User Profile: VitW

Member Since: January 04, 2012


  • May 20, 2013 at 7:59pm

    I am really, so very, very happy to hear that the mother and children are safe, but . . . um . . . am I the only one wondering how the husband/father is?

    Responses (2) +
  • May 11, 2013 at 3:38pm

    A nose?! What nose?! I don’t have a nose on my face! What are you people talking about? Nothing to see here.

    Oh, wait. Military assets could have at least tried to stop four Americans from dying, but were specifically told not to. File clerk, John Oblivious doesn’t have the power NOT to order military aid, only the President (Commander in Chief of the Armed Services) can order, or fail to order, such aid. So, criminal negligence or dereliction of duty. So, please, help me out, in what world is that not a scandal?

    It’s one thing to disagree with allegations, it’s another thing entirely to pretend an allegation hasn’t been made or even implied. What nose? That fat fracking one on your face you dumb butt!

    Wait. Is Bill Maher Jewish? Crap! I should have gone with the “elephant in the room” analogy, now my post will be dismissed. No, no, I’m sorry, this is a conservative site – intelligent people will read this, so I’m good.

    Responses (2) +
  • May 9, 2013 at 10:18am

    Why do morons always accuse people of their own shortcomings?

    Hey BLINKNIGHT, educate yourself . . .

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .”

    Where does it say “where” prayer can happen? Where does it say that a “School Board shall make no law”? Prayer at school does not establish a religion, but even if it did, it would not be a law made by Congress. The truth is that this amendment is meant to prohibit the Congress in what it can do, not citizens and not schools.

    Your knowledge apparently starts with the slogan “freedom of religion” and mangles it to “freedom from religion”. Thereby, utilizing your logic, a school graduation should be a completely silent affair. Would it not follow that the slogan “freedom of speech” should appropriately be understood as “freedom from speech”?

    By your invalid interpretation of the First Amendment a person or organization must be forced NOT to do something versus the actual interpretation of the Amendment which is that NO ONE SHALL be forced to do something. You prohibit prayer at school, you prohibit not only the free exercise of religion, but also free speech. If prayer is allowed at school, no one would be forced to pray, forced to believe, or forced to participate in the prayer.

    You live in a world where you want to see “right free zones” I live in a country that guarantees my rights follow me everywhere I go.

  • April 25, 2013 at 9:37am

    All life is precious. Not all life is innocent.

  • February 28, 2013 at 12:05am

    First off, Vercey, there’s no confusion about this kid’s genitalia. Second, your comment, “Many of these girls at 2 or 3 like sports more than dolls. And trucks and soldiers more than easy bake ovens” is so incredibly sexist! What? Do only men play sports? Do only women cook? I’ll enlighten you as to what is hopeless. People who project their own small-mindedness onto others. They never can see the limitations of their own intellect and find their way to growth. Point of advice, read more, type less.

  • February 27, 2013 at 11:20pm

    Fantastic point about the cat analogy! Beautifully logical. He is a boy. He is not a hermaphrodite. He is a boy. To insist that you identify with being a girl is no different than someone who insists that they identify with being a cat. I’d do one better than the litter box. Nudity. Animals don’t wear clothes, unless forced to by their oppressive owners. The argument holds up and parallels in every way. Reminds me of “The Life of Brian”: Francis – “It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.” Reg – “It’s symbolic of his struggle against reality.”

  • August 14, 2012 at 10:53am

    I love your optimism. Unfortunately, your assertion suggests the recipricol. Perhaps the Russians knew they were being tracked. Maybe it wasn’t about whether they COULD get close, but rather that they DID get close. Besides, the real issue is not whether we could TRACK a sub, but whether we can RESPOND in time if the Russians decided to do something. We can’t always assume the US military is full of supermen who don’t make mistakes. And the Russians aren’t goat herders in the hills of Afganistan (who incidentally carried off the deadliest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor). Respect your enemy. Unfortunately, too many do not consider Russia an enemy, nor do they respect them. This is not the Cold War, there are too many in positions for decisions who would hesitate in the face of a “non-enemy” who commits a seemingly inconceivable act. And given the objective, a hesitation is all that would be needed.

  • August 14, 2012 at 10:25am

    Consider this scenerio . . . Russia fires off a nuke above the US from a sub in the Gulf. The EMP knocks out everything. The nuke is blammed on terrorists firing a nuke from a Gulf based cargo ship. That way Russia and China can offer to lead the humanitarian effort to help America get back on its feet, which includes security. And in the blink of an eye, “peaceful” Russian and Chinese troops patrol our street. And why would we fire on them, or fight back, after all they’re coming to help, right? And, oh well, maybe while they’re here, maybe they’ll just help us reconstruct our government using a “modified” constitution.

    With President Obama, the Marxist have come real close, you’re right. Perhaps the above scenerio could be a back up plan in case Obama looses in November. Food for thought.

  • August 14, 2012 at 10:16am

    Remember that suspected missle launch off the California coast?

    Responses (1) +
  • January 4, 2012 at 11:00am

    Well . . . I see your point . . . to a point. The concept of the show is to take individual cultural, national, ethnic histories and weave it together into one over-arching history of mankind – cool, that sounds fun to watch.

    . . . so, why start it out with a debatable THEORY of the origins of the universe? And then follow that up with hints of macro-evolutionary theory?

    “The new series starts with the Big Bang and traces the development of humans on a planet where the vast majority of species go extinct, said Jane Root, the project’s executive producer.”

    How does that have anything to do with “history” — and I won’t insult anyone’s intelligence with having to actually define the word “history”. It seems that the article and title is valid, given that the miniseries is attempting to create “history”, in part, where only conjecture and fantasy exist. At best the program exchanges scholarly narrative for scintillating science fiction and at worst it’s propaganda. Why not just start with cave paintings and move on from there? Just start with what INFORMATION Mankind ACTUALLY left behind about itself.

  • January 4, 2012 at 10:40am

    The Big Bang is like the theory of Aliens seeding our planet. It just kicks the argument of a first cause down the road. What was there before the big bang? What exactly caused “all energy in the universe encapsulated in a single, mathematic point” to explode in the first place? Science’s answer? The universe explodes, expands, stops, collapses, repeats. O.k., what started that process? Oh! It is an infinite process, you say? Why is it when science postulates a ludicrous assumption it simply adds more time to the process to make it believable. Sort of like when the general public stops being concerned about Trillions of dollars in debt — it’s akin to saying “gazillions” it is beyond comprehension, thus beyond thinking about, and acceptance sinks in. The more science tries to negate the existence of God, the more its credibility erodes. “History of Mankind”? You mean the history of the highly intricate machine with moving parts that gets more complex the smaller they get that is built and maintained by a blueprint (DNA) many orders of magnitude more sophisticated than any code language invented by those very same machines? And how pray-tell did those machines come to even exist? Oh, right. Get a big pool of water, add sand and electricity, and stir! Mathematically impossible you say? No, no, no – it’s possible, it just takes millions – no wait – billions of years! Still not possible? . . . gazillions of years?

    Responses (6) +