User Profile: Bill Wallace

Bill Wallace

Member Since: September 08, 2010


123 To page: Go
  • [1] November 25, 2014 at 6:40pm

    Sometimes I wish you could just smack some sense into people.

    Responses (1) +
  • [7] November 25, 2014 at 6:22pm

    He is so upset that the land he lives in was “stolen” from the Indians that he is clearly trying to move his white @$$ back to Europe.

    Epic Fail.

  • [6] November 21, 2014 at 4:06pm

    Nice, but still falls short.

    You start at the beginning. With God. Always with God. God, as perfect, must be unchanging. So until you can reconcile the old testament with Angels and fury, Moses and plagues to the Walls of Jericho, with a peaceful Jesus and forgiveness, then you have no standing at all.

    God is unchanging. He is a jealous God that demands respect. Jesus knew this, as it was the one time in the bible where it describes his anger.

    If you think Jesus was all teddy bears and flowers, you failed.

    Responses (1) +
  • November 20, 2014 at 3:59pm

    And I don’t need to add that Schenk was overruled by Brandenburg, nor state that Oliver had a change of heart over his opinion.

    The law currently is words directed to and likely to lead to lead to imminent lawless action.

    That wouldn’t apply to this kid either.

  • [1] November 20, 2014 at 3:53pm

    To quote:

    “The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.”

    1. Was there a clear and present danger by a finger? No.
    2. Would it bring about a substantive evil? No.
    3. Does Congress have a right to prevent finger pointing? No.

    Responses (1) +
  • November 20, 2014 at 3:51pm

    Often misquoted, Oliver Wendell Holmes in the 1919 Schenk case, which was HIS opinion (as opposed to actual law) stated one could not FALSELY yell fire in a movie theater.

    You need a dangerous condition and falsehood.

    Where is the danger in a finger? And where is the falsehood? He is showing a finger, to be a pointing finger.

    It fails on both accounts.

    Responses (1) +
  • [2] November 19, 2014 at 12:47pm

    Still fail to understand how women are being referred to as a “minority”. They are a MAJORITY. Over 51% are women.

    So…I wonder…are women a minority majority, or a majority minority? Does it depend on who the sire is? Sort of like the difference between a liger and a tion?

  • November 18, 2014 at 2:06pm

    Idiot, and for only 1 reason.

    The guy is breaking into your home. At that point, you are legally allowed, even in the socialist Seattle, to use deadly force. Don’t confront him and talk, 3 shots, center mass.

    That way the guy can’t come back and sue you for excessive force, or how it is in some states, claims that he actually lives there (illegally) and had some possessory interest in the home.

  • [5] November 18, 2014 at 1:56pm

    Meanwhile, the Oval Office reports the President was busy deactivating facebook accounts while advocating for Net Neutrality.

  • November 18, 2014 at 1:35pm

    What did we expect him to do? It is about his ratings. On his show, he HAD to be tough, screaming, crazy. He had to play to his base.

    He knows that his fans aren’t going onto Fox, so he can be more level, rational, etc., to entice Fox viewers to his network. Nobody goes to his show if he is a screaming idiot.

  • [3] November 18, 2014 at 1:28pm

    Strange how Roe v. Wade gave you the right to do what you want with your own body when killing a fetus, but not when it applies to hurting yourself.

    Strange liberal logic.

    Responses (1) +
  • [1] November 13, 2014 at 7:13pm

    Um, has anyone ever thought to charge these people with child exploitation, or perhaps child working laws?

    Those kids, standing outside, are as much a part of the begging as the mothers. They are, essentially, “working”. It is illegal for them to work except under certain conditions. Them being out with a friend, their mom, or whoever, all day as they get swapped around, has to violate some law.

  • November 13, 2014 at 6:51pm


    That guy couldn’t stand up straight with a pair of shoulder pads on. You know why he is against football? Because growing up, he was a nerdy type guy and got no love from the ladies. Now he wants to get revenge.

  • [10] November 12, 2014 at 7:14pm

    Anyone else notice the ONLY thing “Rebecca” didn’t complain about?

    The sex that night. Seems the quality was there.

  • [5] November 12, 2014 at 3:51pm

    Let me explain it to all you Yanks out there, because I was born and raised in Canada…

    I knew I didn’t really fit in with Canadians. Couldn’t figure out why. And then one day, as I was scratching my back, it all made sense. See, as I was scratching my back I noticed bumps that went from the base of my head all the way down. Some were LARGE bumps.

    I quickly grabbed a medical book and discovered that I HAD A SPINE! Canadians don’t. Passive aggressive whiners. You can do anything to a Canadian if you are government and they will shrug and keep on going, head up their collective arses.

    Do you know what “maybe” means in Canadian? “NO!” They are just too damn timid to say it outright.

    Of course they like Obama. No surprising, the idiots can’t figure out why we got rid of democrats.

  • [3] November 12, 2014 at 3:44pm

    Awesome. And true.

    I have been saying that for years…women are to blame. Guys today are increasingly raised by single moms who cater and cowtow to their little gem. No surprise that these boys grow up not knowing how to be “men”. How could they? They had no example on being male. Only a female. Sadly, that is like a duckling being raised by a Chevy.

    And time and time again, girls seem to pick the wrong guy. That doesn’t mean all men are bad…only that she picks bad men.

  • [1] November 12, 2014 at 3:17pm

    I thought the democrats stated it wasn’t a tax, but a penalty?

    Now it is a tax?

    I am so confused.

    Responses (2) +
  • [3] November 7, 2014 at 11:48am

    Maybe what Stewart was thinking is IF democrats took unpopular stances and voted in bad laws (Obamacare all over again), then their losses would have been even greater and the Senate would have enough votes to impeach this President and force him out.

    Still have immigration amnesty to think about. That is going to be a Constitutional Crisis issue and if the Republicans had more votes in the Senate, not only would they impeach, they would convict.

    Democrats took a gambit, knew they were in deep, but acted to try to save an even worse outcome.

  • [4] November 7, 2014 at 11:46am

    John abdicated reason and logic.

    He states that the avoided contentious issues to avoid getting creamed on election day, and the reason why they weren’t re-elected is because they avoided contentious issues to avoid getting creamed?

    What kind of stupid logic is that? If the democrats would have tried to move forward with the contentious issues, it would have only emboldened the opposition. It wouldn’t have gotten fat, lazy democrats up off the couch and at the polls.

    Responses (1) +
  • November 6, 2014 at 7:55pm

    Well, here is the thing, Eric…

    As Americans, we do care more about Americans than we do Mexicans.
    Let Mexico take care of itself.
    Let America take care of itself.

    That is a happy world. Before we start caring for others, or getting involved with our neighbors, how about we put our own house in order.

123 To page: Go
Restoring Love