CommentsDisplaying jeffersonian1776's 10 most recent comments.

• Why Is a Hangin’ Truck Driving Around NYC With President Obama On a Noose?

  May 4, 2012 at 10:20pm

  In reply to fixmfast.

  If God just began to weep at what has become of his world, I have to wonder what he was doing in 1994 Rwanda, World War II, the War Against Southern Independence, when the Romans were nailing people in droves (including Jesus) to crosses, and when Caligula was having sex with six year old boys and throwing them off a cliff when he was done with them.
  There ain’t nothing changed about this brutal world, it’s the same as it ever was.

• Stunning Photos: British Woman Mauled by ‘Tame’ Cheetah in South Africa

  May 4, 2012 at 8:26pm

  In reply to TXVET48.

  @LUKERW, you said, “How’s that Compassion for Animals… working for you today?” I’m not quite sure what you mean by such an asinine remark, but it sounds like you are probably one of those tough guys we’re all too familiar with who loves to abuse animals, just to watch them suffer. I may be wrong, but a comment like that leads people to wonder.
  Are you one of those tough guys who likes to show all them stupid freaking animals their rightful place behind humans in this world? Do you teach them a lesson for being lesser creatures?

• Student Gets Booted From Prom Over Her ‘Offensive & Inappropriate’ Confederate Flag Dress

  April 26, 2012 at 8:33pm

  In reply to Blazen420.

  Is this a violation of the freedom of speech (i.e., the First Amendment)? I really want to know if this is absolutely a violation of her rights. Is she too young to have a violation of the First Amendment applied in this case? If she is, please tell me of some examples why? Furthermore, if this meets these requirements, then will the ACLU become involved in defending her? If the ACLU won’t touch it because it “offends” a certain sect of individuals, then why have they represented other young clientel in similar cases where a much greater number of people were “offended” of the reason[s] why they had their free speech rights violated?
  Any of you commie marxist useful fools care to tackle this one?

• ‘Offensive and Inappropriate for a Teen’: Lesbian Image in Urban Outfitters’ April Catalogue Draws Controversy

  April 18, 2012 at 2:33pm

  In reply to Totally Domestic.

  @Ms. Jefferson, why do you and all the bullies who push the leftist agenda, of which the gay agenda is only part and partial, who are completely for “specific rights” for “specific people.” The one very very, so very, important thing that y’all forget is: PEOPLE MOST CERTAINLY HAVE THE RIGHT TO HATE. Am I right, do I have the right to hate someone because of who they choose to have sex with? Of course I do, but if you were a judge up in your highchair, you would sentence me to prison and sensitivity training to be reeducated.
  And here’s a question for you or anyone else who happens to be a leftist bully thug, and I don’t give a rip whether or not you are a so-called good christian: What about those of you who hate the haters? Is that okay; you’re obviously allowed to bullyize and hate the haters, right? Oh wait! I have it wrong, you all calim that you‘re not hating the haters’, but rather you only hate the hate. I know how you all think; I’m two steps ahead of your kind.
  As long as the haters stand for a free society, free from all coercive and tyrannical laws (laws e.g., which try to legislate thought), and object to the theft and destruction of wealth and/or private property by your “legally plundering” buds–then those you consider haters get two thumbs up from me and my support.
  Power to the haters and stripped from all despotic, bully, agenda-driven plunderers. Oh yeah, almost forgot: “Power to the MEople.”

• Beck to NRA on Obama‘s ’Yes We Can’: ‘What a Bunch of Crap That Is’

  April 15, 2012 at 3:30pm

  In reply to marybethelizabeth.

  @ MarybethElizabeth, concerning your rather asinine statement on collectivism/individualism: So if a group of people who all consider themselves to be individuals join together in the political realm and conduct themselves in such a manor in their voting, then by your standards they are now a collective; thus, they should now drop all individually associative behavior because YOU have lumped them together into a collective group. Do have that right? So basically if you have any tendency or desire to be an “individual” person who has constitutionally protected rights against coersion and or interventions in their lives by the collective (i.e., thru government)–then they should actually realize that they are part of a collective and should follow along with any thing “your” collective forces them to, no matter how destructive it is to their liberty. Either that, or, if they want to be an individual then basically by your standards they should just drop right out of society, don’t even communicate with anyone, even friends and family. That is what they should do if they want to be one of those damned people who like to live in a free society, because they are now rendered incapable of any socially contractual endeavors.
  The one thing I know for sure, is that you speak like a true dyed-in-the-wool Commie. Why’s that? Because you are doing what a good Marxist does best, that is lumping people into categorical collectives, even us “individuals.”

• Did Mike Huckabee Open His New Radio Show With a ‘Planted Call’?

  April 11, 2012 at 12:18am

  In reply to Sharon Rose.

  HERE’S ANOTHER TYPO DOOZY: ““Challenging Rush is seen by many conservatives as an attack on conservatism itself,” Lord note.“ ”Lord note?” You think that it should be in the past participle, maybe?

• Did Mike Huckabee Open His New Radio Show With a ‘Planted Call’?

  April 11, 2012 at 12:03am

  In reply to Sharon Rose.

  Once again Blaze, real nice grammar and typos going on here, nothing new, just the way you roll there. As I’ve stated, how is anybody supposed to take you serious as a legitimate source of media when you don’t have an editor who is supposed to catch these things. It‘s bad enough your writers aren’t checking their own work to boot. Blaze, you get a C- for the day. What is wrong with this?: “But the conservative outlet The American Spectator was tipped out off to something interesting…“ You are missing a comma after ”outlet“ as well as after ”Spectator.“ ”The“ in ”The American Spectator” is capitalized; it should not be–that is a basic rule from English 101that was obviously violated. Then the word “out,” I’m guessing, should not be in there; if it is, then what does “tipped out off” supposed to mean? Count them, those are three very rudimentary grammar and typo mistakes in one short phrase. This is what happens when you don’t proofread your product, one that is losing its value day by day. I like to come here for news and blogging; however, I would love to be able to use you as a reputable source, and with writing such as that it’s getting harder and harder.

• Revealed: The Anti-Christian, Anti-Capitalist Messages of Urban Outfitters’ Supplier, Obey Clothing

  April 6, 2012 at 5:37am

  @ JZS, the story here is not that this is part of capitalism we have to live with but rather, for parents to beware because this “edgy” clothingline comes from someone with an agenda looking to make their kids into useful idiots. I also wonder how many of these really cool rebelous clothes you already own? Which one are you wearing today? They seem to be right up your plato.

• Fed Appeals Court to DOJ: You Have Until Thursday to Explain What the President Meant by ‘Unprecedented’ & ‘Unelected Group’

  April 4, 2012 at 10:12pm

  In reply to Paul.

  Of course Obama believes that the Supreme Court should not have the power to overturn a federal law, which makes them void; the way things get done in socialist dictatorships. Maybe he believes that they can overturn those evil Republican-passed laws though.

• Actual Bill Ayers Rant: Why Do ‘Uniformed Military’ Get to Board Planes First?

  April 4, 2012 at 2:32pm

  In reply to HKS.

  That duck-bag said just imagine a world without capitalism. What he means by that, is rather: jsut imagine a world without private property; a world where we can now enslave an entire country and dole-out goodies only to the regime supporters; a world ran by the Harvard faculty lounge; a world where government now runs everything, as it’s so much more efficient; no more stupid free market principles allowed to be talked about; a world where speech is highly regulated so no one will ever have to worry about being offended anymore, unless you’re conservative/libertarian; a world where nobody gets ahead of anyone else, where we all get to work happily side-by-side and get paid equal salaries by the government, not by some evil private business owner (don’t you know we hate even those small greedy business owners too); a world where wealth is created simply by the gubmint saying it exists, and where limited resources always get transferred to first those in gubmint, then to those based on skin color and sexuality, others fend for themselves; a world where nobody is wealthy, unless you’re a rockstar Marxist president or one of his minions.
  Then did you hear him say that they can never have enough power to have the Whitehouse. Hey Bill, wtfu moron, you’re in the WH now, fool. Why is it in countries like the one I mentioned (North Korea) that the wealthy ones (govt) are those who don’t produce anything but rather legally plunder for their glamorous existence?