User Profile: Gup20

Gup20

Member Since: September 26, 2010

CommentsDisplaying comments newest to oldest.

123
  • 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?

  • February 25, 2014 at 11:53am

    Up to a billion-fold acceleration of decay has been observed in a lab. When uranium decays into lead it gives off helium… Helium leaks out of rock at a constant rate. I bet if they measured the helium in the rock it would be much higher than a wild guess of 4.4 billion years of leakage would suggest… it’s probably only a few thousand years old.

  • February 25, 2014 at 11:44am

    Alvin Holmes is a huge racist. Can you imagine if a white congressman said that he would not respect another white man who allowed himself to carry the message of any black man? What a huge bigot this guy is.

  • February 17, 2014 at 5:25pm

    The scientific method (invented by a young earth creationist, btw) involves observation and being able to repeat that observation. Since no one was here to observe creation or evolution, and it obviously cannot be repeated, this means that both fall outside of the scientific method. Any “evidences” that we can currently observe will be observed in the present, not in the past. A creationist and an evolutionist will each look at the exact same evidence and will be convinced that it demonstrates their worldview because they are relying on their underlying, unobserved assumptions to create the interpretation of the raw data. Therefore, the creationist and evolutionist come to diametrically opposed conclusions, not because they use different science, but because they apply a separate set of unobservable assumptions as the foundation for understanding the evidence they can observe. So it is not the evidence which is in dispute, but rather the faith each side holds to absolutely as the foundation of their understanding.

    The debate never ends because the evolutionist side refuses to acknowledge their own preconceived assumptions.

    Creationist: can’t you see God created this dinosaur egg in this fossil?
    Evolutionist: can’t you see this fossil dinosaur egg evolved?

    Both see the world through the lens of what they already put their faith in. The evidence is common and both sides see the same evidence. Both sides do the same science. It is the faith that is a

  • February 17, 2014 at 1:50pm

    It isn’t science vs religion, it is religion vs religion. The science classrooms have become the holy temples of humanistic materialism. The humanists have an absolute and blind faith in evolution that can never be challenged no matter the evidence against it.

    Responses (2) +
  • February 7, 2014 at 5:03pm

    This article seems completely biased and slanted to one side of the argument.

    I have to say, I think Glenn Beck was way off on this one. What I saw was two men come together in a civil and straight forward way with mutual respect and honor and express diametrically opposed opinions without leveling personal attacks or getting nasty. It was the epitome of the kind of civil unity Beck is looking for, and he missed it.

  • February 5, 2014 at 6:05pm

    I think the creation v evolution debate is foundation to changing the culture. That being said, it can also be divisive — and here is why. It is faith vs faith. No one actually observed the formation of the earth and universe, be it by a big bang or by God’s own voice, therefore it falls outside the realm of observational, repeatable science. Ken Ham pointed out that the creationist position is actually up front about it’s starting suppositions, and that those suppositions actually make sense of what is actually observed. The evolutionists have a just as firmly held faith in the unobservable, yet they are intellectually unwilling to admit that they take humanistic materialism as an absolute on pure faith.

    Creationists have the exact same evidences… but both of them make their observations of that evidence in the present. They come to very different conclusions because they start with and interpret the observed data with a different set of assumptions.

    To change the culture, you have to show why or how your starting assumptions make more sense, and I think Ken Ham did a much better job of that than Bill Nye. Nye’s evidences can all be explained by simply replacing the evolutionary assumptions with creationist assumptions. Nye didn’t show why the evolutionary assumptions were preferable.

    Responses (1) +
  • January 20, 2014 at 10:34am

    The police officer here is completely in the wrong, and should be fired. He violated the citizen’s rights and acted criminally too.

    First off, Terry v Ohio (a landmark court case that set the standard for detaining a person for investigation) says officers must be able to articulate a reasonable suspicion that a person has committed or will commit a crime before they can detain them. In this case, the man clearly asks the officer what crime he has committed and the officer indicates that he doesn’t know and that’s what he is there to find out. Right there, the officer has admitted to illegally detaining this person. Furthermore, the officer has admitted that he had no justification for pulling his weapon out. That means, the officer is not only violating the citizen’s rights, but the officer is himself committing a gun crime – aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

    Michigan law allows police officers to pull their weapons in the commission of their duties, however, the citizen has a pretty good case that illegally detaining a person when they have not committed a crime doesn’t fall within the scope of the officer’s “duties”. If it did, the entire police department is criminally and civilly liable for what happened here.

    Besides the aggravated assault, the officer should be charged under the federal penal code Title 18, section 242 – deprivation of rights under color of law. Because it included aggravated assault, the officer should get 10 years

    Responses (1) +
  • January 16, 2014 at 4:14pm

    In the last 2 elections of Obama, we’ve had nothing but progressive candidates. Obama was, by far, the most extreme, left-wing, progressive, communist, socialist candidate in the field, and he was elected. Why? Because he is an extremist idealogue. People want to know you believe strongly in something, and have a plan to achieve your vision. After 5 years, we’ve seen that vision turned out to be the most destructive course for our country. Now, we need bold, genuine, leadership that can articulate another direction. Centrist, progressive republicans (such as McCain, Graham, Peter King, Chris Christie, etc) CAN NEVER WIN. They aren’t AS progressive as the democrat, so they will just look like the less attractive candidate out of two progressives. They aren’t conservative enough for regular people to get behind.

    My pick would be Ted Cruz for President.

    VP would be Allan West, Rand Paul or Mike Lee. These people can articulate freedom values and show how they stand in stark contrast to the progressive dissolution of our God-given freedoms that we’ve all been experiencing for the last 5 years.

    West would make an awesome Sec of Defense. Put Ron Paul in charge of the Federal Reserve. Make Ben Carson secretary of HHS. Make Andrew Napolitano Attorney General.

  • January 16, 2014 at 12:36pm

    I disagree. This is a national problem, and mothers are discriminated accross the country. I live in MN by the headquarters of Target. They recently put out an enterprise wide announcement to all employees to allow breasfeeding because it is protected in many states (like MN and TX), and employees are ignorant of the law, and discriminate against mothers. As this story shows, a company can have larger than life banners in their stores of women in next to nothing, but then have the nerve to say a breastfeeding mom is inappropriate? That’s so backwards from how it should be. The teenage models shouldn’t been showing off their bits and pieces in banners, and the mom using her breasts for their designed purpose should be celebrated.

    Lets be clear — the showing of breasts in public is not immoral or inappropriate; the sexualization of breasts in public is inappropriate. Victoria Secret does that every day (as do most media outlets) right across this country. Breasts being used for their natural function is not inappropriate in any way or in any setting.

  • January 10, 2014 at 2:27pm

    @Billy Hallowell

    Read the book Love & Respect by Dr. Emmerson Eggerichs.
    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.

    Most men’s greatest need is respect, and most women’s greatest need is love. The reason we have trouble understanding one another is we see our spouse’s need through the lens of our own greatest need. Dr. Eggerich says the key to a great marriage is mutual understanding. In fact, I would say the Love & Respect connection is the key to understanding human behavior. 4 of the 5 points from Feldhahn’s book in this article aren’t possible without understanding your spouse. You can assume they are good willed toward you, or you can understand them and see why that thing they did that hurt you was really good willed. Changing attitudes is quite easy when you see why your spouse did that thing that upset you, and you can realize that it had nothing to do with hurting you and was actually intended by them to compliment or encourage you. From Love & Respect you can learn how to motivate your spouse to meet your needs by meeting their deepest need.

    Check it out.

    http://loveandrespect.com/

  • December 19, 2013 at 3:46pm

    In this day and age of sexual and gender equality, I don’t see any reason why a man shouldn’t treat a woman exactly as he would treat another man. If she assaults him, he would be well within his right to defend himself. To restrain one’s self because the aggressor is a woman would be sexist and misogynistic.

  • November 22, 2013 at 10:31am

    Because this video was suppressed by the county, and the jury was not allowed to see it, and was told by the judge they couldn’t consider Mr. Grisham’s 2nd amendment rights. The judge called Grisham a “local yokel” and said he would “lock them all up and take away their guns to prove a point” if he could. The county had to go outside their own county to find a judge willing to hear the case as none of the judges in that county would try the case. This judge is notoriously corrupt.

  • November 21, 2013 at 4:54pm

    This is ridiculous. It is outright tyranny. This cop breaks a lot of laws, and seriously violates Mr. Grisham’s rights. The guy didn’t break any laws, and the cop grabs his weapon… that is completely unreal. It is a violation of Title 18, section 242 of the Federal code – deprivation of rights under color of law. It violates Mr Grisham’s 2nd and 4th amendment rights.

    The cop said he was “rudely displaying” the gun. The gun was slung pointed straight down. There is no safer way to carry a rifle – which is completely legal in Texas. The cop says repeatedly that as soon as he finds out that Mr. Grisham can legally have the gun that he can be on his way, so obviously, he wasn’t under arrest. Grisham did nothing threatening.

    The sergeant says he doesn’t care what the law is. He says people were alarmed (which is a reference to Texas’ disorderly conduct statute). Grisham says “well then I feel alarmed by your guns.” The cop says he is exempt from the law, but the cop is incorrect. There is no exemption in Texas disorderly conduct law for police officers.

    They tell Grisham he is being detained. He asks why, they say “because you are carrying a firearm.” This is an absolute admission of their violation of the law. The supreme court has ruled that a firearm where legally carried does not constitute reasonable suspicion of a crime sufficient to warrant detainment.

    The cops should be fired, and charged with a crime under Title 18 section

  • November 18, 2013 at 2:35pm

    The police are so corrupt. The officers in this case should all be fired, and the one who discharged his weapon should be charged with 5 counts of child endangerment. The police in this case are a MUCH greater threat to public safety than this mom.

  • November 13, 2013 at 12:00pm

    The reason Republicans lose is clear – because they have determined that winning elections is better than standing for something. The GOP establishment wants power and influence, and they see the Democrats as having it. They are adopting the big-government progressive ideology that has now completely enveloped the Democratic party. The problem is, the Democrats are better at it.

    The voter sees little difference ideologically between R & D, but they see that D seems more passionate about their convictions… so they vote for the D because the D seems more genuine.

    Really, the average voter just wants someone honorable, reliable, honest, and someone who will not bow to corruption. Politics is about corrupting people. When someone says “they are a novice at politics” they mean they don’t know how to “play the game” of corruption yet. We need a LOT more novices. I think we should make all national offices have a 2 term limit so EVERYONE in congress is a political novice.

    The reason I think guys like Ted Cruz are such amazing leaders is because they actually stand for something, and they do it with integrity and honesty. A guy like him can make the ideological case for freedom and liberty and tear to shreds the big government progressive ideology in the Rupublican and Democratic parties.

  • November 11, 2013 at 12:23pm

    They tried to pass this in Minnesota in the last legislative session as well. They wanted it attached to severe “assault weapons ban” bill that was actually a registration scheme that had built in confiscation. The bill that was defeated forced you to pay $100 to register your weapon every year, and get a background check. It also said that any police officer could, at any time and without a warrant come into your house to verify you were storing it properly. It also would have made it illegal to transfer it to anyone else in any way, and then said it belonged to the state when you die. It was the epitome of registration leading to confiscation… it showed the exact mindset of liberals that currently run this state. Never mind that no one has been killed with a so-called “assault weapon” in Minnesota for many years, so the amount of crime it would have reduced is 0. Thankfully, it was defeated.

123