(For other material, please scroll down)
Here is your chance to opine according to the parameters below:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective
Note: comments consisting of blog gossip will be deleted as soon as an administrator of this blog becomes aware of such comments.
It’s that time again!, the obamas go on vacation (AGAIN)!
ReplyDeleteThe Obama family, will head to Europe later this month, according to the White House. They’ll be visiting the Britain and Italy. I guess there is nothing too good for the King and Queen of America and their little princesses. And let’s not forget the First Mother in Law, I mean, hell, you know we can’t leave her behind, it’s a package deal. The Vacationer in Chief will be going a bit later and as always on another plane, as will the First Mutt. He gets his own plane as well. Nothings to good for the King and Queen of America!
I’m sure that the Hotels in Great Britain, and in Italy will really appreciate the visit.
The First Mother in Law will be barking orders at the staff again.
The Secret Service agents will be monopolizing elevators and booting high-paying guests from their rooms to occupy a block of space near the first lady. Ah the Ugly American’s are here again.
Why is it that in every speech that the Messiah makes, he always speaks about the “little people” the “Middle Class”, and yet although these people, like so many people in America who are in dire need of help, needing medical help, jobs, homes, food and just recently, disaster relief. I don’t know what this trip is going to cost the American tax payer, not yet, but I’m pretty sure we’ll find out soon enough, and I am also pretty sure that the money WASTED on this trip would go a long ways in helping Americans that are seriously in need. And we all know that this is nothing more than a 1st class vacation trip for the family, on OUR dime!
It wasn’t too long ago when these radical left libtards were crying for the Head of George Bush for spending SO MUCH time at his Crawford Ranch,his own home, not every posh place he could find. bitching about the cost of these “Frequent” vacations….Yet when the Mooch and the “King’ does the same but multiplied by 100 it’s all for the good of the country… Yes how they bitched, moaned and groaned saying it cost the tax payers hundred of millions for travel expenses…And I'm sure that the Mooch is going to in jam as many more vacations as she can before she and jugears are thrown out of the White House.
Talk about hypocrisy
A black family in the WH enjoying the same perks of First Families for years and years does seem to set off a chain reaction of head explosions, doesn't it?
DeleteOne would think that as much some time people spend howling at the moon about all the dastardly deeds they allege this president of, they'd be thankful of every day he was out of the WH.
Well, this president seems to have spent an extraordinary amount of taxpayer $$$ on vacation. Extraordinary. Since much of this came at a time of deep financial trauma for an awful lot of folks, he looks tone deaf.
DeleteBut you're right - we're much safer with him on the golf course than in the situation room. Or wherever he signs off on antics like Fast and Furious, launches steroidal IRS harassment, or makes up fairy tales about his health care package, not to mention a host of jaw dropping executive orders.
Two thumbs up for Baysider!
DeleteThree, er four.
DeleteA little something that I found on the web this morning:
ReplyDeleteWhich Bathroom Should a Transgender Employee Use? The Federal Government Chimes In
I'm thinking radical here.
DeleteGo in the stall, lock the door, do your business, restore your clothing, open door, wash hands, keep your mouth shut, leave.
But if you do not look like you belong there, you don't.
The concern may soon be considered archaic, AOW. Surely you've noticed the trend toward UNISEX toilets in public facilities? After all, we've had them in our private homes since toilets were invented, haven't we?
DeleteI tend think these concerns: are basically a tempest in a teapot.
After all they have had nude beaches all over Europe, and even in some parts of the United States for many years.
I think we've made far too much fuss about bodies for hundreds of years.
In my opinion we'd do well to lighten up, and stop being so provincial.
I'm afraid common sense might not carry the day, Ed.
DeleteThough you are correct that it easily could.
FT,
DeleteA lot,of parents are uncomfortable with their young children using transgender bathrooms.
There is also the matter of gym showers. It is my understanding that a student there can use the shower with which gender identity is associated -- regardless of biology.
Unisex " onesie" bathrooms to which you alluded above should not be problematic. But transgender community bathrooms-- yes, I have a problem with that.
It be hooves us to remember that gender identity does not equate to those such Christine Jorgensen, who had transsexual surgery and, apparently, was physically a woman -- according to exterior appearance, dress, etc.
Ed,
DeleteThat makes sense!
We've been working HARD here all day. Came back in and read Mr. B the link you posted, AOW - why OSHA is involved in this issue. Now, our work has been REAL work, and when I read this bureaucratic B***S*** we both went into orbit. CLEARLY they have dead wood to trim. I'll be happy to type up the notices. Geeesh!
DeleteOn another blog, there is a blogger who has disrespected us VETS, by saying things about us that is simply NOT true.
ReplyDeleteLike saying “The GOP Bash the Gay Married Veterans and their families!
So I’d just like to say that SHE’S a liar and, one of those lefties who does not understand. And that she would support us more by shutting her damn, dumb, stupid mouth. Vets like anyone else or any other group have different opinions among them. Not all Vet’s or any other group think alike.
What would you call it when a political party decides not to extend benefits to the children of gay parents who are serving in the military?
DeleteApparently the GOP does not think there is anything wrong with having one set of benefits and rules for straight soldiers and gay soldiers.
Why is that? Maybe the blogger was pointing out the hypocrisy in that.
I find it hard to believe that the child of a soldier who is killed, for example, does not get whatever benefits the military offers - regardless of whether their parent was homosexual or not. Most any headline that includes the word "bash" is really screaming "ALERT: The following article is an opinion that was formed without engaging a brain."
DeleteOr maybe that blogger was full of herself, as you seem to be!
DeleteInteresting, Hans. What do you mean by that?
Delete@ Dave Miller: please provide specific information illustrating your contention. Links would be good.
DeleteMustang, here's the link... from the US Senate site...
DeleteHome
I've tried about 3 times to get this posted so I'm hoping it isn't posted multiple times...
@Dave: This affects a veteran's child how?
DeleteThank you Dave.
DeleteSo, the proposition began with a claim that some other blogger asserted “GOP Bash Gay Married Veterans,” and a stipulation that the blog was lying. Your counter-proposition was that a political party decided not to extend benefits to the children of gay parents.
There have been issues of “benefits” on behalf of homosexual partners (and I assume some children whose parents are homosexuals) serving in the US military at posts and stations overseas. This is not an issue involving military entitlements. The issue surrounds the refusal of host nations to recognize homosexual relationships among US military personnel.
We are talking now about an issue that cropped up in 2013 after your president made an issue of something already settled: Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell. Since then, as we have seen, homosexual relationships have had a deleterious effect on the efficiency of the US military by virtue of the unwillingness of some countries to recognize these deviant relationships. Link to International Business Times, April 2014.
I direct your attention to the caption in the article, which indicates that four month’s pregnant Petty Officer First Class Luz Bautista, 30 is sitting next to her fiancée Petty Officer Second Class Alejandra Schwartz and her daughter, aged six. This may not immediately resonate with some, but it is quite remarkable —perhaps even miraculous—to find committed lesbian couples pregnant or with children. It is also possible that the definition of homosexual has changed lately and I did not receive that memo. None of this, however, advances the notion of a combat ready warrior class serving in the US military —something that is a responsibility of the commander in chief.
In contrast to this, however, the information you provided has nothing whatsoever to do with benefits to the children of gay parents serving in the military. It is, rather, whether federal rules shall permit the payment of benefits to spouses of homosexual VETERANS who reside in states that do not recognize same-sex marriage. The issue is far more complex that you seem to realize, for if you believe in state sovereignty then you must allow the states to govern themselves with minimal federal interference. With that understanding, if the US Congress redefines spouse to include homosexual, doing so would obligate states that do not recognize same sex marriage to offer public funded benefits to spouses of homosexual veterans.
You are correct to note that the vote was along party lines. I am not sure why this should surprise you, or anger you ... since you did not object to party line voting when Democrats held the Senate. Now to remove the emotional appeal, remember that not every veteran is a combat veteran, not everyone who served in Afghanistan saw actual combat. So by all means, be critical of our politicians. What is not healthy, and what does not advance intelligent discourse, is to try to have an argument when the people talking have no clear idea about the real issues. As for same-sex marriage, I feel confident the SCOTUS will resolve this issue in the not too distant future. Thanks again for providing that link.
Thank you Dave.
DeleteSo, the proposition began with a claim that some other blogger asserted “GOP Bash Gay Married Veterans,” and a stipulation that the blog was lying. Your counter-proposition was that a political party decided not to extend benefits to the children of gay parents.
There have been issues of “benefits” on behalf of homosexual partners (and I assume some children whose parents are homosexuals) serving in the US military at posts and stations overseas. This is not an issue involving military entitlements. The issue surrounds the refusal of host nations to recognize homosexual relationships among US military personnel.
This is an issue that cropped up in 2013 after your president made an issue of something already settled: Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell. Since then, as we have seen, homosexual relationships have had a deleterious effect on the efficiency of the US military by virtue of the unwillingness of some countries to recognize these deviant relationships. Link to International Business Times, April 2014.
Let me direct your attention to the caption in the article, which indicates that four month’s pregnant Petty Officer First Class Luz Bautista, 30 is sitting next to her fiancée Petty Officer Second Class Alejandra Schwartz and her daughter, aged six. This may not immediately resonate with some, but it is quite remarkable —perhaps even miraculous— to find committed lesbian couples pregnant or with children. It is also possible that the definition of homosexual has recently changed and I did not receive that memo. None of this, however, advances the notion of a combat ready warrior class serving in the US military —something that is a responsibility of the commander in chief.
In contrast to this, however, the information you provided has nothing whatsoever to do with benefits to the children of gay parents serving in the military. It is, rather, whether federal rules shall permit the payment of benefits to spouses of homosexual VETERANS residing in states that do not recognize same-sex marriage. The issue is far more complex that you seem to realize, for if you believe in state sovereignty then you must allow the states to govern themselves with minimal federal interference. With that understanding, if the US Congress redefines spouse to include a homosexual in a same-sex relationship, that would obligate states that do not recognize same sex marriage to offer public funded benefits to homosexual veterans.
You are correct to note that the vote was along party lines. I am not sure why this should surprise you, or anger you ... since you did not object to party line voting when Democrats held the Senate. Now to remove the emotional appeal, remember that not every veteran is a combat veteran, not everyone who served in Afghanistan saw actual combat. So, by all means, be critical of our politicians. What is not healthy, and what does not advance intelligent discourse, is to try to have an argument when the people talking have no clear idea about the real issues. As for same-sex marriage, I feel confident the SCOTUS will resolve this issue in the not too distant future. Thanks again for the link.
Mustang,
DeleteThank you for that explanation and that exposition.
Mustang + 1
DeleteExcellent response, Mustang. Another case of people who have never served leveling criticisms when they don't understand the system
DeleteTo be clear: A child of any service member, regardless of that service member's sexual proclivities, is a dependent covered by all benefits any other service members' child enjoys.
The question turns on the definition of marriage. DoD does not recognize girlfriends and boyfriends.
Well done, Mustang.
DeleteWell, from what I've found, this seems to be the crux of the matter, if it is accurate. "U.S. code for veterans benefits looks to the state of residence, not the state of celebration, to determine whether a couple is married."
DeleteIn practicality, it seems as if this practice denies the following benefits to gay married couples "in some instances" which the amendment was written to address...
According to Chris Johnson of the Washington Blade, married gay service members in some cases are not elegible for ChampVA (health care for spouses of disabled veterans), higher disability compensation for disabled veterans with dependents, full access to VA home loans and many survivor benefits for widows.
Baysider, lower disability compensation might indeed impact a child by limiting the income of the family, and thus resigning that child to a more poverty stricken lifestyle.
The larger question is why would we not grant the exact same benefits to a gay married couple, when one is a US military soldier, as we would a straight couple?
At least when they are here on home soil? Can someone answer me that?
The even larger question is why we pretend that a homosexual union can be called 'marriage' and from that false start begin setting up straw men about issues like this. The bottom line is, the actual child of a soldier isn't going to get short shrift just because his parent is/was a homosexual. And I'd be pretty put out if he did.
DeleteDave,
DeleteDo you see how this is not what it was portrayed as? Do you see how propagandists distorted this issue?
This is really a legal marriage issue, and the Supreme Court will decide this one way or another in a few weeks.
Baysider, I would argue that giving soldiers, or their heirs, a lower disability benefit, or lower health benefits based on the sexual orientation of a service member, which can be shown has already happened, is indeed giving the child of a soldier short shrift. The health of the parent[s] directly impacts the kids.
DeleteSilver... It may not be settled at all, If SCOTUS approves a right to marry for gays, yet allows states to decide whether to accept it or not, then we are exactly in the place this we are now and what this amendment is trying to address.
I think... have a great Sunday...
An actual service member's child will NOT lose benefits because his mother or father is a homosexual. Trying to ride the coattails of friends and neighbors is another matter. If that's what's happening, these stories aren't being presented factually. As I've posted below, this is a sad consequence of angry, confused adults who have less interest in the protection and nuture of our kids than they do in foisting an unnatural homophilic agenda off onto society.
DeleteOpen thread? Can I plug my entries in a contest to create radio ads for conservatives?
ReplyDeleteWould it be inappropriate to leave a link?
http://ed-bonderenka.blogspot.com/2015/06/im-on-my-knees-here-begging-you.html
Inquiring minds want to know.
Delete as necessary.
ObamaCare strikes again....
ReplyDeleteChina’s Hack of U.S. Data Tied to Health-Care Record Thefts:
The disclosure by U.S. officials that Chinese hackers stole records of as many as 4 million government workers is now being linked to the thefts of personal information from health-care companies.
Forensic evidence indicates that the group of hackers responsible for the U.S. government breach announced Thursday likely carried out attacks on health-insurance providers Anthem Inc. and Premera Blue Cross that were reported earlier this year, said John Hultquist of iSight Partners Inc. The cyber-intelligence company works with federal investigators.
The thefts are thought to be part of a broader effort by Chinese hackers to obtain health-care records and other personal information stored on millions of U.S. government employees and contractors from various sources, including insurers, government agencies and federal contractors, said a U.S. intelligence official, speaking on condition of anonymity....
More at the above link.
To conclude this as "Obamacare strikes again" is stretching it to the point of, well, I think from a realistic perspective, it already snapped.
DeleteToday, Mine is Civil Forfeitures. We thought these were a 'thing of the past' last fall when the IRS threw in the towel on prosecuting all the little mom-and-pop businesses whose normal, legal business practices involved making cash deposits that the agency chose to persecute (by seizing their bank accounts) as violations of the cash 'structuring' laws designed to snare drug kingpins.
ReplyDeleteReaders may recall how the NY Times showed law enforcement was using state civil forfeiture laws to take property and profit from those takings. For example, the Institute for Justice obtained videos, which NTY published, showing Las Cruces City Attorney Harry Connelly explaining that his civil forfeiture filings were “masterpieces of deception.” The October 2014 front page story in the NYT on Hinders/Hirsch forced the IRS to recant and promise to only pursue actual criminals with that law.
Yet TWO MONTHS LATER they seized the $100K+ bank account of yet another hard working convenience store owner. Then 3 months later they offered to ... ahem ... pay him back 50 cents on the dollar and go away. They even warned him to keep his mouth shut because “publicity about it doesn’t help. It just ratchets up feelings in the agency." (How about “sure, I'll take 150% on my dollars. ☺ )
Fortunately, Mr. McLellan did open his mouth ... to the Institute for Justice (IJ). In the next 13 days it got major press in the New York Times again and Fox News. And the IRS decided to give him his money back. Now the IJ is working on recompense for the other costs the agency inflicted on Mr. M.
Then the IJ teamed up with the ACLU and others in New Mexico to get the attention of state legislators with the video of the despicable Las Cruces City Attorney. They got landmark legislation passed to protect citizens and their property from unwarranted seizure by greedy bureaucrats.
From New Mexico we now have ‘model legislation’ that can be advanced to get comprehensive forfeiture reform in other states. The attorneys at the IJ can always use your donations. This is a huge, ongoing battle, largely because we have agencies with police powers who do not want to follow the law but prefer to shakedown guys too little to fight back.
__ Ode on Banning Public Nudity __
ReplyDeleteOh what's the harm in being nude,
If no one's viewed while getting screwed?
Though natural, that would be too crude,
Even if one's not a prude.
Every father –– every mother ––
Possesses one thing –– or another ––
As does every sister, brother,
So why the fuss, the muss, the bother?
As long as brother's made like dad,
And sister has what mother had,
There's no call to be sad or mad,
In fact it should make most feel glad.
If parts got switched, then there'd be cause
For consternation –– not applause ––
So, I guess at least should be one clause
Or two within a township's laws
Restricting what may be displayed
On side streets, park grounds, on parade,
In sunshine, rain, in light or shade
Deterred, not just deferred, delayed.
For most folks shy away from freaks,
And soon react with piercing shrieks,
And then there are the gawking geeks,
And those who publicly take leaks!
And then, comparison of size,
While never wise, engenders sighs,
Besides, the sight of flabby thighs
Might gag reflexes energize!
And so, since mobs are rarely quiet,
And many fatties will not diet,
Would-be voyeurs will not buy it.
So, just stay clothed. Why start a riot?
~ FreeThinke
Not bad!!
DeleteBravo!
DeleteWe should get together and award FreeThinke the title of Poet Laureate of Right Blogistan!
Agreed! I'm a poet in my own right, and this is quite clever.
DeleteThanks, y'all. I'm not used to such a show of approval. My point, of course, is the sincere belief we need to lighten up on these issues concerning sex.
DeleteIf Jenner had not made such a holy show of himself knowing full well the media would make a circus of his "transformation," few of us would even be thinking about such things much less talking about them.
I thought we'd finally seen the last of this kind of exhibitionism when Phil Donahue and Sally Jessie Raphael went off the air, but apparently not.
SO, I make fun of it –– but gently with tongue firmly planted in cheek.
I believe we have a great deal to learn about the recent case in Boston and it might slip by.
ReplyDelete1. This is not about Pamela Geller. She was entioned in a message but there was never any formal plan. This case is not about her.
2. The Boston Police Dept. have demonstrated they can learn that constructive engagement with the local community pays dividends.
In this case there were some initial attempts to throw it all back on the Boston police and they completely failed. The family is clearly hurt by the death but they have accepted that the police acted out of concern for their safety.
3. Pamela Geller's "let's all just hate on Muslims" hate act is a dead end. It will do nothing but promote more alienation and there must be better ways to promote free speech. In fact, this case could be a vehicle for self reflection by Muslims. Self criticism is an area where religion is particularly inept and it requires a little finesse. The Geller/Spencer method is self defeating for anyone but Geller/Spencer.
4. What set this guy off ?
His family seems genuine in their statement that they don't know.
Does it offer us to move past the highly enlightened position that Islam sucks and that's the end of it or do we take a step toward a mutual understanding.
Those that refuse to accept Muslims as human are getting us nowhere.
Duck,
DeletePolice confirm Pam Geller was initial target of terror plot.
The "it" of which Evans spoke may well refer to the unstated antecedent such as "the feasibility of actually getting close enough to Pamela Geller to behead her."
Keep quacking and hoping for Pamela Geller's and Robert Spencer's beheadings. You're showing yourself in a very poor light, and your hatred of two people who hold views different than yours is palpable.
I will agree with you that the importance of the beheading plot is not Pamela Geller per se.
What I find amazing is the amount of double-speak that accompanies the sequence of his short time on this planet. We may begin with a sweet young man who purchased an ISIS looking knife, apparently because the notion of cutting off someone’s head appealed to him. Then we have the bright young man attending Brookline High School; so bright, in fact, that he ended up working for CVS at age 26. He spoke out against the Boston Marathon bombing, but he warms up to the notion of holding a live human down while you saw off his head.
DeleteI have heard pundits talk about the isolated youth. I assume they are talking about people like Usaamuh Rahim, so named by his militant parents. Nothing enfolds a young man into his American community like an Arabic name. Nothing isolates minorities’ more than racist presidents, cabinet officials, and frequent visitors to the White House promulgating false narratives, such as “Hands up, Don’t Shoot.” Nothing isolates black thugs more than encouraging them to go out and kill white cops. While I agree Rahim was isolated, the real question is who isolated him. Hint: it wasn’t I.
I think you are right to say that this had nothing to do with Geller, but the problem remains unsolved. The problem isn’t that people claim “Islam sucks.” Perhaps the problem exists because of this sophomoric explanation. I think it is deeper than that. Islamists believe that all non-Moslems must die, preferably by their hand. There is nothing American about that. Islamists believe that Americans must surrender to the will of Allah. There is nothing American about that, either. Islamists believe that knife-wielding morons should intimidate us into obedience. There is nothing American about that. I do agree that there is a problem on the American side of the equation. It is that Americans do not give a shit about Moslem sensitivities. So where are we? Rule number one: never take a knife to a gunfight.
Why do you call his parents militant?
DeleteWhat constitutes militant? Or is it just necessary in yur world to be Muslim?
You are only partially correct about the problem being unsolved. The problem hasn't been well defined and if we allow the likes of Geller/Spencer to form the question we get nowhere.
@ Ducky
DeleteAs you know, Osama bin Laden first achieved fame in 1988 when he created an organization he named al-Qaida. There are several spelling variations for Osama and one of these is Usaamah. Usaamah Rahim was born in 1989. The meaning of these two names is identical: Lion. Because I am not a believer in series of coincidences, I’m going to guess that this Usaamah was the product of parents who pursue an un-American agenda, who shaped their son to this end. It is only a theory, of course, since I do not know these people, but it does appear to me a credible notion considering their other son, a loud-mouthed militant Imam and a liar of some merit.
You're going to guess.
DeleteQ.E.D.
Duck,
Deletethe family was born here.
The parents and grand parents are all native born.
And those details should be discomforting.
Americans like to say, "Muslims here in America aren't like the troublesome Muslims in Europe. We've done a better job of integrating foreign-born Muslims and those born here."
But have we, really?
Are we seeing only the tip of a very dangerous iceberg?
The wannabe beheader Rahim doesn't fit the comforting pattern: from the Middle East, radicalized in prison, long history of crime, long history of mental illness, etc.
Sam,
DeleteHello! It's been a long time since we've seen you here.
a sweet young man who purchased an ISIS looking knife, apparently because the notion of cutting off someone’s head appealed to him
But, somehow, he got all wound up -- along with, apparently, two others. Gee, what would have caused that? [sarc]
Like so many other groups in America, Muslims need to curb their Muslim sensitivities. One might even say that getting over sensitivities is part of being American and a part of the Melting Pot.
Actually, this guy does fit a disturbing pattern: A dimwit could couldn't pour pi** out of a boot if the instructions were on the heel. Radical Islam seems to attract this type, but Southern Poverty Law Center is zoomed in on overweight wannabe running around in the woods with AR-15's.
DeleteThe other disturbing thing is the generational recidivism. Families move here to escape the butchery and hellish nightmare Islam has spawned in their native lands, only to watch in horror and children or grandchildren take up the flaming sword of big Mo.
He may have mentioned Geller, but she was never in any danger from that goomer. His mentioning her was the equivalent of me sitting in a bar and mouthing off to my buds that I'm going to go punch out Bill Maher.
I'd like to see some stories about a normal American family with normal kids, achieving great things in school and elsewhere with the emphasis on how they did it, they did it on their own, they had as many challenges as the losers do, but surmounted them and how that creates such happiness for them.
ReplyDeleteBecause I'm tired or hearing from losers and homos and all the other special people who can't seem to suck it up and get on with life.
I believe this strategy by the losers will eventually back fire on them. I can't wait.
Why not check out the Duggars kid and note how the subjugation of women is a feature of their religion also.
DeleteWhat little I've seen of them, it hasn't been subjugation.
DeleteTell me the name of their denomination.
The most extreme belief they hold is that their Lord rose from the dead and directs their lives.
Actually, Ed, I would call the Quiverfull movement a cult.
DeleteOne that calls for complete subjugation of the woman to the man's authority.
It is tangentially Christian at best.
Many would call violent salafism a cult. Mke of it what you will.
Kid,
DeleteI'd like to see some stories about a normal American family with normal kids, achieving great things in school and elsewhere...
I'm sure that those stories abound. As you know, however, the greater Enemedia agenda now is one of promoting grievances -- not successes.
HERE is an uplifting story. You can learn more about Soma Mukhopadhyay's work HERE (and on YouTube). I have personal knowledge of one non-verbal autist using RPM. I've seen it for myself! Amazing! In fact, I have one such student in my homeschool classes. I've never seen a student work so hard and achieve so much -- and in the face of a terrible disability.
Duck, they claim to not be quiverfull.
DeleteI've known fellow christians who eschew birth control of any sort.
They believe children are a blessing, not a curse.
Doctrinally, the whackiest they get is thinking God became man and died on a cross for our sins, then rose from the dead, and helps us.
Not a barefut and pregnant cult.
Or a death cult like PP.
Ed,
DeleteI had to do a Google search for Quiverfull. Of the many Christians whom I personally know and have known (thousands, I'm sure), only three families subscribed to the idea of Quivefull -- and two of those families were not homeschooled.
Nevertheless, things such as this appear in sources such as Raw Story, a site which liberals and leftists frequent:
The teachings of the Quiverfull lifestyle are spread primarily through the Christian home school movement.
AOW, Thanks.
DeleteDuck, they claim to not be quiverfull.
DeleteI've known fellow christians who eschew birth control of any sort.
They believe children are a blessing, not a curse.
Doctrinally, the whackiest they get is thinking God became man and died on a cross for our sins, then rose from the dead, and helps us.
Not a barefut and pregnant cult.
Or a death cult like PP.
Always a joy goading you into displaying your erudition, kid.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone here know if Rahim's family members and attorney are still squawking about false arrest, unnecessary violence on the part of the Boston police, etc.?
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteSome TeaPublicans don't understand how denying benefits to gay veterans who are married affects their children.
The person asks: "This affects a veteran's child how?"
This is what that TeaPublican and all the rest of the fake "Support Our Veterans" phonies refuse to understand, because THEY CAN'T. They are psychologically and intellectually unable to see how their hatred of marriage equality actually translates into legislation that hurts veterans and their children. The fact is that the Republican Party hates gay marriage more than they love the gay veterans and their families. That party REALLY REALLY REALLY is that sick.
Here's what will actually happen to gay married veterans as a result of what the TeaPublican Party voted on:
"Veterans served their country bravely, and yet some are deprived of the very rights they risked their lives to protect," she said in an email. "The impact of this discrimination is real. Monthly benefits are less; spouses and children are not eligible for medical care at the VA; and families are not eligible for the same death benefits."
The TeaPublican Party owns this disgraceful, unAmerican piece of legislative hatred.
The GOP is a big party made up of sects of bigots and deniers. Fortunately for them the gun nuts and pro life no matter what and bigots don't care what the other policies are as long as the republican politician tells them the shit they want to hear. People like Shaw and me, you know, people that think and have consciences, won't vote for pandering to kook people like Ted Cruz. The Cruzes don't care what we think because of that. I look for the kooky statements to continue to get worse till one of the nuts openly says the "N" word and claims to be proud he said it. Then again, the next republican will probably carry it even further
Congratulations on your bigotry against American veterans.
Than you for this valuable example of precisely how the Left applies its own peculiar brand of logic to most debatable issues.
DeleteThis diatribe functions brilliantly as a stellar example of the way leftists continually REDEFINE age-old terms like "marriage," then claim their "new" definition" is the ONLY ACCEPTABLE DEFINITION, and then snidely condemn and trumpet their sour disapproval when anyone fails to ACCEPT their newest fabricated version of the truth as unimpeachable "GOSPEL."
The Gospel according to St. MARK is one thing. The Gospel according to St. MARX is quite another.
We'd do well to note the difference, and keep it always in mind.
FT + 1
DeleteYes, all the blather IS very educational, jut not as the writer intended. It still does not erase the fact that no actual child of a homosexual veteran will be denied benefits. And shouldn't.
You can't help but feel sorry, though, for the situations created for these innocents by confused, angry adults whose hatred for societal norms and its gatekeepers far exceeds their interest in the protection and nurture of the next generation.
To Anonymouse reader:
DeleteYou're an idiot, and you are ignorant of how military benefits work, but like a good leftist, you never let a lack of facts or knowledge stop you.
All children of a military member are dependents, and receive all benefits, regardless if the military member is married, single, gay, straight, or shacking up.
The DoD only extends benefits to spouses, which means someone the member is legally married to. As we've tried to explain to you, that is still up in the air because gay marriage has not been decided at the federal level.
Girlfriends/boyfriends do not get benefits, but a service member can make anyone the beneficiary of their SGLI
Also, spouses and other dependents do not get seen at the VA, only veterans do, ding dong.
Now run along to the hermetically-sealed bubble you crawled out of, moron.
Regarding BruCat Jenner:
ReplyDeleteAre we uncomfortable discussing mental illness? If a man has his penis amputated, his testicles removed, and his urethra rerouted should there be cause for alarm? Is this normal? Again: Is this.... normal?
*If you have a male cat or dog would you do the same to them? Of course not! You would be locked up for life for animal cruelty. We are engaging animal cruelty and approving of it on the cover of a magazine.
When this behavior is normalized, society pays. Ultimately, each one of us will bear the financial burden for this. I would prefer..... that we find a cure for breast cancer.
The Last English Prince
Same bullshit, different decade, but something that those Leftist progressives could and should learn from history:
ReplyDeleteYour hero and martyr Martin Luther King sought understanding through tolerance and understanding during the Civil Rights movement. In fact, he didn't speak in terms of tolerance, but of love, a Christian based love. He employed a doctrine passivity, not subversion. Even in the face of having the lives his and his fellow African Americans torn apart by racist sentiments and policies, they chose not to do the same to their oppressors. This attitude allowed for no further division of an already helplessly, racially divided America.
Reason 2: Homosexual and Liberal gay rights activists want to force you to be understanding and tolerant of their cause for equality, without ever being understanding or tolerant themselves. Amounting to nothing more than a vengeful, subversive doctrine of unyielding, unwavering tolerance at whatever cost; to be especially employed towards Christian private business owners. This allows for further division between them and those the LGBT rights movement is trying to reach.
For King, nothing would ever advance the cause of equality by repaying intolerance with intolerance, hatred with hatred, or violence with violence. "Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that," he said. That however is in stark contrast to how the gay rights movement has decided to react to the assumed hatred and bigotry on the behalf of religious private business owners.
The Kingsian philosophy of tolerance, passivity and nonviolence consisted of six main principles:
1) First he said, one can resist evil without resorting to violence.
2) Second, nonviolence seeks to win the ‘‘friendship and understanding’’ of the opponent, not to humiliate him (King, Stride, p.84).
3) Furthermore, third, evil itself, not the people committing evil acts, should be opposed.
4) Fourth, he continued, is that those committed to nonviolence must be willing to suffer without retaliation as suffering itself can be redemptive.
5) Fifthly, nonviolent resistance avoids ‘‘external physical violence’’ and ‘‘internal violence of spirit’’ as well: ‘‘The nonviolent resister not only refuses to shoot his opponent but he also refuses to hate him" (King, Stride, p.85). The resister should be motivated by love in the sense of the Greek word agape, which means ‘‘understanding,’’ or ‘‘redeeming good will for all men’’ (King, Stride, p.86).
6) Lastly, he states the sixth principle, which was that the nonviolent resister should have a ‘‘deep faith in the future,’’ stemming from the conviction that ‘‘the universe is on the side of justice’’
King held the philosophy akin to the old folk hymn, "keep your eyes on the prize." To be frank, that prize wasn't putting some unwitting business owner out on the street for being racist or intolerant. Yeah, business owners were racist and intolerant back then, but not even they (the blacks, and most of them I'd think) thought it was okay to ruin someone, besides, what were they going to do? Sue every Tom, Dick, and Harry who discriminated against them? Not really. Such a movement spurred Congress to end the discussion on racial inequality once and for all, you know the rest.
If only gay rights activists and liberal pro gay rights activists took the approach specifically covered in the third, fourth and fifth principle, I would guarantee that there would be a more broad understanding and sympathy towards gay rights and equality, moreso than exists at this point in time. Or perhaps you prefer Alinsky's rules over King's
How would you Libs prefer to make such a “change” the way that Dr. King was preaching love. Or the way that the Black Panthers and Malcolm X were threatening to burn the country to the ground if there weren't changes? You tell me!