User Profile: termyt


Member Since: February 15, 2011


123 To page: Go
  • [1] April 20, 2015 at 3:04pm

    This is the progressive america. We don’t help those less fortunate than ourselves because we are unwilling. We don’t do it because it’s illegal. Then we can only turn to the government for aid. And all that will cost us is our liberty.

  • [13] April 20, 2015 at 3:00pm

    You may be forgetting the fact that these people are hungry today, Tim. Giving them a free meal once a week in a park is not making it comfortable for them to be poor. It is a pretty good stop-gap measure for people who are in real need, though.

    It almost sounds like you are using that as an excuse to avoid helping those less fortunate than yourself lest they find a modicum of comfort in their misfortune.

    Public provisions, without end, are certainly a problem. That’s not what this lady is doing, though. If self rule is our goal, charity is a necessity. We must help those who need it. A privately run charity to provide a warm meal is perfect for this.

    Responses (1) +
  • [19] April 20, 2015 at 2:46pm

    She should be happy she not under the thumb of those horrid Christians, though. She thinks being married off at 13 is bad? I mean, people could be telling her she’s making bad life decisions. And if she does them anyways, she’ll likely find out that the male sitting next to her doing the same job is making slightly more than her. Yes, she should count her blessings that she’s only going to be forced into marriage.

    Responses (1) +
  • [11] April 18, 2015 at 4:47pm

    It’s a mistake for Christians to cede any part of the culture, but especially the military. Every other month we have a story about what garbage they are teaching our soldiers in the army.

    Staying out of the armed forces will only give control of the most powerful entity in the USA to people who will have no qualms about using it against the rest of us.

    Responses (2) +
  • [9] April 18, 2015 at 4:37pm

    I believe the police were able to do this because of the kid. We let our betters and their hired thugs run roughshod over our rights a lot easier if it “protects” “children.”

  • [5] April 14, 2015 at 1:23pm

    They are guests. When your guests are unruly, you ask them to leave.

    If the guests paid to be there, then whether a refund is due or not is up to policy, law, and the courts to decide.

  • April 14, 2015 at 1:15pm

    SOCC appears to be a private group, so they should be able to base their endorsements on whatever criteria they choose. They should be up front about it, though. If the SOCC demands divestment, make a statement about such.

  • [20] April 14, 2015 at 12:01pm

    There’s a freedom-hating Marxist radical who believes America is the cause of all the world’s problems pictured in the oval office? Oh wait, that’s not wrong.

  • [8] April 14, 2015 at 11:55am

    Sounds like they had an consignment agreement. So the owner of the guns gave them to Wyatt to sell for him. After the guns sell, Wyatt would give the owner the money for the guns, minus a fee.

    When or whether either party can terminate that agreement would be a matter of contract signed and local law. No idea what the ATF would have to do with that, besides the fact that they exist to punish us for doing perfectly legal things in a manner the current Executive Branch disagrees with. It should be handled in the local courts – most likely civil, not criminal.

  • [4] April 14, 2015 at 11:51am

    That’s what I was thinking. A theft charge seems a bit extreme over an apparent disagreement on the status of weapons put under consignment. I’d think civil court would be the place to hash it out, not criminal court.

    The benefit of criminal court, though? The state takes possession of the guns. The “victim” will still never see them again.

  • [1] April 13, 2015 at 3:53pm

    Where was this switch? I hear people over and over again saying this as if it were true, but no evidence of it.

    Conservatives, again, not everyone claiming to be, but those who actually are, stand for liberty and freedom. The ability of one to choose ones own destiny. This was present in the 50′s and 60′s in the northern conservatives who sent and went to the south to register blacks to vote. To those who opposed democrats that turned water hoses on black children just trying to go to school.

    Today it is little different. Conservatives stand for the freedom to live your life by your own choosing, be it gay or straight, white or black, rich or poor. It simply does not matter. Just don’t try to force your own will on others. That’s for the progressives, mostly Democrats, but plenty of Republicans, too, to do.

  • [9] April 13, 2015 at 3:23pm

    What were Jim Crow LAWS? Was it 100% of all restaurants independently agreeing that blacks and whites couldn’t eat at the same place? Such a thing never happened, will never happen in a place where we are free. Why? Because if everyone in my class is excluded from every restaurant AND I am free, I will open my own to service those excluded by the others and those who disagree with such exclusion. It’s that simple.

    The Jim Crow South was a problem because government was involved in the discrimination. It either forced businesses to discriminate in the manner of its choosing, like so-called “anti” discrimination laws today, or it turned a blind eye when the lives and property of those who did not discriminate were criminally destroyed.

    In a free society, the correction for systemic discrimination should not be systemic discrimination in the opposite direction. If it is, the society as a whole is no freer. It’s just traded one tyrant for another.

  • [25] April 13, 2015 at 2:03pm

    We discriminate all the time, Harry. It’s a natural and necessary part of the human existence. When you choose to (or not to) do business with someone, for any reason, that’s discrimination.

    The question is, “Do you want the government to force you to discriminate in the manner of its choosing instead of choosing for yourself how you discriminate?”

    When the government was discriminating against homosexuals with anti-sodomy laws and the like, you said, “No.” Now that it is discriminating against people you disagree with, you say, “Yes.”

    I’d rather get the government out of the discrimination game altogether and let us run our own lives by our own consciences. You want a government that oppresses what you don’t like and rewards what you do. You are the tyrant you claim to hate.

  • [3] April 13, 2015 at 12:32pm

    Claiming the name of a religion or god and faithfully representing it are two entirely different things.

    You say the KKK was Christian? Tell me, then, who was opposing the KKK? They also claimed to be Christians. The KKK was nothing more than the militant arm of the Democratic Party and their words words were easily demonstrated to run contrary to basic Christian doctrine.

    Many, especially Democrats in our history, have claimed Biblical authority for the atrocities they commit. It doesn’t actually make them Christians.

    Responses (5) +
  • [61] April 13, 2015 at 12:22pm

    “Most of these stories are about a couple that just wants a service, not a lawsuit.”

    That’s a load of BS and you know it, Harry. You are intentionally misrepresenting the truth in order to make your hatred of those who dare disagree with you into liberty-crushing law.

    If all they want is service, they could chose from any number of other florists, caterers, and venues that have no qualms about hosting their gay weddings. That’s not what you all want. You want forced acceptance and servitude while denying the same to those who disagree with you.

    I face this all the time. When a business posts a no-guns sign, whether I am carrying or not, I go elsewhere. I don’t want to do business with people who do not want to do business with me. I have no interest in forcing them to.

  • April 9, 2015 at 11:20pm

    All I see in those pictures is the ceiling. Should I be expecting the crowd up there? (Yes, I know the host story has a better shot).

    It certainly is not news to me that politicians use camera tricks and stack their audiences, but the photos here are not very compelling, either. As a matter of fact, I’m pretty sure the press does it, too, and I’d wager this person is not fan of Cameron. So who do I trust? Neither.

  • [6] April 5, 2015 at 8:22am

    That’s slavery, Grover.

    The elephant in the room is “offensive.” We don’t have any control over what we find offensive. It is capriciously defined by a government that has none of our best interests at heart.

  • [8] April 5, 2015 at 8:18am

    Hate speech is not the only unprotected speech. Protected speech is limited to what the government thinks is good speech. All other speech, hateful or not, is not afforded the same protections.

    The anti-discrimination laws force discrimination, they do not prohibit it.

  • [12] April 5, 2015 at 8:16am

    I would not want to make this particular cake, either, and I should not have to. It is as offensive to me as being forced to participate and support an event I do not agree with.

    To have the freedom to do as you please, you must advance that freedom to others, even those with whom you do not agree.

    Responses (1) +
  • [11] March 29, 2015 at 1:08pm

    What was that they were chanting? “Only our hate in our state?”

123 To page: Go
Restoring Love