User Profile: Gup20


Member Since: September 26, 2010


123 To page: Go
  • December 12, 2014 at 5:12pm

    This was in St Paul, MN –,-93.0806973,3a,75y,21.01h,70.25t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1skN24jjQOKpuye6IMGCklxw!2e0

  • [3] December 5, 2014 at 12:33pm

    I agree in principle, however, I think the moral outrage that is felt when a pregnant mother is fired by unscrupulous employers is significant and universal. No one wants to see that, and in fact it is offensive to most people. This is one regulation I, as a libertarian, can understand because the thought of mistreating a pregnant mother repulses me to such a high degree. However, to be consistent and principled, I believe you are correct. A law mandating employers certainly hinders employers and businesses. The treatment of pregnant mothers is one area I gladly allow my heart to overrule my head, it seems.

    Incidentally, take a look at the UK’s government mandated maternity entitlements. That is the direction progressives are trying to push for here:

    Responses (1) +
  • December 2, 2014 at 10:38am

    I think Holder is right that it is a “genuine expression of concern and involvement,” however I do not think the way it was done is a legitimate expression. The proper way to express it is not to silence someone else’s speech, but to wait your turn and express it in a sane and orderly fashion. It is a theft of someone else’s time and spotlight to shout your speech over their speech.

    I do not believe that Obama or Holder are genuinely interested in peace. Their interest is to foment anger and frustration to cause chaos, thinking after Sun Tzu’s notion from The Art of War that you have to whip your troops into a hate-filled vengeful frenzy before sending them off to kill the enemy. However their enemy is any American who doesn’t hold to their depraved worldview.

    If Holder and Obama are really truly interested in peace and change, then the Republican congress should create sweeping legislation securing the right of people and further limit the government (i.e. law enforcement) reach into our lives. Make explicit that stop and frisk is illegal. Make explicit that cops can’t investigate a person without a reasonable suspicion of a crime (no investigations under the guise of a casual conversation). Create severe penalties for cops who “get it wrong” and harm people who were innocent to begin with. Stop the militarization of police by law. Stop spying on Americans without a warrant. Stop the overreach of the schools in infringing on free speech and expression.

  • [2] October 17, 2014 at 12:36pm

    Contrary to many of the faith-filled believers with unwavering, unquestioning faith in a materialistic worldview, no Oort cloud has ever been observed. All that has ever been observed are comets which are passing close enough to see… but no cloud or repository of comets has ever been observed. Of course, the Oort cloud was first theorized as a rescuing device for the fact that comets don’t last millions of years… one pass too close to a solar system and they are melted. So scientists had to imagine a way that new comets could be continuously generated, and the notion of the Oort cloud was invented. This has still not been observed, yet it is believed on blind faith by those who’s religion is secular humanistic materialism.

  • [7] October 16, 2014 at 7:02pm

    The concept of white privilege is itself a racist idea. It says you are privileged because you are white. There are many whites who are not privileged, and have just as tough a time getting a leg up as blacks. When you classify people based on the color of their skin, that is racist. When you treat people differently because of the color of their skin that is racist. When you say “white privilege” you are making a racial distinction based on a collective identified by a racial stereotype, and that’s why we should reject it.

    Furthermore the proponents of white privilege believe that not only are blacks underprivileged, but that whites are over-privileged. They want to bring whites down based solely on the color of their skin. They are just like the KKK who wanted to bring down blacks because of the color of their skin. We need to stop making those racial distinctions and treat everyone equally, and exceptionally.

  • [10] October 16, 2014 at 5:47pm

    XaviorOnassis, in Genesis it says God created the earth, then light on day 1, then evening and morning were the first day. Evening and morning come from the earth’s rotation on it’s axis. You don’t need the sun for evening or morning, just a light source and darkness to differentiate day and night. That light source was replaced by the sun on day 3.

    Outside of Genesis 1, where ever “evening” is used in conjunction with the word “day” it is always referring to an ordinary, 24-hour day. Outside of Genesis 1, where ever the word “morning” is used in conjunction with the word day, it is always an ordinary day. And outside of Genesis 1, where ever a number is used in conjunction with “day” it is always an ordinary day. In Genesis 1, you have evening, morning, a number all in conjunction with “day.”

    Exo 20:11
    “For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.

    No one argues, for example, that moses was on Sinai for 6 thousand years.

    Exo 24:16
    The glory of the LORD rested on Mount Sinai, and the cloud covered it for six days; and on the seventh day He called to Moses from the midst of the cloud.

    Furthermore, if millions of years of evolution lead to man, that means there was death on earth before man’s sin.

    Rom 5:12
    Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men …

  • [15] October 14, 2014 at 3:14pm

    1. Koran 2:106 – “Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things?”

    In other words, Islam is progressive.

    Responses (1) +
  • [22] October 7, 2014 at 5:58pm

    I was always taught if you aren’t doing anything wrong, the police have no justification for harassing you and should leave you alone. Any cop who violates this principle is a bad cop, and is intentionally trying to deprive you of your constitutionally protected rights. You should use every means necessary to protect yourself from such an evil individual.

  • [194] October 7, 2014 at 5:41pm

    In Terry V Ohio, the supreme court definitively stated that in order to be detained for investigation, the police must be able to articulate a reasonable suspicion that a crime had been committed. Here, there is no suspicion of a crime – a fact which the police have already admitted. They say they don’t need reasonable suspicion, but they are absolutely wrong. They absolutely did violate this man’s 4th amendment rights. They were ok in “asking” for his ID, but he was perfectly within his rights to deny that request for any reason whatsoever. Any law to the contrary in Indiana is unconstitutional, and in direct violation of the Terry v Ohio ruling. The police here are guilty of Federal crimes under Federal law – Title 18, Section 241 & 242; Conspiracy to deprive a citizen of their rights under color of law, and violation of rights under color of law. They are also civilly liable under Title 42, section 1983 for the same.

    At no time did the police officers in this case suspect Jamal Jones of a crime, and yet they committed aggravated assault against a law abiding person.

    The police officers involved should be fired, and then arrested, and the police department should be liable for a huge payout. Otherwise, the 4th amendment means nothing, and we live in a police state.

    Responses (4) +
  • October 6, 2014 at 11:25am

    Does anyone else think Biden’s job is that of “rodeo clown” … it’s his responsibility to look so bad that it takes pressure off of Obama’s failures? Or perhaps to be such a clown that no one wants to impeach Obama because Biden would be too stupid to lead?

  • September 30, 2014 at 12:39pm

    Here is what I would ask a Muslim cleric: The Christian God Yahweh is ultimately and absolutely just, is Allah? How can I be certain I will get to heaven if I follow Allah? Can a sinner go to heaven?

    Then I would lay out this scenario: If a person swats a fly, is that wrong? What about if a person kills a family’s beloved pet dog? Is killing the loved pet dog a worse offense than swatting the fly? How about a Kentucky Derby winning horse? Would killing a prized horse be worse than killing a family pet dog? How about a man? Is killing a man worse than killing a horse?

    Are human beings better at justice than Allah, or is Allah more just than a human being? With humans, if a person commits murder – no matter how good they are in the rest of their life – they still need to pay the penalty for murder.

    As we saw with the fly, dog, horse, and man – the one you commit an offense against determines the severity of the offense. Yahweh, the Christian God, is infinite, and so to sin against him is infinitely evil. No amount of human goodness can measure up to the evil of just one sin. So Yahweh’s absolute justice demands they die and go to hell. Jesus was the only righteous man who didn’t sin. In a loving sacrifice, he gave up his righteousness in exchange for our sin, thereby fulfilling Yahweh’s justice. So Christianity has a rational mechanism for getting to heaven despite our sin… what is Islam’s good and just mechanism for assuring one goes to heaven?

  • [4] September 30, 2014 at 12:08pm

    The IRS did this to my brother about 15 years ago. My cousin had a little paintball business (2 employees, including my cousin the owner) in Minnesota, and my brother, who is good with computers, helped him out by building a website for him for free. My brother listed himself on the website’s as the “webmaster” of the so that any questions regarding the website would be directed to him. The business was registered as a sole proprietorship in my cousin’s name.

    However, at the time, my cousin wasn’t financially stable or reliable. He ended up owing a bunch of taxes. Because he was frequently behind on his bills, he didn’t answer his phone much. When they coudln’t find my cousin, they went to the website, saw my brother listed as the “webmaster”, and his contact info. From this, they found my brother’s bank account.

    Without warrant, trial, or charge they cleaned every penny out of my brother’s personal bank account in Texas for taxes my cousin owed on his business in Minnesota! My brother was never an employee of the business, but had donated his time to helping out a family member. The IRS said since he was on the website, they considered him an “officer of the company” (recall that it was registered as a sole proprietorship). My brother had to fill out an affidavit and make an statement to the IRS in writing that he wasn’t an officer of the company, and wait a few months before the IRS would return his money… which they did – without interest.

    Responses (1) +
  • [6] July 11, 2014 at 9:01am

    There is no direct link between “christianity” and “slavery” as the host says. Charles Darwin and his book “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life” probably had a lot to do with the de-humanization of blacks in America. Freedom is a uniquely Christian idea. Jesus said “Who I set free is free indeed”… the Apostle Paul said “It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.” Jesus also said “whoever commits sin is a slave to sin”. Jesus was here not only to free our persons, but our spirit from the bondage of slavery to sin and death.

    Responses (1) +
  • [2] June 18, 2014 at 5:51pm

    Eph 5:21
    and be subject to one another in the fear of Christ.

    Then, verses 5:22-24 describe how a wife can submit to her husband, and then verses 5:25-32 describe HOW A HUSBAND IS TO SUBMIT TO HIS WIFE. There are twice as many verses on how a husband submits to his wife as there are on how a wife submits to her husband!!

    Basically, verse 33 summarizes by saying:

    Eph 5:33
    Nevertheless, each individual among you also is to love his own wife even as himself, and the wife must see to it that she respects her husband.

    I highly recommend a book called Love & Respect by Dr. Emmerson Eggerich. A husband submits to his wife’s need for love, and a wife submits to her husbands need for respect. By seeking to understand and meet one another’s needs, we’ll have better relationships.

  • June 4, 2014 at 3:17pm

    Someone should point out this is an example of Devolution, not Evolution. The crickets LOST a structure, not gained genetic information. Evolution from molecules to man requires massive increases in genetic information. This is a demonstration of a loss of information. So while the cricket does “change” the change is in the wrong direction to support Darwin’s theory.

    In fact, this is what creationists predict. This finding supports creationists, not evolutionists.

  • June 3, 2014 at 1:12pm

    No one seems to be able to answer the constitutional question of why it would be illegal for a bakery to deny service to a gay couple, but it is perfectly legal for restaurants to deny service to someone who is exercising their 2nd amendment rights. Somehow, our right to have sex with whomever we want is construed as “shall not be infringed” but our 2nd amendment right is able to be limited. To me, that is what is “weird.”

  • March 26, 2014 at 2:54pm

    If true, I smell an IRS audit in many of the justices near future.

  • March 6, 2014 at 1:03pm

    WTF happened to the “C” in CPAC? These are supposed to be conservatives. Mitch McConnel and Chris Christie are some of the biggest liberal/progressives in congress.

  • February 26, 2014 at 4:57pm

    A single person is more important than any (or all) of the moose on the planet. This guy was certainly justified in the action he took to protect himself and his son… the moose could certainly have killed him. However, a knowledge of how to deal with a moose in this situation in a way that would prevent the moose from feeling the need to attack may have prevented the necessity for the use of deadly force. Given the circumstances here, the killing is justified and couldn’t be helped. Perhaps some education on how to deal with moose would prevent future events.

    Responses (3) +
  • February 26, 2014 at 2:10pm

    “What is the difference between a business owner saying no blacks are allowed here versus no gays are allowed here?”

    What’s the difference between a business owner saying no blacks or gays are allowed here versus no guns are allowed?

123 To page: Go