User Profile: justangry

justangry

Member Since: June 10, 2011

Comments

123 To page: Go
  • [-1] August 30, 2014 at 10:35am

    Hey Mic, First you presume to know my knowledge base regarding Christianity. You don’t. Second, I merely pointed out the weakness in his argument. It’s a personal attack to discredit Dawkin’s argument as was your diatribe towards me. If you believe in original sin, why single out the atheist as being corrupt? Seriously, a couple stories after this one was a judge blocking an anti-abortion bill in Texas, not by an atheist else the Blaze would have highlighted that fact. Seriously, I don’t know WTF is wrong with those of you who alienate people who come down the same way on the issues more often than not solely based on their religious beliefs or lack thereof. I’m not endorsing abortion, I’m just demonstrating that when you retreat into mysticism, you cede reason to your opponents. When you use Alinsky personal attacks to discredit an argument, rather than using reason, you lose while imitating the leftists you say you despise. Which doesn’t surprise me, because your all’s type of collectivism isn’t all that different than theirs.

  • August 29, 2014 at 9:59pm

    What does that have to do with his point?

  • August 29, 2014 at 6:09pm

    If you have two atheists. One that’s a pro-life activist, and the other a pro-choice advocate, are they both doing abominable works?

  • [2] August 29, 2014 at 7:50am

    Cool. Although I don’t feel as though they protect anything other than themselves and the crooks they work for these days tbh.

  • [8] August 29, 2014 at 7:40am

    Aren’t the cops unionized?

    Responses (3) +
  • [1] August 28, 2014 at 4:43pm

    LOL, so would I. It’s not like these FFRF people are fans of objectivism or libertarians either. Doesn’t stop me from yammering about it.

  • [2] August 28, 2014 at 4:30pm

    How about getting rid of positions of power and authority instead?

  • August 28, 2014 at 4:28pm

    Disingenuous? How so? Arming terrorists and meddling in the affairs of other countries is better if R’s do it?

  • [2] August 28, 2014 at 4:22pm

    Hmm… A little anarchist streak in you, I see. That’s a compliment.

    Responses (3) +
  • August 28, 2014 at 1:58pm

    Yeah, we need another Reagan. He’d never arm any terrorists. Whoops never mind. I forgot about Bin Laden for a second… This isn’t a partisan problem. If anything it demonstrates what little choice we really have.

  • [-1] August 28, 2014 at 11:45am

    Gawd nationalists are stupid. The collectivists in charge, you know the “open borders” people, are actively pursuing legislation to prevent companies from leaving. Not the other way around. UNDERSTAND?

  • August 28, 2014 at 11:00am

    Yeah bombs and carrier deployments are cheap.

  • August 28, 2014 at 10:49am

    Their god is a collectivist bigot too?

  • [3] August 28, 2014 at 10:46am

    Many Americans will die when the economy tanks and welfare is cut. More war while we’re 17.5 trillion in the hole isn’t going to save lives. There sure are a lot of lefty “conservatives” pundits out there using feelings more than their minds.

    Responses (1) +
  • [-3] August 28, 2014 at 9:19am

    @13th, You’re calling me a Marxist while wanting the US to emulate what the Soviets (aka Marxists) did in Berlin? You smart…

  • [-6] August 28, 2014 at 7:52am

    That’s why I never understood why “conservatives” keep calling for a fence.

    Responses (5) +
  • [1] August 28, 2014 at 7:52am

    So he’s a socialist and a nationalist? Meanwhile he’ll cry that the extreme right are fascists…

    Responses (1) +
  • [4] August 27, 2014 at 9:53pm

    Nope. All we learned is they classified everything, and put out a story that only fools believe. Then they started a couple wars, expanded the government, shredded the Constitution while giving their “too big to fail” cronies a bunch of scratch, paid for by unborn slave babies.

  • [23] August 27, 2014 at 8:35pm

    How would they know with them spending so much time and energy spying on us?

    Responses (7) +
  • August 27, 2014 at 5:47pm

    The name came after the convention. Their philosophy was developing for centuries. The articles were only too weak to those that craved more power, however if interpreted correctly (and there’s the minarchists’ flawed presumption) then no, we wouldn’t be having as many conversations as we are today. However if the declaration included emancipation, as intended by later “anti-federalist” Jefferson, would we have as many problems? 1st compromise with evil. Besides, you recall what Patrick Henry said regarding the convention/constitution? “I smell a rat”. He was right. There was no legitimacy to the convention, but the statist douches won out.

123 To page: Go