TheBlaze Books Give You More!

CommentsDisplaying chrisa0917's 10 most recent comments.

• 628×471

  December 18, 2012 at 12:41pm

  Why isn’t this all over the news?!?!?!?!?!

• ‘Not Fair to Be White’: See the Unbelievable New Campaign Sponsored by the University of Minnesota-Duluth

  June 21, 2012 at 2:45pm

  In reply to ghostsouls.

  @ Scherzophrenic…Are there ANY journalists at MSNBC?????

• Teen Atheist Behind Prayer Mural Ban Wants Contentious WWI & WWII Cross Removed

  May 16, 2012 at 4:35pm

  In reply to phillyatheist.

  If you don’t believe in God or any deity, then why are you so afraid of a symbol of something that means absolutely nothing to you other than two perpendicular sticks? There is no mention of ‘separation of church and state” anywhere in the consitution. The first amendment was written so that the government could not create a “state religion” that everyone must follow (like the British Church of England), and it protects everyone’s right to freely express their beliefs. Well, the cross in Woonsocket, RI, was erected to honor a veteran of WWI who was a Roman Catholic, and three more names were added after WWII, those of whome were also Roman Catholic. That cross is the free expression of the religion of the men who are honored by it and as such is “free expression of religion”. Just because it is on public land does not make it illegal, nor does it violate the constitution.
  As far as Jessica Ahlquist is concerned, the “prayer” that she gained her 15 minutes of fame from was totally non-denominational and the person who wrote it specifically worded to be that way. You could have removed “Heavenly Father” from the top and not consider it a prayer.

  All this controversy is a violation of the majority’s right to free expression of their beliefs. Just because you don’t believe in any higher power does not give you any rights to infringe upon others’ freedoms. If every religious reference were wiped out, I consider that a violation of MY rights.

• This Is Where the American People Stand on Legalizing Gay Marriage

  May 9, 2012 at 4:27pm

  Honestly, why can’t we just leave marriage as a religious ceremony joining a man and a woman, and look at this from a legal perspective. ‘Marriage’ in the eyes of the government is a binding contract creating a financial and legal partnership. So why not call it what it is, a domestic partnership or “coupling” giving the same legal rights to homosexual couples as well as heterosexual couples. Leave the definition of marriage as the union between a man and a woman, the way nature intended. Just because homosexuality exists in other species as well as humans does not make it the norm. Statistically speaking, heterosexuality is ‘normal’ and homosexuality is an abberation. It happens, it’s not a choice, but it’s not normal. A homosexual couple cannot reproduce without artificial means and a person of the opposite sex, it doesn’t work that way. So why can’t we just accept is as part of the world, give them the same rights legally, but just don’t call it marriage. How hard is that?

• Gingrich’s ’06 Memos Praised Romney’s Health Care Plan: ‘The Most Interesting Effort’

  December 27, 2011 at 1:25pm

  In reply to Ghandi was a Republican.

  As a Massachusetts resident, I would like to say that there is no way that Romney forced “Romneycare” on the residents of the state….you have to remember that the state legislature in Massachusetts is overwhelmingly Democrat, and quite liberal at that. Just look at the record of our Republican senator, Scott Brown~he can hardly be called ultraconservative. Romney has admitted he had to make some concessions and would have liked to have seen some things done differently, but would not have gotten it past the legislature. As for Obamacare being the same as Romneycare, I think the biggest difference is that Obamacare will ultimately lead to government run socialized medicine, putting insurance companies out of business and forcing companies to discontinue offering self-insured private plans. There is no one-size fits all, and what works for one state may not work for others. The federal government, according to the constitution, is in place to protect our borders and our freedoms and MAINTAIN STATE SOVEREIGNTY. Nothing short of a repeal of Obamacare will do. Let each state figure out for itself what is best, and allow insurance companies to sell policies across state lines.

• Cain Accuser Filed Another Complaint Against Employers At Her Next Job

  November 9, 2011 at 2:02pm

  I’m just wondering why Cain doesn’t just sue these women for slander, because that’s what this is. This is clearly defamation of character without proof. If they need to hire lawyers to defend themselves, I bet they will back down right away.

• US Warns Terrorists May Try to Surgically Implant Bombs in Humans

  July 6, 2011 at 1:45pm

  In reply to chrisa0917.

  To JUSTANAMERICAN…”profile, profile, profile, profile…”

  Couldn’t have said it better myself. Why are we not profiling? Works for Israel. No, instead we subject our own citizens to violations of their person so that no one will think we are singling out anybody. That’s crap!

• US Warns Terrorists May Try to Surgically Implant Bombs in Humans

  July 6, 2011 at 1:41pm

  In reply to justanamerican.

  couldn’t have said it better myself….

• Do July 4 Parades Really Indoctrinate Children, Boost Election Day Turnout for the GOP?

  July 1, 2011 at 1:13pm

  In reply to JRook.

  what do you mean “can’t reply” policy?

• NY Seeks to Ban Sugary Drinks From Food Stamp Buys

  October 7, 2010 at 11:38am

  In reply to Maybe the GEESE Know More than the BEES Know.

  I agree with you Wifezilla…food stamps are meant to ensure that people have nutritious food to eat and the food is being provided by us, the taxpayers. It should be limited to foods that are necessary to survive, not junk food and soda. If they can limit certain purchases to the least expensive brand (as is done with things like milk and eggs in my state), then they certainly can limit the food categories that can be purchased. This is not the same as taking sugary or fatty foods off the menus, because that it trying to control what people who use their own money put in their mouths. Food stamps should be for essentials only. Period.