User Profile: imperative


Member Since: December 03, 2011


123 To page: Go
  • [1] September 1, 2014 at 5:35pm


    “For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your User-Generated Content. By submitting your User-Generated Content to the Site, you hereby grant THEBLAZE a worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sub-licenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the User-Generated Content in connection with the Site and THEBLAZE’s business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the Site (and derivative works thereof) in any and all media formats and through any and all media channels. You also hereby grant each User of the Site a non-exclusive license to access your User-Generated Content through the Site and to use, reproduce, distribute, display and perform such User-Generated Content as permitted through the functionality of the Site and under these Terms.”

  • [1] September 1, 2014 at 5:28pm

    They do this frequently. I roll my eyes a little every time.

    But as to asking for permission, they don’t need to. If you’re posting comments on their site publicly, you don’t really have much of an expectation of privacy. They include an attribution in the form of the user name by every comment, so it isn’t like it’s plagiarism.

    I’d imagine it’s also covered in the terms of use associated with the account, but I’d need to check to be sure.

  • [1] September 1, 2014 at 1:14pm


    First, by making a comment that lumps all Ron Paul supporters together in such a disparaging way, you’re behaving no differently from the left wing progressives.

    Second, DanHollis isn’t a Ron Paul supporter. He’s a fictional character made up by a RINO that thinks he’s justified in using progressive tactics to cast actual supporters in a bad light. The buffoonish representation of the charicature promoted by the RINOs is a dead giveaway.

  • [5] August 31, 2014 at 9:53pm

    So many people just can’t seem to comprehend is that one of the greatest testaments to the freedoms we enjoy is the freedom to not ever be required to pledge allegience to the very country that provides us those freedoms.

    I can’t imagine a much more powerful example than that.

  • [2] August 28, 2014 at 4:51pm

    And George Washington spoke that prayer out of his own freedom, not out of a government mandate.

    Our nation is its people, not its government. Do we want government to require Christianity, or should we as the Church have such an impact on others that they will desire Christianity?

    I don’t want such an inept institution taking responsibility for the spread of the gospel. The Church needs to be strong and influential. We shouldn’t need government programs to help us.

  • [1] August 28, 2014 at 4:41pm


    How am I lying? That’s what a republic is. Rule of law. I don’t want laws that will support the government teaching kids a particular religion in government schools.

  • August 28, 2014 at 4:40pm


    How is it about democracy? If it democracy, then a heavily Christian area would likely have a Christian pastor/priest, and a heavily Muslim area would likely have a Muslim leader.

    I just don’t have enough trust of government to give them the authority to appoint people to educate children about religion. But then I don’t trust them with schools in the first place.

  • August 28, 2014 at 4:36pm

    Is it just me, or does TheBlaze seem to bury these Rand Paul stories?

  • August 28, 2014 at 4:22pm


    What is a nation? Its governement, or its people?

  • [-1] August 28, 2014 at 4:09pm


    This isn’t an issue of democracy. This is an issue of upholding the integrity of the Republic.

    Laws are applied impartially, and as such, if you can have a designated Christian in such a government role, you can have a designated Muslim. Is that what you want?

  • [4] August 28, 2014 at 3:56pm

    Good points. I think people would be pretty ticked off if they found out a school had a policy of having an official Muslim leader for a coach.

    We can’t have it both ways. If government has the authority to require a Christian for a position, then they have the power to do the same for any religion.

    Responses (13) +
  • [1] August 27, 2014 at 8:40pm

    Yep, if they want to take someone down, this is the way to do it.

    If he’s genuinely guilty, he gets what’s coming to him, but let’s not be ignorant of other possibilities.

    Now just watch for a suicide where he’s stabbed himself in the back 15 times.

  • August 27, 2014 at 12:24pm

    Ugh, do we have to turn every little thing into a pollitical analogy?

  • August 27, 2014 at 12:23pm

    You’re not kidding. Lightning fast reflexes. Must have had its coffee that morning.

  • August 26, 2014 at 11:09pm


    Supporting racial profiling of citizens is just as cowardly as supporting banning of guns. You’re right that those in favor of one and not the other are being hypocritical.

  • [17] August 26, 2014 at 9:32pm

    There are lots of things that the left will claim keep us safe. And the mindless masses are all too willing to give up rights and freedoms in exchange for “safety”.

    Responses (5) +
  • August 26, 2014 at 4:25pm

    @BabyGirlStephens and ranchmom1

    Great points. Thanks!

  • August 26, 2014 at 4:22pm

    “Which would effectively legalize gay marriage. Why bother?”

    Because it brings equality to all without the government having to take any position on the issue, and without them meddling in our personal lives. Why should the government care who is married and who is not?

    This, by the way, does not preclude child protection laws. I’m talking about consenting adults. Government’s interest should only be insofar as there’s a legal contract to be enforced.

  • [5] August 26, 2014 at 4:15pm

    That anyone on this site would give thumbs-up to Robert999′s comment is astounding. Do these people not realize that once you give the government the power to enforce the moral precepts of Christianity, you’ve given them the power to enforce those of ANY religion?

    Sorry, but you can’t want government off your back and give them such power at the same time. How can people be so utterly blind to this?

    Homosexual behavior is a sin, as is adultery and any other form of extra-marital sex, and I don’t want the government to have any power to regulate/criminalize WRT consenting adults. That’s just a disaster in the making.

  • [3] August 26, 2014 at 5:00am

    Why would that matter? The government doesn’t need to be involved. Two people can draw up a contract, call it a marriage contract, and have whatever type of ceremony they want (or no ceremony).

123 To page: Go