Axxman

So you agree then with limiting the First Amendment? That in America we can no longer say what we feel/ believe? You support an America in which a persons opinions MUST MEET a criteria of public acceptance before it can be publicly aired.

In this country if your parents are irresponsible in taking care of the needs of their children...your parents have the kids taken away from them, and the parents can go to jail. If you are an illegal immigrant...we not only don't care that you broke the law...we'll take care of you and your kids for free. Better yet, we'll make our citizens foot the bill so that their standard of living goes down and we can all live like illegal immigrants.

Oh yeah, white people have it SO hard in America. Let's get real. Aside from my moral issues with it, one of the reasons I'm against capital punishment in a practical sense is because of the extreme arbitrariness that it allows (something like 95% of trials that could become capital trials don't), which inevitably leads to a HUGE discrepancy between how people of different races are prosecuted. In my home state at one point the statistic was that a black man who had killed a white man was TEN TIMES more likely to go to a capital trial than a white man who had been accused of murder. Seriously. Actually...your liberal news stats are so screwed up its not even funny. There are MORE white people on Death row than ANY other race combined!!! There are MORE white people executed every year that ANY other races combined!!! There is an absolute disparity in how the media reports this stuff...and people keep on listening to them like ethey have no reason to bend the truth. There are 6 states that don't even have any blacks or latino's on death row, not like anybody would report that.

The NBA banished Tim Hardaway from All-Star weekend in Las Vegas because of his anti-gay remarks. Hardaway, who played in five All-Star games during the 1990s, was already in Las Vegas and scheduled to make a series of public appearances this week on behalf of the league. But after saying, "I hate gay people" during a radio interview, commissioner David Stern stepped in. "It is inappropriate for him to be representing us given the disparity between his views and ours," Stern said in a statement Thursday. Hardaway's comments

I don't intend to commit a hate induced "crime" on anyone. However...if I tell a homosexual that they are in sin...if they "feel" threatened by my statement...then I have broken a Federal hate crime law. My intent is not the issue, and thats the point. If a person "feels' threatened or intimidated by my speech, then it can be constituted a hate crime. Hate crimes are NOT always violent.

Marnie, because of the Civil War there today, the annualized murder rate in Iraq is now three times what it was even under Saddam. Every week in Iraq, hundreds of widows and orphans are being created. You can't throw out numbers of a three year war and compare them to the length of Saddams reign. If the death rate is higher than Saddams over a 20 year period then you have a point...but we both know that is highly unlikely. You just use sensationalistic imagery to make your point rather than engage in truthful dialog. Secondly, Iraq isn't in a Civil War. Most of the violence in Iraq is STILL directed at coalition forces. However, some of the violence is internal, and it should be. What Iraq is going through is a violent expulsion. The Sunni's who are greatly outnumbered in Iraq are trying desperately to find a foothold in Iraq, but because of there past abuses of power under Saddam, the rest of Iraq doesn't trust them or want them. At worst, you have sectarian strife. The Sunni's are not powerful enough, nor do they have the numbers to conduct a "civil war." Again, this is just another example of sensationalized imagery put out by the media. Problem is too many repubs by into it as well due to lack understanding.

Liberalism is going to sink California into the ocean faster than global warming.

I understand you concern. However, I cannot see where that would be the case with hate crimes. Hate crimes do not just apply to minorities. For example, if a black kills a white person simply because they are white, they can be charged with a hate crime. Including sexual orientation in hate crimes legislation would apply to any sexual orientation. Thats just NOT true. White people are FAR MORE likely to get labeled with "hate crime" inspite of the FACT the black on white crime is far more prevalent. The problem is that a black person is FAR LESS likely to labeled to get nailed with a hate crime. In 2001, the FBI recorded 1.7 million acts of interracial violent crime. Of that figure, 1.1 million were cases of blacks committing violent crimes on whites. Despite this, the FBI finds that blacks suffer three times as many hate crimes as whites and as a percentage of the population are almost 30 times more likely to be targeted for a hate crime. The problem with hate crime is that it elavates the nature of the crime based on the victim...not based on the crime. If a homosexual insults me, the law offers me NO protection. If I insult a homosexual, I am guilty of violating a Federal Law. The ONLY difference is that the government deems the homosexuals lifestyle more important than mine. It is an interesting note that in 2001, the FBI listed a sharp 1500% increase in hate crimes committed against Muslims. In that same year there were 891 hate crimes commited against whites (in ALL catagories.) In 2001 there were MORE white people killed by muslims in ONE DAY at the World Trade Center, than ALL listed hate crimes against muslims since 9/11. Keep in mind two things...A hate crime against a muslim is ANYTHING from an insult to murder. The murders on 9/11 were NOT listed as hate crimes. Shouldn't the 2400+ white people killed by Muslims be listed as hate crimes? Fair is fair, right? Or would that mess everything up because we can't have people thinking that white people are hated more than anyone else? Truly the subjective nature of this law shows just that.

Arthur...why do you insist on labeling with a broad brush a style of music? Can you not seperate the people from the music? Are you implying that "loud noise" is somehow more evil than soft noise? For every KISS, there is a Sting. For every Alice Cooper, there is a Don Henley. The ONLY "slippery slope to gehenna" is a failure to accept Christ and His gift on the cross. You refer to tattoo's, punch-drunk eyes, spouting profanities, etc. NONE of those things should be related to the sound of music, but the personal choices of those who play the music. If you've never seen a clean, well-mannered, soft spoken person who loves rock music...then you are truly living under a rock (pun intended.)

I just finished watching the video. It is a good vid. I didn't really make the "rock-n-roll" connection since it was established that the demonic influences were spread across many different lifestyles and music. However, the message itself was valid. Don't confuse the lines between the things of this world and the things of God. If someone saw this video (or any other video showing these connections) and still felt safe with a dose of the worlds music...then they are fooling themselves. I mean seriously...if Don Henley and The Monkees are linked to the occult (and they are)...then nobody is safe. I just don't want people to get a negative idea about Christian musicians simply because of the style of music the sing. Most of them are genuinely in it for serving God's kingdom. Rich Mullins was identified as a "hippie" and "old rock-n-roller" from the 60's era. He was an odd dude, thats for sure. I remember being lucky enough to eat a late dinner with him one day before he died. People can label him whatever they want based on his style...he was a genuine man of God, with a true heart for worshipping God, and I was LUCKY to have had a few moments with him on this earth to share our faiths in Christ. I disagree with the video notions that the evil is shared equally between the music, and the men.

Okay...I realize this is an old topic, but I really wanna add my two-cents. First... Nobody who claims to serve Christ should be purchasing music made by persons who are unbelievers. It is like sleeping with the enemy. You are financially supporting a person who writes music from a worldly perspective. Even if the lyrics are not "evil" they are still at odds with God. I encourage people to buy Christian music whenever they are tempted to buy secular music. We should be supporting our musical brothers and sisters in Christ. It is absolutely sickening to me that the "High School Musical" soundtrack sold more copies than the Top 8 Christian albums. It should be noted that the christian sales were boosted by Alan Jackson who put out a country hyms album this year...that album outsold "real" Christian artists by double. It is sad, at best, that so many Christians love music and insist on spending their money on worldly music. Even on this website, Christians have consistently talked about their fave secualr bands. Second... In regards to the website that started this topic. We shouldn't need a website to tell us that worldly musicians (of any genre) are un-godly. However, I am most disappointed by the websites accusations against Christian musicians. He describes Toby Mac as a "street punk who needs Jesus." That is offensive to me. I have worked with Toby McKeehan and many other Christian artists, and it is shameful what is implied about Toby on that website. I have prayed with, broke bread with, and done street ministry with MANY mainstream Christian artists and to imply they are evil because of their musical style is disgusting. The sites author uses MANY quotes out of context...and he misrepresents lyrics (especially Toby's.) I am not naive. I have seen Christian artists stumble. I've heard them swear. I've seen them have impure thoughts and worldly conversations. They are real people. However... I've also seen them pray. I've seen them repent. I've seen them study God's word. They are Chrstians. That website is absolutlely beyond the pale in regards to condemning fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.

"In any branch of science there are only two possibilities. There is either nothing left to discover, in which case, why work on it, or there are big discoveries yet to be made, in which case, what the scientists say now is likely to be false" -- Nigel Calder So, which is it? This "genius" says there are "only two possibilities." Since clearly global warming isn't fully discovered...we must assume that what scientists are saying now is likely false. Or we can just disregard him.

Well, if global warming exists, "water is going to cover some land" translates into coastlines shifting, thousands of populous cities being under sea level and eventually swept underwater, and trillions upon trillions of dollars in damage, not to mention hundreds of millions of people being displaced. It might not happen today, or tomorrow, but if climate changes are indeed signaling a higher earth climate in the future, this can and will be a reality for the world to deal with. I don't meant to sound all 'doom and gloom' here, but things like this would be real issues if global warming exists and is happening. Put some ice in a glass of water. Mark the level of the ice water. When the ice is done melting you'll notice that the level has stayed the same. If you do this on a large scale the water level could actually drop depending on the amount of air trapped in the ice. Seems to me that pretty much EVERYONE who lives in a coastal area could care less about the effects of global warming since there is not a big exodus from ocean front property. Ya know why...cuz it ain't happening tomorrow. I say we all tell our grandkids to buy property away from the coastline, that way in 150 years when this MIGHT matter to somebody...everybody will be okay and property damage won't be so bad. I'll tell ya what. I would like to make the gov't a deal. Take my money, tax the heck outta me, raise gas prices, make me buy $3 lightbulbs, and make my electric bill so high I can't feed my kids. But I want a running tab! I want the gov't to keep track of EVERY penny this screwball theory costs me because in 2040 I want a refund if we still have a Disneyland on either coast of this country!!! I am sick and tired of liberals "trying to protect" my future. Liberals are robbing me blind with their stupid social security which was supposed to "protect my future." Now they want more money to "protect my future" and I'm supposed to just sign the check?? Why? Because ice is melting. Because the earth is .05% hotter on its surface. Because were all gonna die. Forget it!! In 2040, I won't be able to go to Disneyland even if it does still exist because the liberals spent all my money trying to "protect my future." Hey I got it! Why don't they just use my social security money to fund their stupid idea's. Oh wait...they already do!

I only care about global warming in regards to how much money the gov't wants from me. If the gov't can figure a way to run their "crazy" science experiments and "cool the earth down" without taxing the heck outta me...then more power to them. Unfortunately, it seems that ALL of their solutions require me to pay them...and in that case...bring on the global warming. Beyond that...they'll have to do ALOT better than "we got some ice in some water thats melting" and "water is going to cover some land" and "its gonna snow and rain alot" and "we'll miss those cool screenshots of icebergs." I say bring it on.

The only thing we know for sure is that whatever "plan" will make them the most money is the one that will pass. Don't be fooled into thinking this has ANYTHING to do with saving our environment. As Pelosi said, "Green can be gold for our country."

You know...maybe I'm just gettin' old, but that was awesome. In this world were it seems people are fighting for every square inch of life, it was kinda nice to see people coming together. A simple hug, a shared smile, a sense of humility goes a LONG WAY. Yeah...I'm old.

There are two distinctly different topics at work here. One, is there life on other planets? Two, are there aliens from other planets visiting our world? In regards to the first question...I would be stunned if there was not some form of life out in the universe somewhere. Whether it is intelligent life, or plant/animal, or bacterial...the universe is simply too diverse (and humongous) to think otherwise. Second question...it is beyond the realm of possiblity that we are being visited by creatures in flying saucers. Our planet is SO SMALL (even in our own solar system) that the chances of an alien lifeform happening across our "tiny dot" are astronomical. Not to mention all of the scientific roadblocks. So...I truly feel that "believing" that we are being "visited" by aliens now, is wrong. There is only ONE use for ufology in our world today and that is to distract people away from the things of God. It is my earnest belief that Satan will use this constant barrage of brainwashing concerning UFO's and aliens to prime the world for the anti-christ.

My bad...won't happen again.

Atheists, and their ilk, should know by now that the one way to motivate Christians into action is to start pushing their buttons. The Blasphemy Challenge has done just that!! You should all be happy to know that motivated Christians are now participating in "Challenge the Blasphemy." Not only are the videos more heartfelt, but it seems that MANY young Christians have found a way to tell the world about Jesus, and His effect on their life. [be encouraged by this vid of a young girl challenging the blasphemyNow there could be some commentary about how sad it is that it required a bunch of bozo atheists to start this public profession bizness...but what Satan meant for evil, God can certainly use for good. video links removed

I didn't take your offer of discussion as serious. I KNOW I haven't written any "peer reviewed" articles so I figured that would be your reply to everything I said. Quite frankly, I'm not certain you've written any either so whats the point really...since that seems to be the foundation for everything you say regarding this topic.

There are ways to limit gun ownership. I think those avenues should AT LEAST be examined. Just because we have the "right" to bear arms, doesn't mean we should. It certainly doesn't mean that the "right" can't be limited. Someone said that a "gun sitting on the table doesn't hurt anyone by itself." While this is a true statement, I believe ANYONE who shows that amount of irresponsibility with a firearm should perhaps be viewed more with more scrutiny. I also believe in automatic jail terms for anyone who leaves a firearm accessible to a child, which would make them ineligible for future ownership.

I think its funny that you complain the guy had no scientific background. Whenever one of the MANY climatologists who DO have a scientific background does speak out against the myth of Global warming you attempt to discredit them too. Just admit it...you want to stack the house with people who ONLY support your view and you really have no interest in whether or not their qualifications stack up. You also don't care that positions such as this are rarely staffed with people who have extensive scientific backgrounds and you ONLY wish to enforce this qualification when it meets your needs.

*edited* double posted

This is exactly the problem. We have extremists on both sides. One side wants to ban all guns. The other refuses to see that there needs to be limits. At some point in time maybe the two sides could sit down and realize that there will be 5-6 gun deaths (on average) this hour and that SOMETHING needs to be done. And the airplanes, cars argument is not even close...gun deaths leave those stats in the dust. I wasn't trying to start a big anti-gun debate. Obviously, people are the problem. I just think that Barry's argument was stupid. Putting more guns on the street is an illogical way to curb gun deaths. Thats like saying people are too fat, lets build more McDonalds. In 1994 there were 192 million guns in America. Considering that a handgun is manufactured every 2 minutes, we can assume that number has grown significantly. Do we really need more guns and less restriction?