User Profile: P8riot


Member Since: September 13, 2010


123 To page: Go
  • [39] October 23, 2014 at 9:41pm

    Remind anyone else of the Woolwich Attacks in the UK by Muslims using similar weapons – just last year?

  • [2] October 22, 2014 at 7:45pm


    You are absolutely right. Even though we can cite over and over the scriptures that show that one must have more than just faith to be saved, people don’t want to listen… so here are a few that show one can fall from grace..

    endureth to the end shall be saved: Matt. 10:22 . ( Matt. 24:13 )
    lest … I myself should be a castaway: 1 Cor. 9:27 .
    let him … take heed lest he fall: 1 Cor. 10:12 .
    ye are fallen from grace: Gal. 5:4 .
    If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance: Heb. 6:6 .
    sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge … no more sacrifice for sins: Heb. 10:26 .
    lest any man fail of the grace of God: Heb. 12:15 .
    again entangled … latter end is worse: 2 Pet. 2:20 .

    If you think about it, “once saved, always saved” would be one of the devil’s greatest tricks because it’s much easier to make people believe you don’t exist than make believers fall from grace while thinking they’re saved all along.

    BTW Snoop1e – I just saw your question to me a couple days ago on another post and responded today. Thanks!

  • October 22, 2014 at 12:06pm


    I know you’re not bashing my religion, but rather simply asking a question. However, this is a perfect example of falsehoods being spread about my religion.

    Blacks were never denied membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, ever. There is a well known event when the Prophet Joseph Smith gave his prized horse to a freed slave to sell to have the money to buy his family’s freedom as well. That black man was also a member of our church.

    Whoever told you that falsehood was probably twisting it from the fact that previous to the 1970′s black male members of the church were not ordained to the priesthood. This was nothing new however. For most of human existence, the Lord has restricted which tribes and lineage could hold the priesthood.

    For example, in biblical times, the Aaronic Priesthood was conferred only upon men of the tribe of Levi. Even further restrictions were found within the tribe – only Aaron and his sons could hold the office of priest. And, still further, from the firstborn of Aaron’s sons (after Aaron) was selected the high priest (or president of the priests). The lineal restrictions of that Aaronic Priesthood were lifted when the law of Moses was fulfilled, and thereafter the offices of the priesthood were conferred upon worthy men without limitation to the tribe of Levi.

    Thus, when the remaining restrictions were lifted by revelation, it was a glorious day for all. :)


  • [15] October 22, 2014 at 11:50am

    I doubt they got away later. It’s not like the cop didn’t have a radio. If he was code 3 and no one was stopping, others were already on their way and/or waiting.

    Responses (4) +
  • [2] October 22, 2014 at 11:46am


    I don’t think you fully understand what the term “politically correct” means.

    Regardless, having served in the Marine Corps for 8 years, I’ve heard my share of profanity. Most of my closest Marine buddies used profanity regularly, but were respectful enough to refrain when they were around me – which I never asked them to do. Now that is true character and class – the opposite of what you demonstrated with your comment.

    Again, I’m not trying to police the language of others, but rather simply pointing out that such vulgarity only harms their potential.

  • [15] October 22, 2014 at 11:34am

    I completely agree Gonzo. I’m so tired of headlines starting with “Embattled Pastor Mark Driscoll…”

    I’m sure tomorrow will be “Embattled Pastor Mark Driscoll ate breakfast today”

  • [9] October 21, 2014 at 5:22pm

    buahhhh haaaaaa haaaaaa! That was more like a junior high acting class!!!

    Seriously? “I’m an officer of the law”? haaaaaaaaaaaaa haaaaaaaaaaaa!

    The only thing “exposed” by this video is how gullible people are.

  • [39] October 21, 2014 at 12:12pm

    I guess my initial reaction to the video was annoyance with the language.

    Yes, people can choose to speak how they choose, but people like this need to understand how unintelligent such language makes them sound.

    Vulgarity is the weak mind expressing itself.

    I believe it was Hugh Hewitt that pointed out that we all see how pollution damages our surroundings. Now if one believes in a soul – then such vulgarity must pollute that soul.

    Responses (3) +
  • October 21, 2014 at 11:50am


    Seriously, you call that statute “legalese”? It’s written in plain English!

    Texas and Crackkills are both completely right.

    Not only does this statute exempt law enforcement vehicles being used for “confidential investigative purposes” but it ALSO allows for individual “local governmental agencies” to exempt their law enforcement vehicles through their own ordinances (city statutes) or internal rules.

    (@wyoming – do you seriously contend that when a police officer is attempting to blend into the public so they can look for and catch people committing crimes that otherwise would cease such criminal activity if they saw a marked police car – is not “confidential investigative purposes”?)

    Anyhoo, this character simply embarrasses himself in this video… a person trying to make a legal conclusion without knowing how to read a statute.

  • [1] October 20, 2014 at 6:02pm


    THANK YOU!!! Finally some intellectual honesty!

    To quote another classic cinematic moment – “I feel like I’m taking crazy pills!” What is happening to our fellow conservatives? Why are we so easily duped by the cop-hating-libertarians here? Don’t they realize that just like the military, a large majority of cops are conservative?

  • [15] October 20, 2014 at 5:56pm

    Wow, just wow.

    I am truly concerned that so many people here are blindly believing this guy – read the cited statute and it clearly gives exceptions for “confidential investigative purposes” – what else would you call an unmarked law enforcement vehicle being used to catch people breaking the traffic laws?

    Further this same state statute clearly allows for each “local governmental agencies” to exempt their law enforcement vehicles through their own ordinances (city statutes) or internal rules.

    Seriously, this is scary how many of our fellow conservatives are so gullible to believe this crack-pot rather than consider the fact that the agency who spent tens of thousands of dollars on that unmarked vehicles probably made sure it was legal before doing so (as well as their legal department).

    This is how the left acts – robotic followers.

    Wow, just wow. Now go ahead and give me a negative vote because you don’t like reality.

  • October 20, 2014 at 5:17pm

    Seriously? I try to be cool with you and that is your reply to me?

    First, I didn’t retire from being a prosecutor.

    Second, even if I had, in Arizona all state employees contribute over 11% of every paycheck towards a retirement – I doubt you even contribute that much to your retirement.

    Third, I would NEVER do criminal defense work. My ethics are much to high for that.

    Finally, yes, a lot of people are lining up to pay me to represent them – not because I was a prosecutor, but because out of the hundreds of trials I did, I’ve only lost once.

    Since you’ve inquired into my life so thoroughly, what may I ask do you do for a living?

  • [6] October 20, 2014 at 5:10pm

    “Frazier went to the bathroom door and told her she couldn’t be on the phone, and that’s when she claimed sexual assault.”

    Wish the story told us who she was speaking to on the phone right before she started with the false accusations!

    What are the odds she got off the phone with some scumbag defense attorney who told her she could simply make the accusations and he could use that intentional lie to try to get the case dismissed…

    Responses (1) +
  • [1] October 20, 2014 at 4:50pm

    “He said he would have followed the man to his car to get his tag number but “feared for [his] life.”

    I hate to bash on the good guy – but really? A simple license plate number could have either cleared it up or blew it up.

    Responses (2) +
  • [4] October 20, 2014 at 2:46pm


    I’m gonna go out on a limb and agree with your premise. Rather than butcher it, I’ll simply quote from one of my church’s websites:

    “The attraction itself is not a sin, but acting on it is. Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them. With love and understanding, the Church reaches out to all God’s children, including our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters.”

    “The Church’s approach to this issue stands apart from society in many ways. And that’s alright. Reasonable people can and do differ. From a public relations perspective it would be easier for the Church to simply accept homosexual behavior. That we cannot do, for God’s law is not ours to change. There is no change in the Church’s position of what is morally right. But what is changing — and what needs to change — is to help Church members respond sensitively and thoughtfully when they encounter same-sex attraction in their own families, among other Church members, or elsewhere.”

  • [13] October 20, 2014 at 1:49pm

    I just threw up in my brain.

  • [15] October 20, 2014 at 11:35am

    “The world’s changing, and we want to stay relevant as a church”… pastor say what?

    Responses (1) +
  • [1] October 13, 2014 at 5:49pm


    I’m the first in line to hold my own accountable (mormons, conservatives, etc.) – but there is a difference between demeaning the beliefs of others and defending one’s own beliefs.

    Of course, I haven’t looked at every post here, but from what I see, no “Mormons” are going after any other single religion, but are only playing defense.

    BTW – feel free to go to any Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ building this Sunday, and you will not hear a single other religion ever mentioned. That’s because we truly only preach of what we believe, we don’t bash other religions.

  • [11] October 13, 2014 at 12:57pm

    Romney/Rand Paul 2016!

    Now watch the heads explode.

  • [5] October 13, 2014 at 11:14am

    “Mormons HATE the Cross of Jesus Christ, our only means of Salvation.”

    Are you seriously implying that it is the Cross, not Jesus Christ that saves us? Take a look at any temple or church building and you’ll see countless paintings and other celebrations of Jesus Christ.

123 To page: Go