User Profile: imperative

imperative

Member Since: December 03, 2011

Comments

123 To page: Go
  • [2] October 24, 2014 at 4:26pm

    Do you really think TheBlaze is going to post an article highlighting the professionals behind “Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth”? They have an agenda, and Russel Brand fits it nicely.

  • [2] October 24, 2014 at 1:59pm

    Gotta keep breaking down Christian principles before the 2016 election. Can’t have Republicans opposing homosexuality while the GOP embraces it, right?

  • [3] October 24, 2014 at 1:42pm

    Here I sit, brokenhearted. I came to s#!t, but only farted.

    This article will be updated as further details emerge.

    Responses (1) +
  • [6] October 24, 2014 at 1:32pm

    Comments are here to voice opinion about the article. That includes negative opinions.

    If you can’t handle that, there are other sites on the internet that only allow positive comments about the content, so feel free to go there, otherwise deal with it.

  • October 21, 2014 at 3:51pm

    @Blest:

    You have some odd statements in your examples:

    “…the government recognizes that contract, and issues you your car license, …”

    What’s a “car license”? The government has no interest in whether or not a person purchases a car, but they do have an interest in what a person does with it. Contracts and licensing are separate issues.

    The only way the government has an interest in the purchase contract is if a person uses the court system to enforce the contract.

    Then you have an odd example about homeless people. I don’t understand the point of it, but you go on to say…

    “…it’s that the government is trying to issue a contract that defines a very specific traditional union…”

    The government doesn’t issue marriage contracts. They issue licenses. Again, you seem to conflate these concepts.

    Then in your next comment, you go back into this concept of a “car license”. The goverment does not issue any license to own a car. I am free to purchase any car, even if it isn’t street legal. I’m just restricted in what I do with it.

  • October 21, 2014 at 3:30pm

    No, they intended “haunted” to describe the horrific conditions.

  • October 21, 2014 at 3:23pm

    Shouldn’t “ebola” be capitalized since the virus gets its name from the name of a river? Blaze?

  • [7] October 16, 2014 at 10:49am

    “Scott was stupid enough to fall for it.”

    Spot on. How could he not see that he would be made to look petty due to his protest?

    At the opening of the debate, he could have politely made a request to the moderator that he be afforded a fan like his opponent so that they could debate on a level playing field. If refused, he could brush it off with a joke “…I guess Crist knows he’ll be sweating tonight…”.

    Responses (2) +
  • October 16, 2014 at 9:14am

    @Gina
    First, the pope’s infallibility comments were tongue in cheek. Lighten up.

    Second, of course I’m not infallible, but I do have a good understanding of… you know… words. And I generally know when someone, whether catholic or protestant, is telling me that the bible says something that it clearly does not.

    It’s those who claim infallibility who feel that they can make things up that aren’t there, and those who believe in their infallibility mindlessly accept what they say.

  • [10] October 14, 2014 at 9:14pm

    This sentence just didn’t make sense to me at all…

    “However, the team also made a “groundbreaking” discovery by identifying 18 unknown species known to cause disease in humans,”

    …until I read the actual wording in the article…

    “Then the scientists searched the rats for new species of viruses. So far, they have identified 18 unknown species related to viruses already shown to cause diseases in humans. Two of the new species, were similar to the virus that causes hepatitis C.”

    Sure does help when we can fill in the missing information.

  • October 14, 2014 at 5:46pm

    @US Navy EOD Vet

    Good points. Yeah the “infallibility” of the pope is a funny thing. If whomever they pick becomes infallible, then why does it matter who they pick? The could choose Charlie Sheen, and it shouldn’t make a difference since he’d be infallible.

    And if the guy is infallible, they should have the current pope pick the next one, since he would make the perfect choice. Would seem to save a lot of effort. :-)

  • [-1] October 14, 2014 at 5:42pm

    @leuken

    Many of the divisions that threatened the early church were ones born of false doctrines that crept in almost immediately. Yes, the scripture you provided describes seemingly petty divisions, the nature of which we don’t entirely know. But elsewhere there were heresies that threatened the church. Those are worth dividing over for the sake of being united in truth.

  • [1] October 14, 2014 at 5:23pm

    @1froglegs

    Nope, not a game. It’s your two party system that has created the welfare state. Clinton did his part, then Bush did his, now Obama’s doing his, and Romney promised to continue what Obama started.

    Voting for the right candidate withholds support from the ones who want it. This is the only thing that will convince them to stop behaving like Democrats. As long as you support bad behavior, bad behavior will continue.

    You talk about strategy, but you have no idea what that means. Your position is that of one who can’t see more beyond the immediate circumstance. One who has no foresight. One is reactive instead of proactive. You’re the one playing games rather than thinking logically.

    If you think there’ll be no country left, then you live in fear and act accordingly. Cowards didn’t build this nation. Strong, principled men and women did.

  • October 14, 2014 at 3:45pm

    @dyslexicwombat: Right you are.

  • [1] October 14, 2014 at 3:32pm

    Again, I never said it was government. I don’t know who did it and what exactly happened. That’s the point. I’m not the one drawing conclusions.

    A skeptic would be wary of both sides until compelling evidence is provided one way or the other. The institution that claims the science backs their side has refused to release the data that backs their model of what happened to building 7. If relatively minor fires can take down a modern building, then irrespective of the WhoDoneIt question, they have an obligation to release it.

    The far-fetched part is that this rag-tag group of nobodies could pull it off. And then when they hide evidence and data on top of that, and ignore witness accounts, that just adds to the mystery.

    When a man’s wife dies, and it’s discovered that there’s a half-million dollar life insurance policy, he’s an immediate suspect, and they scrutinize every tiny detail. When someone stands to profit billions from a major catastrophy, no one bats an eye.

  • [3] October 14, 2014 at 3:22pm

    @1froglegs

    Doing the right thing is never a waste.

    Supporting a party merely because they may win, irrespective of the fact that they oppose your core principles all the while claiming to uphold them is not only a waste, it’s a disgrace.

    If you want to support the continuance of the problem, that’s up to you. But then I have a feeling you don’t view RINOs as being a problem.

  • [1] October 14, 2014 at 3:14pm

    @DLV

    “Imperative- what questions do you have?”

    All the details surrounding Building 7 alone ought to be enough to get a person to sit up and take notice.

    “Secondly, plenty of people pay attention to this sort of thing so they’d be deceiving quite a few.”

    I don’t quite understand that. Yes, plenty of people pay attention, and those are the ones who want answers.

    “Thirdly, again the perfection and consistency of which these events would need to be pulled off is totally mind boggling. Something I’ve never seen the government have.”

    Sorry, but that’s a dismissal. It’s a way to never have to give real consideration to evidence. And I don’t know if the government was involved, or if so, which one.

    Irrespective of who pulled off an event like 9/11, the perfection and consistency would have to be mind boggling. Are you saying it never happened? Or do you believe that a bunch of uneducated muslims would have greater success than those who are more sophisticated? The intricacy angle doesn’t work in favor of the official story.

    IMO, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to say “things would have to be perfect”, and then use that as an excuse to not look at all the things that were not perfect.

  • [2] October 14, 2014 at 2:44pm

    Republicans help Democrats maintain power.

    Libertarians wouldn’t enough votes to make a difference if only the Republicans weren’t nearly indistinguishable from Democrats.

    But let’s keep giving them our votes, and maybe someday they’ll change. Right?

  • [1] October 14, 2014 at 2:37pm

    @DLV

    Interesting. I’ve yet to hear rational explation for plenty of questions. I’ve more often heard off hand dismissal that fails to acknowledge evidence.

    In any case, whether it’s governments or other entities, they’re plenty capable of pulling off elaborate schemes. They do get caught, but most people just ignore it unless it shows up on NBC. Let’s face it, if a person doesn’t want to believe something, they’ll find a way. I’m disinterested either way. My interest is only in logic and truth, irrespective of what it reveals.

  • [1] October 14, 2014 at 2:11pm

    @DLV

    Yet there are questions about what look like apparent failures; questions about evidence to the contrary that genuinely deserves attention. Yet the majority of people dismiss them and blithely laugh it off because they’ve already decided that it could never be.

    People say that folks in government could never keep a secret, yet somehow they have no trouble believing that the government holds mountains of classified information that never gets leaked.

123 To page: Go