User Profile: JediKnight


Member Since: February 15, 2011


123 To page: Go
  • [1] October 9, 2015 at 7:09pm

    I think Whoopi use to say the same thing. Pretty sure neither one of them believe that now.

  • October 8, 2015 at 7:35pm

    BS yourself. He was 12 not 6. Plenty of 10-12 year olds are quite capable of handling a shotgun.

    I think the better question is, why does he mention the shotgun and then end up cutting up a pistol? Where’s the shotgun? If he’s concerned about “gun violence”, why doesn’t he get rid of the shotgun too?

    Responses (1) +
  • October 8, 2015 at 7:34pm

    And of course the law can always stop you, no matter where you live.

    Depending on where someone lives, do you know how easy it is to hop on a bike and ride out to nowhere? No, you have no clue because you think everyone lives in the city.

  • October 8, 2015 at 6:36pm

    We’ve done it. I did not like it as much. Don’t get me wrong. It’s completely edible and quite good, but I like the store bought stuff better.

  • October 8, 2015 at 6:34pm

    It also tends to require some bit of planning (which most people don’t do) to either use a pumpkin for pumpkin pie or reuse one that has been carved. We reused ours last year and it’s not easy to do at all.

  • [-1] October 8, 2015 at 6:30pm

    Really? Might want to reread the article. #facepalm.

    They don’t plant cans moron. They plant real pumpkins. Yeah, the canned stuff will be in short supply, but so will the pumpkins.


  • [9] October 7, 2015 at 9:44pm

    Make sure you stay out of Texas. Almost everything you just said is null and void there. I strongly suggest you start using the words “depending on your state” when talking about when it’s ok to use your gun. Otherwise, you sound like an idiot. Case in point, defense of property is a perfectly valid use of a gun in Texas.

  • [1] October 7, 2015 at 3:41pm

    @Matthew66 “Nonsense. It’s an amendment, which means it’s a change to something changable, and it can change again.”

    You should read up on the debates that took place during the Constitutional Convention and the Bill of Rights. The anti-federalists (I think that’s the right side) were vehemently against the Bill of Rights since the only powers the Federal government was suppose to have were outlined in the Constitution. Why have a Bill of Rights if they have no power over those rights that are listed since their only power is in the Constitution? Yes, that Constitution is changeable, but not to violate natural law. “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”.

    The Constitution was never meant to limit the citizenry. It was always intended as a limit on government power. People like you seek to expand government power without understanding that every expansion of government power results in less freedom for everyone.

    Responses (7) +
  • [1] October 7, 2015 at 1:55pm

    Oh please. The reason it sometimes gets difficult to find something that “you know is there” is because as a topic gains popularity, the sites that people are hitting start moving to the top of the search results. This isn’t a secret.

    Try to find the treasury secretaries comments on spending money from FDR right after a federal reserve open meeting. Or right after the current treasure secretary says something in front of congress. It’s a lot harder to find it because everyone is hitting other sites that are reporting current news and those results move to the top.

    You could always just use DuckDuckGo. They don’t track you either :-)

  • October 7, 2015 at 1:52pm

    @Apple Bite: Because people aren’t putting their photos here. So go make a Facebook page with phony info. It’s the same thing.

    If you really think having an account on TheBlaze isn’t the same thing as having one on “social media” then you really don’t understand what “social media” is. Social media, quite simply, are just websites that require a login that allow you to share pictures, opinions, etc. Oh look, that’s exactly what TheBlaze does. :-)

    PS: I could link a picture here if I really wanted to and you’d have almost the exact same thing as sharing a status update on FB.

  • [3] October 7, 2015 at 1:48pm

    He did scoop them though. He broke the story. Then the regular media started talking about it even though they all knew about it. He spread it so fast they could no longer ignore it.

  • [4] October 7, 2015 at 1:47pm

    Not ground breaking anymore, but it certainly was when he started back in the early 90s.

    Goodness you are behind the times if you think Matt Drudge is trying to be ground breaking with the Drudge Report. Saying it’s not ground breaking is like saying that it’s not ground breaking to get your news from mostly online sources. It’s true, but it’s also duh. It’s not ground breaking anymore but that doesn’t mean it hasn’t completely changed the news business in the last decade.

    Responses (1) +
  • [3] October 5, 2015 at 12:52pm

    This is stupid. “He was a Democrat until 25 years ago when he switched parties” Gasp! Unbelievable! We can’t have anyone that isn’t a lifelong Republican.

    “He campaigned for Dukakis” Gasp! We can’t have that either.

    Does the author have any idea how many people in the Conservative movement were former Democrats? Does the author have any idea how many people in the Conservative movement campaigned for Democrats? Dana Loesch campaigned for the Clintons. Dana Loesch is one of the most conservative women that I hear talking about these things. Tammy Bruce was the President of the Los Angeles chapter of NOW, but you’d never know it listening to her talk today. Star Parker would tell you she was right there with the Democrats on the “plantation” getting welfare until she realized it wasn’t working and worked to get herself off.

    But why let people change their minds? We should totally go after them if they aren’t lifelong conservative Republicans. Heaven forbid we welcome people into the movement who may have made mistakes in their past.

    In reply to the contribution Jason Chaffetz's Lifelong Democrat Ties

  • September 30, 2015 at 12:54pm

    Not to mention that if the Google cars were responsible for all the accidents that have occurred, there would be a federal investigation and their cars would be sitting in a parking lot until the investigation were completed.

  • [2] September 29, 2015 at 6:35pm

    No, no, you got it all wrong. He drove all the way there, ordered pizza, then drove all the way home and stored it (probably in the fridge) because the wedding was the next day (yup, watch the video if you can stomach it).

  • [3] September 29, 2015 at 6:33pm

    LOL. It’s a 3 hour trip (roundtrip). In the video, he even states that he went there yesterday. It appears that that’s the only thing they fed the guests.

    It would also appear, from the video, that “sticking it” to Memories Pizza was the purpose of the wedding.

  • [11] September 29, 2015 at 6:26pm

    So is this suppose to be proof that Christians will participate in a gay wedding if they don’t know it’s a gay wedding? Hasn’t every, and I mean every, establishment stated that while they do serve gay customers, they decline participation (catering, cakes, etc) in the wedding? As someone else stated, ordering food, picking it up, and then serving it to your guests is not catering. If they think this is catering then they really are morons.

    I repeat, this is not catering. So no, Memories Pizza didn’t cater your wedding you moron.

    Anyone that thinks they are militant, this video is proof that they are. Serving food from an establishment that has stated they wouldn’t cater a wedding just so you can say “Memories Pizza served my gay wedding” is militancy.

  • [5] September 28, 2015 at 5:44pm

    What the government giveth, the government can taketh away!

  • [2] September 28, 2015 at 2:10pm

    “Well if you look at this plan it’s basically Ronald Reagans tax plan on steroids, and I think we can all agree he created a few Jobs.”

    Reagan didn’t create jobs. Business owners did because of the lower rate of taxation.

    Trump has the popularity. He could easily put forward a flat tax. He’s not doing that. He’s championing a progressive tax system. Reagan did not champion progressive taxation. He championed, and got somewhat, tax cuts. Trump isn’t doing that. Trump is simply championing a lower rate of progressive taxation and you’re all buying into it.

    You all seem to think that because the hedgefund managers will have to pay more in taxes, that government revenue will grow. Trump has already stated that his tax plan is revenue neutral. “The plan would maintain revenue by reducing most deductions for wealthy people.” If it’s going to maintain existing revenue, then it will maintain the size of govt.

    What happened to wanting to cut revenue flowing into DC so we could reduce the size of govt? Is that all just talk as long as there’s a Democrat in the White House?

    Responses (2) +
  • [1] September 28, 2015 at 2:04pm

    The “wealthy” are not currently hurt by the inheritance tax. You’re an idiot if you think so. The inheritance tax ends up hurting their kids because their kids are the ones that end up having to sell off assets in order to pay the tax.

    Beyond that, Trump said himself that he’s going to “close loopholes”. Does he mean itemized deductions? I don’t consider myself “wealthy”, but I’ll tell you this. I reduced my own tax bill due to those deductions. If he’s not willing to put forward a flat tax that eliminates the deductions and is instead just going to eliminate deductions while sticking with a progressive tax system, then he’s not at all a conservative. You Trump fans can keep rooting for him (that’s what it is at this point), but nothing he’s put forward is conservative by any stretch.

123 To page: Go
Restoring Love