User Profile: Locked

Member Since: May 17, 2011


123 To page: Go
  • December 21, 2013 at 5:52pm


    “Sure you can say what you want. But then your career is ruined and your name is dragged through the mud.”

    Yes? Welcome to what your right to free speech has always meant. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from social consequences – just freedom from government censorship.

  • December 21, 2013 at 10:39am


    “Nice thing about free speech is you can say stupid stuff…”

    Yep. And she did, and wasn’t ever in danger of being arrested or harassed by the government.

    Freedom of speech is not freedom from social consequences of that speech. Just freedom from government agents censoring you.

    Responses (1) +
  • December 21, 2013 at 10:36am


    “free speech”

    Her right to free speech was not violated at all… and besides, didn’t you say yesterday that you hate this country?

  • December 20, 2013 at 11:54pm


    “he called the 18 cowards for hiding behind wiensteins cloak.”

    So, only atheist soldiers aren’t “real soldiers”?

    No. They still serve, no matter what beliefs they have. Kindly take your insults against our troops, insert them in your anus, and turn them sideways. Then get the heck out of this country. I’m sick of people like you who hate our troops.

  • December 20, 2013 at 11:52pm


    “you are not telling the truth. There are also Anti-discrimination laws and Equal Opportunity employer pledge (go to A&E web site).”

    Actually, I mentioned the CRA. Did you… not read my comment?

    That’s a fine way to proceed. But the author made an argument on the first amendment. That’s just plain ignorant.

  • December 20, 2013 at 1:36pm

    The author’s views on the first amendment stun and disappoint me. Where has he learned about the Constitution and our legal system?

    “Freedom of speech means that we are all free to speak what we believe.”

    Indeed. And Phil Robertson spoke about what he believes. No government agents censored him. He was not arrested. He exercised his right to speak his mind.

    And no one infringed that right.

    “The only people who panicked were the A&E executives that decided to pull Phil from the show.”

    And that has nothing to do with the first amendment. Why? Because your right to free speech protects you from governmental censorship. It doesn’t protect you from social repercussions, public outcry, or criticism. It certainly does not protect your job from suspension when you work for the private sector!

    As the saying goes “Freedom of speech is not freedom from the consequences of that speech.”

    This case has absolutely nothing to do with a first amendment infringement. One can make arguments based on other criteria (the Civil Rights Act, for example; I’d LOVE to see more follow-up on that). And if you’re offended at the reaction by A&E, by all means, stopping your viewership is a good way to protest. But that is no excuse to base your argument on the first amendment. It wasn’t even close to being violated.

    Responses (2) +
  • December 20, 2013 at 1:09pm

    Good response, Twin. I agree; we should withhold the judgmental comments until the culprits are found. The truth will win out eventually.

  • December 20, 2013 at 1:07pm

    Just curious, but what uninvestigated church vandalism are you referencing?

  • December 20, 2013 at 1:05pm

    Hey “Truthbrigader,” yes, he was calling these soldiers cowards. What’s the first thing you learn to do in a firefight? You keep your head down unless you want a bullet in it.

    Also, if you are off your meds, please get back on them. Your post looks like an auto-post bot of “what liberals think conservatives are supposed to say.”

    ” O’Reilly has a spotless record of total support for our REAL U.S. soldiers”

    Here’s a hint: just because you and I disagree with what the soldiers believe does not make them any less “real.” You insult our men and women in uniform by claiming the role of judging what makes a “real soldier.”

    ” I can’t stand PHONIES who say they’re Christian, but don’t even know what Jesus Christ and His Holy Word, the Bible, teaches us to do and how to be a Light in this dark world.”

    Once you finish vomiting your verbal diarrhea all over your keyboard, put your money where your mouth is. Show me in the Bible where we are taught to put Nativity scenes on government property during December.

    Wait, you mean that’s a cultural phenomenon not found in the Bible? What kind of phony would claim to know the Bible and then be so darn wrong about it?

    Just because I’m a Christian doesn’t mean I feel justified in vilifying our troops and lying about the Bible’s teachings to support my belief. Some apparently do, though. But not YOU “Truthbrigader1″, right???

  • December 20, 2013 at 12:56pm


    Well said. Yes, the sign is in poor taste and immature, but that doesn’t give anyone the right to torch it. Hopefully the culprits are caught soon; sounds like they have a description of the truck, and in a town of under 10k, it shouldn’t be hard to recognize.

  • December 20, 2013 at 11:41am

    @ltb (cont)

    I misread this statement: ““Of course I’m sure he would have considered you to be a gutless wonder.””

    For calling out someone who would throw out the Constitution and call for the murder of elected officials and judges? Perhaps he might ask why I haven’t called on the local constable to lock up someone attempting to overthrow the country and government that he helped found.

    Somehow I think he’d have a lot more to say to YOU than to me.

  • December 20, 2013 at 11:37am


    Aha, so you refuse to read and just judge. Typical trolling.

    “At any rate, in response to your second comment, I guess you consider George Washington to be a monster for waging war against the tyrants who ruled the colonies.”

    George Washington actually led armies against a country that forced officials upon the colonies. Have you forgotten the rallying cry of “no taxation without representation?” That’s very different than you claiming it’s time to take guns and shoot elected officials.

    Perhaps you don’t see the difference?

    “Of course I’m sure he would have considered you to be a gutless wonder.”

    Heck no. Washington owned slaves. He was flawed; but not for the reasons YOU’RE insinuating.

    “You know, I’m sure I’ve told you a half dozen times that you give me the creeps and that I don’t want anything to do with you, yet here you are.”

    And I’ve told you plenty of times that once you stop posting ridiculous comments, I’ll have nothing left to say to you. Calling for murder and treason? Darn right I’ll call you out on it.

    “Now, do me a favor and stop responding to my comments.”

    I think it would be a larger favor for you to look at your own words. Answer the question:

    When you said “this is what the second amendment was put in place for,” what other meaning can this possibly have than “I want to take my legally owned guns and murder American citizens”? What else can we take from your words?

  • December 20, 2013 at 10:45am

    Both are jerks O’Reilly was certainly being insulting, but that’s his schtick. Weinstein responded with the same and was labelled a jerk. It applies to both of them.

    I will admit that, as a veteran, I was a bit aggravated that O’Reilly had the temerity to call our soldiers cowards.

    Responses (6) +
  • December 20, 2013 at 10:29am


    Brilliant retort. Are you not willing to face your own words? I don’t blame you; I’d consider myself a monster if I was advocating the murder of my own countrymen.

  • December 20, 2013 at 10:07am


    “the Second Amendment was put in place for times like these.”

    I’ll ask you the same question I ask whenever chest-pounding treasonous children start making “second amendment solutions” posts like you just did.

    Why have you not gone out and shot your fellow American citizens? Isn’t that what you mean by “this is what the second amendment was put in place for”? What other meaning can this possibly have than “I want to take my legally owned guns and murder American citizens”?

    Or do you just want to intimidate them? Go into a courthouse, hold a gun to a judge’s head, and demand that he change his rulings? Is that your idea of being reasonable or law-abiding? Is that your idea of being Constitutional?

    This is the kind of “justice” you’re talking about. Have you thought this through at all? You are advocating vigilante violence against elected officials; you are pushing to murder your own countrymen.

    This is the worst kind of traitor – the one who can talk about “the will of the voters” in the same breath as he talks about murdering people and actually think he’s still RIGHT.

    “Our founding fathers would have dealt with traitors like Obama, Reid and Pelosi long before things had gotten this out of control…”

    Then why have you not? Are you a coward? You’re of the opinion that the Founding Fathers would back you up on your “second amendment solutions” here. So why haven’t you?

  • December 20, 2013 at 7:31am


    “I am not a lawyer.”

    I took a guess at this when I read:

    “Federal hate crime laws protect homospeak and just about any wierd behaviour in the workplace or anywhere.”

    There are no federal regulations against discrimination based on sexual orientation. That’s why there was a big to-do when a federal bill came up proposing them earlier this year (it failed to pass). There are some states with laws that protect against discrimination based sexual orientation, but no federal laws.

    “As long as it’s not Christian.”

    Christianity is protected. You cannot be legally fired based on your belief (note: this is NOT the first amendment).

    “By the way, this interview was not on A&E it was GQ magazine. I would compare this to getting fired for marching in the **** parade.”

    I would equate it to complaining on social media and getting sacked for saying something that hurts the company’s image. Something that happens, legally, all the time. “Hire at will, fire at will” is the essence of capitalism. It’s also a double-edged sword.

    “Federal law DOES come into play.”

    Not in this case. At all.

  • December 19, 2013 at 5:02pm


    “Good. You folks mad?”

    Nope. It isn’t a marriage in the eyes of God, just like most divorce and remarriage aren’t valid in the eyes of God. Plenty of things the government allows are sinful. Why would one more be any worse? It’s not the government’s place to try and force God’s laws on people who very well may not believe in Him.

    I keep the faith myself, and my marriage was in His sights. The government benefits were a perk. ****** marrying doesn’t diminish my marriage at all; it neither hurts me nor picks my pocket. The only thing I worry for is their souls, but it’s up to them to believe and obey. You can’t force faith.

  • December 19, 2013 at 4:56pm

    Then leave. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

    Or better yet, maybe stop hating the country that has given you boundless opportunities, man up, and try to change it for the better?

  • December 19, 2013 at 1:42pm


    “Maybe you need to think about what he said a little more”

    Jindal? I quoted him. Maybe you need to read a bit more.

    “Must be a liberal”

    Heh. You must not visit this site very often. Or perhaps you’re just a troll? Come back when you have something valuable to contribute.


    “The government has a legal obligation to the First Amendment, private corporations do not.”

    Agreed. Because the first amendment doesn’t apply to corporations.

    “That, however, does not mean that it’s ok for them to trample the First Amendment”

    They did not do so. As said, your “right to free speech” as is outlined in the Constitution applies to how the government can interact with you.

    “Do you see the difference?”

    From how you’re describing it, it seems you’re trying to apply some unconstitutional definition of free speech. We all have the freedom to say what we want – there is a constitutional protection from the government censoring us. There is NO protection from what an employer decides to do.

    “They can choose to infringe. We can choose to call them out on it and refuse to do business with them.”

    And it’s our right to do so. In the same way that the corporation can take actions, we as citizens can take actions against their decision.

    That has nothing at all to do with the first amendment.

  • December 19, 2013 at 1:36pm

    “If a Woman Hits a Man, Is It Ever OK for a Man to Hit Back?”

    Only in self-defense. Same thing for a man hitting a woman and asking if it is ok for her to hit back – only in self-defense. Violence is to be avoided whenever possible, and justice is to be sought. Back away, call the police, and let them sort it out. Doesn’t matter the sex of the parties involved.

123 To page: Go