Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Headline Potpourri #27: Obama’s Inauguration, Women In Combat & Expansive Gun Contro
01-24-2013, 07:46 PM
Post: #1
Headline Potpourri #27: Obama’s Inauguration, Women In Combat & Expansive Gun Contro
If the Obama administration believes the state of Arizona was constitutionally errant in enforcing federal immigration standards, why should local law enforcement be expected to implement the Obama gun control directives?

The same ones renting Rolexs for the Inauguration are either on welfare or think that you don’t pay enough taxes.

Start doing your own thinking, dear Christian, and stop running to the preacher for permission to use your own mind in consultation with the Bible in hand.

If Obama limits the size of the magazines that you SHOOT, how long until he will be limited the content of the magazines that you READ?

"Bad testimony" is usually what churches invoke when they want to shove you out the door but can't come up with a legitimate Scripturally based reason for doing so.

If the purchases of large amounts of ammunition are to be reported to the government, how long until large purchases of food are monitored by the government?

The New York gun control legislation did not grant an exemption to law enforcement to carry fire arms onto school property or to use high capacity magazines. Why should police be exempt? Doesn't the propaganda assure that this legislation will prevent tragic incidents of gun violence?

In describing his plans for Jonestown 2.0, Beck badmouthed the concept of the backyard. Apparently, in the ideal COMMUNITY, it is not enough for neighbors to simply wave to each other as they pass each other going about their own business. Instead, they are suppose to be up in each other's business. Ultimately, Beck is becoming no better than the Emergent Church crowd and even the "Progressives" he spent much of his career at Fox News ranting about.

Bill O'Reilly insists that, if you see something on the Internet, you shouldn't trust it. Don't some say the same thing about Fox News in general and Bill O'Reilly in particular?

In the lesser known fairy tale "The Table, The Stick & The Ass", there is a donkey that spits out coins. Wonder if its name was Obama.

At the Inaugural Luncheon, Obama and his minions feasted upon bison. Though Washington is full of bovine excrement, it is doubtful that this particular dish is locally grown. Wasn't it Obama that condemned the American people regarding the outrage of eating what we want, driving around in SUV's, and keeping our homes climate controlled at 70 degrees?

During his Inaugural Address, Obama admonished that as a nation we must protect the most vulnerable among us. That is, of course, you happen to rank among the unborn or happen to be at an age beyond the optimal healthcare range as determined by the President's Affordable Care Act.

How many of the welfare deadbeats waving flags in the throng assembled at Obama's second inaugural merely tossed the federal ensign onto the ground at the conclusion of the festivities?

Frankly, other than that you have trusted in Christ, what other assurance do you possess that you are saved? The doctrinal sticklers making a fuss splitting soteriological hairs this thin would be the same ones to look down their noses at those driven insane at the fear of hellfire and external damnation.

Obama’s call to collective action in his Second Inaugural Address means that you won’t have a retirement so that common harlots can have free cellphones and birth control.

So if Obama is going to endorse forceful responses to questionable police actions as evidenced in his celebration of the Stonewall Riot, is the President going to positively commemorate those that fell by government hand at Ruby Ridge or at the Branch Davidian compound?

If it doesn't matter if the Benghazi horde was set off by the film producer or not as Hillary insisted at the Senate hearing, why is the producer of the film still rotting in a jail cell?

I feel no shame over the Obama administration authorizing women in combat. I didn't make the policy decision so I have nothing to apologize for or repent of. However, those permitted to go into combat should be required to exhibit the exact same athletic endurance as a man. Though few have sufficient manhood to admit it these days, the rational for excluding women up until this point was not so much that their lives were so much more valuable than that of a man's but rather so that they wouldn't be a burden and thus endanger the lives of men finding themselves amid the upheavals of armed conflict.

So if someone's daughter shouldn't be subjected to the draft, why should someone's son? Is a man maimed and killed in a war less dead than a woman killed in a war?

If most young women aren't today tending house and birthing babies, why shouldn't they be subject to the horrors of the draft like young men?

Especially if they are not sent into frontline combat, there is no reason why young women should be subject to the draft and selective service registration as young men. For were not the laws governing compulsory national service formulated in a time when women primarily went on to lives of sheltered domestic service and motherhood. If young women can saunter across the face of the earth these days primarily in search of booze and fornication, why can’t they be required to do so for more productive reasons?

It has been posted, "The US government intimidates not with the capability of its soldiers but with size, money, and a history that tells others that it will go to war and kill anyone, anywhere, if they don't capitulate with 100% of demands." Why should that be seen as a bad thing? Isn't the #1 rule of the playground that you should appear that if someone hits you that you will hit them back harder. This standing around saying how wretched America is is no way to conduct a foreign/defense policy.

These women opposed to women in combat are participating to an extent in the false altruism scandal described by Ayn Rand. They are not arguing such because of some profoundly held conviction regarding rigidly defined gender roles. Are they going to oppose women going into other inherently male occupations? It is that they are as much in fear of their lives and a desire not to be inconvenienced as any man that does not want to go to war.

If it is justifiable to compel a man to go into a war against his will in which he may lose his own life, why ought it be such an outrage for the state to impregnate a woman against her will if an insufficient number are having children in their optimal breeding years?

by Frederick Meekins
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)