User Profile: Blest

Blest

Member Since: January 11, 2013

CommentsDisplaying comments newest to oldest.

123 To page: Go
  • April 17, 2014 at 10:45am

    AMEN.

    In reply to the contribution Easter: A Call to Tolerate the Intolerant

  • April 16, 2014 at 4:52pm

    I’m still trying to figure out where they get this “Third Holiest Site” idea from. Mahomet (Muhammad, however they spell it these days) never visited Jerusalem. Jerusalem is never mentioned in the Koran. The mosque in Jerusalem was built by the Caliphates which existed years after Mahomet died, and was nothing more than a small “hut” or tent-like structure during his life.

    It’s important to note that all cities conquered by the warmongering Moors were required to build some kind of mosque in the center of the city, because anybody who didn’t worship at the mosque was TAXED for being a different religion. If you visit Spain, where Muslims invaded and conquered most of the peninsula, there is historical evidence that EVERY CITY had a mosque built there. Many of these mosques were originally called “Al Aksa” or “Al Aqsa”, the “farthest mosque”, and were renamed later after mosques were built farther north.

    All historical evidence until the early 1900s indicates that the Al Aqsa mosque visited by Mahomet in the Koran was a mosque built in Saudi Arabia, north of Medina. All lands conquered by the Muslims during the 7th and 8th Century are considered “holy” to Islam, including Spain. Other than that definition of “conquered = holy”, there is no evidence that Jerusalem has any Islamic significance.

  • April 16, 2014 at 4:16pm

    You must have missed ALL the history classes and literature classes containing progressive ideals from the mid 1800s to the 1940s. Progressives tried to get rid of black people and brown people. That was what the whole Eugenics movement was about.

    I think you’re just making stuff up.

    Responses (1) +
  • April 16, 2014 at 4:12pm

    Please do not mistake disgust for homosexuality as disgust for a PERSON. Unlike progressives, conservatives believe that a PERSON is not defined entirely by their sexual desires. The PERSON is not homosexual. The BEHAVIOR is homosexual. See the difference? You have been lied to, convinced that a person is homosexual.

    All great deceptions contain a basic element of truth. The truth here is that you can indeed change behaviors, but you cannot change who you are. That is 100% true, and nobody is arguing with that. The lie, however, comes in when someone identifies themselves as homosexual. “Homosexuality is a person” is the lie. Homosexuality isn’t a person, it is a behavior. But in order to deceive people, it has to be classified as a person, so that the truism “you cannot change who you are” applies to it.

    The same thing applies to poverty. Poverty is a state of being, it is not a person. If you say “I hate poverty” you are not declaring hatred of poor people. You are declaring hatred for the disgusting state of being poor. Hating homosexuality is the same thing. You don’t hate the PEOPLE, just the behaviors they choose to apply to their lives.

  • April 16, 2014 at 4:06pm

    I think it’s so funny that people talk about how “old fashioned” the Bible is, and that 21st Century social policy shouldn’t be based on a book of myths cobbled together in the Bronze Age.

    And yet… the most prominent and well-preserved historical record of homosexuality, gay culture, gay behavior, and gay community is in the Bible. It would be like saying that 21st Century scientific theories shouldn’t be based on ancient dinosaur fossils, because they’re old fashioned and have no bearing on today’s science. Just because something is old, doesn’t mean it has no significance or truth to it.

    Responses (1) +
  • April 15, 2014 at 3:16pm

    Wait… didn’t the article say he was DIVORCED and had kids? So… hasn’t he already been married? Did it not count because he married a woman?

  • April 15, 2014 at 2:59pm

    That’s what the article was trying to explain to you. Low-income people ALREADY PAY 22% IN HIDDEN SALES TAX. They just don’t know it, because it’s hidden. I don’t care if you’re an elderly man who’s a baker, or if you are Walmart, you pass on the cost of your taxes to your consumers. In the case of the baker, it is quite literally baked into the cost of the bread.

  • April 15, 2014 at 2:53pm

    I think you misunderstood the “Fair Tax” concept. It is NOT an income tax. You keep 100% of what you earn. You do not pay taxes on your income.

    The “fair tax” is a sales tax. If you sell a cupcake for $1.00, you currently pay about 8¢ in sales tax to your state. That is what is called a “fair tax”. It taxes everybody at the same rate.

    What this article is explaining is that 100% of whatever you earn should be yours to keep. What you BUY is what you should be taxed on. That way, drug dealers who don’t file for income taxes anyway will still pay taxes on the giant dark-tinted SUV they purchase.

    So, rather than paying 23% of what you earn each year as income tax, there should just be a nation-wide sales tax of 23%. So the cupcake will cost you $1.23 to purchase, but if you choose not to buy a cupcake, YOU PAY NO TAXES.

    It encourages people to earn and save money, use sweat equity and do things themselves (rather than paying somebody else to do it for them), and makes you a voluntary tax payer: you only pay taxes on what you choose to buy. Because right now, products and services ALREADY incorporate a hidden tax into the price, you just don’t see it. Corporations already pass on the cost of their taxes onto the consumer. This article just lays out a better way to do it, which is more honest and far less complicated.

  • April 15, 2014 at 2:45pm

    There are MULTIPLE flaws in your idea. First off, the Government is not a business. It cannot produce goods or services, and therefore is a DRAIN on the community. Anything the government borrows it would be unable to pay back. Ever. It is $17 Trillion in debt.

    As my mom says, “You can’t get blood from a turnip.” The government is bankrupt, and is in massive, massive debt. You don’t give loans to people like that, because they cannot pay it back. And most of the money that we pay in taxes (around 70% of it) goes to pay for welfare and medical bills. Only about 10% of all the money we pay in taxes actually benefits people that pay the taxes. The other 90% goes to paying entitlements and paying government employees.

    You see, government employees cannot be considered taxpayers, because their salaries are paid by tax dollars. So they aren’t actually generating any wealth for the nation. A person on welfare and a person employed by the government are essentially the same thing as far as the economy is concerned, even though there are philosophical differences.

  • April 11, 2014 at 10:40am

    I absolutely LOVE this idea. It’s much more like a computer, where you can build what you want, and ignore what you don’t want. Like, if you want a phone to have a webcam to use Skype with, you buy the webcam module and attach it.

    Also, it gives people the option to design what their phone looks like. There could be modules that exist for no other reason than to make the phone look better.

    Yay creativity!

  • April 10, 2014 at 10:32am

    I don’t know how people can claim to be Christian and not follow Christ. If there is no free will, no choice, no temptation to rebel against God, then loving God means nothing. God made us to have a will, so that real love could exist. Because real love is a CHOICE. If you beat your kids and never give them the option to reject God, that means you don’t really believe in the love of God, or in the power of Jesus Christ.

    The idea that you should “break” a child’s will so they never go against God… that’s insane. God would have made a bunch of robots if he wanted to force us to accept Him. It’s the great risk God took in creating people who are capable of love. He had to create people who were also capable of rejecting Him.

  • April 9, 2014 at 2:18pm

    Exactly as gay as somebody smoking a normal cigarette?

  • April 9, 2014 at 2:16pm

    OH GOD NO.

    If a tiny lithium battery like that can explode in such a fireball, imagine what would happen if an electric car exploded…

  • April 8, 2014 at 11:33am

    HAHA! **** fighting. That sounds SO wrong…

  • April 7, 2014 at 4:44pm

    The only problem with this is that most people are too dumb to even understand the reference, and too lazy to read the article.

    Also, while I admire Ted Cruz, the broken window analogy isn’t really that good. The healthcare system was indeed bad before Obamacare came along and made things worse for most people, and slightly better for a tiny number of people. Before, there were a few dozen people with no windows, thousands with cracked windows, and millions with windows that were fine. Now, thanks to Obamacare, everybody has to buy new windows, whether they want to or not. That’s great for the tiny portion of the population that it benefits, but it’s bad for the enormous portion of the population that it hurts.

    Responses (2) +
  • April 7, 2014 at 11:34am

    Only idiot liberals judge a person’s words based on who they are coming from. If what he says is true, then it’s true, regardless of who he is or what his politics are.

    But again, if your goal isn’t truth, then you are just an idiot liberal like the rest of them.

  • April 7, 2014 at 11:01am

    I really wish I could find a good way to explain to all these idiots in the comments section that nobody, gay or straight, has a “right” to marriage. Marriage is not a right. It’s not a legal, civil, constitutional, or any other kind of “right”. It is a religious rite, but that’s not the same thing.

    You see, ladies and gentlemen, if marriage were a right, and marrying whomever you want were a right, then nobody could say “no” to a marriage proposal. It would be against the law. Because if I propose marriage to Betty White, and she declines, she’s essentially denying me my rights to marriage, and my right to marry whoever I want.

    The idea that marriage is a somehow a “right”, well, it doesn’t even rise to the dignity of being a valid argument. It is logically incoherent.

    Responses (1) +
  • April 4, 2014 at 2:14pm

    This is one of the best stories on The Blaze today.

    I think this kind of rationality is funny. “It’s old, so it must be outdated, old fashioned, and false.” Atheists use that same argument against Christianity. They act as though atheism is some kind of new thing that popped up in modern times. So I always ask them, “Okay, you believe that somebody ‘invented’ God, the gods, spirits, and so on. Well, before the supernatural was ‘invented’, what did people believe in?” The answer, of course, is that if nobody had “invented” the supernatural yet, then the only belief system would be atheism, or lack of belief. So it is the oldest, most outdated system of thinking that exists. And that it is so outdated and useless, that God was invented to replace it with a more practical and useful way of thinking.

    That REALLY gets them going.

    Responses (4) +
  • April 4, 2014 at 11:43am

    “That was a very very slow meteorite…”

    Whoever wrote that comment was a moron. Everything falls at the same speed. That’s one of the first things they teach you in 1st grade science. They have everybody hold a rock and a ping pong ball, and drop them at the same time. They both hit the ground together.

    The only thing that made the skydiver slower was wind resistance on the parachute.

  • April 3, 2014 at 10:40am

    The “Rapture” doctrine is much older than the 1800s, it just isn’t ever called that until the 1800s. If you look back at the early church, and even the writings of Saint Paul, you will see that the “Rapture” idea existed back then.

    The idea is basically this: the church, with the Holy Spirit, will emulate Jesus and his miracles so well during the “end times” that they will do exactly what Jesus did, but on a global scale. Jesus was only one person, the church would be an entire world full of people who acted like Jesus and got the same results as Jesus did.

    So since Jesus ascended to heaven at the end of his ministry to Israel, the idea of the Rapture is just that the church, who increasingly becomes more like Christ, will also ascend to heaven, but it will be on a grand and global scale, rather than just one person.

123 To page: Go