Trey is a good man. This I have no doubt. But do not forget he is a politician, lawyer former prosecutor. He’s a southern fire brand prosecutor which is the reason he was chosen for this committee. I have no doubt in the mans sincerity when it comes to this issue but at the end of the day the GOP only wants a political victory and I believe he’s quite aware of this. Trey, I promise you, is not in over his head. He will do what the GOP expects: sound bites and some fire works, flash pops etc. but you will be no closer to the truth. We know this from the hearings that have already occurred. The real questions will be avoided and the focus will be on the administrations attempt to blame a YouTube video. Who knew what, who said this, who sent that, Bla, bla bla.
I don’t really know what Beck is babaling about, nor do I care. He’s all over the place babaling about this or that. One minute he’s Ghandi the next he’s Walt Disney. I think he’s mentally ill. Seriously I’ll. Beware who you hitch your wagon to!
March 7, 2014 at 1:10am
So after a coup, they’re automatically legit? Really? So if cartels over throw Mexico, they then are protected by international law?
March 6, 2014 at 12:49am
Or maybe you could read the above story on the site you’re already on.
March 2, 2014 at 5:32pm
I don’t think you understand what is happening in Ukraine. As usual we are totally on the wrong side. That is shouldn’t be involved at all. But no, had to send in NGO’s foment an over throw of a democratically elected government and when Russia moves to protect it’s interests we go and threaten them. He was a two bit criminal to be sure but not wise to go playing games on the world stage with Russia. That’s how world wars start.
Big shock Arseniy Yatsenyuk the interim leader of Ukraine is a former central banker. After the last crook stole from Ukraine it’s now the IMF’s and EU’s turn to rape Ukraine.
So now in Ukraine you have vampires on one side and thugs on the other. Way to go State Department. Way to go Lurch and Barry.
February 23, 2014 at 5:30am
“And race and sexual orientation are different, but you do not get to choose either one, so I fail to see your point here”.
No. Again you just pretend that everyone should believe as you do. Others don’t believe that you were born that way and some thought they were and changed their minds. And you can’t prove it despite the fact that it p!sses you off. You have a militant belief. I’ve seen it before. Maybe you should argue that it doesn’t matter. Besides it wouldn’t make much difference in this case because as I pointed out discrimination laws are very narrow otherwise the courts would be clogged up with frivolous law suits and phony prosecutions. I refused service to a woman today. She has severe mental problems. I used discrimination and she cannot sue me. It would never make it to a court room. I am not saying being gay is the same as a person with mental illness simply that the laws allow for the right type of discrimination. I can be refused service just for how I look. So can you. Doctors can refuse to perform abortions based on their religious beliefs and bakers can refuse to make a cake for you. You can sue. You might win in the right part of the country but that does not make it right. I find it disturbing that you would want to force a deeply religious person to bake a wedding cake for you. That says more about you than anything. Because that’s what we’re talking about, not the convenient store, target whatever. We are talking wedding industry.
February 23, 2014 at 4:39am
Your having trouble with reading comprehension. I suggest you re-read. The laws you refer to are applied in court. Meaning you have to prove discrimination based on race color or creed in court. This is the threshold required by law. Simply put you can be sued or prosecuted if it can be proven in COURT that a persons civil rights were violated. Again, a persons sexual preference is not the same as a persons race or GENDER. The civil rights act is actually interpreted pretty narrow because everyone makes discriminating choices all the time. If I don’t like or serve people with blue hair, it’s my prerogative. If you would like to argue that gays should be included in the civil rights act, I’m listening. Make a case. But on a national level I suspect the community would never argue such a thing as it would get a lot of blow back from the professional race baiters. That would be a spectacle for sure.
And you can believe that you were born that way all you want but you can’t prove it. And some article doesn’t prove it either. I tend to agree at least with some people. But I know people who were gay at one time but now hetro. So one size does NOT fit all. You want everyone to justify you and I’m telling you you don’t need that. You appear to be blinded by external justification. You want to force others to believe that you were born this way to justify the choices you make.
February 23, 2014 at 3:54am
You don’t understand any of those laws and how they are applied. They are applied in court! I suggest you actually read the Arizona Bill. Have you never seen a sign in a business that says we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone at any time for any reason? Being gay is not the same as being black.
I’m fine with the federal governments stance on gay marriage. They afford the same protections under law for gays as hetro. Filing joint tax returns, spousal rights etc.all equal protection under the law regardless if your home state has recognized gay marriage. Perfectly constitutional. But that is the only authority the federal government has when it comes to marriage. I wish all states would get out of the marriage business but I can’t force them to and will not try per the 10th amendment. If they did that this issue would go away. At this rate though, you will be arguing to force churches to perform gay marriages, totally unconstitutional. If gay and lesbian groups took this tact, getting states out of the marriage business, they would get a lot more support and within a few years I believe most states would capitulate. Max freedom for all. New business would pop up to serve gay weddings, the sky’s the limit. But no, they want to force it down everyone’s throat with threats, thug tactics and probably the worst thing is they seem to want to be a fake victim class. Not all though, my best friend is gay and does not go along with the gay nazi’s.
February 23, 2014 at 3:11am
Any business can refuse service to anyone for any reason. Under the civil rights act you can be sued and or prosecuted if it can be proven that it was based on race. The law in question amends the definition of entities able to use religious freedom as a defense against a law suit to any individual, corporation, club, association etc.
If it can be shown that it is in direct violation of their first amendment religious rights.
Quote from the law:
Stipulates that a person that asserts a violation of this Act must establish the following:
Ø The person’s action or refusal to act is motivated by a religious belief;
Ø The person’s religious belief is sincerely held; and
Ø The state action substantially burdens the exercise of the person’s religious beliefs.
“Allows a person asserting a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding, whose religious exercise is burdened, to receive injunctive and declaratory relief”.
So this is in direct response to the bakery case where a judge forced, after the fact, an individual to service the plaintiffs. AFTER THE FACT. Completely unconstitutional.
You believe that gay and lesbians are born that way. I tend to agree but I can’t prove it and neither can you. So it’s just a belief and you can’t force people to believe the way you do. And you can’t force someone to go against their religious beliefs simply because YOU think they should.
February 17, 2014 at 12:41am
Only 35 comments. Interesting. Nothing to see here. That’s not an American city mock up. NO, NO. And even if it was…who cares right?
And Blink, the zombies would be you and me. Not that I think you are a zombie, or maybe we are. This is exactly what it looks like, a training facility for the next enemy: you and me.
February 12, 2014 at 9:34pm
Not everything is about you. No one was trying to impress you. Nothing in this story says how much any of these people make. Some service folks got a nice tip, good. You could have skipped this. No one forced you to read.
February 12, 2014 at 9:25pm
Show me a living wage, which is a propaganda term, and I’ll show you a $70 loaf of bread. And I doubt the service staff thought the tip was “condescending”
Show me “affordable” healthcare, no really, show me affordable healthcare. That’s exactly what the probably younger staff at this restaurant are thinking.
I promise to make sure there is a chicken in every pot and these other people want to take it from you….diabolical laughter ensues. And they want to boil your children, push you off a ladder at work. They are evil plutonians. But I want to make you safe at work. I’ll be there to steady the ladder. I will be there to read bedtime stories to your kids. I will be there at the end of every week to hand you a check. These people, those people don’t want to give you anything.
The oldest political propaganda in the book and people still fall for it every time. Human greed, give me something for nothing or else. People still think politicians can somehow make there lives whole. It’s a shame.
By the way, there is a politician maybe two at that table that’s your kind of politician. Good ole’ word salad Newt. He’ll tell you anything you want to hear.
February 9, 2014 at 4:24pm
He probably has smuggled weapons to protect his villages but I doubt he got them here. As he pointed rhetorically, “a dear rifle?” It would be much easier to buy them in Africa.
February 9, 2014 at 4:15pm
Wrong Dave. Very wrong.Ruby Ridge was in August 1992. Elections were scheduled for that November. Bush signed off on shoot to kill. It was unbelievable what they did to Weaver and his family.
February 7, 2014 at 3:51am
The proverbial missing link. There are many holes in evolution and this one as pointed out by Darwin himself is probably the biggest one accept maybe evolutions inability to explain the Precambrian explosion of life. Because the missing link has not been discovered is not a viable reason to dismiss evolution. All life on this planet shares common DNA. This as well does not prove evolution. It is however supporting evidence. So there is too much evidence to dismiss evolution and not enough to dismiss challenges or alternative theories.
February 7, 2014 at 3:18am
You have just reduced the entire field of astrophysics down to just spit balling and that is extremely ignorant. Forget all the precise instruments for studying the stars that we spent a lot of money putting into orbit. Forget radio spectrometry. It’s unknowable! And they love theories!
“Therefore theory is the only thing they have” But you have disproved their theories because as you put it, it’s unknowable.
I’m OK with you believing this but I gotta tell you it’s very ignorant. You really can’t see the ignorance in your comment?
This is a typical response for this ilk, in other words an ad hominem attack. You people are predictable to a fault. Precise instruments are fallible because they are operated by fallible humans. Have you ever heard of user error. Therefore the precision of said instruments is subject to a degree of error. Radio spectrometry is used to basically guess. There is no way anyone ON EARTH can definitely know how radio waves behave in deep space. Those on Earth can only make an educated guess as to how certain things will react in deep space.
Let's take the statement as to how large the universe is. How can that be known by a human being on Earth. Quite simply it cannot be known. It can be speculated or theorized but never known. These things are based on mathematical equations which are based on guesses. If one expression in the equation is off by a miniscule amount then the whole thing is wrong.
What most people do not know is the "facts" in many of these abstract "sciences" are ideas on which a group of "scientists" agree irrespective of definitive proof. In other words they say something is true because they say it is.
February 7, 2014 at 3:01am
Atheists are not the ones claiming gods existence. Your just not making logical arguments. Atheists don’t need to prove anything and neither do you. These are belief systems we are talking about. You claimed that atheism equals antisemitism in another post and I’m sorry I can’t put it another way, but that is extremely ignorant.
February 7, 2014 at 2:36am
They actually have gone faster than light in lab settings using high powered lasers. We are at the point in which quantum physics begins to break down. String theory has some promise.
February 7, 2014 at 2:26am
no, science will not attempt to answer the meaning of life because of course the answer is subjective and science is NOT subjective.
February 7, 2014 at 2:19am
If I claimed that christians are homicidal and mentioned various threats from so called christians or Eric Rudolf and other abortion doctor killers I would be stereotyping all christians. Clearly all christians are not killers. You are stereotyping atheists. If you are annoyed by obnoxious atheists, so am I. If you don’t like overly litigious atheists, I’m with you. It’s ridiculous. If you think god should be back in the schools, something I hear often, I’m not with you. I doubt you would want the school teaching your child to be religious. That has visions of the worst parts of history. If you think your kid should be able to pray on campus or mention god, I’m with you. Freedom of speech. Don’t let fools on the tube make me your enemy, I AM NOT. Homicidal atheists are no more prevalent than homicidal christians.
February 7, 2014 at 1:36am
It’s not a guess. And one doesn’t need to travel back in time to verify this. The science behind this is widely accepted. If you are contesting this on it’s merit, OK, make an argument why. And not time travel, that is not a serious argument.
And your second comment is a series of apples to rocks arguments. Apples to oranges doesn’t cover it.There are many holes in the THEORY of evolution. We can certainly debate that on it’s merit but the age of the planet is reasonably accepted.
If you want to believe the earth is 6000 years old, fine, I don’t need to convince you otherwise. But if you feel the need to refute basic realities in the physical world, I suspect you may be missing the point of being a person of faith.