User Profile: rpa49

rpa49

Member Since: October 08, 2011

Comments

123 To page: Go
  • [2] December 11, 2014 at 6:07am

    The reason waterboarding. Is not torture is quite simple. The procedure.
    There must be a physician present.
    The subject must be explained what is going to happen, how it will feel, and how long the session will last.
    The water has to be a specific temperature. The table the subject is on must be elevated off the ground and be able to be tilted up and down.
    There must be at a minimum, a specified number of people in the room.

    If you read the report on Franken-Feinstein’s Senate website you’ll see a whole list of steps that were directed for this procedure to be conducted under the advise of legal counsel.

    Personally, I am surprised that waterboarding under these conditions even worked. After a few attempts I would think most terrorists, who prepare and train to be tortured, would see any further attempts as being nothing more than extremely uncomfortable and time consuming.

    No physical trauma to nerves, body tissue, bone, or bodily fluids takes place with waterboarding. You are physiologically and physically the same as before a session.

    Once you understand that methods, such as waterboarding, serve only two purposes you can easily beat the exercise.

    Choices = Consequences… That’s it.

  • [11] December 4, 2014 at 12:59am

    jgrant and TheBlaze,

    I think this website is in the final stages of its last hoorah with me. I am so tired of my screen locking up because of so much annoying advertisement. I’m not against advertisement, but the auto-load videos that start to blare out somewhere on the page infuriate me.

    I’m tired of it. I’m tired of going with google, then to firefox, then back to google again. Slow page loads are annoying also. Bottom line is its just not worth the haste of reading The Blaze stories when I can read the same stories elsewhere without all the advertisements and headaches.

    Sorry The Blaze, you had your chance(s)!

    RPA

  • [3] November 28, 2014 at 3:47am

    Fair market value can not be achieved due to government intervention in the form of regulations that restrict who can purchase the item, taxation which inhibits opportunity, or to simply restrict the sale and require the item to be housed at a government museum.
    With interference like that how could you ever hope to receive fair market value?
    With regard to your assertion that all items (or even a majority), are put out on display for public viewing… I suggest you look up the Smithsonian on Google and read how much is NEVER put on display.

  • [5] November 28, 2014 at 3:21am

    I have posted before that:
    1. Any organizer of a gun show must get a permit when they lease/rent/utilize government property such as community centers, meeting halls, fairground facilities, parks, convention centers, and sports arenas.
    2. The permit lists what kind of activity can and can not be permitted and if any specific laws need to be followed (an example would be like a temporary liquor license for a high school reunion in the town community center).
    3. Most jurisdictions have laws outlining what is required of those wishing to sell firearms on said premises. Ex. All dealers must submit a current and valid copy of their Federal Firearms License (FFL) to be kept under control by the organizer and subject to inspection by LE.
    4. In order to sell firearms as a dealer with a FFL, it is a requirement that all purchasers must of have a background check approved BEFORE they are allowed to take the firearm.
    5. Most jurisdictions have laws making it illegal to sell or purchase firearms outside of controlled facilities. You can be arrested for buying or selling a firearm in the parking lot.
    6. Most organizers are either require to, or choose to, hire off-duty LEO to work as security at a gun show event.

    In other words, there are no private sales of firearms at gun shows that have a background check loop hole.
    Local governments and common sense work. Federal intervention is a waste of tax payer money.

  • [31] November 28, 2014 at 3:14am

    I’m equally frustrated as the story of gun-show loopholes continue to persist. I have posted before that:
    1. Any organizer of a gun show must get a permit when they lease/rent/utilize government property such as community centers, meeting halls, fairground facilities, parks, convention centers, and sports arenas.
    2. The permit lists what kind of activity can and can not be permitted and if any specific laws need to be followed (an example would be like a temporary liquor license for a high school reunion in the town community center).
    3. Most jurisdictions have laws outlining what is required of those wishing to sell firearms on said premises. Ex. All dealers must submit a current and valid copy of their Federal Firearms License (FFL) to be kept under control by the organizer and subject to inspection by LE.
    4. In order to sell firearms as a dealer with a FFL, it is a requirement that all purchasers must of have a background check approved BEFORE they are allowed to take the firearm.
    5. Most jurisdictions have laws making it illegal to sell or purchase firearms outside of controlled facilities. You can be arrested for buying or selling a firearm in the parking lot.
    6. Most organizers are either require to, or choose to, hire off-duty LEO to work as security at a gun show event.

    In other words, there are no private sales of firearms at gun shows that have a background check loop hole.

    Responses (22) +
  • November 25, 2014 at 3:48pm

    With all due respect, Michele, what would constitute hate speech or racism when discussing Bloomberg’s Thanksgiving attempt to manipulate the gun debate between family members?

    Example: “Uncle Leo is such a racist. He carries a black Desert Eagle made by an Israeli company!”

    While I appreciate your advice, it just seems out of place for this topic.

    Regardless, I do wish you and yours many blessings in the future as we reflect upon the many blessings we’ve received in the past. God bless you all!

  • [4] November 21, 2014 at 3:11am

    Overall, the left spent $10.smillion on the yes for I594 campaign. Unfortunately, the no on I594 campaign spent only 6% of the money of what the libs spent.

    Bottom lines, those of us in the State of Washington have been screwed by the left and lied to repeatedly even in the face of hard facts!

    In the words of President George W. Bush, “I hear you, the people hear you, and soon those that did this will hear from all of us!”

    May God save their wretched souls!

  • [4] November 21, 2014 at 3:10am

    Whether it’s an exhibit hall at a county’s fairground, a city or town’s community center building, or a large sports arena the state and local municipalities already have existing law criminalizing the purchase and/or sale of firearms upon the property where said gun shows are held.

    Would it surprise you to know that off-duty law enforcement officers are hired by the promoter for every show to patrol the premises, both inside AND out? If these gun shows were a hot bed of kitchen table, mom and pop gun sales, why would the promoter hire officers to expose this “nonexistent” criminal underbelly of parking lot sales?

    Having pointed out the facts and laws surrounding the operation of a legal gun show, we in this state were exposed to an endless stream of campaign commercials featuring former Bellingham Police chief Don Pierce. He recited a lie to every one of the points I previously covered. Don’t take my word for it. Read about it here, http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/11/dean-weingarten/how-the-i-594-gun-control-initiative-passed-in-washington-state/ .

    Our state was saturated with money supporting gun control…er… I mean, Uniform Background Checks (UBC). There was more than $5 million donated from Michael Bloomberg, Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer, Paul Allen, and Nick Hanauer alone!

    Cont…

  • [5] November 21, 2014 at 3:09am

    This law was “grubered” by those who wanted it passed, including many sheriffs. The outright lie that was perpetrated by the anti-gunners has to do with their misinterpretation of the so called “gun how loophole.”
    The main argument of the libs was against guns being sold at gun shows without background checks being performed. This is a straw man argument because it couldn’t happen in the state of Washington under existing rules and laws.
    There are two major promoters for all the gun shows in this state. For a seller to purchase space within specific show and sell weapons they have to:
    -possess a Federal Firearms License (FFL) and,
    -provide a current valid copy to the promoter before el them space.
    Being FFL holders, the sellers are already required by federal law to do background checks on every individual they sell a firearm to and to keep records of the transaction for 7(?) years. To sell a firearm at a gun show without conducting the ATFs background check would already be a felony and cause for arrest. Hence, no need for the new law that is I-594.
    Well, what about people selling guns out in the parking lot of the event? Simple, it’s already against the law to buy or sell firearms outside of the venue hosting the gun shows. You see, every gun show in our state has been in some sort of government building located on government property.

    Cont…

  • [3] November 15, 2014 at 8:37pm

    Isn’t it interesting how liberals pick and choose which statements made by our founding fathers should apply to “properly” interpret the meaning of the constitution? I mean, there are volumes of letters written by our founding fathers that discuss and explain their intent before they drafted the constitution, during the revisions of the drafted document, and of the intended application of said document that CLEARLY give the full and simple meaning of the document that would change the world.

  • [4] November 14, 2014 at 12:03am

    I’m a huge Trey Gowdy fan! However, I’ve got a bad taste in my mouth about having under qualified people sitting in the Oval Office. I want to see how he conducts the Benghazi investigation and then I’d like to see him run for and become a senator. Heck, add a presidential cabinet position to his resume’ (hopefully as the Attorney General someday) and you would then have a well seasoned candidate, IMO.
    For me, I see no reason to nominate people who have only served in the House of Representatives, who have not been a US Senator or a State Governor for at least one full term, or maybe even those who have not ran a large commercial for-profit business as the CEO successfully for at least 5-10 years. I would also like our nominee to have served in our armed forces in a combat role. But most of all, I want someone who holds the US Constitution up as the law of the land, is honest and above reproach, and upholds the true and full platform of the republican party.
    No more big spending, lying bureaucrats, who think more about lining their pockets and those of their friends, who care more about their image than what’s best for our country, or those who wish to destroy our nation from within.
    Basically, what I’m trying to say is, our current crop of known candidates need to all go sit down. We need to find someone who is strong morally and ethically who meets the requirements I listed above.
    Find me our generation’s Gen. George Washington and I’ll be happy! Lol!

  • [12] November 13, 2014 at 11:35pm

    Here’s one for ya’. I’m a vet who was injured in combat over in Iraq. As such, I receive 100% of my healthcare, minus dental, from the VA for no charge as a disability benefit.
    I’m also a divorced, single dad with custody of my two kids, ages 14 and 11. In Washington State there aren’t any plans available for me to insure only my kids. I have to purchase an insurance family plan to cover myself and which allows me to add dependents to it. Talk about a messed up system!

  • [1] November 13, 2014 at 12:40am

    amerigirl…

    If you’re going to troll on this site you’re going to have to step up you very poor game to a much higher level. Attempting to make your point with disparaging remarks about God won’t get me to see your point of view… Unless your point of view is that of a snot-nosed liberal who is angry at the world for not giving her everything she wants, when she wants it, and thinks that her opinion should be forced upon others as fact.
    Are you related to Debbie Wasserman-Shultz?
    Ha, ha, ha, …!

  • November 13, 2014 at 12:16am

    Hey Mot!
    Well, I took you up on your offer to view a number of YouTube videos by DonExodus2. I spent hours reviewing the data, taking notes, etc… Let’s just say I found nothing new.
    DE2 obviously is a close-minded individual who can only see the world through a pre-position that evolution is the only answer. When the video begins with a statement of, “…evolution theory has about as much doubt as whether the earth goes around the sun…” I tend to conclude that this individual is not receptive to even consider evidence counter to his position. That would be classified as his “third type of person who will not listen, period!” I think he meant it to be a put down to those who see evidence for creation. He even goes on to say that those who accept the creation theory refuse to listen: “There minds are about as open and porous as a sheet of glass.”
    DonExodus continues the barrage of sarcasm and condescendence with, “…there is absolutely nothing you can do to get through to them. I won’t address these people in my video.” And just before the first two minutes of video have played he ends with, “Quite simply, you can’t fix stupid.” Seems like he’ll be very receptive to my questions and believes in attempting to belittle, bully, and complain about (whine) those who question his viewpoint.
    Mot, I’m going to have to continue my comments in a follow-up post. ~rpa49

  • November 12, 2014 at 4:49am

    Someone voted my comment down? Really?

    The joke is Freudian Sluts… get it? Instead of Freudian Slips, Professor Physika slipped and said Freudian Sluts!

    Now that’s funny!

  • November 12, 2014 at 4:41am

    J-Rook,

    I accept your challenge!

    I will provide you with scientific proof supporting creationism and debunking evolution. It’s in a new book, recently released called, Evolution’s Achilles’ Heels, ISBN: 978-921643-82-8. You might be able to get it at your local library. If not, you can go to http://www.creation.com/store and purchase a copy of the book. There’s even a 96-minute documentary available if you prefer to hear and see the scientists show you their evidence.

    I will be happy to discuss your thoughts further in a week or two, if you like, after you read the scientific proof within the book or on the documentary. I will be happy to examine the proof you have come across that disproves creationism or soundly proves evolution.

    Thank you very much. I look forward to our discussion. ~rpa49

  • November 12, 2014 at 4:20am

    How so Hormel? What would be the proof you are looking for to identify someone as “stupid”?

  • November 12, 2014 at 4:14am

    J-Mo,

    Have you ever asked yourself how scientists determine the age of a fossil?
    Have you ever asked yourself how does DNA prove that evolution is real?

    I don’t think you have. I hope you are smart enough to investigate how the scientific “facts” are collected, evaluated, and how conclusions explain their outcomes.

    If you can get a copy of, Evolution’s Achilles’ Heels, ISBN: 978-1-921643-82-8, please take the time to read it. Heck, there’s even a documentary on DVD by the same name that is only 96-minutes. Find out what these qualified scientists in their respective fields of study have to say on the subject.

    I challenge you to read it! ~rpa49

  • [2] November 12, 2014 at 3:58am

    I have a challenge for those who question the validity of Creationism.

    I will read whatever evidence you can find that supports evolution if you will read one simple book, and no, it is not the Bible. The name of the book is, Evolution’s Achilles’ Heel, ISBN: 978-1-921643-82-8. It is written by eleven different Ph. D. scientists starting with a forward by Dr. Carl Wieland.

    There is a 96-minute DVD or Blu-ray documentary by the same title, Evolution’s Achilles’ Heels, which can be found at http://www.creation.com/store . Please, be my guest and use my 10% discount code, EAH10, at checkout. Both the book and video may also be available at your local library.

    I’m not trying to change you. That is something you may or may not do on your own. I believe that only God can change you.

    I hope you don’t ignore my challenge and pass on the opportunity to be exposed to evidence by qualified scientists within their respective fields of study. Be bold! Take a chance to examine the evidence that supports creationism with scientific facts in the following topics:

    Natural Selection, Dr Don Batten
    Genetics and DNA, Dr Robert W. Carter
    The Origin of Life, Dr Jonathan Sarfati
    The Fossil Record, Dr Emil Silvestru
    The Geologic Record, Dr Tas Walker
    Radiometric Dating, Dr Jim Mason
    Cosmology, Dr John Harnett
    and
    Ethics and Morality, Dr David Catchpoole & Dr Mark Harwood.

    Thank you for considering my challenge. ~rpa49

    Responses (1) +
  • [3] November 12, 2014 at 3:48am

    Mot & Leister,

    I have a challenge for you. I will read whatever evidence you can find that supports evolution if you will read one simple book, and no, it is not the Bible. The name of the book is, Evolution’s Achilles’ Heel, ISBN: 978-1-921643-82-8. It is written by eleven different Ph. D. scientists starting with a forward by Dr. Carl Wieland.

    There is a 96-minute DVD or Blu-ray documentary by the same title, Evolution’s Achilles’ Heels, which can be found at http://www.creation.com/store . You can even be my guest and use my 10% discount code, EAH10, at checkout.

    I’m not trying to change you. That is something you may or may not do on your own. I believe that only God can change you.

    I hope you don’t ignore my challenge and pass on the opportunity to be exposed to evidence by qualified scientists within their respective fields of study, here and abroad. Be bold and take a chance to learn the truth that supports creationism with scientific facts in the following topics:

    Natural Selection, Dr Don Batten
    Genetics and DNA, Dr Robert W. Carter
    The Origin of Life, Dr Jonathan Sarfati
    The Fossil Record, Dr Emil Silvestru
    The Geologic Record, Dr Tas Walker
    Radiometric Dating, Dr Jim Mason
    Cosmology, Dr John Harnett
    and
    Ethics and Morality, Dr David Catchpoole & Dr Mark Harwood.

    Thank you for considering my challenge. ~rpa49

123 To page: Go