User Profile: RajCaj

Member Since: March 02, 2012


123 To page: Go
  • [7] September 27, 2016 at 1:51pm

    Or as South Park put it…..a D-bag or Turd Sandwhich

  • [9] July 15, 2016 at 4:38pm

    Why on earth would you send the US military into Turkey to address a military coups?

    Responses (3) +
  • [1] July 5, 2016 at 5:51pm

    There have been a few people that floated the idea that the Bill / Lynch meeting leak was not a real leak….but theatre to wash Loretta’s hands of the controversy since she put the ball in the FBI’s court (who….up until now the media & inside sources have telegraphed that the agency was going to push for an indictment)

    Some local CBS affiliate in AZ scoops the story on the meeting, everyone (including democrats) feign shock, Loretta backs out and gives it to the FBI, knowing what the answer was going to be all along.

    Hillary walks and Loretta Lynch avoids the a potential controversy that would either cause an issue staying on as AG or a potential SCOTUS gig

  • [1] July 5, 2016 at 5:44pm

    If you give Comey the benefit of doubt….that might be the best he was able to do. Otherwise, it doesn’t make sense to lay it all out like that and at the very end do a 180 and say she’s not legally liable.

    He may have been compelled one way or another to not request an indictment. She is too big to fail.

  • [4] June 27, 2016 at 11:09am

    Then you’d be playing right into the rope-a-dope campaign they are executing. They want a fight in the streets (see knife fight in California today between the white supremacists & anti-white groups)

    The social engineers at the top of all this know that by creating social protections for one group to do whatever they want, while holding another group to a different standard will create animosity, then chaos, and then finally a social need for complete reformation of the constitution and the social bedrock of this country.

    He said it himself…. “So what’s going to happen is we’re going to have equal rights and justice in our own country, or we will restructure their function and ours.”

    This is about a Melting Pot Society vs Multicultural Society…not white vs black. There is a reason “Melting Pot Society” is a banned phrase on University of California campuses.

  • [4] June 27, 2016 at 10:54am

    Prog liberals like to trot out that “correlation does not equal causation” when it suits them but they sure as hell don’t have any problem with jumping to conclusions when they look at statistics that on the surface show the black community disproportionately deficient in any way.

    Pop black culture (IE Rap / Hip-Hop) actively promotes risky life choices (drug use, casual sex, infidelity, illegal gang activity, anti-social behavior) People in the black community (and to some extent outside it) adopt social queues from the manufactured pop black culture and suffer the consequences from it.

    Furthermore, Cultural Marxists attribute behaviors & traits that set people up for success as being “white culture” and call every black person that dares to “appropriate” those qualities Oreos, Uncle Toms and traitors to their race.

    The same people that created the boxes that people now fit in are the ones complaining about the boxes they put people in. Manufactured crisis for political ends.

  • [10] June 27, 2016 at 10:39am

    Cultural Marxist have an answer for that too….you see, black men only act like that (and black women only put up with them) because they are all acting out internalized oppression that white society puts on them. The whole…..well if you’re going to treat me like an animal, I’m going to act like an animal…but I’m not actively aware that I’m making that choice on my own bull crap.

    Responses (2) +
  • [3] June 27, 2016 at 8:17am

    No, not everyone walks out with their diploma a sissy, pansy or brainwashed hyper-sensitive lib prog….but that’s not the issue. The issue is that *enough* of them do walk out that way. Enough to affect pop culture and rule sets at the institutions these “educated” and degreed people go to work at…and eventually end up leading.

    This list reads verbatim from the list circulated at UC Berkeley a year or two ago. What does that tell you? It’s institutionalized…it’s in the curriculum…it’s making the rounds slowly but surely.

    Turning a blind eye to what’s going on within a significant portion of the population because not *all* people are affected is exactly how we got here.

    Responses (1) +
  • [6] May 24, 2016 at 1:15pm

    Debating 101…..paraphrase your opponents argument into your own construct and state it in such a way that it is easier to make a point.

    When you can’t make the point that the apples are orange in color, just turn the apples into carrots and suggest they are orange in color. Who can deny that?

    We have a legal system….as imperfect as it is, it’s still better than a lot of other systems this world has to offer. A well respected judge by advocates of the BLM movement ruled that the officer was not guilty.

    There might be injustices that need to be addressed, but this isn’t one of them…that was the point Kelly was trying to make. The point Deray was trying to make was that an example of where the letter of the law was followed – and example of it actually working – was actually yet another example of it not working, and this is why we need reform.

    Tarnishing examples where justice worked (just because you didn’t get the result you wanted) hurts the whole process…..unless it is your aim to take down the whole process.

  • May 17, 2016 at 4:07pm


    In the case of a locker room situation, allowing cis-gendered women to disrobe and expose private parts while getting dressed / showering but preventing transgendered women to do the same would be discriminatory. That’s the whole point….transgendered people claim that they are uncomfortable using facilities designated for their birth given gender…and denying them full use of the facilities of their chosen gender is discriminatory.

    Dealing with penises & vaginas is only part of the issue though. The other matter is with abuse of the law. There is a whole lot of grey space between glancing at someone and leering….between incidentally exposing oneself while dressing & doing so maliciously.

  • [4] May 17, 2016 at 3:21pm


    Actually, we ended up in this situation because city officials in Charlotte tried to create an ordinance / local law that would put special legal protection on all people identifying as transgendered to attend the restroom / locker room of their choice. The only reason the state of NC weighed in on this with their own law was to prevent a legal precedent from being created in the opposite direction in their state by local municipalities.

    So what’s the big diff between before Charlotte tried passing the ordinance and after?

    Common sense…and social order.

    The issue is with how being transgendered is officially defined by authorities on LGBT matters….which is that it is completely subjective, does not require any reassignment process (visual queues & commitment to the claim) and is allowed to be completely fluid.

    Prior to that, people used common sense. If you’re trans and you’ve walked the walk so to speak, you’re not likely to put others on edge by using a public restroom of your chosen gender. If you’re trans and you haven’t gone through with any sort of reassignment process, you err on the side of caution and attend the restroom of your anatomically defined gender – as not to cause a stir.

    So really, we are only talking about a fraction of a minority group of a minority group’s preference of restroom in jeopardy with NC’s law, given the unintended consequences and social unrest otherwise…and we are treating it like Jim Crow laws.

  • [6] May 17, 2016 at 1:43pm

    Also….it was the feminist movement that pushed for 50+ years that we live in a rape & sexually violent culture dominated by men to the point that most women view strange men as a threat…..PARTICULARLY if they are in the very definition of a female safe space….a women’s public restroom.

    Funny that…..leftists created a culture of “male stranger danger” to the point of hyper-paranoia and are now pushing to create laws that would provide said male predators easier access through plausible deniability to said female safe spaces.

    American left, the inventors of the self licking ice cream cone…

  • [5] May 17, 2016 at 1:37pm

    This is about creating chaos, not solving the immorality of human kind. If our society were so hell bent on fixing actual problems within the human condition, we’d be addressing the nearly 500,000 women in AMERICA that are in danger of undergoing genital mutilation by a backward culture that gets a free pass because they occupy a minority status.

    We’d be focused on the rampant misogyny that is the life blood of a significant section of our pop culture – Rap & Hip-Hop, which also gets a free pass because of protected status.

    There is so much low hanging fruit that we could actually fix, but we are making THIS the defining issue of civil rights, fairness & equality….an issue that affects little more than the feelings of a minority of a minority group of people, at the expense of a much larger group of people.

    This wasn’t an issue until it was made an issue. People didn’t fight this hard for same sex marriage. Why? How do you prosecute abuse of this new law if the only requirement is a subjective feeling of how one feels, which can also be fluid and change over time? You can’t….it’s chaos.

  • [3] May 17, 2016 at 1:24pm

    In regard to flunking PE because they refused to play shirts vs skins…

    Women do not show their chest because they have breasts that society has deemed socially unacceptable to show in public…they are different than a male chest in how they look & function. Regardless if whether or not that social standard is warranted, a person who does not have breasts, who otherwise feels like a woman, doesn’t have a rational claim to feeling embarrassed about showing their chest. You don’t have breasts. There is no social expectation for a male that feels like a female to not show their chest in public.

    If that’s how that person felt, they put that on themselves. Even within the bounds of the new thought process on gender & sexuality, a trans-female is not the same as a female.

    Responses (1) +
  • May 9, 2016 at 1:16pm

    As I understood the article…

    Your first quote is a preview from her interview w/ Trump that will be aired at a later date.

    Your second quote from Kelly is regarding the meeting she & Trump had previously to kiss n’ makeup and pitch the idea of having said interview.

  • May 9, 2016 at 1:14pm

    Just in the preview above, he warns her that if she throws him another fastball, he’ll line her up.

    She asks him if the outrage was manufactured and for political purposes (like how he’s treated every person he’s viewed as an opponent so far) and he plays dumb by saying it was a real reaction, and that it could happen again…like as in again in this interview. lol

    He admitted that’s what he did with Carson……said a bunch of slanderous crap about him when he was an opponent, but praised him after he was no longer a threat. He said a bunch of slanderous things about Rubio when he was an opponent, but said he was a wonderful man after he was no longer a threat. He drug Cruz & his dad through the mud, but then said he was a good guy after Cruz dropped out.

  • [9] May 9, 2016 at 1:05pm


    Please help me understand how / why you are so confident that he’ll nominate conservative (Scalia like) justices.

    The only thing anyone can be confident about Trump on is that he’s a deal maker. Getting to nominate SCOTUS justice nominees is the equivalent of an asset in Trump’s bank as POTUS and he will use it to bargain and as leverage to make deals with groups within Washington D.C.

    Even IF he strikes a deal with congress on a Scalia type justice, you best be certain that he’ll be giving over / sacrificing something else as payment to the liberal members of congress & special interest groups for going along with it.

    On the flip side of that, we may end up with another Kagan or Sotomayor as a payoff to liberal members of congress in exchange for them going along with tax cuts on businesses, getting rid of PPT or Obamacare.

    Deals will be made, that’s the only certainty here.

  • [16] May 6, 2016 at 5:31pm

    Can’t say Trump himself didn’t tell ya…

    If anyone read “Art of the Deal” or know anything about negotiations…you never start where you want to end up. You take the extreme end of your position and “let” the person / people you’re negotiating with walk you down to where you want to be. You get what you want and the other side feels like they got a deal because they were able to move you off your starting position.

    That’s why all this crap about a wall, kicking all the illegal aliens out, taking China to the mat, and all the other totally awesome – kick ass things his supporters were fired up about was never a reality to begin with. He said it himself….all that stuff people continue to give him credit for is negotiable and on the table for concessions to the other side of the deal.

    Responses (2) +
  • [6] May 5, 2016 at 10:08am


    How short our memories are…

    People went in droves to Trump supposedly because Republicans were tired of getting a progressive shoved down our throats and being told…screw the base, we need the moderates & independents.

    McCain got the nod in 2008 because we needed a “Maverick” that had a history of reaching across the isle…..the base will show up because they’ll go with any Republican over the Democrat and McCain’s moderate position will get the swing voters…..WRONG

    Romney got the nod over Santorum because Santorum couldn’t get the swing voters….the base will show up because they’ll go with any Republican over the Democrat (especially a 2nd term Obama) and Romney’s moderate North East bonafides will get the swing voters….WRONG

    And the candidate that was supposed to end this cycle for Republicans is yet again a North East progressive that HAD to be the nominee because the guy that could carry the base can’t get the swing votes LOL

  • [3] May 5, 2016 at 9:55am


    in response to the “media didn’t pick this GOP nominee”…

    I disagree. NBC & other news outlets have been sitting on opposition material on Trump for months. If the media can make Romney look like a misogynist because he said he has a binder full of resume’s for women…can you imagine what will be made of Trump after the “piece of a$$” and Howard Stern interviews starts running on a loop?

    Trump got more air time than nearly all other candidates combined…and not by just FNC, a typical safe space for a Republican nominee…..but by the likes of MSNBC. He was caught on a hot mic w/ the hosts colluding on softball questions….MSNBC!

    In regard to Hannity, he got pissy with and pressed Cruz when he refused to articulate and own a GOP delegate process he had nothing to do with creating, but completely side stepped Donald’s attack on Cruz’s dad as being a co-conspirator assassin of JFK from a tabloid that runs Bat Boy & Elvis sighting stories….who just so happens to be owned by a major Trump supporter.

    Do I need to go into Breitbarts coverage of Trump, or the Drudge Report running photo shopped pictures of “Little” Marco….and to be completely fair, yes…even The Blaze’s coverage of Cruz?

    Yea…I think the media had a lot to do with the GOP primary pick.

    When ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN go guns blazing on Trump after he gets the nomination, you’ll know the rope-a-dope worked yet again.

123 To page: Go