User Profile: Dethklok91


Member Since: October 03, 2012


123 To page: Go
  • [1] March 29, 2015 at 1:08pm


    “I went to school in the 80s in Texas and a neighboring town still had a sign “Blacks unwelcome after sundown” at the city limits. It sounds like what you are proposing would lead to something like that again. Is that what you want? Is that what America is about?Is that what you want? Is that what America is about?”

    Well, crispy, like Harvey Dent said: “It’s not about what I ‘want’, it’s about what’s fair”.

    If a business doesn’t want to serve Black people, that’s his/her right. I don’t “want” it nor do I agree with it, but it’s their right; I have no place in it. Just like that one White Supremacist, Craig Cobb, who wanted to buy land in North Dakota to turn into an all-White neighborhood. I didn’t “want” him to do that nor did I agree with it; I just simply believe it’s his right to use his money however he wanted. And if he wanted to live with other White Supremacists, then more power to him.

  • [10] March 29, 2015 at 12:36pm

    Isn’t he the same guy who helped monitor the Republican presidential debate back in 2012?

  • [12] March 29, 2015 at 12:26pm

    “This law also allows Muslim business owners to discriminate against gays if they wish.”

    So? Muslim business owner should that right as well. Same with Jewish business owner, Buddhist business owners, Hindu business owners, Shinto business owners, etc.

    And why just Gays, though? Why is it only Gays that think they’ll discriminated against? Won’t those same Muslim business owners be able to discriminate against any Jewish and Christian customers? Won’t they also have the right not to sell pork at their restaurant, since it’s against their religion?

  • [24] March 29, 2015 at 12:08pm

    I hope Mr. Pence doesn’t back down, if not simply because I’m getting tired of spineless Republicans constantly kowtowing to their opponents, refusing to stand up for their beliefs.

    Of course, I’m sure the militant Gays are just upset that they’ll no longer be able to sue any owner out of business that refuses to cater to them. Like there aren’t any others bakers or florists in Indiana that’ll have no problems serving Gays. But of course, I doubt it has anything to do with “equal treatment”; just simply trying to bully others into accepting them.

  • [10] March 29, 2015 at 12:41am

    Whichever one the shop owner is a part of?

  • [13] March 29, 2015 at 12:35am

    Not quite, binky. If ‘I’, the business owner, am part of a religion, then by proxy, my business is technically part of that religion as well. Therefore, I should be able to mix my religious beliefs with my business practices, without fear of my beliefs being restricted by the government.

    Don’t like it, then shop elsewhere. That’s how a free society should operate.

    Responses (3) +
  • [10] March 28, 2015 at 11:22pm

    You seem ignorant of the bill’s true purpose too, Ruuuuurl. It doesn’t give the “religious reich (typical language from an Atheist troll)” the right to “tell anyone how to live anymore”; it simply gives religious business owners the right to be able to practice their religion, even if that means refusing to do business with certain people.

    Of course, the First Amendment should’ve already given them that right, but I guess it doesn’t hurt to reaffirm it.

  • [22] March 28, 2015 at 10:27pm

    Agreed. It shouldn’t matter what reason, whether it be religious or non-religious; as long as they own property, people should be able to refuse who they want coming on it. If a business owner doesn’t want to do business with a certain group of people, that certain group of people should just go elsewhere; let the Free Market do the rest.

    Government shouldn’t be allowed to force businesses to provide service for people they don’t want to.

    Responses (7) +
  • [24] March 28, 2015 at 10:16pm

    Yes, how dare the governor sign a bill that allows businesses to refuse others based on their religion without fear of government interference, as the First Amendment should allow them to.

    Responses (3) +
  • March 28, 2015 at 1:52pm

    Or Rosie. Isn’t it funny how they never spew their anti-gun rhetoric on stories where the victim uses a gun to protect their selves?

  • [14] March 27, 2015 at 3:36pm

    Actually, you can. If you look close enough, there’s no “u” and and “b” in “dom” as there is in “dumb”.


  • March 27, 2015 at 3:10pm

    So, you DON’T like gays? I don’t get why you didn’t just say that in the first place, conseutope.

    Did your tiny PC-sensitive brain keep you from admitting it?

  • March 27, 2015 at 1:21pm

    Do you like gays, consman (a rather name)?

  • [2] March 19, 2015 at 1:35pm

    If you truly believe in banning guns, Rosie, how come I didn’t see you calling for it on that pharmacist story?

    Or the story where an 11-year old girl defended herself with a shotgun?

    Or when an elderly man protect his home from a burglary?

    Well, Rosie?

    Responses (3) +
  • March 18, 2015 at 10:03pm

    No I didn’t, Fux; all I have to do is look at Obamacare to see what happens when Government gets control of something. And if this bill is anything like Obamacare, it’s just going to wind up kicking millions of people off their internet provider, and increase the internet bill of millions of others.

    It’s also funny hearing YOU ask me if I read the bill, when you were preening just several weeks ago about how the bill would put a stop to the monopoly Comcast had on the internet, despite the fact that the bill hadn’t even been released yet.

  • March 18, 2015 at 11:13am

    Of course you’re going to try your damnest to defend the “Net Neutrality” bill. Your boss, George Soros, has a vested interest in it.

  • [2] March 18, 2015 at 10:39am

    Why would it restrict Government, corps, and companies when they already have their fingers in it? Did you know Comcast and Time Warner were two of Obama’s biggest donors?

    And you think there’s going to no Government bias. Just like GE Electric…

  • [5] March 17, 2015 at 9:47pm


    “splain” what to me? Did you seriously not bother to look down to see RipeforParity’s (aka “Parrot”) post? It was only, like, one post below mine. Can’t see how you didn’t.

    ““Yeah, but what about the part that says “well-regulat–”

    If you had, obviously you would’ve known that it was Ripe I was responding to. Had a feeling there would be idiots who would SOMEHOW mistake my post for being anti-2nd Amendment, when I am the furthest thing from it.

    Responses (1) +
  • [4] March 17, 2015 at 9:34pm

    @Sarsfield and I.B.

    I hope you two know, that I’m fully aware what and who the 2nd Amendment was made for. I was merely responding to yet ANOTHER one of Parrot’s deliberately misleading posts. It was trying to insinuate that the “well-regulated” part in the 2nd Amendment, meant that the militia- which I know refers to every able-bodied citizen, not an official standing army- should be regulated in the sense that there should be restrictions for it; like what kind of weapons they should own; who should be able to wield them; etc.

    I wasn’t trying to contradict Northern’s post.

  • [2] March 17, 2015 at 9:06pm

    “spooky conspiracy” Parrot? First my use of above-average English words, now you find conspiracies “spooky”? Do I have to mock you again like last time?

    “Yes, spooky conspiracy! Spooky conspiracy make Parrot scared! Spooky conspiracy make Parrot fling smelly brown stuffy at spooky conspiracy-saying people! Spooky conspiracy spooky! Der! Der! Der!”

    Is that why you stay in your parents’ basement? Too afraid of all the “spooky” things in the outside world? What a pitiful life you must lead.

    Responses (1) +
123 To page: Go
Restoring Love