Disqus - Latest Comments for RoaringRepublican

Re: WikiLeaks: Bradley Manning isn't a criminal. He's a hero. - CSMonitor.com

RoaringRepublican — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 13:51:25 -0000

Well you have really departed reality. Insanity must be a fascinating place for you.

Re: WikiLeaks: Bradley Manning isn't a criminal. He's a hero. - CSMonitor.com

RoaringRepublican — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 21:56:57 -0000

What in the world does that mean? Did every one of those presidents take classified documents and leak them? I don't see that you have a point.

Re: WikiLeaks: Bradley Manning isn't a criminal. He's a hero. - CSMonitor.com

RoaringRepublican — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 06:34:24 -0000

Are you kidding me? So our system had the terrible issue of entrusting a man in uniform who swore an oath to defend and protect his country and so his actions in exploiting said oath and betraying his countrymen makes him a hero? That is a disgusting leap of logic.

Meanwhile the justification that our security was not tight enough so we deserve to be betrayed is asinine. So if my home is brocken into but I don't have the largest lock for sale, it is my fault? This is the tried and true "she deserved it, look what she was wearing" argument of people who have no moral or ethical compass.

We will always have to trust in people on some level. Yes, in hindsight it was too much. That does not justify nor should it reward the actions of those who exploited our trust.

Re: Specter Jumping Ship

RoaringRepublican — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 13:27:35 -0000

If they win Minnesota, BUT Specter voted with them anyway so honestly it makes zero difference.

Re: Thoughts on the modern marriage

RoaringRepublican — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 16:13:35 -0000

Gay marriage has never been one of those issues that I haved cared much about but let me explain my train of thought on the subject.

Marriage has historically been between a man and a woman. In known history, even in societies where homosexual relationships were acceptable, has homosexual marriage ever been considered a right. So the "contract" or legal status of marriage has always been in history something granted to a man and woman. So when almost all laws governing it were written they were written with the intent of it being between a man and a woman.

Additionally the federal constitution leaves marriage to the states; nowhere does it guarentee marriage or say anything about it. Federally the only thing we truly have to go by is DOMA which defines marriage between man and woman. That has yet to be knocked off as unconstitutional. So it would then take a constitutional amendment or future act of Congress to define marriage as anything else to the federal government.

This is why I have said before and maintain that this is a state issue. Each individual state decides how they want to define marriage. Obviously there is an equal protections argument to be made and sought but that goes back to the historic definition and the current federal definition. As long as the federal government maintains man and woman as the definition it is hard to argue that Kentucky must recognize something different simply because Mass does.

I fully understand the desires of homosexuals to be married and I have known and I am sure will continue to know many who say they are because of a ceremony performed. With that said there is no federal guarentee that this "right" of marriage applies to them. The definition of marriage legally has always been between a man and a woman. One can argue it "should" include homosexual marriage but I do not see an overwhelming argument that it "must" based on legal precident or even an overwhelming moral argument.

One can claim the health care coverage or other rights that typically extend to a married partner should go to cover a homosexual partner and by denying them our states and nation are somehow violating a human right. While an interesting argument such benefits are negotiated by employer to employee as compensation. That is largely an employer/employee issue and as for federal we have DOMA.

All roads legally lead back to marriage as being exclusive to man & woman. However if a state choses to change its definition of marriage, that is its right as long as there is no constitutional amendment to say differently.

Re: One rail to connect them all in NY?

RoaringRepublican — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:20:34 -0000

Like I have said, I was not for the Stimulus as it was and I have great reservations. With that said I live in NY State, there was no way we were not going to take the money and so now the task is to make sure we do it right.

The other added benefit to the rent-a-car idea as I am sure you know BP is that if SMART & hybrid cars can be utilized, even just a few at first, it builds a market solution for green car technology. If someone has the cash and is smart to invest, they could create a business model. The more people see these automobiles around the less "odd" they seem to those driving SUV's and sports cars. Hopefully infrastructure will build around them with some gas stations adding charging terminals with potentially heavily trafficked tourist sites doing so as well. Casinos not to mention museums etc.

Additionally those traveling from Europe from NY City to Niagara Falls will already expect the experience and if GPS technology is utilized it is an easy way to put traffic monitoring technology into cars for the TSA which has experimented with this tech already.

I love the idea of seeing this eventually expand West and connect with Chicago & Cleveland. At the end of the day like you said air travel has just become unbearable both for cost and for the price you pay in wasted time and bad experiences. As long as it is fast, relatively inexpensive and the experience is pleasant there will be traffic.

Rail is a proven technology so we don't even need to have that argument. As long as we are realistic about what this could do for Western, NY meaning not running around saying "this will cure our problems" but instead admit "this will help with some of our problems and connect us with the East coast and eventually more" I am for it.

I just REALLY don't want to see waste and infighting and a giant mess but I am cautiously optimistic which I cannot say for some of the other ideas being tossed around Rochester.

Re: On Coming to Conservatism

RoaringRepublican — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 09:28:53 -0000

Thank you Doug for sharing! I hope you keep reading!

Re: Olbermann & Garofalo make racist comments on MSNBC

RoaringRepublican — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:52:31 -0000

I admit when I am wrong & you are right I was heated & should not have labeled all Dems as thinking this way. Glad you are taking action by not watching anymore. If I hear the same from a Con I will call them out on it!

Re: Conservative talk radio on your iPhone Droid and Blackberry

RoaringRepublican — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 17:40:00 -0000

Sorry, I personally LOVE when people who believe the direct opposite of me on things advertise here. They want to toss away their money and time fine by me, less money to spend on their worthless cause. A great big PETA ad would really do the trick!

Re: Your taxes pay for abortions and condoms

RoaringRepublican — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 15:45:20 -0000

I am against both for economic & constitutional arguments.

First there are far better ways to save money in the long run than to get involved in the Federal government providing contraception. That is a state issue. If states want to provide contraception that is their decision. It is not my responsibility as a federal taxpayer to do so. It is not the job of the federal government in general to provide birth control or counseling services either.

Second you are making an assumption about my stance on abortion. I despise it but understand that even with a federal ban it would still occur. I actually favor both abstinance & contraceptive education. Neither of which I believe the Federal government should provide. I also believe Roe v. Wade should be overturned and states should be given the right to choose.

What I object to fervently is our government paying for abortions around the world or getting involved in fertility decisions overseas. Again not my responsibility as a taxpayer, not the federal governments responsibility under the Constitution.

Re: Conservative talk radio on your iPhone Droid and Blackberry

RoaringRepublican — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 09:07:32 -0000

Try downloading a program called fstream you might be able to enter the stations information in there and stream.

Re: Rick Warren & gay hypocrisy

RoaringRepublican — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 16:28:27 -0000

You have seen Rev. Wright haven't you? Obama followed him for 20 years.

Re: Joe the Plumber talks McCain on Glenn Beck

RoaringRepublican — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 10:54:49 -0000

I am 100% in agreement with you there. I am convinced that had John McCain stoop up against the bailout or been for SOMETHING, anything constructive, he would have won. The polls were all going his way, excitement and new energy was pumping after the convention, then he sold out the party and what were supposedly his ideals.

Re: What good is an electric car?

RoaringRepublican — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 16:15:20 -0000

I seriously think we are underestimating the impact on the electric grid not to mention how much it will drive up the cost of electric energy

Re: What good is an electric car?

RoaringRepublican — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 16:13:13 -0000

I agree, lets get drilling!