Tab Content
  • MelissaWV's Avatar
    Yesterday, 04:22 PM
    Most of these are essentially "there is gravity, hence the earth is flat."
    10 replies | 249 view(s)
  • MelissaWV's Avatar
    Yesterday, 03:55 PM
    A lot of the lighter vehicles also happen to be the fuel efficient ones. It's a lot better than tracking people around. Incidentally, if people are going to nitpick about wear and tear on the roads, then the elephant in the room is that they'd have to track me to see which roads I'm on. If I spend a great deal of time on dirt roads or roads that will need very little/no upkeep to be funded by my fuel tax, I'm still taxed the same under all of the proposed systems.
    35 replies | 476 view(s)
  • MelissaWV's Avatar
    Yesterday, 03:51 PM
    "I love fat boys/men"?
    110 replies | 1549 view(s)
  • MelissaWV's Avatar
    Yesterday, 03:29 PM
    Burrito Lives Matter. Now they're teaching their young how to destroy young burrito lives.
    110 replies | 1549 view(s)
  • MelissaWV's Avatar
    Yesterday, 02:49 PM
    Hell, look at how BLM hijacked this thread, for instance...
    110 replies | 1549 view(s)
  • MelissaWV's Avatar
    Yesterday, 02:40 PM
    People who are disabled are discriminated against. All-stop. If you want to advocate for the disabled, then address the root causes of that discrimination. BLM states on their website that black disabled people are more likely to be discriminated against, so they're focused on that. That's not addressing the root cause. People don't ignore the disabled because they're black. LGBT people are discriminated against. All-stop. Whether one thinks, from a moral perspective, that the discrimination should exist is a separate matter. BLM states that black LGBT people are more likely to be discriminated against, so they're focused on that. That's not addressing the root cause. People don't dislike homosexuals based on skin color. So, no, I'm not hurt about being "excluded" but I do think it hurts the effectiveness of a group to protest loudly and pretend to stand for something they're really not. You were the one who said earlier in the thread that BLM was there to address issues of police brutality, etc.. I pointed out that it's not the case per their own website. "Black Lives Matter" is interjecting race into situations where race isn't the underlying problem. You'll find, for instance, that even taking white drug-related incarceration rates, there's a massive disparity between how someone cooking meth in a trailer and some society girl forging prescriptions for medication is treated. You could even go so far as to make them look alike, be the same age, come from two-parent homes, etc., and you will have the same issue. Take a quick browse through crimes against LGBT motivated by sexual orientation, and you will see an awful lot of the victims are not black. Not "a few" or "the exception," but many.
    110 replies | 1549 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:11 AM
    I believe in the decentralization of power, which is a Biblical principle, first derived in Genesis with the formation of the tribes of Israel (I don't have time to delve deeply into that, but it can be proven). So, to answer your question, I would advocate a system that is similar to what we had in our early republic, where local, state, and county governments are formed by Christians from various denominations to assess how crimes should be punished within their respective jurisdictions. So, for example, if a Presbyterian is living in a county full of Roman Catholics, and those Catholics have laws which he believes do not square with Biblical justice, then he can find another county where there are mostly Presbyterians and from there, they can work together to apply God's Law based on their Biblical convictions. That's what we had in the earlier days of America, with entire states being composed of one Christian denomination from another state of a different Christian denomination. It's one of the reasons why the First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," because their definition of "religion" was related to Christian denominations, understanding that each state was by and large composed of a particular Christian denomination.
    60 replies | 802 view(s)
  • luctor-et-emergo's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:56 AM
    Why is this good and didn't someone forget a mechanic ?
    5 replies | 105 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:51 AM
    Because if you want to have a just society, then there needs to be an absolute standard for determining what is just and unjust behavior. Once you have established that, then you can deal with how unjust behavior ought to be punished. Why is that? Because God desires holiness from His creatures, not just internally but also externally, which is why God expects us to put away evil from society as it emerges. And, of course, evil is defined by God's Word, not majority opinion nor by current trends of acceptable behavior.
    79 replies | 1017 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:45 AM
    If you're a Christian, then you should already know how one determines what governments God has ordained. That's why we have disciplines such as Biblical and systematic theology to delve into the subject on what the Bible teaches about the nature of government. But it is a topic that can be ascertained, and it is one that no other worldview (secular humanism, Islam, etc.) can account for.
    60 replies | 802 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:24 AM
    No, it doesn't make me an anarchist; it just means that I hold to the view that God rules society, and therefore, He is the One Who delegates authority (those who minister to others) and sets their jurisdictions within a civilized society. That's why an elite subset of society should never manipulate the rest by force. All people should be self-governed by God's Law before they take any position of authority within God-ordained governments (family, church, and state) to ensure that an elite group do not take over society by their own whims. When that happens (as it is currently in American civics), then it is a good indication that people in positions of authority are not self-governing themselves in God's Law.
    60 replies | 802 view(s)
  • MelissaWV's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:09 AM
    Precisely. The gas tax also encourages --- without being an utter asshole about it --- people to consider fuel efficiency when purchasing a vehicle. The consideration may amount to "fuck it; I am getting a muscle car" but it's still in the back of our minds. We went from a small SUV and a Cadillac to two Civics at one point, and the difference was substantial enough to make it a huge consideration going forward.
    35 replies | 476 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    Yesterday, 01:22 AM
    The only way we can answer the question, "Should X be criminalized," is by, first, answering, "What does God say about X?" The two questions go together, when we are discussing what sexual sins should receive civil sanctions. But, of course, it takes wisdom to understand how to apply those sanctions in our modern world, and that can be challenging at times, I admit. But, nonetheless, it still needs to be considered when we're assessing public policy and its relation to sexual taboos. Another thing to keep in mind is that the page marked "New Testament" in our Bibles is not inspired by God. That fact is very important because when we are talking about continuities and discontinuities between the Old and New Covenants, we need to realize that the Old Testament laws still applied when the New Testament was being written. Thus, the authors' approach to how Old Testament laws would apply to them in their own day would not have been riddled with many of the assumptions that we face today in modern Christianity (with ideas such as the "Two-Kingdoms Approach," "Law vs. Gospel" dichotomies, Dispensationalism, and other concepts which inherently but inadvertently pit the Old Testament against the New Testament). Unfortunately, you, yourself, are guilty of those very approaches to the New Testament, which is why you fail at understanding how the Old Testament applies to us today. Remember, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness..." (2 Timothy 3:16). If sexual acts were condemned with civil penalties in the Old Covenant, then those penalties apply civilly, in some way, in the New Covenant. Otherwise, you would have to say that God made a mistake when He decreed those sexual acts as punishable by civil law under the Old Covenant. But, once again, it takes wisdom to understand how they apply today because the world has changed since the times of the Old Covenant. But the moral indictment against certain sexual behaviors does not change because moral laws are eternal, by nature.
    79 replies | 1017 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:48 AM
    Ronin, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about in relation to Paul's theology. It's funny how you consider yourself more educated about the relationship between Jesus and Paul when world-renown Biblical scholars, such as N.T. Wright, have been applauded for their research and writings about Paul's life and theology. If you have any serious, objective interest in how Paul's theology was consistent with Christ's doctrines, then I recommend that you watch this lecture from one of the best Pauline scholars in the world, and learn something:
    39 replies | 399 view(s)
  • Kotin's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:01 AM
    3823 replies | 163324 view(s)
  • ronpaulhawaii's Avatar
    06-25-2016, 10:09 PM
    14 replies | 1229 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    06-25-2016, 09:20 PM
    What "uncontrolled systems" are you referring to, fisharmor?
    60 replies | 802 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    06-25-2016, 09:16 PM
    Exactly, erowe1. That's all Ronin Truth does. He can't give a definitive, comprehensive rebuttal to anything in which he disagrees with. All he knows how to do is copy and paste links. That's why his credibility, especially in these kinds of discussions, is always suspect because of his laziness and ignorant flippancy of facts that he has no intention of researching. He seriously needs to leave these forums and stick to playing Solitaire online or something.
    39 replies | 399 view(s)
  • MelissaWV's Avatar
    06-25-2016, 09:01 PM
    lol Well I have signage up. That's probably the best note on which to bow out and say g'night. :)
    266 replies | 3711 view(s)
  • MelissaWV's Avatar
    06-25-2016, 08:47 PM
    You can look up "Snakes at Disney" and go through the photos and videos, btw, and realize that's only a matter of time since people are idiots. When that happens, there will be calls for more signs since Disney definitely knows about them, too. Apparently there HAVE been attacks. Where are you guys on this? CBR = Caribbean Beach Resort
    266 replies | 3711 view(s)
  • MelissaWV's Avatar
    06-25-2016, 08:41 PM
    A toddler wading at the shore at night where there is a steep drop-off is not the same as you walking with one foot on the beach. "Not so with an alligator" is inaccurate. It's highly unusual for alligators to randomly be aggressive and lunge at you on shore with no cover, unless they're hand-fed, which we've already covered over and over again. The video you posted says the same thing. Yes, I'm aware gators can jump and climb --- and do so regardless of signage. I'm the one that posted the video of one climbing a fence, and it's usually safe to assume you'd need an 8+ foot fence designed not to be climbable to keep out critters in this general category (including the aforementioned snakes and turtles). A stone barrier would be preferable, honestly, as I mentioned before. Look! There IS a sign warning of gators! But not snakes... even though it's way more likely you'd be fending off a water moccasin in that area. Disney's ahead of them on that front. Neither of them seem to care about turtles or fire ants. Frankly, it's amazing any of us are alive.
    266 replies | 3711 view(s)
  • MelissaWV's Avatar
    06-25-2016, 08:10 PM
    Shut yo mouth!
    110 replies | 1549 view(s)
  • MelissaWV's Avatar
    06-25-2016, 08:09 PM
    Actually now I am wondering why the new shore doesn't have the steep drop-off mentioned. They seemed to think warning about the drop-off would keep people out of the water and hence out of the jaws of alligators (or giant snakes, which is still perplexing), but that didn't work. Now they have signs about gators and snakes, but what if someone doesn't realize there's a shelf there and falls into suddenly deep water?
    266 replies | 3711 view(s)
  • MelissaWV's Avatar
    06-25-2016, 08:01 PM
    You're right. Someone should have put up a sign. Want to take a guess as to where this sign is? So my hypothetical, which you seem so interested in discounting, isn't really a hypothetical. This sign was up, and parents ignored it and their toddler was wading right near a steep drop-off. While engaged in what was already an action that endangered their child, another danger came up and snatched him away, likely aided by the deep water. That doesn't make it the parents' fault (maybe they were ready to swoop in if the child lost his footing, and felt they were prepared to guard against the drop-off danger), but for some reason no one seems to be pointing out these signs were there. This is actually a missing piece for me. The story of the body being found yards from shore didn't make sense, but it does now. It's much deeper there, right off shore.
    266 replies | 3711 view(s)
  • MelissaWV's Avatar
    06-25-2016, 07:33 PM
    That was what I was asking. You're really on a name-calling binge tonight, btw. I pointed out that hold harmless agreements don't work the way you're saying they do when there are other factors which tip the scales and make it no longer a natural hazard, but you glossed over that. If I say there are alligators in a lake, there's an assumption they are natural alligators, and not hand-fed alligators, and definitely there's an assumption that there's not a huge area under my control where alligators are being allowed to breed and come over to that lake. If those last two things are happening, though, no sign is going to cover me; I've created an unnatural hazard. I could paste several boring paragraphs of case law, but something tells me you will just roll your eyes, stomp your foot, and admit you didn't read it anyhow.
    266 replies | 3711 view(s)
  • MelissaWV's Avatar
    06-25-2016, 07:09 PM
    Oh. Okay. So Disney having a sign up that there were alligators would have been sufficient to protect them, even if they had an entire area where they were allowing alligators to breed and get into the lagoon, and knowledge of people feeding them. The sign constitutes equal knowledge and implies that the alligators are hand-fed, park-bred, and unafraid of people. I notice you didn't cite anything new, especially pertaining to the "steep drop-off" part of my question.
    266 replies | 3711 view(s)
  • MelissaWV's Avatar
    06-25-2016, 06:31 PM
    Right, but it's not just about corruption in the police department. Their own site goes on to talk about, essentially, how discrimination is MORE discrimination-y when you're black. LGBT? Well it's important to BLM... if you're black. Discrimination against the disabled? It's important... if you're black. The study you linked to is not particularly helpful, btw. It's a reasonably small sample size in a fairly localized geographic area. It doesn't really mention where in Florida the officers are from, which does make a difference. I am also suspicious of a study that goes through the trouble to tell us the racial and gender makeup of the original 50 officers used for the study, then doesn't tell us which two were not included in the final findings during their Method paragraph. Even something as simple as whether or not the officer was right- or left-handed would have a bearing on the study, but it's not mentioned.
    110 replies | 1549 view(s)
  • MelissaWV's Avatar
    06-25-2016, 06:07 PM
    I'm more familiar with hold harmless clauses and agreements than I'd like to be, by the way, and they're generally negated in courts of law when there's an even slightly substantiated claim of negligence. In your ski example, if I sign my life away and then someone from the resort left something out on the course and I was injured on my way down, the resort does not get to claim that I signed away my right to sue. They can try, but it won't be particularly effective and it tends to turn those hearing the case against the resort. With your assertion that a sign covers Disney, because it makes the person aware, you're also saying that's the end of the story. If Disney keeps this sign and that fantastic rope fence, but also keeps the alligator breeding ground nearby intact and doesn't work to demolish it, and they also continue to allow rich patrons to feed the alligators from the bungalows just down the shore, then they are actively creating a hazard above and beyond what's natural. The sign is not going to cover that. The sign is also not going to help if a non-English speaker is injured. The sign is not going to help if someone goes just past the edge (the fence ends rather oddly right now, with a sign, but beyond that sign there is more alligator-friendly coast). It's not going to help, btw, in my example of someone finding a snake away from the beach and claiming inadequate or misleading warnings; Disney will find itself liable there, too. So no, a sign doesn't automatically mean the person can be assumed to be fully aware of the risk, and it doesn't render the person putting up the sign automatically safe from litigation or criminal charges.
    266 replies | 3711 view(s)
More Activity

16 Visitor Messages

  1. View Conversation
    Your visitor messages are pretty shabby and desolate... so here's a crappy one to add to the pile. :P <3
  2. View Conversation
    Would you like me to send you the article?
  3. View Conversation
    meant to send private message...muh bad
  4. View Conversation
  5. View Conversation
  6. View Conversation
    No Buck or Miller, but at least we have Lee.
  7. View Conversation
    Yo, its Mike, you wouldn't still happen to have those pics from St. Paul would you? I lost a lot of mine after moving. I'm looking specifically for some of the Ronstock pics if you have any and the one of us and Barry Goldwater Jr.
  8. View Conversation
    no. what? how? who? hmmmmm ok
Showing Visitor Messages 1 to 10 of 16
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
About malkusm

Basic Information

About malkusm
I work in life insurance. I hold degrees in Statistics (B.S.) and Economics (M.A.).
Political Campaign Skills
Computer and Technical:
Programmer, SQL/Database Expert


Quote Originally Posted by PaulConventionWV View Post
You're not making the claim that there's no objective best diet, are you?


Total Posts
Total Posts
Posts Per Day
Visitor Messages
Total Messages
Most Recent Message
03-19-2012 08:09 AM
General Information
Last Activity
04-24-2016 05:39 PM
Join Date

46 Friends

  1. Acala Acala is offline


  2. bobbyw24 bobbyw24 is offline


  3. brandon brandon is offline


  4. Brandywine Brandywine is offline


  5. Brent Pierce Brent Pierce is offline


    Brent Pierce
  6. Bryan Bryan is offline


  7. Cabal Cabal is offline


  8. canadian4ronpaul canadian4ronpaul is offline


  9. CaseyJones CaseyJones is offline


  10. Christelle Christelle is offline


Showing Friends 1 to 10 of 46
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
View malkusm's Blog

Recent Entries

Marching to War Requires Two Feet

by malkusm on 03-21-2011 at 11:48 PM
Marching to War Requires Two Feet
by Matt Malkus

America has become a nation marching to war in lockstep, left foot following right foot towards the all-too-certain future that has already befallen the body's other half. Crushing electoral defeats serve as little deterrent in a political system where the pendulum swings comfortably on the same axis, the defeat coming at the hands of the opposite extreme which just as aggressively pursues the same noble goals via the same dead

Read More


UPDATE: S.3992 (DREAM Act) - Victory!

by malkusm on 12-18-2010 at 10:52 AM
From the thread here:

Legislative tracking page on my blog has been updated to reflect this victory. You can find my updated legislative tracking page here:

OPPOSE: S.3992 - Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM Act)

by malkusm on 12-17-2010 at 01:03 PM
S.3992 - Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM Act)
Sponsor: Sen Durbin, Richard [IL]
Introduced on 11/30/2010

Sen Leahy, Patrick [VT]

This has been added to my Legislative Tracking page, which can be found here:

UPDATE: H.R. 3082 (Omnibus spending) - Minor Victory!

by malkusm on 12-16-2010 at 07:57 PM
From the thread here:!

Legislative tracking page on my blog has been updated to reflect this (minor) victory. You can find my updated legislative tracking page here:

OPPOSE: H.R. 3082 - Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011

by malkusm on 12-16-2010 at 09:59 AM
H.R. 3082 - Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011
Sponsor: Rep Edwards, Chet [TX-17]
Introduced on 6/26/2009

**NOTE: This bill contains appropriations for 2011, and INCLUDES the "Food Safety Modernization Act" (formerly S.510) as an amendment in an attempt to gain support for passage. S.510 should be VEHEMENTLY opposed by anyone who likes small farms, locally grown food, or personal choice in their diet.

Read more about S.510 here:

Read More

No results to display...
No results to display...
No results to display...