attacks my irrational argument they are denigrating me. Because their rational argument carries the consequence of denigrating her argument, their argument is worthless or invalid.
Here is her third: The ultimate Federal court, the right-leaning Supreme Court charged with the final say on the law of the land, has upheld activities that she believes are irreligious and immoral. Justice is defined by her religious beliefs, not the Constitution of the United States; therefore, there is no justice in America any more. I think Williams Jennings Bryant said something like that.
Good, never tried.
That line says more about who is holding fanatical beliefs than anything else in the editorial. Shame on Clint for letting it through.
Hunter con man will soon realize, if he has not already by his attempts to apply them to the subject of his ranting, that the practitioner of a rigid law breaks in a strong wind as the oak does.
bethanygray sez, "The point of my argument is that I actually go through a conscious decision making process..." That is what almost every responsible person does that makes a "right" or "erong" or "moral" or "immoral" choice.
I say, "Just so you realize "conscious choice" is not laying out a framework for deciding between a 'right' or 'wrong,' or 'moral,' or 'immoral' action, unless right or wrong or moral or immoral is "anything you decide."
Rick, I don't think I'm being too hard or nitpicking. Certainly some decisions pose an ethical quandary often a result of our feelings and thoughts, but not always. Making a moral choice has never been easy. Bethanygray intentionally or not is beginning an argument that has raged for at least the last 40-50 years as a bonfire, and perhaps 50 years more as an epistemological dilemma.
From a Christian perspective, what Bethanygray said at the end, 'Never do I have to check my pocket bible to make sure what I'm about to do doesn't count as naughty' is exactly the condition a Christian strives for. To use the Law as a yardstick as Bethanygray objects, defeats the Law and the person. Most thinking Christians and Jews would agree. Only when the Law is written in your heart can you truly live a moral life. So I count it positive that Bethany at the end has the right idea that personal choice ends up as the basis of personal action, but IMO has not yet put it fully into practice how to decide due to her closing. I do not wish to accept her note as a screed against religious decisions since she has so many key religious tenets (noted above) in her argument.
Her closing, "Sometimes, I get to be selfish. Sometimes, I need to put the feelings of others before my own," is not universally accepted because it places you and your wellbeing before all others. It is a choice but some would say it is a choice that diminishes the value of the other person eventually you.
Bethanygray, are you saying it is wrong to "anger someone else?" What if spending your money to help someone in difficulty angers another as a waste of money? Will it make someone uncomfortable? Is it dangerous to teach someone to live by the principle of non-violent protest of racism or nationalism? What if building a massive brick monstrosity for a home in a neighborhood improves your sense of stability that you have created but creates discord and poor quality of life for your neighbor? Is that a dangerous act for you or the neighbor? Does that make you a better person, or a jerk as you say? What if you decide vaccines are dangerous and in your mind the good of your child demands that you refuse to have your children inoculated; thereby contributing to the potential for an epidemic of a crippling or deadly childhood disease?
I'm a little confused about how to generalize your personal framework for moral decision making to the breadth of human activity, or to remove its inherent contradictions posed by the presence of others.