“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.
Most of the people that want Israel to give up their nukes are those that want all the Jews dead. Since nearly half of the world's Jews live in Israel, it makes it one heck of tempting target.
Wow, JRook! you're really on the ball this morning - as usual!
"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."
In light of our current military weakness, an aggressive expansionist Russia, and Chinese saber rattling and threats against the Japanese and islands of the East China Sea, and growing, cancerous spread of ISIS, and with a US pseudo-president backstabbing it's allies...
What we should be doing is dismantling our defenses and exposing ourselves to aggression even further.
Makes sense to...You.
 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.
hey rook, why are you always showing that you are a richard?
 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.
You do realize, do you not, that abortion kills a living, individual human being with his or her own unique DNA?
We believe the mother's rights end at the tip of her baby's nose, because that's where the baby's rights begins.
I call BS, JRook.
If what you said was true, then government agencies would not be taking custody of people and making their medical decisions for them, instead of leaving those decisions to the individual and their family.
So BS. You will only point out what you just stated if it serves your purposes. Otherwise, you will completely ignore the point.
[-7] 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.
[-5] 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.
[-1] 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.
I support free speech but radio stations can choose what they do and do not wanna play
Rollin down the street, smokin indo, sippin on gin and juice
Laid back [with my mind on my money and my money on my mind]
Rollin down the street, smokin indo, sippin on gin and juice
Laid back [with my mind on my money and my money on my mind]
Oh they have the right Kook. They also have the decency and decorum not to produce something that grieves the Spirit.
Your phony blather is also protected, but I also have the decency and decorum to never quote a single word you say.
That First Amendment also gives me the right to boycott! We are not saying they can't produce such filth,,, we are just saying we don't have to listen!
Freedom,,, what a novel and enlightened way of living.
Just because its free speech doesn't mean people want to listen to it on public radio.
Its the same that public radio can't curse, else they get fined.
Liberals say the same thing, they complain when we conservatives speak the truth and logic, but they choose not to listen.
Rule the way I like... Strict constitutionalist judge
Rule the way I don't like... Activist judge
There's a very easy-to-spot hypocritical standard at play with many conservatives. / many who post here.
Attacks gun owners for having guns....gets bodygaurds with guns
Attacks Christians and conservatives for their free speech....complains when they don't get free speech
Says just turn the dial and move on for a song on the radio....attacks a christian bakery for not making a cake and not moving on
And that is just the beginning on hypocritical liberals, not conservatives.
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.
[-3] 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.
Unfortunately your understanding of “Free Market” differs from what the “understood” meaning of a Free Market is supposed to be; i.e., sans draconian government control.
If you have a cell phone check out your last billing and see if you can determine where the many different kinds of taxes are received; i.e., the draconian regulators.
“Net Neutrality”, from the very inception, was designed as another “CC & C” program of the Regime; i.e., Cash Cow & Control.
As for “head in colon” yours seem to be solidly planted in that orifice – - – wake up and read the bill, which they’ve kept hidden from everyone . . . only the fairy tale version (their summary) has been available and it leaves out the ways draconian regulations and taxes will appear in the future.
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.
 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.
...and JUST-WAITE.... the CBO will CHANGE it's first assesment.... inna few!!
[-4] 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.
[-4] 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.
You are laughable, at best. How about some more tranquil talk hero? ME is on fire under you choices. Another solid pick from your regime.
[-4] March 27, 2015 at 10:06am
Don’t forget to add that this guy is clearly sick.
Why because he is religious?
He had an opinion.
He is right, its a free country and has the freedom of speech. Sorry that the freedom of speech isn't just for liberals badmouthing Christians and conservatives.
Liberals: "Oh just another abortion done here, nothing to see"
Saul Alinsky "Rules for Radicals"
If they something you do not agree with, call them names like sick, stupid, dumb, bigoted, racist, some sort of phobia, conspiracy theorists, etc.
 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.
[-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.
"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." is a common sign in many businesses.
1) You are ugly and I will not make you a cake.
2) You smell and I will not make you a cake
3) You are fat/skinny/normal and I won’t make you a cake.
4) You remind me of two dogs that bit my mom and I won’t make you a cake
5) I don’t like you and I won’t make you a cake.
6) You dress in front of a fun house mirror and I will not make you a cake.
7) you look stupid and I won’t make you a cake.
8) You look ill and I won’t make you a cake.
9) You look funny and I won’t make you a cake.
10) I don’t like you and I won’t make you a cake.
10 acceptable reasons to refuse business.
1 unacceptable reason – I don’t support gay marriage.
So liberals want to force people of faith to lie? To be more like them?
I JUST DON"T WANT YOUR BUSINESS, BECAUSE.
JRook - The part you're not getting is that there is a major difference between refusing service to someone because they're gay (or black, or Muslim, or Christian, or whatever) and refusing service to support an action or lifestyle they don't support.
One is discriminating (because of who they are) and the other is refusing to endorse an action. If a gay person wanted to buy a cake, the baker would sell it. The minute that gay person asks the baker to endorse or promote their agenda, event, activity, etc. is when it steps out of the discrimination umbrella and goes to the forcing someone to go against their own moral compass.
It isn't having it both ways, JRook. It's allowing people to not suffer for WHO they are unless they try to force others to promote WHAT they are doing.
To fellas: "will you make us a gay wedding cake?"
Shop owner: "no."
Shop owner: "because".
Fellas: "we demand an answer."
Shop owner: "because...I'm busy."
Period. Less is more.
Your post has zero logic.
You're solution is to publish it. Publish it where? Who is even going to read it? That idea is beyond pointless.
On the other hand, if a customer walks into the store, and the business states, "I'm sorry, we don't offer service for that." are they not doing exactly as you ask? Making it known...
It's unbelievable that what you wrote in your post is actually logical to you. All I can see is someone who obviously despises religion and wants to stick it to religious people in any way possible. That is really all that can be gathered from your post.
[-3] 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.
Rookie. Who owns the business the owner or the state? Yes I already know you think the state has supreme power over the individual and you're wrong. I don't care about the civil rights act or the incorrect rulings handed down by the SCOTUS the First amendment trumps ALL so called laws telling the individual how to run his/her business.
My guess, Rook, is that if there is only one bakery within 50 miles, then you're going to have to do a LOT of traveling for your wedding anyway, so you might as well go a little further to find a baker you like.
OR, look at it as an opportunity, take a few classes, and open up your own bake shop so you can sell to whomever you want. Give that, "only bakery within 50 miles," some competition.
[-4] 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.
You seem to believe that the civil rights act trumps the first amendment and I disagree.
I don't care how scotus has ruled they get it wrong many times.
The first amendment protects you from being forced, even in business, from advocating for religion or political actions. I can't refuse service to someone because they are Jewish, but that doesn't mean I can't refuse my band to play at a religious function. Just as I can't refuse service to someone who is black, I can refuse to serve the NBPP.
"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."
So why does it give the LGBT the right to blatantly violate the civil rights others?
These folks are DELIBERATELY (and I might add brilliantly) using the law to FORCE their will on others. As far as I am concerned they have the right to stick their plonkers wherever and how often they want. But they seem to believe they should do so with impunity. In other words their rights are superior to those who disagree with them.
You sir are a double standard hypocritical bigot and apparently are unable to balance a scale.
Do you say these blatantly idiotic things, JRook, because you measure your self worth by the number of responses you get?
Okay, let's visit the terms, "civil rights," and, "equal treatment," shall we? How is a business denying a non-essential service to a person denying them their civil rights? These businesses aren't preventing gay people from getting married. Not having a wedding cake, flowers, food, and photographs will not prevent a gay couple from getting married. And if somehow, it's some weird genetic mutation in gays that makes it so they HAVE to have flowers, cake, pictures, etc (you know, like the gene that forces them to live as homosexuals), there ARE plenty of businesses out there that will cater to them with no issues at all. These Christian businesses are NOT the only ones around.
And what is your definition of "equal treatment"? Personally, I hate that phrase. It implies that everyone has to be treated and thought of as being exactly the same, and WE. ARE. NOT. ALL. THE. SAME.
Obviously we aren't the same. This world would be SO boring is we were all the same! Let people be different. Let them have their beliefs and ideals and quit trying to force them all to be the same. If a person wants to believe that I am too ugly for their products, why should that bother me? I can take my business somewhere else and never look back....
How do you define, "religious expression," JRook? To me, it means the act of practicing my religion. How can I practice my religion freely if I am being forced to participate in a ceremony that completely violates my beliefs?