WestVirginiaRebel Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 I must be miserable: West Virginia Ranks Last for Well-Being Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valin Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 I must be miserable: West Virginia Ranks Last for Well-Being Fortunately you have the new hotness that is Obamacare, so you can get healed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valin Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 If Only He Were Living in a Normal Mainstream Pansexual Transgender Wiccan Nudist Commune Posted by V the K at 8:56 am - February 20, 2014. Olympic Gold Medalist David Wise is married with a wife and a young daughter; he attends church regularly. To NBC, this constitutes an alternative lifestyle. At such a young age, Wise has the lifestyle of an adult. He wears a Baby Bjorn baby carrier around the house. He also attends church regularly and says he could see himself becoming a pastor a little later down the road.(Snip) How Weird Is That! This calls for some serious long term counseling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valin Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 Northwood, Iowa, being evacuated after explosion, fire at fertilizer plant NORTHWOOD, Iowa Residents of Northwood were being evacuated to Kensett Thursday morning as firefighters battled a chemical fire at a fertilizer plant on the grounds of the Northwood airport. (Snip) http://youtu.be/zb4Br5BZ7o0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valin Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 Feb 20, 2014 Kirsten Powers talks with RCP's Carl Cannon about being a liberal at FOX News. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valin Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Feb 20, 2014 Kirsten Powers talks with RCP's Carl Cannon about being a liberal at FOX News. Kirsten Powers talks with RCP's Carl Cannon about the future of the gay marriage debate. BostonBlackie 17 minutes ago First of all, shame on Fox for hiring that stinking , morally deficient , scumbag, Kirsten Powers who has the personality of a dead fart! One of the more hideous human beings on the planet. Fox is playing a dangerous game hiring people of her ilk,along with airheads like Alan Colmes. They have a predominantly conservative base and are tampering with that base by injecting liberal venom on Fox! Shame on Roger Ayles and the rest of the donkeys at Fox for subjecting us to these liberal losers! Feel the Love! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pepper Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 She is a firebrand. Uncompromising. Hard to watch. Hard to listen to. Passionate about her country & her faith. Probably correct, as well. Final video: AnnBarnhardt Vendee PT4 Thanks for all of the parallel to Vendee links 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valin Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Where did I put my baseball bat! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pollyannaish Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Feb 20, 2014 Kirsten Powers talks with RCP's Carl Cannon about being a liberal at FOX News. Kirsten Powers talks with RCP's Carl Cannon about the future of the gay marriage debate. BostonBlackie 17 minutes ago First of all, shame on Fox for hiring that stinking , morally deficient , scumbag, Kirsten Powers who has the personality of a dead fart! One of the more hideous human beings on the planet. Fox is playing a dangerous game hiring people of her ilk,along with airheads like Alan Colmes. They have a predominantly conservative base and are tampering with that base by injecting liberal venom on Fox! Shame on Roger Ayles and the rest of the donkeys at Fox for subjecting us to these liberal losers! Feel the Love! Where is the headslamming graphic? Stupid knows no creed, no party, no race. Stupid is a planet all its own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valin Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Feb 20, 2014 Kirsten Powers talks with RCP's Carl Cannon about being a liberal at FOX News. Kirsten Powers talks with RCP's Carl Cannon about the future of the gay marriage debate. BostonBlackie 17 minutes ago First of all, shame on Fox for hiring that stinking , morally deficient , scumbag, Kirsten Powers who has the personality of a dead fart! One of the more hideous human beings on the planet. Fox is playing a dangerous game hiring people of her ilk,along with airheads like Alan Colmes. They have a predominantly conservative base and are tampering with that base by injecting liberal venom on Fox! Shame on Roger Ayles and the rest of the donkeys at Fox for subjecting us to these liberal losers! Feel the Love! Where is the headslamming graphic? Stupid knows no creed, no party, no race. Stupid is a planet all its own. Ryan Anderson to Kirsten Powers: Jim Crow? Government Shouldn’t Intimidate Christians Ken McIntyre February 19, 2014 Liberal-leaning commentator Kirsten Powers strays from a common understanding of faith in asserting that Christians who support protections for religious views on marriage “are essentially arguing for homosexual Jim Crow laws,” Heritage Foundation scholar Ryan T. Anderson writes in a National Review Online column. Powers makes the comparison in her column in today’s USA Today, attacking a Kansas measure that proponents say would prevent government from forcing citizens to honor same-sex marriage when it’s against their religion. In a rebuttal, Anderson writes at NRO that “the government shouldn’t enshrine Powers’s theology into law.” Legislation such as the Kansas bill, he explains, actually aims to prevent the kind of coercion that occurred under the South’s old Jim Crow regime by protecting freedom of association, freedom of contract and freedom of religion. Powers appears to dismiss the religious convictions of florists, bakers, photographers and other business owners who don’t choose to join in celebrations of same-sex unions. “Christianity doesn’t prohibit serving a gay couple getting married,” writes the Fox News Channel regular. “Christians serve unrepentant murderers through prison ministry. So why can’t they provide a service for a same-sex marriage?” (Snip) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pollyannaish Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 I disagree with Kirsten on that. I think anyone should be able to refuse service for EVENTS that violate their values. (Notice I said events. I don't think that you should be able to say you won't sell flowers to certain people. But you don't have to coordinate an event. One is a product, one is a service. Different things. But perhaps I am being too nuanced...) But I think having voices of differing view points helps all of us think more clearly, review our core beliefs and find common ground and that is not a bad thing. I think the key is the part where she talks about how she discovered we aren't all dumb and evil. I don't believe for a second that all liberals are dumb and evil. They are horribly mistaken, and often are unrealistic, but that is my perspective on their ideas, not their value as human beings. Just for the record, I would provide flowers for a gay wedding, even though I am opposed to them biblically. As a Christian, I don't think refusing business is an effective way to live God's love for us. I also don't think the government should have anything to do with telling a business what events he or she has to provide services for. One other thing: With the genie out of the box on this whole thing, my preferred way of handling it would be for the government to get the heck out of the marriage business completely. You can pick up domestic partnership licenses (basically a financial agreement that includes a will and a power of attorney agreement) for any combination of people who wish to file one. Churches, groups and others would become the sole arbiter of marriage and it would be up to those institutions or, in Portland Oregon, Donut Shops, to decide who was married and who was not. This is not ideal. But at this point, being practical and keeping the government small may be the best way to deal with this whole screwed up bunch of hooey. Also, I am putting my effort and money towards outfits that work to reduce abortion demand rather than worry about the legislation. If my goal is to reduce the number of abortions, this route seems the most effective. I feel exactly the same way about this whole gay marriage hoopla. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SrWoodchuck Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Sweet @pollyannaish & @Valin Requiring a baker or photographer to perform/provide a service or product, for the celebration of an event that is against their religious belief or conviction; is an abridgement of the 1st Amendment right to that religious belief. Re: Prison Ministry-No one requires a minister or chaplain to provide the service. [Although State & Federal law require access to religious service] Prisoners are not required to attend or participate. It is an outreach of Christian faith that is voluntary. Listening to the Word of God, or [my belief] receiving the Body of Christ is not compulsory. Is there another baker/photographer that doesn't have a problem with their lifestyle? Can they find someone in their circle of friends & family, to perform those services? If it was a monetary obstacle....should they sue the public for discrimination due to their poverty? It comes down [iMO] to enforcing a physical act of approval of their lifestyle....a genuflection, if you will...to a lifestyle choice that is against other equal citizens moral & legal rights. It is part of the LGBT agenda. Mere acceptance is not the goal. It must be enthusiastic approval of the lifestyle & belief, of around 2% of the US population. That's not sexual, or religious freedom. It's select societal privilege...and it's tyranny. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pollyannaish Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Totally agree @SrWoodchuck! I think what I was in artfully trying to say is that if a person the owner "thought" or "knew" was gay came into the store and the owner refused to sell them something...is that different? The libertarian part of me thinks that would be a problem that eventually solved itself with competition. But them I ask myself: would blacks still be eating in the back of the restaurant if the issue had not been forced." I honestly don't know. I would like to think that it would have without some of the ugliness and brutality that ensued. But was that an injustice too large to wait to fix? Just some questions for discussion. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SrWoodchuck Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Sweet @pollyannaish Good questions. I think what I was in artfully trying to say is that if a person the owner "thought" or "knew" was gay came into the store and the owner refused to sell them something...is that different? Is there a "right of refusal" in business? The signs that are posted to that effect.....probably envision a filthy or inappropriately dressed patron....or a minor. Would that preclude someone that you knew or suspected to be a child molester? Someone with a contagious disease? I agree with the difference about race....and civil rights, except....that distinction is between what a man or woman is from birth....a matter of pure existence....and not what they do......an action born of free will. LGBT will argue that it is the way they are from birth. Does a society have a right to impose certain restrictions on behavior? Yes, I think they do. It's why we don't marry our 1st cousins, or eat people. The crux is...at what point does your behavior interfere with my rights & beliefs as a citizen. I believe in letting people do what they want, as long as it doesn't interfere with my rights to life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness.....or deprive others of theirs. Making me salute a choice that I find aberrant, unhealthy, un-natural or unwise is not liberty & freedom for you....or for me. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pollyannaish Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 So, if we believe that homosexuality is a behavior, not am identity, it would fall into a different category. ( please note: this is not a theological discussion on this, but purely a public policy one. I would discuss it very differently in that case) If that is the case, then it would come under the same principles that are used to discriminate against smokers. Excuse me, tobacco smokers. The government has dictated in WA state that in all public places that smoking is prohibited, even in ones own vehicle if children are present and in many places on te street. This would suggest then, that the government dictating behavior to private businesses is acceptable in certain circumstances. Which is a long way of saying: I love smoke free restaurants as a non-smoker..but I knew that the government doing it was a bad idea. It was a gateway to the rest of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valin Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Sweet @pollyannaish & @Valin Requiring a baker or photographer to perform/provide a service or product, for the celebration of an event that is against their religious belief or conviction; is an abridgement of the 1st Amendment right to that religious belief. Re: Prison Ministry-No one requires a minister or chaplain to provide the service. [Although State & Federal law require access to religious service] Prisoners are not required to attend or participate. It is an outreach of Christian faith that is voluntary. Listening to the Word of God, or [my belief] receiving the Body of Christ is not compulsory. Is there another baker/photographer that doesn't have a problem with their lifestyle? Can they find someone in their circle of friends & family, to perform those services? If it was a monetary obstacle....should they sue the public for discrimination due to their poverty? It comes down [iMO] to enforcing a physical act of approval of their lifestyle....a genuflection, if you will...to a lifestyle choice that is against other equal citizens moral & legal rights. It is part of the LGBT agenda. Mere acceptance is not the goal. It must be enthusiastic approval of the lifestyle & belief, of around 2% of the US population. That's not sexual, or religious freedom. It's select societal privilege...and it's tyranny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NCTexan Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 CNN hit a "double" with these two lead stories on their front page. These are the two most pressing news stories in the world today. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valin Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SrWoodchuck Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 So, if we believe that homosexuality is a behavior, not am identity, it would fall into a different category. ( please note: this is not a theological discussion on this, but purely a public policy one. I would discuss it very differently in that case) If that is the case, then it would come under the same principles that are used to discriminate against smokers. Excuse me, tobacco smokers. The government has dictated in WA state that in all public places that smoking is prohibited, even in ones own vehicle if children are present and in many places on te street. This would suggest then, that the government dictating behavior to private businesses is acceptable in certain circumstances. Which is a long way of saying: I love smoke free restaurants as a non-smoker..but I knew that the government doing it was a bad idea. It was a gateway to the rest of this. Sweet @pollyannaish Homosexuality is a behavior, just as heterosexuality is a behavior. I choose to identify myself as heterosexual. Should I be forced to provide a service/product for someone....celebrating, or advocating their behavior, that is not in line with my deeply held beliefs, morals & religion? I believe that there are natural [as in basic human behavior-natural] reasons for heterosexuality over homosexuality. Among them: Natural procreation. Family values. Health of individuals, in terms of body, mind & spirit. Even health of a country, due to the aging of society & then causing a need for immigration to fill the physical needs of society. Is this discrimination of the individual.....or is it within my rights, to discriminate in my approval, or disapproval of a behavior that is clearly at odds with my belief? Hate the sin....and not the sinner. Smoking is a behavior that, when done in private, affects only the person doing the smoking. Second hand smoke, has & does cause problems for others around the smoker. Since the actions of the smoker have adverse reactions for those around them....do the rights of the smoker have more weight than the non-smokers around them in public? I don't smoke. I don't hate the smoker.....I hate the smoke. Let them smoke anywhere that they want, as long as those who don't smoke are not impacted. It should be a voluntary....a courteous action.....but we're a litigious society that insists on clear boundaries....and with every codified action/inaction....we become bound in political correctness. We are a Constitutional Republic.....not a Democracy. Do whatever you want in private and enjoy your life. Do not expect me to give more than acceptance to your lifestyle. Your quest to make me celebrate your choice....as a way for you to feel the super-approval you need to justify it....interferes with my rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valin Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 The Week in Pictures: Polar Vortex From Hell Edition Steven Hayward 2/22/14 I gather the near-term weather forecast is calling for a return of the polar vortex that is making this the most severe winter in the U.S. in 35 years, and yes, polar vortex from hell may be a non sequitur, but if John Kerry and Al Gore dont have to make any sense, why should I? Funny thing about coincidence: the last eastern winter and western drought of this severity was 1978 (when I recall being restricted to 50 gallons of water use a day per household during a stretch in the summer). Jerry Brown was also governor back then. Cause and effect? Im sure Michael Mann could provide a graph proving the proposition. Now back to binge-viewing of House of Cards, and although I may think the British original was superior, I couldnt possibly comment. (Snip) (Snip) (Snip) (Snip) (Snip) (Snip) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valin Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 Feb 20, 2014 Kirsten Powers talks with RCP's Carl Cannon about being a liberal at FOX News. Kirsten Powers talks with RCP's Carl Cannon about the future of the gay marriage debate. BostonBlackie 17 minutes ago First of all, shame on Fox for hiring that stinking , morally deficient , scumbag, Kirsten Powers who has the personality of a dead fart! One of the more hideous human beings on the planet. Fox is playing a dangerous game hiring people of her ilk,along with airheads like Alan Colmes. They have a predominantly conservative base and are tampering with that base by injecting liberal venom on Fox! Shame on Roger Ayles and the rest of the donkeys at Fox for subjecting us to these liberal losers! Feel the Love! Kirsten Powers On Kermit Gosnell Posted On 2.22, 2014 Kirsten Powers talks with RCP's Carl Cannon about her influential USA Today column on the Kermit Gosnell case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
righteousmomma Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 What is a "husband"? What is a "wife"? A husband by definition is "a married man considered in relation to his wife" and "male head of a household’ A wife by definition is "a married woman considered in relation to her husband." Now that the definition of marriage has been allowed to be changed. Don't we need new terms for the partners in said union. I mean it sounds kind of silly when I read statements like "Ellen DeGeneres and wife Portia De Rossi......".or "Jeffrey Pelletier and his husband Christopher Pasco.....and without disturbing their son K...." I remember seeing in a restaurant 2 women who were lesbians and had adopted a little girl. She called one of them Big Momma and the other one just mom but in Spanish since she had been adopted from somewhere in S.A.. (Don't know if they were married or not. Snce this is NC they probably were not so poor little girl did not have a daddy. Only 2 moms a big one and a little one) I think we should start a movement to just do away with all biased, bigoted unequal gender/sex identifying words - after all we are all just human mammals. We are all the same. Male/female, sperm/egg, XYchromosomes/XX/XXY. What difference does it make!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valin Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clearvision Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 Why not just have each person carry around a "now serving" dispenser. This is your proof of consent.... 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nickydog Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 What is a "husband"? What is a "wife"? A husband by definition is "a married man considered in relation to his wife" and "male head of a household’ A wife by definition is "a married woman considered in relation to her husband." Now that the definition of marriage has been allowed to be changed. Don't we need new terms for the partners in said union. I mean it sounds kind of silly when I read statements like "Ellen DeGeneres and wife Portia De Rossi......".or "Jeffrey Pelletier and his husband Christopher Pasco.....and without disturbing their son K...." I remember seeing in a restaurant 2 women who were lesbians and had adopted a little girl. She called one of them Big Momma and the other one just mom but in Spanish since she had been adopted from somewhere in S.A.. (Don't know if they were married or not. Snce this is NC they probably were not so poor little girl did not have a daddy. Only 2 moms a big one and a little one) I think we should start a movement to just do away with all biased, bigoted unequal gender/sex identifying words - after all we are all just human mammals. We are all the same. Male/female, sperm/egg, XYchromosomes/XX/XXY. What difference does it make!! Was that a rant, @righteousmomma? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now