User Profile: JustMyOwnOpinion


Member Since: December 10, 2012


123 To page: Go
  • [9] April 27, 2016 at 5:00pm

    “PolitiFact” is an oxymoron, like “Government Intelligence” is.

    Transgendered “women” ARE men dressing as women. Unless they’ve had a dickectomy, that is.

    Responses (1) +
  • [4] April 26, 2016 at 4:17pm

    I think GKar is afraid (as all of us NORMAL people are) of the perverts using the transgender policies to their purposes. They will do whatever it takes to get close to their prey. They will dress as a transgender and claim they are one to get into the women’s room. They can then do things like sit in the stall next to their victim and, say, slide a video camera (camera phone) through the gap between the side wall separating the stalls and the front wall with the door so they can video their target. Who knows where that video would end up. Do you want your wife, daughter, female friends to end up on some pervert web site in all their nakedness? Or what about something I was made aware of earlier today–pee cams? Apparently, perverts can put a camera in the toilet under the front rim (most people don’t look there) aimed at what they want to look at. Someone pervert could go into a stall and put it in place, then later in the day go into the same stall and remove it. Creepy and gross. This is taking advantage of people while they are most vulnerable. Sick, sick, sick!

    Neither transgender nor perverted people belong in rest rooms they don’t have the equipment for. People with P3N1Ses go into the men’s room. People without go into the women’s room. Simple.

    spankylistens2u, YOU have a problem in perception. Male is male. Female is female. It’s time you learn that.

  • [6] April 26, 2016 at 4:03pm

    They’ll “go” in the pet aisle. They’ll just paw down a litter box and tear open a bag of kitty litter….

  • [1] April 26, 2016 at 3:46pm

    But this is not about refusing service. This is about the gays demanding the baker make a product NOT ON THE MENU. They would not make that product for anyone–gay or normal. Discrimination laws state that you cannot choose to sell one product to one person, but refuse the same product to another, based on race, etc. It DOESN’T APPLY when the product DOESN’T EXIST on the menu!

    Responses (1) +
  • [1] April 26, 2016 at 3:41pm

    If LGBT adherents go into a restaurant and demand to order something not on the menu, and the restaurant staff declines, does that give the LGBT adherents the right to sue the restaurant?

    The gay wedding cake is NOT ON THE MENU!

    The bakers will gladly sell any cake that is on the menu to any person, LGBT or normal!

  • [3] April 26, 2016 at 3:26pm

    There is a difference in “not serving homosexuals” and “not offering a specific product.” The homosexuals that came into the store could buy any product the bakers made. The bakers did NOT discriminate against them. Just by not offering a “two men” cake topping does not mean they discriminated against the homosexuals that wanted to buy one.

    Note that the bakers would not sell a “two men” cake to a heterosexual person, either. If the product isn’t made by the baker, no one should FORCE them to make it!

    The law, as I see it, means that they can’t prevent homosexuals from coming into their store and buying product that is made. It doesn’t mean forcing the baker to make specific products.

    For example, if I make widgets and sell them, I cannot be forced to make gizmos, too, and sell them. I will sell widgets to both normal and homosexual people, but I can refuse to make gizmos for anyone (normal or homosexual).

    Responses (2) +
  • [28] April 25, 2016 at 12:58pm

    I am SOOOO glad I left that so-called-church in 1989! I was born and raised into that faith, in a more conservative part of the country. When I was in college in Kalamazoo, the Wesley Foundation pastor took us on a trip to Chicago where we saw all kinds of new directions the “church” was heading. The Lord’s Prayer totally changed around, removing “Father” from “Our Father” and replacing it with “God”–totally removing the notion of how Jesus taught us to pray! The “who art in heaven” was replaced with “who art with us and among us”–totally removing heaven from the prayer. I totally ignored the rest of what they said and prayed the real prayer. I joined the Catholic church and haven’t looked back.

    Any organization that allows gay weddings should be forced to have the term “Church” removed from its name! It is very un-Christian what they did, and Church is for Christians.

    Responses (3) +
  • [4] April 25, 2016 at 12:31pm

    We need to change the name of “Barack Obama Academy of International Studies” (a grades 6 through 12 school in Pittsburgh). Now THAT one should be renamed the Donald Trump Academy of International Studies.”

  • [2] April 22, 2016 at 5:21pm

    Hey “letmegooglethatforyou”. The Republican party has been moving leftward for quite some time. Thats why I won’t join it. The attributes you describe are LIBERAL ones! Conservatives do not believe in them!

    From what I can tell, Cruz is being targeted by the Republican establishment (the liberal-leaning ones) because he is “too” conservative for them. Well, the establishment is too liberal for me!

    Trump is popular because he is not a career politician, and people of both parties are getting fed up with the government and its liberalism. The people want an outsider to come in and clean house.

    Not sure if either Cruz or Trump is the guy to do it, but that’s how I read things.

  • [9] April 22, 2016 at 3:33pm

    I agree Insightful, Charles doesn’t get it that it is the EVIL people that we worry about. I don’t think the transgenders are evil, at least not the vast majority of them. They’re just mentally ill and need medical help. It is those that PRETEND to be transgender just so they can put themselves into rooms they ought not be in that are the problem. A perverted man wanting to get his jollies being a peeping tom inside the ladies room, or a creepy woman wanting to see, umm, things. With all the various cameras that can be hidden, who knows if YOU will get posted on some x-rated website?

  • [2] April 20, 2016 at 2:48pm

    The Church Brew Works is one such example. My mother-in-law used to be organist there and liked the restaurant that it became, too.

    The Altar Bar is another. I’ve taken my son to two concerts there.

    Both are in Pittsburgh.

  • April 7, 2016 at 12:13pm

    What if the company lets go ALL of their current minimum-wage employees and replaces them with illegals, paid under the table at something like $3-4/hr? I have heard this is happening in the plains states closer to Mexico than where I am. If this is true, it is one reason so many illegals are flooding our country.

    “Employment” rates are reported higher, yet true unemployment of CITIZENS is high (9.9% or 14.4%, depending on who you ask)..

  • [1] March 30, 2016 at 4:17pm

    Not my Catholic church! They are very anti-abortion, anti-Obama, anti-homosexuality, and conservative. Our priest is angry with those few bad-apple priests that take advantage of boys. Most of the priests that I’ve met and known have been vocal on the matters–even to the point of saying our current Pope is not conservative enough!

  • [-1] March 30, 2016 at 2:56pm

    The baby inside the womb, and the umbilical cord and placenta, have different DNA than the mother. The placenta and the uterus physically touch so that nutrients (oxygen, also known as plant waste) and waste (carbon dioxide, also known as plant food) exchange. The baby (fetus) gets his or her oxygen from the mother’s blood via the exchange at the uterus/placenta interface to the blood vessels in the placenta and on into the body. The carbon dioxide goes the other direction.
    This baby has different DNA, and therefore is NOT a part of a woman’s body! He/she is only receiving nutrition from his/her mother. Everything about the differently-DNA’d person is unique to that person. If somehow the baby were to get a broken arm inside, would the mother feel it? No. But the baby would. If something tickled the baby’s feet, would the mother feel it? No. But the baby would. The nerves go from the baby’s body to the baby’s brain–not the mother’s. How anyone can think that this baby is a part of a woman’s body is totally absurd!
    Back in the early to mid 1980s I came across an article that was about 10 years old at the time (don’t remember which) that stated the heartbeat of the fetus can be detected at about 10-12 days after conception. That was with sensors and instruments from the 1970s. I wonder what today’s technology can detect! Totally negates the argument that a baby’s life begins when the heartbeat or electrical nerve pulses can be detected.

  • [31] March 3, 2016 at 4:46pm

    Back in the 1980′s I remember reading an article about being able to detect a heartbeat at about 12 days after conception. I wonder what today’s technology can detect!

    Even if one doesn’t wish to go back to conception, the heart beat argument is at most 12 days later.

    I would ask the protesters that think life begins when the baby takes its first breath “How did the baby grow big enough and develop enough to be able to take its first breath? It HAS to grow, and therefore MUST be alive. Since his/her genetics are different than the mother’s, it is a different person and not a ‘tumor’ or ‘growth’ that needs to be removed.”

  • [12] January 28, 2016 at 1:10pm

    Who said the 72 virgins had to be female??? Isn’t it Muslim men that like their pre-teen boys to bend over?

  • January 11, 2016 at 12:23pm

    Since when were the virgins guaranteed to be female???

  • [32] December 22, 2015 at 12:07pm

    Also, watch out for Islamic double-speak. They have beliefs that change the meanings of words.

    For example, they believe that non-Muslims are nobodies, nothings. There is a mosque on my way into town that has an awning with the text “Love for all. Hatred toward none.” On the surface, it sounds wonderful. Looking deeper, the “none” that they refer to are all of us non-Muslims, since we are nobodies, nothings, none. So you should read the sign as actually saying “Love for all Muslims. Hatred towards non-Muslims.” That is what they believe in their hearts is the meaning of it.

    If you hear a Muslim say something that has a qualification to it, look into what the qualification is covering up. There is the story of the Muslim man sitting on a stool outside his home. When his brother/friend/other Muslim man came running down the street and into the home, the man outside got up and moved to another stool. When the authorities came by and asked the man on the stool if he had seen anyone running past, he answered “As long as I have been sitting on this stool, I have not seen anyone.” While a technically true statement, it does not answer the question at hand, but instead evades it and gives the opposite impression.

    You cannot trust ANYTHING a Muslim says!

    Responses (1) +
  • [26] December 22, 2015 at 11:51am

    In Islam, it is OK for a Muslim to lie to the “infidels” (non-Muslims) if it furthers Islam. You cannot trust what they say.

    They say that they are not terrorists, because that is what they believe. Violence is their jihad (struggle), which they believe is their duty. They believe it is different than being a terrorist. If you ask a Muslim if those that killed on 9/11, at the Boston Marathon, etc., are terrorists, they would say “no” as they believe they are jihadists instead.

  • [464] December 21, 2015 at 3:17pm

    Since Muslims believe that it is OK to lie to “infidels” (i.e. the rest of us) as long as it furthers Islam, one CANNOT believe ANYTHING they say.

    Responses (9) +
123 To page: Go
Restoring Love