User Profile: JRook


Member Since: March 16, 2011


123 To page: Go
  • [-4] March 27, 2015 at 2:05pm

    “However, reports from this week say the U.S. is considering letting Iran run hundreds of centrifuges as part of the agreement, a concession that could lead to even more opposition to the emerging agreement in Congress.” This statement is BS as this aspect of the negotiated deal was identified weeks ago. And why would any country listen to the rest of the world with respect to operating a peaceful domestic nuclear power program. I think Israel should be happy that their relinquishing nuclear weapons is not being discussed in the deal. Cause if the world and the US is really interested in ridding the world of the insanity of nuclear weapons then the haves need to start giving them up.

    Responses (2) +
  • [16] March 27, 2015 at 1:58pm

    “Bobby Cox, the district’s director of schools, told the Army Times the haircut policy is being reviewed and they’ll be coming up with clearer definitions of which styles are acceptable and which aren’t in order to prevent future issues.” This has nothing to do with the military so not sure why that was mentioned other than to create some made up controversy between what is always assumed to be “liberal” school officials and of course solid conservative members of the military. Both of which are assumptions that have little basis in fact and mean nothing. The issue is why a school would be allowed in 2015 to have any guidelines related to someones hair style. The purpose of a school system is to EDUCATE the students… nothing more, nothing less. I am tired of the school officials, teachers, coaches, etc. who would like to think they are developing leaders. When all is said and done they are best to do “No Harm”, as anyone who has looked back realizes that most of the school officials, teachers and coaches were not real leaders themselves.

    Responses (5) +
  • [50] March 27, 2015 at 1:51pm

    As has been pointed out numerous times…. statistics don’t lie….liars quote bias statistics and misrepresent legitimate ones. Parse it anyway you want but 75% of mellennials recognize and support the constitutional right of privacy which has been identified by the Supreme Court as consistent the right of CHOICE in medical matters. Your beliefs and position extends as far as your individual civil rights, but ends at the tip of your fellow citizens nose, cause that’s where there’s begins. So stop asking the government to enforce your beliefs and position on other citizens. And besides I thought you didn’t believe in the government imposing and ideology or beliefs on citizens.

    Responses (7) +
  • [-11] March 27, 2015 at 1:38pm

    IKW… an this Indiana law is part of the judicial system that is established and run by the government. So a law that provides an individual to project their religious beliefs into the public forum and deny equal treatment of individuals solely based on their beliefs is sanctioned discrimination. The governors cheap attempt to say the law is limited to wedding services is BS given the wording in the law. What is sad is to see self proclaimed christians pretending the are being sincere and honest when they are being anything but. And the individual liberty is one of religious expression, not religious promotion and not religious projection onto others, particularly not with the backing of the government.

  • [26] March 27, 2015 at 1:30pm

    “Bingo. All the law says is George may have to buy a wedding cake from a different bakery. The hyperbole has simply gotten out of control.” Not sure what your smokin but you might want to actually read the law and not to worry it isn’t very long. It mentions nothing about wedding cakes or wedding services and could be used to justify a broad range of DISCRIMINATION. People nonsensically rant about sharia law and Iran being a theocracy here and then we have a theocracy type decision like this. And now based on this type of law you have unprecedented levels of ignorance here with people proclaiming that discrimination against individuals based on THEIR beliefs, not your own, is a good thing. And you claim to know, understand and support the constitution…. what a joke.

    Responses (5) +
  • [-2] March 27, 2015 at 11:02am

    There is a difference between being ironic and as our grandparents would say… “not engaging one’s brain before speaking”. Gohmert either doesn’t have a fully functioning brain or he is incapable of securing the correct sequence. And that’s the nicest thing that can be said about him.

  • [-3] March 27, 2015 at 10:52am

    Hmmm where is the staunch support for the Fist Amendment. Where is the fundamental objection that any TRUE, liberty defending american should have against censorship of any kind. So the real objection is not to economic boycotts, just boycotts to things we agree with and support. How enlightened.

    Responses (7) +
  • [-2] March 27, 2015 at 10:48am

    “She has no concept of a free market and she thinks the gvt has to give us permission to do things.” Actually, you should take some time and actually look at what constitutes a free market because it includes FULL INFORMATION and equal and open competition. Which means that markets from time to time have to be protected from one or two companies becoming dominant. Because history has shown us that dominant companies begin to take monopolistic actions. And for the record deregulation of telco was actually a regulatory move by the FCC which ended ATT’s monopoly, dramatically reduced telco costs for businesses and consumers and unleashed a boat load of communications technology. Actually, the best thing the FCC could do now to increase competition and reinforce a free market would be to allow communities to force cable companies to open up their bandwidth highways to competitors, similar to what happened with telco deregulation. I was a CIO at a hospital in NYC at the time and our cost of T1 lines dropped by more than half. “The internet WAS one of the only systems in operation in the US that was not regulated by some government entity nor being taxed.” – check you bill smart guy and realize how much fees and taxes are being charged by cable companies, telco and wireless providers. And for the record it was the small internet companies that were pushing for net neutrality.

  • [-2] March 27, 2015 at 10:36am

    Your right it does, but obviously you have no clue what the term means. And if you take you head out of your colon for 5 minutes you would see that the purpose of net neutrality it to prevent bandwidth providers to monopolize the Internet and sell it to the highest bidder. That is not capitalism as capitalism requires full information and level competition. Not only do we need net neutrality, we need a decision to force cable companies to open up their cable network to competitors, similarly to telco deregulation which increased competition for the end user which benefited the consumer. That my friend is the essence of the free market.

    Responses (5) +
  • March 27, 2015 at 10:31am

    Ah yes this is where you see the true character of the upstanding fine christians who populate this site lol. Seriously how little character would you have to have to put your name on this post.

  • [1] March 27, 2015 at 10:28am

    Its not a balanced budge plan until the CBO says it is. This is typical Republican political child’s play. They passed a plan that they know will be vetoed. Wasting time and money on their never ending BS.

    Responses (1) +
  • [-7] March 27, 2015 at 10:19am

    Right and your validation of the BS is who Rush…… seriously are you really this intellectually challenged and mentally lazy. You place individuals in groups you label as good or bad and believe an idiotic statement like this without even understanding how completely silly it is. The same western church driven establishment Robertson speaks of brought the world the Inquisition, Salem witch trials, the KKK and other wonderful examples of supposedly christian inspired groups.

    Responses (1) +
  • [-8] March 27, 2015 at 10:13am

    “claiming that the left is seemingly embracing the overarching ideology behind these horrific actions.” And if you believe a statement like this by this clown then you neither embrace the truth nor reality. The notion that only conservatives are true, good christians is laughable at best. And by the way if all the folks here support Israel and the Jewish people, you might want to consider that the majority of the Jewish community in the US is what you would group as liberal. So consider expanding your simpleton thought process beyond the 5th. grade and drop the application of labels. Its nothing more than and indication of a lazy mind.

    Responses (2) +
  • [-2] March 27, 2015 at 10:06am

    Don’t forget to add that this guy is clearly sick.

    Responses (3) +
  • [4] March 27, 2015 at 10:05am

    “Not to mention the Republican party–could we just go one election season without some dumbass giving ammunition to the democRATS?” Really how’s about spending some time discussing the real DUMB ASSES who elected this guy and the truly insane who watch his TV show.

    Responses (2) +
  • [-5] March 26, 2015 at 4:02pm

    Sorry Nixon took that position a long time ago. I’ll assume are either to young to know that despite referencing Grant, or you think this behavior doesn’t occur with every Senator who calls into the government daily to help a constituent.

  • [-4] March 26, 2015 at 4:00pm

    Unfortunately, members of congress and thus the bureaucrats that are very much accountable to political leaders, are both bought and owned by large corporations and wealthy individuals who call the shots in the background. Something tells me that Warren Buffet or one of the Koch bros. can freely call any Senator, particularly the ones they made large campaign donations to, and any Secretary and get through or a return call. Again, my position remains we have the best politicians and bureaucratic appointments that money can buy and the average american can’t afford them. So who do you think owns them are really calls the shots. Where do you think the language in the WTO that preempts federal, state and local laws comes from. Certainly not the bureaucrats that developed the federal, state and local laws. And at the end of the day it is political lynchings like this the deter the best and the brightest, really capable individuals from wanting to actually serve the people.

  • [-6] March 26, 2015 at 3:51pm

    “No company should be under any obligation to facilitate the dissemination of beliefs that are antithetical to the ethos of that business,” One key problem with this nice sounding statement. And that is that businesses that are not faith based organizations do not have a religious based ethos and if they choose to hide behind one in these type of circumstance they should be obligated to publish it and make it known. That we will deny service to anyone, if we feel that service violates our religious beliefs. Only then can they realize and accept the cost of placing their religious beliefs over the beliefs and civil rights of others. Hey I don’t like the gay lifestyle and think civil union is the only term that should be used for same sex couples. But I would boycott any business that denied service to a customer based on the religious beliefs of the owner. You shouldn’t be able to have it both ways. If your going to say that a religious ethos is a central component of your business you should be required to state it publicly. Heck, look how many businesses target religious market segments and say all kinds of wonderful things to get more business.

    Responses (5) +
  • [-4] March 26, 2015 at 3:41pm

    Of course it does if the only remedy for the individual who is discriminated against is to seek justice within the courts. Does this law mean the courts operated by the government can’t rule regarding the impact of such discrimination. What if there was only one bakery within 50 miles? This is nothing more than an example of canned legislation, probably written by ALEC or some other outside organization who have co-opted conservative state legislators, usually under the threat of facing a re-election fight, to pass laws that challenge discrimination laws as written. So at the end of the day its not that we seek to let people discriminate in the general sense, just in the situations we deem to be consistent with our own ideology and beliefs.

    Responses (2) +
  • [-5] March 26, 2015 at 3:36pm

    Blatantly incorrect and you know it. The first amendment protects freedom of religious expression. It does not under any interpretation of that protect freedom to inhibit or deny the civil rights or equal treatment under the law for others based on your beliefs. And equal treatment means that anti-discrimination laws regarding denying service should apply. It’s really that simple.

    Responses (5) +
123 To page: Go
Restoring Love