User Profile: sasquatch08


Member Since: November 09, 2010


123 To page: Go
  • [-2] September 21, 2014 at 2:12am

    And if history serves, many people here on The Blaze would be saying “It’s just a dog”.

    Blazers are so fickle.

  • [2] September 20, 2014 at 10:07pm


    Claiming to have a backbone while engaging in foolish and counterproductive activities such as protesting a port of entry into the U.S. because illegals don’t use it is a foolish waste of resources.

    I’m all for standing up against the sort of stupidity our gov’t is involved in, but shooting yourself in the leg before the battle starts is just plain idiotic.

  • [4] September 20, 2014 at 4:54pm

    There’s a difference between having backbone and making a silly stand.

    I said this elsewhere, but I’ll repeat it.

    Protesting a legal crossing like this does nothing more than annoy people who are going about legitimate business, and make the protesters look bad. Illegals aren’t pouring through these ports of entry, therefore protesting them makes you look like you’re against anyone crossing the border. That’s a story the MSM will run with for days; racist conservatives who are so stupid they’re protesting legitimate international travel. Some of the squishy independents who get their news from CNN or the Networks will believe it, and they’re the ones that we need to win over on this issue.

    Secondly, it’s illegal. Shutting down a lawful border crossing operated by the federal gov’t will, under this administration, most likely get you federal charges for interfering with legitimate federal duties. Now you’ve lost your guns, right to vote, probably your job and any hope of getting another one.

    You’ve destroyed your own life, cost us a vote, and given propaganda ammunition to the opposition.

    There’s other ways to protest this that don’t look bad, give aid to the liberals, cost votes on our side or ruin your life. Besides, nothing on the border is going to change until 2016 anyway, so what’s the freaking point in taking all those hits when the chances of gaining anything are 0?

  • [3] September 20, 2014 at 4:42pm

    I didn’t say it was a bad idea I said it wasn’t the best idea and here’s why:

    First, protesting legal ports of entry is pointless. Illegals are not streaming through these ports of entry, they’re crossing the border where we have little to no security. Therefore, this does nothing other than annoy people who are legally conducting business and make you look like your against anyone coming across the boarder for any reason. It plays right into the liberals hand, which, since they pretty much control the media, is not helpful. Now you look like a racist to independents that watch CNN, the very ones we need to win over.

    Second, yes, shutting down a port of entry is illegal if you’re messing with the federal government and it’s lawful duties, which they clearly are. (Notice that unions never screw with cargo inspection, only moving cargo out of the port.) This means that you may well tick off the DOJ and get yourself arrested on Federal charges. The Feds don’t do misdemeanors, so even if you plea it down (Holder’s not going to drop this) you have a felony record. You and the family members that now live with you cannot own or possess a gun, your voting rights are gone and on and on down the line.

    So you’ve made your cause look bad, lost your right to vote and screwed up the rest of your life over a misdirected protest. If that’s the best idea you can muster, I don’t want to know the worse ones you have.

  • [4] September 20, 2014 at 6:12am

    I don’t think attempting to close down legal ports of entry was the best idea but threatening violence over it is unnecessary to say the least.

    Either way, law enforcement says they’d have taken the necessary steps to stop such a protest, which means arrest records for a lot of otherwise law abiding people, which seems foolish to me.

    Responses (3) +
  • [2] September 19, 2014 at 5:42pm

    As I pointed out above, they split the section on race into two sections, one on race and the other on ethnicity, but the information collected remains the same.

    Responses (1) +
  • [2] September 19, 2014 at 5:28pm

    I fail to see where the outrage is coming from on this.

    Before 2012 the most recent previous revision to the 4473 was in August 2008, under the Bush Administration.

    From 2008-2012 Section 8 was “Race” and you could check the box next to the following options. Black/African American, Native American/Alaskan, Hispanic or Latino, White, or Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander.

    The new 2012 form has sections 10.a. and 10.b.. Which are have done nothing more than split the former Section 8 into two sections.

    10.a. Gives you two options: Hispanic or Latino or Not Hispanic or Latino.

    10b.b gives you the option to check Black/African American, Native American/Alaskan, White, or Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander.

    All they did was split section 8 into two sections they call 10.a. and 10.b., that’s it in a way that covers “white hispanics” ROFL!.

    The information they’re collecting on the current 4473 is exactly the same as on the prior revision which no one had a problem with.

  • [3] September 19, 2014 at 12:41am

    Saying that Saudi Arabia funds ISIS is a vast oversimplification.

    The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is run by a vast family struggling to keep the lid on a number of opposing factions, some of which do in fact support terrorism.

    The Arab world isn’t as politically simple as we would like to believe. Those lines on the map don’t mean what we think they should. The whole region is a mess with the exception of Israel.

    That said, oil is important. It is the life blood of the entire world. SA is the largest producer of oil products in the world, 68% of what SA produces goes to Asia, while “The Americas” get 19%.

    If their government falls and it significantly changes their oil products output for the worse it could upend the entire world economy.

    Therefore stating that our interest in SA is purely oil is also a vast oversimplification. There’s no telling what could happen worldwide if things went to pot in SA.

  • [9] September 19, 2014 at 12:29am


    I can’t help but be reminded of David Horowitz’s piece on the “Panthers” called “Black Murder Inc.”. A recollection of his time as a progressive, before the murderous and criminal ways of the “New Left Vanguard” (The Panthers) removed the scales from his eyes.

    His book “The Black Book of the American Left Vol 1″ is as enlightening as it is disturbing.

    Progressivism as he explains quite well isn’t as much a mental disorder as it is an amalgamation of dreamers, ignorant cowards, murderous criminals and a healthy dose of willful blindness.

  • [3] September 18, 2014 at 3:35pm

    Yar! That be a mighty fine shoppe there matey!

  • September 18, 2014 at 3:32pm

    What I want to know is: If this happens, what happens to the Form 4 I currently have waiting to be processed?

  • [1] September 18, 2014 at 3:31pm

    Let’s be honest though, Weld county and others are not going to leave Colorado, as much as they might desire it.

  • [1] September 18, 2014 at 3:25pm

    Sometimes Dushman, you make me laugh out loud.

  • [6] September 18, 2014 at 2:21pm

    Someone shined up their SS bars this morning.

  • [19] September 18, 2014 at 11:50am

    I think George Carlin summed this situation up well. Back in 1999.

  • [1] September 18, 2014 at 10:02am

    An atheist doesn’t believe in God.

    A “militant atheist” is openly hostile towards religion and those who are religious.

    lock_n_load is correct, the Freedom From Religion Foundation is a group of militant atheists. Atheist for obvious reasons, militant because they attack any public symbol of religiosity (though these days they are fixated on Christianity), such as public prayer, memorials that include a cross, the use of the word “God” in the Pledge of Allegiance or the mention of God in school et cetera.

    They also post obnoxious billboards condemning religious beliefs, and sue people who put up ones supporting said religious beliefs, send threatening letters.

    They’re like anti-Jehovah’s Witness’s on steroids.

  • [4] September 18, 2014 at 9:34am

    “… the flawed sinful person can not judge Morality.”

    Leading to the inevitable conclusion; leave everyone the heck alone to do as they please and let God deal with them. It’s not your business and you’re not capable of judging.

  • [3] September 18, 2014 at 9:30am

    Great, another story about religion that murky enough that it will have Blazers, who otherwise agree with each other on most things, at each others throats.

    Good job Glenn.

  • [2] September 18, 2014 at 12:04am

    Good luck. Jammers are illegal. Just read the FCC stuff on any piece of electronics you own (HAMers excluded of course).

    Your device must accept all incoming interference and generate none.

  • [3] September 18, 2014 at 12:00am


    Stop making sense. This sort of convoluted nonsense is how we make you subservient, straightforward, logical laws might actually allow you to exercise your freedom, and we can’t have that.

    You’re a serf, know your place and embrace it.

    /end sarc.

123 To page: Go