User Profile: JediKnight


Member Since: February 15, 2011


123 To page: Go
  • June 29, 2015 at 3:12pm

    Not really, just good reporting. If the intersections weren’t blocked due to a permit, then who authorized blocking the intersections? I don’t like it when protestors flood the streets because they’re blocking the public right of way. Want to fill sidewalks? Be my guest. Want to block intersections? You better have a permit.

    Of course, this could be a very small town and it’s quite possible that there wasn’t going to be any interruption with the intersections being blocked. It’s also quite possible that the local sheriff ok’ed the parade without need for a permit due to my previous sentence.

  • [45] June 29, 2015 at 3:09pm

    1. I don’t see that many confederate flags. I saw quite a few US flags and one or two Gasden Flags, but not that many confederate flags.

    2. Someone needs to tell the “videographer” (I can’t believe TheBlaze used that term to describe this person) that pretty much anyone can get a permit for a parade and have intersections blocked off. Simply file the appropriate paperwork, pay the fee, and the police will block off the intersections.

    3. The “wreck” wasn’t really much of one. One guy with a truck hit another guy with a truck, but no vehicles were “wrecked”. A dented tailgate and maybe a broken taillight, but unlike other parts of the country, these drivers likely still see the vehicle as driveable and are just going to continue on their way.

    4. Oh yeah, the guy recording this sounds like an idiot.

    Responses (1) +
  • [5] June 29, 2015 at 12:47pm

    “The two men who spat on me are probably very good man caught up in excitement and past resentment. Most in that parade would not do that.”

    I doubt both of these things very much. If they were “very good”, they wouldn’t have spat on him, no matter how much they disagreed. Anyone that saw what those two men did and didn’t stop them is offering complicit approval of what they did.

    Responses (1) +
  • [1] June 29, 2015 at 12:46pm

    “The two men who spat on me are probably very good man caught up in excitement and past resentment. Most in that parade would not do that.”

    I doubt both of these things very much. If they were “very good”, they wouldn’t have spat on him, no matter how much they disagreed. Anyone that saw what those two men did and didn’t stop them is offering complicit approval of what they did.

  • [10] June 29, 2015 at 12:32pm

    @RJJ: Might want to check that again. The Congress is different from the State legislatures. Might also want to check the history of the 3/5s clause since it was meant to burn out slavery, not indicate that a black men was less than a white man. Even Frederick Douglas recognized that.

  • [5] June 29, 2015 at 12:29pm

    @argyle: Bingo! And anyone that reads John Roberts dissent can see that there is now no legal reason to block polygamy or any other type of relationship. Anything goes and this decision can be cited each and every time the govt tries to block it. The majority can say any two people, but that won’t hold up since they didn’t provide any legal foundation why it should be limited to two. They even opened the door to allowing religious freedom to be used for polygamy by stating that religious liberty must be upheld.

  • [7] June 29, 2015 at 12:26pm

    Yes you can. We have the Federalist Papers to tell us the meaning of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. We have transcripts of the Congress to tell us the meaning of the 14th amendment.

    The Constitution does not require a law degree to interpret. It’s a very simple document that was intended to be easily understood. Progressives try to make the argument that only an elite few can really understand the nuance of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, but this is simply not true. It’s only in recent history that laws have become so convoluted that they practically do require a law degree to understand. Even those laws are easily understood with a few readings through, but most people will claim to “not have the time” to read and understand a law that affects everything they do (I’m looking at you ACA).

  • [7] June 29, 2015 at 12:23pm

    The point is that the 14th doesn’t override the 1st. The 1st doesn’t override the 14th. This was a 14th, 10th, and 9th amendment issue. The SCOTUS and, by extension federal government, had no business weighing in. It is a State issue and one that was being handled by the States just fine. No one was being denied equal protection unless you count simply not having your relationship recognized. That’s not about equal protection, that’s about recognition.

    The reality is that this will cause problems and I am happy to see Gov Abbot tell clerks that if they have a deeply held religious belief, they are not legally required to issue licenses. You may not like it, but he’s simply echoing the opinion of all 9 SCOTUS justices that claimed religious liberty must be protected.

  • [1] June 29, 2015 at 12:19pm

    “…you can have your religious opinion, but you cannot use it to deny others their civil rights…”

    Interestingly enough, no one was doing that.

    If People, all People, would stop looking to government for affirmation, they’d all be a lot better off. If govt is legitimately limiting you, then by all rights, sue them. If, however, your beef is that government won’t recognize your relationship, then get over yourself and be on your way. The govt doesn’t need to recognize our relationships with each other. All they need to do is enforce contracts. Call it a partnership, a civil union, or marriage. It’s all a contract between individuals.

    Get the govt out of the business of recognizing these contracts and put them in their rightful place: enforcing the contract.

  • [1] June 29, 2015 at 12:15pm

    Or ask someone else to do it. Both the governor and the state attorney general are willing to back her (and others) up. She should simply ask someone else to handle homosexual marriages and refuse to issue licenses. I’m not sure she has deeply held religious beliefs though. If she did, I don’t think she would’ve folded so easily.

  • [4] June 29, 2015 at 12:11pm

    It’s recognition of the union. Christians do not recognize this union (I don’t at the very least). It doesn’t matter if the SCOTUS says the State must issue licenses, the SCOTUS can’t make the citizenry recognize their union. The SCOTUS can force the States to recognize and enforce a legal contract, but that’s about all the SCOTUS can do.

    The fact that the SCOTUS said the States must issue licenses should probably scare everyone. They essentially said “Right now, States must issue licenses”. By not striking down licenses wholesale or even better saying that the federal government has no place in telling a State what to do as long as those States are enforcing contract law in the States that don’t recognize same sex marriage, they’ve left the door open for a future Supreme Court to overrule this decision and say “States no longer have to issue licenses”. Instead, they said States must issue licenses to any two people. But as Roberts pointed out in his dissent, why is it limited to two? Why not three? Or four? Or ten? There is no compelling legal reason why it should be limited to two now.

    The winds of change can go both ways.

    Responses (1) +
  • June 29, 2015 at 11:46am

    “NASA flew dozens of manned missions and had three catastrophic failures resulting in death in forty years.”

    NASA built itself on the backs of German scientists that failed over and over again. Launching anything into space isn’t easy and when you’re funding it privately, without the unlimited pockets of the federal government and the will of the people, then you’ve got to finds way to improve the existing technology.

    NASA got really lucky, time and time again. Challenger blew up because of a leaky o-ring, but they’d been having that problem for years before it finally came out due to the explosion. Columbia had a catastrophic failure on reentry, but again it was due to ice hitting the vehicle, something they said had probably been happening on every flight but that proved catastrophic on that flight.

    The point is that you can point out NASA’s track record, but their track record is based more on luck than having a good quality product. Even Apollo 13s survival was based more on the ingenuity of the astronauts and engineers than it was on the quality of the product that NASA was using.

  • June 25, 2015 at 8:45pm

    “He sure hasn’t made it a point to agrees his fans that that’s not how they should be acting.”

    Are you kidding? He speaks out to commenters here and on his FB all the time. You must not watch his show much. He may not speak out to specific commenters, but he does speak out against comments that he sees that he doesn’t agree with. He does it a lot.

  • [2] June 25, 2015 at 7:58pm

    You think a CoS will fix this? How so? Obama and Congress are already largely ignoring the Constitution. Obama is negotiating with Iran and despite the warnings from the Senate that they have the power to ratify, he’s still going ahead and doing what he wants. He even spoke a year or so ago and said he’d go to Congress about attacking Syria, but that even if they said no he was still going to do it. In other words, he doesn’t care what the Constitution says. None of them do.

    I don’t think a CoS was meant for this. It was meant for before this. We’re at the point now where nothing but an all out war will restore the Republic.

  • [4] June 25, 2015 at 7:53pm

    A and then B

    We’ll tear each other apart first. Then, freedom and liberty minded individuals will begin gathering in certain areas of the country and amassing enough weaponry to remain free and independent. They will stop listening to anyone that tries to violate natural law. I need a permit to start a business? I can’t say this or that because it’s a hate crime? Come enforce it. After that conflict is over, a new Constitution will drawn up using the old as a blue print. Term limits will be added to the relevant sections. The Bill of Rights will be left largely intact, with the 2A being far more explicit than it currently is. The portion that mentions a militia will be removed and it’ll be left as “The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.

    I hate to compare it to the south when they seceded, but that’s exactly what’ll happen. You could easily end up with large sections of the country forming confederations. I can easily see it happening in my lifetime too.

  • [52] June 25, 2015 at 5:57pm

    Miley Cyrus is trashy, whether she has kids or not. Ones level of trashiness is not related to how many kids they have.

    Geez, these comments are retarded. Miley Cyrus is trashy. I agree that Bristol Palin shouldn’t be having sex outside marriage, but she seems to be taking care of her own.

    Responses (4) +
  • [14] June 25, 2015 at 1:51pm

    Not true (the last sentence). If I’m not mistaken, there’s a provision in the ACA that allows the President to give exemptions to anyone he wants. An R could easily proceed to give every state an exemption and this assumes that the Senate and House don’t end up passing legislation repealing the Act. The only problem with the exemption is that it leaves the IRS still in charge of enforcement.

    Outright repeal by the Congress and President is necessary at this point. The American people will have to wake up and not vote for Hillary or a progressive Republican if they really want that to happen though.

    Responses (5) +
  • June 24, 2015 at 11:31pm

    That’s not a flabby belly, not in my opinion. The right kind of bikini will ride lower than her belly or it will push the flab in making it disappear. Either way, I don’t consider that flabby.

  • [7] June 24, 2015 at 12:23pm

    @thekuligs: No, that decision was left to the psychiatrists. Despite the fact that she was perfectly healthy, they still helped her off herself. So how is a psychiatrist helping someone kill themselves any different from that person killing themself? The difference is that this woman, for some reason, wanted the state involved. She believed, again, for some reason, that she needed the states permission to off herself. If she wanted to die so bad, there are plenty of ways to do it without involving the state.

    The point is, the State shouldn’t be sanctioning this kind of thing at all.

  • June 23, 2015 at 8:11pm

    He should just use symbols. Put a red stop sign on it without the word “Stop” then “@” and then a signal :-)

    Of course it’s easier to simply say “Screw you, this is free speech and I will do it”.

123 To page: Go
Restoring Love