- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
I agree with this statement. If it were me, I'd admit if I were caught off guard or just freaked out, I might not do the right thing. But I completely agree that the good guys of the world should grab whatever weapon they have and stop people trying to commit atrocities.
I also agree with the stuff about it being okay to talk about Hitler aloud and admit that it's an extreme case that shows how we can fail to stand up to someone we know is wrong.
The stuff about not wanting a Muslim president, sounded like the garden variety bigotry that his Hitler example is supposed to illustrate-- stand up to that nonsense. It does say he later said he wouldn't want any extremist as president. No fake. If he's such a straight talker, he could have started with that truism and avoided appearing to exploit people's fears of one another.
I agree strongly with him on stopping a murderer. It's easy to say we should fight a gunman who unexpectedly starts shooting. It's hard to do. I admire anyone who does it.
I'm loving this being on the right side .....
Maybe people are saying this. I'm pretty uninformed. I catch news here and there. But I suspect the people doing the talking are the people with a political agenda, as you suggest.
I also think of Eddie Murphy in Distinguished Gentleman where the guy says he needs an admin assistant (AA).
If there were a serious Muslim candidate running, maybe you would call for a law creating a religious test for public office to defend the Constitution.
It's funny how you can have a preference for one's imaginary friend over the other, esp when to me as an atheist they seem almost the same. It's almost like a joke where they subtly changed the insane bizarre stories' details and character names.
I take none of it seriously. Educated people of the world do not take religious stories, esp the bizarre ones where you hear voices telling you to kill your son, literally.
If you're saying we don't want leaders who take any religious stories literally, that goes without saying for me. I don't think anyone educated really does. I think it's just something to make people feel close to you, as if they're part of the group of your ancestors, and it's to shamelessly get people to fear their neighbors based on their ancestors, stuff that has nothing to do with the modern world. I really think this nonsense is on it's way out.
BB = imaginary friend to atheists.
Sorry for the atheistic snark. I didn't mean to insult religion but rather to say all religions of the world seem bizarre to atheists if taken literally, and there's no point for us examining the stories and picking favorites.
Consider this:
God said....
The BB happening? Universal resonance?
I just think the possibilities are fascinating.
I'm not saying this false swearing has already happened, but some people think it has.
I happen to agree with Carson 100%. I spent time in Greece and Cyprus and met with many people who were trying to escape the barbarity of Islam dominated by Sharia: a culture of vigilante justice wholly skewed to demean and degrade women and with zero-tolerance policies that make the stuff here in the US just look ridiculous in comparison. I can't vote for or support any Muslim running for office until that person has vowed that the Constitution - and not Sharia - is the prime law here in the United States.
Your second paragraph reads like there are people saying we might want to elect a president who supports adopting medieval institutions literally from the Dark Ages that they still practice in the backward areas of the modern world. That doesn't make any sense. No one's saying that. That's standing up to a straw man.
Uh, there are. Muslims. They did it in Palestine and Egypt. It already exists in Iran. Iraq looks to fall to it, as does Syria (and Lebanon). They are very close to overthrowing several other Middle Eastern nations and installing caliphates in Jordan, Qatar, UAE, and others and the Saudis are very concerned. They hate the "Great Satan" of America and would love to see us fall - especially by our own hand. And you may not believe this, but many European nations such as Germany, England, the Netherlands, and France are also having Muslim crises.
The question as posed by the press was a gotcha question, but does have some validity in lieu of the recent decisions by some States here to ban Sharia courts (and all other extra-Constitutional authorities) and the recent troubles in England being derived by Sharia courts. It's a legitimate concern to all who reject non-Constitutional jurisdiction - whether that arise from Sharia courts or the UN.
Look at all Barack Obama has done and consider it with respect to furthering Islam. NASA's primary mission being changed to Muslim outreach. The Bowe Berghdahl trade. Obama's proposed changes to the military which decrease its effectiveness. Arming al Queda sympathizers to overthrow Assad in Syria. Supporting the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Declining to support the student uprising in Iran. His refusal to use the words "radical Islam". Declining to support the Christians in traditionally Muslim nations now being slaughtered by Muslims. And now this nuclear deal with Iran.
If you aren't very concerned with the way this President kowtows to Islam - despite his self-proclamation he is a Christian - you should be. Islam was the primary threat to us as a new nation via the Barbary pirates. It has consistently threatened much of the world since its inception about 800 AD. It is the second-largest theology behind only Christianity. And its theology supports more than 95% of the worlds terrorist organizations. To have a President of the US who isn't willing to recognize and name the enemies of our nation is bad. To have one that sympathizes with them will bring about the complete downfall of the Constitution.
What an incredibly painful farce that was. How could anyone have made that mission statement with a straight face...though I am not sure if laughing or crying would have been more appropriate.
Jan
They're real.
No, O was raised for what he's done, designed even, AND someone, a foreign entity, PAID for his rise to do exactly what he's doing.
Proof? Objectively look at his actions and words.
Anything else is arrogance and bluster. There is a lot more to existence that what we can see and touch, thats factual.
Your initial three sentences were written in context, and as such, they represent a depressing package deal.
I stand by my comment. :)
As to the standing up to a killer remark, I think that would not be a very effective action to take. I think if more people were armed, a killer would be less likely to get away with mass shootings, as he would know he would be killed right there. They all know that the police never show up until after the shootings are over. If people in the crowd were armed, its more likely that one of them would simply shoot the shooter and kill him right there. If I had a concealed gun, I would just shoot the perp instead of standing there like Carson suggested.
Unlike other countries that have a historic national race and religion, America is based on an idea, an idea of living life deliberately and doing your own thing without having to follow the traditions of your origins unless you want to.
This idea of America is the exact opposite of what you are describing-- where in Saudi Arabia citizens must to follow Saudi traditions and national religion and if they become American citizens they must adopt America's traditions and national religion. They specifically designed the country not to have a national religion or gov't-enforced culture.
"They all know that the police never show up until after the shootings are over. "
This basic fact was true when they wrote the Constitution and probably influenced them (among other reasons) to guarantee people the bear arms. .
No, not if they take the stories literally. My point is many people are religious because of their cultural heritage, but they clearly know it ain't so and are able to live in reality. They have memories holidays with extended family in their home town, and the special holidays to commemorate some super-human people who talked to the gods and supposedly accomplished some great feats thousands of years ago. They turn to these memories for strength when they face difficult times. They don't go out and believe in the supernatural or support the extreme ideas in the religious texts.
I am not saying we should humor them or pretend to pray with them after a tragedy. But I have no desire to confront them about their "olive tree". I have no desire to tell them, "All that's bunk. Your grandmother believed it b/c she happened to be born at a time a place where that held sway and no one had the temerity to point out how irrational it is. All those good values came from human kind and reason, not gods. Your religion condoned murder, rape, slavery, and brutally executing people for trivial offenses. It is incompatible with modernity." They generally know that. They generally want those who use the religion as a justification to commit crimes to be jailed. There is no case of radical extremists running for office in the US. We are talking about something that does not exist.
"What, you don't like Ben Carson? That makes you a racist. So if you don't want to be called a racist, you had better shut up and sit down. No, Obama is not the first black president. Ask Bill Clinton. Besides, Obama is half white, Carson is completely black. If you cannot agree with a completely black black man, that makes you a racist. Your Jimmy Carter once said as much, you bigot for a racist you. So shut up and sit down. Or I'll call you more names. Like Jim Crow or something even more shameful."
that the only true wisdom is in knowing one knows
nothing. 'We know that we know nothing,' they
chatter, blanking out the fact that they are claiming
knowledge; 'There are no absolutes,' they chatter,
blanking out the fact that they have just uttered
an absolute..."--Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged".
(would have put the title in italics, but I don't see
the italics button on this machine).
Everyone has few “pet” issues and no candidate is going to live up to what any of us want in a leader. Carson, a 7th Day Adventist and Creationist, is a long way from an Objectivist. So long as he has more points to agree with than, say, Hillary, I would not write him off because he and I do not agree on my pet issues. My poiunt is, I don't think we should pick candidates based upon a few pet issues, but on a broader basis. As it stands, Rand Paul is still my preferred choice.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/03/politic...
I'll settle for Carson but....
If those two aren't Government Party nominees I'll vote for a left wing socialist corporatist statist with strong fascist tendencies. Hmmmm switch two words around you just described Hillary.
I want the Allies to win but....
Can't have it both ways unless you are a pancake? They don't have firm convictions either just sort lay around and get burned.
Framing the debate isn't as easy as you expected?
On the other hand, I'll take Door # 3.
On the other hand, Trump is more of a deal maker and would get consensus on more sensible items for the country, like foreign trade and treating the country as a business. We need some of that after the debacle of Obama.
2. Get out of the various wars draining our resources for no benefits
3. Cutting back on crony capitalism where people are using government to lord over regular citizens.
4. Stop pandering to immigrants who come here just to get freebies that the rest of us have to pay for. Immigrants who come here for a better life and are willing to work for it are welcome and should get work permits, but not instant citizenship. If we allow too many people of other cultures to become citizens too quickly, we will lose OUR culture.
As to useless, evil, and boring- I think the democrats this time have taken the cake. Hillary just lies and manipulates, Biden would just make deals with his friends in government, Sanders would really take us down the socialist road quickly, and the others are boring !
West isn't running...which is too bad.
Cruz still has my respect.