Trump Was the Biggest Loser during the South Carolina Debate
Donald was whiney, uncivil and so very un-presidential. He threw Trumpertantrum after Trumpertantrum, interrupted again and again and was booed over and over.Read More »
The cover story of the May 2014 issue of the Atlantic Monthly is titled “Closing The Confidence Gap: Even successful women lack self-assurance at work. Men have too much.” No doubt the point of this article will be that, since a few are miserable, everyone should be miserable. So long as there is not an atmosphere of outright abuse or verbal belittlement going on, is this aspect of the inner existence really any of the employer’s business so long as the employee does the bare minimum agreed upon by both parties of this contractual relationship? Will special steps be taken for or handouts extended to men whose own occupational lives are unsatisfactory but who feel that they aren’t good enough to find a better situation so their own career trajectory consists of keeping their heads down in order to get the bills paid and hoping to run out the clock to retirement before being overtaken by the Grim Reaper? If not, then why all the fuss about the women?
Interesting. So I guess claims of a young earth stretch the limits of credulity but we are all expected to jump on board about speculations regarding Blood Moons and this being the final pope.
In Star Wars, Obi-Wan Kenobi warned strike him down and he would become more powerful than one could possibly imagine. Now that that Redskins trademark has been canceled, does that mean anybody that wants to can produce Redskins’ paraphernalia?
The cover story of the July 2014 issue of Sojourners Magazine is titled “Dismantling The New Jim Crow: What It Will Take To Cure America’s Addiction To Mass Incarceration”. There is nary a word in the article about whether or not the imprisoned minorities might have actually committed the crimes the have been accused and convicted of. I doubt most are behind bars for a rounding error on a tax return.
A Happy Meal commercial promises that with the nutritional things contained within that the imagination can soar. Maybe urchins can imagine they are eating something worthwhile like fries and soda rather than apples and milk.
In an attempt to undermine a literal understanding of the Book of Genesis in conservative Evangelical circles, the argument is being put forward that the scientific implications of the Biblical origins account (especially the consideration of the timeframe involved) should not be considered a major issue. Instead, these texts are to be viewed as a corrective to the Egyptian polytheism from which the ancient Israelites emerged under the leadership of Moses. But if that is the case, just where does the contemporary believer draw the line? If death really didn’t enter into the world through the singular act of Adam, why should we take seriously the Bible’s claim that only Christ provides an escape from this curse? For that matter, if we are to not take seriously as literal the whole seven day time frame because the ancients apparently couldn’t wrap their minds around basic astronomy and geophysics but rather as the allegorical understanding of the Hebrew pastoralists, can we be assured that talk of the risen Christ just wasn’t concocted to mirror the tales of anthropomorphized deities that the Greek and the Romans had a penchant for in a time when the intricacies of biology where still a mystery?
Science journalist George Johnson has written in the New York Times that the sense of design many experience when observing or reflecting upon the intricacies of nature is an evolutionary holdover that we must strive to overcome as a species. Yet, any other time, these very same radical naturalists insist that we must not resist the primitive animalistic impulse to copulate outside of the shackles of monogamous heterosexual marriage.
In comments where Sting compared jihad with the Virgin Birth, the has-been rocker advised that, before trying to eliminate terrorism, we should try to understand it and that most of our problems regarding it are the result of a “lack of consciousness” and a “low level understanding of reality”. So if he was mangled by an improvised explosive device filled with shrapnel or his children vaporized in the World Trade Center Attack, would he still be strumming such a blame the victim tune?
It seems the incident of a disfigured toddler asked to leave a Kentucky Fried Chicken may be fraudulent. Will as many be a quick to posture and grandstand on Facebook against this deception as they were to applaud themselves regarding their own over-inflated sense of tolerance, acceptance, and inclusion?
At some filthy redneck festival, Duck Dynasty coot Phil Robertson is alleged to have remarked that only women and children lack whiskers. If the statement is an accurate reflection of his beliefs, perhaps he would care to comment on and condemn photos of his sons where they are not only beardless but quaffed with blond highlights. Seems that would be a greater indicator of effeminacy than men with appreciation for poodles and felines.
According to the British Telegraph, a Greenpeace honcho flies 250 miles during his commute to work. Yet this is an environmental wacko front group that has denounced the growth of aviation as a contributor to climate change. So, in other words, you are to set on your backside at home flagellating yourself over the privilege of using a flush toilet as commanded by these global elites enjoying lives of luxury.
If Obama is going to uphold the French as the example to emulate in terms of maternity leave and handouts, does he intend to praise the French for defending the linguistic integrity and purity of their language?
In a Youtube video on introductory Lutheranism, the viewer was assured that Martin Luther was no saint. Foremost among the flaws listed was nothing more than that he irritated people. But is that necessarily a flaw in itself without context or elaboration? Did not Christ, the sinless Lamb of God, so irritate people that He was crucified in part because of that character trait?
Perhaps couples that can’t afford to take off work to have children should refrain from those activities that result in the need to take off to have children.
The world cup player that bites his opponents should have his teeth knocked out by the next person he does it to.
A toddler exposed that the robbers of one Milwaukee home were not Black as originally told to police but rather White, leading to the eventual apprehension the babysitter and her boyfriend. In an attempt to curry favor with tolerancemongers, one social critic posted, “I doubt this story will be talked about on conservative talk radio.” Is there a reason why it should be? And I guess it is also George Bush’s fault that the residence was robbed to begin with. Is every other home invasion and robbery that takes place in the United States worthy of attention in areas beyond that in which the crime took place? This event will probably get more attention on Conservative talk radio than accurate accounts of the knockout game primarily as a phenomena where Trayvonite Blacks deliberately seek out White victims upon which to inflict significant cranial injury or stories of activist minorities fabricating attacks by Caucasian marauders will in the mainstream press. There, this might not be talk radio, but now it cannot be said that this story was not at least mentioned in conservative social media. But since it does not promote the “Whites are terrible; aren’t Blacks mistreated” mentality, I guess it does not count.
Apparently the White House invites to receptions those that flout Southern Baptist beliefs as in the case of a pastor that altered his congregations stance on homosexuality in support of his morally deficient son but the White House persecutes those challenging the assumptions of Islam in the case of the filmmaker that administration propagandists went out of their way to blame for the Benghazi uprising and kept him in prison as long as possible on unrelated charges.
In reaction to the President’s continued admission that under his regime that utility rates would necessarily skyrocket, a liberal pundit on Fox News declared to Neil Cavuto that Americans do not have a right to inexpensive electricity. Maybe not. Then why do they supposedly have a right to FREE contraceptives and same sex couples the benefits of marriage? In a technological world, access to power is a more basic need than those other luxuries.
Same liberals outraged over Mike Rowe endorsing shoplifter shaming wouldn’t say a thing about Muslim lopping off the hands of thieves.
It was remarked on an episode of Issues Etc that up until 30 or 40 years ago, early marriage was the norm. So was backhanding the little woman across the face when she got uppity. That does not mean it was wise, prudent, or even right.
On an episode of Issues Etc defending marriage, it was said that there is nothing wrong in getting married and not going to college or getting a big important job beforehand. Shouldn’t it have also been emphasized that, if that is the path you decide to take, be prepared to paddle it yourself and not expect everyone else to float your boat financially? Not my kids, not my financial duty no matter how allegedly large my apparently invisible pile of single person money.
Hillary Clinton remarked that, as laboratories of democracy, states should be able to decide the legalization of recreational drugs on their own. Does she intend to make a similar policy pronouncement regarding gay marriage and decry the federal judicial intervention jamming this unnatural cohabitational arrangement down the throats of jurisdictions not wanting to approve it?
In analyzing the gluten-free fad, homeschool activist Kevin Swanson poked fun at those that cut out gluten without even understanding what gluten is or conducting extensive research tests to determine whether or not they might have a biological sensitivity to the substance. Does he intend to make similar observations of what goes on in assorted churches across the varying swaths of Christendom? Don’t just as many sitting out in the pews simply go along with a particular theological application because they have been told to do so by someone in the pulpit without coming to these conclusions on their own through their individual process of ratiocination? In a podcast just the other day, this same minister attempted to work listeners into a panic not to let their children go to the library over a pro-homosexual book that might be on the shelves even though a good library offers works on a wide array of topics from a variety of perspectives. Wouldn’t the wiser, more responsible counsel have simply been to urge parents to exercise caution and discernment rather than to impose a blanket prohibition for those that want to be considered upstanding homeschool families?
By Frederick Meekins