User Profile: sapper


Member Since: September 09, 2010


123 To page: Go
  • March 15, 2015 at 4:22pm

    Really? Well hey I’m a combat vet and former code enforcement officer. Been there, done that so I guess I have room to speak. But I happen to agree with you. Seems like the cops did the job right on this one.

  • [1] March 15, 2015 at 12:49pm

    oh no, I thought gun control was supposed to stop all violence. Damn it, I guess now we must institute knife control legislation…..

  • [1] March 12, 2015 at 12:23pm

    no respect for the idiot who published this study nor for john hopkins for going along with it. I would love for these morons to explain how STD’s and Cancer can be higher due to the presence of a bit of skin that covers the glans. Being uncircumcised 46 year old I find this to be completely absurd. What does he think…that diseases somehow hide out in the foreskin? What a dope. Just plain stupid. Furthermore, it is not hypocritical to support a mother trying to prevent the genital mutilation of her four year old. These so called medical experts apparently are devoid of any kind of common sense. Having a bit of skin cut off helps prevent STD’s and cancer…..REALLY, then why is it not mandated for all men regardless of age eh? Idiotic in the extreme.

  • [5] March 12, 2015 at 12:09pm

    this is one of the most disgusting and disturbing things I’ve ever seen. How the hell can a court order genital mutilation in the united states of america? Judge is an idiot who should have told the father to get bent. This is absurd. Circumcision is dangerous and more so the older you get. A four year old would be in severe pain…which is why this is normally done on newborns who will not remember it. Highly disgusting display of power mad court system. Kudos to the mom for hiding your son. Keep running as long as you can and appeal this to a higher court and seek an emergency injunction.

  • [2] March 12, 2015 at 12:01pm

    to all, I stand corrected. Rand is, in fact a Republican. Fact remains though that he is one vote of 100 and cannot effect change on his own. He does what he can and is one of the few politicians that does not toe the party line.

  • [1] March 12, 2015 at 11:59am

    what war hero? Rand was speaking to the Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter who has never served a single day in the military. How exactly did he become a war hero? He is a Yale educated Rhodes scholar who has been on the federal tit for his entire career. He has never worked outside of the government.

  • [3] March 12, 2015 at 11:56am

    um, Rand is an independent. He is not a republican and he is one of the few people that actually try to get something done.

  • [6] March 12, 2015 at 11:55am

    no, he said he trusts the secretary of defense when he said he was not considering mass troop involvement in going after ISIS. Rand never said he trust obama. In fact he said several times in this one vid that he does NOT trust the administration.

  • [8] March 12, 2015 at 11:50am

    Rand is an independent not a democrat. The only thing you would hear from a democrat is incoherent babbling…..

  • [10] March 12, 2015 at 11:47am

    Rand is one of three people who have repeatedly put forth legislation and attempts to hold the administration in check. Along with Mike Lee and Ted Cruz, Rand is one of the few people in congress actually trying to do anything. In fact this video is proof of that. One Senator cannot effect change on his own. Maybe your should spend some energy trying to get your own representatives to follow suit and vote to impeach the president. It takes a majority in both houses and to insinuate that Rand should do it on his own is absurd. I’m positive that he and a lot of others would LOVE to. Furthermore, Rand is a Senator and impeachment is begun in the House of Representatives. Rand can’t even put forth articles of impeachment if he wanted to. He has a single voice out of 101 (100 senators and the VP who would break a tie). Very ignorant to suggest Rand should lead congress to anything regarding removal of a president. Complete lack of understanding of how your government works.

  • [4] March 12, 2015 at 11:27am

    well I pay those taxes too and I want them to read scripture. Why is your opinion and use of tax dollars more important than mine and who gets to decide that? The constitution does not prohibit use of taxes in regard to religion but rather prohibits congress from making a law dictating to the country which sect of religion the nation as a whole will follow. Nothing in the constitution prohibits a school from reading scripture. The flip side to that is that nothing prevents a school from reading from the quaran either. I wouldn’t like it but it would not violate the constitution. Lastly, atheists are attempting to establish their religion as the state religion by default because if no other religion is allowed then atheism is left standing by default. Atheism is a religion by the way. Why should a Christian be forced to adhere to your atheist beliefs? That is exactly what is being perpetrated on us.

  • [7] March 12, 2015 at 11:20am

    Congress shall make no law…..the school is not congress. Until the 1950′s scripture and the bible were the mainstay of education in this nation. The New England Primer was the main textbook and is full of scripture. If the founders wanted no religion in schools then how would it be possible that those very men used the bible as the foundation for education? It is only since the 70′s when Carter signed into law that department of education. Liberals controlled all three branches of government and they instituted things that are completely unconstitutional. SInce then they have gone to great lengths to make people believe that the constitution actually prohibits religion in the public arena. That is a fallacy. Anyone over the age of fifty knows that the founding fathers sought to prevent religion being dictated as was done in europe where the king proclaimed the nation to be catholic. They never intended to prevent your being exposed to religion. We were founded as a christian nation that TOLERATES all religious practice. It is absurd to think they would have found it unlawful to quote scripture at school.

  • [1] March 12, 2015 at 11:10am

    on the contrary, by attempting to rid the schools of all religion they are attempting to establish the religion of atheism as the only acceptable religion in the schools by default. Your ignorance of the reason for the establishment clause shows your obvious indoctrination by the socialists and atheists that have controlled public education for decades. The fist amendment was intended only to prevent congress from establishing a national religion. A very liberal supreme court many decades ago decided that they would establish law where there was none by proclaiming that getting money from the government somehow makes you the government. You might note that the amendment specifically mentions congress. Example: If the president signed an executive order mandating all military personnel worship buddha it would be perfectly legal under the constitution. The civil rights act changed that equation but you think it is the constitution that is in play here and I am educating you in regard to that….not the civil rights act….which frankly is actually unconstitutional in it’s own right. Most of the idiocy we deal with today stems back to that very liberal court and their political agenda that exceeded their constitutional authority. Congress could fix it if we ever got people in there that understood their power under the constitution to regulate the court and to overturn the courts rulings. The law is clear on this….and is opposite of what you seem to think.

  • [4] March 12, 2015 at 10:59am

    that is they myth of course but the school will not lose. Further myth is that receiving federal funds means that the school is the government. Furthermore, the first amendment states that CONGRESS shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. The school is not congress. Congress made no law stating that the school quote only baptist scripture. No law or right has been violated here. Anyone taught in school prior to the feds taking over public schools in the 70′s will know that the founders meant to prevent a national religion. They did not mean to outlaw religion in general and it is only after decades of indoctrination do we get people like you who actually think we must cater to the whim of every religion or none. Finally, the school should simply stop accepting federal money and they will not have to worry about stupidity like this. Might be that they don’t get federal funds and maybe that’s why they are not concerned about this. The single worst thing that ever happened to this nation is federalizing the public school system. We need to abolish the department of education and return control of our schools to the local parents where it belongs.

  • [2] March 12, 2015 at 10:47am

    um, that judge is an idiot and it’s liberal stupidity that thinks that you would have to put all types up. That is not true and the sheriff does not answer to the judges. The building does not belong to the judges and they have zero say in what is or is not displayed.

  • [4] March 12, 2015 at 10:46am

    Hey sheriff, you don’t work for the judges just tell them to go to hell.

  • March 10, 2015 at 1:51pm

    Yeah, that’s what Hitler and Stalin told people too……then when all the guns were gone they murdered tens of millions of people. You are an idiot.

  • [3] March 10, 2015 at 1:49pm

    you people who think this guy was stupid are exactly the reason our nation will end in tyranny. You are too stupid to deserve to be free. The irony is that when this was normal in this country we didn’t have police. We didn’t need them. We had town marshalls and we had sheriffs that were the law enforcement for vast territories. Guns were normal and the occasional gunfight was the exception and not the rule. We were a much more polite society. You people who wet your pants at the sight of a man with a rifle deserve the tyranny you get. I have zero sympathy for you fools. The funny thing is that there are guns around you all the time. Would you idiots feel better if the rifle wasn’t easily visible? He would still have it in front of the school…..but you wouldn’t know it. Would that make it all better? The stupidity of freaking out at the sight of a gun is beyond comprehension.

    Responses (2) +
  • [1] March 10, 2015 at 1:43pm

    Except he did not force a confrontation. He was on the sidewalk going down the road in front of the school. It was the bed wetting libturd morons in the school that caused the confrontation. This does not make him a nut case. I pose the same question as I have with several other people. If he was doing something wrong then why was he not arrested. I guess he’s supposed to just take the harassment by cops when he knows he’s not doing anything illegal huh? Nope, we must bow to the authority just because they are the authority. That attitude is how we got the Nazis and WW2 and the holocaust.

    Responses (1) +
  • [1] March 10, 2015 at 1:40pm

    gun violence on school property has been mostly done by STUDENTS of those schools. Not a 67 year old veteran walking down the road minding his own business and harming no one. It is exactly comments like yours that is the reason people need to do this more often.

123 To page: Go
Restoring Love