40 comments posted · 1 followers · following 1

11 years ago @ Big Government - Will Public Schools Co... · 1 reply · 0 points

K-12 purchased independently worked great for us. Then our local school district offered it for free, but the red tape associated with the schooling what supremely stupid. For example, we had to "certify" that our children were doing school at least 6 hours per school day (that they tried to insist should correspond to the public school days), even though our children usually finished within 2-3 hours. When we brought this up, the coordinator just said, "'Just write down that they did it in the amount of time we require. But make sure you log on every day because you can get in trouble for fraud and we can demand payment for the course if you are falsifying the documents." Nice. She was basically saying, "Lie to us, but do it sneaky so I won't have to throw you in jail."

12 years ago @ Big Government - Unions Battle Reform i... · 0 replies · +2 points

In the spirit of bi-partisan name-calling. The dumbest congresswomen I ever met was Mary Bono, also from California. But you are right, Rep. Waters (D. Cal.) is only smarter than Rep. Bono (R. Cal.) by the smallest of margins.

13 years ago @ Big Hollywood - A Matter of Opinion · 0 replies · +1 points

Also, why insist on calling gay unions "marriage" if all of the rights are offered?

Finally, there is no legal equal protection argument because all capable adults have exactly the same rights, we can all marry one person who consents that is the opposite sex and not closely related to you. Gay men are just as free to marry a woman as any heteromale is. The fact that they don't want to marry a woman doesn't change that their rights aren't any different. Many people choose to never marry for any number of reasons.

13 years ago @ Big Hollywood - A Matter of Opinion · 0 replies · +1 points

Let me try to keep you on this side of the fence in the whole gay marriage thing. First, I don't really care if two people want to be gay and live together - none of my business.

However, study after study shows that the single most significant risk to a child becoming (insert any socially undesirable thing here) is the lack of their father in the home. The reason that the State has an duty to protect and encourage man/woman marriage is that our society needs children that will likely grow up to be contributing members of society. Step-father doesn't work, mommy's girlfriend doesn't work, daddy's husband doesn't work, etc., to reverse the terrible statistical disadvantage of children reared in non-traditional families. (don't take my word for it, the first book I know of that shows this problem is "Fatherless America" by Blankenhorn in about 1995. Others have followed).

13 years ago @ Big Hollywood - A Matter of Opinion · 0 replies · +1 points

How, exactly, do you remove government from determining alimony, palimony, child custody, division of property, etc. The courts (you know, one of the branches of GOVERNMENT) must be used to make such decisions. State definition of marriage is useful to define which people can come to court and ask for whatever they want, regardless of whether or not they have any right to it. For example, lets say two people are a couple for a few years, staying over occasionally and generally being together, and then they break up. Should we allow them to use court resources in determining who gets the sofa one bought for the other for whatever reason?

13 years ago @ Big Hollywood - A Matter of Opinion · 0 replies · +1 points

Funny, I thought the solution to the gay marriage/slippery slope argument was to just define marriage as the union between a man and a woman. Period. That cuts off arguments that it would lead to gay marriage, incest, polygamy, or whatever.

See how well that argument has worked for the traditional marriage folks.

The reason it won't "cut off argument" is that people who want it will make the EXACT SAME arguments used to jam gay marriage down society's throat this time. Just calling it something obviously doesn't cut off debate.

13 years ago @ Glenn Beck - The 912 P... - The 9/12 · 1 reply · +2 points

You probably believe in evolution and Darwin. So, according to Darwin's theories, any condition that causes a failure to reproduce is a failure and necessarily removed from the gene pool. Wanting to mate with only things that can't lead to reproduction is a genetic DEAD-END, and should not be encouraged by any species.

By the way, why is it that every other genetic dead-end is called a syndrome, disease, disorder, etc.? We usually spend big money trying to cure these species-ending conditions. Yet, for some reason, this particular geneticilly suicidal trait is supposed to be accepted and celebrated?

If you want to mate with someone of the same gender, go ahead, Darwin approves. Just don't try and call it "normal'. There is absolutlely nothing "normal" or "natural" about wanting to kill off your own genes.

13 years ago @ Glenn Beck - The 912 P... - The 9/12 · 1 reply · +2 points

It's a valid point. The posts aren't news, they are commentary on news by leftists. Of course leftists would say that Christians are in trouble because they engage in societal debate. I disagree with their analysis of why the numbers of self-identified Christians has dropped.

13 years ago @ Glenn Beck - The 912 P... - The 9/12 · 1 reply · +1 points

I think the problem people have is that your posts seem to suggest that we remove God from the debate entirely. From my perspective, belief in God and reason are entirely compatible, in fact symbiotic. I should be able to be a religious person and still beat the pants off of illogical people with reasoned debate, even about the place of God in the public square.

13 years ago @ Glenn Beck - The 912 P... - The 9/12 · 3 replies · +2 points

American Christianity has been remarkably and consistently open to the principles of freedom. I don't care if you come to the idea of freedom from another direction. However, my belief in God cannot be divorced from my core principles. I will never use the argument "because God said so" in a debate. That is not productive. Reason must be the primary tool in any debate. My faith in God directs how I use Reason; it is not a substitute for it.