User Profile: Firesaber


Member Since: November 07, 2011


  • [3] October 23, 2014 at 12:32pm

    I bought a several thousand dollar Tempurpedic mattress. After a month, started developing dandruff for the first time in my life. By three months, all my hair fell out and I had sores all over my body. Better living through chemistry isn’t always what it’s cracked out to be. Went to a luxury (but standard) Sterns & Fosters and I recovered.

  • [32] August 6, 2014 at 3:32pm

    Incorrect! 1) SHE SAYS THIS. It is not proven. 2) Doing this in no way undoes the harm he committed nor relieves the girl of danger (opposed to when parents catch the act going on and beat the hell out of the man at that point). 3) This is not self-defense but revenge. The law does not allow for revenge. All that is going to happen (assuming she told the truth) is that 1) he is going to jail where taxpayers will have to take care of his injuries for him and 2) she might end up going to jail as well. A jury will hand down a reduced sentence, naturally, but she has admitted to a crime and she will face jailtime for it. Self-defense is not a crime. Revenge is. Simple. Hope it was worth the cost to her. She should have call the cops and had him arrested (assuming, as I said, that she’s not a psycho that realizes that all you have to do is levy the charge of molestation and it is assumed proven instantly).

    Responses (1) +
  • [8] June 3, 2014 at 2:27pm

    It’s not for lack of trying. He came in after a lot of the damage has already been done. Standing up for the First Amendment here is an admirable act. However, the Democrats own the Senate and Harry Reid will not even bring to the floor anything House Republicans pass, so that doesn’t really leave a lot of room to “do stuff.” At best, Republicans can try to be obstructionists. However, this Imperial President is ignore them and enacting, ignoring, and changing laws a whim. The only viable thing to do is impeachment, but no one will do that because any attempt to do so (regardless of plenty of Constitutional merit) will be painted by Hollywood, the mainstream media, and Democrats as being racist.

    Responses (1) +
  • May 21, 2014 at 12:19pm

    Query, dipstick, what rights do we prevent others from having? Last I checked, we do not line up illegal immigrants and shoot them in the head (excessive punishment) or deport them without due process (due process). They might not have access to the 2nd amendment as just being here is illegal and ergo they would be in possession of a firearm during the act of a crime, which in most states is illegal…

  • [244] May 21, 2014 at 12:05pm

    And wouldn’t it be nice to have a trial to prove it before you are killed? Or can they just write a report that says “Nevermind is a traitor and will now we droned, thank you.” and you are cool with that?

    Responses (21) +
  • May 1, 2014 at 4:11pm

    Georgia Rocks. Georgia FOREVER.

  • April 21, 2014 at 3:07pm

    You are uninformed. The founding fathers intended to protect the people’s right to arms because, without it, they wouldn’t have been able to rebel from England. You are believing what you are told. Read the Federalist Papers. It is very explicit what their intent was.

  • January 20, 2014 at 10:03am

    Bill Maher is a hypocrite. He wants guns to be banned, but he owns two guns to defend himself (one for upstairs, one for downstairs) and will not give them up until everyone else’s has been taken away. I have a feeling that he lives in a neighborhood that is fairly secure. The police will probably defend his house for him. Just like every other anti-gun elite. They can afford private security and live in good neighborhoods or own guns themselves, but the poor shouldn’t be able to defend themselves. The poor cannot be trusted with guns. The elites are the only ones that need to be concerned with defense. After all, poor people have nothing to lose. Why would anyone target them? What’s to defend?

  • January 16, 2014 at 3:31pm

    I vote Full Metal Jacket as crap military movie of all time.

    Responses (2) +
  • December 4, 2013 at 2:37pm

    Ever read 2084 search for love hope and faith? He talks about that. There’s always someone on top.

  • December 4, 2013 at 2:32pm

    What an idiot! It’s out of modern syntax, but this is what it really means: “Anyone that wants to help the poor should be rich.” ie – If you cannot feed and clothe yourself, you are not going to feed and clothe the whole of the people.

  • September 27, 2013 at 10:04am

    I had a cousin that lived in FL. One day, their neighbor came into their yard and killed her husband right in front of her with a gun. No reason other than he was crazy. He got 3 years in jail. She got 20 years for shooting a wall…

  • September 23, 2013 at 10:10am

    Wow. another prediction from 2084, the Search for Love Hope and Faith, comes true. amazing.

  • June 17, 2013 at 1:03pm

    Yes, you answered it after hearing the question, having time to process your own response, and time to sit at your computer and type it. Well done. That is the same as being in front of a crowd and hearing the question for the first time and having a 30 second time frame. That answer still would have lost her the title. Only the “We need to change” answer would have won.

  • June 17, 2013 at 9:29am

    You people are idiots who are hating on this girl because she was pretty. I would like to see you try to answer this question off the cuff in under 30 seconds. I couldn’t do it (and I’m smart as hell). Her problem is she is a conservative (politically). She doesn’t believe in the war on women, and that question was geared to be answered in such a way to say, “This country is unfair to women, and we need to change and pass laws to ensure that women are paid the same as men.” Too bad she drew that B.S. question. I agree with one person, that was a trap unless you wanted to spout the full blown liberal perspective. No way to answer at least a 3 part question in 30 seconds when you completely disagree with the premise.

    Responses (7) +
  • May 24, 2013 at 11:21am

    If you believe in religious freedom, no, you should not punish them at all. Punishing them for this is the same as being against speech when you disagree with it. Read the 3rd paragraph in the following:

    Responses (1) +
  • May 15, 2013 at 4:33pm

    This is where you are wrong. I’m a CPA. Yes, that is true, but the types of questions they are asking far exceed if they were trying to figure out if they were political. They were data mining. The questions they were asking were utterly inappropriate.

  • May 7, 2013 at 10:31am

    Insane except for the fact that there extensive writing from the Founding Fathers saying that was EXACTLY what it is in there for. The difference between the Civil Rights nullification and this one is that nullification was being used to deny equal rights/freedom from blacks and this time it is being used to protect the freedom to keep and bear arms. There’s a big difference between a few crazies like Shay’s Rebellion and an open opposition to a tyrannical government.

    Responses (6) +
  • April 15, 2013 at 3:11pm

    Until they make it illegal to pass down guns since your heirs did not pass a background check.

  • April 15, 2013 at 2:50pm

    Poor Bloomberg. Can’t understand why non-billionaires might use a financial transaction instead of just giving stuff away. Fascist.

    Responses (1) +
Restoring Love