VCV just doesn’t get it even though the history is plain to see. The legal challenges we are debating are a direct result of the issue being made political by those who wanted same sex marriage in the first place. Conservatives did not start this and it isn’t a question of “which came first, the chicken or the egg?” The pendulum was pushed by same sex marriage advocates and the legal battles (and the recent rash of state sponsored RFRA laws) are quite obviously the pushback.
 April 15, 2015 at 1:12am
The Blaze wrote: “…Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said the 2010 ban was voluntarily as part of efforts to encourage progress in nuclear talks.
“The announcement of the sales has prompted critics of the Iran deal to be even more skeptical.”
That’s funny – Sergei Lavrov was the same Russian diplomat Hillary Clinton handed the “reset” button to. As a reminder, Hillary’s staff chose the word “peregruzka,” which means “overloaded” or “overcharged.” I guess the Russians just hit that same “reset” button when they want to make some more money from countries we “overcharge” and “overload” us in the process.
 April 15, 2015 at 12:40am
Fakers wearing a combat uniform even though they’ve never served is nothing new but I don’t get a few things:
One, why do fakers so often flip up the collar? That’s usually only done when wearing armor (flack vest w/ plates or simple plate carriers).
Two, his US flag is in the middle of the velcro on his right arm and it is always supposed to be worn on the pocket flap at the top. How do fakers mess this one up? It’s too easy to get right. Search out the regs online, dummies!
Three, he could simply be a PVT and wear no insignia but if he were serving he *would* have to wear his name on his right side – whether he was out for a quick bite on the way home or not.
Four, where’s his t-shirt? The ACU blouse will rub you raw without a shirt on underneath it – AND nobody wears ACU top w/o a shirt. Maybe that’s why he flipped up his collar.
Five, this is one of his most egregious errors IMHO, he *is* wearing the “U.S. ARMY” patch on his left, on the chest. It’s in the right place BUT if you’re not a service member then that’s the ONE patch you really *should* take off – and take off the flag while you’re at it!
 April 15, 2015 at 12:29am
I’m sure this guy just wanted some attention, probably a few “thanks for your service” comments, attention from girls, and perhaps a free drink or two. Without trying to get money or other *tangible* benefit by use of one of a few specific medals or badges (not just the uniform) it’s not really a case of “stolen valor.” People who care about the difference really should look up and read the Stolen Valor Act of 2013.
BTW, “fatigues” are a Vietnam era uniform and haven’t been around since the Battle Dress Uniform (BDU) replaced them in the 1980s. This fellow was wearing what replaced the BDU, the Army Combat Uniform (ACU), and was doing it poorly. He was wearing a unit patch, the U.S. ARMY patch, and an American flag patch.
 April 3, 2015 at 10:48am
“A press release published by the church said that the visit lasted 20 minutes, confirming that the topics discussed centered on ‘families, immigration, humanitarian aid, and religious freedom and non-discrimination.’”
What could you possibly discuss from this list of topics, with any kind of real or meaningful depth, in 20 minutes?
20 minutes minus the time it took to listen to a Charlie Rich song to set the mood of the meeting.
Not with the shallowness of the preezy.
It's not immigration. It's an invasion.
"What could you possibly discuss from this list of topics, with any kind of real or meaningful depth, in 20 minutes?"
Obama, "Suck it."
Mormons, "We have some legitimate concerns about the policies of... "
Obama, "Suck it."
Mormons, "But, Mr President.. we seriously think this will impact...
Obama, "Suck it,"
(repeat as such for 20 minutes).
Probably a typical Obama "negotiation" session. He comes into the room and tells those present what he wants, tells them to do it, or else he will wield his pen and executive authority and do it himself.
Ker: Mr. Script writer gave him a condensed , 20 minute version .
Im sure all the topics mentioned came up. Being the great dark lord obama would after all rub salt in the wound.
"MuahahahaHHAHahahah i am using tax dollars to fund people like gosnell to cut the spines of living, screaming for help, late term babies."
You know, his standard off the prompter remarks.
Well, good grief. Maybe he was in a hurry passing through on his way to the great money tree in California.
President Barack Obama held a closed-door meeting with leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Salt Lake City, Utah, on Thursday night.... no surprise as it is well known this church does everything behind closed doors.
20mins? I was thinking the same thing. Nothing could have been discussed of any meaning in 20mins. Obama knows it all, so not even a prophet could enlighten his majesty. Now I know why President Thomas S.Monson said that he was saving his energy for General Conference which starts tomorrow. He truly is a prophet of God. :)
Followed by trial for High Treason.
March 27, 2015 at 11:27am
Here’s what I see: two left leaning comicbook (graphic novel) creators, one Catholic and one Atheist, who have both created books on Jesus recently (“American Jesus” by Mark Millar and “Punk Rock Jesus” by Sean Murphy).
Murphy is aggresively atheist (a type of atheist often erroneously referred to as a “positive atheist”) and often bashes belief and believers, while Millar’s work is surprisingly respectful to the spirit of Christianity (even if not Catholicism specifically), but they both are politically outspoken and consistently rail against American “conservatives.”
This is what I wish GB and the Blaze would see – these guys are part of the culture war GB and the Blaze are fighting, but they haven’t quite caught up to this part yet.
March 9, 2015 at 11:42am
VCV wrote: “100 %. incorrect. Gay marriage has become a POLITICAL issue thanks to conservatives. Morons like Carson – have brought these questions on themselves. I know this is the “Can’t connect the dots” crowd, but really if you’re REALLY TIRED of having all the GAY 24/7 shoved in your faces – STOP BRINGING COURT CHALLENGES to the gay marriage issue. Now isn’t that simple?”
Yeah DB, STOP bringing court challenges to attempts to CHANGE laws! Or something. You conservatives STARTED this… by CALLING OTHERS OUT on it!! How DARE YOU bring up an IMPORTANT SOCIAL DEBATE in the legal realm… when SOMEBODY ELSE got there first!!! TAKE THAT to the court… 100%!!!! (what’s with all the CAPS, btw?)
VCV just doesn't get it even though the history is plain to see. The legal challenges we are debating are a direct result of the issue being made political by those who wanted same sex marriage in the first place. Conservatives did not start this and it isn't a question of "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" The pendulum was pushed by same sex marriage advocates and the legal battles (and the recent rash of state sponsored RFRA laws) are quite obviously the pushback.
 March 7, 2015 at 6:32pm
MR: “Kerb, you are correct. Fornication is a Biblical justification for divorce (you can’t seriously believe you know the Bible better than I).”
You are the one claiming superior knowledge (I didn’t make that claim) and yet you didn’t even bother to bring up the exception written into the very Bible verse you cited (Mathew 19.9). Normally, I would call it a simple oversight and give the benefit of doubt, but if you know the Bible so well, as you are claiming, then it is more likely an egregious error or a lie of omission.
You left out several very important concepts in your original response, which I added, and then you yet again overlooked the most important one – repentence and forgiveness. You can sin (divorce for the wrong reasons), repent, and ask for forgiveness. That was my final and likely most important point on the matter.
“…the Bible is open to interpretation. That’s why there are 100s of denominations and millions [...] of different interpretations of what the Bible means: as many as there are Christians.”
Liberty is why you see so much variety. Yes, there is room for interpretation, but we have the right to interpret and choose. I will defend your right to choose, your liberty, because I want that right as well and know it is a basic, natural human right.
“…a person can have an opinion different from yours about the Bible and still be a ModerateRepublican.”
Correction: I believe you just might be a moderate republican – the modern progressive type.
 March 6, 2015 at 5:33pm
MR wrote: “But what if you know that the couple, let’s say they are heterosexual, have been having sex before marriage, given for example they are living together. Wouldn’t going to the wedding be supporting their sinful lifestyle? What if it’s their second marriage? The Bible considers that adultery (Mathew 19.9). Wouldn’t going to the wedding be condoning adultery? Mark 10:12 “And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.” Since the Biblical penalty for adultery is death, should I go to the wedding or do I kill them?”
Here are a few concepts for MR, or anybody silly enough to take MR’s ideas seriously, to look up: fornication as a justification for divorce, Jesus’s mention that a man and a woman should become one flesh (not a homosexual couple), the differences between a secular society’s ideas of marriage (a civil ceremony) and God’s conception and treatment of marriage (a marriage rooted in faith and the commandments of God), and finally – repentence and forgiveness.
Does anybody here at the Blaze, in the comment sections, believe that ModerateRepublican is a republican, moderate, libertarian, or even mildly conservative? I’d say MR is clearly a full blown *Progressive* with a capital P.
 February 11, 2015 at 2:49pm
I watched the TMZ video yesterday before I commented, and then today – just now, and both times I heard “well, (their/they’re) right” and wondered why Clint Eastwood didn’t phrase it “well, [it's] their right” if that is indeed what he meant. The response “well, their right” makes very little sense. In short, it was likely just a hasty and sloppy answer… and it left him and his words wide open to interpretation.
Now, in response to the alleged leftism of the Blaze and Glenn Beck… what in the world are you talking about? Please, cite examples.
For the sake of argument, I’ll take your perspective, just for a moment, that many stories on the Blaze may seem to take a more moderate or “leftist” perspective and then ask this simple question: what is likely to get you more views (unique visitors), page refreshes, and responses (like what we’re doing here now)?
It is very possible that a middle of the road, or even “leftist” seeming slant, to news or opinion posts such as this is much more likely to get the widest number of views/reads, reposts and forwards, and comments. Does that necessarily mean the Blaze and/or Glenn Beck is leftist?
I say “No” and would add that I’ve often done this very thing on my own Facebook page to avoid an outright argument with one of my siblings who is very left-leaning and quite reactionary. In my experience, it’s actually the best way to get the most interesting and lively conversations out of family and friends.
 February 11, 2015 at 8:55am
That’s why it is nice to have the writer of the original article reading and commenting on the thread and updating with things like this:
“Editor’s note: This story has been updated to reflect that it was not entirely clear if Eastwood said ‘they’re’ or ‘their’ in his response.”
The original article was entirely about misunderstandings and possible misrepresentation. Was the initial draft poorly worded and were assumptions made? Yes, but it’s not really worth calling anyone an “oaf” or questioning who’s “side” they are on.
As the great Karl Popper once said: “It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood.”
February 10, 2015 at 7:57pm
SpeakSoftlyAndCarry wrote: “And how much of an oaf does someone have to be to not realize this…Darcy?”
Look at the title of the YouTube video that is embedded “‘American Sniper’ Bashers Have a Point” Really? What point would that be? Oh, TMZ heard or understood “they’re right” as well.
 February 2, 2015 at 12:11pm
DLV: “…if the courts are going to be consistent…”
The courts will deem it “hate speech” and treat the two cases differently because that is what progressivism does.
Proverbs17-12NLT wrote: “I really feel sorry for people who bought gold when it was $1,330 an ounce last year and silver was $33.00 an ounce.”
Well, I feel sorry for those who do not have a food and water store – regardless of the price of those consumable items at the time they were bought. Buying physical gold or silver is much the same. I feel sorry for those who do not have weapons and ammunition and no training on how to use them. Glenn has also talked about buying cigarettes and liqour, again – as potential bartering items, and farm land to weather any possible economic storms. Why do you think he has cows, an old truck, and home without heavy dependence upon electricity and other modern conveniences? He believes what he says and puts his money where his mouth is, that’s why.
In truth, I feel sorry for anybody and everybody who do not understand that the estimated *price* of a commodity valued in the currency that is likely crashing as those estimates become true does not mean very much. $2,000 of gold, in a failing currency’s value, may not buy you AlexS1′s chickens, but it may be enough leverage (as a hedge) to keep you in the black as many businesses, job opportunities, and investments around you start to crumble and disappear. If and when a total collapse happens, I likely won’t be depending on gold or silver either and I don’t have to. Good luck keeping your chickens AlexS1. I hope you’re armed and trained as well.
January 13, 2015 at 7:27pm
Exreblisheep wrote: “Ask white supremacists who they like more, dems or repubs.”
You’re off narrative – they supposedly like libertarians. Do you not remember some of the criticisms of Ron Paul in 2008 and Rand Paul just a few years back? The rights of private businesses vs. civil rights? It’s partly why Goldwater lost the 1964 presidential run against LBJ (in addition to the infamous Daisy Ad).
The topic often quickly shifts to state’s rights vs civil rights – they love comparing state’s rights debates of the pre-civil war, slavery era to the individual rights vs. civil rights 100 years later as though they are the same thing and part of the original discussion.
It’s all moot – apples and oranges and non-sequiturs – but the real racists will keep peddling that nonsense because it’s divisive and it works. I don’t care who you are, everybody should be for maximum freedom.
December 2, 2014 at 10:58am
What was that about driving tanks? Wouldn’t that be a 19K? An HMMWV Driver MOS? Um, okay… is that what an 88M does now? This guy was all over the map. I’ve met several untabbed ranger batt soldiers, but understand it probably wouldn’t stay that way for long. I suspect it’s a bit like being stationed at Bragg or Benning w/o jump wings, you will eventually be harassed and forced to go – even if you remain little more than a five jump chump. To be honest, I’m surprised more people don’t pretend to be 42 series and bore people with administrative details about writing memos or making coffee for their commanders. Therein lies the rub, I guess… that’s not impressive and what attracts the posers.
November 24, 2014 at 3:59pm
“Higher education holds itself out as a kind of universal church, outside of which there is no salvation. Critics are cast as heretics or schismatics endangering the flock. But our greatest danger comes from the herd instinct that drives us to competition and crowds out difference.
“A Reformation is coming, and its message will be the same as it was 500 years ago: Don’t outsource your future to a big institution. You need to figure it out for yourself.”
-Peter Thiel, billionaire venture capitalist and philanthropist, in the Washington Post on 21 Nov 2014
November 17, 2014 at 12:36pm
“Shouldn’t a marriage proposal be an intimate moment between two people?”
It has always been my position that men shouldn’t pop the question if they don’t already have a near solid idea of what the answer will be, and this guy obviously did his homework and likely knew the answer. Good on him – they’ll likely do well and treasure this moment for years to come.
Depending on the couple, of course, there’s nothing wrong with involving family and friends in a marriage proposal. Moreover, family involvement in many marriages has made the difference in the overall success of those marriages. I would add that the exceptions aren’t usually a matter of familial involvement, but rather a lack of good judgement that leads to unwisely and generally involving others in more intimate and personal matters, across the board, that are not the business of family and friends; this is not usually the case with the proposals themselves.
“…will likely help contribute to the growing divorce rate numbers…”
Divorce rates are actually in decline and have been for a good, long while. The idea that one in every two marriages fail is a statistical lie (see my earlier response to Thor.Perun, under repeal1968gca’s comment).
November 17, 2014 at 11:56am
Thor.Perun wrote: ” But 50% marriages end up in divorce,”
Please forgive me for this, it is not a personal attack, but I am so tired of this false statistic being parroted again and again, as though its mere repetition makes it true; it’s not true – never has been and never will be. Do some research, the peak of divorce probably never surpassed 40%, in the early 80s, and was likely closer to 30% and has been steadily in decline. The introduction of No-Fault divorce in the late 60s and early 70s predictably led to an initial glut of divorces.
Also, how do you balance the equation when a significant number of divorces are repeat offenders? The chances of a second, third, fourth (and beyond) marriage being successful falls as the number increases. Why is that? A lack of commitment? Ease of repetition? Deeply seated personal issues? It’s a bit anecdotal, but how would you count Elizabeth Taylor’s eight marriages to seven different men? An honest and thorough analysis of the statistics will reveal that 70-90% of all marriages actually succeed. That’s a far cry from the misleading and overly simplistic notion that 1 in 2 of all marriages fail.
 September 11, 2014 at 2:01pm
CC32 wrote “Everyone in this audience was dismissed and shut down under the accusation of blind racism, bigotry, and ‘hate’, while not being allowed to express themselves, so what makes our response any different from liberal/progs?”
Since when is an audience supposed to lecture the speaker or be allowed time to “express themselves” during a talk?
Most of the instances I have witnessed this happen, especially in an effort to shut somebody up, we’re mostly leftist/progressive audience members during a conservative’s talk. So, what were you saying about the similarities and differences?
Reminds me of the truism “Liberals want conservatives to shut up. Conservatives want liberals to keep talking.”