DanG

I don't understand what all the fuss is about (except that it something Obama did, so there will always be fuss). They said that he claimed to be an ISIS fighter, that he was doing the attack because we are bombing Muslims in Iraq and Syria, and that he pledged allegiance to the leader of ISIS. Clearly they are not afraid of letting the word out that he was claiming to be a radical Islamist. They just don't want his actual words, or a recording of his voice, out there for ISIS to use as propaganda. Whatever. - Dan G

I don't get it because the way you described it doesn't make any sense. I don't really care why you're getting your tattoos removed. You're the one who posted all high and mighty about how all the ignorant people of the world can't understand your hyper-enlightened worldview. But your explanation wasn't logical. Maybe I'm just not advanced enough to understand. Yes, people are going to assume that you regret getting a tattoo memorializing your whirlwind romance with a violent stalker. Most people would regret that, and they probably should. If you don't regret it, super. But don't get defensive when people assume you regret something that's highly regrettable. - Dan G

Um, if you love the ring so much, why have it removed. "Because it is free," makes no sense. A kick in the pants is free, but you don't see people lining up to get kicked in the pants. It's okay to regret a stupid decision. It means you've learned and grown. Denying you regret a stupid decision isn't bravery. It's just lying to yourself. - Dan G

You need to reread Wendy's comment if you think the part about praying for them was what she was commenting on. - Dan G

Keep it classy. - Dan G

It would be foolhardy to say, "We should pray for those people, their eternal soul is in God's hands now." You have to say that they are condemned to eternal hellfire, even though that's usurping the power of God. You should read your book again. - Dan G

Nice dodge. Were you angry at GWB for not saying that the US was at war with Islam? What has changed? - Dan G

I guess President Bush also made you sick when he insisted we weren't at war with Islam. Or was it okay then? - Dan G

What could possibly go wrong? - Dan G

Wow, someone remembers that. I'm famous. - Dan G

I agree, but it's a valid counter argument to the NRA position that having more CCW holders and no "gun free zones" would prevent mass shootings. You (general you, not you personally) can't have it both ways. - Dan G

I'm not sure that's so true. There have been shootings at places where guns are allowed to be carried. It's the law because alcohol was being served. I think most people would agree that drinking and guns don't go together well. Maybe you disagree? FYI, you were replying to someone else here. I didn't say what you quoted. It's totally true. That's why terrorists use suicide attacks. You can't stop them. Ask me how I know. Like I said, I'm not against people carrying weapons in most places. I just want people to understand that it won't prevent deaths. The only way to prevent a mass shooting is to stop it before it starts. That's the goal of background checks and increased mental health services. If you're in favor of those things, then we are in agreement. Many gun rights advocates, on the other hand, are strongly against background checks. - Dan G

No, you end up with a bunch of people randomly dispersed around the club. Unlike in the movies, none of the shooters instinctively knows who the actual bad guy is. Many will likely target another CCW holder, and anyone who happens to be near them. It's called the fog of war. If highly trained soldiers can accidentally shoot each other when they have a plan, have trained together for years, and are wearing uniforms, why do you think strangers in a loud, crowded bar are going to do any better? - Dan G

Okay, so you're going with the argument that one CCW wasn't enough, there needs to be multiple CCW carriers to stop an attacker. How hard does a target need to be before it stops being a soft target. Would two CCW have stopped the guy? Three? Did everyone need to be armed? Can you image the level of casualties if there were ten people in that bar shooting at each other? It would have been just as bad or worse. Arming everyone isn't a practical answer. I agree that people should be allowed to arm themselves, but I also agree that private venues should be allowed to bar people from being armed on their property. Finally, if an attacker is ready and willing to die for his cause, you simply can't stop him from taking other people with him. You can't. The best you can hope for is to stop the guy before he attacks. Barring that, the best you can hope for is minimizing the damage. Having a bunch of people all shooting at each other in a crowded bar isn't going to minimize any damage. The calls to increase background checks and stronger mental health services are aimed at stopping the guy before he attacks. You may think those efforts will be ineffective, but they'll be a lot more effective than putting more guns in the hands of drunk partiers at a nightclub. - Dan G

It was not a gun free zone. There was an armed off duty police officer working security. He engaged the shooter, exchanging rounds. It did not stop the mass murder. I'm not against guns, or against CCW. I just don't understand how this part of the story is getting ignored in this thread. - Dan G

Was the (potential) one in LA fueled by Islam? - Dan G

I can't believe you'd post that. Where is your simple sense of decency? - Dan G

Maybe, just maybe, everyone in the world doesn't have the same world outlook as you? Tell me, can a scientist wear his lucky shirt to the game without resigning in disgrace Monday morning? Can a scientist keep a lucky charm on their keychain without being laughed out of the coffee room? People do things all the time that are superstitious. It doesn't mean that they can't have objective views about the natural world, too. BTW, I'm an atheist, but I still throw salt over my shoulder when I tip over the shaker. Do I need to quit my engineering career and join a monastery? - Dan G

Do you really think you would be accosted, beaten, raped, and murdered? You would probably have a good verbal discussion about faith with a few people, while most others would find something more interesting to do. People don't hate you for your faith. They are annoyed by your preachy, sanctimonious, and hypocritical tone, but they don't hate you. And most people just ignore you. No matter how badly you want it to be true, there is no war on Christians. - Dan G

If you want us to discuss it, why don't you post a link? - Dan G

Citation needed - Dan G

Of course not! But Alberta has decided it is more comfortable being addressed as Albert. - Dan G

I think I see the problem. You don't understand what I meant by religion getting out of government. I don't mean that religious people or institutions can't participate like everyone else, I mean get actual religion out of government. Get rid of "In God We Trust", get rid of "one nation under God", get rid of Ten Commandments statues, official Christmas and Easter events, and any religious text in legislation. I don't think religious people should be barred from the government, just actual religion. Maybe this misunderstanding is why you think there is a war on Christians. We don't think you shouldn't be allowed to vote or hold office. We just don't think once you get to office you should be allowed to make us all worship your deity, even in subtle ways. Um, no. The Megachurch of Our Lady of the Eternal Dollar does not pay taxes like everyone else. Total non-sequitur, but okay. Planned Parenthood gets paid for its services just like any other medical provider. Some of that payment comes from the government in the form of Medicare and Medicaid. Getting government funding as payment for services has nothing to do with paying taxes. I would have no problem if churches were structured like any other non-profit for tax purposes. Assuming, of course, that they followed all the non-profit rules. - Dan G

You brought up lobbying. I have no idea what that has to do with anything. Right now religions are prohibited from engaging in political activities because they are tax free. They are tax free because it was thought that taxing them would violate the 1st Amendment. Many churches, however, take unfair advantage of this tax free status to do things which clearly do not have any religious underpinning, such as enriching pastors and buying up land. If a small, medium, or megachurch were doing nothing but social activities, and no one was making money in the process, then they should not be taxed. But wait, we already have laws that say organizations that do nothing but social activities and don't make money aren't taxed. Churches of all sizes should either qualify as that type of organization, or they should be taxed. You brought up lobbying. I think it is a total strawman, but I'm trying to see it from your perspective. I don't care about religious lobbying either. If religions want to lobby, let them. So long as they are taxed just like every other lobbying organization. - Dan G

I don't understand your position at all. You say right now that megachurches can lobby for political reform by setting up taxable organizations. How would that change if the church itself were taxed? They wouldn't have to bother setting up a shell corporation. Big whoop. How does that hurt the small churches? Right now, according to you, they can't lobby at all. If they were taxed, they could lobby just like the big churches. Your reasoning doesn't make sense. - Dan G