Posts by GLDNGUN

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Ted Cruz: The Bush Years-What his time at the FTC suggests about how he’d run the White House

    03/27/2015 6:40:22 PM PDT · 20 of 41
    GLDNGUN to nickcarraway
    He worked in the Bush administration? I thought he is conservative?

    So working for a GOP President automatically means you are not a conservative, enough if everything you did while serving demonstrates conservative principles? That's an interesting, albeit, knee-jerk conclusion. Hey, it's not like he was President and chose a Bush to be his VP.
  • Sarah Palin: Of course I’m interested in running for president

    01/23/2015 6:14:14 PM PST · 30 of 49
    GLDNGUN to Extremely Extreme Extremist

    Her chance came and went. I believe she was called in 2012 and blinked.

  • Missing AirAsia flight QZ8501 and MH370 share similarities according to aviation experts

    12/28/2014 8:55:02 AM PST · 28 of 28
    GLDNGUN to BlackVeil
    The similarity I see is that both flights originated in Muslim majority nations. In fact, Indonesia is the world's most populous Muslim-majority nation, at over 85%; Malaysia's state religion is Islam with over 60% of the population Muslim.

    I still say the most likely scenario that explains everything that happened with flight MH370 is that the Chinese took action after learning that Muslim extremists had got a WMD on the plane headed for Beijing. Whether Muslim terrorists have anything to do with AirAsia flight QZ8501's disappearance remains to be seen, but what Indonesia and Malaysia have in common is Muslim majority populations including extremist elements that have committed acts of terrorism in the past.
  • Why Peanut Butter Is Awesome and Amazing

    12/20/2014 8:16:18 PM PST · 133 of 153

    The only PB I eat, is homemade. We take honey roasted Planters peanuts and grind ‘em up in our VitaMix to the consistency of our liking. Honey Roasted Peanut Butter. Yum! :-)

  • Buchanan: Cruz or Paul Will Be In 'Finals' for GOP Nomination

    11/29/2014 5:50:52 PM PST · 66 of 82
    GLDNGUN to oblomov
    "He has sought alliances where he could find them- even with Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren on specific issues."

    And this makes Paul a good conservative candidate how again?
  • US House of Representatives (California) results (McClintock cruising to victory)

    11/04/2014 9:26:14 PM PST · 3 of 19
    GLDNGUN to Hugin

    I used to live CA. Love this guy. GOP now +10 net gain in the House!

  • AP: Vermont Legislature to Pick Governor

    11/04/2014 9:16:50 PM PST · 2 of 11

    Controlled by the dems.

  • How many Democrats will resign.

    11/04/2014 9:04:37 PM PST · 7 of 41
    GLDNGUN to jyro

    And how many surviving dems will switch party affiliation in the House and/or Senate to be on the winning majority side?


    10/28/2014 9:33:53 PM PDT · 49 of 51
    GLDNGUN to Bratch

    Why didn’t Sarah run for POTUS in 2012? Has anything changed since then? You think the press will go “easy” on her and/or her family next time around? Watch CNN recently?

  • My sources say there has been a major release of U.S. oil reserves

    10/20/2014 11:53:36 AM PDT · 81 of 101
    GLDNGUN to MeneMeneTekelUpharsin

    Didn’t happen for all reasons already mentioned. Price of gas is already dropping, and a release of oil from the reserves wouldn’t affect the price of gas anyway.

  • U.S. Airways attendant refuses to let veteran hang up his medal-filled jacket to stop it creasing -

    10/10/2014 11:13:18 PM PDT · 9 of 170
    GLDNGUN to Jonty30
    .Unless the airline has the ability to offer tho service, I think she was right to refuse. To accept the jacket also would have meant accepting liability for whatever might have happened to the jacket while the airline had it in its possession.

    Huh? You mean like they do for First Class passengers? They don't have a problem accepting that liability.

    Try again.
  • Flight 370 Theory: An Act of Anti-Terrorism

    03/21/2014 1:51:03 PM PDT · 1 of 55
    The usual generic suspects have been mentioned as possibly being responsible for the plane’s disappearance: terrorists, hijackers, and suicide pilots. Considering the sophistication of the planning and execution of this operation it’s hard to imagine any terrorist organization, band of hijackers or suicidal pilot would be capable of pulling it off. And to what end? What “terror” has been wrought by the plane’s disappearance other than to those on the plane? Where are the hijackers’ ransom demands? Where is the crazy pilot’s suicide note or any other type of communication or clue about ending his life and that of hundreds of passengers in his care?

    No, none of those would be capable of this plan. It was done by a highly sophisticated group with vast training, coordination and resources at its disposal. Still it would be impossible for such a group to exist, plan and execute its operations without the knowledge of the top spy agencies in the world…

    …unless, of course if the organization responsible for the actions on Flight 370 was one of the top spy agencies in the world.

    That brings us to the question of WHO are the top spy agencies in the world, and WHY would any of them want this plane to be taken off its course, all communications shut down, and to disappear without a trace?

    In no particular order, here are the countries considered to have the most powerful, sophisticated spy agencies in the world:

    US, Israel, UK, Russia, Germany, France, Australia, India, Pakistan, China.

    These countries’ spy agencies are probably the only organizations capable of planning and executing such a flawless, precise, and perfect operation without detection or discovery. Now, the questions comes down to WHICH one and WHY?

    Set that aside for a moment and consider how super powers, say the US for example, might protect itself from a specific type of terrorist threat – namely a suitcase nuclear devise or other WMD being flown into a major populated, strategic city and detonated, on an international flight from a country where terrorists, say Muslim extremists, are known to exist? In other words, what measures does the US take to keep a WMD from being flown in on a direct, commercial flight from a hostile country like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc., to New York or Washington DC to be detonated upon arrival?

    Of course, the first line of defense would be to keep such a WMD from making it on the plane in the first place, but that can’t be the last line of defense. Security, baggage handlers, etc. in such countries can’t be blindly trusted. They could be terrorist or sympathizers themselves, and facilitate the placing of a WMD on a flight bound for the US.

    No, it would be naïve to assume that countries like the US don’t have a plan in place in a case where it’s learned that a plane already off the ground has a WMD on board for the purpose of inflicting major damage at the plane’s destination.

    Would they just shoot the plane down and kill a few hundred people in order to save a few million? Quite possibly, as a last resort, but that scenario has major problems, as well. The WMD might still be detonated by any terrorist(s) on board, albeit not over its intended target, but even if the WMD was never used, the other terror target would be hit with pinpoint accuracy – the econom target. Imagine the repercussions and ripples if the US shot down a commercial plane from say, Egypt, that had a suitcase nuke on it, minutes before it got to its intended target - Washington DC. Panic would still ensue because if 1WMD made it on board, how many others could there be out there? International travel would instantly come to a halt. The world’s economies would crash.

    So, if you are a world superpower, what do you do to prevent from having to publicly shoot down a plane with a WMD that’s already in the air, and still keep it from making it to its intended target?

    You have agents, disguised as normal citizens, on the plane with the authority and means to execute various plans to cover a variety of emergency situations, including learning of a WMD onboard.

    The US has armed federal marshals on domestic flights, so it would be reasonable to assume they have equivalent international agents on international flights, especially from certain, suspect countries. In fact, it would irresponsible for the US to not have such agents on such flights.

    In a scenario where US secret agents on an international flight are alerted that the plane they are on headed for Washington DC has a suitcase nuke “somewhere” on the plane, terrorist(s) with a trigger may or may not be on the plane, or it might be a bomb that can be remotely detonated, say by cell phone, what would the pre-planned operation be that the agents would execute?

    First priority would be to divert the plane off its original programmed flight path and away from any other highly populated, strategic locations. Secondly, prevent the device from being detonated at all. Last, but not least, keep the entire episode from becoming known to the public.

    If you combine this scenario with the aforementioned list of the world’s most powerful spy agencies, you will arrive at the most plausible theory that explains various aspects of this very mysterious Flight 370 situation.

    Flight 370 was bound for Beijing - the capital of China with a population of over 21 million. It was coming from Malaysia, where Islam is the dominant religion. Malaysia has produced numerous terrorists such as Azahari Husin, Noordin Mohammed and Zulkifli Abdhir – all Islamic extremists responsible for multiple incidents. They are/were bomb-making experts and trained many in the “art”.

    China has its own “war on terror”. Muslim Uighur separatists have been seeking to leave China and form a Uighur majority country since just after the Soviet Union fell in 1991. Muslim Uighurs attended extremist camps all over Afghanistan pre-2001 and there used to be several at Guantanamo Bay. They consider China to be an occupying and oppressive occupier. They have carried out terror incidents in China, and China has responded with strikes and raids. If there is any group that has a motive for attacking China it is one within the Muslim Extremist Uighur Easter Turkestan Independence Movement. In fact, one of Chinese Muslim extremist groups within that movement DID claim “credit” when the plane went missing. They are the only ones who have.

    Maybe the group didn’t know all the details, but were they already aware that the plane was going to be used in some way as a weapon against China?

    Somewhere in the mixture of Malaysian Muslim extremist bomb-making experts, Iranians (who are rapidly developing their nuclear abilities) traveling on stolen passports, and the Muslim extremist Chinese separatists, maybe they got a suitcase nuke or other WMD on the plane designed to destroy Beijing, its citizens and the Chinese economy.

    If you are the Chinese, are you going to leave the security of 20+ million of your people and the future of your country up Malaysian airport security screeners and baggage handlers? Of course not. You are going to have highly trained Chinese agents on the plane, ready to execute a pre-planned strategy based on the threat. The Ministry of State Security (MSS) is one of the most powerful and most active Chinese intelligence agencies. Its most successful spies are agents stationed throughout the world posing as ordinary citizens.

    Evidently 20 employees of Freescale Semiconductor, which develops components for hi-tech weapons systems and aircraft navigation among other things, were on board Flight 370. This Texas-based technology firm has several manufacturing sites in Kuala Lumpur and China; 12 of the employees were from Malaysia and eight were from China.

    The passengers on board were engineers and other experts, said Mitch Haws, Freescale vice- president, global communications and investor relations.

    "These were people with a lot of experience and technical background and they were very important people," Haws said.

    Again, to think that some of these highly skilled Chinese workers or other Chinese on the plane were not spies/agents would be naïve.

    Perhaps sometime after take-off of Flight 370, the Chinese secret agents on board receive word from Beijing that there is a suitcase nuke (or other WMD) on the plane, and to execute the pre-planned operation for such an event. Either through cooperation with the pilot/co-pilot or coercion, the highly skilled Chinese agents calmly and quietly enter the cockpit and take control of the situation. The passengers are unaware of anything unusual going on.

    The Chinese agents re-program the plane’s flight computer to take the plane off its original destination, and put it on another pre-planned course.

    This accomplishes priority #1 of taking the plane off the flight plan to Beijing.

    They have the co-Pilot maintain the appearance of “normal” by telling ground control “all right, good night” and give no indication to the passengers that anything is wrong, other than maybe announce a slight alter of the flight plan to “avoid turbulence”. This is to avoid tipping off any terrorist(s) on board that their plan has been discovered and prevent a mid-air detonation of the bomb.

    Without knowing who the terrorist(s) on board are (if there are any on board) and/or where the WMD is, how do you disable the terrorists and/or their ability to detonate the WMD? Any announcement of a bomb, or questioning of passengers, or a search of the plane is going to obviously alert any terrorist(s) on board that they plot has been discovered.

    Taking the plane to a very high altitude accomplishes several objectives. Everyone without an oxygen mask goes unconscious and eventually dies. The agents, and possibly the pilots were the only ones with access to oxygen masks to maintain consciousness. That altitude also makes it impossible for a cell phone signal to be established were someone to try to detonate the bomb with a phone call. Once every passenger, meaning every potential terrorist, on board is dead, the plane can drop to the lowest possible altitude and continue on its new flight path to its ultimate destination to avoid radar detection. This is to keep any terror groups from knowing where the plane is, as they might try to have a “chase” plane catch the jetliner and remotely explode the bomb. This also keeps anyone else from knowing where the plane ultimately went and what ultimately happened to the plane.

    This is also why they disabled all transponders and communications - so the plane couldn’t be tracked or communicated with.

    So where did the plane go to? The Chinese would want it be somewhere hidden, where they alone have access to it to defuse any threats, and to destroy any evidence that there was ever any threats to avoid the panic and collapse the would result if it became public knowledge a suitcase nuke was nearly detonated over Beijing. One possible destination would be China's Taklamakan Desert. The region - described by Encyclopaedia Britannica as a "great desert of Central Asia and one of the largest sandy deserts in the world" - has no shortage of space far from prying eyes. The BBC's Jonah Fisher tweeted on 15 March: "Being briefed by Malaysia officials they believe most likely location for MH370 is on land somewhere near Chinese/Kyrgyz border." This theory rests on an extraordinary run through the radar systems of several countries, but that is exactly what the new pre-determined flight plan programmed into the computer would have been designed and capable of doing.

    Huang Huikang, the Chinese Ambassador to Malaysia, said that search and rescue operations in the Chinese territories of the northern corridor had begun, Xinhua news agency reported. Mr Huang also confirmed that background checks on Chinese nationals did not uncover any evidence suggesting they were involved in hijacking or an act of terrorism against the plane. Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei also told a briefing that China had deployed 20 satellites to search for the missing jetliner in Chinese territory which covers a northern corridor through which the aircraft could have flown. In other words, China is telling the world not to bother looking any deeper into the Chinese citizens on the plane and not to bother looking in China itself because they have all of that covered. How convenient.

    Other than that, it is striking how quiet the government of China is being on this incident. The vast majority of the passengers on the plane were Chinese on a flight headed for China, yet the Chinese seem to be letting others take the lead in the investigation and not making demands or complaints about the “investigation”.

    To complete their operation, there’s really only 1 more thing China needs to do to end the speculation of where they plane is. They need to plant some scraps of the plane far away from China, perhaps adrift in the Indian Ocean, somewhere extremely difficult to access where the water is very deep and nearly unsearchable, so it can be presumed the plane and passengers are at the bottom of the ocean, never to be found – precisely where the search is now being focused. It won’t be surprising when all of the deep water searches come up empty as the rest of the plane and the remains of the passengers were quietly and quickly destroyed at a remote location in China shortly after their disappearance.

    After Australia’s announcement of the search in the aforementioned area, China's icebreaker for Antarctic research, Xuelong, or Snow Dragon, is on its way from Perth to search the area. Up to five more Chinese ships, with three ship-borne helicopters, were steaming towards the search zone from across the Indian Ocean. Australian authorities said they had not asked for the ships to search the area. Perhaps China just wants to make sure, “something” is found.
  • Huckabee endorses underdog in N.C. Senate race (Huckster working to split the conservative vote)

    02/11/2014 10:02:05 PM PST · 64 of 64
    GLDNGUN to maggie_maybe

    Not sure why it wouldn’t let you send me a PM, but you can e-mail me at

  • The Making of a Champion: Seattle Seahawks

    02/06/2014 8:50:20 AM PST · 11 of 14
    GLDNGUN to MNnice
    In the end, cheaters do prosper.

    Do you mean the way Peyton Manning "cheats" by changing plays at the line of scrimmage after "stealing" the defensive team's strategy for that play?
  • Huckabee endorses underdog in N.C. Senate race (Huckster working to split the conservative vote)

    01/31/2014 10:12:10 PM PST · 62 of 64
    GLDNGUN to maggie_maybe

    Hey Maggie,

    Yes, it’s the same ‘ol GLDNGUN. So you are a Freeper, eh? I can’t recall, but maybe I introduced the site to you. How have you been? I live in OR now. Where you at? Utah?


  • Huckabee endorses underdog in N.C. Senate race (Huckster working to split the conservative vote)

    01/16/2014 12:05:05 PM PST · 26 of 64
    GLDNGUN to cotton1706
    Let me see if I got this straight. Huckabee is supporting this guy as a "true conservative" in the race, implying that the other guy isn't a "true conservative".

    Isn't this the same Huckabee who a few days ago was preaching to us about deciding who the "true conservatives/republicans" are and aren't?: "And one term that I’d like to see outlawed from the vernacular of the party is RINO. It stands for ‘Republicans in name only’ and it’s a pejorative term that questions the authenticity and orthodoxy of someone’s party purity. I’ve been called that myself, even though I fought in the trenches of Republican politics for over two decades. Even so, I would never pretend that I’m lord over determining who the real Republicans are," Mr. Huckabee concluded.

    So, which is it, Mike?
  • Christie on “Bridgegate”: I knew nothing.

    01/09/2014 11:29:22 PM PST · 37 of 60
    GLDNGUN to chessplayer
    I am not buying his croc tears for a second, and can't believe so many in the media are.

    Would his aides have done something so drastic without his knowledge and approval? At the very least, they must have thought that it was the sort of thing that Chrispy Crème would want done but perhaps be kept out of the loop for "plausible deniability".

    On the other hand, let's give Christie the full benefit of the doubt for a moment, and say he had no foreknowledge or involvement in the bridge lane closures. Would he not have been outraged as a governor to see what was going on? Would not this be just the type of an issue that a "no nonsense" governor would get to the bottom of? Isn't that what a "champion of the people" would do? Instead, evidently, Christie had no concern or interest when this was happening. So even if he had no knowledge or involvement, he showed a complete lack of concern for the citizens on New Jersey. He was AWOL. Period.

    Then the investigations began. Even if was initially asleep at the wheel, wouldn't he "get to the bottom" of it? Since when is tough guy Christie afraid to rock the boat a little? Despite all of the investigations going on, he doesn't get the truth out of his aides?

    So if you believe that Christie had no knowledge about what his aides did, then you have to believe that he is an extremely poor judge of character, and unwittingly hired thugs to run to campaign/administration. You have to believe that he watched the massive bridge problem and no interest or desire in finding out what was going on and fix it. He's the GOVERNOR for crying out loud! You have to believe that when the investigations started, he either still didn't care anything about the issue or if he did was unable to get the truth out of his top aides.

    So, if you are Chris Christie and you found out that your top aides caused the problems ON PURPOSE, wouldn't you be outraged? Where's THAT guy now? Wouldn't you be looking to punish these people to the full extent of the law? Wouldn't you be furious that these aides betrayed you? Not if you are Chris Christie. No, you are "sad". Pathetic.

    No, I'm not buying his schtick for a second. If he were truly caught off guard by all of this, and if he really didn't approve of what his aides did, we'd see the "in your face" Chris Christie. The "I'm mad as hell about what happened and those who betrayed the public trust will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law".

    What a blowhard this guy has been all along.
  • Judge Cites Same-Sex Marriage in Declaring Polygamy Ban Unconstitutional

    12/14/2013 2:16:55 PM PST · 37 of 83
    GLDNGUN to NKP_Vet
    I have been waiting for this inevitable moment for a long time and have seen it coming for a long time. Pandora's Box is about to open for the LDS Church when polygamy is no longer a crime.

    Going back to when the LDS Church quit practicing polygamy, there was NOT a revelation given forbidding the practice, only a "vision" the current "prophet" had of what would happen to the Church is they didn't stop the practice.

    It was kind of a weasily way out of it because the "revelation" had been given to practice polygamy and previous prophets like Brigham Young said it was the only form of marriage practiced in heaven and the Church would NEVER abandon it on earth.

    But then they saw the writing on the wall. Stop the practice or the federal government would pretty much dissolve the Church. The Mormons desperately wanted to be left alone and become a state so they agreed to stop the practice and had to put it into their state constitution that they would "never" re-instate it unless the federal government changed the law. This was put in there to placate the feds.

    So, now, here we are. It's only a matter of time before polygamy is legal everywhere. The LDS church stopped the practice, not because they thought it was wrong or had a "revelation" that it was bad and to stop it, but merely to survive and obey the law. With survival and the law no longer a hindrance, on what basis will they tell their members that they can't practice polygamy?

    The LDS Church wants to be thought of a mainstream Christian organization, but if they allow/support plural marriages by their members, that would obviously put them far out of the mainstream. But if they continue to forbid polygamy by their members, they will be exposed.

    Many members will think "Ok, we firmly believed in God's command to have plural wives, but had to stop the practice or be irradicated. We stopped it to survive, but now that the government says it's ok, why wouldn't we continue with this practice that God had commanded?"

    Leaves them in quite the pickle.
  • Sen. David Barton? The Popular Christian Historian Is Apparently Considering It (Texas)

    11/01/2013 11:41:19 AM PDT · 34 of 36
    GLDNGUN to C. Edmund Wright
    He warned then of some of the not so great influences around GW Bush. One of course was Rove….the other a shocker (at the time).

    Who was the "shocker"?
  • EXCLUSIVE: Just 51,000 people completed Obamacare applications during the website's first week..

    10/10/2013 3:10:58 PM PDT · 76 of 162
    GLDNGUN to CivilWarBrewing

    It just dawned on me. The rollout of Obamacare could not have been more of a disaster if they tried. Literally. It’s becoming more and more obvious that while Obama wanted the ACA rammed through so there would be “something” on the books, it was never meant to be successful. This is merely a stepping stone to a “single payer” option. They WANT “Obamacare” to be fraught with problems so they can offer and ram through the “fix” - SINGLE PAYER.

  • Obama sued for 'illegal' Obamacare move (Hussein changed the law-of-the-land?)

    10/06/2013 9:06:03 PM PDT · 43 of 47
    GLDNGUN to Libloather
    If Obama can get away with this, what's to stop him (and future presidents) from picking apart every new bill that's passed and becomes law. For example, let's say the GOP gains a veto-proof majority in both Houses of Congress next year in the elections and immediately pass and over-ride Obama's veto of a massive tax CUT that's supposed to be implemented February 1, 2015. What's to keep Obama from "delaying" the tax cut for 1, 10, 100 years by directing the IRS to do just that?
  • Packers’ star QB tackles ‘conflict minerals,’ but is a solution right here at home?

    10/04/2013 10:21:21 AM PDT · 15 of 20
    GLDNGUN to afraidfortherepublic
    "Give him a break! He’s a graduate of BERKELEY. That means that he has a head on his shoulders. Who is against mining in the USA if it saves raping, muderiing, and pillaging Congolesse natives? I think this is a good cause."

    You are mixing up 2 separate issues. Rodgers is against using minerals from the Congo, but NOWHERE in the story does it say he's for mining those materials in the USA. His cause is to stop the mining in the Congo. The people in favor of mining in the US say that's the solution to the problem, but Rodgers organization aint on that train.
  • 'Recognizing same-sex unions brings us closer to apocalypse' - Head of Russian Orthodox Church

    08/23/2013 3:17:36 PM PDT · 49 of 49
    GLDNGUN to Ruy Dias de Bivar
    Bill has a wife. He does not like her but does not divorce her. He then takes another wife. THIS IS NOT ADULTERY?

    According to the OT that would be wrong, not because he married another wife, but because he did not "like" her. If he marries a second wife, but loves them both and shows no favoritism, then that is not adultery.

    Again, maybe it's not something you or I like or would do...but I didn't write the book.
  • 'Recognizing same-sex unions brings us closer to apocalypse' - Head of Russian Orthodox Church

    08/22/2013 8:48:14 PM PDT · 47 of 49
    GLDNGUN to Ruy Dias de Bivar
    NOW! If an old boy marries a woman, then marries another woman (Number 2) is it lawful in GOD”s eyes, or is some dispensation given if he did not put away his first wife before marrying his second?

    Going by the regulations that were given as part of the law, I would have to say "yes". I can only go by what the Bible says, not what I want it to say or you or anyone else wants it to say.

    Use some simple logic here. If Jesus meant it was adultery to have 2 wives at the same time, why didn't He just say that? Then the verse would read something like "Whosoever shall have a wife and shall marry another, committeth adultery" but He didn't say that. He put in a qualifier that if you "put away your first wife" THEN marry a second you have committed adultery.

    As to your first point about where the extra wives came from for David, it matters not. Wives are wives and they were then in every sense of the word.
  • 'Recognizing same-sex unions brings us closer to apocalypse' - Head of Russian Orthodox Church

    08/22/2013 1:36:15 AM PDT · 45 of 49
    GLDNGUN to Ruy Dias de Bivar
    Deu 17:15 Thou shalt in any wise set [him] king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: [one] from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which [is] not thy brother.

    Deu 17:17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.

    Mat 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except [it be] for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

    So, according to this, taking a second wife is adultery.

    You have twisted all 3 verses.

    The first 2 in the OT are SPECIFICALLY talking about a KING as shown in the verse prior to the first you quoted: "Deu 17:15 Thou shalt in any wise set [him] king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: [one] from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which [is] not thy brother.

    The NT verse says "put away his wife", which is not part of the discussion. The discussion was about PLURAL WIVES, meaning more than 1 at the same time, not divorcing and re-marrying.

    Now here's one to chew on:

    "And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things." 2 Samuel 12:8
  • 'Recognizing same-sex unions brings us closer to apocalypse' - Head of Russian Orthodox Church

    08/21/2013 12:30:07 AM PDT · 16 of 49
    GLDNGUN to cloudmountain
    Same sex marriages are an abomination as are the once-Mormon practice of multiple wives.

    Same sex, yes, but multiple wives? Where in the Bible does it say it is an "abomination"? Ironically, you are quoting the Book of Mormon which does indeed call it that, but it was obviously practiced in the Old Testament, and without condemnation.
  • Your Shake Down™ 1 min - Remove Ketchup in Seconds! (FUnnie/Sad Video Featuring Balloon Boy Father)

    12/25/2012 11:16:40 AM PST · 4 of 17
    GLDNGUN to PJ-Comix

    You do realize that it’s a parody, right?

  • The 2014 and 2016 Elections Start Today: What We Can Do Differently Going Forward

    11/07/2012 9:38:38 AM PST · 13 of 24
    GLDNGUN to 2ndDivisionVet
    Can we please stop posting crap from this homo's blog? in 2008, he promised us the PUMAs were going to rescue us from Obama, and that Hyde Park would be empty on election night. How did that work out?

    This time he promised us that the Obamas can't stand being in DC, WANT to lose the election, and have already picked out their post-Presidency residence and Library location in Hawaii with preparations being made to move in January, 2013. He said Obama picked their Election Night location for a loser.

    How did that work out?

    Then he spreads all kinds of rumors from his homo friends as fact because "he's in the know".

    The "guy" obviously has "issues". I would no more post his crap here than somebody like, say, Alex Jones.
  • Battleground Tracking Poll: Dead heat (The potentially more important number is...)

    11/06/2012 5:19:50 AM PST · 1 of 14
    Go Mitt and God Bless the USA!
  • CNN National Poll: Dead heat between Obama and Romney (R 49%, 0 49% .. + 11% Dem!)

    11/04/2012 9:06:13 PM PST · 94 of 108
    GLDNGUN to Arthurio

    Where do you get +11% dem?

  • Can An Evangelical Christian Vote for a Mormon?

    11/03/2012 11:22:31 AM PDT · 33 of 63
    GLDNGUN to RaisingCain
    "The great myth though is that Romney is a moral man".

    Oh, do please bless us with your infinite wisdom on how immoral of a man that Romney is.

    11/02/2012 8:00:54 PM PDT · 13 of 33
    GLDNGUN to markomalley

    If it were a GOP incumbent President accused of murder by these parents the weekend before the election, the media would be going after it like pit bulls on a pork chop. NBC would devote a 3-hour primetime special to them and then re-play it in a continuous loop through Election Day.

  • Conservatives that can't vote for Romney VANITY

    11/02/2012 11:59:44 AM PDT · 104 of 152
    GLDNGUN to birdsman
    Do you seriously think GARY JOHNSON would make a better President than Romney? GARY JOHNSON?! Are you kidding me? Whatever you are smoking, I'm sure it's illegal but part of Johnson's platform. Seriously, there are TWO choices in this election. TWO. Grow up and deal with it. We need EVERY vote we can for ROMNEY, not some guy who could hold his nominating convention in a phone booth. Even if you don't think Romney has a chance in New York, we need as a convicing national win over Obama as possible to give Romney as big of a mandate as possible, and to repudiate Obozo as much as possible.

    Don't be "cute" and piss your vote away. Make it count. For all you know New York could be in play. Or New Jersey. Or any other state for that matter.

    As conservatives we had our chance to get as conservative of a nominee as possible. We didn't get someone as conservative as we would have liked to oppose Obama, but Romney is what we have. Next time fight harder for someone more conservative if that's what you really want. But this time around it's ROMNEY or OBAMA.

    Now go grow a pair and pick one.
  • Romney & Benghazi

    11/01/2012 8:59:02 PM PDT · 33 of 98
    (A) Romney speaks out strongly on the issue and LOSES the election because he gets off message on the economy and the media accuses him of politicizing dead Americans. The truth of what happened is never uncovered.

    (B) Romney stays silent on the issue for now and WINS the election. The GOP in Congress then turn the heat up on Obama like never before for the last few weeks he's in office, and Romney promises to turn over every stone to get to the truth once he's sworn in in less than 90 days.

    Pick one.
  • Time Period Projections for Election Night

    11/01/2012 7:56:28 PM PDT · 25 of 42
    GLDNGUN to parksstp
    the networks other than FOX won't declare him the winner

    You give Fox way too much credit and too much nerve. They wimped out in 2004 in a nearly identical situation, and they will this time around as well should your scenario turn out to be accurate.

    In 2004, they had already called Ohio for Bush while the other networks refused. On the other hand, Fox would not give New Mexico to Bush despite the fact that EVERY OTHER NETWORK HAD. Why wouldn't Fox give New Mexico to Bush? Because it would have put him over the top since they had given Ohio to Bush, and they didn't want to be the only network declaring Bush the winner. It was simple as that. Once the other networks begrudginlgy gave Ohio to Bush, they declared him the winner since they had long ago given him New Mexico. What did Fox do when the other networks gave Ohio to Bush? Viola! Suddenly New Mexico was no longer "in doubt". LOL They gave New Mexico to Bush and declared him the winner as well.

    Fox had no good reason to do those shenanigans other than not want to declare the winner when the other networks weren't, even though they said Bush had won the state (Ohio) the other networks said was the only state in doubt. I have no reason to believe Fox has got any braver since then. They offered no explanation for their actions then, despite my many queries to them and some of their announcers, such as Sean Hannity.
  • Zogby/Washington Times Poll shows Obama, Romney in a dead heat (49% to 49%)

    11/01/2012 7:41:33 PM PDT · 25 of 35
    GLDNGUN to jwalsh07
    Can’t find the tabs but ZOgby is exactly 180 degrees out from Pew and Gallup on those who already voted.

    Exactly. How can all 3 polls be accurate?
  • Oregon: Romney Behind By Just 2

    10/31/2012 10:03:36 PM PDT · 38 of 44
    GLDNGUN to TeaPartyBob
    Let's hope these guys are on to something. In their other polls...

    National: Mitt Romney- 50%, Barack Obama- 47%

    Ohio: Mitt Romney- 50%, Barack Obama- 47%

    Wisconsin: Mitt Romney- 50%, Barack Obama- 48%

    Colorado: Mitt Romney- 51%, Barack Obama- 47%

    Minnesota: Barack Obama- 49%, Mitt Romney- 46%

    Nevada Barack Obama- 50%, Mitt Romney- 47%
  • Politico/GWU/Battleground Poll - O49/R48 w/leaners (BRIT HUME WAS WRONG!)

    10/29/2012 9:12:25 AM PDT · 87 of 89
    GLDNGUN to profit_guy
    However I am concerned (as others here will be) that Brit Hume announced it on FNS today that it would show Romney +5, and it missed by 6 points (as it now shows Obama +1). I sure as hell hope I am worrying about nothing, but these guys have a solid track record over the last 5 Presidential elections:

    As was pointed out previously, there's a difference between their "poll" and their "prediction" (the one you take as gospel). Their ridiculous "poll" does show Obama up by 1, but only when they include those who are only at least "somewhat likely" to vote and who are only at least "likely" to vote for Obama.

    Their PREDICTION out today (no doubt the one Hume was referring to) is...(drumroll please)...ROMNEY 52 OBAMA 47...

    Even they know a poll (even their own) showing Obama +1 is a joke.
  • Politico/GWU/Battleground Poll - O49/R48 w/leaners (BRIT HUME WAS WRONG!)

    10/29/2012 8:20:52 AM PDT · 84 of 89
    GLDNGUN to profit_guy
    What a foolish, foolish thing to say. These guys are HIGHLY respected Republican pollsters. Karl Rove speaks very highly of them too.

    I don't care who does or says what. When you look at the internal numbers you realize what a joke the poll is. And I'll ask you know the difference between a poll and a prediction?
  • Politico/GWU/Battleground Poll - O49/R48 w/leaners (BRIT HUME WAS WRONG!)

    10/29/2012 12:15:33 AM PDT · 22 of 89
    GLDNGUN to profit_guy
    do some homework and you will see their final projected numbers are VERY close to the actual numbers

    Dude, do you know the difference between a poll and a prediction?
  • Politico/GWU/Battleground Poll - O49/R48 w/leaners (BRIT HUME WAS WRONG!)

    10/29/2012 12:11:26 AM PDT · 19 of 89
    GLDNGUN to Arthurio
    Those final projections from Battleground are not poll numbers. They’re predictions.

    EXACTLY what I was going to point out. Additionally, looking at their internals...

    Poll taken 10/22-10/25. Stale.

    Next, anybody that said they were at least "somewhat likely" to vote was counted. Scientific? LOL Hardly.

    Romney had better favorable and unfavorable numbers than Obama.

    46% said they would vote for Obama, while 51% said they would either NOT for Obama or consider someone else.

    Among those who are "definite" in their choice, Romney wins by 1 point. Only when they include those "likely" as well, does Obama go up by 1.

    I'm sorry, but this poll is run by wanna-be amateurs.
  • Politico/GWU/Battleground Poll - O49/R48 w/leaners (BRIT HUME WAS WRONG!)

    10/28/2012 11:33:06 PM PDT · 6 of 89
    GLDNGUN to garjog
    I don’t like seeing O up a point in battle ground states.

    It's a NATIONAL poll, not just battleground states. Do you trust these guys more than Rasmussen or Gallup? If so, why?
  • Record turnouts for early voting lift Obama campaign's hopes in Florida

    10/27/2012 9:03:11 PM PDT · 18 of 42
    GLDNGUN to frogjerk
    This is a whole of nothun' but wishful thinking by dems...

    ...record turnouts were reported in counties across Florida today, the first day of early voting.

    So if it is a big statewide turnout, how does that help Obama again?

    The Times' Adam Smith reported on Twitter, "More than 20k pple voted eary today so far in Hillsborough Co...In 08 biggest single day (11/1/08) was 18,736

    And Hillsborough County usually goes GOP. It did go for Obama in '08 but perhaps many who are voting early can't wait to wash that bad taste of their mouths this time, along with people who never voted for the bum in the first place.

    The other counties are heavy dem counties, but so what? Does it say it was dems mostly voting? What about the heavy GOP counties? Doesn't mention them, but does say the record turnout was stateside, so why focus on mostly dem counties? Could it be because that's the way this reporter/paper want it to read? Gee, who has the Times endorsed?

    Without hesitation, The Tampa Bay Times recommends Barack Obama for re-election...

  • Gallup: 2012 Electorate more Republican than 2004

    10/27/2012 10:41:05 AM PDT · 20 of 49
    GLDNGUN to Mygirlsmom
    Just MHO, but I also believe there will be a fair number of people who still self-identify as a Democrat, but will either pull the lever for Romney or vote "present" on the Presidential race.

    Indeed, looking at the internals of the most recent poll done here in Oregon, of the republican undecideds 40% said they would ultimately vote for Romney if they had to choose someone right now, while 60% remained uncommitted or would pick someone other than Romney or Obama. ZERO % said they would vote for Obama. When they asked the undecided democrats the same question, Romney and Obama BOTH got 21% of that vote, while the other 58% remained uncommitted or would pick someone else.

    This would seem to indicate that, yes, many democrats will ultimately decide to vote for Romney, and that the undecideds will break heavily for Romney.
  • Oregon Poll: 0 47%, R 42%

    10/26/2012 10:16:42 PM PDT · 39 of 81
    GLDNGUN to Arthurio
    Other interesting numbers from the internals...

    Have you had a chance to vote yet?
    34% Yes
    66% No

    Of those who have voted:
    47% Republican Mitt Romney
    47% Democrat Barack Obama

    Hmmm...this shows who is fired up to vote and who is not. As we get closer to election day when Oregonians have to mail in their ballots by, more and more democrats may be too demoralized to bother voting, especially if the Libya fiasco continues to simmer, and if it looks like Obama is going to lose. There really aren't any other issues on the Oregon ballot that should get a liberal really excited to vote on and check Obama's name while they are at it. Even the "legalize pot" initiative may take votes away from Obama and go to Johnson.


    The undecided Republicans then say Romney over Obama 40% to ZERO%. You read that right, 40-0. The undecided Democrats split down the middle 21% each for Romney and Obama. The other 60% of undecided GOP voters and 58% dem voters refused to pick 1 or went with someone else. Also undecided "new voters" (haven't voted in any of last 4 elections) went for Romney over Obama 25% to ZERO%, with the other 75% remaining undecided or committed to someone else.

    For some reason they asked this "undecided" group if they had already voted, and some said "yes"?! LOL Of those "undecided" voters who have already voted, they went for Obama 60%-40%. Buyers remorse? Stupidity to understand simple poll questions? All of the above? The undecided who haven't voted yet go for Romney 26%-9% with the rest refusing to pick between the two or picking someone else.
  • Oregon Poll: 0 47%, R 42%

    10/26/2012 9:46:15 PM PDT · 26 of 81
    GLDNGUN to Arthurio
    When pushed, undecided voters broke toward Mitt Romney almost 2 to 1.

    THAT is the money-line of the article. There have been theories and studies about how undecideds break come time to grow a pair and make a decision. They don't always break for the challenger, but here we have good evidence that it will be the case this year.

    Romney may not win Oregon even if the undecideds do break 2-1 for him, but if that trend holds nationally...we will be in for a landslide. Being an Oregonian I pray that Romney does carry the state even though he probably won't need it (and shouldn't count on it). We have a MAIL-IN ONLY election. That's CAN'T go to the "polls" on election day in Oregon. There are no "polls" to go to. I think that probably favors the parasites who get their ballot along with their gubmint check in the mail, and we all know who they vote for.
  • Anyone have the feeling that Romney will be blamed for Benghazi...?

    10/26/2012 5:36:35 PM PDT · 27 of 68
    GLDNGUN to DefeatCorruption
    "I think Obama is baiting Romney over Benghazi...not sure how this is being done, but something is going terribly wrong"...

    Makes NO SENSE whatsover, and you have not ONE shred of anything that shows Romney is being baited. How is it even possible when Romney hasn't even been talking about it lately? Many trashed him for NOT talking about it in the 3rd debate despited numerous golden opportunities. Romney is holding fire, not being "baited", get a grip!

    You really think all of this news about numerous calls for help were ignored at the highest levels of government is just some "set-up" to get Romney? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Put the pipe down and stop smoking whatever it is.

    Instead of making up imaginery things to worry about that have no basis in reality whatsoever, how about using that nervous energy to pray for Mitt Romney instead?

    And please quit clogging up FreeRepublic with idiotic vanity posts. No wonder the site is so slow.
  • Petraeus Throws Obama Under the Bus

    10/26/2012 5:19:38 PM PDT · 160 of 353
    GLDNGUN to Snuph
    I see a lot of back and forth on what the CIA director did or did not do, what he's guilty of or not, etc.

    Here's the bottom line. Those under attack in Libya sent multiple requests for help. Seals in Libya requested permission to help. SOMEBODY (probably POTUS) told them to stand down. Repeatedly. This sealed the fate of those under attack. Did anyone defy those orders? Not the VP, Sec of State, Sec of Defense, or CIA Director. None of them had the guts to put their careers on the line. On the other hand, the Seals in Libya DID defy those orders, because they simply could not stand by and do nothing. They risked much more than their careers. They risked their lives, ultimately in vain because no more help came to back them up. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE OFFICIALS are pond scum, not worthy to lick the boots of those who gave their lives trying to defend other American lives in Libya.

    The blood is on ALL of their hands and I pray it never washes off.
  • Wisconsin: Obama 49%, Romney 49%

    10/26/2012 9:04:06 AM PDT · 2 of 26

    With those internals how does Romney NOT win Wisconsin?

  • Wisconsin: Obama 49%, Romney 49%

    10/26/2012 9:01:33 AM PDT · 1 of 26
    ...A week ago, the president held a slight 50% to 48% lead. Earlier in the month, he was ahead 51% to 49%. In surveys in Wisconsin since October of last year, the president has earned 44% to 52% of the vote, while Romney’s support has ranged from 41% to 49%.

    Ninety-six percent (96%) of Badger State voters say they are sure to vote in this election. Romney leads 51% to 47% among these voters.

    Among the 90% who say they’ve already made up their minds whom they will vote for, it’s Romney 51%, Obama 48%.

    Romney has a six-point lead over Obama – 50% to 44% - among all voters in the state when they are asked which candidate they trust more to handle the economy...