So when Bundy is breaking the law most on he blaze hated the jack booted thug cops and Bundy was hero for conservatives for sticking it to the man. When a black guy is shot in the face after being pulled over for a license plate he is a thug and should just obey the officer? Why weren’t most on the blaze commenting that Bundy should’ve just obeyed?
Not that it makes it acceptable,but I don't think Bundy had a rapsheet.
July 24, 2015 at 4:20pm
Keep living in your tough guy fantasy world. Thanks for the laugh.
July 24, 2015 at 3:34pm
I remember a few years back ( 2009 or 2010) The DHS released a report warning of white supremacists, lone wolf and right wingers and all of the outrage on this site when the report came out. Just a few years later we have mass shootings by those the DHS warned about so it seems that they are a threat.
Of course a DHS report from 2009 or 2010 would say that! By that time Obozo was in charge and already trying to figure out ways to grab the guns from law abiding citizens! Did the report happen to mention anything about mental illness? It wouldn't surprise me if they tried to equate conservatism with mental illness. The only problem here is that liberals are mentally deficient and should not be allowed to redefine mental illness like they have with marriage. Let a liberal hijack the language and any sane person could be construed (by this administration) to be "disturbed. If they are so intent on stopping the violence, they should focus on mental illness, not the weapon a mentally ill person uses. It could just as easily have been a machete. But, liberals want to keep the pot stirred without addressing the real causes of violence, specifically places like Chicago which has draconian gun laws, and a very high murder rate. 'Nuff said.
They also included Vets, any and all gun owners and preppers. Conflating a few crazies with all Conservatives is, at best, disingenuous. Haven't you castigated us when someone did the same with Liberals?
[-4] July 23, 2015 at 10:32am
I encourage all couch rambo’s who want to dress up and play soldier to actually go through those doors and enlist. Just because you have a firearm doesn’t mean you are trained for combat and more than likely these guys would turn tail and run. They all seem to have the military gear but are too cowardice to enlist and swear their lives to defend this country. Instead they play soldier for a few hours and go home.
There are a couple of groups in Idaho that are protecting recruiting centers and are very well trained. You want to take them on?
I did enlist, thank you. If read the article last week the man in Virginia is a vet. So some of those guarding the recruiting centers have gone through the doors to enlist. Those who haven’t may have legitimate reasons not to have enlisted. It is commendable for citizens to stand and defend our military where they cannot protect themselves. Thanks for your opinion though.
And just how are YOU so sure there are not combat vets that are standing up again and doing this??? Sounds to me like maybe YOU should pick up a weapon and stand a post - You know the old phrase put up or shut up... I for one know several combat vets who have went and done this and i can assure you they have the weapons, knowledge and fortitude to get the job done if necessary.
 July 22, 2015 at 11:48am
That’s odd my military records state the exact opposite.
[-2] July 22, 2015 at 11:23am
Go take a civics course. 1st amendment tells you what the government cannot restrict
[-7] July 22, 2015 at 11:21am
Most who have served and served in war time know that the CIC deserves respect, its the couch rambos that never served that are the disrespectful ones. You don’t have to agree with the CIC but you do show respect and those that grabbed the sign away did so.
i can tell by your tone you never served any thing but dog crap on a shingle.
You should respect the office but who says you have to respect the man.
How does one respect someone who lies about everything? A 10 year navy vet responding.
The CIC is a POS says a Life Member of the VFW and deserves nothing but contempt. And what does that stand for again, Clown in Chief.
One does not show respect by assaulting an elderly man. Gods law reigns over mans traditions, and the whole image of him being put in a choke hold and assaulted by these two piece of s_ _ _ losers says everything.
July 20, 2015 at 4:34pm
It is a guy, I am not a ” lefty” but a registered independent since 92. If you have a penis you are a guy. If you call the police over someone in a dress scaring you then you may need to check your man card at the door
[-1] July 20, 2015 at 4:33pm
Such big talk, remind to be scared once i am done laughing
 July 20, 2015 at 4:32pm
Size only matters in 1 thing that starts with an F and it isn’t fighting, Bruce Lee is proof of that.
The little guy tried to offend the one in the dress and it worked, don’t try to offend and then act like a scared little punk.
[-15] July 20, 2015 at 2:47pm
Another coward on the right. You know you are a sissy when a guy in a dress has you calling the police and scared to go to your own car.
It's a dude in a dress who could probably kick your ass.
Politics aside you fool. The dude in the dress is twice Shapiro's size. Calling someone out and say you're meeting them in a parking lot generally means business. BTW: isn't"sissy" derogatory toward the LGBT community??? You hipocrite. And it's so bloody typical for a Leftie to threaten violence cause you don't agree with something someone says! Shapiro had said the dress doesn't change Jenner's male chromosomes which is a scientific fact. Call him what he likes but he is still a male. That's what got the Transgender all vexed.
So you also agree he's a man even though he's pretending to be a woman?
How dare you call her a guy, you bigot??? (Fun when your ideology's tactics are used against you, isn't it?)
Thats what makes it scary. Its a guy in a dress that is picking a fight with you. What happens if you lose the fight...do prison rules apply?
Yea the left is cowardly much like your post
Okay lady, listen to me. As I implied to Irish, what does one's size have to do with law? Are laws only for those who cannot handle it on their own? When I have ever called the cops, not one single time was it to protect me in any way, but even it had been, the law says we call authorities unless our life is in immediate threat and danger.
Back in the day if two men had an issue they took it outside, but nowadays cops arrest the one who threw the first punch as well as the one who merely defended themselves, so if not going to jail is a priority for ya, calling the cops is the by law proscribed method.
So why is it a lefty lady like yourself would argue one on the right is a coward for NOT engaging in unlawful action? How do you get away with thinking like that? I'll bet you can even spout unbridled hypocrisy and still look at what I'm sure is one butt ugly chick face in the mirror.
So I guess by your words I'll take any threat by a lefty into my own hands to handle it. I can promise but one thing in all of this...if you are the lefty I end up having to deal with I'll call a bruiser chick I know to whup your ass. And if you're a male creature, well you'll be wishing I'd have called the cops, fat mouth.
Only a fool enters an altercation with an obvious psychopath, if it can be avoided.
[-8] July 20, 2015 at 12:36pm
Well isn’t religion a behavior as well yet you want your behavior protected . If you run public business you serve the public, if not you deal with consequences. When the bakers applied for their license they knew the laws on discrimination and broke them, pretty predictable outcome.
I am heterosexual male with a wife and a child.
[-21] July 20, 2015 at 12:17pm
Rosa Parks could’ve found another seat or blacks could’ve went to a different restaurant since the whites only ones refused to serve right?
Give me a break, if you are a business that serves the public leave your discrimination at home along with your bible. You can be Christian , Muslim , Jew or whatever at our home and place of worship. In a business that serves the public there is no place for your book of tales .
Religion is like a penis, no one has a problem with it until you pull it out and throw it in peoples faces
Comparing genetics (skin color) with behavior (same-sex sex) is absurd.
And same with who you have sex with - no one has a problem with it until you pull it out and force people to bake cakes.
That's it? Nothing more?
What a let down. Expected much better of you. Gotta reevaluate my standards I guess.
I see. So no discrimination is allowed when you hang out your shingle. Is that what you think? Is it legal for the government to discriminate?
So, the Klein's sought out the lesbian couple in order to deny them a cake?
You set up a false premise. First, there is only one race-human. The idea that skin color determines difference in race is wholly un-scientific. Second, skin color and national heritage are immutable characteristics. Homosexuality is a behavior. You cannot logically equate the two. Third, the right to hold and express one's religious faith is explicitly enshrined in the constitution. It is foundational to our nation's heritage. This is a matter of history. What SCOTUS did was invent a right, much as it did in Roe.
To what book are you referring? What is your evidence that this book is a book of tales?
No one discriminated against persons, or denied any any person their rights, or did any real harm to anyone in the expression of their faith. The businesses did not refuse a person. They declined to participate in an activity.
You are the one advocating for the infringement of rights by proposing limits on how and where and when I can exercise my clearly stated right of religious expression.
You should think a bit more on this
People live by their religions. They have to always put their god’s will first. You can’t just leave your faith at home, you must live by it at all times. I’m pretty sure God isn’t going to be happy with a Christian who knowingly enables sin even if it is at their workplace. Religious freedom is non-negotiable. Besides there is no rule in Christianity or any other religion I know of that allows you to discriminate by skin-color so your argument is invalid. People are born with their skin color, and whether you subscribe to the born gay argument or not, you aren’t born into a wedding ceremony, it’s an act, not a genetic trait. There is a huge difference between refusing service to someone because they are gay, and refusing to participate in an action that goes against sacred commandments you have vowed to follow. If a gay person wants to buy a toaster and you tell them no based on the fact that they are gay, that’s wrong the same as it is to discriminate by skin color.
But if an anti-gay KKK member comes in and asks a gay black baker to bake a wedding cake with a little hooded bride and groom, do you think they also have to bake that or be guilty of discrimination?
If you don’t, then by your own beliefs you are a hypocrite.
To quote you with a minor modification: The gay rights movement is like a penis, no one has a problem with it until you pull it out and throw it in peoples faces.
But this probably doesn't resonate with you. Freedom of speech, expression, or conscience only apply to people with whom you support or agree. And while I may disagree with you, I respect your right to speak out, it makes it easier for everyone else to draw their own conclusions. That's the thing about opening one's mouth, you generally end up sounding like either a sage or an ass and intent doesn't seem to matter.
Here in the US, businesses still have a right to refuse business...Well, they did anyway. Read Wisewomantalkin's comment earlier...How do you feel about a muslim baker having to make a cake with the picture of Muhammad on it? I bet your thinking is double standard here!
See folks. They adore their sodomy. It is their life's blood. They can't square it no matter how they attack the opposition. Sodomy will always go against nature. Man does not have a say in these things. Gays can lash out, sue, throw hate bombs, change laws, but sodomy will always be negative. Sodomy has held gay rights back. Not some Oregon baker. Sodomy and abortion are two things that can never be squared. Even though man's laws have made them legal, neither one advances human life. In fact, they both take life.
 July 17, 2015 at 5:21pm
Sorry Bush Sr. enacted this policy 02/1992, Clinton didn’t take office until 01/20/93.
OK....but back in 1992 when Bush Sr. enacted this policy we didn't have jihadists running around our country doing sh%t. THAT has only really happened in the last...oh say 6 or 7 years during the MINC's admin (Muslim in Chief). Why hasn't HE changed the policy??? Because he wants everyone to believe this is a "Lone Wolf" type of deal and that extreme policy changes to current Gun Free Zones would imply that there's a "problem out there". Can't have people thinking there's a problem with security. But I stress that We didn't have any jihad on our homeland during Bush 43's eight years, but we've had plenty under the MINC (Boston, Ft. Hood, etc).
Nevermind and CPT,
Incorrect. See my 5:40pm comment and links.
Gotcha Monk...thanks for the links. I was taking "Nevermind" at his word that Bush enacted it. My point was that the policy should have been rescinded in the last 6-7 years as DIRECT action in this country started ramping up. I've been driving onto military reservations for the last 40 years and during the last 15 or so, we've had almost 100% ID checks at the gate even with a DoD sticker on the car (the stickers have finally been dumped by ALL services this year...navy last to do.. and pretty much going to a 100% ID Check all the time, which actually used to happen back in the 70's!).
If clinton had had any common sense, he would have reversed it, but he loathes the military so he let it stand. I'm not real thrilled with the Bushes either.
 July 14, 2015 at 3:18pm
25% of food stamp recipients are in the armed forces, so you are saying they are lazy animals? Wow stay classy GOP
That figure is not correct. Where did you get that number, from Pink.com. With the armed forces allowing every freak of nature to join though who knows, 25% of them someday might be doing something, not sure what it might be other than some freak show. Gays, transgenders, Muslims, our Armed forces need Augusto Pinochet to rise.
Maybe true but it's not bc they need them, it's bc nobody passes up free stuff. I was in the Marines and I know how irresponsible most young service members are with their finances. I saw privates driving Cadillac escalades (no joke), until their first payment was due...Then it sat in the parking lot as they couldn't afford gas, had that private been married I'm sure he would be on food stamps.
Then that fact alone is why there should be shame for gaming the system.
Why arent our soldiers paid enough to not need food stamps? Maybe a pay cut is in order for all of the fat lazy federal union employees huh?
We need to cut out waste in our government and maybe we'd have enough money then to pay our troops what they deserve. Instead we're "fertilizing" welfare "weeds."
IMPOSSIBLE. That is a liberal progressive number that CANNOT be true. Simply look at the percentage of military compared to the entire population then look at the percentage of foodstamp recipients to the entire population. If this statement were true, then the military would have to be 5-10 times larger than it actually is and every member of the military would have to be on food stamps. Not possible.
[-3] July 13, 2015 at 1:07pm
No but it shows the foolishness of religion and those that attempt to get others to adhere to teachings they themselves don’t follow. Yet another reason that the church is a running joke in this country and more and more are becoming secular.
[-5] July 13, 2015 at 12:58pm
I do find it a bit hypocritical the ones that bash homosexuality and are on their 2nd or 3rd marriage . Last I checked divorce was a sin and all sins are the same , so how can you look down on a sinner while you live in sin?
fortunately for all of us, hypocrisy is not a crime.
If your spouse divorces you, even though you didn't want them to go, have you sinned?
Check again, then...Matthew 19: 8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
Note the exception....
'How can you look down on a sinner while you live in sin?'
Learn the difference between Repentant sinner and Unrepentant sinner...then get back to us.
i do not choose to”bash” homosexuals but do respond to some statements made by homosexuals that I don’t agree with. I agree wholeheartedly with you that all sins are an affront to God and is caused by man’s disobedience. God in His love for all mankind has made provision for forgiveness of any sin by the sacrificial death of His son Jesus. If we dig deeper the sin of pride (man’s arrogance – claiming to know better than God – I want to do what I want to do) is at the root of many sins.
People need to see that their salvation is not determined by what other people say or believe, but by their relationship with God. Man doesn’t save people, that’s God’s business.
If you re interested. God will not force you to believe.
Rush is marriage #3 with no kids.
[-6] June 3, 2015 at 10:20am
Sure they can, look at Oregon law and get educated. It is illegal refuse service based on sexual orientation in Oregon. The law is clear and was broken, emails or calls don’t change that a law was broken
[-17] June 3, 2015 at 10:02am
This is soo silly. Phone calls or emails do not negate the fact that this public business violated its states civil rights act. Law is the law and the baker broke it. Phone calls or emails do not change that basic fact
There is no law that says you can't deny to bake someone a cake. Business owners have the right to refuse service to anyone.
A completely false statement. NO company can be compelled to do business with anyone they dont want to. Go find a Muslim bakery and demand THEY make a cake for a gay wedding.
To be Politically Correct, I will agree with your idiocy.
This was a matter to be adjudicated by an impartial tribunal. A tribunal which is involved in ex parte communication with a party to a case in controversy before it, has brought its impartiality in doubt, so as to bring up the issue of recusal from the case. The mere appearance of impartiality is enough to demand recusal.
The bakers are in an impossible position because if they did bake the cake then they'd be violating their obligations to their Islamic customers and would face complaints from them for supporting homosexuality. The whole thing would be silly if it weren't just a case of the gay couple just wanting to be bullies. The LGBT community has taken that as its latest tactic to prove that they aren't "normal". Normal people just want to get along by accommodating others.
Right. Breaking a BS law passed by leftest loonies in not OK, but breaking a law passed by the sane is fine. Illegal is what the left decides it is.
They didn’t refuse service, they simply refused a wedding cake. They may have been happy to bake cookies, cup cakes or a regular cake just not a wedding cake that would put them at odds with their religion. That is something neither you nor the state have a vote in. Again this is not about service or no service but about an agenda of concern to only 1% of America. I don’t let the bearded, tattooed dude at Freebirds make my burrito either, not discrimination just don’t want to eat his chin hair.
So in other words, it doesn’t matter if there’s a conflict of interest here. They’re Christians, so they deserve it anyway. Right?
It would be much like a NLRB decision in a case where the AFL/CIO was sending private emails and having secret meetings on a case they had interest in. Such destroys the impartiality of the adjudicators and the case must be remanded to a proper court of law or the judgement thrown out.
Then according to your 'logic', the bakery was simply upholding the law as same-sex marriage is not in fact legal in Oregon.
Yes, the law is the law - and the Constitution is the BASIC law, and no other laws may conflict with it and be valid. A "civil right" given to a person by statute does not trump another person's rights which are specifically protected by the Constitution (in this case, freedom of religion and freedom from involuntary servitude); thus, the supposed statutory "civil right" does not in fact exist, and the "law" which purported to establish that "right" is worth far less than the paper it's printed on.
Start your own business and run it however you want to. You are not the slavemaster to these people.
June 2, 2015 at 1:46pm
If I were a betting man I would say this ” farmer ” took some of his ” crops” to Montana for sale. Going to meet a woman and she stood him up but also took 16K to buy tractor parts he didn’t end up getting? Sounds like he sold 3-4 pounds of pot for $16K and the dog smelled the residue
Could be, but confiscating the guy's money based on what he might, or even probably, have done, is dead wrong. The tactic of bringing in a dog to establish probable cause is also unconstitutional. Even if Lorenzo is a big-time drug dealer, he should be protected from illegal search and seizure.
Sounds to me like you're a big government loving, constitution hating badge bunny.
It doesn't matter what you or Law Enforcement "thinks". If there is no crime nor proof thereof, give the money back. It is NOT a crime to have cash on you, no matter how much.