User Profile: Gup20


Member Since: September 26, 2010


123 To page: Go
  • [9] January 26, 2015 at 5:57pm

    To my liberal friends – just think of snipers as “long distance abortionists” who abort enemies of our country rather than innocent, defenseless children. They just abort people up to 420 months (or more) of gestation.

    Responses (2) +
  • [7] January 20, 2015 at 5:21pm

    This is absolutely outrageous! The judge (if one signed off on this “emergency abduction”) and the officer should be charged with kidnapping. There is no law against this substance, and it is safer than household bleach. No child would be removed from a home for bleach or the many other harmful chemicals that are perfectly legal. How do they take the kids when they can’t point to any crimes which have been committed?

  • [1] January 19, 2015 at 12:18pm

    Keres, your statements seem illogical to me. Consider the following thought experiment: Lets examine the “sinfulness” or “wrongness” of killing a living creature. Lets say you kill an ant. Most rational people would say this is no great offense. However, lets say you kill a family’s beloved pet dog. Is this offense equal to or worse than killing the ant? Well, a dog seems like a more worthy lifeform than an ant, and you will have offended the family, so most rational people will say that killing the dog is worse than the ant. Now lets say you kill a Kentucky Derby winning horse. Again, most rational people would say this is worse than the dog because the horse is a higher lifeform than the dog, and as a Kentucky Derby winning animal, it would be worth millions of dollars. Now, lets say you culminate your killing by killing a human being. Again, most rational people would say this is orders of magnitude worse than killing a horse. What about killing a thousand people? Worse than killing one person? So it is demonstrable that the same action – killing – changes in the level of offense depending upon whom the offense is committed against. Now lets say you commit an offense against an infinite God who is love and light and life… the one who created you. Since God is infinite any offense against Him is infinitely evil. The only punishment that comes close to resembling justice is an infinite one of death in hell. Hell is not only logical but necessary.

  • January 19, 2015 at 11:52am

    MAC-10, Satan is not the author of ALL evil. God created both Satan and Man with a free will, and both Satan and Man chose to disobey God. Man is quite capable of evil without Satan, though, Satan did exert his deception over Eve in the beginning. I agree with you that there are none who are innocent, none who are good except God. Christ Himself challenged a man who called Him good when He said that only the Father was good. I think that ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. The reason people sin (hurt children, etc) is because they are sinners. The reason bad things happen to people is because we are all sinners and have chosen to sin against God – corporately judged with death in Adam, but individually applicable because all of us have sinned ourselves and therefore deserve that death.

  • [2] January 8, 2015 at 3:45pm

    If Allah is sovereign, then why does he need Muslims to do his bidding and kill people in his name. Let Allah reign down his own judgment on men from heaven. If he doesn’t care enough to pour out his own wrath, then he doesn’t really care. If Muhammed is such a revered prophet, why wouldn’t Allah avenge him by himself… is Allah so weak that he needs human beings to fight his battles for him? By taking action themselves, radical Islamists demonstrate that Allah is not sovereign, but needs help accomplishing his will.

    Responses (2) +
  • [3] January 7, 2015 at 10:42am

    The definition of a police state is a place where the safety of the government outweighs the rights of the people. The Bill of Rights was created to protect us – the people – from them – the government. The Bill of Rights restricts and limits government’s interference in the lives of the people. There is no more evil, murderous, and detrimental entity to human life in the history of our planet than tyrannical, overreaching government. The protections of the constitution are in place to keep the “necessary evil” (as George Washington called the government) in check. We have to keep them reigned in as tightly as humanly possible so that they don’t become a hindrance to our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. The police are already well beyond the confines of the constitution every day. Something has to be done. The only good laws are laws that further limit government. Hopefully the new congress will act on that.

  • [18] January 6, 2015 at 2:29pm

    “By not rolling your window down, you’re interfering with our investigation,” Scott said. ”If a driver refuses to roll down their window they will be arrested.”

    According to Terry vs Ohio ruling, the police must be able to articulate a “reasonable suspicion” that a crime has been committed in order to detain someone for investigation. Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard of proof in United States law that is less demanding than probable cause, the legal standard for arrests and warrants, but more than an “inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or ‘hunch’”; it must be based on “specific and articulable facts”, “taken together with rational inferences from those facts”, and the suspicion must be associated with the specific individual.

    Simply put, the refusal to roll down a window does not give the officers the reasonable suspicion necessary to detain and investigate an individual. Without the legal basis for detaining or investigating a person, there can be no legal justification for an investigation, and therefore the notion that a person is interfering with an investigation is ridiculous. Police don’t get carte blanche to investigate anyone they wish for any reason they wish. It has to be based on reasonable, articulable, specific facts.

    Responses (2) +
  • 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) +
123 To page: Go