User Profile: Reaganaut


Member Since: May 10, 2013


  • [3] May 15, 2015 at 11:26am

    You confuse opinion for truth. Since you don’t know the facts, I’ll inform you: the marine that I know who was piloting the helicopter did volunteer to go to Nepal to help. So half your opinion is already taken into consideration.

    Unlike you, Chris didn’t b**ch about what needed to be done. Go back to your computer games and have your mom make you a Hot Pocket for lunch.

  • [3] May 15, 2015 at 10:50am

    “We make men without chests and expect from them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst.”

    ― C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man

    Responses (1) +
  • [4] May 15, 2015 at 10:34am

    Looks like I get to make this comment twice:
    You are no better than the Democrats who use the Amtrak accident to further their cause.

    There is a time and place for statements like this, and you obviously don’t have the sense to know when that is. Unfortunately, the internet has provided a platform for ignorant C U in Toledos like you to spout off at the expense of others.

    Responses (4) +
  • [3] May 15, 2015 at 10:29am

    You are no better than the Democrats who use the Amtrak accident to further their cause.

    There is a time and place for statements like this, and you obviously don’t have the sense to know when that is. Unfortunately, the internet has provided a platform for ignorant C U in Toledos like you to spout off at the expense of others.

  • [3] May 15, 2015 at 10:20am

    Anal-dwelling troll

  • [8] May 15, 2015 at 10:11am

    Chris Norgren from Wichita, KS was the pilot of the Huey (see video). This article should do him the honor of noting that. He was a great person who died the way a true hero and Christian should: serving others.

    He and his family are worth writing and reading about.

    Responses (1) +
  • [5] March 23, 2015 at 9:02pm

    I wasn’t looking for another reason to vote for Cruz, but thanks.

  • [1] February 13, 2015 at 9:32pm

    And you just proved why you would be impossible to reason with. You either didn’t read what you originally wrote, didn’t mean what you wrote, or are completely backtracking. You are a typical flip-flopping liberal.
    To remind you, you said: “It’s not quite the same thing, is it?” This was in reply to someone who was pointing out the irony of the president ignoring the targeted killing of Jews by Muslims and then assuming that a recent murder, which he has no info on other than news reports, was motivated by religious bigotry.
    So, you are completely wrong in questioning whether the killing of Jews by Muslims is any different than an atheist killing a Muslim if both are motivated by the faith, or lack there-of, of the victim(s).
    Of course, I am granting you the premise that this murder was motivated by religion at all. Since I have no access to the evidence and only know what the MSM has reported, I will refrain from making any erroneous assumptions. A novel idea, I know.

  • [6] February 13, 2015 at 3:57pm

    To say that you kill others for what they believe is the same as saying that you kill others because they don’t believe what you believe.

    If you don’t understand that line of reasoning, then you don’t understand basic logic and it would simply be impossible to have a thoughtful discussion with you about pretty much anything of consequence.

  • [3] November 10, 2014 at 11:27pm

    It would be a gigantic waste of time to try and “repeal” ObamaCare with Obama in office. Instead, what each and every Republican should be saying right now is “We are not going to fund ObamaCare, and we are going to cut taxes and we are going to decrease spending and we are going to put tariffs on Chinese imports and we are going to force the approval of the Keystone XL pipeline and we are going to secure the border and we are going to start acting American again in spite of the clown in the Oval Office. All these things are plausible – repealing OBAMACare while OBAMA is in office is not one of those plausible things.” De-fund it today, and we can repeal it altogether once an American regains the office.

    In reply to the post Rand Paul = Nancy Pelosi?

    Responses (1) +
  • [4] October 27, 2014 at 11:32pm

    And how’s that election victory working out for you?

    Meanwhile, back in the present, the Democrats are losing the Senate and Obama sucks at everything.

  • [81] October 27, 2014 at 11:22pm

    This is the pinnacle of Progressivism: to take a stance completely contrary to logic and reason, and then blindly attack all who oppose your stance. This world view will eat itself over time since it is prone to group-think and lacks new ideas and innovation. Just stay out of its way until it’s done feeding on itself.

    Bill, you helped create the Ultra-Progressives, now they’ve turned on you: you reap what you sow.

    The gods of the copybook headings are bringing their “terror and slaughter” as we speak.

  • [3] October 27, 2014 at 11:14pm

    Rabid, in most instances you’d be right, but this cannibalization of their own kind is a result of the positive feedback loop which began in the 60′s and has reached its zenith today. I like to call it “Ultra-Progressivism” in which the attacks are blind and doled out to all, but are based in the opposite of normal logic and reason. Doublespeak at its finest.

  • [24] October 27, 2014 at 10:03pm

    True, but in this case, it’s more like idealistic stupidity induced by left of Stalin professors.

    Responses (2) +
  • [1] October 20, 2014 at 12:04pm

    At the time I voted on the question at the end of the article, 71% of the people who read it don’t stand by their principles and fear retaliation (i.e., they answered “Maybe”).

    And this is why our government walks all over us: we are too scared to speak up and express our values. Instead, we have become mindless lemmings who fall in line and trudge toward our eventual demise. We see it coming, we know it’s coming, but we move toward it anyway – because we wouldn’t want to cause ourselves suffering.

  • [2] October 10, 2014 at 11:54am

    “The results are indicative that emissions from established fossil fuel harvesting techniques are greater than inventoried,” Kort said. “There’s been so much attention on high-volume hydraulic fracturing, but we need to consider the industry as a whole.”

    I think you’re all missing the point of this article. The conclusion that these “scientists” are drawing is that the methane emissions are anthropogenic in nature – not naturally occurring seeps.

    More bogus B.S. from lying pseudo-scientists.

  • October 10, 2014 at 11:04am

    “Wipe me”

  • October 9, 2014 at 5:40pm

    “I farted”

    Responses (1) +
  • [10] October 9, 2014 at 4:34pm

    “Plausible deniability”
    “Quiet peasant”

  • November 4, 2013 at 12:07am

    “I mean, the proposal was this big! You guys can’t expect me to read all that! You didn’t take the time to read the legislation, so why should I read the bid for the website?”

Restoring Love