User Profile: gaittec


Member Since: May 05, 2011


123 To page: Go
  • [4] October 27, 2016 at 3:30pm

    I really respect the intelligence, foresight, and sacrifice of our country’s founders. But, they did drop the ball on separation of sports and politics when framing the Constitution..

  • [3] October 26, 2016 at 4:43pm

    I see dead people…voting.

  • [1] October 17, 2016 at 7:08pm

    There is a moral weight to sin. Some sins are greater. To invite sin is to share in it. The most egregious sin that is in question in this election is the taking of human life, both through abortion and through euthanasia( single payer health system), which will be the result of a Hillary victory. There will likely be three appointments to the Supreme Court by the next President. Hillary will appoint judges that will support abortion. It is not pleasant to have this choice before us. But, that is the choice. And, any one who considers themselves Christian, should weight the results of their votes in terms of the moral result.

  • [6] October 12, 2016 at 12:34pm

    Reading their comments, there is a stench of relativism in which no consideration of a person’s faith in God is even taken into account. They seem to be lost when searching for the true motivation of religious people. If I didn’t know better, I would think they have no souls.

    Responses (1) +
  • [2] September 20, 2016 at 9:44pm

    Would you rather have the corrupt, sociopathic liar who will put progressives on the Supreme Court and open our borders, or the one who will put conservatives on the court and protect our borders. If Hillary destroys the country or ends the second amendment, it’s on you.

  • [7] September 15, 2016 at 10:48pm

    This from the guy who got on the Senate floor and lied about Romney in the last election. He is describing himself.

    Responses (1) +
  • [3] September 15, 2016 at 2:43pm

    Says the man who likes working people so much, he arranged it so they can work two jobs.

  • September 14, 2016 at 5:28pm

    “I called it, Sin on credit.” Guess you had to be there….500 years ago.

  • [1] July 29, 2016 at 12:05pm

    “By your logic, a household living entirely on government benefits could claim they have no absolutely no income.”
    I understand your point; but, is that really the way we should look at income? Your argument is based on accounting principles and the individual’s cash flow. I’m not an accountant. I don’t have that much personality. My view is based on the source of the income and it’s effect on that individual, both personally and in society, as well as the effect on the financial health of the country as a whole. Do all the subsidies not add to the national debt? Do we not pay additional interest on that debt? I’m sure you have the knowledge to correct me if my questions are wrongly based? Perhaps the reporting should should always include both earned and unearned income. Would this not give a truer picture of the health of the nation?

  • [1] July 29, 2016 at 11:18am

    Cooper is a light weight. The real devil is Matt Damon ;)

  • [20] July 28, 2016 at 3:17pm

    James, This quote is most interesting to me. ‘”is “based solely on money income” and does “not include the value of noncash benefits,” such as “food stamps, health benefits, subsidized housing,”’

    I think it’s a pitiful statement that real income is being replaced by government subsidies and those subsidies should be included as legitimate income. To take it to the extreme, we should count the housing, food, and clothes received by black slaves in the 19th century America as income. There is no place on earth where being subsidized by the government should be considered progress. If you use this as a basis for stating that income has increased, you should put a giant asterisk next to your statement.

    Responses (1) +
  • [3] July 22, 2016 at 10:54pm

    Yeah, we kinda do….You don’t get to abandon all those and still claim them.

  • [16] July 22, 2016 at 1:28pm

    Yeah, a real Oxymoron. Somebody needs to fact check the fact checker.

  • July 22, 2016 at 1:26pm

    So…your voting the Hillary ticket, four more progressive years is fine by you. “Good Faith” demands you make your vote count toward what’s best, not throw it away.

  • [27] July 22, 2016 at 1:03pm

    Laymen, a lot of us didn’t want to be “Trump Guys”. But, Hillary would be a total disaster. Not voting would be a vote for Hillary just like four years ago it was a vote for Obama. If there’s never a wall built, if there’s no job improvement, or any other big change, just stopping the progressive direction, reversing Obama’s executive orders, and putting a conservative on the Supreme Court would be better.

    Responses (4) +
  • [3] July 21, 2016 at 5:13pm

    I’m glad she didn’t have to shoot a gun. It would have given her PTSD for life.

  • [2] July 20, 2016 at 5:49pm

    Because he was hoping to see a chance for a contested convention.

  • July 20, 2016 at 5:47pm

    I’d have to hear it from a reliable source to even consider that it might be true. So far, The Times and an unnamed source in Kasich’s camp doesn’t meet that test. The story sounds made up on it’s face. More sour grapes likely.

    Responses (1) +
  • [3] July 20, 2016 at 5:41pm

    Sarge–I think she was being sarcastic if you read Saran Wrap’s post above.

  • [6] July 11, 2016 at 4:41pm

    The reason he can be sued if he votes against it is that it is a state law. He would be voting to violate the law and could very well be sued.

123 To page: Go