User Profile: Gitbakup

Gitbakup

Member Since: November 07, 2012

Comments

  • [1] August 20, 2015 at 12:04am

    Yes,well,if I am one man about to be lynched by a mob of 99,I represent 1%.The major point of the Constitution is to protect Individual Liberty.Individual.That means the Liberty of one Human Being.
    The lynch mob is Democracy.Majority rule.Tyranny of the majority.
    Monarchy and Theocracy are also inevitably tyrannical.
    Our Founders did quite well in establishing a Constitutional Republic….if,as Ben Franklin pointed out,we can keep it.

  • August 19, 2015 at 11:55pm

    This one seems quite simple.
    A court house wedding must remain secular.That clerk cannot refuse to marry an atheist couple,yet a church certainly can.
    If I were a vegan who took a job at a steakhouse,it would not work out for me if I refused to serve beef.Yet I could open a vegan restaurant and not serve meat.
    The Gov’t is forbidden by the1st amendment from “establishing” what the Covenant of Marriage”might mean for a particular church…..whether the Gov’t respects and obeys the Constitution or not.

  • August 19, 2015 at 11:24pm

    I would first say I support Individual Liberty.Thomas Jefferson said something about “If it neither robs my pocket nor breaks my leg….” I also believe in authenticity.I believe LGBT people should be free to be authentic.I do not believe in discrimination against LGBT people.
    At the same time,I believe in the religious freedom protected in the First Ammendment.The silly part of this debate,the word “marriage” has more than one meaning.There is a civil meaning that,IMO,should remain secular.I believe that a Church,and Individuals,have a right to a definition of Marriage as a Covenant defined by God in their tradition.Government has no right to “establish” what that covnenant may be.
    I think it is horribly wrong that this example with the bakery has resulted in a draconian fine levied against the bakery for following conscience…yet I am troubled by the picture of “We don’t serve your kind here”.
    Perhaps I have found a path through this minefield that could hold up in court.
    It is not OK to refuse service to someone because they are LGBT.If the baker makes wedding cakes,he should not refuse a couple a wedding cake because they are gay.
    However,the baker does have a right to determine what product is on the menu. I cannot/would not force a Kosher Deli to make a bacon sandwich.The baker may offer a limited catalogue of cakes he will produce.
    But,he must not refuse to serve the LGBT couple.
    That covers questions about Nazi cakes and Confederate flag cakes.”I do not make those”

  • [7] March 27, 2015 at 5:44pm

    Amusing!!Once again,the ProgRat twist to define the argument.Dems or not,the law was written to make killing the unborn easy and convenient by simply labeling the unborn non-persons.This position does seem to lie in the ProgRat camp.
    The outrage over the lack of homicide charges in this case brings appropriate focus on the fallacy of labeling an unborn child a non person.

  • March 26, 2015 at 11:33pm

    Ridiculous.I offer no support for that has-been ,pathetic fishwrap that used to be a newspaper…..but it is weak and foolish to give the power to define an argument to your opposition.
    Those words are androgenous.The lack gender.
    This group that assembled the list insults women by assigning women these characteristics.
    Perhaps they are only defining their own fears by listing a few of Hillary’s many vulnerabilities.
    I would call it great SNL comedy material.

  • March 24, 2015 at 4:41am

    Regarding establishment DC RINOS,and the squishy go along to get along,I must agree.King included.
    Cruz ,however..We are going to elect this man.I believe there will be results we have not seen in thirty years.

  • March 24, 2015 at 4:38am

    A) Libsknowbetter B) Only according to libs C) Libs lie a lot D) Libs love to believe in the lies of bigger libs E) Libs live in the realm of illusion F) Truth IS inevitable G) Therefore,it is the destiny of Libs to become disillusioned H)The pangs of disillusionment may be the path to embitterment,or the birth pangs of Adulthood.
    On America,Libsknowbetter,”You did not build that”.The Founders and Patriots built it,based not on any Man or Woman ruler,but Principles Recorded on Great Documents.
    Looney? By what absurd thought process do you describe those who uphold the Constitution and Liberty Looney?We are America,and you are an ungrateful spoiled child
    ProgRats…..

  • March 24, 2015 at 4:21am

    Wrong.The legal scholars have already determined Mr Cruz is good to go.
    See,I get on account of where you live they only got two mules,a wagon and 4 horses,and more shoes on the horses than the folks.
    And you do live in a big county.But
    They done made these Aeroplanes and such,folks get out more.
    There is foriegners hate America,don’t understand America,and that iswhythe Constitution says like that.Folks who would hate the Constitution and fundamentally want to change America.Now,how could a man say to his new bride,”Sugarplum,I LOVE YOU with ALLmy Heart,and now I’m going to fundamentally transform you..like it or not.
    Them Founders was Smart that way.
    But I listened to lots of folks.Some not from around here.Some wholived in Poland,Hungary….and Cuba.Some folks who know from cages and blood and tears and bones in the earth what “NOT free,and NOT America are about.Its like if you ever really been hungry,food is different.
    Now you get a man or woman comes from some communist dictator tyrant Marxist etc place…they get to America…its like sunshine and rain and they sprout,and they grow and blossom.They become an American Tree..Ain’t no doubt those are Americans who would fight,bleed and die for our flag,as many have.
    So I suggest you put yur nit pikkin aside,itsdark,hateful,ugly,and it ain’t about the Constitution.
    So that our Grandchildren can know America,Freedom and the Constitution,we need Ted Cruz.
    Jebbie ain’t gonna cut it.He will lose,anyway

  • [1] March 24, 2015 at 3:54am

    Yeah.Cruz was never going to be elected Senator,either.And that Actor guy…Reagan?He had No chance,either.
    All the news had me really bummed that Benjamin Netanyahu was done.
    See,I don’t believe Fox News,or CNN,or MSNBC,or NPR….
    Understand,all those outlets are telling YOU what you are SUPPOSED to believe.
    Suppose we do not give them permission to craft our thoughts.
    I will tell you who is not electable.Hint,they told you McCain was the electable one.They told you Romney was the electable one..
    So when they piss down your neck,,and tell you its raining,you believe them?
    Its folks like you that help put LOSERS on the ballot.And so its folks like you who put Obama in office.
    Now you have a chance to do something different.
    I’m with Cruz all the way.
    Who Dares,Wins

  • [1] March 24, 2015 at 3:39am

    Eloquent,Sir!

  • March 24, 2015 at 3:37am

    I did not know Rodney.But I do know that at least once in his life he spoke something of profound merit.”Can’t we all just get along”?
    AFAIK,King has never made such a contribution to society.
    Without sugar coating Rodney King,Perhaps you over compliment Peter King.

  • [3] March 24, 2015 at 2:13am

    I am delighted to hear Mr King’s assessment of Sen Cruz’s debating skills.I look forward to debates between Sen Cruz and Jeb Bush,or Hillary.
    It will be entertaining.
    I’d be delighted to tell you more,but I prefer not to spoil the ending of the story for you.Oh,well I’ll tell you.Sen Cruz was in the debate club at school!! :-)

  • [1] March 20, 2015 at 2:25am

    “The video at NBC” Enough said?Try this:Search “Boulder County DA ,Longmont attack”
    See what you find out.

  • [3] March 20, 2015 at 12:12am

    Pending the childs autopsy results.The law will only consider this Mother’s Child a person if the Child was alive and viable “for a period of time” outside the womb.If this Child is deemed “not a person” then homicide or murder charges cannot be filed.

    Responses (1) +
  • [8] March 20, 2015 at 12:07am

    The Boulder County ,Co,DA has jurisdiction.Per radio announcement,filing charges is pending the autopsy being performed on the baby.If the baby was not viably living “for a period of time” outside the mother,the laws protecting abortion label this 7 month unborn baby a fetus,a non-person.Per the DA office,it will then be impossible to file any homicide or murder charges.
    I’m sure the Mother who was attacked will find great comfort in that.(No,I think ,in addition to her horrific experience being attacked,and the loss of her baby…this is real crap)

    Responses (1) +
  • [15] March 11, 2015 at 6:04pm

    Community organizing??

    Responses (2) +
  • [1] March 11, 2015 at 5:49pm

    So where is the balancing study of women? “Women who allow men to pay for dinner or a drink are..(some derogatory conclusion) Women who choose to (fill in the blank) are (some derogatory conclusion)
    Yes,it is true,over time,certain significant social issues have required correction.
    But,IMO,one goal of society must be Freedom.We need as broad of a playing field to act as is reasonably possible without stepping on each other.
    Start with the weak,whiny loser person looking for excuses about why they are pathetic,and you will always be presented with a list of grievances as to how they are “victims” Poor me!!
    If there is a character flaw in the man who would hold a door for a woman,then shouldn’t we apply this same standard throughout our laws ,social programs,etc?Does the author of this article propose to eliminate every place a door is held open,or a hand up is given,or a service or protection is provided for women?
    I think not.
    I’ll tell you how “uncool” I’m going to continue to be.When I look in the mirror,I want to see a Gentleman looking back at me.
    If I extend a courtesy,I will remember the recipients who said “ThankYou”
    And if I should make the error of holding a door for someone who has reduced themselves to nothing but an inflamed reproductive organ,I offer “Whatever”in my most dismissive tone.
    I have no time for your self imposed misery.

  • March 10, 2015 at 5:44am

    Not so learned.Broke both Federal and Michigan law unless he has CPL and authorization from the school.Police could have arrested him on the spot..

    “Schools aren’t specifically listed as gun-free zones where open carry is prohibited. Can anyone open carry there?

    No. State law MCL 750.237a makes it a 93-day misdemeanor to possess a weapon at schools which are designated as weapon-free zones. However, this law does not apply to security personnel hired by the school, peace officers, those with permission from the school’s administration or people with a CPL. There are also a number of exemptions for people who are transporting students to or from the school.

    Federal law18 U.S.C. § 922 also places limits on the ability to carry firearms into school zones for those without CPLs.”

  • [-1] March 10, 2015 at 5:24am

    Problem is,both you and our subject are ill informed.The police,I am quite sure,knew they could arrest him immediately for violating Federal law.IMO,the Police were quite respectful of the 2nd Ammendment.They needed to hang around in case shooting our subject became necessary.
    Here is your probable cause,legal eagle,grounds for arrest and prosecution:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act_of_1990

    Responses (1) +
  • [2] March 10, 2015 at 5:10am

    I agree,the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.Or a good woman.Colorado Springs New Life Church is a good example,maybe 2007.
    HOWEVER! A snotty,immature dipstick execising exceptionally poor judgement carrying a long gun toward a school and?really?You want to bring up Sandy Hook? A handgun,carried concealed,is a non-issue till its needed.
    And,BTW,this moron is really not as well informed of the law as he thinks he is.He earned lockup.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act_of_1990

Restoring Love