User Profile: Bruce4671


Member Since: August 31, 2010


  • [-1] June 15, 2016 at 8:41am

    no more than your hypocrisy and bigotry for assuming that your fellow citizens are being hypocritical when recognizing a basic principle.

  • [1] May 27, 2016 at 9:03am

    It’s deeper than that. Here’s a guy with tons of cash on a private jet not being catered to not haveing an expensive prepared meal but eating a drive through meal (my my…how did he get the jumbo jet up to the window?) from Micky D’s…just one of the guys. He’s JUST like us. He’s a man OF the people and FOR the people….. why do you think Clinton did it?

  • [3] May 20, 2016 at 10:13am

    so robertFi, it isn’t the amendment that does anything. It’s the evil callous heartless people that use a tool to kill those innocent children. It’s other children that have an emotional problems caused by the spineless wimps in education teaching them about trigger warnings and safe places and gun free zones that make them vulnerable rather than protecting our children.

  • [4] May 6, 2016 at 8:57am

    to letme google that for you. well it seems that the person in the foreground has adopted the full regalia of the male. Now I know how the law reads and I also know that no one is checking birth certificates at the door to a public restroom regardless of the state so,,,, IF the person in question who dresses and looks male enters and uses the facilities washes HIS hands and exits without committing any crime then no one will have reason to request that document. Got it? However, the problem occurs when a male who identifies as female and has not had the offending appendage removed or changed HIS appearance to reflect HIS confused state of mind enters the women’s in full view of the other males present some of which have their soul mates in there exposed to this “guy”. Personally, I would block his access to the womens room and as NCSmom3 said thigs get ugly.

  • [5] April 9, 2016 at 11:41am

    wait a second. the USA is NOT a liberal dominated society. If it was one vote one citizen then the conservative section (silent majority) would dominate elections. Most people don’t vote because they can’t stand the thought of voting for the dishonest lying corrupt people that get into politics.

    Just sayin……..

    Responses (2) +
  • January 15, 2016 at 10:54am

    @gwinfrey…read it again and the wording specifically says those guns that have a select fire option from full auto semi auto and burst. Yes, some AR-15 have that function but those sold on the civilian market do not. They can be modified, however, the law goes on to specify that should you own one that has this funtion, you have the ability to reder that option non functioning.

  • [5] October 30, 2015 at 9:03am

    Ask Pop this, if Ted is so un-electable then how did he win the senate seat he has?

  • [4] October 30, 2015 at 9:02am

    Sorry fatheromally, Carson is a good man. However, it’s the squeaky wheel that get’s the greese and he is quite, reserved respectful and out of the limelight. If it’s religion you are looking for in a candidate, then Cruz is a good man as well.

  • [16] October 29, 2015 at 11:07am

    don’t normally comment but have to agree that Glenn promotes his vison more and more. Does he think he is a mondern day prophet? I don’t know but dropped my subscription ………

  • [7] October 29, 2015 at 9:52am

    and just so you know, an individual walking occupying a vacant spot in a field who decides to pray (gee can YOU tell who/what that individual is thinking/praying?) is simply exercising his god given right to talk to god. Now, should he erect an alter – whether to burn incense or goats – then and only then does he “represent” a specific denomination/religion. ANY INDIVIDUAL has the right to do the exact same thing filling that field to capacity should they so chose as INDIVIDUALS. So you have your “accommodation” in spades. Quit being a PC idiot and read the constitution. “CONGRESS shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,…”. Got that? The government – including a district school board – can not prohibit the FREE EXERCISE of religion. Andy religion…..

  • [2] September 3, 2015 at 8:14am

    Fox news, really? You should go to a big sign before your show Kelly that says without a doubt that the opinions are strictly your own and have no bearing on general public opinion. It’s all opinion. A “news” program should report news without commentary or opinion. Now Brit, comes on under that banner. Editorial opinion. So I can know that what he is saying is only one man’s voice. As this is only MY opinion…..

  • March 5, 2015 at 9:32am

    Jesus commanded that we love our neighbor as we love ourselves. Paul suggested that love forgives all things. God said that anyone who sheds man’s blood will have their blood shed as well. See if you can find these things in the bible.

    love never fails………..

  • [3] March 5, 2015 at 9:23am

    why exactly do homosexuals yearn for the spotlight? If is just a normal thing then let it go and be normal.

    Personally I could care less who or what you have sex with. Honesty, character and integrity morals (yes homosexuals have a moral code) those things count.

  • December 10, 2014 at 7:44am

    Watch the rank and file until the next election, then clean out the rest of the progressives…. from both parties. 2016 is the year. I hope the American people do not lose focus and give the senate back to the democrats.

    Responses (2) +
  • December 10, 2014 at 7:40am

    Yeah, “people in glass houses should not throw stones”….. gee derived – along with a long list of other knockoff aphorisms with a basis in the bible. As Jesus said to the crowd wanting to stone an adulteress, “he that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” (John 8:7 KJV)

    Still, good advice for US as well as those that live in glsss houses

  • [6] September 8, 2014 at 9:09am

    It’s simple, if the University receives federal funds, they can not ignore the fact that the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, Take it to court.

  • April 14, 2014 at 9:38am

    I wonder if I could get that job….. looking at reddit all day to gleen the “news”

  • April 14, 2014 at 9:36am

    I noticed several comments that reminded us that
    “it is about trespassing”, or occupying land that one has no legal right to occupy. It struck me that one could say the same thing about all those people coming across the border from Mexico. They too are trespassing and occupying USA without the legal right to do so. Paying fees would be a help, following established law would be nice. Shoot, even the President fails at that.

  • March 8, 2013 at 8:23am

    Ok Piggy (I mean that in an affectionate way) stop and think what the filibuster was about. Was it about the nominee? No. It was about getting an answer to a simple question from the white house. Which was given via a very terse letter from holder in the “final hour”. So the participation of republicans in support of the filibuster was in support of Paul’s insistence that we the people be told yes or no “Is targeting and killing an American citizen ‘suspected’ of being involved in terrorism with a drone and taking their life unconstitutional and would the President do that? They are now on record that it would be unconstitutional and no the president does not have that authority. The confirmation vote had nothing to do with the filibuster other than being the “hostage”. So maybe you should review the nominee’s qualifications and think about fighting the President on it is productive.

  • February 25, 2013 at 10:46am

    wow. So the only thing you can think of is to blame Bush KeatonC333? Ok fine. I looked at your chart and read the reasoning. Shoot, I even agree with the basic premiss that continuing programs of your predecessor will add to your budget expenses. So I suppose that Clinton’s programs disappeared when
    Bush took office and every other presidents before him.

    I’m a bottom line kind of guy. And the bottom line is that every year since 1977 federal spending has increased except for 1987 and 1993 (the reference I am using only goes to 2009 and has a projection for 2010) and yes spending has gone down each year 2010, 2011 and 2012 if my memory is right. Now the DEBT on the other hand has INCREASED every year except for 1979, 80, 81 and 2000. Now the project increase in 2010 was 12.5% the largest in history. In 2010 the debt was 13 trillion and counting. 3 years later it is 16.5 trillion and counting. So you can whine and cry about which presidents policy raised or lower “deficit” spending but it is still DEFICIT spending. And since 2010 3.5 trillion dollars has been added to the DEBT. That is over a trillion dollars we borrowed each year.