User Profile: JediKnight


Member Since: February 15, 2011


123 To page: Go
  • December 19, 2014 at 1:45pm

    Exactly. This one is directly aimed at being ok with abortion.

    Sorry atheists, I can’t abide by that.

  • [4] December 16, 2014 at 2:58pm

    “All the question asks the child to do is identify the topic of two stories and use examples from those stories to support their answer.”

    Actually, that’s not what the question asked and that’s why it’s confusing. It asks how the characters relay that theme. If they want the students to use examples, why not simply state “Use examples to support your answer”. Leave it as simple as that and you’ll have less complaints.

    Often times, the common core questions are easy to figure out…if you’re an adult. Most kids don’t understand what the question is asking. Instead of making the question simple, they’re over complicating it for some reason.

    Responses (1) +
  • [1] December 15, 2014 at 5:27am

    The average person can walk 15 mins per mile over level ground. There are four 15 min periods in an hour, so 15*4 = 4 mph.

    Try it sometime.

    Assuming the lady in the car isn’t driving straight up hill, she could walk the distance in half the time. Even if she was going straight up hill, she could probably still save 30 mins plus she’d save a ton of money on gas.

    I rode my bike to work for a while. The first time it took 40 mins. After a week, I was doing it in 30 mins. It’s a 7 mile ride. Save a lot on gas and it only took 10 mins longer than driving (I don’t have a freeway commute).

  • [1] December 15, 2014 at 5:13am

    Yep. I saw someone do this a couple of days ago. It was raining at the time, but instead of grabbing an umbrella, they drove. Right around the corner (literally).

  • [1] December 12, 2014 at 9:58am

    LOL. Yeah, she did sound a bit like that.

    She’s got a point though. Even if she was blocking traffic, she attempted to move her car. She wasn’t interfering in anything either. These LEOs are part of the bad bunch.

  • [4] December 12, 2014 at 9:55am

    Like what? Catching officers in the act of police brutality? Perhaps if more officers were simply doing their duty, they wouldn’t have any problem with being recorded. If all they’re doing is enforcing the law, then they should have no problem being recorded.

  • [5] December 12, 2014 at 9:54am

    “The video does not capture enough information to draw definitive conclusions about what transpired before, during and after the arrest,”

    LOL. The only thing the video doesn’t definitively show is whether or not she was blocking traffic. I can surmise from her saying she’ll pull over that she may have been blocking traffic (the article states the light turned green).

    Why do officers continue to think they can just man handle people? She only argued with them about whether or not she could record (she can). She said she’d pull over and they freak out. They probably realized that if she pulled over and continued recording, they wouldn’t be able to continue along the same course of action they were taking.

  • December 11, 2014 at 12:19am

    “But I see those who left even before he began his speech as morons who would restrict the rights of all to speak, regardless of their positions.”

    So because they left because they didn’t want to hear him speak, that means they’re willing to restrict the rights of others to speak? No, it doesn’t. It simply means they didn’t want to hear what he had to say.

    He has the right to speak, but no one has to listen. Welcome to freedom. Enjoy your stay :-)

  • December 11, 2014 at 12:17am

    I’d say he fits all three definitions.

  • [2] December 11, 2014 at 12:12am

    “If we choose to have an invocation, we have a responsibility to respectfully listen,”

    Bzzz! Wrong! Just because you have the freedom to say something does not mean that anyone else has the responsibility to listen, least of all respectfully.

    While the “atheist” in question most certainly has the right to say what he said, no one had to stay and listen. As a matter of fact, each and every person could have left the room during the invocation and returned after he was finished. It would’ve made just as much sense since it seems to me that this “atheist” was essentially just making fun of every single religion and mythological being known to exist in order to have his little “invocation”.

    I said this on Glenn Beck’s FB page, but I’ll say it here as well. I find it hilarious that a City Council, which is a government authority, would invoke the name of Satan, the ultimate rebel against authority, at one of their meetings. So you’re going to have a government meeting that will likely end with setting up some rules for the city to live by and you’re going to invoke the name of the ultimate rebel in the process? A little bit ironic, don’t ya think?

    Responses (1) +
  • [2] December 10, 2014 at 3:14pm

    I don’t care how many times he’s been out there doing this. The Constitution doesn’t have a limitation on how many times you can walk around protesting something. If you stopped him 1 time for exercising his rights, that’s 1 time to many!

    Responses (1) +
  • [1] December 10, 2014 at 3:13pm

    “No charges were filed against the man who was confronted by the officer”

    Of course he wasn’t charged! He didn’t commit a crime! This was simply a few officers exceeding their authority. Hopefully the Sheriff or whoever else arrived on the scene reprimanded them for exceeding their authority.

    Responses (2) +
  • [1] December 9, 2014 at 2:00pm

    @rvick: Actually, the system is so screwed up that when you do sue, you aren’t sueing the officer or administrators at a school. The PD will be sued and so will the school and they will likely have to settle.

    That’s pretty much besides the point though. Mouthing off at an officer does not give the officer the right to exceed and abuse his/her authority. Maybe we should start booting officers from the force whenever they do abuse their authority? Maybe that’ll get them to know and understand the laws they are charged with enforcing.

  • [4] December 9, 2014 at 1:57pm

    None of it matters. It’s a 1st amendment rights issue. The arrest was unlawful. He had every right to resist.

    I don’t care if he was mouthing off and being nasty. Tell me where that’s limited in the 1st amendment.

  • [1] December 9, 2014 at 1:56pm

    Public school dress codes are rarely enforceable, especially ones that infringe on First Amendment rights.

    While the rest of us are fighting the constant overreach of government officials (both the school administration and the LEO are government officials), you’ll be on your knees telling us to “just comply”.

  • December 9, 2014 at 1:54pm

    Yes, if the law officer gave him that warning. If the LEO didn’t, then he wasn’t. I would bet that the school didn’t even warn him that he’d be charged with trespassing and is just making that up now that they’re being asked about it.

  • December 9, 2014 at 1:52pm


    Even gang members know that prayer. At least in the area I live, they know the prayers because they’re drumbed into them at an early age.

    Besides, where in the Constitution does it say that you have to know something about your religion in order to exercise it? Oh, that’s right, it doesn’t.

    Whether he’s in a gang or not is irrelevant. Free speech and free exercise of religion isn’t limited to people that aren’t in gangs.

  • [2] December 9, 2014 at 1:49pm


    Most of the time, dress codes at public schools are completely unenforceable. For the school to claim he was being arrested for trespassing is nonsense. The student had every right to resist since it was an unlawful arrest.

    You want to have someone arrested for trespassing? Tell them they’re trespassing. Treat every single person that walks onto campus with a rosary as though they’re trespassing. They need to knock this junk off with the “sometimes gang members wear them”. Yeah and sometimes they wear bright jewelry or hats on backwards. My high school had a stupid policy that said no hats because it’s a “gang symbol”. Bunk. That’s an excuse by the school.

  • [2] December 9, 2014 at 1:46pm

    Oh bunk. You either believe in freedom of expression and religion or you don’t. Just because someone doesn’t have all the mysteries memorized doesn’t make a rosary any less religiously significant.

    Responses (1) +
  • [64] December 6, 2014 at 10:12pm

    That’s exactly what I was telling someone at work just a few days ago. A CR to get us through until the new Congress is seated and then wham! Hit ‘em with a smaller budget! They only need 4 Senators to get veto proof legislation and 21 House Reps. Both should be quite easily attainable if the GOP actually wants to reign in the President.

    Forget what Obama wants. Use the new majorities to stop the imperial Presidency.

    Responses (2) +
123 To page: Go