Recent content by Pastor Larry

Then you have heard enough to be beyond questioning his intelligence. Question his policies; question his judgment about some matters. But there is no reason to question his intelligence.

[/b]I don't know of any objective standard that would bear out the truth of this statement. You might argue that "credibility" is different than "reality," and on that, you could be right. Cronkite certainly had a measure of intellectual credibility, but it was not earned. Bush is no genius, but...

[/b]That is a statement based more on politics than reality. [/b]Every legal test of the balloting process shows that he did win. He is right, but for entirely different reasons than you have suggested. Cronkite was no model intellect. He was a face, a very biased political face at that. When we...

I don't know that she is blaming anyone. She might be an idealist, but I find it hard to see how that applies here. I think much of "idealism" is misplaced, or spent on wrong-headed objectives. One of the ideals of this country is that it is based on rule of law. It seems to me that when people...

Thanks for your kind words, Terry. I thought you had sworn this kind of stuff off? Has that changed now? And what did I explain that I didn't actually understand? I think all I did was make a general comment about commonly known information.

Maybe that's why she went to jail. It has been long known that the confidentiality was waived over a year ago. Furthermore, even if it had not been waived, she knew the consequences of contempt of court, and chose to go through with it. She can blame only herself. The "confidentiality" was not...

Gives new meaning to the idea of "going Dutch."

The fact that Kennedy regrets his vote for hte most constitutional justice on the court is very telling. If every judge were like Scalia, we would actually have a constitutional government.

Corruption in federal government is wide spread. Filling out a few forms, or a lot of forms, won't change that.

[/b]Yes, and we never have that under the current federal law. :rolleyes:

You can live on 42000 in NYC. You have to live at a lower standard of living ... which is what I said. [/b]Which is exactly why wage controls are bad ideas. We have to live in the real world. [/b]I don't think anyone is suggesting we ignore anything ... at least not that I have seen.

Not sure that they can, but why should they? What part of the constitution gives the federal government the right to be involved in setting wages?

Running the math, $20 an hour is almost $42000 a year, if you get no overtime at all. That is well above any poverty line. It seems to me that if it is costing one more to go to work than to stay home, perhaps some living expenses need to be cut. We all have to live within our means. We are not...

How so? What exactly does this mean?

The fact that a wage rule exists to begin with is problemmatic. At least Bush is doing something right financially, as bad as he is running up the debt right now.