User Profile: Fintoilhat

Member Since: November 12, 2012


  • May 20, 2014 at 6:58am

    Christian, right? Be brave you little coward and go tell the girls father all of this to his face… of course you won’t… you only pick on little girls… you and Reality-Defender should move in together. Imagine the fun you can have picking on all kinds of kids together. Idiot.

  • May 20, 2014 at 6:54am

    You hold yourselves up to be the party of Family Values, and then you post something like this about an innocent 17 year old girl? Shame on you–how would you like someone to talk about your daughter like that? Not everything is political you callas ass! Regardless of political affiliation, the VP did a classy thing–and you did a despicable thing–true colors always come out don’t they? You are truly disgusting and that comment should get you banned from this site…or at the very least locked in a room with her Father for 5 minutes you reprehensible cad. So, in your little, perverted, narrow, warped, degenerate mind only daughters of conservatives are worth championing? You disgusting slob of a town fool…make fun of Biden all you want–he is a grown man but lay off the little girls you pathetic pile of rhino dung–or is that the only competition you feel you can take on? You like picking on little girls? Does that make you feel manly? Moron… go play in traffic and do the world a favor idiot. It was wrong when Palin’s kids were attacked, and it is wrong now! Be consistent at the very least, you poster-child for fetal alcohol syndrome… what a waste of a human being you are. What’s next? A trip down to the nearest elementary school to push kids over on the playground and take their lunch money? I bet your parents wish the condom hadn’t broken, dumb-ass. Let me guess, you’re a Christian, right? Go tell that joke to your Sunday Congregation, punk-ass!

  • May 20, 2014 at 6:25am

    As I scan the posts this is what I see: A ‘recall’ suggestion for SCOTUS (aren’t you folks supposed to be the Constitution party?) There is no SCOTUS recall!; there are tons of comments that Kagan is ugly or a man…well, that is a high-brow argument if I ever saw one!; Anti-Semitic and racist comments about ‘Jews teaching Blacks how to lie’–classy! But you guys aren’t racist or bigots, right?…that is just a lame-stream media label you have unfairly been given!; and of course all the folks piling on that Kagan isn’t fit if her work has to be edited…really? Do you feel that way truly? If a Justice has to have their work corrected they should leave the Highest Court? Ok, sounds good to me! … Bye-Bye Scalia! Yep, you folks are ‘fair and balanced’ alright! You are the Real ‘Amuricans’ who tell others who differ in opinion from you to get out of the Country! I look forward to your well-reasoned, fact-filled, Constitution-abiding comments about what old, fat, male actor Kagan looks like–oh, almost forgot the guy who wishes Kagan will die during a conservative presidency from her ‘Clogged Artery’…wasn’t Beck the one talking about how it is a God-given right to be obese? Some actually make sense and have substantive arguments to bring to the table…the problem is for every reasoned post there are 10 racist, ignorant or factually-incorrect posts!

    Responses (2) +
  • November 22, 2013 at 12:26pm

    It gets worse… look how the leftists are trying to justify this–Rach-cow Man-dow just had this to say:

    “There are seven specific instances in the Constitution where they call for a supermajority. I believe it’s unconstitutional to filibuster. It is not about advice and consent now to ask for a supermajority on judicial nominations. I believe that is not constitutional.

    There’s been a lot of talk about what we describe as the “constitutional option,” which is that the Democrats would unite and vote, and there would be an up-or-down vote on all of the judicial nominations.”

    Any excuse for a power grab!

  • April 23, 2013 at 3:32pm

    I love how many folks on this thread are expressing their disappointment that the story is not true. You do realize that by doing that you no longer can be taken seriously when you talk about hypocrisy, respect and family values, right? You can’t have it both ways by lambasting liberals like Bill Maher for the inappropriate things he says (and rightfully so to lambast him for that) but when you turn around and rejoice in the idea that the President of the United States could be injured–you become a ridiculous person no longer deserving to be in adult conversations. Reply all you want, call me all the names you wish and justify yourselves however you see fit–those words no longer carry weight–you have been exposed and no longer bring anything to the table–your babble will fall on deaf ears if the owner of those ears is a serious and honest person.

    Responses (6) +
  • April 23, 2013 at 3:22pm

    Hey Thunder–would you like folks questioning if you ever served? You speak so confidently when you say someone else didn’t serve in the military…but then one has to think… you have no idea, so why oh why would you answer for someone else? To get respect you have to give it. Try treating folks the way you wish to be treated, or is that just something Christians say to sound good but don’t really live by? Lead by example, not a loud mouth and you will get the respect you deserve.

    Responses (1) +
  • April 18, 2013 at 7:17pm

    Uh… have you watched the videos they released? Do you know how many folks are there with backpacks? Who indeed, other than a vast number in that crowd. You don’t care much for personal liberties do ya? I suppose a door-to-door search of all residences in Boston would be ok with you, right? I mean, only the guilty have something to hide… Great thinking! Why stop at Boston–all residences should be searched by their local police–that is the only fair–we will nab all the bad guys that way. It is always ok to search the ‘other guy’ right? But, you… come on–they don’t need to search you–you’re… you know… ‘normal’.

  • April 18, 2013 at 7:12pm

    Yeah, they probably need to ask those questions of people who are not suspects in the first place because after all they do look muslim-ish, right? I mean a team that is capable of determining the possible cell phone of one of the real suspected bombers by triangulating the location based on cell records and the date\time stamp on the surveillance footage–probably would have no clue how to determine if someone is a real suspect or not–maybe you should conduct the investigation since you are obviously more qualified than those Obama cronies. Unless… wait a second… where do you live? I think we need to come over and go through your things with a fine-toothed comb before we hand you the investigation–just to be sure… Once we have enough proof to satisfy our suspicions, which are based on our own speculation and nothing more… then you will be free to proceed. Again, only if you pass muster though!

  • April 18, 2013 at 3:24pm

    I don’t understand… these are not the two? but they look Muslim… it has to be! Well, nobody owes them an apology… they should know better than to go in public looking like Muslims… I still think we should arrest them… after all, it is only a matter of time.

  • April 10, 2013 at 4:01pm

    better parenting skills, right? 2 Samuel 12:13-14:
    And Nathan said to David, “The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die. However, because by this deed you have given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also who is born to you shall surely die.”

    Exodus 21:7-11
    And if a man sells his daughter to be a female slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who has betrothed her to himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt deceitfully with her. And if he has betrothed her to his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters. If he takes another wife, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marriage rights. And if he does not do these three for her, then she shall go out free, without paying money.

    Instead of looking to the Bible to defend your hate of a woman, why don’t you take her advice and practice what the Bible says about loving those you disagree with? Why is she so evil for believing that we as neighbors should look out for each other’s family? Sounds Christian to me!

    Philippians 2:4
    Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others.

    Let’s give that a try, shall we? Or does the Bible only count for some teachings and not for others? Try to be Christian if you are going to give us the ‘Holier-than-thou’ tr

  • November 24, 2012 at 3:35pm

    So…your guy loses, it’s voter fraud, when called out that the election was not stolen you make veiled threats that dems need to be ‘put out of their misery’ …always the last resort of the desperate. And to all those who say there will not be another election or another repub in the white house, when history proves you wrong…say in 4 years when there is another election and historically speaking the republicans win as is usually the case of the party that is out for 2 cycles…will you admit how wrong you were?

  • November 15, 2012 at 6:39pm

    The ‘him’ I was referring to was Ronald Reagan by the way–who did all of the above mentioned things while serving his terms in office.

  • November 15, 2012 at 10:42am

    Look you don’t like him because he has nearly tripled the federal budget deficit (Cheney said that doesn’t matter, and he is right—it will go back down) You don’t like him because he will raise taxes (to get out of this mess we may need to raise taxes 8 times or more on things like Gasoline , payroll taxes and social security benefits on higher earners, estates, liquor & Cigarettes and maybe a phone tax—all reasonable) You are afraid unemployment will go as high as 10%–(but we will get out of it if it does). It is not so bad if Federal Government grows, you have to get over that honestly! Government jobs are JOBS! You think he is weak because he is ‘friendly’ with Iran, he is not friendly, he is willing to talk to them and to sell goods to them…that does not make him wrong or evil. He wants to eliminate Nuclear weapons…that is a good thing folks—and shows his strength, not weakness. You don’t want him to give illegals the right to stay in this country, why? What is wrong with that, honestly? We can take 3 million immigrants and give them amnesty, I say, and I have not heard a good argument against it—it would actually bolster the economy not hinder it. These things are good things, the right things to do in hard economic times—just give the man a chance, will ya? Please be honest with yourselves—does that really sound like a horrible plan? Look past your hate and honestly evaluate.

    Responses (1) +
  • November 14, 2012 at 8:32pm

    For goodness sake, your guy lost—your political ideology was voted down by the electorate—you don’t like it, so you do what every losing side has done since the dawn of politics…you delegitimize the election—“it was stolen, I have proof!” (by the way, have you noticed all the ‘proof’ just points to opinion blogs, no actual real proof?—but that can be debated in other posts). When that doesn’t work, you delegitimize the electorate—“everyone who voted for the other guy is getting something from it—they are on the take, profiting unfairly by the guy who was elected” (in this case you say that everyone wants free stuff from the government, abortion on-demand, birth-control and all the usual stuff you write about)—and when that fails, you go to the ole ‘let’s start our own country’ ploy—secession petitions, calls for a new civil war if you are not allowed to leave peacefully, etc…
    (this is not the first time a losing political side has bandied around the notion, by a long shot) In the end, none of that will happen. In the next four years some political battles by your side will be won and some lost. Some legislation will be put in place that you will swear will end America as we know it—but it won’t. Eventually your guy will get in office, and the other side will say all of this stuff you are saying now.
    Want proof? Just go back and look what was said in 2008 after the election. Then go back and look what was said in 2004, 20

    Responses (2) +
  • [4] November 12, 2012 at 6:49pm

    Care to look at some of the precincts where Romney got 0 votes? Cleveland 16-H.02 cast a total of 13 votes; 16-G.02 cast 0 total votes; 14-K.02 cast 21 total votes; 09-Q cast 17 total votes; 08-Q cast 49 total votes; 16-U cast 118 total votes; 06-L cast 70 total votes and 03-R.02 cast 2 total votes.
    I get that you are upset your guy didn’t win…but are you really contending that you don’t think BO could carry Cleveland precincts where such a handful of overall votes were cast in the first place?
    Are you willing to pull the precinct counts in red states to see if BO carried 0 votes particularly in rural areas? How much you want to bet Obama has precincts in other states where he carried 0 votes?
    Oh, and speaking of votes–there were 7 choices for Pres\VP in Ohio–not to mention write-ins. In the county as a whole Romney carried 184,475 votes (or 30.12 %) and BO carried 420,953 (or 68.74%) and again…this is in CLEVELAND–anybody been to there? You really think Cleveland would go strong for Romney? Not exactly Mitt’s traditional demographic.
    Some precincts are very small, or have traditionally small turnout. Just throwing out ‘Romney got 0 votes’ tends to make folks picture this huge electorate and wonder how it could be possible? But when you break down the numbers and see that he got 0 votes out of the 21 or so cast, then yeah…I can see that…

    Responses (1) +