User Profile: RajCaj


Member Since: March 02, 2012


123 To page: Go
  • [5] July 22, 2014 at 5:16pm

    True, and folks seem to be confusing Dungy’s analysis with his personal views. Dungy never said he wouldn’t have taken Michael Sam because he disagrees with Sam’s lifestyle & sexual preference. He said he wouldn’t have taken him because he felt he would have been a distraction in the locker room.

    That’s an analysis of what the mood is, among the avg NFL player in the locker room, with an understanding of how important it is to be focused on football, and only football.

    What people are upset about is that Tony didn’t take the opportunity to be a warrior for the cause, and forego results on the football field, in the name of “social justice”.

    If people want to get upset with Tony over something, it should be about that….not assuming that Tony personally hates gays.

  • [1] July 21, 2014 at 5:30pm

    You don’t have to wonder….it’s just not true. (If you take Glenn on his word)

    I don’t think I’ve ever heard him say he was doing this for media protection, and I’m pretty sure I’ve heard him rail against Republicans supporting amnesty on the idea that it will buy them favor.

    I think he was trying to pay by the rules he thinks we all should live by (Government takes care of justice, and PEOPLE take care of mercy….given limited gov folks keep talking about Government reducing its role in our lives…particularly in the “mercy” market)

    I happen to not agree with Beck sending toys for the kids (food / cloths, yes), but I get where he is coming from. People ask for limited governments, but stop at the edge of taking the responsibilities seized by the government back.

  • [1] July 21, 2014 at 5:21pm

    Sorry, but I can’t stand when people say that liberalism is a mental disorder, a form of insanity, a mental disease, etc…

    Liberalism is not bi-polar disease. Liberalism is not a mental condition, dictated by some imbalance of chemicals, or hormones.

    To suggest as much does a disservice to what MODERN liberalism is, and how its addressed.

    It’s an ideology, just like conservatism, and it’s one that is particularly appealing to those who are out of touch with reality, or particularly predisposed to emotionally rationalizing thought processes.

    It’s why the young typically identify as liberals, and why academic centers are perfect breeding grounds for that thought process. It all sounds good on paper, until it actually goes into practice….and then it doesn’t work, and others are blamed, using arguments that tug at heart strings & tap into your fears.

  • [2] July 18, 2014 at 3:06pm

    Unless Julian Castro has something to say about it……in the event he doesn’t want to wait another 8yrs to improve his bonafides first.

  • [7] July 18, 2014 at 11:39am

    @love the kids

    You can divide up the entire modern liberal progressive movement into 2 camps….the leaders & the followers.

    The leaders, who are the ones participating in the modern liberal think tanks & setting policy, are the ones that have developed the thought process described by Muravchik.

    The followers are the ones you describe, that blindly follow hash-tag social media blasts, and what’s fed to them in Main Stream Media.

    You need to be aware of both to address them

  • [5] July 17, 2014 at 8:25am

    Agreed….but how does he hold people accountable?

    The White House defies previous judicial ruling and declares that their inner circle be immune from testifying in front of congressional oversight committees.

    The DOJ stonewalls & outright refuses to investigate & prosecute criminal activity within the Democrat ranks.

    And a complicit media hides it all from the citizenry

  • [1] July 16, 2014 at 4:30pm


    “…his integrity among the Democrat base voter”

    I get what you’re saying, but I’d wager > than 50% of voting Democrats will twist & contort ways of defining “secure” such that they can tend to agree with this statement, or they will just flat out apply a little cognitive dissonance to that particular statement because of ALL the other great work he does for their party.

    If the Democrat political strategic powers that be honestly believed that Harry’s bomb throwing would cause likely Democrat voters to second guess their party affiliation, they would have muzzled him by now.

  • [13] July 16, 2014 at 4:14pm

    I understand the guy was emotional, but (as the guys on the Beck radio show pointed out yesterday) there was probably a more articulate way of getting his point across. Probably still would have resulted in him getting fired / forced out….but fatherless black children don’t account for the same mentality that exists with the poor inner city Hispanics, Asians & whites.

    The common denominator is ultimately education & lacking instruction on how to be a decent human being. Having 2 well adjusted parents sure as heck helps with the uptake of those both.

    Just saying, a lack of black Dads (any guy can father a child, takes something more to be a Dad) is a symptom of the problem, not the end-all be-all….and I think that is where this reporter messed up.

  • [2] July 16, 2014 at 4:08pm

    It doesn’t matter what percent of the population they are, everyone should be treated equally.

    The minority rule over the majority transcends race, and could also be said for every other social construct, or special interest, that finds itself NOT in the majority in this nation. THAT idea is born out of modern liberal politics……that equal treatment is not truly equal, and that special privileges / considerations are required to make up for systemic, or inherent biases, in effort to reach to reach TRUE equality.

    Then, enter the spin machine that says FBI data, regarding the crime rate among blacks, is not indicative of a disproportionate amount of crime in the black community, but that the legal system applies an unfair standard to blacks…resulting in elevated crime stats. And then when you corner them on admitting there are more instances of anti-social behavior within the black community, the psychologists step in and say that it’s only because they are displaying acts of internalized oppression, or forced into that lifestyle because of oppressive forces that prevent them from escaping poverty

    It’s all politically driven

  • [5] July 16, 2014 at 10:58am

    I respectfully disagree. I think you could insert any other lifetime Democrat politician in the senate majority seat, for a senate controlled by Democrats, and they would do the same thing.

    The root cause is not Harry Reid, it’s a hyper politicized climate, coupled with a dishonest media that is in bed with a corrupt government apparatus.

    I’m not saying that Harry’s age hasn’t dulled the crayon, so to speak, but I don’t think he is a senile old man, or has some sort of dementia like condition.

    He is just a lame duck Democrat hack that has nothing to loose, and all to gain. His voter base is so politically charged that they will gladly look past the Bagdad Bob act, if it means that Harry Reid gets the Koch Brothers in the news headlines, and lobs grenades every day at Republican politicians & media.

    And since he draws heat from the White House, and does all their mud slinging for them, he is allowed by the Democrat party to continue with this lunacy.

  • [4] July 16, 2014 at 9:00am

    This….all this senile / off the meds diagnosis for Harry Reid’s bold face lies excuses the real tragedy in all of this…..the fact that a federally elected politician can go on air and be Bagdad Bob without the main stream media or Democrat base voter batting an eye.

    We have become so partisan in our politics that someone can go on air and say our border is secure, after we’ve allowed over 15 million illegal immigrants in the country, with a recent rising tide of unaccompanied children & drugs coming across….without a single clarifying question asked by mainstream media & his voters.

    Responses (1) +
  • [6] July 16, 2014 at 8:54am

    I disagree…..I think he makes all this crap up because he knows he can get away with it.

    Who’s going to hold him accountable?

    Fellow Democrats in Congress? He’s protecting their future elections by preventing them from having to on record with votes on legislation.

    Fellow Democrats in the WH? He goes out there and throws all the bombs the President could never get away with, and is rewarded as such.

    Republicans? Sure, but the Democrats have done such a good job (aided by the media) to characterize the Republican party (and republican leaning media) as being evil / loony SOBs that anything they say is immediately discredited because of their party affiliation.

    Main Stream Media? They (for reasons beyond my understanding) are in the tank for Democrats, and will never run that comment in proper context, or challenge him on the border comment (Please Mr. Reid, define what “secure” means) You won’t see that comment ridiculed on the Colbert Report or Daily Show….even though it’s ripe with comedic potential.

    The Democrats have too much invested in image control for this to not be intentional Bagdad Bob work.

  • [5] July 16, 2014 at 8:44am

    Rrrright…..the only cameras that will put these Republican legislators on will be conservative media, which immediately discredits the message because of how well the Democrat party & sympathetic media have characterized conservative news outlets.

    Meanwhile, the Main Stream Media will put on folks like Debbie Wasterman Shultz & Harry Reid…that will go on to tear down the Republican plan by minimizing the money going to where they are asking it to go, and focus on the Republicans attempting to hold our national security (NSA), our clean water & air (EPA), and government funding (IRS) HOSTAGE by trying to leverage the border crisis to persecute enemies in public office.

    If we had an honest media, I’d be right there with you….but the Democrats have become so predictable, I have no doubt in my mind the above scenario as I’ve described would be the likely outcome.

  • [17] July 16, 2014 at 8:36am

    He is not stupid, or senile…he is just a bold face partisan that’s acting as cannon fodder / flack jacket for those Democrats that DO have several potential terms in office ahead of them.

    He knows his leadership will reward him for playing the Bagdad Bob role. He also knows the Democrat base is as Left wing & partisan than it’s ever been, and that loyal Democrats (particularly the ones in his state) will not apply too much critical thought to outrageous statements like this, so long as he protects Democrat Senators from votes & blocks any & all Republican efforts in the Senate & House (Ends justifies the Means)

    Even if Harry Reid’s statements like this were caused by some mental or age related disorder….don’t you think all the handlers & image / message consultants the Democrat party has would have shut him up by now if they REALLY thought these comments discredited his integrity among the Democrat base voter?

    Responses (2) +
  • [8] July 15, 2014 at 8:42am


    Simple…you have a stooge leading the DOJ that feigns insult in that all of this is about racism.

    There are only 2 ways out of this….the media put pressure on the political officials to do their job (and by media, I mean the main stream alphabet letter soup organizations) or the people vote these jokers out of office.

    That may be difficult, however, given the reciprocal relationship our politicians hold with the media & pop entertainment industry….and the growing dependence on the government…which puts people in the position to either vote for their next meal ticket, or vote with their conscious. (See Mississippi)

  • [38] July 14, 2014 at 11:51pm


    That may be true, but Bill Cosby was lambasted by the powers that be within the black community for criticizing blacks. Any black person that speaks out against their pop culture is ostracized from their community, and deemed inauthentic…thereby discrediting the message.

    So if whites aren’t allowed to participate in the conversion, and if Black’s are critical get labeled as uncle tom, uncle rukus, or oreos…. Who is left to point out the obvious?

  • [10] July 9, 2014 at 5:21pm

    Actually, after reading Maureen’s article….she does put blame on something. She mostly puts it on conservatives (Ted Cruz, the protestors in southern California), and does mention the President a few times…but only in that he isn’t doing enough, and is putting too much energy in trying to appear nuanced on issues.

    You could even make the argument that she feels the President isn’t doing enough to clear the way of all the conservative / libertarian obstruction to progressive policies.

  • [3] July 9, 2014 at 9:08am

    Progressive ideologists are never hypocritical because they believe they are RIGHT.

    A republican making a gaffe like that would be guilty because they are racists, and should be publicly flogged.

    A democrat making a gaffe like that would NOT be guilty because it’s just True.

    And race (along with gender & other social constructs) has everything to do with everything (including the SCOTUS decision) if you are of the mindset that white people are born with a tendency to be inherently racist toward other races (see Critical Race Theory), and that men are inherently sexist toward females (our patriarchal system)

    MLK, and any other person who dreamed of a society where people were just people, and were treated according to the content of their character are rolling in their graves.

  • July 9, 2014 at 8:59am

    He either purposely included Clarence Thomas in the group of “old white men”, in effort to push the “Oreo, Uncle Tom, Non-Authentic Black” crap that is placed on black conservatives (which is usually reserved for radical progressive protestors)

    Or he accidently said that because his mind isn’t as sharp as it might have been before, and he honestly forgot that Clarence Thomas was black.

    I know his mind is going…but I happen to think it was purposeful.

  • [6] July 9, 2014 at 8:50am

    Mark Udall (D) Senator of Colorado said:
    “Coloradans understand that women should never have to ask their bosses for a permission slip to access common forms of birth control or other critical health services,” Udall said in a statement.”

    It’s crap language like this that that will blow up any bridge being built between the political ideologies in this country.

    The ruling from SCOTUS did not state anywhere that women had to ask their employer for permission to buy birth control, or “other health care services”.

    It stated specifically that tightly held family businesses had the right to refuse certain things guaranteed in the AHCA, if it were in violation of their religious / moral code. In the case of Hobby Lobby, it means that they will not subsidize, or pay for, a specific set of medications / devices that abort a fertilized egg, or prevent fertilization of said egg.

    That doesn’t mean those women aren’t able to get them on their own, or even mean that they are required to get permission from their employer to take those medications.

    And even if you assume the most abusive exploitation of this SCOTUS decision, why on earth would anyone work for them?!? No one is forced to work at Hobby Lobby, or any other place that would seek to not pay for insurance relating to surgery, blood transfusions, etc.

123 To page: Go