User Profile: Balthazor


Member Since: March 04, 2011


123 To page: Go
  • [16] October 26, 2016 at 12:29pm

    It’s like the sound you’d get if you crossed a hyena with a chimpanzee.

    Responses (1) +
  • [12] October 25, 2016 at 5:13pm

    Some choices deserve shame. Abortion should be among them.

  • [12] October 20, 2016 at 11:16am

    The rules are different for Democrats.

  • [1] October 20, 2016 at 11:12am

    I know, I kept thinking, did everyone forget 2000 and Al Gore? Gore didn’t accept the election results, but they’re demanding Trump promise to do so before the election has even happened./ It’s absurd.

  • [2] October 19, 2016 at 6:01pm

    I suppose that depends on just how big the armed insurrection was, and like you pointed out, what proportion of the military and police sided with it.

    The larger problem would be what happens after. Supposing the insurrection wins and we the people seize control of our government, what’s going to stop all the idiots out there from voting the same sort of statist big-government boneheads right back in?

    Obviously I’m just talking hypothetically, but to my mind, a full-blown insurrection isn’t necessary, but rather just something that somehow smashes the corrupt link between the government power structure and the media and the education system. When generations of people are fed crap by their teachers and professors, and fed the same crap by the media, it stands to reason that they’re going to believe said crap. Smash the media and the government-controlled education and everything else should in time work itself out.

  • [2] October 19, 2016 at 3:22pm

    I’d like to see them crawl out of their graves and start zombie-slapping the crap out of people.

    It seems to me that, even if Trump were to win, he’s so despised by both the Democrats and most congressional Republicans that he’d likely be ineffective at making any of the changes he’s promised…assuming those promises were even sincere to begin with. All it maybe accomplishes is to delay the inevitable. The way I see it, the only way to avoid the seemingly inevitable slide into tyranny and to restore our free constitutional republic and rule of law is to obliterate the Democrat cabal, and it’ll take more than ballots to accomplish that.

  • [8] October 19, 2016 at 2:08pm

    Even if by some miracle we can avoid Hillary winning the presidency, it won’t change anything. This Democrat cabal will eventually steamroller the entire democratic process and our Constitution. It’s just a matter of time. I’m with Sheriff David Clarke, I think it’s pitchfork and torches time in America.

    Responses (1) +
  • [1] October 17, 2016 at 3:57pm

    I don’t expect to see this story on the Blaze any time soon:


  • [17] October 13, 2016 at 11:42am

    Clinton gets a pass for a list of wrongdoings longer than any list Santa Claus has ever made and checked twice.

    But lane closures…we have to torch Christie because of lane closures!!!

    Responses (6) +
  • [119] October 11, 2016 at 4:18pm

    Who cares, corruption is so yesterday. But did she ever say anything lewd? That’s the burning question!

    Responses (11) +
  • [-1] October 11, 2016 at 3:59pm

    Oh good lord, then let’s just go ahead and call any sexual advancement or contact sexual assault. Last time I checked, most people aren’t able to read minds. So that being the case, whether or not a woman lets a man do something is the signal as to whether or not she consents to that act. A woman letting a man do something would be that implicit consent you mention. We used to say “no means no” but apparently now women don’t even bear the responsibility of making an effort to say no. All they have to do is THINK no and that makes it assault.

  • [-4] October 11, 2016 at 3:47pm

    And stop with the sexual assault BS. His comments may have been lewd and crass, but nowhere did he advocate sexual assault. The entire context of his comments were “if you’re famous, women will let you do anything.”

    Let’s examine, shall we.

    “I moved on her, and I failed. I’ll admit it,”

    We all know what that means, he made a move and was rejected. Not sexual assault.

    ““I moved on her like a *****, but I couldn’t get there.”

    Again, he made a move on her and was rejected.

    “I’ve got to use some Tic Tacs, just in case I start kissing her. You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.”
    “Whatever you want?”
    “Grab them by the *****. You can do anything.”

    Notice that he says “they let you do it”. In other words, they consent. Not sexual assault. Now, if you want to suggest that Trump’s assertion that women will let rich, famous men do anything is sexist, fine. If you can find a quote of Trump saying who cares if they let you, do it anyhow, then fine, show it. But nowhere in a discussion of what women will LET you do if you’re rich and famous is any implication of sexual assault.

    Finally, I find it amusing that for months now everyone’s been saying that Trump is just a rambling blowhard that spouts off crap with no basis in reality, but all of the sudden THIS is DIFFERENT.

    Responses (2) +
  • [-2] October 11, 2016 at 3:32pm

    If you’re offended, then by all means feel free to leave.

  • [3] October 11, 2016 at 3:22pm

    I see you were distributed some new talking points to mindlessly parrot.

  • [-1] October 11, 2016 at 3:16pm

    I just love how they’re spinning all these comments now as advocating sexual assault. Just having Trump saying crass things isn’t enough, they need to fluff them up into sexual assault. But it’s all phony. The entire context of his comments were “if you’re famous, they let you do anything.” If a woman lets a man do something, then by definition it’s not sexual assault.

    Responses (4) +
  • October 11, 2016 at 1:45pm

    Not sure what’s here to down-thumb. If a woman lets a man grab her crotch, then she’s consenting to have her crotch grabbed, in which case it’s clearly not a sexual assault. If she does not let the man grab her crotch but he does so anyhow, then it’s a sexual assault. Key word there is “lets”. If a woman lets a man have sex with her, is it a rape? Words mean things, or are we just going to say that any sexual contact is assault now, consensual or not?

  • October 11, 2016 at 11:23am

    If the woman lets the man grab her crotch, which is what Trump said, then no it’s not sexual assault.

    Responses (1) +
  • [6] October 10, 2016 at 5:22pm

    Actually I could only make it a paragraph in before the stupid was just too much to handle.

    And I can definitely appreciate the irony of taking the time to comment on people’s inexplicable adoration of some nobody in a red sweater. But I can’t help but think that anyone who’s takeaway from that debate was a nobody in a red sweater is probably someone who’d be best staying home to keep up with the Kardashians on November 8th.

  • [15] October 10, 2016 at 3:48pm

    What I wonder is why the Republicans agree to show up for debates with these liberal moderators. If a Democrat was invited to a debate moderated by Sean Hannity they’d whine so loud it would be heard clear across the galaxy. But when Republicans are to debate with liberal moderators they just go duh, okay.

  • [27] October 10, 2016 at 3:14pm

    Internet sensation? Maybe to a whole lot of sad, lonely people with nothing better to do with their lives.

    Responses (5) +
123 To page: Go