User Profile: Gup20


Member Since: September 26, 2010


123 To page: Go
  • [2] August 12, 2015 at 2:15pm

    From what I understand Michigan has a preemption clause in their gun law which says that no local municipality, city, or local unit of government (which a school and school board qualifies as) may make any laws or policy’s which are more stringent than State Law concerning guns. This is why it is illegal for schools to prohibit the open carry of guns.

  • [23] August 12, 2015 at 10:56am

    Good for them! It’s great to see more people openly carrying. What a fantastic thing for the country and for liberty. I makes everyone around them SOOOOO much safer! (which is why cops openly carry their weapons)

    In a country with 350 million guns, we have 8,000 homicides per year with guns. We have 250 million cars, and 35,000 fatal car accidents per year. We have less than 1 million doctors and 200,000 deaths by medical malpractice and medical accidents per year. Does the school lock down and call police whenever someone drives their car into the parking lot? Would they call the police when they saw a doctor in a white coat approaching the building?

    The administrators lack all common sense. IT IS BIGOTED AND DISCRIMINATORY TO ASSUME THAT EVERYONE WITH A GUN IS VIOLENT OR A BAD GUY!! The same document which protects all men as created equal (our founding documents — the declaration of independence and the constitution) specifically identifies gun owners as a protected class.

    It is very easy to tell if someone is a good guy with a gun or a bad guy with a gun. Good guys have their weapons in a holster or slung pointing strait up or down. Bad guys are waiving or pointing or generally have the gun in their hands. It’s so simple a young child can tell the difference. But school administrators check common sense at the door.

    Responses (4) +
  • [2] June 10, 2015 at 4:32pm

    Home birth is actually safer and better than hospital birth. In the industrialized world, the USA has the WORST maternal and infant mortality rate!! How can that be? Doctors PUSH expensive and unnecessary interventions which ultimately cascade putting mom and baby’s life in danger. For example, the C-section rate for the rest of the world (according to the WHO) is 10%. In home births, that number is 5%. At American hospitals, that number is 40%. What this means is that there are millions of women having UNNECESSARY major surgery which comes with risks and dangers. Meanwhile, a traditional, hospital birth costs about $15,000, while a C-Section can be anywhere from $50,000 to $150,000 depending on complications. A typical home birth with a trained, certified midwife averages about $4,000.

    Hospitals typically have women give birth on their backs… this compresses the pelvis and actually makes it much more difficult (and much more painful) to give birth. Why do they do this? Because it’s convenient for the doctor that way. In fact, the vast majority of any person’s experience at a hospital is not based on what’s best for the patient… but rather what’s best for the doctors, nurses, or hospitals.

    Check out the documentary by Riki Lake called “The Business of Being Born.” It is a microcosm for everything that is wrong with the medical and insurance establishment. It demonstrates plainly the principles behind why health care costs are so high.

  • [3] May 27, 2015 at 3:13pm

    Sadly, I think we will see the gay pride, the abortion supporters, and the anti-second amendment supporters using this tactic soon to block the free speech of pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, and pro-second amendment rallies. This probably did more harm than good.

    Responses (1) +
  • May 27, 2015 at 3:07pm

    The constitution doesn’t say “freedom from speech” it says “freedom of speech.” Just like it doesn’t say freedom FROM religion, it says freedom OF religion.

    What you are advocating is very dangerous. It means we are free FROM speech we don’t like.

    It’s like saying “a person can’t post their thoughts on a blog because we disagree with them… they can type them on their computer, but not post them online where people can read them.”

  • May 27, 2015 at 3:05pm

    No… countering their insanity with speech of your own is a form of speech… what they did was prohibit the speech of WBC — like book burning or banning.

  • May 27, 2015 at 2:56pm

    That is incorrect. They actually DID stop them from expressing their speech. The constitutional way would have been to counter the WBC lunatics with counter-protesters with signs of support for the police officer and family or signs that were anti-WBC. By covering up WBC signs they actually engaged not in free speech, but in speech prohibition. Covering the signs is like burning books or jailing dissenters. It is preventing the speech you don’t like rather than countering it with your own speech.

    The counter protesters acted in the PROGRESSIVE way of countering speech, which is to stifle the speech they don’t like.

  • [-1] May 27, 2015 at 2:52pm

    The correct course of action is to counter speech you don’t like with speech of your own… not to infringe upon or prohibit a group from speaking whose speech you don’t like. That’s the progressive way of countering free speech they don’t like.

  • May 27, 2015 at 2:51pm

    There is no “right to grief” or “right to grieve.” The right to free speech is delineated by the constitution and therefore takes precedence over all other non-articulated rights. I agree their signs are offensive and disgusting… however… it’s not for us (or the government) to decide what speech we like or don’t like. All speech is protected. To allow one group to prevent another group from exercising their first amendment rights damages the first amendment for all of us.

    Could gay pride people show up and do this at a traditional marriage rally at a state capitol? Could WBC show up and cover people who stand in support of the military? We can’t throw out our principles (standing up for free speech) when we disagree with the speech… we have to be consistent.

  • [-1] May 27, 2015 at 2:44pm

    @stopspending, the counter protest group didn’t engage in speech… they engaged in prohibiting the free speech of the WBC. That’s never ok. It would have been acceptable if they engaged in counter-speech, but they didn’t. They engaged in preventing the speech of someone else.

    As much as I hate to say it, the counter-protesters violated the WBC’s free speech rights.

  • May 27, 2015 at 12:44pm

    I agree with you. The evil Wesboro lunatics do have the right to free speech which was infringed by the good-willed and well intentioned counter-protesters. However, how would these like it if counter-protesters blocked their signs at an abortion clinic protest or how would they like it if the government put up sheets to block people whenever the government decided it didn’t like what the protesters had to say?

    Who are we to decide which speech we like and allow that to be seen and which speech we don’t like and disallow that from being seen. If we allow it here, we have to allow it everywhere. What happens when Christians lovingly protest gay marriage in support of traditional marriage and the gay mafia sets up with sheets to block people from seeing the protesters?

    Honestly, it seems like the people here are being inconsistent.

    Responses (2) +
  • [-2] May 27, 2015 at 12:29pm

    I completely and entirely disagree with most of what Westboro Baptist does, and this protest is sickening. However, I believe that the actions of those with the sheets is egregiously wrong. You counter free speech with counter-speech of your own. To hinder, prohibit, or block the free speech – especially that of people you disagree with – is wrong.

    Let them have their say – as wrong and sick as it is. It infringes on their free speech rights to block them. You don’t stand up for what’s right by doing what’s wrong. You stand up for what’s right by doing the hard thing. You say “I don’t support your beliefs (in fact I think it’s sick and wrong), but I support your right to express them.”

    What happens when counter protesters decide to do this to abortion protesters? What happens when the government sets up free speech zones and then blocks anyone from seeing the protesters in those zones?

    Westboro Baptist are certainly not Christ followers and are not behaving in a Christ-like fashion. They are a heretical cult group. That doesn’t mean, however, that we can take away their rights of free speech because we don’t like what they have to say. It just means we have to do a better job of countering their lunacy with the truth. Speak out against them with our own free speech… don’t block their free speech.

    Responses (4) +
  • May 27, 2015 at 1:37am

    The most gullible and enslaving idea in the history of the world is that sin is ok.

    John 8:34 (NASB) 34 Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin.
    36 “So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed.

    You are a slave to sin, and you obey its dictates because you have no freedom to choose. You are lost, severed from truth and life. Your spirituality is meaningless and empty.

    In the last 300 years atheists (socialists & communists) have killed more people that all religions combined. Hitler (socialist), Mau, & Stalin (both communists) just to name a few.

    Plain & simple… You have nothing but hatred for Christians and God in your heart. You are ruled by it. You are compelled by it. Your comments are saturated with vitriol and contempt. Your soul is poisoned by hatred’s hold on it.

    My advice is to turn to Jesus and let him free you of your hatred, and instead fill you with love.

  • [3] May 26, 2015 at 4:45pm

    xanthyen, you are the bigot. You hate the 2.2 billion Christians on the planet because you imagine a slight on the 210 million gays in the world. Christians represent 31 % of the world’s population and gays only about 3.5%. You hate far, far more people through your bigoted behavior and speech than you pretend Christians do.

    In fact, Christians do not hate gay people. We believe gay sexual behavior is immoral. That is not the same as hating a person. We also believe rape, and murder, and incest, and child molestation are immoral behaviors (though we do not hate the people who practice these perversions either). We’d like to see those behaviors stop too.

    Secondly, we young earth creationists love science. In fact, all of the founding fathers of science were young earth creationists (Isaac Newton, for example). It was their belief in God which drove them to look for order in the universe. What we don’t agree with is the religious views like the big bang and evolution; views which have 0 observation as they happened before people were around to observe them, and they cannot be repeated. In fact, real, observation-based science confirms the Bible time and time again. Both creationists and evolutionists have the same evidence, and use the same scientific methods (which were invented by creationists, btw) but come to different conclusions because our starting assumptions are different. When you evaluate the assumptions, creationists make sense, and others do not.

  • [3] May 26, 2015 at 3:22pm

    Rose McGowan hates Christians as a demonstration of her liberal tolerance.

    Firstly, Christians do not hate gay people. Christians believe homosexual behavior is a sin, just as drunkenness, rape, or murder is a sin. But, lets pretend we live in Rose McGowan’s coo-coo world and Christians really did hate gays… by her logic, she hates Christians, and therefore Rose McGowan herself is a MUCH bigger hater than any Christian. Christians make up 71% of the population (227 million Christians) while gays make up less than 3% of the population (9.5 million gay people). Rose hates 2,400% more people in the USA than any Christian does.

    Responses (1) +
  • [1] May 19, 2015 at 3:25pm


    Man has created many gods in his image. This is why you have petty gods like the Greek gods who fight each other and seek power over one another. That’s why you have Islam where God is unknowable, or buddism where nothing is real and everything is an illusion. There is one commonality – they are made in man’s fallen image. They contain both evil and good. They are too human or too distant.

    Contrastingly the God of the Bible is purely good. He does not lie or cheat or steal. He loves us even though we are unworthy of His love. Though he is omniscient, He is also personal.

    Isa 55:8
    “For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
    Nor are your ways My ways,” declares the LORD.
    9 “For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
    So are My ways higher than your ways
    And My thoughts than your thoughts.

    Num 23:19
    “God is not a man, that He should lie,
    Nor a son of man, that He should repent;
    Has He said, and will He not do it?
    Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?

    Those gods such as Allah in Islam or the Greek god Ares or any of the 9 gods and godesses of war in Hinduism all require you to die in service of those gods. In contrast, the God of the Bible sent His Son Jesus to die for you and me out of His love for us. This altruism is unique and sets Christianity apart from all other religions.

  • [-2] May 19, 2015 at 3:08pm

    Dr. Michael Ruse, from the Department of Philosophy at the University of Guelph in Ontario, is a philosopher of science, particularly of the evolutionary sciences. He is the author of several books on Darwinism and evolutionary theory and in an article in the National Post he wrote:

    “Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”

  • [-1] May 19, 2015 at 3:06pm

    Dr. Michael Ruse, from the Department of Philosophy at the University of Guelph in Ontario, is a philosopher of science, particularly of the evolutionary sciences. He is the author of several books on Darwinism and evolutionary theory and in an article in the National Post he wrote:

    “Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”

  • [2] May 19, 2015 at 2:58pm

    … and evolution is faith, not science.

  • [-1] May 19, 2015 at 2:53pm

    Interesting that you bring up radiometric dating. Did you know that Dr. Humphries has done extensive research which demonstrates the flaw in radiometric dating? All radiometric dating requires 3 assumptions: that the rate of decay was constant, that you know how much parent and daughter elements you started with, and that there was no contamination over the length of time to introduce or remove measured material.

    Research done by Dr. Russel Humphries and others have demonstrated that when radiometric decay happens in rock, one of the byproducts is helium. Helium diffuses from rocks at a measurable rate. They measured rocks that were radiometric dated to 1.5 million years and found only 6000 years worth of helium diffusion had taken place. Now that it has been scientifically demonstrated in a laboratory that you can change the rate of radiometric decay with heat and pressure, it calls the “uniformitarian” assumption that the decay rate was constant over the supposed 1.5 million years of the rock into question.
    Therefore, radiometric dating is not a reliable measure of time, but rather only of radiometric decay. There is strong evidence (the helium levels) to suggest that the decay was greatly accelerated at some time in the past. The catastrophic forces necessary to flood the whole earth would certainly be a reasonable explanation for the heat and pressure necessary for that accelerated decay.


123 To page: Go
Restoring Love