User Profile: Sparhawk


Member Since: November 13, 2010


  • February 3, 2016 at 9:56pm

    Two arguments I have heard against requiring women to sign up for the draft, and my responses:
    * “Not all women want to join the military”: tough luck, not all men want to either, yet we have to sign up for the draft. This argument holds no water.
    * “Not all women are physically able to handle it”: again, this is not a valid argument. Not all men are physically capable of handling it either, yet we all still have to register for selective service.

    I have yet to hear an argument against this that makes sense.
    Women should have to register for selective service. Then, if they ever are drafted, they can follow William Jefferson Clinton to Canada like everyone else.

  • January 18, 2016 at 10:01am

    If this training is going to fix the whole issue for Chipotle, why wait three weeks? The stores are still endangering lives. Shut them all down NOW, do the training, and re-open.

  • [13] January 3, 2016 at 1:20pm

    What part of the 5th Amendment do these jackasses not understand?
    “No person shall be… deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”.

    People are placed on the terror watch list and no-fly list without due process, because they are “suspected” of being a danger to the country. They have not been convicted of a crime or been through any “due process”; it is just an alert to the proper authorities that they MAY be a danger to society.

    In order to revoke a person’s constitutional rights, they MUST go through the due process of a trial. ANY candidate that says they agree with cancelling a person’s 2nd amendment rights without due process MUST not be elected.

    Responses (1) +
  • [2] December 25, 2015 at 12:40pm

    I only let myself get offended by people whose opinions I care about, who then betray the trust I put in them. Sarah Silverman’s whole existence is spent trying to get under peoples’ skin. I do not respect her, therefore I don’t give a rat’s ass about her opinion of Christianity. I only clicked on the article to see how she backed up that tweet. Since she didn’t, I’ll just go on with my life same as before: not caring that Sarah Silverman exists.

  • [14] December 5, 2015 at 10:03pm

    Shawn’s fascination with white mens’ genitalia, combined with the fact that is is really white himself (contrary to his own claims), I think he’s overcompensating for something. Just because he *is* a big dick doesn’t mean he has one.
    On a side not, why is this website replacing his last name with K*** but not the word “dick”?

  • [2] November 24, 2015 at 9:58am

    The first “university” was in Italy, so everyone going to a university is appropriating Italian culture. It must be stopped. Shut down these institutions immediately.

  • [1] November 15, 2015 at 12:08pm

    Impugn: “dispute the truth, validity, or honesty of (a statement or motive); call into question.”
    So, if my English is good, to impugn something, that something has to be true, valid, or honest. Clinton’s “integrity” is none of those things, so her statement makes no sense.

    Responses (1) +
  • [5] September 23, 2015 at 10:27am

    What do you call an atheist church applying for tax-exempt status? A “non-prophet organization”. ;)

  • [1] August 18, 2015 at 10:01am

    Y’all make it amazingly hard to watch the desired video when you place an auto-play really loud video all the way at the bottom of the page to the right of the comments. That movie trailer is so loud I had to turn down the speakers, and since the player didn’t have a pause option, I had to wait until that trailer was over before I could play the video that is the focus of the page.

    Responses (2) +
  • [6] May 9, 2015 at 11:14am

    So, according to Ms Vanderpool, encouraging everyone to be their own person means to do what everyone else is doing and not share a dissenting opinion? Does this woman think before she opens her mouth?

    “You want to encourage everyone to be their own person,” she told the paper, “and for someone to decide it’s OK for those two students to go on a morning show and wear a shirt like that with no repercussions, what is the school saying? That it’s OK?”

    In the words of Bugs Bunny, “what a maroon!”

  • [2] March 6, 2015 at 2:55pm

    Good ol’ linkbait, and we all keep falling for it.

  • [2] March 6, 2015 at 2:54pm

    I would say more “amazing” than “wonderful”, myself ;)

  • February 27, 2015 at 2:32pm

    She WYFFed it, big time.

  • [3] February 5, 2015 at 3:40pm

    I like that idea.
    If they react differently, they would be hypocritical. But, this is the government we are talking about, and the military is just as “politically correct” as any other branch.

    Responses (1) +
  • [-1] February 5, 2015 at 3:32pm

    “Flag; stripes and stars on: The flag of the United States shall be thirteen horizontal stripes, alternate red and white; and the union of the flag shall be fifty stars, white in a blue field.”

    OK, all well and good. The US flag will be alternating red and white stripes with white stars on a blue field. Got it. Fine. Great.

    But just because the US flag needs those things doesn’t exclude other flags from using portions of that definition. The flag of Puerto Rico fits that definition: alternating red and white stripes, and a white star on a blue field. That doesn’t make it the U.S. flag.

    Having stars on a blue field with other elements does not mean this is an altered U.S. flag. Australia’s flag has red and white stripes and white (6-point) stars on a blue field. Maybe we should take their flags down because US citizens are offended.

    Taking something that only meets part of the definition (white stars on a blue field) and thinking it is an altered American flag means your thinking is altered.

    It is not an “American flag with rainbow stripes instead of the standard red and white stripes.” Because it doesn’t have “thirteen horizontal stripes, alternate red and white”, it is, by definition, not an American flag.

    Last time I checked, we still had the freedom to fly whatever flag we wanted, without giving a rat’s ass if our neighbors were offended. On a military base this may be different, but this flag is not an American flag. Get over yourself.

  • [-12] December 30, 2014 at 6:01pm

    And yet you commented. Like to see yourself in print?

  • [8] November 10, 2014 at 8:47pm

    “Beginning Monday, every proposed suspension of black, Hispanic or American Indian students that doesn’t involve violent behavior will be reviewed by Johnson or someone else on her team.” If they are going to that extreme, then it should be “every proposed suspension”, not “every proposed suspension of ” (insert races/ethnicities here). ALL suspensions should be reviewed if any are reviewed.

    Responses (2) +
  • [14] November 7, 2014 at 6:30pm

    Shouldn’t the person who thought the batteries were guns, and complained about an image on someone’s iPad, be the one suspended for “disrupting the class”? It was THEIR complaint, not the student’s possession of the batteries, that caused the disruption.

  • [5] November 7, 2014 at 6:28pm

    What do you expect from people that mistake foam ear plugs for rubber bullets?

  • [4] October 16, 2014 at 11:14am

    This is entertaining. Politicians craft a law that specifically targets religious beliefs, then get pissy when churches talk about it. These churches are only getting political because the politicians are attacking their beliefs. If churches are not allowed to respond when politicians attack religious positions, then freedom of religion and freedom of speech no longer mean anything in this country.

    Responses (1) +
Restoring Love