User Profile: Darth Matter

Darth Matter

Member Since: September 15, 2010


  • [2] February 26, 2015 at 9:38am

    “Residents of a Dutch town who dare to venture out at night are arming themselves for protection against a rouge predator.”

    HA HA HAHHAAAA HAAAAAAAA!!! That’s the best typo I’ve seen in an article on The Blaze yet! AND it makes the villagers sound like even bigger pansies.

    Look out! It’s an owl wearing make-up! We better get an umbrella! HA HA HA!

    Seriously though, proofreading is always a good idea.

    Responses (1) +
  • February 23, 2015 at 10:46am

    I thought it looked more like this one:

  • [-1] February 19, 2015 at 9:10am

    Amen. If there’s a problem let Congress pass legislation.

    Responses (1) +
  • [8] February 2, 2015 at 5:14pm

    How can you possibly say if it’s a safe/good idea or not given the information we have here. Maybe it says in the video how large the lot is, how he plans to arrest the bullets down range, etc. but that’s no longer available apparently. This could still go either way in my opinion. Is it on a 0.15 acre lot with the neighbor’s houses 10′ apart or a 1+ acre lot and the intended target area won’t result in firing toward someone else’ property? Is there a proper lead trap being built in? Details are every journalist’s best friend… They give credibility.

  • [2] January 23, 2015 at 9:38am

    I was definitely playing the odds. I’d love to go read more, but unfortunately some people have to work in this country still.

  • [16] January 23, 2015 at 9:06am

    ‘”I was just like, how could he be doing this to so many Americans who work hard for their money? Im just thinking, how could you do this to nice people?” Fitzsimmons said.’

    Funny thing is I wonder that every time I think about the real IRS.

  • January 22, 2015 at 10:28am

    So what you’re saying is that one disagreement with the platform is enough to push you back the Republicans/Democrats because you have less than one disagreement with them? I don’t understand your logic. Since you can’t agree on that one point you’re in favor of bigger government and more spending and everything that the others bring along with them.

  • [17] January 22, 2015 at 10:17am

    Turbo perhaps you should try to see things from someone else’ perspective, as did the woman in question here.

    Let me break it down for you. Testosterone is The hormone regulating sex drive in both sexes. Men are constantly producing 8-10 times the amount of this hormone than women ever have in their bodies. Their sex drive is also piqued by visual cues.

    This is very hard to just ignore. It’s what we’re built for. For whatever reason God chose to make us this way. I don’t question God’s reasoning, I just deal with what he’s given me as well as I can. Women can help me deal with that situation by not objectifying themselves. In the end it’s my job to not look, and that’s what Everyone is saying here, but it helps when it’s not put out on display and that’s the whole point the authors of these various commentaries is trying to make.

    How you dress is your choice. As is whether or not you want to help your brothers overcome their natural reactions to things. I’d just like to point out that Christ during his mission on earth never stopped helping others.

  • [18] January 22, 2015 at 9:33am

    It’s too bad it will never go anywhere. The authorities are nowhere near consistent in their acceptance of first amendment rights between various groups.

    Nobody but The Blaze will carry this story, and it will fizzle and die without ever being seen by the vast majority of Americans. Even if people do catch on, the mainstream media will make it all about the hateful customer. I understand the effort and why it’s important, but there is no hope with the power balances being tipped the way they are.

    Responses (6) +
  • [1] January 21, 2015 at 9:58am

    Keep talking pus. You just keep digging your hole deeper and deeper.

    A couple questions though: IF you’re fine with her acting on her convictions, why are you attacking her for doing so? Simply because she shares her convictions with others and says they should decide for themselves?

    Personally I think it’s her choice. If she has been thoughtful enough to actually try to think from someone else’ perspective and let that affect her choices/actions, she should be applauded for that. That almost sounds selfless rather than what you’re suggesting she is.

  • [16] January 21, 2015 at 9:29am

    And yet amazingly the Libertarian party still never receives enough votes to be worth note in elections. Wake up people. We need a second party in DC. One that has a different point of view than, “We must win the next election.” The Libertarians are the only ones that are talking about shrinking the government.

    Responses (2) +
  • [14] January 20, 2015 at 9:38am

    Speaking of UTTERLY BASELESS comments zapp…

  • [7] January 20, 2015 at 9:37am

    Couldn’t agree more fortherecord. There are far to many commenters on The Blaze who don’t stand on values or principles, but just feel strongly about different things than the other progressive statists out there. You can add any article about drugs on The Blaze for more examples.

    As for you Cosmo2, you might want to actually read the article before you start making wild accusations about its contents. The father says clearly that he is the only one in the house that uses the substance that “can morph into a bleach and cause nausea, vomiting and diarrhea.” Note the word can in that statement. It’s not does. He also states, ” that he mostly uses it as a water purifier for his garden outside.” Nowhere in there does it indicate that he was likely to be giving it to his children. Medical staff checked out all of the children and found them to be healthy. Furthermore, even if it does morph into bleach; What do you think is used by your elected officials to treat the water you drink against harmful bacteria? We all drink small amounts of bleach every time we drink water. It’s called water purification (now where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, the article). Now be a good little troll, and think about what your mind is churning out before you speak it. You wouldn’t want to sound like you were (un)educated in a public school.

  • [1] January 15, 2015 at 10:33am

    I think the only person who needs to chill here is you. I’m not attacking you and I’m sorry if that’s the impression you’ve gotten somehow. I’m simply trying to point out flaws in your philosophy on the subject of drugs. That’s how we all grow. This is called discussion.

    You say, ” those found to be a hazard should be arrested WHEN THEY ARE FOUND to be a public hazard WHILE they are being a public hazard. AS IT EXISTS NOW!”

    What I’m saying is that that’s not how it exists now. Right now, we will arrest people who are sitting in their own houses using drugs and those who provided the drugs to those people when no other crime has been committed.

    If they become hopeless addicts who will rob someone to get a fix, then yes we should put them away. If they are hallucinating and stab someone because they think they’re a monster, we should put them away. Both of those arrests should happen for people who are not on drugs as well though.

    We have the responsibility not to use drugs, and I would add alcohol, but should have the freedom to make that choice for ourselves. There is no harm in these things to society if they are done responsibly though.

  • January 15, 2015 at 10:09am

    hendricks/biker, Mr. johnson isn’t defending the proglodyte. He’s simply pointing out contradictions in someone’s philosophy.

    Let me explain it this way. I don’t think I ever heard Jesus hurl insults at anyone, and yet Proverbs’ name is a bible verse. Until I see where Jesus said, “Caiaphas, thou haggard rump-fed clod, …,” I’ll have to say that insulting others simply because they have a different point of view isn’t in good keeping with Christian philosophy as taught by The Holy Bible.

  • [1] January 14, 2015 at 7:17pm

    So what you’re saying in a much more concise manner is that all drug users hurt other people and should be arrested before they can.

    If that’s not a faulty generalization I’ve never heard one. We already arrest people who drive under the influence. And yet drinking alcohol is not. Why? Because not everyone drinks and then drives.

    Well lets extend your logic shall we? According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 3.9% of murders in 2007 were drug related. That means that 96.1% of murders that year were perpetrated by people who were sober. According to your logic we should arrest anyone who is sober before they can murder someone? See what a slippery slope you’re on?

  • [2] January 13, 2015 at 10:09am

    Libertarianism is what the founders of this once great nation created. It’s this “common sense” that you speak of that has added the “once” to my previous sentence.

    Libertarianism is the only theoretical construct that builds in people’s weaknesses by design and corrects for them. It allows people to govern themselves as they see fit. Apparently it’s “common sense” that we need a powerful government to step in and tell them that what they are doing to themselves is bad and will necessarily hurt someone else and they must go to prison where we can tax people to pay for their upkeep. If that’s your sense it certainly isn’t common. My common sense says, “People are going to be people and trying to stop them from being people is hopeless. Not to mention expensive.”

  • [2] January 13, 2015 at 9:55am

    So trade freedom to medicate yourself as needed for “security” from people who are using drugs? Is that what you’re suggesting?

    We already arrest people who harm others. We do that whether they are on drugs or not. Why do we need just another reason to arrest someone?

    If the users that are around your neighborhood are a bigger threat than the cartels around our southern border, you need to move my friend. (FYI, the cartels would dry up and disappear if we were legally providing ourselves with drugs. Hence the reference.)

  • [9] January 13, 2015 at 9:47am

    Not if society stops allowing him to be a burden on them. If the choice comes down to sit around and starve or become a responsible person who earns what they have, we’ll be free of a burden on society either way. That is the case whether there’s drugs involved or not though. Why burden society with another prison inmate who not only has to be fed and clothed, but has to have continuous security to keep him contained simply because he’s smoking pot every day?

    A burden is a burden either way. The big government controlled prison system is the much more burdensome way to handle this sort of burden.

  • [6] January 13, 2015 at 9:40am

    You hope he dies for what reason? Because he was working to uphold the laws created by OUR elected representatives?

    If you don’t like how things are going look to the source of the problem. Don’t just place wild erroneous blame on those whose responsibility it is to enable the end product.

Restoring Love