<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Disqus - Latest Comments for ricksammons</title><link>http://disqus.com/by/ricksammons/</link><description></description><atom:link href="http://disqus.com/ricksammons/comments.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Apr 2015 15:28:31 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Polish priest performs mass exorcism on unknowing school kids - Europe - International - News - Catholic Online</title><link>http://www.catholic.org/news/international/europe/story.php?id=59369#comment-1949498217</link><description>&lt;p&gt;None of what is reported is an exorcism. And the children that "fainted" sounds more like resting in the spirit. Which is very peaceful and healing.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Richard Sammons</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 06 Apr 2015 15:28:31 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Rob Portman supporting same-sex marriage? Right and RIGHT</title><link>http://rare.us/story/rob-portman-supporting-same-sex-marriage-right-and-right/#comment-1803165447</link><description>&lt;p&gt;As you state, Rick -&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Goldwater’s true conservative wants government out of our lives – period&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt; If you want government out of our lives then there is no reason that marriage should be part of the discussion, since it was around before government, and there is no statement of a right to marriage, just like there is no right to a driver's license. Marriage was defined by religion first. And implemented by religions before governments existed. Maybe the government needs to quit using the term marriage, and leave that up to those in the religious field. And just stick to civil unions.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt; And if Barry Goldwater defined conservatism, then we probably need to look for a new descriptive term or a new party than the republicans, who seem to want a big government just like the democrats, just different spending choices.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Maybe Tea party better reflects the traditional thinking of those who believe the government should get out of our lives. Because Rob Portman and nearly all elected officials don't seem to want that.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Richard Sammons</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 19 Jan 2015 17:16:12 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: To Karen, the woman who hung up on me yesterday</title><link>http://www.lifesitenews.com/blog/to-karen-the-woman-who-hung-up-on-me-yesterday#comment-1056187816</link><description>&lt;p&gt;As someone who was a child when abortion was legalized, I had seen war (Vietnam), I had seen violence (monk setting himself on fire, Palestinians at the Olympics). These were seen in the privacy of my home. You take a child out into the public world, you should expect them to see things that will make you uncomfortable. Be an adult about it, and learn how to explain it. Society is trying to take your child and make him/her think like society. You should be prepared to teach your child how you think. Society will show your child many things that you disagree with. I wonder why showing them something society is promoting and you disagree with is so troubling to you.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Every parent should be ADULT enough to share with a child these difficult situations and why they believe it is right or wrong. If it makes you uncomfortable, think about the baby in the picture - you think he/she enjoyed being killed?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Pro-life people better get OK with these images, because that is the enemy you say you are against.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Richard Sammons</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 23 Sep 2013 14:46:31 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Google's tax avoidance is called 'capitalism', says chairman Eric Schmidt</title><link>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/9739039/Googles-tax-avoidance-is-called-capitalism-says-chairman-Eric-Schmidt.html#comment-735111936</link><description>&lt;p&gt;The governments make the rules. They are the ones who make the loopholes. Companies that find them and use them are considered immoral? How does that happen. The government should get better at writing laws with less loopholes, but then they are not the smartest in the group. What is their incentive to write better law? Companies have an incentive to find the loopholes. It's not immoral to "avoid" tax either. That is called good fiscal management. Tax evasion is the illegal act. Tax avoidance is smart business. So all you tax lovers - get on your government to close the loopholes, and off the smart business owners.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Richard Sammons</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 13 Dec 2012 13:17:24 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Dem Pandering Hits A New Low, Illegal Immigrant To Speak At DNC&amp;#8230;</title><link>http://weaselzippers.us/2012/09/05/dem-pandering-hits-a-new-low-illegal-immigrant-to-speak-at-dnc/#comment-642344160</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Terminology should be Illegal Immigrant, not undocumented immigrant (those were the slaves that came here without papers).&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Richard Sammons</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 06 Sep 2012 16:01:34 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: God is pro-choice: a pro-life Christmas reflection</title><link>http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/god-is-pro-choice-a-pro-life-christmas-reflection#comment-393267697</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Very good perspective, but you fail to give the alternative to choosing to walk with God. If you choose against God's will, you are going to hell with the Devil. God's will is that he gives us life as a gift, making his will that we accept the gift and nurture it like Mary. Pro-life says we accept God's gift. So I try to call people who label themselves as pro-choice as "pro-abortion". Since we all like to have a choice.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Richard Sammons</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 23 Dec 2011 14:17:45 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Democrats threaten companies hit hard by health care bill | Washington Examiner</title><link>http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Democrats-threaten-companies-hit-hard-by-health-care-bill-89347127.html#comment-42015225</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I hope the companies fight these requests. They should make him use his congressional powers, then challenge them in court. How dare any congressman or elected official feel they have authority to require businesses to give them information about their business that is not required of all businesses. Then I hope all businesses send in loads of paperwork, and require the government to sign for it, and overwhelm them with stuff they would never be able to understand or analyze.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Richard Sammons</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 28 Mar 2010 14:50:53 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: The community will plan and host the April Second Saturday event</title><link>http://newmediacincinnati.com/2010/03/the-community-will-plan-and-host-the-april-second-saturday-event/#comment-39570194</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Why not just consider this event dead? This type of reaction shows a lack of  concern for whatever was built. All because of what?? Seems a lot of over reaction, and the baby has been tossed with the bathwater. So long baby, it was good to know you for a short time.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Richard Sammons</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 13 Mar 2010 22:38:55 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Why Facebook&amp;#8217;s Change in Privacy Settings is Detrimental to Users</title><link>http://mashable.com/?p=181269#comment-29508183</link><description>&lt;p&gt;So what you think I should do becomes the rule. a social network is many things to many people. because you don't use it to find new friends, doesn't mean that purpose is invalid. In fact, many people find new friends from current friends - in the computer world and in the real world. Why not allow that, and I can control what I tell new friends in the real world, why not allow me that same control in FB world?&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Richard Sammons</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 12 Jan 2010 13:10:58 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: The Blue Marble is Thirsty</title><link>http://www.breannagaddie.com/networkingwithpassion/blogactionday09/#comment-20666396</link><description>&lt;p&gt;If I exercise more, won't I exhale more Carbon Dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. So I will limit that  activity.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Richard Sammons</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 20 Oct 2009 21:22:44 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>