eym_sirius

PEOPLE are in control of all descriptions and characterizations, including what "god" is and what "god's will" is. Sure, it's nut-jobs and wackos, but it's also regular folks who try to make sense of randomness and attach meaning to absurdity. So - Who should use this image of "god's will"? I say, no one should use it publicly, but if they do, then they are opening themselves up for criticism, review and discussion. The idea of an omniscient supernatural being, who has his hand in everything, isn't one that can be consistenly applied, as evidenced above. However, if one needs to personally

You hear all of these uplifting stories about the victims and their families - what great folks! And then there's -- Westboro Baptist Church. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/22/westboro-baptist-church-aurora-shooting-vigil_n_1693375.html

You hear sometimes, parents want to deflect blame from their offspring, saying that they should have been more strict or less strict or that they should have done this or that. The bottom line is, like you said, one of personal responsibility regarding the choices that one makes. It's difficult to place all of this on one person. But that's the way that it should be. We don't want to admit that one person can disrupt and end so many lives at once. But he can. And we also have to come to terms with there being no way that all bad things can be prevented.

I think that the imminent danger in today's politics is memetics. All over the place you see people castigating people and ideologies with specious claims with absolutely no regard for truth or accuracy. Some of these memes come from think-tanks which specialize in producing specious accusations, with the goal of accomplishing the most damage possible to character, reputation, or ideology. After a while, people become inured to telling lies on others, as they begin to equate effectiveness or success with the truth. The imminent danger to society when tragedies occur is over-reacting.

You're right about this. A person can ORDER a gun online, but only a licensed dealer can SELL it to him, at which time he, the buyer, has to personally fill out paperwork and do the background check thing. How that works is that the online business SHIPS the gun to the local licensed firearms merchant, who completes the transaction at his establishment. Consider that this is newsworthy because it happened all in one place, all at one time. This "killing by firearms" plays out nationally in GREATER numbers on a DAILY BASIS. If you put THEM all in the same room, literally, people would beg

Oh, He's a nutcase, no doubt!! He knows right from wrong, so he should get the death penalty like so many before him who had a screw-loose.

DITTO, Spunkywman!I imagine that some people think that I don't even like them, but I love everyone on here!

Isn't this an important point - If the person hasn't paid off taxes yet, where will the money come from to pay those taxes if the candidate is elected? Doesn't this put the candidate in a compromising position, one that puts him/her in a position of power that he/she can use in trade for under-the-table quid-pro-quo transactions? It would be interesting to see just how fast those back taxes and liens get paid if the person who is delinquent gets elected! Essentially, it means that the taxpayer would be paying those back taxes/liens for the politicians because of the value of the quid-pr

First, I have to say PUBBY. For him to have had the vision to see this through as a viable business, to put key people in places of responsibility and to format this thing as a virtual public square - It was simply genius! Johnny J -- If you all haven't met Johnny J, you need to! The nicest guy ever and wise-smart! LPPT - A cool chick who is the whole package - Also one of my favorite people ever. DreamGirl - One of my best-buds! Subby -- The most talented down-to-earth person you'll ever meet. I'm really glad that I've gotten to know him over the years. Starr

Way back then I said that "There is no Bush", but instead the Bush Machine. I still believe that about politics. You can look at the front man of a band, but he just sings the lead vocals. There's a drummer setting the beat, which is reinforced by the bass and the rythym guitar. A lead guitar and keyboards guide the front man with the melody line, which sets up the backup harmony vocals. My point is that I contend that Bush didn't exert creative control because he was put in place as the front man as the face of the operation. But he wasn't the one creating the music, not by a long shot! H

People with no scruples seem to do quite well in politics because they can be so easily controlled with monetary contributions. A politician who misrepresents himself/herself should be run out of town on a rail, but for the tendency of the voting public to entrench themselves in partisan political bigotry.

We're starting to touch on the dilemma here, LPPT. Here's what I heard you saying: You would vote FOR, the sleaziest, most corrupt, on the take politician IF his election to office would give a party a majority. One party or the other will have the majority, so what I think that you're saying, from the context, is that if your vote to oust the NO GOOD GUY would give THE OTHER PARTY, the one that you identify with less, the majority, then you value the principle of PARTY dominance more than you value the principle of voting for individuals on merit. Yours was a really pithy (that's a g

That's a tragedy that speaks to the phenomenon of partisan political entrenchment. Money SHOULDN'T have a darn thing to do with it. But it does. And it will be the ruination of us because if money talks and those with the most money get the loudest voice, then those who are EQUAL CITIZENS do not have an EQUAL freedom of speech.

I suppose the concept of "local elections" was too complex for you? Maybe you didn't know that our President is the President over the WHOLE Country - Not just Paulding County? ["Remember -- This is local elections only."] ["This is a question that regards local elections"]

I don't know about frogs, but with crabs the opposite is true. I would think that boiling water would put them immediately in shock. If it's true, though, it would be a good analogy! So -- have you boiled frogs alive before?

This is a question that regards local elections, but it refers to no specific candidate. If you are of EITHER POLITICAL PARTY and the person running for office is known to have ethics issues or other such political clouds overhanging -- Would you vote for someone else just to get that cancerous person out of "public service" even if you had to vote for the candidate from the other party? Or are you so firmly entrenched in political partisanship that as long as the person is in "YOUR PARTY", you'll vote for him/her, no matter what? This is hypothetical, of course, so let's say that there

What is lobbying anyway, but institutionalized bribery? And if giving gifts is "free speech" there should certainly be a cap, if it is allowed at all. Otherwise, the system will degrade to only the very wealthy being able to afford what is supposed to be the right of every American - Free Speech.

I think that people are looking at this wrong! If politicians who are feloniously behind on their taxes are elected and are in a position to accept bribes and kickbacks (hypothetically, of course) then they might -- MIGHT be in a position to pay their back taxes with the ill-gotten gains*! Not only that, it would be perfect preparation for running for NATIONAL OFFICE! Instead of the taxpayer having to pay for these people going to prison for 20 years, they could just elect them to be "yes-men/yes-women" for the GOP party bosses who control the local level politicians like puppets anyway!

You misread my post and jumped to an illogical, unreasonable conclusion and I called you on it. That's all. And yet you continue to read and respond -- interesting! Can I expect further calls for non-discussion (which are a kind of discussion) on this discussion board?

This is about people trying to control the lives of people they don't know. What's the point? Same-sex couples can get married in some parts of the country. In NO WAY has that situation affected my marriage. To indicate that the "institution of marriage" is somehow compromised is specious, at best. At worst, it's discriminatory (let's remember that we're talking about a legally binding contract that has nothing to do with religion) and oppressive.

Just like there is valor and heroism in the killing a killer (i.e. Navy Seals killing bin Laden), there is virtue in being intolerant of intolerance. If you don't agree with this, then consider that your position sets off an infinite number of opinion-sets. ("I'm intolerant of your intolerance of my intolerance") The response? "Well, I'm intolerant of your intolerance of my intolerance of your intolerance" ad infinitum.

No, I just expect adults to discuss an issue with reasonable responses, based on the content and the context of statements that I make. Yes, the words "file suit" in a different context were used, hence my previous response to you.

Congrats, Johnny J! The newest generation has a fine new member!

I'll add this. One of the things that characterizes the far right ideology is that they rail against the very things that have been set in place by them. The accusations of the far-right are well documented. They seek to deny same-sex couples access to the same institutional framework that the rest of us has. This is a situation which FORCES same sex couples as well as gay individuals, to a degree, to operate outside the mainstream. Then the far right flails at them like a pinata for their "out of the mainstream lifestyle". All that same-sex couples want is the same thing that everyone else w

File a suit??? That makes absolutely no sense. Where did you get that??? It didn't come from the reasoning part of your brain! I understand that it makes sense to you. That's why I suggest that you try again tomorrow!