User Profile: JQuentinEvermann


Member Since: June 06, 2012


123 To page: Go
  • [13] January 21, 2016 at 8:21am

    Your comments tends to support evolution more than creation: Earth wasn’t placed in the perfect position to support the life on it, rather the life on it evolved as it did because Earth is exactly as it is. You’re putting effect before cause.

  • [20] January 21, 2016 at 8:17am

    On the contrary, scientists try to find explanations as to how and why things exist, while Creationists believe that everything literally came from nothing. Maybe you’re just more anti-science than you are pro-God.

  • [30] January 21, 2016 at 8:14am

    Randerson, you have to realize that to people like him, if God showed up and introduced Himself, He wouldn’t be up to their expectations and they would hold out for better. Unless God is EXACTLY what they consider Him to be, they will always deny Him. Modern believers refuse to accept the truth unless it fits perfectly within their construct of reality.

  • January 19, 2016 at 5:39pm

    LOL…you’re blaming the Jews?

  • July 10, 2015 at 11:17am

    Are you nuts? Before guns, there were no wars! Everybody was living in harmony until 1911 when, all of a sudden, everybody started killing a murdering and raping because they had the gun! There is a great movie about this, Zardoz, or something like that.

    Look, people are stupid, and when critical mass is reached most of them will die, as nature intended. Now, if you will excuse me, I have to go sharpen my hammer.

  • [2] March 25, 2015 at 2:53pm

    Not the same as without proper cooling, hydrogen bonds won’t form. I agree we have a lot of lost knowledge to regain, but this isnt one of those times.

  • [5] February 23, 2015 at 8:13pm

    Well, he says it poorly at best.

  • [186] February 23, 2015 at 8:12pm

    I can’t be the only one to see irony in a racially exclusive group sueing another group for not being diverse enough.

    Responses (15) +
  • [2] November 24, 2014 at 6:04pm

    Unless Jar Jar makes a comeback, it can’t be worse than Lucas’ butchering of his own franchise.

    Responses (2) +
  • [4] November 23, 2014 at 5:07pm

    Haven’t you seen the new targets for DHS and local LE? They are of seniors, pregnant women, children, etc. And no, this isn’t a joke. Google “dhs no hesitation targets” if you want to see who the government is training its agents to shoot.

  • [347] November 23, 2014 at 1:18am

    Today I learned that “Mexican” is a race.

    Responses (12) +
  • [255] November 20, 2014 at 7:35pm

    Maybe it should be a new law that for each citizen killed by an illegal, members of the federal legislature, judiciary and executive branches are to draw lots…the “winner” to be executed in a live streaming event online.

    Responses (3) +
  • [6] November 18, 2014 at 11:22pm

    Well, two Wongs do make it white.

  • [1] November 13, 2014 at 11:56am

    And to prove they’re serious, the first 72 callers will receive 1/10th gram of pure silver, worth nearly 5 cents!

  • [2] November 12, 2014 at 2:23pm

    Not to be a jerk, but they would be correct. He was crossing in an area he should not have been. While the care shouldn’t have taken the chance of making that turn, you can see him correct course when he realizes the pedestrian is standing there, putting him in the path of the truck longer than originally calculated.

  • [2] November 10, 2014 at 11:39pm


    Don’t forget about non-Christian teachers! They should all be fired also! And teachers that don’t agree with Gay marriage…fire them too! And heaven forbid there be a teacher that isn’t an open feminist! I say we start cleaning house! Get rid of all those coloreds and Jews too…YEEHAW!

    But seriously, as a fellow Texan, I say this from the bottom of my heart: take your thought police mentality and please, move out of my state ASAP.

  • [2] November 10, 2014 at 11:27pm


    I think the girl should have been arrested for making an illegal recording. Once it was out, I don’t think the league should have had the authority to force the sale of his team, especially when it was co-owned with his estranged wife. That whole situation was fubar.


    I’m’ sorry to see you side with liberals who think free speech should only be allowed when it doesn’t offend. No, I wouldn’t want my kids in this classroom, and so I would make a call to the school and change that. But you are talking about the government controlling someone’s speech, outside of work. You are actually calling for government to control speech. In case you miss my point, YOU ARE CALLING FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO CONTROL A CITIZEN’S SPEECH!

    The Constitution allows people to do and say things you don’t agree with. This is the problem with a 2 party system; both camps want a government that can control what you do and say and think, just so long as what they allow aligns with what you want to do and say and think.

    Seriously, man, rethink your stance on freedom; right now, you’re on the wrong side of the law, of liberty, of the Constitution.

  • [30] November 10, 2014 at 5:39pm


    You make a great point that school teachers should not be government employees. Schools should be privately run and if taxes for their existence must be levied, then a voucher program is certainly called for.

    Secondly, as a government employee (local/state government, that is), her employer is the government itself. If we allow government employees to have their social lives monitored/controlled by their employer, then we are allowing the government to control their actions, speech, thoughts, etc.

    This seems like a very dangerous shift toward an Orwellian future. Don’t fall for it. Let the parents work this out with the school itself.

  • [8] November 10, 2014 at 5:31pm

    Yes, she is an employee of the school district, and if this was done while at work or from a school computer, yes, fire her. If, however, this was done from home or on her phone while off the clock, then again, we must be very careful when coming to a determination regarding her termination.

    If we allow employers to fire people for what they do when not at work, we are effectively giving employers the ability to control all aspects of our lives. If she is a government worker, then we are giving the government the power to control all aspects of our lives!

    No, I would not want my child in her class. And a single phone call to the school will fix that problem. And when every parent has called and expressed the same opinion, then she can be fired for the inability to perform her job. But I don’t have a child in her class, nor do you, so we are not the ones to make this call.

    I am simply warning everyone that this is EXACTLY the type of speech protected by our founders, as unpopular and disgusting as we all know it to be. Condemn her if you want, I certainly have, but do not allow this government to claim itself as a righteous warden of everyone’s social life. Surely you can see the line that would cross.

  • [9] November 10, 2014 at 5:16pm

    @ Chuck

    I was agreeing with an assessment as to the reasons for the outrage, not with the validity of the threatened actions against this woman.

    We have freedom of speech. Only recently has “speech” come to mean seemingly everything but speech itself. This woman made a statement that was available to the public. She also works in a right-to-work state, so she can honestly be fired for any/no reason. But to fire someone for expressing their opinion, while breaking no laws, is wrong.

    She said something stupid and racist, and her quality of work should be questioned and reviewed, but to fire someone because their ideology is different than that of an employer is a very dangerous bridge to cross.

    What if your employer decided that you voted the wrong way, so fired you? Or if you were overheard in a restaurant talking about religion and it was a different viewpoint than your employer? Should you be fired then?

    What I am saying is that freedom of speech specifically protects unpopular opinions. If it only protected popular opinions, the expressed right of free speech would be entirely unnecessary.

123 To page: Go