User Profile: Apologist JD

Apologist JD

Member Since: December 07, 2011

Comments

123 To page: Go
  • [4] July 30, 2015 at 2:40pm

    This is going to blow apart all the stem cell research people too, once people realize what they’re doing to conduct their research.

  • [28] July 30, 2015 at 2:07pm

    If these guys end up being jailed for contempt, I think I’ll get all my friends together and have a “rule of law” party, since this will be the first indication in a while that rule of law isn’t completely dead!

    Responses (1) +
  • [106] July 27, 2015 at 3:50pm

    Shame any of the trio survived.

    Responses (4) +
  • [5] July 16, 2015 at 12:13pm

    Desperately grasping at straws? The story talks about private plans having more options than government plans, your comments about excluding expensive specialists run counter to facts. Oh ya, liberal, facts don’t matter, only feelings.

  • [8] July 16, 2015 at 12:07pm

    I simply refuse to believe that the government can’t compete with the private sector! sarc off

  • [2] July 16, 2015 at 11:58am

    I have a solution: just let people select and pay for their insurance privately. Nobody is going to sign up fraudulently when they have to pay the bill. All the perverse incentives are solved by personal responsibility.

  • [2] July 16, 2015 at 11:46am

    My theory is that the whole purpose of the deal was to bring oil prices down for the 2016 elections so the economy might look sound. He’s expecting people to forget what 8 years of stagnation looks like because cheap energy will allow some recovery. Helping OPEC kill shale production is just gravy. It only took this long because Iran wasn’t sure it could behave itself for 16 months, because the whole thing falls apart if they violate the agreement sooner and sanctions start up or Israel attacks.

  • [16] July 14, 2015 at 3:11pm

    Well done sir. Now go buy a gun!

  • [20] July 10, 2015 at 2:30pm

    I can’t help but wonder if the fools who think this way will recognize this as another negative turn when the flouting of fundamental rights comes back on them or someone they love, because it doesn’t seem like we’re very far from totalitarian rule, and I think essentially everyone will run afoul of the state orthodoxy at some point.

  • [24] July 10, 2015 at 2:09pm

    Impeach a few of them and see if they start “interpreting” the law, rather than creating it out of thin air according to their personal preferences. Fewer groups have less credibility, and the funny thing is they are a perfect reflection of the entire legal profession, yet lawyers can’t figure out why everyone hates them.

    Responses (3) +
  • [8] July 10, 2015 at 2:08pm

    Exactly. I understand his distinction in the article between serving someone breakfast versus servicing their wedding, since that tends to be how I approach the issue, but I don’t see why if you don’t want to serve Christians, gays, any particular race, etc. with your business, anyone should be able to compel you to anyway. I wouldn’t want to patronize a business that hated white Christian men anyway, and forcing their hatred under the rug so they can’t say it out loud doesn’t really make it better. I’d rather know they don’t like me so I can avoid them. I already behave this way with businesses that aren’t friendly to guns.

    Responses (5) +
  • [10] July 10, 2015 at 1:41pm

    Clintons on the take from criminals. I wish I could say this was the first time of which we had knowledge. Maybe the population control under Obamacare will benefit us by eliminating the “undesireables” who are so stupid they still support these dirtbags!

  • [16] July 10, 2015 at 1:38pm

    This is what happens when cronyism and affirmative action meet. Thanks liberals, racists, and sexists!

    Responses (3) +
  • [5] July 10, 2015 at 1:36pm

    Shocking, you mean we don’t need new laws to deprive people of their fundamental rights after all?

    Responses (2) +
  • [1] July 9, 2015 at 5:38pm

    I feel bad for him as he is collateral damage in a political war. That said, how about the irony that stoking race wars for political purposes results in the firing of a black police chief! I’ve been saying since the whole thing started that every cop there should have quit and moved away since they can’t trust justice to be done on their behalf, here’s more proof of that.

  • [3] July 9, 2015 at 5:26pm

    Let’s not forget that another famous Ted, of the Kennedy sort, pioneered the partisanship of the Supreme Court back with Bork’s nomination, so any liberal who complains about that doesn’t know their own heritage.

  • [2] July 9, 2015 at 5:18pm

    The answer lies in the truth behind your mischaracterization of the laws. They don’t restrict anyone from voting, the laws in question are intended to ensure that the person voting is, in fact, an inhabitant of the state in which they are voting, and that they exercise their right once. This is really putting a damper on your election strategies, huh? Are you ready to apply your interpretation of what limits or restricts voting to the Second Amendment? Sales tax on firearm and ammunition sales would be unconstitutional by that measure.

  • [4] July 9, 2015 at 5:14pm

    Wow, Maine?! That’s a pleasant surprise! In other news, hell has frozen over!

  • [1] July 9, 2015 at 5:11pm

    The article doesn’t say he was bothered by the communist medallion, just the sacrilege of mixing anti-Christ symbols with Christian symbols. He had to feign offense when his faux Christianity was shown to be a front for communism.

  • [1] July 9, 2015 at 5:05pm

    The unfortunate thing is that I actually trust the every one of the agents I’ve ever met and believe they are doing their level best to help, but they aren’t the ones giving these numbers, it’s the political appointees at the top who have agendas, which is why I suspect the numbers like everyone else here apparently does.

123 To page: Go
Restoring Love