Comments Posted By Bic
Displaying 1 To 8 Of 8 Comments

IN MEMORIAM

If Jack is in jail he is there only because there is a terrorist plot being hatched by a separatist movement that would bring down their government as well as ours if not stopped. This could result in the saving of millions of lives. Kick some butt Jack!

Comment Posted By Bic On 14.01.2008 @ 13:35

HUCKASPLITTER

I'm not sure where you get your ideas about what conservative evangelicals desire.
I do agree with you,for the most part, about brother Huckabee. I believe a lot of the love he got in the midwest and northeast will diminish as he moves further south. My guess is that here in Texas he will not play well. I think the Jimmy Carter comparison is perfect.

Comment Posted By Bic On 13.01.2008 @ 18:38

A "HELL" OF A HOTEL

Sorry to post this here but your contact did not work for me. Have you seen this parody of 24?

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/11/12/video-24-in-94/

Comment Posted By Bic On 13.11.2007 @ 13:47

DEFINITION OF POND SCUM

It's scary reading the comments over at the WaPo. With almost 20:1 praising Roger's actions it just boggles the mind.

I've never understood this whole "Gay rights" thing anyway. Essentially, in the minds of people like Rogers, anything and everything that they ask for, if not granted to them, is a violation of their rights and anyone who may oppose them, either straight, gay or 'undecided' is a bigot.

Up here in Canada the issue of gay marriages has been going on for a while and I used to discuss it with my openly gay former neighbor. Both of us disliked the idea of redefining the term "marriage" to include same sex couples. Civil Unions, no problem, but the term marriage has special meaning and is more of a religious issue than a civic one.

My main concern was that as soon as gay 'marriage' is made a constitutional right someone will demand that some church allow them to use their building to hold their ceremony and when denied they would sue them for discrimination. This was brought to life perfectly by one of the leaders on one of the coutries largest gay and lesbian groups when he made the statement that he would never force a church to allow a gay service to take place but if they denied it he would petition the government to remove their charitable donation status.

Then there's the issue of hate crimes, another "right" I just can't get my head around. Why do certain people believe they should get special protections under the law because they are a member of a specific identifiable group. We've all seen cases where person A gets in a fight with person B for reasons completely unrelated to race, creed or sexual orientation but is brought up on hate crimes just because of an over active prosecutor. I've got no problem with adding generic sentencing guidelines that promotes harsher sentences (still within the regular limits as determined by the type of crime) when it can be proven that the victim was particularly selected due to reasons outside of their own actions/situation, i.e. their affiliation with some group, but it shouldn't be a crime unto itself. That way the law covers everyone, not just those people who happen to be members of one of the "protected group of the week".

Those are just two examples of 'rights' that I oppose, but despite the claims of Rogers and others like him, I have, what I believe to be, justifiable reasons to oppose them. It is not a knee-jerk reaction from some anti-gay mentality but a reasoned analysis. Others may disagree and I have no problem with that, but I'm willing to debate the issue and then accept the electorates decision.

By classifying all opponents as sexists/racists/bigots and promising to smear them using whatever means necessary, Rogers and his ilk attempt to stifle any debate on the issues, and push through their own agenda using fear tactics. Sadly more and more of todays left are just fine with that but there are still a few clear thinking liberals out there so there is still some hope for the future.

Comment Posted By Bic On 4.09.2007 @ 17:16

OF SHARK JUMPING AND THE DEATH OF KINGS

Maybe Jack knows the Russians built a fail safe feature into their board. Any nation who tries to access the information will automatically go sterile.

No manly man would kiss up the way little Ricky did last night. I think Chloe is a better candidate to replace Jack, once he and Audrey sneak off to that Artic circle hideaway.

Comment Posted By Bic On 17.04.2007 @ 17:56

DEATH STRUGGLE

Jack's transformation reminds me of T.E.Lawrence's transformation in "Lawrence of Arabia". Lawrence had been brutalized by the Turkish officer. We then see Lawrence riding in pursuit of the retreating Turkish forces.
The character played by Omar Sharif is aghast at the hired assasins that Lawrence has with him. Just before the charge to what was to be a total massacre of the Turkish forces, Lawrence shouts, "take no prisoners". Jack may have made it to the point of no return.

Comment Posted By Bic On 11.04.2007 @ 11:29

HACKSAW REDUX

Obviously, like in past seasons, we have not seen the real "Mr. Big". Who is calling the real shots for the flunkies, Fayed and Gred.?

Comment Posted By Bic On 4.04.2007 @ 11:34

SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS

Markov will live. Jack is not finished with him.

Comment Posted By Bic On 13.03.2007 @ 11:12


 


 


Pages (1) : [1]


«« Back To Stats Page