At the risk of pointing out the obvious, it seems there are quite a few stories today about shootings-and all the shooters have one glaringly common characteristic-they are all black. I’m also guessing that none are members of the NRA, or have legally purchased weapons. Wonder when MSNBC will get on this?
 March 28, 2015 at 8:15pm
That’s obvious by the picture. I’m guessing the gun this West character used was not purchased legally.
 March 28, 2015 at 8:14pm
Wouldn’t blame them a bit if they changed their procedure to allow them to draw weapons during all routine traffic stops.
 March 28, 2015 at 5:34pm
Nixon erased 7 minutes worth of tape and was crucified for it. I wonder how much of the media will call for the same treatment for Hillary?
I remember all of the righteous indignation from the left when that happened. Now the witch from Chapaqua surpasses that 1000X and no one seems to care. It is amazing how far down the krapper this country has fallen in 6 short years.
 March 27, 2015 at 1:02pm
That’s because the government is responsible for enforcing laws on…the government. It’s the inmates running the asylum…and it sucks.
Especially considering that most people would rather shut down their business than give in to the shrieking hyperbolic gay nonsense.
I think I may have to spend some time and money in Indiana this year.
Of course, you are correct. Single issue bots, (and they’re on both sides, but more on the left) always demand that you not only accept their belief but embrace it as well.
Georgie, Georgie, Georgie, ….. you ol’ queen you.,,,,,
By the way, George------ If you were actually able to figure a way to effectively boycott Indiana, how would you feel about hurting those "many fine people" that you spoke of? The answer to that, as we all know is...... you wouldn't give a crap.
Right on Ironmaan. Several businesses are already considering leaving Indiana to a place where their customers and employees are more welcome.
"Gen Con threatens to leave Indy over religious freedom bill; Tourism, City leaders fear the worst"
oon after Gov. Mike Pence signed the religious freedom bill into law Thursday, Salesforce.com founder and CEO Marc Benioff announced on Twitter that he would no longer send employees or customers to Indiana.
"Today we are canceling all programs that require our customers/employees to travel to Indiana to face discrimination," he tweeted.
Ya gotta love capitalism!
Will somebody PLEASE beam that idiot up???
If that is the correct response (a capitalistic backlash), why is it necessary and desirable for “civil rights” commissions to force businesses to violate their owner’s principles and consciences in the first place? (This bill was a response to such actions)
Why not just boycott the businesses that you find objectionable instead of forcing your personal brand of morality upon them?
@NotAConstituencyGroup I am glad someone gets it. If I had a gold star I would give it to you. People like ModerateRepublican (clearly he isn't) only like to extol the benefits of capitalism when it suits them. Otherwise, it is a necessary evil that helps them at fundraisers.
When they can't argue merits, they use emotion.
Liberal Ideology 101. (Aka arguing with idiots)
It never was about going to a different bakery, or florist, or photographer! What the sodomites want is for every person (even Christians) to accept their lifestyle without saying anything against them (especially when they tell them what the Bible says). They are upset over the law because the law allows Christians and even those against the sodomite lifestyle to not accept them for their business.
NotAConstituencyGroup, you've got a point, I'll give you that. I'll give you a counter argument just the same. First of is that gay people pay taxes just like everyone else in that city and even tourists pay sales taxes. What do those taxes go toward? Partly, to pay for the police who protect that business and the fire department that prevents that business from burning to the ground, and for maintaining the roads that bring customers to that business and maintaining the gas and electric lines to that business and everything that makes that business possible. Do you want to pay taxes to support a business that won't let you in? Is that fair? Or what if you're handicapped taxpayer and you can't get in the door because there's no ramp.
The second point is, to state the obvious, this isn't about "religious freedom" it's about discrimination against gay people and religious hypocrisy. Yeah, granted, the Bible says a man may not lay without another man or whatever (having sex that is). But, first, how does an owner know a gay couple is doing that? If that's a safe assumption, then what about the unmarried couples in there, especially these days? Sex outside of marriage is no less an abomination in they Eyes of the Lord. What about couples who have remarried without a Biblical divorce? That's adultery, just as much a sin as homosexual sex. Nobody worried about those things though, everybody is fine with those sins. This isn't about religious freedom, this anti-gay.
I wonder if the PC crowd would support forcing a black-owned restaurant to cater a Klan rally?
ModRep, I suggest you try an experiment. Go to one of these bakeries that refused to make a wedding cake and see if they will decorate a Satanic wedding cake or if they will make a cake for an alleged adult film party celebrating annual orgy's, odds are the bakery will refuse service for that type customer as well. Marriage, for those of faith, is a religious ceremony with specific meaning under God's law which trump's man's law for the believer. The bakeries are not refusing service for gayness, they are refusing a specific type of cake that holds specific meaning, the only hate and intolerance is coming from the gay mafia
Yes. I've heard of a legal term "undue burden" which some people use to justify abortion as in "Golly, if the government won't pay for my abortion it is an undue burden!". But if someone wants the religious freedom to not make a gay cake and all the gay couple has to do is walk down the block then it is NOT an undue burden and the gay couple can get their gay cake somewhere else.
 March 25, 2015 at 1:44pm
Interesting that you mention that. Oswald-communist sympathizer. Sirha sirhan-immigrant Palestinian. Squeaky Fromme-hippy. JW Booth-liberal actor. Seems like the only ones who try to shoot our leaders come from the LEFT side of the table.
 March 24, 2015 at 10:27pm
Apparently Jon is blissfully unaware that the religions and times he references were before the freaking printing press was invented. Or before radio, or television, or the internet. The vast majority of the populace during the time he references was ignorant and uneducated-their only information coming from the church. Quite frankly, it’s disappointing that a man who built his career on being an “intelligent” comic is so woefully ignorant of some basic world history. Perhaps he feels his smug attitude and arrogance make up for his lack of appreciation for the advances the world has made in the past ten or so centuries?
March 24, 2015 at 8:46pm
Goodness, sounds like they were really close. Really. What a dunce.
 March 24, 2015 at 2:57pm
Wow. Really? Odd interpretation, but if it floats your boat?
 March 24, 2015 at 2:56pm
Oddly enough, what this seems to prove is that-science is rarely “settled”. It evolves-unless of course, you happen to be a Liberal.
@LibertarianSocialist Hrm...Nazi's were big into gun control and abortion. Also State control of finance and industry. Barrack Obama's "christianity" and "evolving opinions" sounds a whole lot more like Hitlers politically expedient religious tolerance than GW Bush's sincere (and often publicly mocked) faith in Christ. No, sounds like the left can have hitler.
 March 20, 2015 at 4:26pm
“Debatable” global warming really matters-nuclear holocaust takes a back seat. Got it.
No, sorry. Don't you remember? 0bama said, "THE DEBATE IS OVER."
OH, and "THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED."
So...no. No debates.
 March 19, 2015 at 11:31am
And you are correct-the undercut price only exists to get the job. Once they’re in, it’s logistically impossible to get rid of them, so we pay whatever is necessary to complete the job. Classic isn’t it-one set of books for the bid, another set for the actual job.
This wouldn't be the case if someone in the government actually KNEW how to write a contract. Usually any contract written by a government office is riddled with vague language and loopholes that companies/individuals take full advantage of. At an Air Force base I was stationed at, a building was built to house a large flight simulator. During an extremely cold winter, we could not get the interior of the building above 54 degrees (plus or minus two degrees) no matter how the thermostats were set, and we couldn't touch any of the installed equipment or that would have voided the warranty; but, according to the way the contract was written (and administered) the company responsible for the HVAC equipment had THREE DAYS to respond to an "emergency" condition. Too often, this is the quality of the contracts produced in the federal government. You can't blame the contractors for this, they are just acting in accordance with the contract. Just sayin'.
 March 19, 2015 at 11:29am
Seems like the only people not benefiting from the largesse of the VA are the Vets. Novel idea, but how about taking that billion plus and paying for the vets to go to other hospitals? Maybe, just maybe, the taxpayer AND the vet might get a little bang for their buck.
 March 16, 2015 at 11:32am
What? Criminals who don’t obey the law? Why, that’s outrageous! Somebody ought to pass a law…
 March 13, 2015 at 12:25pm
Guys like this have been around for years. The digital age just allowed them to move their revivals from the dustbowl to the internet. As if religion needed another reason NOT to like it-we give you Creflo-another guy that gives the moniker “Pastor” a bad rep.
 March 12, 2015 at 8:00pm
The Ferguson crowd is offended that the police tend to profile blacks. I’m curious how many of these protesters were “other”? If the shooter (or shooters) turn out to be black, would the police not be vindicated in their precautions? I realize this line of reasoning is beyond the MSM ability to piece together, yet it seems a relatively simple concept.