User Profile: CottonMPG


Member Since: September 22, 2010


123 To page: Go
  • October 3, 2014 at 10:54am

    I meant to say,” instead of interpreting and enforcing the law”

  • [7] October 3, 2014 at 10:48am

    Sadly our government is pushing an agenda instead of interpreting and enforcing it. How can we expect those in authority to uphold the Constitution and understand the importance of inalienable rights when most of them believe the idea that there is a Creator is superstitious nonsense made up to either explain things they didn’t understand or force others to abide by their idea of morality? We have just taken an immoral behavior, given it protected status under the law and elevated past the inalienable right guaranteed under the Constitution!

    Responses (2) +
  • April 9, 2014 at 10:23am

    No. There were no people before marriage. God created man and then his wife. The first ever people were “married”. Marriage was different in that there was no prohibition of polygamy or incest. Polygamy though always shown negatively in scripture was never expressly prohibited and incest was prohibited with the giving of the Mosaic law.

  • April 9, 2014 at 10:16am

    By the way before you feel the need to tell me, I know there is a difference between pedophilia and adult devience. It’s just so hard to get close minded liberals to relate to a matter of conscience. They refuse to acknowledge anything is actually “wrong,” except maybe “judgementalism.”

  • April 9, 2014 at 10:08am

    It’s not about taking pictures. Think about what wedding photographers do. Anyone who has ever been married and had professional photos knows that the photographer also has to give you instuctions on how to stand and pose. If you are a Bible believing Christian you are not going to be able to do your job right with a sexually devient couple. Most people still agree that pedophilia is wrong so try to imagine being a photographer in a country where that is legal. You have to have a picture of various forms of affection etc. How do you reconcile this with your right to obey your conscience?

    Responses (1) +
  • February 12, 2014 at 4:11pm

    These polls are wrong! I am a true conservative, fiscally and socially and I like Nuts and raisins in my chocolate prefer milk chocolate over dark and HATE cream fillings. I also don’t really care for 3 Musketeers.

  • February 11, 2014 at 10:16am

    Nearly all law enforcement officers are trigger happy when it comes to dogs unfortunately. :( This wasn’t as bad as some I’ve seen. The dog did sound aggressive on the audio file. I personally think as many non-lethal options as they have it was unnecessary. He could have tazed or pepper sprayed the dog. I also think that it is partly because the dog was a lab that people are so upset about this if it had been any short haired medium to large muscular dog it would have been labled a pit bull and he would have been congratulated for being a good shot regardless of how friendly the dog was.

  • November 16, 2013 at 8:52pm

    I don’t think it was because of the way the hunt was conducted. According to the article she stated that she was out in the wilds of Africa and stalked up close to kill the lion. Most people don’t like killing animals that remind them of their pets, or that they don’t think of as food. I at least admit that I am only being overly sentimental and allowing my personal biases to influence me. I like the big cats and to me it seems wrong to kill a lion. I have no issue with hunting most animals including bears, but the sight of that dead lion just makes me sad. :(

  • November 16, 2013 at 8:43pm

    Killing an animal isn’t, “wrong,” I mean, it isn’t evil. I don’t like the idea of killing an intelligent, social, predatory animal like a lion. I have a personal bias against killing things that are too similar to cats, dogs or horses. Things that are meant to be eaten like elk, moose, deer, antelope etc. I personally don’t see that as bad.

  • November 14, 2012 at 7:23pm

    These petitions of secession are not legitimate state actions. All 50 states have had some citizen/citizens who have created and signed petitions to secede. We all can agree that not every state would be willing to secede. Really in my opinion these so called petitions amount to voluntary enemies lists. If there were a “REAL” movement towards secession I would most likely join it.
    I seriously doubt that the people in power would peacefully grant secession because they would not be able to mooch off of us and would be losing all the resources in whichever states were part of the new country we would be creating. I wish we could divide peacefully into two friendly nations. In our new nation we could renew our constitution, and start over with less laws, fair tax etc.. It’d be great! Won’t happen though.

    Responses (1) +
  • August 20, 2012 at 4:27pm

    The man went off teleprompter!! The Demons will use it whether he drops out or stays in, in fact it might be worse if he drops out because it will be the last press he ever gets. The worse thing about the right is our immediate knee jerk reaction to kill our own wounded as soon as he/she says/does something stupid. The Dems will stand up and defend anything their side does with few exceptions. The majority of the liberals would hide or excuse their people if they witnessed one rip a live newborn baby in pieces. I think we need to be better about standing behind our people when they make honest mistakes without ruthlessly denying the evil things that occasionally happen with human beings. We shouldn’t deny/excuse evil things but we need to not turn on our people when they just mess up.

    Responses (1) +
  • August 15, 2012 at 8:44am

    Funny how it is obvious to everyone that this cop being punched in the face and knocked down is life threatening but Zimmerman being punched, knocked down, having his head repeatedly slammed on the pavement as well as supposedly having his gun reached for by the same attacker definitely wasn’t. Just saying…that cop had better thank God he’s black.

  • August 14, 2012 at 7:29pm

    I wonder why it doesn’t occur to anyone that without photo ID one may show up to vote only to be told he or she had already voted. Anyone could get your name and address easily and take your vote.

  • March 20, 2012 at 9:22am

    Good! Don’t fly. I know hundreds of TSA workers and nearly all are parents or grandparents. They don’t even like to have to check the kids but it has to be done to prevent the kids being perfect bomb mules.

  • March 20, 2012 at 9:19am

    A terrorist would love it if all children, babies and old people. It’d be a great opportunity, a guaranteed success. Just friendly up with a sweet old lady that can’t take care of herself. She’ll be used to being dressed by someone else. Or kill some young couple and steal their child. No problem dressing a baby or child with explosives. Not all terrorists are dark skinned with turbans on their heads. TSA doesn’t ask for ID for children or babies.

    Responses (1) +
  • March 19, 2012 at 8:17pm

    Babies don’t dress themselves, change themselves, buy plane tickets, or drive themselves to airports either but somehow all this stuff happens to them. Hmmmm I wonder if a muslim extremist would think of kill a young couple and taking their small or handicapped child on a plane with explosives on him. By the way islam is common in many countries and spreading like cancer. Terrorists can be blond and blue eyed. Terrorism is an ideology not a race. Timothy McVeigh was white and he was a terrorist.

  • March 19, 2012 at 8:08pm

    So, we exempt children and babies completely from screening. Think anyone will take a baby or small child on a plane just to use him as a bomb? I do. Why not? Anyone willing to blow up a plane that will undoubtedly have at least one baby or child on it isn’t going to feel bad about sacrificing one kid, and you are guaranteed to succeed because no one will check the little guy. By exempting children and babies from screening you are insuring they will be exploited by terrorists.

    Responses (2) +
  • March 19, 2012 at 1:55pm

    TSA should not check cute little babies and children!!! Terrorists will never notice we are not checking them and kidnap them to use as bombs!!!! A terrorist would NEVER exploit a cute little baby or child in that way!!! Ok, maybe a terrorist would strap a bomb on a baby or child……. but we would KNOW, right? We don’t need to CHECK them. I personally would much rather risk having an entire easily identified class of people that terrorists could use as bombs then allow MY child to be patted down by a polite government official. I bet he wasn’t even that polite! The video was likely touched up. The kid looked completely traumatized too! I say kill the TSA people!!! No good COMMIES!!!

    Responses (1) +
  • March 18, 2012 at 4:14pm

    You’re an idiot. Obama didn’t create TSA and the majority of TSA employees don’t support him. airport security isn’t going away and the government WILL be the ones regulating it so we will all have to deal with it. Let’s focus on getting some decent government officials in place, once that happens regulations will likely dial back some. We need good legislators to get rid of the nanny state mentality. If we can do that we can prevent more government control and hopefully repeal some that already affects us.

  • March 18, 2012 at 4:05pm

    I’m pretty sure there are security companies that would take that chance but as for how it works out….ask the owners of Argenbright. That was the main security company that worked almost all airports before 9/11. It no longer exists so I’m not sure how you’d track them down, but good luck.

123 To page: Go