User Profile: Bildad

Bildad

Member Since: March 09, 2012

Comments

  • [2] June 15, 2014 at 1:36am

    Although it wasn’t the hero’s own gun, this IS still another case where a “good guy” stops the “bad guy” using a firearm.
    And liberals say the number of times that a bad guy is stopped by a good guy using a gun is a big fat Zero, but they are truly guilty of a big fat lie!

  • June 15, 2014 at 1:27am

    Oh, by the way. Christians, GET YOUR CHILDREN OUT OF PUBLIC STATE-CONTROLLED RE-EDUCATION CAMPS, …uh, I mean SCHOOLS!

  • [2] June 15, 2014 at 1:23am

    Fixing this type of government abuse has got to happen soon, or else it will become too entrenched to be extracted by peaceful means.

    I, too, have been pushed and intimidated by Child Protective Services. They still wouldn’t back off even after the investigating pediatrician rendered her determination that there was no child abuse. We were screamed at by the CPS worker, threatened with arrest by the cops, the worker even demanded my wife sign an “admission of negligence” and stormed out when my wife handed her the phone to speak with our attorney.
    Thank God we were finally exonerated.

    We badly need a constitutional amendment to ensure parental rights are not trumped by social services/CPS or any other entities.
    Please visit and sign-up at parentalrights.org.

  • [1] June 11, 2014 at 1:03am

    Seriously, use some common sense. We’ve owned guns since before 1776, yet this escalation of random shootings (incl. mass shootings) is a recent phenomenon.

    I don’t know if the following had any impact on this phenomenon, but when Bible-reading & prayer were removed from schools in the early 1960′s, reports show a meteoric rise in pre-marital sex, teen pregnancy, adultery, school violence, etc.

    Before some lib says “Correlation Does Not Imply Causation”, I’d point out the maxim is poorly stated. It SHOULD be “Correlation Does Not Necessarily Equate Cause”. And that’s true, it doesn’t NECESSARILY.
    However, when the two events have a much more direct relationship than simply occurring near the same time, it warrants further examination.

    For ex., a man regularly applies a rust-preventive to his metal shed faithfully for years and has rarely seen any rust develop. Then, one day his wife leaves him. Depressed, he stops maintenance on his property. After awhile, he notices significant rust developing on his shed. As he ponders possible causes, he realizes two significant events happened: 1) his wife left, and 2) he stpped applying rust-preventive on his shed.
    Realizing simple “Correlation Does Not Necessarily Equate Cause”, he examines the 2 events for any direct relationship.
    He didn’t see any connection between his wife leaving and the shed rusting, but he DID realize that rust-preventive & rust are DIRECTLY related.
    “You don’t have to buy my

  • May 3, 2014 at 12:23pm

    I don’t think the 85% reference was a scientifically-arrived-at statistic because he also says, “It’s her. It’s the same person… Her speaking style, her pacing. The delivery of all the words spoken in both samples are identical.”
    Primeau added that the only way he could deem the voices “100 percent” identical would be if Burke were to read aloud the statements made on the phone so he could compare them.

    So apparently he wouldn’t ascribe 100% accuracy to his opinion because that level of confidence could only be ascertained by comparing a recording of the subject reading the same comments verbatim.

    I’m a conservative, so even if this was a conservative at the center of the controversy and I was on the jury, I would vote to convict the person of “racism” just on the recording alone.

    That said, I don’t believe stupidity or racism should ever be against the law, but we should let the “market correct it”.

  • August 16, 2012 at 3:25am

    For those of you curious about the flood account in the Bible, there is much scientific evidence to support it; check out s8intDOTcom and especially look at “The Bone Yards” in the left column.

    For those of you making derogatory comments about the veracity of the flood account in the Bible because some scientists said so, please Google “SCIENTISTS PREVIOUSLY THOUGHT” to find millions of examples where scientists are often wrong and have to correct their previous errors. When you put that much faith in what scientists say, you’re confusing “true scientific FACT” (like water is made of H2O) with “scientific conjecture” or “current scientific thought” (like “there was no worldwide flood”, “life came from rocks, rain and lightning”, etc.).

  • August 16, 2012 at 3:06am

    WVERNON1981, I believe you’ll find some examples of polystrate fossils (and other interesting stuff) at s8intDOTcom and clik on “The Bone Yards” in the left column.

  • August 16, 2012 at 2:14am

    JMCCLENA,
    YOU are an idiot for even imagining the plaintiff has ANY legitimate claim under “natural” law.
    Let’s illustrate the absurdity. We keep on this slippery slide of “anything goes” morality. Next, polygamy wins legal status.
    Soon after that, pedophilia/child molestation becomes legal, as long as the child doesn’t object (U.N. “Rights of the Child”). Then marrying the molested child becomes a “right” demanded by pedophiles. The legality of homosexual marriage serves as the precedent, so it passes into law.
    So it logically includes men marrying little boys, while their parents are sued for conspiring to violate the pedophile’s “rights”.
    Then, bestiality. A woman marries her dog. After being artificially inseminated, the woman gives birth to a human. She then divorces the dog. Lawyers for the dog (from PETA) demand visiting rights for the dog, not to mention alimony.
    If you see this as a society to be desired, you bear the guilt of causing the decline and eventual destruction of what has been the greatest nation in history.
    Get a glimpse of what it will look like: messianic-literaryDOTcom/sodomDOThtm

  • August 16, 2012 at 1:05am

    The assumption of “adoption” by Git-R-Done is a reasonable and logical one.
    Since the lesbian plaintiff was not a natural parent of the child, she did not become the “legal” parent if she did not legally adopt the child. Although some liberal judges have engaged in judicial activism in some cases by simply saying that a homosexual partner automatically becomes a legal parent of any child their partner gives birth to, there is no law I’m aware of that codifies this concept.
    The Commonwealth of Virginia did not (and does not) recognize the alleged right of the plaintiff to legal parentage, but conceded to the jurisdiction of the State of Vermont because it was a custody battle.

    So, Janet Jenkins is neither the “natural” mother, nor the “legal” mother. She is simply a confused human who has lost her moral bearings.

  • August 16, 2012 at 12:39am

    All children are “indoctrinated” by their parents/mentors. Today, the word carries an implied connotation of harmful doctrine or teaching, but in its pure form the word simply refers to the process of organized, systematic teaching.
    So obviously when we believe the truth that God created man, man rebelled against God, man now lives in a fallen world, yet God planned our redemption which was fulfilled by Christ coming to Earth to sacrifice Himself as a perfect, sinless offering, but then resurrected from the dead allowing anyone to accept His free gift of eternal life by repenting and believing this Good News, then it is of eternal importance (very weighty) that we not tiptoe around sin, as it deceives us into arrogantly believing that our own sinful desires can never be judged by anyone, even God. But He will judge us at His Judgment Seat and we will either be found forgiven or guilty. I pray that you escape the wrath of God to come by accepting the peace offering He has extended to us all.

  • August 7, 2012 at 1:13am

    VOTEBUSHIN12 Posted on August 6, 2012 at 6:49pm
    “Private information is private for a reason. You want to watch Obama take a **** while you’re at it? Does he fold or crumple the toilet paper – his presidency could hinge on that, right? You’re being ridiculous!”

    Wow, you’re such an obvious shill. You’re the pot calling the kettle black. You must be awfully stupid to think the rest of us would believe that you don’t have your head up Obama’s derriere.
    People like you exposing yourselves simply reinforces our conviction that Obama is guilty of lying about his college, his SS#, etc.
    If I were you, I would be worried about losing my job.

  • July 23, 2012 at 7:05am

    In other news, a news reporter has been caught with his pants down. The reporter has been reportedly liberally exposing himself to Americans and is listed as a member of a website for exposing oneself as well. He has been identified as Brian Ross.
    There’s a Brian Ross who is a reporter for ABC News , “Now, we don’t know if this is the same Brian Ross. But it’s Brian Ross, news reporter.”