User Profile: JediKnight


Member Since: February 15, 2011

CommentsDisplaying comments newest to oldest.

123 To page: Go
  • April 16, 2014 at 1:37pm

    @FightingBear: Exactly! How does his belief affect anything or anyone? It doesn’t. Even if he were making decisions on policy, those decisions would be made on 5-10 year timelines, not what’s going to happen in 100, 1000, or even 1000000 years.

    When people make policy decisions based on what they think will happen in 100 years, they’re being stupid. 20 years ago you didn’t have access to the Internet in a device you could hold in one hand. 100 years ago, electricity was just getting deployed and telephone infrastructure was being deployed across the country. In fact, that entire infrastructure (old telephone lines) has practically been completely replaced in just the last 20 years.

    In short, ones belief in Creationism has absolutely no effect on they’re day to day life. Conversely, it seems that those that believe in evolution want to do everything they think they can to keep every known and unknown species alive, despite the fact that it’s impossible to do.

  • April 16, 2014 at 1:25pm

    @TFS: Hence why you use hollow points :-) No over penetration to worry about :-)

  • April 15, 2014 at 5:27pm

    This and the fact that they are not truly free. See the incident in Ohio where the couple simply gave the children to the proper parents. That’s freedom.

    Looks to me like in Italy you’re only allowed to do what the State decides you’re allowed to do.

  • April 15, 2014 at 12:26pm

    It won’t work because of this “What you’re asking for is to destroy the individual mandate, which guts the statute,”. No judge, we’re asking that the law be followed. If following the law results in the destruction of the individual mandate, then so be it. Perhaps the Federal government will eventually learn to stay out of matters it has no business getting involved in, like those outside the limitations of the Constitution.

    But that would involve the judiciary doing its job instead of constantly trying to make the law work.

    Responses (1) +
  • April 14, 2014 at 7:07pm

    He just made every CSPOA member look really bad.

    I don’t know who he was planning this with. The local sheriff was nowhere to be found during most of this and most of the people “up front” looked like men and other ranchers. Check out the videos for yourself, they’re all over the internet.

  • April 14, 2014 at 12:30pm

    Total non story. The parents opted out of Common Core and now they’re mad that they’re kids didn’t get to participate in an event that was for Common Core. You opted out! You can’t opt out and then also be involved in those events!

    Responses (3) +
  • April 11, 2014 at 4:21pm

    There’s a big problem with his line of reasoning on immigration and amnesty. They don’t learn the language. They don’t have to because ballots are printed in so many different languages now. They keep their language and then demand that those that don’t understand them capitulate to their demands. All of that needs to stop.

    End any State or Federal money that illegals are taking advantage of. End all of the entitlements. Force employers to use E-Verify. Make the fines for hiring an illegal exhorbitantly high. Make the burden of proof high as well. In other words, if you have the ssn and the transaction from e-verify that we can trace back to a log file (you didn’t fake it), then we won’t fine you, but we’re still deporting that guy. If you have a history of having illegals on staff but “didn’t know”, then we start fining you.

    We don’t need to repeat Reagan’s mistake. No amnesty.

  • April 11, 2014 at 1:27pm

    If they don’t have a picture of him driving the car than they don’t have proof that HE was speeding. That’s aside from the Constitutionality of these cameras (yes, they are a violation of the 6th amendment).

    At least in California, they have to be able to see your face driving the car. If they can’t, no ticket.

  • April 9, 2014 at 2:43pm

    You might want to read the referenced links. Regarding item 3:

    “The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.” – Article I, Section 9, Clause 1

    Note the use of the capital P in Person, used in the beginning and at the end. They are referring to slaves as People, not property.

    The 3/5ths compromise would have worked had Lincoln simply allowed the southern states to secede. This is about one of your only points I agree with. The southern states should have simply never been admitted to the Union or, in the worst case, allowed to secede years later.

    I think the Founders wanted to be as inclusive as possible and they simply weren’t willing to throw away the American Experiment over a single issue. Rather, they wanted it to “work itself out”. Even if the slave owners among them had freed their slaves as an example, it wouldn’t have done jack squat to the many other slave owners that lived within the colonies. They likely would’ve had to be kicked out of the US territory entirely.

  • April 9, 2014 at 2:34pm

    @The Third Archon:

    “I’m also only blaming them because the Right MAKES them relevant by holding them up as some timeless paragon of virtue, morality, and wisdom. They are not–our generation is at least as wise, moral, and virtuous, and I would say far more so”

    Really? Our generation is so wise that they completely miss the fact the radical Islam has been at war with us since we became independent. Our generation is so wise that they call the killing of unborn children a “choice” and not murder. Our generation is so wise that they gladly give up local control of education in order to have a single national standard.

    Our generation is not wise. They have forgotten every single lesson taught throughout history. If our generation were wise, they’d open a book and realize that what they think are “the problems of our generation” are nothing more than problems that have been solved over and over again. They’d stop capitulating to a central ruling authority and start actual civil disobedience. Instead, they follow along because “it’s the law”. The majority of them don’t even work toward changing the law.

    You’re right that if a law is not moral there’s no justification to follow it. But “our generation” holds no such belief and is therefore not nearly as wise as you make them out to be.

  • April 8, 2014 at 12:46pm

    Did you notice the part where she said that she has the right to refuse service, but isn’t going to?

    I think a lot of people are trying to equate this to the wedding photographer. The difference is that the wedding photographer becomes a witness to the wedding, which, as Christians, is something we won’t do because we believe it’s wrong. Now if they’re asking her to cater a gay wedding (because it would make total sense to ask a grocery store to cater your wedding /sarc), she’d probably refuse it and she’d be well within her rights to do so.

    I just can’t understand why she made the donation. A “gesture of good will”? Really? So you believe what you believe until faced with some controversy? That’s not a principled belief. More like a squishy, touchy feely belief.

  • April 8, 2014 at 9:48am

    No, it’s not. It’s called the law of gravity.

  • April 7, 2014 at 8:31pm

    I should probably point out that it’s probably not all teachers that are like what I describe. But I don’t think even one teacher should be like that.

  • April 7, 2014 at 8:30pm

    What makes me really mad about the schools is that they’ve said for years that they want more parental involvement. Now, I won’t sign up for PTA, but I am very involved in what my kids learn at school. We sit with them and go over their homework every night. We do as much homework as possible every night. Yet, I get letters written back home to us saying to only do one night of a homework each night. I get notes written back to me referencing email exchanges I’ve had with the teacher where I’m trying to explain what went on.

    They don’t want parental involvement. They said they do, but now that we’re getting involved, they can’t stand it because we (parents) are questioning the teaching methods. We absolutely should be questioning the teaching methods and they just can’t stand that we question them.

    Responses (1) +
  • April 7, 2014 at 8:10pm

    That is exactly why I’ll never buy a gun like that or use a safe. I live in California too!

  • April 7, 2014 at 1:46pm

    Ah, now I understand. Here’s the question to put his answer in context

    “You’ve compared loyalty to a political party to recreational drug use. You’ve been sober for several years now, so what did you mean by that?”

    So he’s a former drug user. Hence why he values personal freedom, unless it involves drugs. So even though he knows drugs are probably a bad idea, he still wants someone or something there to keep other people from going through that. Maybe he should speak out against drug use instead of hinting at wanting the government involved. Cause it sure sounds like he wants government out of our lives unless it comes to drug use. Then they should ban everything that’s bad. In fact, since it was illegal when he was using, how did he get his hands on it? We all know that if you make it illegal, no one will be able to get it.

    Maybe he should take a look at some of the ideas being floated in Sacramento. Ban sugar because the body turns alcohol into sugar and sugar is just as bad, so we should look at banning sugar. Forget the fact that it’s a naturally occurring substance and the fact that it’s the overeating that’s causing the problem. Yeah, let’s just ban sugar, that’ll fix it.

    Responses (1) +
  • April 7, 2014 at 1:38pm

    I’m not sure he’s saying what we think he’s saying. I’d have to hear the interview on this one. Is he mad that states are “allowing” people to buy pot? That’s how this reads. If he truly favors the government getting out of people’s lives, I would think he’d be fine with people being able to buy pot. In my opinion, those states have simply said “If you’re 18 or over, the State won’t get in the way” and they shouldn’t. Vehicular accidents may be on the rise from people that are smoking pot, but that just means the State needs to come up with a better test, not that we need to make it illegal.

    There will always be irresponsible people in a free society. The idea is that they’re free to be irresponsible because they have to deal with the consequences.

  • April 7, 2014 at 1:10pm

    She should simply continue to refuse to take the pictures. Make them throw her in jail. Better to stand with God than to stand with man.

  • April 7, 2014 at 1:06pm

    Kids having kids? She’s a college student. She stopped being a kid at 18. People usually refer to “kids having kids” as 17 or younger, not college students that are of age.

    Oh that’s right, we live in the era of Obamacare, where you’re a kid until age 26. Totally forgot about that. My bad :-P

  • April 3, 2014 at 3:08pm

    @Kupo: Keep it up!

123 To page: Go