User Profile: USAF_SP


Member Since: October 25, 2012


  • June 29, 2015 at 11:36pm

    I am about to use an argument I’ve used a couple of times on here in the past, and received a ton of support from others. The argument I’ve used is that if Allah is omnipotent and omniscient, why does he need mere mortal men to enforce his Sharia laws? Wouldn’t He know in advance who was, and who was not going to be pure? If He knew that a particular man or woman would violate one of his most sacred laws, would He really need a mortal enforcement squad?
    Now here’s the part where I make everyone mad, I suppose. If God is omnipotent and omniscient, why does He need mortal men to enforce his laws? If being gay is opposed to His natural laws, wouldn’t He already know in advance who was and was not going to be pure? Would He need mortal men to prevent these acts by enacting their own inferior laws?
    I see religious zealotry equally on both sides of the aisle. I am an atheist, and I have trouble with any so-called religious person who feels they are somehow on the side of righteousness by hurting, or denying others in His name. If you truly believe, leave it to the Big Guy. He’s God. He doesn’t need your help.

  • [1] June 23, 2015 at 10:20pm

    One thing is for sure, those sickos will never capture me. I will fight down to my last bullet, and when I only have it left, I would use it on myself before giving them the satisfaction of playing “who’s the most demented terrorist.”

  • [6] June 22, 2015 at 9:09pm

    What’s worse? That the White House lied, or that the people on the so called “news” station MSLSD are all chuckling at the fact? It’s obvious it is nothing but a joke to them. If a conservative would have lied, there would be serious faces, somber undertones, and major headlines.

  • [4] June 18, 2015 at 9:50pm

    @Libertarian…The problem I see with the socialist agenda of equality, and making poor people pay less percentage in taxes than their wealthy counterparts, is that it de-motivates people from wanting to become more than they are. Why work harder, study harder, and achieve better to earn more money, if that is just going to get taxed at a higher rate? Why be a brain surgeon if after taxes I’ll make the same amount of money as a Primary Care Physician? Why even become a doctor, when after taxes I’ll make the same amount as a nurse. And on, and on, and on. It’s no different from those who are de-motivated to go to work, because they will end up losing money as the welfare is more lucrative than the minimum-wage job. Which is of course, why all the liberals and Communists are clamoring for a minimum wage hike to $15 an hour. What they don’t consider is how much the costs of goods and services are going to go up if that happens, and how many jobs will be lost, hence more people on welfare. Ask yourself, really ask yourself, if you believe that people are so good, and so motivated, that they will continue to work hard, study hard, and achieve bigger and better results without some sort of incentive. A flat tax is fair. If you don’t earn any money working, then 14% of zero is ZERO. That’s a heck of a lot more fair than that same individual getting a check for $5K because they have 4 kids and didn’t work.

    Responses (1) +
  • [12] June 18, 2015 at 9:34pm

    @Libertarian…Are you saying that the IRS is here to protect the individuals rights from encroachment from others? Absolutely laughable given the scandal involved in that institution where they targeted right-wing organizations for political purposes. Rand has a simple solution to a huge problem, and that is over-taxation of the American workers by both corporations and habitual welfare recipients. The latter pay almost nothing in taxes, but each year millions receive Earned Income Credit for children, to the tune of thousands of dollars each. Basically, it’s like saying “Good job, welfare recipient. You spent your life making bad choices, so here’s some money from people who worked hard and made good choices. You need it more than they do.” And an end to FICA tax? I can only dream. Imagine what our 401Ks, IRA’s and other savings might look like if we could have put those FICA dollars to our own, individual retirement rather than the Ponzi scheme that is Social Security.

  • [9] June 3, 2015 at 8:18pm

    As an Atheist, I side with the bakers. I wouldn’t walk into a place of worship for any religion and demand that the leader of the establishment provide me and my fellow Atheists a sermon on how evolution trumps creationism. The beautiful thing about America, at least is WAS a beautiful thing about America, is that we were all entitled to our own opinions.

    Responses (1) +
  • [13] June 1, 2015 at 11:01pm

    “Reassigned?” Why is it when someone fails in the corporate world they are fired. But nope, can’t have that from someone who has suckled from the govt. teet for 30 years. They get “reassigned” so that they can duly finish out double-dipping and remain pension eligible. Unbelievable.

    Responses (1) +
  • [6] May 7, 2015 at 12:12am

    I see this more of a planned tactic on the part of the NYT and the Clinton Camp. Let the Times publish all these questions, and it gives Hillary’s camp plenty of time to craft the answers that they want to the questions that could do the most damage in an interview or debate.

  • [1] January 8, 2015 at 8:29pm

    I have to agree with Jefferson. AK’s use a 7.62 round – basically the equivalent of a 30-06 deer rifle round. Much larger, more powerful, and with more velocity than the 5.56 round used in M-16s/M4s/AR’s. The 7.62 round can penetrate a concrete wall about 6″ thick and still easily kill the person on the other side of it. At the point blank range in the video, if that bullet hit home ANYWHERE on that policeman’s body, you would have seen a large amount of body material/fluids sprayed across the concrete. Heck, even many seconds after the shooting, there is isn’t even a small trail of blood. No way that happens if that round hits a human at that distance.

  • [5] December 16, 2014 at 9:02pm

    Typical lefty response: Let’s get the Government in here to clean it up! We obviously can’t do anything for ourselves like: Having two parent households with positive mother and father role models, taking an interest in our kids’ lives, cleaning up our own neighborhoods, working with the police rather than against them, or gosh forbid, instilling a sense of honor and integrity in the youth of these neighborhoods. Nope, can’t do that. Government! Help!

  • [3] December 16, 2014 at 8:56pm

    XEfitnop, First off, thank you for your service both in the Marine Corps, and in the LE community. Having been an Air Force cop (okay, don’t laugh, the Marine MPs trained at Lackland AFB, too!) I see both sides of the story. Do I want each and every LEO to go home safely to their family each night? Yes, absolutely. I don’t have to even think twice about it. But I also want each and every citizen who is exercising their constitutional rights to do the same. We have all seen too many videos lately of misinformed and/or under educated, or downright dishonest and corrupt, LEOs who have no business whatsoever riding around in an MRAP. If they will taze 78 year old men for not having an inspection sticker (when one wasn’t even required), when they use the chokehold (outlawed by their own policy) and kill someone by performing the duty of a tax collector, or when they illegally confiscate someone’s smartphone in an attempt to erase a damaging video (tampering with evidence) then imagine what lengths these people will go to when they have the warm fuzzy feeling of being surrounded by 8 tons of armor plating? No thank you. I saw enough of what armored vehicles can do to “law abiding citizens” during the Arab Spring.

  • [4] November 7, 2014 at 1:49pm

    This is ridiculous. I am an atheist, and if Ruth wants her God to bless me than I shall thank her for it and feel fortunate. When did a simple gesture of kindness and goodwill become such a threat or so offensive? Honestly, sometimes I think a lot of atheists do believe and are just too proud to admit it. If you truly don’t believe, then why get upset about someone asking what you believe to be a fictitious character to place some otherworldly charm on you? If you truly don’t believe then why is what she said any different than “Thanks for coming in and have a wonderful rest of your day?” Sorry, this is one atheist who stands with the church, Ruth, and the majority of Americans on this issue.

    Responses (1) +
  • [3] October 30, 2014 at 9:04pm

    This story really makes me mad. I’m an atheist, but that is my choice. Millions of other Americans practice their religion as they see fit. That is (or apparently at least WAS) what was so beautiful about what was created here by our founding fathers. I have no issues with anyone speaking their mind in their places of worship. What I do have issues with is some weird hybrid watchdog/government agency selectively enforcing the law. We have all of R. Wrights sermons recorded. I’ve heard several of them on Beck, Hannity, and Rush, and all of them were explicitly political. #enddoublestandards

    Responses (1) +
  • [166] October 30, 2014 at 8:47pm

    As a fellow veteran and an atheist, I totally support this great Marine and father. Actually, I’m fine if the parents in that district decided to teach and promote Christianity in their schools. The point is, it should be decided by the parents in that community, by a majority. That’s how our country was founded…majority rule. I recognize that as an atheist, I’m in the minority in most communities and accept that. I’m not bothered by anyone practicing their Christian or Jewish faith. Heck, on most issues, I would much rather stand with the church than with other athiests. In my lifetime the only thing I’ve seen Christianity promote is Charity, Humility, and Humanity. The only thing I’ve ever seen Islam promote is Caliphate, intolerance and death to infadels.

  • [18] October 29, 2014 at 8:17pm

    If someone states directly that they are planning to take out the President, that’s one thing and I would absolutely expect the Secret Service to investigate. This is not a direct or indirect threat. This is free speech. Unless of course, some secret government agency really HAS a zombie disease in which case the resurrection of Lee Harvey Oswald is possible….

  • [2] October 24, 2014 at 8:41pm

    I can’t agree with you more Flyboy. By the time I was 12 my closet had a locked gun rack for which I held a key. It contained a few rifles, two shotguns, and a small caliber pistol. Somehow, I made it through all the trials and tribulations of being a short, skinny nerdy kid in HS without once thinking it would be a good idea to extract revenge via a firearm.

  • [9] September 24, 2014 at 9:06pm

    In my military police training I was always taught it takes 3 things to justify the use of deadly force: Opportunity, Intent, and Capability. In a split-second, anyone can argue that they didn’t have time to discern a toy gun from a real gun. Okay, so that requirement is met. Let’s look at Opportunity. Yep, he was in the store walking around with a “weapon.” Okay, so that requirement was met. Lastly Intent. Did the subject display physical signs or make any statements that could be considered threatening to anyone? Not from what I saw. Swinging a weapon back and forth slightly with the muzzle pointed to the ground is hardly an aggressive stance. Simply not heeding orders to drop the weapon doesn’t count either as a good attorney could argue the victim was hard of hearing or even that the victim didn’t realize the cops were addressing him since in his mind he was only carrying around a toy.

    I’ll grant you, that last one is a bit of a stretch, but in any case, the requirement of Intent was never sufficiently shown for me to decide to take someone’s life. As others have said, there are other ways they could have handled it; not the least of which would be to hang back and observe for 20 seconds while ensuring the immediate area was clear of innocents.

    Just my thoughts.

    Responses (3) +
  • [22] September 18, 2014 at 9:29pm

    Really? Whatever happened to freedom of religion? Are you now advocating that your religion is somehow more right or righteous than someone else’s religion? If so, where does it end? Not all Christians believe the same things. Should the Catholics be able to stop the Baptists from disseminating their thoughts, beliefs, or pamphlets? What about 7th Day Adventists? Or Latter Day Saints? Who decides who is the “correct” denomination? You? The government?

  • [12] September 1, 2014 at 2:25pm

    Let me start out by saying that I am a veteran of the first Gulf War, and will proudly stand up and defend this nation, our ideals, and our troops if and when I see a need to. One of those ideals is FREEDOM. If you, I, or anyone else decides to sit during the Pledge of Allegiance, it well within your rights to do so; paid for by the lives, blood, sweat, and tears of those who have served in the past. Considering how this Mayor and Council acted, I would NOT stand up and pledge allegiance to ANYTHING they were a part of. Are we at a point now where “allegiance is mandatory?” What about “To the republic for which it stands?” What does our republic stand for these days? Allowing illegals and our enemies to flood across the border? Letting one of our Marines sit in a Mexican jail? Allowing 3 Americans to sit in a N. Korea Jail? Running guns to Cartels? Using the IRS as a strong arm against political rivals? Running guns in the middle east and then allowing an ambassador and Navy Seals to be killed to silence it? Forcing the citizens to purchase a product? These are not what my vision of America stands on. I only hope that Ted Cruz and company can clean up this mess or it will be a long time (if ever) I will STAND to support THIS CURRENT country.

  • [15] August 20, 2014 at 8:03pm

    I just love how the person filming kept saying “he could have tazed him.” I am absolutely not a police sympathizer, I will honor the good ones and call out the bad ones. In this case, the shooting is justified. The guy had a knife and was approaching the officer on the left and ignoring their instructions. Opportunity + Intent + Capability = authorization for deadly force. I’m also quite tired of arm chair police officers stating they should have used all these non-lethal forms to subdue someone like this. Are you willing to bet your life on a one shot and have to reload if you miss tazer? Now, maybe if they had a K-9, things might have been different. But these guys were justified. Sadly, it’s a pretty clear case of suicide by cop. Really bad timing, though.

    Responses (2) +
Restoring Love