User Profile: Captain77

Member Since: October 23, 2010


123 To page: Go
  • July 29, 2014 at 9:18pm

    Wow! So you weren’t in the courts, heard no testimony nor any evidence, yet you’re willing to play judge, jury and executioner over an issue you know little to nothing about. You are now by your action a sad example of armchair judge who is willing to get riled up and pass judgment based on little to no information.

  • July 29, 2014 at 9:08pm

    She inherited 6 million from the book deal and is looking to make another 10-15 million from the movie that is already in the making. This will hardly leave her destitute.

    Responses (1) +
  • [2] July 29, 2014 at 9:06pm

    It doesn’t matter if Kyle died, the jury found that he harmed Jessie’s reputation due to his book and interviews, therefore he owes a debt to Jessie. Now let’s be realistic. Kyle’s wife has already inherited 6 million from the book and will probably make 10-15 million more from the movie that is in the making. A 1.8 million to Jessie will hardly leave her destitute. Also, none of you here were in the jury, so none of you here heard the whiteness testimony. Obviously the testimonies for Jessie were more convincing than those for Kyle. In fact, the very fact that the jury was willing to rule against a national hero seems to suggest the evidence against Kyle must have been pretty compelling.

    Responses (2) +
  • [9] June 29, 2014 at 12:27pm

    Are we all not beggars? Do we not petition God daily for support and protection? Is it not also one thing to give a beggar money, which they may or may not blow on drugs, versus giving them food or clothing, the basic of necessities for which any in need would be grateful. We are commanded to take care of the poor among us, neglecting them is a sin upon our heads.

  • [5] May 24, 2014 at 4:46pm

    Are you kidding me!? I disagree with 99% of what the man says, but at least he is honest about his beliefs. I would take an honest Bill Maher over a fake Tea Party Patriot who says one thing to the people, then stabs them in the back when they get to DC. Also, the purging you seem to be suggesting would be one at the sacrifice of the 1st amendment. Did you not realize that his whole speech he just gave was basically, “I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will fight for your right to say it”. He was telling his own people to back off, and here you think its time for a purge? Tolerance is the price of freedom, which means we live among those with whom we disagree with. We may speak out against them, but never suggesting anything near resembling a purge. It is only through persuasion that real change needs to come.

    Responses (1) +
  • [17] May 23, 2014 at 11:41am

    As a USAF veteran, coming from a father and grandfather who are also veterans, to include my brother, and not to mention 2 brother in laws who are currently serving, I do not feel a need to thank vets for their “service” for and wars that have nothing to do for our national security. In truth, I am angered that their sacrifices of blood and distance from family and loved ones are being wasted in lands where they are not wanted nor respected. I am angered that these men and women suffer in body, mind, and soul for nothing more than failed foreign policies that abuse them and their families. You want to thank them!? Elect leaders/statesmen who hold a sacred value on their lives, who will not be so anxious to use their bodies for other nations civil wars.

    Responses (2) +
  • April 13, 2014 at 12:43pm

    You’re ASSuming the Federal government actually has any constitutional claim on the property. As the U.S. Constitution specifically limits the powers of the Federal government, and as it has not been granted the powers of which the BLM is claiming, it is the Federal Government that is breaking the law, claiming land rights which it does not have constitutionally speaking. The Federal Government should not own ANY land, especially outside of DC. All the land that is not privately owned in each state should be owned by the states and not the federal government. This is the constitutional argument RANCHER is making, which constitutionally speaking, is correct. An important truth NEEDS to be realized: The federal government has been overstepping its constitutional bounds for many decades, and until the people become educated enough to realize this, and vigilant enough to stand against this, tyranny will continue to grow. Just because they have gotten away with this for generations now does not mean we should not take a stand NOW.

  • April 13, 2014 at 2:41am

    The Blaze isn’t innocent on this one. They are blaming unpaid dues as the reason for the cattle confiscation. In truth, even if the man had paid the dues, they would still be there confiscating his cattle due to the “endangered desert tortus”. From reading the articles by the blaze, you would think this was all about dues, which it is not. Regardless, where in the constitution is it enumerated that the federal government can even create a Department of Land Management?

  • April 13, 2014 at 2:39am

    The Blaze is misleading on why they began confiscating this mans cattle. It wasn’t because he refused to pay the grazing fee, but rather due to a damn turtle! It is due to the “endangered desert tortus” that is making it “illegal” for any rancher to have their cattle there. In fact, other ranchers had previously taken their cattle there to graze on the land, but after the DLM ruled the land belonged to some damned turtle, no one has been “allowed” to have their cattle graze their since.

  • April 2, 2014 at 8:42pm

    No, you should not get an asskicking practicing your free speech, that is the point of the RIGHT. I am an veteran of the United States Air Force, and one of the motto’s we lived by was, “I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will fight for your right to say it.” Though the Marines action were well intentioned, they just broke their oath when they violated that mans rights instead of protecting them.

  • February 21, 2014 at 7:54pm

    For her own sake, and for the sake of her son, she needs to forgive him. A heart filled with anger and hate will do no harm to the man she holds it for, but it may/will have devastating affect on those about her and herself.

    Responses (1) +
  • January 30, 2014 at 5:30pm

    I feel bad for the dog, but cops have a nasty habit of shooting other peoples dogs all the time! Perhaps this will give cops a moments pause before they feel a need to shoot anothers dog now that they know what its like.

    Responses (2) +
  • January 20, 2014 at 2:26pm

    You don’t need a special law for this. The constitution enumerates the “freedom of association”, meaning we have a right to choose with whome we associate with and whom we will not. We don’t need to point to religious freedom, just our right to choose with whom we wish to associate with. It is as simple as that. Not sure why that argument hasn’t been put forward yet when it is the most simple and most direct concerning this issue.

    Responses (11) +
  • January 12, 2014 at 1:17pm

    Low life’s; yes. Only a lowlife would target innocent children. Cowards, not so much. Takes a lot of courage to be willing to kill yourself for a cause. However, what stuck out to me in this story was the selfless courage and sacrifice this young man had for his friends and classmates. There is no greater love.

  • January 7, 2014 at 7:59pm

    If you pay the fine, then you’re not rebelling or protesting obamacare. The government gives you 2 choices: either get healthcare or pay the fine. Choosing option B is not protesting, but rather consenting to the government. If you really want to take a stand, don’t get the insurance and don’t pay the fine! If the government really cared wether or not you got insurance, the a fine wouldn’t be an option. This is about control, not healthcare.

  • December 31, 2013 at 12:03am

    I am a USAF Veteran just as my brother is also a USAF Vet. My father served in the Army as did one of my grandfathers; the other in the Coast Guard. I currently have two brother in laws serving in the military as well as many friends who have served and are still serving; so what I have to say, I have more of a right than many here.

    Damn these wars, and damn our leaders for sending our best men and women to fight, bleed and die for a cause that has nothing to do with defending this nation nor the Constitution. This nations sons and daughters are being sacrificed to the point where they come home with broken bodies, spirits, and minds, for they are fighting a war that is neither moral or just.

    Because of this statement, some here may think I am a progressive hippy who is anti-war. What it really means is that I put a greater price upon the blood of our servicemen and women than most here. I hold their blood so sacred that it is only in the defense of THIS NATION, of THIS PEOPLE, of THIS CONSTITUTION for which is should be spilt.

    You see, the cost is more than just blood, but also in family. These are sons and daughters, husband and wives, mothers and fathers that are torn apart. The distance alone causes families to fail. Men come home with broken minds, and families fail. And for what?

    If you really love and support our troops, bring them home to their families. Bring them home to our borders. Just bring them home. My sisters would greatly appreciate that

    Responses (15) +
  • November 24, 2013 at 11:52am

    Your sounding like a liberal Yams. “We’re the government and we have a right to regulate your life!” If the government derives it’s power from the consent of the people, and this man does not give his consent, how do they have power over him? I didn’t know the king, I mean state had a rightful claim on all the wildlife. Yam, there are ways to protect “food sources” without interfering or violating individual rights, and yes, licensing, which is another word for taxing, is a violation of this mans rights.

  • June 16, 2013 at 1:19pm

    Snowden a whistleblower? What did he reveal that we didn’t already know? The real question is, why is it suddenly now being made into a big deal, when in fact we have known for years that this has been going on?

  • June 7, 2013 at 1:56am

    Atheism and secularism are just belief systems like every other belief system, including Christian, Muslim, Jew, etc. To say that a person cannot express their belief because it could be interpreted as forcing a belief upon another is hypocritical, for are not the atheist and secularist doing just that. This young man did well not only in expressing his belief, but did so in a respectful way that stood up to those little tyrants who would have had him silenced.

  • March 28, 2013 at 11:50pm

    The second amendment trumps any state law.

123 To page: Go