Comment Archives: Last 7 Days
Re: “Coming Out”
Mr. Williamson,
While I applaud your “compassion” to what appears to be the “misdirected or immature” children of our specie, I simply have to disagree that the homosexual lifestyle is something society should embrace as a normal, healthy and wholesome activity. Even among the animal kingdom, we as human beings are the ONLY specie that actually WANT to mate with an individual of the same sex FOR LIFE.
As hard as the progressive social scientist pursue the “Word of God” as being deficient in describing deviant activity, the evidence continues to be clear while those same progressives indoctrinate our children using public school forums as well as the “compassionate” media and self-aligned “compassionate” Hollywood celebrity elites support the unusual and unhealthy culture of homosexual activity.
This same soft hearted progressive political tool called “compassion” is indeed the ruination of every civilization when it involves changing what was healthy and wholesome into something that benefits the few while adversely affecting the many.
I personally have no problem with closet homosexuals and the less I know about them the happier I will be. If I am supposed to “be on board” and allow your form of “compassion” to exploit what I believe to be abnormal in nature, not to mention my personal faith as a traditional Christian, please share that same “compassion” for my opinion and conscience because it will never change because I have never been convinced it SHOULD.
It is not hatred as so many will scream, but simply a learned opinion that cannot overlook the damage to society, young impressionable lives and the general health, both physical and emotional, of a community.
The hatred that will be shown to MY personal learned opinion should be evidence enough that “correctness” is the single motive involved with any decision concerning deviant sexual behavior and certainly not any form of actual individual “compassion” being shown in society today.
Just my opinion though, and I know homosexual militants HATE personal opinions when they do not support that specific sexual deviancy.
Re: “Lipman, Mulroy, Stratton Considered for Federal Bench”
CEBorst
If you go to http://dealnews.com/ about the second page you will see another picture of Archie. I didn't know if you needed another picture.
Re: “Onix Restaurant & Jazz Lounge”
I am from Alabama, and I was taken Onix by my niece. I had a wonderful time! The music was as amazing as our food! The service was Five Star!! We had a waiter,Tim, who went beyond the call of duty to make sure we had an exceptional experience. I'm telling all my friends and family to drop by when in Memphis! I had a much need enjoyable evening!!
Thank you Onix team!
Re: “Lipman, Mulroy, Stratton Considered for Federal Bench”
I have no judgement on abortion. I lean both ways on the subject. But the bottom line is I feel a woman has the right to do whatever concerning her health. There again you can take what I said on this and a dollar and buy a cup of coffee. I really don't know what a cup of coffee costs today either. That is what my opinion on the subject is worth. Zero, zilch, nada, nothing.
OTP
"Out of the dislikes for my posts on abortion, I have yet to see any legal references that a fetus is a person according to the law. What is wrong, you can't find one?"
"Out of the dislikes for my posts on _______, I have yet to see any legal references that a ______ is a person according to the law. What is wrong, you can't find one?"
Why don't you go through your law books for say, 1840, and fill in the blanks. What's the matter. It WAS the law then right. No morals involved. The law is the law. Right.
You're just showing your intelligence on the subject which is worth the same as mine. ZERO. But you have to write 10 pages on how a woman is supposed to act. And you call EVERYONE else wrong on every subject. You are really special. I take it you rode the short bus to the 4th grade. Well at least you would today. Get those track shoes ready. You are having your ass handed to you AGAIN as every other subject you speak about.
Re: “Lipman, Mulroy, Stratton Considered for Federal Bench”
OTP
You wrote:
"The laws of the U. S. and the constitution do not evolve. They have the same meaning that they hand when they were enacted."
As a legal scholar, you should know better than to make a blanket statement like that. The courts are continuously interpreting and reinterpreting the laws, and the constitution, in new ways as new circumstances come about.
That is why the constitution is said to be a living document. The courts have the power in our system to interpret the laws, in other words to define their meaning. For that mater, the courts have the authority to define the very meaning of the constitution.
You should appreciate that fact, given the way the 14th Amendment has been applied. The constitution can be streched to cover a wide variety of new situations, no matter how terse the constitutional language itself. The constitution may say whatever it will, the courts determine what it means and how it is applied in everyday life.
BTW, I offered to help you on that linking business. It really is not that hard.
Re: “Lipman, Mulroy, Stratton Considered for Federal Bench”
Out of the dislikes for my posts on abortion, I have yet to see any legal references that a fetus is a person according to the law. What is wrong, you can't find one?
Even the Roe v Wade decision ruled that a fetus is not life and therefore is not entitled to protection on its own. they stretched it a bit by ruling that a fetus was, "potential life", however they held firm that fetuses did not have rights under the constitution.
I am not talking about religious views, moral judgements, but law, which this nation was built upon. Your dislikes for the facts shows how ignorant you are.
Re: “Coming Out”
David T Diamond
Well, I guess the Greek civilization was killed off by homosexually transmitted diseases. You see, it was common practice for soldiers to sleep with their spear and shield carriers, boys they were.
It is okay to be against something, but don't cloak it in stupidity!
Re: “Earth, Wind & Fire Live at the Garden”
Well, I hope that you enjoyed Earth, Wind and Fire.
Did you know that the leader and principal, Maurice White has Memphis roots? Yes, he lived with his grandmother in Lemoyne Gardens, at the time I lived there, got his musical beginnings at Porter Jr. High School (feeder school right down the street from Booker T. Washington High School,. I played in the school band with him, he was one year, I think ahead of me along with Claudia Barr. Even in Jr High, he was, perhaps the best drummer in Memphis. He moved back to Chicago, after his 10th grade year, to live with his mother. Booker T. Jones of Booker T and the MG's played saxophone, keyboards, trombone, etc., Charles Green played trumpet, he is now head of the horns, dean at the University of Amsterdam and is a world reknown trumpet player, especially in jazz.
Just a few tidbits that you should know.
Re: “Lipman, Mulroy, Stratton Considered for Federal Bench”
Homersimpson
I am not arguing the strides that medicine has made since 1973 or when the constitution was ratified. A law is read and interpreted as it was written and when it was written. To change the law of when a person is a person would require an amendment to change the constitution, absent that, a fetus is not a person.
Conservatives try to have it both ways. They always say that laws should be as they were written and should not evolve. This is true, however in issues that they support, they want the laws to be steadily evolving to meet their wants.
The laws of the U. S. and the constitution do not evolve. They have the same meaning that they hand when they were enacted. Just because cars made today are safer at higher speeds still does not mean that the speeding laws are changing on their own.
In divorces, the husband has a responsibility for his spouse until the divorce is final and then, depending on the circumstances, beyond, to a certain extent, to allow her to become self-sufficient. Unmarried couples, when it comes to pregnancy, do not have the same rights. Therefore, child support cannot be ordered until the child is born, a live person.
I follow the meaning of the law, I don't prescribe to the theory that a fetus or any stage of pregnancy is carrying a living person under the law. So, I have no problem with a woman having an abortion, if on demand, or whenever she decides to. With me, she doesn't need a reason. I just don't believe that the taxpayers should foot the bill. I also think that the father should have a say, because, well, some women carry babies to term as surrogates for money. If the man was considered good enough to bed, then why can't he be good enough to have a say in whether a baby is carried to full term. I realize that it would be impractical and impossible to regulate, but, the moral aspect of it is just wrong!
But, you conservatives, like everyone else, shape and/or change things according to what you desire, not whether it is right, morally and/or legal. Most women, regardless of race, education, etc. use the excuse of getting pregnancy out of wedlock because, well, we were in a relationship. What relationship, I ask. Are you related by blood, marriage, business? If not one of those, these women are just doing it for the thrill and use the word, relationship to cover up their lack of morals. It is pure bullshit, then they want me and other taxpayers to pay for their carnival ride. I will support your right to abort whenever, however and wherever you choose, I just won't pay for it. When and if Planned Parenthood divides itself as I previously posted, then I will freely give to them as I do to St. Jude and the children's hospital.
So, Homersimpson, you have no ally in being against abortion. It is only the finances that binds us in that respect only.
The link I gave does not work. But, like I said, Google: constitutional views on abortion. That will get you to the BlogSpot article. Hell, I just tried it and it works. Yes, I am too stupid to know the correct way to copy and paste, but evidently a lot of people are too stupid to google search.
Re: “Council Chairman Ed Ford's Letter From Nashville”
ETR
I suppose those Middle and East Tennesseans don't object to getting all that state of Tennessee tax revenue from Shelby County, do they? Just wondering.
Would you like to guess if Shelby County provides more revenue to the state of Tennessee than it gets back in state expenditures, or do you think that 3rd world Mississippi rathole is already getting more than its share?
Shall we explore that possibility?
Re: “Lipman, Mulroy, Stratton Considered for Federal Bench”
CEBorst
Watch out for the worm. Some are better than blotter or orange barrel. Remember the old sentence of "standing on the orange barrel looking out the window pane at a microdot on the blotter in the orange sunshine in the sky". I said it was old.
Re: “Restaurant Impossible”
Maybe BSL is a good place to put a Bass Pro outlet store where they can resell the defective and returned items from the Bass Pro at the Pyramid.
Re: “Lipman, Mulroy, Stratton Considered for Federal Bench”
It is very, very simple OTP. If I say keep your hands off me, then keep your hands off me. I won't go up your urethra, you keep out of my womb.
homersimpson, you are obviously against abortion, but I hope that I'm not reading that you favor it in the case of incest or rape or really any reason. If it's wrong then it's wrong.
Re: “Lipman, Mulroy, Stratton Considered for Federal Bench”
Well I would say I have seen it all but on this site anything is possible. Someone has just hung a new shingle on his door for a new profession. Everyone should go to the grand opening of the office of OTP MD. Specializes in OBGYN and constitutional law for unborn children. He will keep you informed of your unborn child's constitutional rights. Just in case the unborn child wants to sue someone, ie. the father or mother, for violating the child's 14th amendment right. Maybe even a little 1st and 4th amendment. He will even let the mother know when the fetus can legally be called a child. Now the mother will not have that worry on her.
OTP
Again, as always, your links do not work. Either one. And I guess it was not clear to you that no one in their right mind would use a blog for information. On second thought I think that's where you have been getting all of your knowledge. I guess it's cheaper than actually going to school. And no, there are no code words here. At least I don't think so.
Re: “Draft Preview: If Hollinger Had Made the Picks”
Chris, I've done this in the past when I used to have Insider, but another important column would be a comparison of Hollinger to reality. That's the true measurement, not against the Grizzlies, who have been awful (which was very illustrative, no doubt), but whether his draft rater is able to consistently identify the best players and rank them as it is supposed to do 1-30. I remember going through his draft rater in years past and noticing lots of outliers, and thinking that he still had a lot of work to do. But maybe not. Maybe, his formula isn't perfect, and is out-smarted by the humans some of the time, but overall comes out ahead. I really don't know. So, there's my suggestion for a column.
Re: “The Rant”
I just ate my grilled cheese sandwich into the shape of a gun, hope no one saw
Re: “Coming Out”
Do you really need that validation Mj Adams, is that what it's about?
Re: “Lipman, Mulroy, Stratton Considered for Federal Bench”
OTP, here are a few little facts to help support your position (we agree!)
More than 95% of abortions are for the convenience of the mother. That also means that less than 5% of all abortions are in the case of the health of the mother (or incest).
In the last 20 years, women that have obtained multiple abortions are still on the rise. (From the world health organization)
One point of contention: A man, the father, can be forced to help provide medical care for a pregnant mother. It routinely happens during divorces when the wife is pregnant. And the father may be forced to pay extra support if the wife cannot work. While it may not be the classical definition of child support, it still happens.
The legal definition of viability is a moving target considering technology keeps moving back the time that a fetus can survive outside the womb. It's is definitely not the same as it was in 1973 when the case was presented.
Re: “Coming Out”
david.f.diamond, your problem is that you think all homosexuals are promiscuous. That's a typical lie that religious people believe and repeat, some in ignorance and some in malice.
I was celibate until middle age, until I decided I didn't want to grow old alone. I've only ever been intimate with my partner. I have every intention of saying that 10, 20, 30, or however many more years I live.
I said that only in the hope that it might enlighten you. But frankly, I've heard straight married people with kids -- and some of them Baptist preachers who've fathered so many kids they can't afford that their wives should insist they get vasectomies -- say so often that gay people must remain celibate that I would rather spit in your face.
THIS WEEK'S ISSUE
SPECIAL ISSUES
Re: “Lipman, Mulroy, Stratton Considered for Federal Bench”
ArlingtonPop
The application of rights under the constitution already made allowances for rights not enumerated in the original constitution, however, the definition of a person is already enshrined in the constitution. It is already enumerated therein. So there is no evolving on that question. that is why Roe v Wade specifically said that a fetus has no constitutional right of protection.
The 14th amendment was written in such a way as to say that every person, (that word again) born (living) or naturalized must have equal protection of the law. That basic statement covers a whole hell of a lot of ground. but, the fact that person means a living person is not vague at all. There is a difference, you know.
Diogenes, I am not running for any political office so I don't have to be careful in not pissing off any particular people. Sex and pregnancy out of wedlock is gratifying, however it is irresponsible. the act of sex, biologically is to reproduce, period. The pleasure one derives from it makes it easier and wanting to do. But, it is still the act of sustaining the species. To make what is a biological necessity meet western moral codes, the institution of marriage is used. This justifies the actions of men and women as moral instead of just the act of self gratification.
I have never and don't try to tell women what to do, I just say that my tax dollars should not be used to satisfy the results of their immoral gratification. Women can do as they please and I will be on the front line supporting their right to do so. Hell, I wouldn't pay for an abortion for one of my own, except in the case of rape, incest, health of the mother, etc. I tried to teach them good moral character and traits; if they stray from what they were taught, then they must shoulder the financial consequences of their reckless actions. If they choose to carry a baby to full term, that would be my grandchild and, of course, I would support that with all of the love and resources that I have, regardless of the mother's behavior.
So, ArlingtonPop, with your superior knowledge, please show me where there is room for a different interpretation of the word person as it relates to the constitution? No, if ands or buts, but substantive legal room for this person thing to evolve without a change, amendment, in the constitution?
Hell, I don't need to know or want to know the workings of a woman's body, however, I know what is morally wrong!