User Profile: Sparky101


Member Since: October 18, 2010


123 To page: Go
  • [8] January 30, 2015 at 10:53am

    Ranger, Jesse was no SEAL, and he did not serve in Viet Nam.

    Jesse was a UDT member, but never took the extra 26 week SEAL training and hence was not a SEAL. When the UDT ranks were disbanded, the SEALS took over their responsibilities.

    Further, Jesse never got closer to Viet Nam than the Subic Bay Naval Base, PI.

    That Jesse continues to identify himself as a member of the SEAL team, is just another indication of his lack of integrity. He said it himself ““A hero must be honorable, must have honor. And you can’t have honor if you’re a liar. There is no honor in lying,” Hence, his self-identification with the SEALs implicates him as a “man of no honor” in his own words.

    Kyle on the other hand not only completed SEAL training and qualified as a SEAL, he took additional training and qualified as a sniper. He is way above Jesse in these qualifications, plus he actually served in a war (Jesse did not).

    While Jesse only attained the rank of E4 during his 6 years in the Navy, Chris Kyle was a Navy Chief E7. While Jesse was authorized to wear two easily achieved ribbons, Chris Kyle did that too, but was also awarded two medals for actual bravery in war – the Silver Star and the Bronze Star.

    While Jesse has sued anyone he thought he could get money from, Chris Kyle simply did his extremely dangerous job well and after his service he went out to help others – not try to bilk them. Big, big differences.

  • January 25, 2015 at 11:35am

    Soy says: “Glenn supposedly doesnt care about sports but still spent friday talking about it.”


  • [8] January 25, 2015 at 11:21am

    Love the double-meaning comments: “Michael Moore apparently isn’t keeping a low profile.” Meaning at his girth he physically can’t.

    000 says: “He is eating this up.” Meaning he eats everything in front of (and apparently behind) him.

    Dana said it best: “He could never qualify as a sniper because at his size he could never find a place to hide.”

    Dana’s guest said: “His idea of ‘serving’ is donuts.”

  • [3] January 18, 2015 at 12:06pm

    Wagman, atheism is based on the belief (faith) that there is no God. It requires no more reason than any other belief.

  • [2] January 18, 2015 at 11:54am

    Wagman, your anger is understood, but your rant in support of it is absolutely false (“Thinking God did everything is self defeating. With that kind of ignorant thinking, why look for cures for various diseases, when all you have to is pray your ass off to some jealous insecure narcissist.”)

    Gregor Mendel, Pasteur, etc, were people of faith and their belief in God propelled them into science and great discoveries.

    So pooey on you, add a little honesty to your diatribes.

  • [1] January 17, 2015 at 10:38pm

    I just knew Blinky would be here spewing his tired lies.

    It’s a shame he doesn’t read more or understand more of what little he does read in the scriptures.

  • January 17, 2015 at 10:33pm

    Judge or jury?

    Responses (2) +
  • [1] January 17, 2015 at 10:32pm

    Blinky, it’s your stories no one believes.

    Responses (1) +
  • [2] January 17, 2015 at 10:22pm

    Mac – that’s your opinion. In my opinion, your choice would be more like heaven if you were big enough to give the remainder away.

    Responses (2) +
  • [17] January 17, 2015 at 10:10pm

    Mac, nice try at an insult, but a failure all the same. We know the drill.

    For a very long time thinking people have read the scriptures. They were and are probably no more intelligent, nor less, than you, no more nor less educated than you, by and large just average and decent people. Along the way many have found Him.

    Wise men still seek him.

  • January 11, 2015 at 3:05pm

    Obfuscate much? Lie much? Blinky says: “And once again, all you’re doing is sitting there crying about how wrong I am, you’re not explaining why, you’re just making excuses and crying, as you always do. You never attempt to offer a counter argument, you just complain about how ‘wrong’ I am.”

    I had just clearly explained Blinky’s infraction and why it is wrong, and yet he has the audacity to make such a lame and dishonest reply.

    Blinky, if ever I’ve shed a tear over anything, it was a tear brought on by deep gut laughter at some of the idiotic things you say, thinking you might fool even one or perhaps two people.

  • January 11, 2015 at 2:43pm

    Blinky, I and others have tried to correct you about this before.

    Normally I’d ask you a leading question in hopes that one as intelligent as you claim to be, would see their folly as they formulate a reply.

    Alas that won’t be you. And even though I wasn’t talking to you, since you stuck your foot in I’ll answer to you.

    The statement made by Who (sounding like it was copied off the same Internet atheist page you get your “ammo” from) was: “Your wrong but even if you weren’t. Better than if you don’t agree with Christians you will suffer eternally, don’t you think?”

    Now please pay attention this time Blinky, because it is actually pretty simple: First I’ve never ever seen a Christian write such a thing, probably because there is no scripture to support it and therefore it is not a teaching in any church of which I’m aware. There is no eternal suffering that one receives from not agreeing with a Christian.

    No Christian has the authority or ability to make anyone suffer eternally for disagreeing with their personal statements or ideas.

    I think you may have already known this but prefer to direct your hatred at your all inclusive “Christian.”

  • January 11, 2015 at 2:05pm

    Ahh Blinky, still full of insults and little else. Well I guess I will do a little of the same.

    I just got so tired of seeing your stupid little 3 question crap that I decided to show you just how stupid it was. You, of course being vastly superior in every way, still cannot see how vacuous your stupid 3 question crap is.

    That’s the best you can do? The funniest part of it is that you think it is profound. And it is – profoundly stupid.

    I simply chose to stoop to the same level of stupidity to show you how it looked yet you weren’t intelligent enough to pick up on that. That’s the problem with narcissists, they just don’t get it.

  • [2] January 11, 2015 at 4:24am

    808, Whoisjohngalt has a poor grasp of the Christian theology and will only trot out those same Old Testament verses he copied from some atheist website that many atheists have saved in a template for just such a challenge. It does not matter that many well meaning Christians have honestly tried to explain and use this as a teaching moment, I predict your efforts will fail to reach his ears, so deep is his bias against God. And that too is scriptural. He is not here to debate or learn.

  • [1] January 11, 2015 at 3:56am

    Blinky does it again, makes up some all encompassing broad brush and decidedly false generalization about an entire group that includes millions and millions of people, and when called to task he obfuscates, babbles and outright lies to avoid being honest about what he has done.

    As someone who will gladly tell you that he is better educated and more intelligent than any Christian, it always amazes me when Blinky seems to lack that intelligence when caught once again using an isolated and typically small population of select “Christians” broad brush ALL Christians.

    That’s deceitful and dishonest, not just using that Saul Alinsky tactic, but then lying in an attempt at a defense when caught.

    Blinky just said: “Go watch “Jesus Camp” and get back to me if you want to know about the psychological abuse theists subject children to.” as though this is done in every church by every Christian everywhere.

    He constantly makes such false characterizations and has been called out on it many times – yet so deep is his hatred of “Christians than he seemingly cannot stop himself.

    Here, Klibanophoros catches him and “lovingly” calls him to task on his mischaracterization of Christians in general, and of course you can go back and see how a dishonest Blinky pretends he’s done nothing wrong, obfuscates, redirects and lies (once more).

    It’s old Blinky, but you will do it again tomorrow. Integrity much?

  • [3] January 11, 2015 at 3:13am

    Nope, it is not hate to simply disagree.

    But it is hateful to purposely and consistently insult another’s beliefs and to call them mean names like Blinky does. And he is not alone since other self-described atheists do it regularly here also (like Jackson).

    One gets tired of seeing them label everyone with whom they disagree, stupid, a moron or an idiot. That’s pure hatred, not disagreement.

    They seem to have an agenda to irritate whenever they can and to negatively broad brush Christians and attack them with false generalizations that they can never support when called to task.

    This is usually due to a deep-seated bigotry derived from some past personal disagreement they had with some unspecified event or person in a Christian denomination they once belonged to. And although it was probably not at all like they want us to believe, they used it as their excuse to leave the “faith” they never had, and take it out on all Christians even though most Christians don’t fit their stereotype.

    It’s hate, not disagreement, as evidenced by their dishonest generalities and constant insults to anyone they identify as “Christian.”

    Now Blinky has been known to tone down his hatred after he gets taken to the woodshed, but his narcissistic tendencies don’t permit him to be nice for very long. Watch and see.

  • [-1] January 11, 2015 at 2:24am

    Who says: “Better than if you don’t agree with Christians you will suffer eternally,…”

    After being corrected on this false statement multiple times, one would think an honest and reasonably intelligent person would want to correct their error.

    That you don’t, leads one to suspect since you know the facts don’t support your false statement, but you continue to spout it as truth anyway, that you are neither.

  • [-1] January 11, 2015 at 2:03am

    Hi Blink.
    Please choose which option applies to you.

    1) You are unaware of the evidence that supports Biblical truth, meaning you’re ignorant.
    2) You are incapable of understanding the evidence that supports Biblical truth, meaning you’re stupid.
    3) You are capable of understanding it and are aware of it, but don’t accept it, yet claim there is no evidence, meaning you’re a liar.

    It’s one of the three.

  • [-1] January 11, 2015 at 1:26am

    There’s your preferred childish name-calling again. What are you 12 or 14? Are your arguments so weak as to not be able to stand on their own merit? Apparently or else you’d not feel forced to try to buttress such pabulum with what you think are hard edged insults. The rest of us just see that for what it is, an infantile attempt to address a low self-esteem issue. Grow up child.

    Now, tell us more about why, in your opinion, God’s book is badly edited.

  • January 11, 2015 at 1:13am

    Jackson, the terms you use are misapplied, but that’s because you obviously know so little about this topic. Tell you what, take an embryology course or two and then come back and try again.

    “For those able to reason, my definitions are accurate.”

    Well Jackson, your definitions are only as accurate as your ability to correctly apply them, and at that you fail.

123 To page: Go