User Profile: JRook


Member Since: March 16, 2011


123 To page: Go
  • [5] January 28, 2015 at 2:04pm

    “A former contract employee” Your a contract employee which is the very best example of “at will” labor. And you really expect a company to keep your contract when you speak out against them? This is a first amendment case, it is a case of the company having the freedom to not use a contractor who is arrogant and stupid enough to place their own beliefs as a higher priority to the business interests of Ford, which are solely theirs. This doesn’t deserve to even be mentioned, even by an individual who contributes to and promotes a fictitious “war on christians”.

    Responses (3) +
  • [-7] January 28, 2015 at 1:57pm

    Sarah the reality is no one takes you seriously. And the FACT is you ran away from the governorship because you would have been found guilty of numerous ethical violations at the very least. You running for President would just be another sad attempt to make yourself relevant. Which your not.

    Responses (2) +
  • [4] January 28, 2015 at 1:52pm

    @tcp… very well stated and on the mark. But I tend to see it as more economic discrimination, not race. Race is too often used to deflect the public from looking into how easy it is to buy justice in this country. Just compare similar crimes in upscale cities and towns to those in low income areas, particularly the penalty. Little Johnny never seems to be punished equally to Jamal.

  • January 28, 2015 at 1:49pm

    Absolutely correct. When you consider the 10+ innocent people that have been shot and killed in Florida by individuals who got off under stand your ground such a decision leaves one to wonder what other factors the DA and the jury were considering.

  • [17] January 27, 2015 at 3:47pm

    And perhaps someday individuals who come to sites like this will realize why they are magically receiving emails or snail mail from companies who get access to their information through the 25+ third party cookies that are loaded when you visit this site. But no doubt they are the same types of individuals who aren’t smart enough or who don’t bother to read the privacy policy that relates to the site alone, not the third party cookies they are paid to transmit.

    Responses (6) +
  • [9] January 27, 2015 at 3:45pm

    lol…. well now it is true you can’t fix stupid. And it is amazing how many stupid people use technology they can barely turn on, let along set the settings for.

  • [254] January 27, 2015 at 3:44pm

    Bottom line is that if you don’t really understand the technology you are using, you probably shouldn’t be using it. As for the morons who readily open up their lives on facebook, social media and the like because they need attention of believe it makes them relevant…. how truly sad you are.

    Responses (6) +
  • [-26] January 27, 2015 at 3:40pm

    Of course the title of the post would only make sense if indeed the man had a magazine that held more than 10 bullets. Cause if he didn’t, the exchange shows that he was not disadvantaged by having to reload. That is assuming that all shots arouse from a single gun which they did not since jason indicated 30 bullets were exchanged. Seriously, is there anyone who actually reviews or edits this stuff. Or is make whatever literary exceptions and extensions necessary to fit the narrative the editorial policy.

    Responses (9) +
  • [-3] January 27, 2015 at 3:34pm

    More to the point… this is considered grotesque but a cop shooting a 12 year old with a toy gun within 2-3 seconds of arriving on the scene so he doesn’t miss his coffee/doughnut break is A OK. In the case of your point the women certainly could have CHOSEN to call the ASPCA who would have put the dog down according to regulations and within the law. Your reference of course falls apart as you cannot kill an infant and the Supreme Court established the definitions embodied in Roe v. Wade. So to your point I’m sure there are instances where people have Chosen to terminate the pregnancy of a pet dog, cat, etc.

    Responses (1) +
  • [-4] January 27, 2015 at 3:24pm

    “This is likely the “Price to Pay” that Bobo was threatening about. Sends his Marxist goons over to try and unseat him, while claiming he won’t meet with him so as not to influence the election.” Ah so an individual who is merely assisting a political organization to get their message out and influence as many people as possible to vote is a marxist goon? Is there anyone you disagree with that you don’t label socialist, marxist, communist, etc. Most people left that type of behavior on the grade school playground. Ok, except for M. Bachmann and Sister Sarah who both were run out of office due to ethical violations with respect to misuse of state resources and campaign funds. So which label to you give to individuals who steal from the state and their campaign funds. Or are they just pulling an O’donnell.

    Responses (3) +
  • [-4] January 27, 2015 at 3:19pm

    “Netanyahu, who is up for re-election on March 17, has a famously bitter relationship with Obama, which most recently came to a boil last week when the White House said it would not host the Israeli leader for a meeting when speaks to a joint session of Congress in early March.” that’s a lie and sharona knows it. There is both in policy and practice a long standing ethical position to not meet with foreign leaders in close time frame to elections. Perhaps sharona could do some research and identify how many Presidents have followed this ethical practice. It is rather Boehner and House Repbulicans who are once again showing the shallowness of their ethics and integrity by letting N… speak to a joint session of congress.

    Responses (2) +
  • [-14] January 27, 2015 at 3:13pm

    Really please identify committees where democrats have heard testimony without Republican members present? “We rely on individuals to speak with us candidly, and privately, about their actions and observations regarding Benghazi; and this committee has endeavored to create a safe environment where individuals can approach us anonymously without fear of retribution from their employer,” Gowdy wrote. “However, most witnesses with directly knowledge of the events in Benghazi are currently still employed in the executive branch…” Pretty clear this guy is taking over Issa’s role as the reigning fascist a-hole in congress. And similar to Issa his only purpose of doing this is to make sure no one hears any testimony that doesn’t fit the narrative. Kinda like a DA limiting the witnesses and questions asked to achieve the desired result from a grand jury.

    Responses (3) +
  • [-4] January 27, 2015 at 3:06pm

    What a wonderfully unfounded observation and statement. Are you not aware that OPEC and the US oil companies have artificially kept the price of oil and gasoline above market determined prices since the late 1970′s. And do yourself a favor and research how many approved and unused drilling permits exist (at last look 200+) before you make incorrect statements regarding the actions of the PRESIDENT. Perhaps your question is best posed to the US oil companies… that is why they are not acting on the approved permits they have? One cannot slay anything when they do not know anything about what they are talking about. For example, the BS about ANWR is just that. as there are numerous programs to develop and drill within the Alaska petroleum reserve. Or haven’t you heard of that area. And of course the PRESIDENT just announced opening up the Atlantic ocean areas for drilling. So again, how’s about writing some letters and getting the industry to drill baby drill. Or is that just another cheap talking point.

    Responses (3) +
  • [1] January 27, 2015 at 2:40pm

    “At the center of the decades-old legal battle is the notion that the ban allows any group — aside from houses of worship looking to hold services — to rent the buildings, creating what the Alliance Defending Freedom, its church clients and supporters believe is a discriminatory policy.” And as clearly stated, although buried in the post as billy does as a rule, religious organizations can rent the building for the same activities as these groups. And similarly the other groups cannot rent the building for religious services or houses of worship either. So exactly where is the discrimination as all groups are treated equally with regard to what activities are permissible.

  • [-15] January 27, 2015 at 2:34pm

    If the related staff recognized or had any idea who Dana Loesch you could say she was targeted. How sad it is that these are the only ways she can achieve some relevance.

    Responses (3) +
  • [13] January 27, 2015 at 2:32pm

    Of course when asked the Trainer and the Owner quickly replied ‘I don’t have anything to do with the Jocky’s equipment” and “I’ve told you everything I know about the incident.” For those who think videoing the opposing team, deflating balls and using an illegal deice are not real infractions, go back to a time where honor, integrity, ethics, sportsmanship and the game was more important than the money. So yes there are times when capitalism and the accompanying lust for money/wealth undermines the character of men and the character of society at large. Regardless of the infraction individuals who violate honor, integrity, ethics, sportsmanship and thus the game should be banned for life. For if the money is all that matters to them, you need to take away their ability to earn it from their respective game.

    Responses (3) +
  • January 26, 2015 at 1:09pm

    “Calderon and Gore argued that $90 trillion is going to be spent anyways in the coming decades upgrading cities around the world. They argue that it should be spent on making cities more climate friendly.” For the low information voters who take what Rush or fox says at face value its not an additional or separate investment. Their push is to use the $90 trillion that will be invested upgrading cities as a matter of course be directed to making them more energy efficient. Which of course so one could actually disagree with.

  • [-1] January 26, 2015 at 1:05pm

    Somebody explain to the ignorant in the room the difference between weather and climate. You can tell who they are by references to global warming being proven false because it still snows in the winter.

    Responses (1) +
  • [-11] January 26, 2015 at 12:51pm

    Ok champ the federal government purchased Alaska from Russian and at one point owned 100% of it. It gave 28% of the land to the state and 12% to the original tribal people. So in this case it is a matter of the State recognizing that it is sitting on land provided to them by the federal government. And given the transaction, the constitution has nothing to do with it since the lands in question were never state lands to begin with. The federal government already owns ANWR. The issue is whether the state will be allowed to drill on it. So you are clear, no state land is being discussed.

    Responses (6) +
  • [-15] January 26, 2015 at 12:48pm

    If your figure includes the state of Alaska 98% may be correct. But the federal government does not own anything near 98% of Alaska. And no doubt a similar situation exists with in ANWR as does in the Gulf. And that being that big oil has not seen a need to act on the drilling permits they already have. At the time of the BP spill when Rush and fox got everyone upset about the moratorium on new permits, the oil companies were sitting on 200 approved drilling permits. So could we once move past the political BS and get down to the real facts.

    Responses (5) +
123 To page: Go