Debate! Learn. Evolve.

Patriotic Chaplain

Patriotic Chaplain

Tim Lajoie is the "Patriotic Chaplain." A U.S. Coast Guard veteran who has spent the last 30 years in criminal justice in various capacities,he is a free-lance writer and active blogger, writing about political, religious, and social issues. He is NOT afraid to mix politics and religion. He has earned a M.A. in Management/Leadership Studies, M.S. in Criminal Justice, and M.A. in Theological Studies. He is an adjunct professor of social sciences at a Maine college and former Lewiston, Maine city councilor.
8
Debates
11
Posts

Patriotic Chaplain's Debates

Patriotic Chaplain's Posts

 
April 19, 2018 14:08:29

Some would say what you are advocating is socialism. I live in America. We don't know what poverty is in this country. Cell phones, SNAP cards, housing, education benefits, health care, paid for by people who work and given to those who don't. Childhood obesity rates are off the charts; there is no scarcity of food or quality of life.

 
April 19, 2018 01:23:49

This article offers a different perspective. In much the same way hitting the heavy bag, or chopping wood, or any other activity that can channel aggression, anger, frustration, violent video games are thought by some to offer a healthy outlet(target practice, lifting weights, jogging, etc). Personal character plays a big role in these events. https://www.psychcongress.com/article/violent-video-games-may-provide-aggression-outlet

 
April 17, 2018 11:30:34

The "majority of Americans" will live in poverty? I'm sorry but you need a credible citation for a claim like that, especially when you use it to argue for a expansion of an already extremely generous welfare system. Some would argue "too generous." There are over 300 million people in this country. By your "claim" over 150 million people have lived in poverty. Patently ridiculous. Any cursory review of American welfare programs will see they cover darn near everything. Expand it to what? Total control of every aspect of American life? The War of Poverty of the Johnson Administration has been a miserable failure, only serving to create more dependency and government control of society. It's needs to be greatly reduced, not expanded. https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/when-welfare-pays-better-work?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIy6zwi5nB2gIVhmSGCh2rcg7dEAAYASAAEgKppfD_BwE

 
April 16, 2018 05:59:07

President Trump authorized the launch of 56 cruise missiles into Syria last year, in response to chemical weapons attacks. I wouldn't call that sitting "idly by," would you? Is this a deliberate omission? Of course, we know how Trump also responded to the most recent attack. It would seem that President Trump does have a consistent policy...to actually use force and project American power, where Obama only threatened it, seemingly with no will to actually carry it out. Sanctions always hurt the civilians, as the men in power always seem to make sure they have what they need, while the civilians suffer. Surgical military strikes seem the best course of action. https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/06/politics/donald-trump-syria-military/index.html

 
April 13, 2018 10:50:17

The solution is a simple one. Allow capital punishment for irrefutable evidence: presence of multiple corroborative witnesses, DNA evidence, or irrefutable video evidence. Do not allow capital punishment is those elements are absent. As for whether or not the death penalty is "effective" is irrelevant. Our justice system is about "justice." The death penalty is justice. The system needs to be streamlined through the legislative process. Convicted murderers shouldn't be waiting on death row for 25 years. Any manner of imaginable legal arguments, regardless of how ridiculous, earn stays of execution, increasing the costs and lingering pain of justice denied the families of the victims. We should be seeking justice for victims, first and foremost. Pointing out that murderers "spend years on death row" is not a clinically sound way to evaluate its effectiveness. If the death penalty was swiftly and efficiently applied, it would have the same deterrent on crime as the criminal who thinks twice, or three times, before committing a crime against someone who is likely to be carrying a gun. The death penalty is fine, it has its place. Our application of it is what's wrong.

 
April 11, 2018 01:30:06

Thanks for checking in, Bob. Exposing the hypocrisy of all sides is absolutely right. The press and Democrats are pillorying him for things Bill Clinton said, almost word for word. The Republicans are opposing him for trying to push through an agenda they have said they wanted for years. There is no "two-party" system in D.C. It's them versus the rest of us.

 
April 11, 2018 00:16:02

I have spent 30 years in the correctional system, as a an officer, chaplain, training officer and supervisor. I have taught "The Corrections System" at the university level. No one is "forced" to work in detention centers. Jobs in correctional facilities are highly coveted, paid an unpaid. Jobs help inmates pass the time, create a predictable routine, and keep their minds occupied. Certain jobs (i.e. the kitchen) usually afford extra privileges like rations or out-of-cell time. Paying jobs allow inmates to purchase phone time (video visits and contact with family members), purchase stamps and writing material, plus a host of other things like commissary items to make the stay more comfortable. It's nowhere near "close to slavery." No one in punished for not working and no one is forced to work, simply because there are too many inmates who want to work, for the reasons I gave.

 
April 10, 2018 01:37:37

And where is the presumption of innocence? We throw it out the window? I have MANY high capacity magazines (my property). You want to deprive me of those? Based on what? What someone thinks I might do with them? You want to give the government the ability to deprive you, without due process, of the ability to defend yourself or own something? The article is pretty clear, even had it reviewed by a Constitutional scholar. No, sir. No restrictions or deprivations of the 2nd Amendment without due process of law. We get the presumption of innocence in this country.

 
April 4, 2018 02:32:22

We don’t take away driving privileges from all drivers because some of them drive drunk and kill people. We don’t deny 1st Amendment rights to all reporters because one reporter libeled someone else. Society would not tolerate it. It should not tolerate it when it’s applied to lawful gun owners, either. Gun control advocates, however, are not deterred by this. Instead, they try and make an end run around the court system. It’s clever, really. They use the legislative process to introduce “evidence,” evidence which would never be allowed in open court, to pressure legislators to enact restrictive gun control laws targeting law-abiding citizens as a group. This method, however legitimate it may appear, still denies individuals their presumption of innocence and circumvents due process of law. Shame on our legislators who fall for it.

 
April 4, 2018 02:13:42

I studied Donald Trump’s business and executive models in graduate school—alongside many others. I read three of his books and countless articles about him (long before he was a candidate for president). These articles offered both praise and criticism. I have researched beyond the sound bites given on the various news stations in our 24-hour news cycles. I have concluded that Trump is far from crazy. Flamboyant? Arrogant? Hyperbolic? Sure. But not crazy. As a tactician in business and politics Trump is brilliant, much smarter than the career politicians in Washington who never built anything but debt, debt our kids will have to pay long after these politicians retire with a fat government pension. He is much smarter than the mainstream media pundits, and authors like Wolf, who claimed to have all of the answers, but didn’t have a clue about what Americans were really thinking. Trump’s record of business success (and failures) and political success in his presidential run speaks for itself. Incompetent? Says who? The politicians and pundits who created the mess to start with?

 
April 4, 2018 01:07:22

Leaders become great because of where they are placed in history and the circumstances that exist at the time. Would a military leader make "better" presidents? If the time calls for it, yes. If not, no. A military president in the roaring 20's? Probably not. During the 1940's? Probably. Various moments in history call for different strengths and traits. The best example of this, I believe, is Winston Churchill. Neville Chamberlain was weak and nearly led to Great Britain's capitulation to Nazi Germany. Churchill was a military man who was willing to confront a bully. He quite possibly saved England from Nazi invasion.


Loading...