ONEILL: Blood in the streets - again

ONEILL: Blood in the streets - again

There are 212 comments on the The Paradise Post story from Jan 15, 2011, titled ONEILL: Blood in the streets - again. In it, The Paradise Post reports that:

Sometimes I wonder why the media bothers to report shootings that take a bunch of innocent lives when some crazy SOB goes off on a rampage in a school, a restaurant, an office building, or a Safeway parking lot.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Paradise Post.

First Prev
of 11
Next Last
Dode Penrod

Lakewood, CA

#206 Jan 19, 2011
Saint Christopher wrote:
One of the most important questions you can ever ask yourself is,“Do I want to be ‘right’– or do I want to be happy?”
Many times, the two are mutually exclusive!...
Being right, defending our positions, takes an enormous amount of mental energy and often alienates us from the people in our lives…
Needing to be right…or needing someone else to be wrong…encourages others to become defensive, and puts pressure on us to be defending…
Yes, many of us (me too, at times) spend a great deal of time and energy attempting to prove (or point out) that we are right…and/or others are wrong…
Many people, consciously or unconsciously, believe that it’s somehow their job to show others how their positions, statements, and points of view are incorrect, and that in doing so, the person they are correcting is going to somehow appreciate it, or at least learn something….
Wrong!...
So now that you've made a Federal case out of this, when may we expect the book and the movie?
Andrea Bowman

United States

#207 Jan 19, 2011
I might be the only person who agrees with Jamie O'Neill. But, I think the kind of name calling found in these blogs is just more evidence for his statements about the "right." I don't believe that any so called "lefties" have ever killed anyone they disagreed with like the "righties" do, both through the CIA and by using poor unbalanced people as they did in Arizona (there were handlers). Although the folks, who disagreed with Bush and found his behavior criminal, may have called for his being tried for treason, I haven't seen any evidence of anyone trying to shoot him in the head!
There is clear evidence of people not paying attention to what is actually happening behind the scenes of our so-called "democracy." We cannot listen to FOX or even the good old 6 o'clock news and expect to actually know anything about the behavior of our, again, "so-called" representatives. Our Congress is paid by lobbyists from corporations and banks to do their will. The "righties" need to look at that. How much is your congressperson being paid to make sure the corporations and banks have what they want, first. You individually, don't matter to them. They don't need their paychecks from the government, they don't work for the government. You right people need to wake up and see where you actually get your needs met. Perhaps, you don't mind being "pawns." Chess, anyone?
Saint Christopher

Chico, CA

#208 Jan 19, 2011
Dode Penrod wrote:
<quoted text>
So now that you've made a Federal case out of this, when may we expect the book and the movie?
Well...I think Jack Nickolson should play me!

He has to wear the face paint as Joker from Batman...

Who do you want to play you?
Roger Ekins

Chico, CA

#209 Jan 19, 2011
Dode Penrod wrote:
Roger, Roger, Roger...I will not let you snow me with words and continue to refuse to answer my question! I will repeat my original post #173 one more time:
Roger Ekins wrote: "Churches have a constitutional right to engage in public advocacy on what they consider to be issues of morality."
And I asked: PLEASE POINT OUT THE SECTION OF THE CONSTITUTION THAT GRANTS THAT RIGHT.
I am fully aware of what the Constitution says in the First Amendment. It simply says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof..." I accept that. And Congress has never made a law for or against the establishment of religion. That, however, is a long way off from your statement that "Churches have a CONSTITUTIONAL right to engage in public advocacy on what they consider to be issues of morality."
I would not even question the fact that churches do indeed constantly engage in public advocacy on issues of morality. That's about 99 percent of what the churches do. But I defy you to show me where the Constitution GRANTS YOU A RIGHT to do that, any more than it grants some churches the right to use snakes in their rituals or for Catholic priests to wear silly hats or for some churches to deny women positions of authority or for men to have multiple wives or nuns to do the priest's housework.
Do you get my point? Can I make it any clearer? YOUR CHURCH DOES NOT HAVE ANY SPECIAL "CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS" to engage in public advocacy. If you can find it in the Constitution, tell me where it is!
Dode, Dode, Dode. It obviously all comes down to how the First Amendment is interpreted. Case law supports my interpretation, which is the broader point I was trying to make.(Show me a single instance where a church lost its tax-exempt status for public advocacy on what it considered a moral issue.) But I never meant for anyone to take my phrasing as a direct quotation from the Constitution. I was paraphrasing. That's why I didn't use quotation marks. So you're technically correct in asserting that there is nothing in the Constitution that specifically grants churches (or anyone else, for that matter!) a specific right to engage in advocacy. Nonetheless, various court cases have most certainly acknowledged such an implicit right. I certainly hopes that clarifies things. If not, I'm at a loss as to how I could make it more clear.

Since: Oct 10

Delray Beach, FL

#210 Jan 19, 2011
Saint Christopher wrote:
I once took a Multi-Cultural studies class at Butte College...
The instructor spent most of his time ranting about the evil deeds of the white race...
His first class was so rough that the hispanic students were smiling and clapping as each white student got up and left...
I stayed...
I love a good debate...
My point was that he really felt the way he talked...so many people adopt positions they really don't feel...posers...
Roger Ekins and Jaime O'Neill both seem to actually expouse their beliefs, and don't adopt positions meant to just jerk the most people around...
I sometimes think that Rush, Glen, Maddox, and Bill Maher just spew their expected views...
It pays the bill I suppose...
Just Saying...
I was just about to give you great reviews, but then you said Rush, Maddox, and Bill Haddox and Bill Maher just SPEW their expected views!

Have you EVER checked the accuracy rating of Rush? It has always run at about 99% in the facts he states. This is reviewed by a non particant review board. So maybe you better do some research on these mens and their accuracy ratings before berating them.

Who do YOU think tells the truth? I REALLY want to know.

Thanks
L Matthews

Chico, CA

#211 Jan 19, 2011
Saint Christopher wrote:
One of the most important questions you can ever ask yourself is,“Do I want to be ‘right’– or do I want to be happy?”
Many times, the two are mutually exclusive!...
Being right, defending our positions, takes an enormous amount of mental energy and often alienates us from the people in our lives…
Needing to be right…or needing someone else to be wrong…encourages others to become defensive, and puts pressure on us to be defending…
Yes, many of us (me too, at times) spend a great deal of time and energy attempting to prove (or point out) that we are right…and/or others are wrong…
Many people, consciously or unconsciously, believe that it’s somehow their job to show others how their positions, statements, and points of view are incorrect, and that in doing so, the person they are correcting is going to somehow appreciate it, or at least learn something….
Wrong!...
How'd you get so smart, St Christopher?
Scholar

Sacramento, CA

#212 Jan 19, 2011
Andrea Bowman wrote:
I might be the only person who agrees with Jamie O'Neill. But, I think the kind of name calling found in these blogs is just more evidence for his statements about the "right."
Andrea... Did you even read Jaime's posts on this thread?? Jaime called one opponent a "champion of bigotry and intolerance" for taking the same stand on gay marriage that Hilary and Obama have taken. He called another opponent "dumber than dogsh-t". Are you so confused that you think Jaime is a member of the "right"???

Yeah, what we really need more of is the sensitive, understanding approach that Jaime takes to political discourse!
Dode Penrod

Lakewood, CA

#214 Jan 19, 2011
Roger Ekins wrote:
<quoted text>
Dode, Dode, Dode. It obviously all comes down to how the First Amendment is interpreted. Case law supports my interpretation, which is the broader point I was trying to make.(Show me a single instance where a church lost its tax-exempt status for public advocacy on what it considered a moral issue.) But I never meant for anyone to take my phrasing as a direct quotation from the Constitution. I was paraphrasing. That's why I didn't use quotation marks. So you're technically correct in asserting that there is nothing in the Constitution that specifically grants churches (or anyone else, for that matter!) a specific right to engage in advocacy. Nonetheless, various court cases have most certainly acknowledged such an implicit right. I certainly hopes that clarifies things. If not, I'm at a loss as to how I could make it more clear.
Yes, Roger, you have made yourself abundantly clear.
Jaime

Chico, CA

#215 Jan 20, 2011
Roger wrote: "One other thought: this should be obvious, but any time virtually any law is passed, the will of the majority is being "imposed" on the minority."

This is beyond facile, Roger, and I would think you'd know that, being a guy with a doctorate who always wore his honor society key so prominently. There's a clear distinction to be made between the exercise of democracy as it applies to laws that impact everyone, but it's quite a different thing to enact discriminatory legislation that has direct consequences for only some. If we vote to raise (or lower) taxes, the majority opinion impacts both those who supported and those who didn't support the law. Everyone pays. But, in cases like Prop. 8, the law only impacted those who were targeted by it.
Additionally, Prop. 8 was one of very few bits of legislation designed to take rights away from a selected group of targeted Americans. That's why an extremely conservative Constitional lawyer like Ted Olson has helped to bring such a brilliant case against it.

Observer

United States

#216 Jan 20, 2011
Roger wrote: "One other thought: this should be obvious, but any time virtually any law is passed, the will of the majority is being "imposed" on the minority."

This is, at best, a very naive statement. One of the most essential functions of the courts is to guard against a "tyranny of the majority." Suppose a majority were to pass a law denying Mormons the right to vote. Such a law would quickly be struck down, as well it should. The majority is most definitely not free to impose its will on a minority.
Roger Ekins

Chico, CA

#217 Jan 20, 2011
Observer wrote:
Roger wrote: "One other thought: this should be obvious, but any time virtually any law is passed, the will of the majority is being "imposed" on the minority."
This is, at best, a very naive statement. One of the most essential functions of the courts is to guard against a "tyranny of the majority." Suppose a majority were to pass a law denying Mormons the right to vote. Such a law would quickly be struck down, as well it should. The majority is most definitely not free to impose its will on a minority.
Sigh. I just can't stay away from here after all.

In fact, laws--reflecting majority sentiment--were passed in our not-too-distant past (e.g., the 1882 Edmunds Act) which specifically denied Mormons the right to vote, whether they personally practiced "polygamy" or not. Such legislation became moot, but only after the Mormons yielded to traditional societal understandings of "marriage." And no, the irony here is not lost on me, nor is the irony that if same-sex marriage receives the imprimatur of the Supreme Court, legal recognition of polygyny will, almost inextricably, follow!(But that, I hope, is an argument for another day.)

Time will tell whether or not Prop 8 passes constitutional muster. If it does not, I'll fully support the constitutional law of the land. If it does, however, I hope others will also support the law of the land. In any event, you're right that de Tocqueville's "tyranny of the majority" is something that must always be guarded against in a democracy. Which brings us back to one of the primary functions of the Supreme Court. It is not, ultimately, up to you or me or even a majority of you or me to make that call. After all the arguments on both sides have been heard and probed and fully considered, a very small minority of between five to nine individuals will make the final call re. constitutionality regardless of what position the majority of Californians or Americans in general may have taken via the ballot box.
Brian Jones

West Tehama County, CA

#218 Jan 21, 2011
It really is time to start seriously offending the liberal left.
Why?
Because, ironically enough the things that offend the left the most are;
Morality, standards, scruples, principles, ethics, integrity, sense of right and wrong, goodness, decency, probity, honesty, integrity, honor, virtue and last BUT! Not least GOD.

Lets really start offending these things with the mental disorder called liberalism and get this country back on the right track.

Just like the founders designed it!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 11
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Wally Herger Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News California Rep. Dreier announces plan to retire (Feb '12) Mar '12 torch 4
News Gloria Darlene Linch, Red Bluff: SmartMeters (Feb '11) Sep '11 Jeanne S 34
News Calif. rep. wants shared sacrifice in debt talks (Sep '11) Sep '11 lastoutlaw 10
News Herger in downtown Chico on Tuesday (Aug '11) Aug '11 Angry American 8
News Marijuana-legalization push gets voice on Capit... (Dec '10) Jul '11 roaddog 288
News House Republicans seek IRS probe of AARP (Mar '11) Jul '11 joey 37
News GOP calls for IRS probe of AARP (Apr '11) Jul '11 joey 2
More from around the web