User Profile: Apologist JD

Apologist JD

Member Since: December 07, 2011


123 To page: Go
  • August 28, 2015 at 3:04pm

    Good thing we have omniscient folks like you to tell us idiots which guns are unnecessary. Tell me, what makes you think you can determine who ought to have them and that you can ensure only they have them? Bonus question: what is the purpose of the Second Amendment?

  • [14] August 28, 2015 at 2:57pm

    I thought maybe she said something really racist like “the most qualified person should get the job.” This was only subtle racism (sarc off).

  • [3] August 26, 2015 at 12:13pm

    Waiting for leftists to start screaming about gun control despite what I suspect we’ll learn: no magazine limitation, background check, or scary-looking gun ban would have stopped this.

    Responses (2) +
  • August 17, 2015 at 5:00pm

    I’m well aware of the precedents, but the fact that some judges made up law that didn’t exist doesn’t mean that rule of law is alive and well, it proves my point. See, nothing in the Constitution supports anti-discrimination law, no matter how worthy that may be as a goal. The First Amendment allows people to say and do offensive things, like refuse to serve someone because they don’t like that person’s religion, skin color, sexuality, etc. I would be first to no longer support a business that behaves that arbitrarily, but that’s well within their rights. This is about forcing ideological conformity, which doesn’t ever end well.

  • [40] August 13, 2015 at 2:54pm

    Rule of law and the Constitution are dead. I wonder if these judges realize that eventually the state’s approved beliefs will clash with their own, or the beliefs of their kids or other family, and they’ll get to watch their loved ones or themselves run through the state meat grinder like they’re doing to these poor people. I don’t know how they can support the notion that someone is entitled to someone else’s services. This would be inconceivable for any rational society past, present, or future.

    Responses (8) +
  • [3] August 13, 2015 at 2:32pm

    Can’t you see how Trump is openly mocking you? He’s the embodiment of every idiotic leftist’s hyperbolic stereotype of stupid conservatives. He’s out to make conservatives look like fools and it kills me that some are falling for it.

  • [79] August 13, 2015 at 2:27pm

    Seems like brandishing to me. Lock em up, or just open fire.

    Responses (1) +
  • [3] August 11, 2015 at 3:53pm

    When she says “respectful” what she means is “don’t you dare question me or my dealings.”

  • [23] August 7, 2015 at 3:46pm

    Why would Trump fire a bunch of progressives when that’s what his records tells you he is? He’s playing the less astute conservatives because he knows all the bumper sticker slogans that will elicit the Pavlovian response he wants, but nothing of substance from him suggests he believes any of it or that he would behave that way if in office. His whole campaign is a scam against conservatives. What I haven’t figured out is whether he hopes to ride his deception into office to screw us that way, or whether he expects to lose but is trying to make conservatism look stupid or split some bloc’s vote. Either way, we need to be rid of him ASAP.

  • [6] August 7, 2015 at 3:36pm

    Packer isn’t quite correct. You can’t use past acts to show a pattern, but if the prosecution puts the issue into play, which happens quite easily, then the past acts become fair game. Talk to a prosecutor or defense attorney and they’ll tell you that criminal history, though nominally irrelevant under evidence rules, almost always end up becoming relevant through some other means. Often it’s because someone makes a comment about the character of the accused. In this case, it would be relevant to create reasonable doubt about the officers’ actions and motives, not to convict the person with prior criminal acts, so the evidence will likely be admissible. This is so common that defense attorneys often don’t even contest the introduction of criminal history because they know they’ll lose, and sometimes they’ll even bring it up themselves since they know it’s inevitable and it gives them a chance to present it in a positive light.

  • [124] August 7, 2015 at 3:32pm

    I’m hearing echoes of the Duke Lacrosse rape case. After the prosecutor withheld evidence in that case, he faced discipline from the state bar. Will she? Probably not, but in a perfect world…
    Seriously though, does it not occur to prosecutors like this or the Clintons that eventually the truth comes out, no matter how many lies you tell or people you kill to try to keep it hidden?

    Responses (2) +
  • [12] July 31, 2015 at 5:10pm

    “One of the reasons Republicans keep getting clobbered is that we have leaders like Mitt Romney or like Jeb Bush who are afraid to say that.”
    I would add that refusing to recognize the problem and call it what it is guarantees it will not be solved.

  • [11] July 31, 2015 at 5:07pm

    Independence is good, but not enough with these people in office. It makes it harder for them to control you when you aren’t on the take, but mark my words, they will find a way, like removing tax exempt status as this article suggests.

  • [13] July 31, 2015 at 5:06pm

    He refers to the possibility, I say it’s an inevitability. Same goes for attacking the churches themselves. They aren’t doing it today because they know they couldn’t get away with it now. They have to warm society up for it first to avoid a negative reaction.

  • July 31, 2015 at 4:37pm

    Mountain time zone?

  • [269] July 31, 2015 at 4:36pm

    I wish I was shocked. The irony is that these animals are proving what we pro life people have been saying for decades: that once we decide that some life isn’t as sacred as other life, we begin down a slippery slope, and viability and birth aren’t valid points to make distinctions. Once you begin killing things instead of trying to help them live, this is just the first stop on the road to eugenics and ethnic cleansing.

    Responses (2) +
  • [7] 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.

  • [40] 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 (2) +
  • [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.

123 To page: Go
Restoring Love