My Patriot Supply

User Profile: rlmeals

rlmeals

Member Since: September 18, 2010

Comments

123
  • [1] October 21, 2014 at 8:10pm

    Sadly, in my area, it’s getting to where it’s nearly impossible to find a place to live that doesn’t have an HOA. We were looking to buy, and even the older neighborhoods had started HOAs, and the new areas that had just been developed in the last several years all had HOAs, too. It’s frustrating. I agree…never buy a house that has an HOA, but man, they’re making it hard for us to do that! Fortunately we want to live in the country anyway so it won’t be an issue, but when we were looking a couple years ago because we thought my husband’s job was going to require a move, we were getting very nervous that we couldn’t find a neighborhood without an HOA.

  • [5] August 2, 2014 at 12:07am

    I agree, and this is basically the same argument I make for breastfeeding in public. It’s only sexual if YOU make it out to be. So what if a kid sees it? Tell them the truth: this is how babies eat, they drink milk from their mommies’ breast. But I do recall that I was one of the only ones fine with breastfeeding in public on the last heated discussion we had here on The Blaze. I just wish people would stop making a big deal out of the natural and innocent things in life, such as babies and breastfeeding. There’s nothing wrong with this doll. Don’t like it? Don’t buy it. Don’t want to see? Don’t look.

  • February 23, 2014 at 10:01pm

    Thank you! I’m getting pretty irritated reading these responses. I have three kids, one would would take the cover alright, but the other two wouldn’t. I’m currently breastfeeding a 5 month old. Every single time I’ve covered him to feed, he starts dripping sweat and his face and body turn bright red. He needs air! I just can’t do that to him for the sake of ignorant people who can’t stand to be offended. He also doesn’t take bottles or pacifiers. When I feed him without a cover, you can’t even see anything. When I’ve tried a blanket, it can be very difficult to get a fussy, thrashing baby to latch on when you can’t even see what you are doing to guide him. It’s a huge hassle, and he’s just getting madder the longer this goes on. What is better for us is to quickly latch and let my top shirt cover the top of the breast down to his mouth while my tank top covers my midsection. What I really object to is calling moms sluts and exhibitionists for simply trying to feed their babies. What is the big deal, people?

  • December 4, 2013 at 11:54am

    Thanks, soybomb. I tell you one thing I wish people would wake up to: the FDA does not have citizens’ best interests at heart. How many drugs have had deadly side effects and have been removed from the market AFTER initially being approved by the FDA? They approve vaccines and other medications without adequate testing, then congress passes legislation that makes it illegal to sue pharmaceutical companies if you have an adverse reaction. They approve nasty stuff like MSG and aspartame, but try to outlaw raw milk. Also, they won’t approve herbal or natural remedies that studies have shown to work…the presumption is because nobody can make money on them. After all, why use something natural and inexpensive when you can charge $15 per pill for a pharmaceutical? There is an assault on the local farmers, yet no oversight on huge corporate farms putting contaminated chicken and vegetables into the marketplace. Every time we hear of an outbreak (e. coli, salmonella, etc.) it comes from corporate farms. You don’t hear about it from small local family farms producing organic veggies and raw milk. And the CDC skews its data against raw milk as well. They claim only TWO deaths from raw milk (even though they admit it was from cheese, not the milk), and that’s apparently enough evidence to ban it. However, there have been over 600 deaths from pasteurized milk. Why aren’t they banning that? But I’m sure there’s no political motive there ::sarcasm::

  • December 4, 2013 at 10:15am

    Actually, she has plenty of bad things to say about McDonald’s, which you would know if you actually went to her blog instead of assuming this is a left/right issue. I’m conservative…I line up politically with Mark Levin better than anyone else, if that gives you an idea of my political ideals…and I am also concerned about the chemicals in our food supply. People think that’s a left wing issue, but it’s not. I have a son with autism, and he is very detrimentally affected by chemicals and gluten. Changing his diet made him a different kid. And changing our diet made us healthier as well. Ultimately, our revelation was that getting back to a whole foods diet was best (after all, what did God provide for us in the first place? Vegetation, meats, herbs for medicine, etc.). When we’re out, we occasionally eat fast food because of time and having three kids under 5, and CFA was the only thing with gluten free options. But it was hard to reconcile the other chemicals in it. Plus it tastes way better than anything else, using real chicken instead of pink slime, pressed together goop. This blogger is bringing attention to the concerns of chemicals in foods and CFA decided it was best for their business to change it. THAT is free market. I guarantee that their business will only get better has more and more people are discovering the truth about the junk the FDA claims is safe. The FDA is the real problem. The consumers are taking back control of their food.

    Responses (3) +
  • May 24, 2013 at 5:56pm

    Think of all the things the FDA and AMA say are safe. Look at all the drugs they approved. Now look at all the drugs that get recalled and have class action lawsuits against the manufacturer because of side effects, including death. You think doctors are gods? The end all be all of medical knowledge? I love doctors, I have nothing against doctors, but I also have a brain and a spirit, and when I’m feeling convictions from God that there is a reason to question a doctor, then I’m going to do it. There is research both for and against vaccinations. Should I follow a doctor’s vaccines schedule without question? No. I did research for months…close to a year…and prayed and prayed before making this decision. Go do your own research, and then if you still want to vaccinate then by all means do it. Don’t just be a sheep. Why do doctors give antibiotics for viruses when antibiotics work against bacterial infections? It doesn’t shorten the infection and it can compromise the immune system. What’s the point? Should I take an antibiotic just because my doctor prescribes one? Much of what medicine deals with is the symptom, not a cure for the real root of the problem. I have fibromyalgia for example. After years of narcotic pain pills, I found relief through diet, exercise, and vitamins and minerals. I rarely ever have a flare up. I’ve had one in the past 4 years. If I listened to my doctor, I’d be unable to function on the dose of pain pills he had me on. No

  • May 24, 2013 at 3:29pm

    This stumbles into dangerous territory for me. I believe that what these parents did was wrong. I’m a Christian, and I do believe that modern medicine is there as one means of healing. However, I’m also a mom who does not vaccinate, does not get my kids or myself a prescription for antibiotics when we have a viral infection (after all, what’s the point?), and let’s a fever do what the immune system is meant to do and kill off an infection (which always, for us, has resulted in getting over the infection much more quickly than using fever reducers).

    We’ve seen CPS take newborns from their mothers for refusing a vaccination which they are legally entitled to refuse. While I disagree with what these parents did and want them to be punished somehow, I don’t want this to become an issue that gets legislated to the point where we no longer can choose the care for our children which we think is best. CPS has taken kids away and had them vaccinated while they had temporary custody. There are other cases where a mom weaned her daughter off a psychotropic drug that was not having good results, and she wanted to try a different route of care. They took the daughter and gave her the drugs anyway. I just worry about the overreach of government, that’s all.

    Responses (3) +
  • April 15, 2013 at 9:41am

    Writing G-d instead of God is a Jewish practice that shows reverence for His name.

    I am another one of those “backwards” women who believe in submission to her husband. I get chided by the feminists when I mention it. The bible tells us to be submissive, but it also tells the men to love their wives life Christ loved the church. It is a symbiotic, God-focused relationship. When we finally put Christ at the top of the relationship instead of our own selves, and he began to treat me the way the bible describes and I began to submit to him, our marriage started to thrive. Things don’t always make sense in the bible when viewed through the lenses of our “worldly” view. But when we have faith that God’s way is best, and when we are obedient to His plan, He blesses us. Being submissive is not synonymous with becoming a doormat, or being less than men, or having no opinion, or no authority in the home. That is the worldly definition.

  • March 13, 2013 at 9:18pm

    It’s wrong for a man to slap a woman. However, I will say that it kind of ticks me off that a woman can’t slap a man anymore. There have been less than a handful of times in my life that a man (if you could call them that) has gotten fresh with me to the point of making sexual advances, and I would have LOVED to haul off and slap him across the face. I wouldn’t have called it assault either. And no, I’m not a feminist who thinks men and women are always equal in everything…I think God made men and women for different purposes and I’ve got old-fashioned ideas about that. Anyway, you can get verbally assaulted and have a man get right in your face and in your space and can’t do anything about it (even walking away doesn’t work sometimes, especially when they just follow you or corner you). Yet if you even TOUCH someone, you can be charged with assault. A poke to the chest with a finger results in cries of, “You just touched me, you physically assaulted me!” I think the laws are very ambiguous with little or no room for someone to use their judgment when trying a case like that.

    ***I will say that females who don’t act like ladies who try to beat up on men and curse at them and spit on them DESERVE to have reasonable force used against them. They are assaulting men and the men should have a right to defend themselves. If a female wants to act like a man and get scrappy, she made her bed and she can lie in it.***

  • March 11, 2013 at 11:19pm

    When there are that many and they are that big of a menace, costing who knows how many dollars worth of damage to property, they don’t need a sporting chance. They just need to be eliminated. They breed way to quickly and don’t really have any natural enemies in the wild. It’s not the same as deer hunting. These hogs are in need of some serious population control!

  • [1] March 11, 2013 at 11:06pm

    This is a perfect reason to have a machine gun! Do y’all know how hard it is to kill a lot of those suckers? They’re tearing up everything and they are a menace. Just one more unintended consequence of government regulations. I’m with Ted, “The second amendment IS my concealed carry license.” Also, I believe the second amendment was put in place to protect us from tyrants, and that means we should have similar firepower. I see nothing wrong with law abiding citizens having automatic rifles.

  • February 28, 2013 at 1:18pm

    Yes, but don’t disengage. Most of the people I know who home school (myself included) are protesting and writing congressmen and spreading the word all over facebook about the problems in the public school system. The goal here isn’t just to save our own kids and leave the rest be, it’s to fix the broken system so that in a generation we don’t have a liberal run state. Can you imagine what would happen? More laws that make it harder to home school, take away our freedom to live the way we want to, eat the foods we want, teach our kids the religion of our choosing. Home school, by all means, please! Just don’t be an isolationist. Fight for our schools and children. They are our future, and there are a whole lot more of them in public school than home schooled (or private or Christian school). They are being indoctrinated daily, and we need to make it stop.

  • February 28, 2013 at 1:02pm

    Redfish, of ALL places in Texas you could choose, Austin is one of the worst! (In my humble opinion) Stay away from Austin, San Antonio, Houston, El Paso, Dallas county, and the border. There are plenty of conservative places in Texas, but is seems like more and more liberals are moving into the big cities and turning them blue. West Texas is one of the most conservative areas. Abilene, Lubbock, Amarillo. I live 70 miles north of Dallas and it’s super conservative here. There’s even a huge difference between Dallas and Ft. Worth. We’re trying with all our might to get rid of this CSCOPE curriculum. I don’t know how the libs in Austin ever got it passed (well, because we refused the Common Core, then they put a new name on it and disguised it a bit and fooled people). Anyway, we need as many conservatives in Texas as we can get. I’m about ready to close our borders to everyone coming from the east and west coasts. They fled from progressive states for lower taxes and a better economy, then they want to vote for liberals who are going to turn Texas into what they left. Where’s the sense in that? Sorry, rant over!!! I just don’t want to see my state turn purple or blue.

  • September 27, 2012 at 3:24am

    I don’t know about their school, but ours is a couple hours south, down in Texas, and we had See You At The Pole this morning. Students gather at the school flagpole for a student led prayer event. It’s an annual event. We’ve been having them for a long time…I can remember having them in middle school, so that’s been at least 20 years.

  • September 22, 2012 at 11:44am

    @DEAVONRAYE He or she was not calling people names. It’s a reference to the bible. Matthew 7:6 says, “Don’t give what is holy to dogs or toss your pearls before pigs, or they will trample them with their feet, turn, and tear you to pieces.” I don’t think I could explain this better than my HCSB study bible, so I’ll just paraphrase from there:

    Pearls: symbolically to speak of insightful and valuable teaching. Here, symbolize Jesus’ teachings given by the disciples.

    Pigs: ritually unclean; eat spoiled food but have no appreciation for pearls, just as the wicked consume wicked pleasures but disregard the gospel; this contempt for the gospel is pictured by the pig trampling the pearls underfoot. That pigs may turn against the one offering the pearls shows that contempt for the gospel message can become contempt fot the gospel messenger, as has often happened in history.

  • September 14, 2012 at 10:13am

    I think the video sums this up quite nicely. This was a gross invasion of privacy, snapping pictures with a telescopic lens while they were in a remote private house with the expectation of privacy. She’s right…there’s really nothing that the royal family can do about it. I think it just paints a sad picture of how rude our society is today. We have no respect for one another. These tabloids only care to exploit. I like the analogy she gave at the end of the video about the pressure on public figures, whether the royals, or politicians, or celebrities. They are constantly being scrutinized. Too fat, too thin, are they pregnant, etc. Just take a look at the so called “news” website, even FoxNews. They have an entertainment section that daily has stories and photo slide shows, such as: “Pregnant or Ham Sandwich, Hot or Not Bikini Photos, Stars Who Lost Their Mojo, Stars Who Don’t Dress Their Age, Wardrobe Malfunctions” et al.

    I know people will say, “Well, she shouldn’t be naked.” I just don’t agree with that. I have sunbathed in my backyard with a privacy fence. I don’t go topless, but I usually pull my top down as much as possible to avoid an unflattering tan line. here are moments when I’m exposed (granted, I’m “supposed” to be alone and private). Can you imagine if nosy neighbors started climbing second story houses a couple blocks away with a long lens? Or peeking over a fence? I don’t see how this is different because she’s a public figure. She

    Responses (1) +
  • September 5, 2012 at 11:09am

    In reply to everyone thinking Obama is the antichrist:
    Obama is not the antichrist. The bible tells us that the rapture occurs before the antichrist is revealed. I don’t see Obama’s characteristics matching those of the antichrist. Besides, so many people are too disillusioned with him already. The timeline is all wrong. http://www.raptureready.com/faq/faq234.html

    The Holy Spirit is holding the antichrist back, and the Holy Spirit lives in us. It’s not until we are raptured that the antichrist will be released. I don’t believe any large public figure today is the antichrist.

    In regards to the article:
    These people basically “worshipped” Obama in 2008 as well. The think he’s their “savior.” They are delusional. This is so blatantly false and blasphemous. Any Christian should know better, even democratic Christians.

  • August 8, 2012 at 3:43pm

    Here is the verse: “No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.”

    It’s basically the same principle, we’ve just shortened it down to a common phrase. Same thing as with “spare the rod spoil the child.” That’s not in the bible either, but Proverbs tells us he that spares the rod of discipline hates his child. So really, it’s the same principle. It’s just a technicality when people say, “That’s not in the bible!”

  • August 8, 2012 at 3:29pm

    Check this out. I just met a wonderful friend who is a part of this non-profit who are fighting against Sharia. They are exposing Obama, Hilary Clinton, and others who are secretly employing members of the Muslim Brotherhood in high positions in the government. Go to the website…I think like-minded people here will appreciate it. http://www.theunitedwest.com They briefed Michele Bachmann, which is why she’s speaking out about it now; and they also work with Mark Levin, and I even believe they’ve started talking to Glenn Beck.

  • August 7, 2012 at 4:56pm

    Absolutely. I’m a CHL holder, and I wouldn’t hesitate in grabbin a rifle and a box of ammo and finding myself a good little perch. Oh, the police will say that we should never take things into our own hands, but that’s BS. If people who are trained to use firearms would actually take responsibility and use them, I think the outcomes of these incidents would be a lot different. Like the lady who shot the guy who killed people at that church (was that Colorado, I think?). When seconds count, the police are just minutes away!!!

123