Posts by Let_It_Be_So

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • MSNBC reporter asks Rick Perry if he’s “smart enough to be president”

    12/11/2014 8:52:21 AM PST · 70 of 95
    Let_It_Be_So to rfreedom4u

    “His response should have been:
    ‘Compare my college transcripts to Obama’s and ask me again.’”

    BRILLIANT!!

  • On the Staten Island Decision: The grand jury may have gotten it wrong on Eric Garner.

    12/04/2014 10:05:26 AM PST · 38 of 39
    Let_It_Be_So to FunkyZero

    I agree 100% with your assessment of this situation. It has to do with “proportional” reaction by the police. Had this man been suspected of being a “dangerous” criminal, perhaps such a “take-down” would have been considered reasonable and proportional.

    However, the police knew who they were dealing with (a petty criminal with no history of being “dangerous”, as far as I know) as he had been arrested several times in the past for illegally selling cigarettes. It’s also illegal to jaywalk, litter the sidewalk, drive 40mph in a 35mph area, solicit prostitution, loitering, panhandling and any number of relatively minor infractions of the law.

    Proportionality of the police response is the one and only issue here, and it seems to be an inappropriate response. I’m not talking about whether the Grand Jury’s decision was correct, or incorrect, as that’s a different discussion. Had the response been proportional, the Grand Jury would have never been involved as the man would not have lost his life in a “take-down” in the first place.

    To me, it matters not whether this response is a common or accepted practice. It needs to be an uncommon one and deemed unacceptable.

  • The Benefits of Being Politically Correct(not a satire but reads like one)

    11/29/2014 6:21:50 AM PST · 18 of 31
    Let_It_Be_So to TigerLikesRooster

    The “politically correct” phenomenon boils down to a desire by the “elite” among us to enforce group-think (or, minimize individualism). It is intolerance in the name of tolerance.

    When I was a young man, I understood that there would be people who had opinions (beliefs) different from my own, but had been taught to adopt the attitude of tolerance in the name of free speech.

    We often heard people say “I vehemently disagree with what he said, but will defend with my life his right to say it”, or something similar. At the same time, we seemed to have the ability to discern when a “line” had been crossed, that we would not tolerate so easily (eg speech that attempted to incite to riot, or was libelous, etc).

    Now, it has often become an attitude of judging one’s heart and eschewing tolerance for intolerance: “I vehemently disagree with what he said (believes), his heart is full of hate, and I will do what I can to punish him for saying (believing) it”.

    This “politically correct” attitude has no place in a free and open society.

  • Think it’s unusually warm outside? Then you must be left-wing: Climate change beliefs affect…

    11/26/2014 5:44:11 PM PST · 21 of 22
    Let_It_Be_So to eyedigress

    Another Reagan quote (where Reagan was paraphrasing American Humorist Josh Billings):

    “Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.”

  • BOLD Solution: Power to the States [FR idea]

    11/18/2014 9:38:31 PM PST · 28 of 63
    Let_It_Be_So to conservatism_IS_compassion

    “I would favor having 2 prospective SCOTUS justices run as running mates of a presidential candidate.”

    Interesting idea, but I’m not sure it would be a good thing, depending on who is elected POTUS. For example, Obama would have brought four new Justices with him in the ‘08 and ‘12 elections...and four others would have had to step down. If the four that had to step down were the more conservative variety, then that would tilt the SCOTUS too far to the left. Or am I missing something in this scenario?

  • BOLD Solution: Power to the States [FR idea]

    11/18/2014 3:23:34 PM PST · 24 of 63
    Let_It_Be_So to Arthur Wildfire! March

    This shotgun approach to amending the Constitution has virtually no chance of succeeding, imo. That said, I applaud your thinking outside the box (way outside) and attempting to get others to begin thinking.

    To me, a constitutional convention (state-initiated only) limited to only two things, perhaps three, would go a long way toward restoring the original intent of the framers.

    One, an amendment that requires Congress to stay within revenues when appropriating funds for spending...requiring a balanced budget. There would need to be a provision to allow an exception in cases of national emergency.

    Two, an amendment that restores the original intent behind the enumerated powers principle. This would force all federal spending to cease on all programs not specifically enumerated (with debate on issues such as phasing in the cuts, applying “savings” to retire the national debt, returning “saved” monies to the states/taxpayers, etc).

    The only other possible amendment would be one to establish term limits on appointed judges (including the USSC).

  • Massachusetts Town Mulls Nation's First Total Tobacco Ban

    11/16/2014 5:20:33 PM PST · 30 of 51
    Let_It_Be_So to Drango

    “The people have a fundamental right to proscribe items”

    Regardless, is it not desirable to promote freedom? Although the people “can” vote to limit your freedom (with certain specified exceptions contained in the Bill of Rights), freedom-loving people should resist such efforts.

  • Smug Obama administration duped the public

    11/16/2014 10:45:58 AM PST · 10 of 32
    Let_It_Be_So to DeweyCA

    Headline, “Smug Obama administration duped the public”, is not really accurate in that ALL polls taken of the “public” before, during and after passage of Obamacare showed that only a minority favored the thing. Many of those who voted for the thing have since been voted out of office.

    The only people who were truly “duped” were Obama’s and the Democrats’ core constituency? While their numbers are significant, they do not represent the “public” at large...yet

  • The GOP should threaten publicly to use Obama’s amnesty precedent once they’re back in White House

    11/13/2014 9:54:31 PM PST · 29 of 34
    Let_It_Be_So to robert14

    “If he can wipe immigration laws off the books with his signature he can cancel the next election with his signature”

    Not really.

    Just take a poll of American voters and ask the question: “Would you support the President of the United States suspending elections and taking away your ability to elect your leaders?”.

    His attempting such a thing would be overwhelmingly condemned by almost every voter across the American political landscape, probably to the tune of at least 98% of the electorate. He would be impeached forthwith and convicted by even a Democrat-majority Senate.

  • How the GOP Should Deal With Obama's Incorrigibility

    11/07/2014 8:58:20 AM PST · 49 of 54
    Let_It_Be_So to Kozak

    As much as I would like to see major funding reductions (if not outright abolishment of certain agencies), the fact remains that it would take a “veto-proof” Senate majority to make such moves stick, would it not?

    Short of a Convention of States type effort (which could force a re-thinking of the entire role of the federal government vis-a-vis the reinforcement of the original intent and application of the 10th amendment), perhaps a more pragmatic approach would be to pass a bill that would basically shift existing funding to the States in the form of block grants. This would allow for a deliberative process in each state as to what program(s) would continue and what programs would basically sunset and go away.

    When Obama vetoes this kind of Bill, he would not be able to do so while asserting that Congress is trying to “do away” with Education (DOE), the environment (EPA), the less fortunate among us (HHS), etc. The Congress can then say, “we aren’t making that judgement, we’re just wanting these decisions to be made at the State level”.

    Then,even if Congress doesn’t override Obama’s veto, the case can be made to the electorate that if you like the idea of having these decisions (and the funding that goes with it) made at the state level, give us the rest of the Senators we need to override such vetoes and/or a conservative President in 2016.

  • America faces most dangerous two years in 150 years

    11/05/2014 7:47:08 AM PST · 54 of 70
    Let_It_Be_So to Dick Bachert

    I don’t disagree with much of your post, and I appreciate your cautious optimism, but the reality is that major changes (via legislative bills passed by Congress) to the decades-long buildup to the federal bureaucracy would most likely get a veto from the Executive. The number of votes to override a veto is 60 votes in the Senate, and there aren’t enough Senators to override a veto.

    While it is true that Congress can do some things that some of us would view in a positive light, I don’t see how a major dismantling of the alphabet agencies (EPA, DOE, etc) can take place as long as the Executive uses his veto pen.

    I tend to believe that the long-term answer to bringing the country back closer to the federalist principles underlying the original Constitutional Republic is through a “limited agenda” Convention of States approach.

  • Steel Plant Manager to Obama: Why Are Health Care Costs Rising?

    10/05/2014 11:41:43 AM PDT · 13 of 25
    Let_It_Be_So to Nachum

    “because it turns out that this year, and in fact over the course of the last four years, premiums have gone up at the slowest rate in 50 years.”

    Obama gives a non-answer.
    The question was about “health care costs”, which isn’t restricted to premiums alone. The rate of increase in premiums may (or may not) have slowed but the costs for actual health care have increased considerably when considering increased premiums, increased deductibles and increased co-pays...for everyone except the dependent class that is.

  • Two stories offering more confirmation that Democrats are basically nitwits

    09/25/2014 11:58:40 AM PDT · 7 of 10
    Let_It_Be_So to afsnco

    (Just a couple of questions that have resulted in many a sleepless night for me.)

    How witty is a nit anyway? Does a nit who has not wit ever get invited to a wit party?

    How many half-wits does it take to make a nitwit?

    And now you’ve introduced the subwit into the conversation. I suppose a subwit is equivalent to a half-wit, but I’m really not sure of anything anymore.

    I’m close to giving up.

  • 300,000 marchers ring climate warning bell in NYC, around globe

    09/21/2014 8:17:49 PM PDT · 51 of 107
    Let_It_Be_So to ProtectOurFreedom

    “What, exactly, do these people propose to do about their perceived problem other than meet and talk with fellow-travellers?”

    The more “informed” of the crowd would say something like:

    “Why, uh, replace the evil fossil fuels and, uh, other carbon emissions with green, renewables, like uh, wind and solar power...of course! Don’t you flat-earthers care about saving the planet?? Good grief!”

  • Study warns of sudden climate change woes

    09/15/2014 2:51:59 PM PDT · 29 of 29
    Let_It_Be_So to Citizen Zed

    “The panel called on the government to create an early warning system.”

    It will be called the “CLEWS” (The Chicken Little Early Warning System).

    There is already something in existence that could be called a CLEWS, see UN IPPC Assessment Reports. They have a lot of Chicken Littles, issue a lot of “early warnings” and think of it as a system, sort of.

  • New Horizons Sights Tiny Pluto Moon As Spacecraft Races Toward Dwarf Planet

    09/15/2014 12:48:09 PM PDT · 2 of 24
    Let_It_Be_So to BenLurkin

    A plutoon!

  • Poll: Majority See Obama As Divisive Failure

    09/09/2014 8:10:06 AM PDT · 19 of 30
    Let_It_Be_So to skeeter

    Progressive/Liberal/Leftists SOP:

    If POTUS is Democrat/Liberal:

    1. Hide or de-emphasize anything negative
    2. Blast from the rooftop anything positive

    If POTUS is Republican/Conservative:

    1. Hide or de-emphasize anything positive
    2. Blast from the rooftop anything negative

  • Justices: Can't make employers cover contraception

    06/30/2014 11:01:49 AM PDT · 39 of 49
    Let_It_Be_So to DestroyLiberalism

    I don’t see how simply ignoring the ruling would do them any good. If Hobby Lobby contracts with an insurance entity and the health insurance coverage for the Hobby Lobby employees excludes paying for contraceptives, what can anyone actually do to “punish” Hobby Lobby when payment for the contraceptives is denied at the point of sale or upon receipt of a bill for payment?

    The covered employee could file a lawsuit, but it wouldn’t get past first base in light of this USSC ruling, would it? If the Obama administration attempts to levy a fine against Hobby Lobby for refusing to pay for contraceptives, and Hobby Lobby simply refuses to pay the fine, what could the administration do about it?

  • How did the “Progressives” Empower Themselves at our Expense for Over 140 Years?

    06/28/2014 10:56:35 AM PDT · 11 of 31
    Let_It_Be_So to Oldpuppymax

    There are many ways progressives have empowered themselves, but the fact remains that those in elective office over the past several decades were “empowered” by our fellow Americans who voted them into positions of power in the first place.

    The “takeover” of the Judiciary happened by those in elective office appointing the members of the Judiciary (or consenting thereto).

    Bottom line: barring a hostile takeover, progressives could not have gained such power without a majority of our friends, neighbors and the rest of the voting public allowing it to happen, and in many cases, openly advocating for it to happen.

    Most recent example: voting for Barak Obama not once, but actually pulling the lever for him a second time.

    Even now, if enough people wanted it to happen, the Founders provided a mechanism to correct wrongs. Sadly, I don’t believe enough people want it to happen (yet).

  • John Pinette, stand-up comedian, dead at 50

    04/07/2014 7:53:24 PM PDT · 24 of 26
    Let_It_Be_So to Red in Blue PA

    At the waterpark...

    “So I’m in flipflops and my speedo...(audience laughter)

    Don’t visualize that!!! It’s burn your corneas and give you nightmares!”

    Funny guy. RIP, John.

  • Juan Williams Clashes with Eric Bolling: ‘We Need America to Be a Gun-Free Zone’

    04/05/2014 2:52:49 PM PDT · 38 of 96
    Let_It_Be_So to ThePatriotsFlag

    “He means a fum free zone like HIS HOUSE, he actiually stated on air there were no guns in his house...”

    I’m willing to give up all my fum, personally. Never used it much anyway.

  • IRS to give up, release all Lerner e-mails, documents

    03/09/2014 4:16:58 PM PDT · 47 of 48
    Let_It_Be_So to chessplayer

    My take:

    Giving a written order or directive to scrutinize conservative groups or groups with conservative-sounding names was most likely avoided. Rather, the directive was likely a verbal one, in a room with doors closed and recording devices absent.

    Therefore, emails would most likely not contain any kind of “smoking gun” evidence of wrongding.

  • Christine Todd Whitman: Yes, the EPA Has the Power to Stop Climate Change

    02/24/2014 6:25:41 AM PST · 64 of 72
    Let_It_Be_So to dr_lew

    “They think that the massive emissions, and they are that, of CO2 etc. by our industrial activities is inexorably changing the climate according to Natural Law, i.e. physics. It’s far from a ridiculous assertion.”

    One can make an otherwise reasonable assertion (massive emissions by industrial activities is inexorably changing the climate) that turns out to be ridiculously overstated when tested against observable reality, as has been shown to be the case here.

    What is ridiculous is for those same “asserters” to continue to put forward the same assertion even in the face of evidence to the contrary...and for any thinking person to continue to believe it.

  • Universities in FCC Newsroom Probe Have Close Ties to Soros, Got $1.8M in Funding

    02/22/2014 12:13:27 PM PST · 13 of 19
    Let_It_Be_So to loveliberty2

    “Since truth and reason have maintained their ground against false opinions in league with false facts, the press confined to truth needs no other legal restraint. The public judgment will correct false reasonings and opinions on a full hearing of all parties, and ...” —Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural Address, 1805. ME 3:381

    A key phrase in the above quote is “..the press CONFINED TO TRUTH ..” (caps added for emphasis). Alternatively, a press confined to obsfucation, deceit, propaganda, etc. , in coordination with those occupying the pillars of power, does no service to the people and their God-given rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Actually, just the opposite, they can justifiably be considered enemies of such.
    Thankfully, we are not constrained by the “mainstream press” in our quest for information..yet.

  • Judge strikes down Nebraska law that allowed Keystone pipeline to proceed through state

    02/19/2014 4:09:19 PM PST · 25 of 31
    Let_It_Be_So to CodeToad

    Was the role of the Public Utilities Commission (with reference to eminent domain matters) laid out in the Nebraska constitution? If so, the judge could be right.

    If not, why couldn’t the legislative branch, with signature of the Executive, make such a determination?

  • Daily Kos Publishes Worst Comic Ever: The One Rich Guy

    02/17/2014 2:07:20 PM PST · 71 of 71
    Let_It_Be_So to blueunicorn6

    This “comic” would be what one might expect from a kindergarten child of a set of leftist parents..seriously.

    There are so many “holes” in the thinking behind it (if you can call it “thinking”) it isn’t worth paying attention to in any serious way.

  • Ayers: Constitution needs to be replaced

    01/31/2014 7:59:56 AM PST · 31 of 36
    Let_It_Be_So to rktman

    I think Ayers (and others like him) would have all the face time they want whether anyone is allowed to counter his views or not. At least in this instance (assuming it was a valid debate forum), some of the audience would be given information from another point of view. Which point of view the student accepts is another matter.

  • Surgeon general urges new resolve to end smoking

    01/19/2014 7:56:55 PM PST · 64 of 74
    Let_It_Be_So to doublecansiter

    “I’d like to see the tobacco companies call the government’s
    bluff...Do you think Congress would pass a law ordering them to continue selling the products?”

    Nah. They would then just go into overdrive trying to find new ways to tax more things, create a V.A.T., increase the corporate tax rate, increase the capital gains tax, tax the private retirement fund accounts, slap a tax on each bottle of bottled water, etc. They haven’t reached the bottom of their list of ways to increase revenues yet..far from it.

  • New Mayor Bill De Blasio Tells New York City, ‘We Will Not Wait’ on Inequality

    01/01/2014 8:32:26 PM PST · 136 of 144
    Let_It_Be_So to JohnBrowdie

    Putting your snarky reply aside, in case you’re interested, the correct answer is....nothing.

    Therefore, the 78% weren’t screwed by the 22%, they screwed themselves. Put another way, they can stop blaming the results of an election on the quarter of the electorate who voted (yes, for liberal candidates) and blame themselves and all who did not bother to vote at all.

  • New Mayor Bill De Blasio Tells New York City, ‘We Will Not Wait’ on Inequality

    01/01/2014 6:05:48 PM PST · 105 of 144
    Let_It_Be_So to JohnBrowdie

    “Then, to pursue the metaphor, 22 percent screwed the 78 percent.”

    The 78% were prevented from voting exactly how...?

  • Woodie Guthrie's New Years Resolution List, 1942

    12/31/2013 2:09:55 PM PST · 30 of 66
    Let_It_Be_So to Bernard Marx

    Thank you. Very informative.

  • Woodie Guthrie's New Years Resolution List, 1942

    12/31/2013 1:30:34 PM PST · 17 of 66
    Let_It_Be_So to Bernard Marx

    I read the lyrics and don’t find reference to communist ideology written therein. What are you talking about? (must have missed it somewhere)

  • Duck Dynasty: Freedom of speech vs. intolerance

    12/30/2013 6:58:59 AM PST · 16 of 17
    Let_It_Be_So to nickcarraway

    “I am not saying they should have fired him at all. I am just saying it’s not a Free Speech issue. Because A&E is not the government,”

    We don’t have a disagreement on that, fellow Freeper.

  • Duck Dynasty: Freedom of speech vs. intolerance

    12/29/2013 11:38:29 PM PST · 14 of 17
    Let_It_Be_So to nickcarraway

    Sure, I might. Depends on what he said of course.

    I believe A&E has the legal right to fire any employee for just cause, so whether they can do it and whether they should are two different things.

    Robertson said homosexuality is a sin according to scriptures, and basically that he agreed with what he considers his God to have said about the matter.

    Are you saying that an employee should be fired for quoting biblical passages and/or saying that he happens to agree with what the Bible has to say about a topic, especially if he said those things off-site, on his personal time away from the “job”?

    Again, if he had advocated violence (eg advocated a Holy War or death and destruction against all nonbelievers, etc) as you mentioned in your weak analogy, then by all means as owner of the TV network, you’d want to fire any such employee forthwith so as to not be associated with him in any employee-employer relationship.

  • Duck Dynasty: Freedom of speech vs. intolerance

    12/29/2013 8:40:33 PM PST · 12 of 17
    Let_It_Be_So to nickcarraway

    “If any Freepers owned a TV station would they let someone go on it and promote Jihad and Shariah?”

    Probably not.

    However, Phil Robertson didn’t express his views on A&E. Neither did express views that could be interpreted as advocating any physical harm to homosexuals or any other “sinner”, nor did he in any way promote the idea that his Christian beliefs be forced upon all nonbelievers?

    Therefore, your analogy doesn’t seem to work.

  • Obama Says 1 Million Signed up for Health Care (BS!!!)

    12/22/2013 12:25:11 PM PST · 54 of 57
    Let_It_Be_So to napscoordinator

    “This is so stupid. They should have just put those original 36 million without insurance on the Medicaid program.”

    First, I doubt the 36M figure is a valid number and even if it was, a good percentage of that number were people who chose to not buy insurance. The number of people who wanted insurance and couldn’t get it was quite small and THAT group could have been added to an expanded Medicaid program, imo.

    Secondly, I agree with you and a variation of this (expanding Medicaid) was part of the Republicans’ proposed alternative to Obamacare when it was being debated in Congress...only to be summarily dismissed/ignored by the democrats in control of both houses of Congress at the time,iirc.

  • VIDEO: Why You Gotta Lie, Unions? 'Google Employee' Angrily Yelling At Protesters Actually A Plant

    12/11/2013 5:57:04 PM PST · 19 of 24
    Let_It_Be_So to bushbuddy

    “Ever notice “lie”, “liar” and “liberal” all contain the same letters?”

    Not until you pointed it out, but did you ever notice that “Press”, “Grope” and “Progressive” all contain the same letters?

    And while we’re at it, “Vast”, “Coin” and “Conservative” contain the same letters.
    :)

  • John Boehner: Conservative Groups' Reaction to Budget Deal Is 'Ridiculous'

    12/11/2013 11:32:40 AM PST · 53 of 57
    Let_It_Be_So to Beave Meister

    “They’re using our members and they’re using the American people for their own goals,” he said.

    As opposed to you (Boehner) using OUR members and using the American people for YOUR own goals?

  • Republicans moving to overhaul 2016 primary process

    12/11/2013 11:30:17 AM PST · 66 of 82
    Let_It_Be_So to cripplecreek

    “I think a better primary system would be 5 ten state primary dates with states from each region chosen on a rotating lottery system.
    On each date you would get 2 western, 2 eastern, 2 northern, 2 southern, and 2 central states.”

    The more I think of your idea, the more I really like it!! The current system truly disenfranchises millions of voters (at least in the nominating process) and it seems this would give those millions a voice when it matters, and that would be a wonderful departure from the status quo.

  • Reid sets up votes on nominees

    12/10/2013 11:20:23 AM PST · 13 of 14
    Let_It_Be_So to ModernDayCato

    Thanks for your reply, ModernDayCato. I agree with your sentiment that there would seem to be something they could have done. But I just can’t figure out what it would have been once the majority voted to take the filibusterer off the table.

  • Dear Christians, We Hate You. Sincerely, Atheists

    12/10/2013 11:11:59 AM PST · 266 of 275
    Let_It_Be_So to donmeaker

    donmeaker, I appreciate having a friendly “back and forth” on this subject matter and enjoyed sharing my thoughts with you and anyone else reading our posts. I can’t figure out how you came up with “others know better than you..” from my latest post, but I assure you that isn’t at all what I was trying to say.

    Anyway, thanks for sharing your thoughts with me.

  • Reid sets up votes on nominees

    12/09/2013 7:52:28 PM PST · 11 of 14
    Let_It_Be_So to ModernDayCato

    “So the stupid party did what it usually does...NOTHING.”

    I’m not trying to argue with you, but what exactly could they have done?

  • Dear Christians, We Hate You. Sincerely, Atheists

    12/09/2013 7:42:31 PM PST · 246 of 275
    Let_It_Be_So to donmeaker

    “Perhaps you like math...”
    “...the second best thing for you to do is to solve intergral equations...”
    “...So you are now reduced to performing differentiation, your third favorite thing. The after life is still good, but after only 20,000, you after life quality is significantly diminished.”
    “And as time goes on, you see that you will be reduced to doing things that you are increasingly less enthusiastic about doing...”

    A lot of assumptions there. Like assuming that whatever things you liked during your wisp of time on Earth are all you will “like” in the afterlife. That would be like a four year old thinking that he doesn’t want to become an adult because he would be bored doing adult things since everyone knows the only thing worth doing is playing on his scooter, or perhaps riding that red bike with training wheels.

    Also, the “as time goes on” assumes the afterlife is bound within the constraints of time as it was when on Earth.

    Finally, your thought process seems to be bound by the dimensions you have learned while on Earth, when in the afterlife you very well may find your new “reality” to be much less constrained.

    Sure, we all will make certain assumptions when speculating about the afterlife, but why limit yourself to those assumptions that make it an undesirable “place” to be?

    In the end, it really doesn’t matter what we speculate the afterlife to be, it will be what it will be, regardless of our speculations.

  • Dear Christians, We Hate You. Sincerely, Atheists

    12/09/2013 7:02:27 PM PST · 237 of 275
    Let_It_Be_So to dmz

    dmz: “That Q&A works on everything. It turns honest believers into agnostics. Just replace God in the 3rd question with the phrase ‘proof that God doesn’t exist’. It’s not a terribly illuminating line of questioning in that respect.”

    Not really. If one searches for something and finds it, he becomes a believer in that thing’s existence. There may be a lot of things he doesn’t know, but one thing he no longer doubts...the existence of that thing he has found. Further, he will possibly want to learn more of this thing he’s found (it’s character, attributes, traits, etc), but he will no longer search for it as he has already found it.

    On the other hand, if one doubts the existence of something he may hold fast in his belief that the thing does not exist, until he finds it. He has searched for that thing, and has not found it, and he now believes the thing does not exist.

    The question for that person, then, is “Have you looked everywhere yet? If not, would you at least acknowledge the possibility of that thing existing somewhere you have yet to look?”

  • Dear Christians, We Hate You. Sincerely, Atheists

    12/09/2013 12:48:26 PM PST · 214 of 275
    Let_It_Be_So to donmeaker

    “By that reasoning, perhaps Christians would also be agnostics, in that if they were to, in the after life come face to face with Set, Moloch, or Dagon (as opposed to St. Peter) they would then have enough information to change their mind.”

    Nice attempt at humor there, but in reality one can not be an agnostic and a believer in God at the same time, by definition.

    Of course, your point may be that our “God” may not be who we believers think Him to be. In that case, we would still not be agnostic, but just...wrong.

  • NYT: My, many of these ObamaCare premiums aren’t really as low as they seem, are they?

    12/09/2013 12:32:31 PM PST · 35 of 35
    Let_It_Be_So to sickoflibs

    Good points, all.

  • NYT: My, many of these ObamaCare premiums aren’t really as low as they seem, are they?

    12/09/2013 9:12:30 AM PST · 27 of 35
    Let_It_Be_So to sickoflibs

    “Where’s the polls saying Americans trust Dems to impose single payer?”

    Good point, for now. But keep in mind that the polls clearly showed Americans’ disdain for Obamacare before it was rammed down our throats.

    At any rate, I’m guessing you’ll start hearing about how those evil insurance companies (Big Insurance) are inflating health care costs with their evil profit motives (high compensation packages for Big Insurance execs, etc). That if we simply cut out the middle man and “self-insure” as a nation (nationalize the industry), we could bring costs to the consumer down to a more affordable level...blah, blah, blah. They will say, yes, it will increase the cost of government but “you like your Medicare, don’t you?”.

    It will take a few years, but Progressives believe that those in favor of single-payor health care will increase to the tipping point, thereby increasing the number of congressmen who share that vision, and voila!...nationalized health care will pass or so they believe.

    Unfortunately for them, the fiasco with the federal exchange website set them back but they believe only temporarily. They have been working toward this for decades and they look at it over the long term, with temporary setbacks being only bumps in the road.

    I hate being such a skeptic, but that’s the way I see it with my crystal ball. I hope I’m dead wrong.

  • Global Study Finds Majority Believe Traditional Hospitals Will Be Obsolete In The Near Future

    12/09/2013 9:12:08 AM PST · 20 of 22
    Let_It_Be_So to Innovative

    “Intel Health Innovation Barometer was conducted online by Penn Schoen Berland in Brazil, China, France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan and the United States. It was conducted among a representative sample of 12,000 adults aged 18 and older...”

    An online poll? 12,000 respondents from 8 countries with a combined population of how many BILLIONS?

    Uh, yeah. Okay.

  • Dear Christians, We Hate You. Sincerely, Atheists

    12/08/2013 4:56:54 PM PST · 132 of 275
    Let_It_Be_So to Kip Russell

    Kip: “The proper answer to this question is “Since I have no belief in any deity while not affirming that no deities exist, I am an atheist of the weak variety rather than a strong atheist. This is distinct from being an agnostic, is it not, who when asked if God exists answers, ‘Maybe’?”

    My reply:
    The intellectually honest agnostic answers something like “I don’t know, really. I suppose it’s possible God exists, I’m just not convinced of it”. He could answer “maybe” as a short-cut to his true answer, of course.

    I would propose that your “weak atheist” categorization is another way of saying “I don’t believe there is a God, although I’m not saying he doesn’t exist either”. Leaving open the door to the possibility of God existing. Sounds like an agnostic with an identity confusion issue.

    In any event, I agree with you that each individual is free to hold whatever beliefs he chooses to hold.

  • Dear Christians, We Hate You. Sincerely, Atheists

    12/08/2013 1:51:20 PM PST · 52 of 275
    Let_It_Be_So to Irenic

    Unless he/she knows all there is to know, an “atheist” is most likely an agnostic without having reached that conclusion yet.

    It goes like this, in an interview with someone who professes to be an atheist:

    Q. Do you know all there is to know?
    A. No.

    Q. Do you know half of all there is to know?
    A. No.

    Q. Let’s say you do. Is it possible that you could find God in that half of what you do not know?
    A. Yes, it’s possible, though I don’t believe so.

    Q. Then, in essence you are an agnostic since you acknowledge it is possible for God to exist, correct?
    A. ?