User Profile: RajCaj


Member Since: March 02, 2012

CommentsDisplaying comments newest to oldest.

123 To page: Go
  • April 15, 2014 at 4:44pm

    The difference here is the the national attention to the case.

    Obama weighed in on the Trayvon case because the media blew it up to a national level, which made it politically expediant for Obama to throw his 2 cents in. I don’t doubt that he also saw this as an opportunity to touch on what he believes is a very racist country….but he wouldn’t have chimed in unless he thought most of the people in the country were aware of the case.

    For the life of me, I can’t understand why this hasn’t gotten more media attention. Terry Schiavo got WAY more media coverage than this….and she was (for all intents & purposes) dead.

    I could be wrong, but I’ve only seen the Pelltiers on the Beck program & on Megan Kelly’s Fox News show.

    I get why CBS, ABC, NBC, etc. carry the water for the WH, but for Boston Children Hospital, or the DCF?

    Has anyone from BCH, DCF, or the Judge explained their rational for such an extreme decision? Do they have evidence of mistreatment from the family?

  • April 15, 2014 at 4:32pm

    Yea, so you can give the government agencies a REAL reason to remove parental rights of the parents, or further justify militarizing non military government agencies?

    It’s one thing to host a sit-in, its another to call for 1000 armed militia types.

    This needs more media attention, but not the kind that distracts from freeing Justina.

  • April 15, 2014 at 4:28pm

    Did you see the picture of the infection she had a month ago?

    If the note is legit, wouldn’t that be news?

  • April 14, 2014 at 5:33pm


    I agree….seriously, all you do after hearing what those kids said about him is address the class in general & issue a blanket warning regarding only speaking about math is permitted? Heck, it wasn’t even a warning…it was just a notice…there was no punishment on the other side of it.

    I graduated HS in the late 90s and if that happend (in my crappy public school), those kids would have been written up, sent to the principles office, parents called and likely put in detention for a week.

    The only conclusion that I can come to, as to why the principle acted in that was was because he was protecting the teacher (who obviously did F-All to address the problem), or they were so worried about ACLU type litigators screwing the school to the wall for allowing a wiretap situation, that it superceeded any fallout from the bullying situation…and called the cops in a CYA effort.

  • April 14, 2014 at 5:15pm

    I don’t think it’s quite like that.

    I just think this is a glaring example of the loss of common sense, such that we have to ignore all understanding of what is right & wrong, in the name of following some zero tolerance law set up by school officials.

    In addition, this is another glaring example of unintended consequences around removing this derelect teacher (teachers unions), or the BS rules from the school board that prevent this teacher from taking REAL action…if that is the case.

    All of that is born out of liberal progressive politics, but I don’t think it has much to do with the anti-bully campaign.

  • April 14, 2014 at 5:06pm

    Socking a bully in the mouth is ONE way to handle it.
    The other method involves getting the parents involved, but in this day and age of (my kid is faultless), that has become less & less fruitful.

    The last fail-safe is the teachers & school officials. It’s worth noting in this case that the teacher was caught on the recording with ONLY issuing a very timid response to the vulgar crap coming out of the other kids mouths.

    I’m about 16 years removed from highschool….but in my day, any kid using that kind of language in a classroon…especially if it were directed at another student (one with disabilities at that) would have been sent to the principles office, parents called & put in detention.

    All this teacher did was issue a verbal warning that only asked the students to only talk about math..muchless address the words used.

  • April 10, 2014 at 4:39pm

    Fair points by Rush, but will Colbert take his same satirical Republican act to the Tonight Show?

    If that is the case, then yes….I’m sure CBS is looking to upgrade their late night demographic…probably in effort to compete with a younger following NBC brought in with Fallon.

    It’s worth noting the perception of CBS being the “whitest” broadcast network of them all. Lots of people on twitter are upset that CBS highered “yet another white guy” to replace Letterman.

    Responses (1) +
  • April 9, 2014 at 9:31am

    Why make a comment like that? A highschool student takes a knife and puts 20 people in the hospital. Regardless if it’s a gun, or a knife, the common theme here is a breakdown in our society…particuarly within the youth in this country, regardless of what race they happen to be.

    Responses (3) +
  • April 8, 2014 at 5:50pm

    I keep hearing people say that Harry Reid is crazy, lost his marbles, etc….and I disagree. He isn’t crazy….he just doesn’t give a rats behind. He’s the Senate Maj Leader, gets cover from the media, WH, and his union stooges in NV.

    People outside of NV can’t vote him out, so why should he care if 50% of the nation hates his guts?

    He has absolutely nothing to lose, and gets to do the Dem party dirty work…as he rides off into the sunset of his political career.

    Again, not crazy…just a disengenuous, intellectually dishonest political shill that is in a place & station in his life where he doesn’t give a pile of human feces.

  • April 8, 2014 at 5:37pm


    Get over whomselves?

    It’s not fair to point out that the group of people that made the charge that Women are 2nd rate employees because men get paid more than they do, is ALSO guilty of the same charge?

    I’m having a hard time understanding the cognitive dissonance applied here.

    The truth of the matter is….its a BS stat, and incedibly over generalized. Its looking at the cumulative earnings of all women & dividing it by hours worked, and then doing the same for men……without taking into consideration of other variables that differ between men & women. Things like….oh….pregnancy. Given the rising rates of single parenthood, more women are dropping out of high school, college and are taking low skill / low wadge jobs as a result. Women also take off several months of work to have children…..a phenomina most men don’t encounter.

    If you looked at the earning / hour rate of men & women workng the same job, and the same number of days per year (a more meaningful stat in relation to pay inequality) then you’ll find a much smaller variance….and it’s likely true for the WH as well. Only they can’t use that argument as a defense because others could then use it to counter their entire premise alltogether.

    Instead they will seek cover from the press to gloss over that little bit of critical thought.

  • April 8, 2014 at 4:07pm

    The sooner you understand that it really isn’t about “fairness” or “intellectual honesty”, the better off you’ll be.

    But to answer your question, yes….I’m sure atleast the usual suspects would have cried racism in that case.

    That said, I don’t think what Holder did was racist….but instead unprofessional. Louie could have probably chosen a more professional line of words….but you can atleast make an argument that the stonewalling from the AG has patience worn to a thread. The completely unrelated jab at the end, when Louie was not able to respond was cheap, very cheap. Like the article said…it was essentially a “F-YOU”, and a poorly disguised one at that.

  • April 8, 2014 at 3:58pm

    In that case, you forgot sweetheart contracts with labor unions, and blind eyes to social welfare abuse & illegal aliens that further drain welfare resources.

    There may be something to the statement of congress members grandstanding (Lowis Learner & Eric Holder have still not be held to account despite all the hubbub)

    But I can also understand the fustration among congressional oversight committee members that are trying to get to the bottom of legal investigations, where our own federal government drags their feet & plays redaction games with documents turned over to said committees.

  • April 6, 2014 at 1:55pm

    Would probably be important to know what was actually said at the rally no?

    If he took the podium and started going on about fighting for the cockfighter’s rights to fight roosters, then that would lend something to the argument that he knew exactly what was going on.

    If, however, he gave a generic states rights, “get your wants passed through our legal process…instead of breaking them” speech…..then whats the big deal? He’s essentially there telling them not to break the law, knowing good & well that making chicken fighting legal again will get no traction in their legislature.

    It’s the content of the speech, not the knee jerk reaction of where he was speaking. If no one knew what Rand was talking about at UC Berkley….one could make lots of assumptions too.

  • March 27, 2014 at 5:46pm

    So let me get this straight….Kobe blasts the people that DID jump to Trayvon’s side, based soley on the color of his skin (which would be racial prejiduce), and others electively chose to take offense to the comment, while at the same time denying that they weren’t guilty of his acusation?

    If you did not jump to Martin Camp’s side, soely based on racial terms, then he wasn’t talking about you! lol

    To deny that many people sided with Treyvon, soley based on his race, is being willfully ignorant, or intellectually dishonest. But again, if you don’t fall in the crowd Kobe talked about, why take offense?

    Gotta love that grief industry

    Responses (1) +
  • March 26, 2014 at 12:22pm


    Also similar to the new anti-smoking commercials where throat cancer victims, speaking through voice boxes w/ holes in their neck warn against smoking cigarettes.

    Or the commercial where a guy paying for cigarettes uses a pair of pliars to pull out a tooth to be used for payment, given smoking can cause gum disease & tooth loss…in extreme cases.

    Again, using extreme (or indecent) imagry to change behavior.

    So thats fair game, when trying to convince people to stop smoking..something that may, or may not cause medical problems down the road.

    But off limits when trying to convince people to not kill a developing life inside a person’s body?

    If “Choice” is how we are framing this debate, then it should be pointed out that people have the “Choice” to engage in an activity that could result in an incredible consequence in that they could be responsible for raising another human being.

    Women also have the “Choice” to use contraceptives when having sex for pure pleasure purposes.

    Women also have the “Choice” to make sure that their partner in this act also uses contraceptives when having sex for pure pleasure purposes.

    Why do we focus so heavily on the part of this process that involves the loss of life?

  • March 26, 2014 at 12:04pm


    How do you define “decent”, and who gets to determine that?

    I’m not implicating you, or the person that had their poster removed but I find it interesting that there is so much “social outrage…on the grounds of decency” from certian segments of our society when a picture of a developing baby is posted next to an anti-abortion message, but complete silence from those same groups when broadcast television (non cable channels) show people getting their heads lopped off, people’s bodies being mutilated, and people getting shot in the head (among other things) during prime time televison viewing hours.

    Forgive my skeptisism that those folks are REALLY offended or shocked on the grounds of decency standards.

    What I think is the REAL issue is that supporters of aborting developing babies are afraid that highlighting the indecent act, with potential indecent imagry from said act will tug on people’s heart strings….a similar tactic used by that same group when evoking imagry of women bound in chains, suggesting that being against the abortion of developing babies is akin to slavery or subjigation. (See War on Women)

  • March 24, 2014 at 5:47pm

    Fair enough, but what about the “Signal Frequency Analysis” that they are saying puts the last plane engine ping coming from a remote area in the Southern Indian Ocean?

    I mean, you have to be willing to accept the information from Royles Royce’s satallites as verifiable evidence to buy that explanation…and surely does not explain all the evasive manuvers the plane took…but in the absense of any data that shows a West path to Africa…you have to consider the data available.

  • March 24, 2014 at 11:43am


    Fair enough, but I still don’t understand how all of these reporters haven’t pointed out that simple contradiction.

    Things we know:

    - Aussie satallites find 2 “large objects floating along the “southern flight path” on day 10 of the missing plane.

    - Malaysian officials say THIS IS IT, potential wreckage found along a path we thought it might have flown

    - Planes / Ships go out to the location Aussie satallites found the objects 4 days later and can’t find it

    - Reporters say nothing found because winds in the area are 40-50mph, and have strong currents that could have moved the debris 400-800 miles (100-200m a day)

    But no one says “hey…..if this debris we found along the southern flight path on day 10 of the plane missing moves at 100-200 miles per day, wouldn’t this debris originate 10 days ago…far away from the southern flight path???

    And if this debris originated far away from the southern flight path, are we still confident this came from the missing plane???”

  • March 24, 2014 at 10:43am

    Unless they’ve found debris that they could specifically track back to the flight in question, I don’t buy it.

    The reason they’ve stated that they believe the debris that has been sighted belongs to flight 370 is because it was found along the identified “southern corridor” 5-6 days ago!

    If they are saying that the debris, in this part of the Indian ocean w/ strong currents, can travel 100-200 miles a day….then why would debris STILL BE THERE when the plane crashed over 2 weeks ago?!?

    What would make more sense is if they found debris AWAY from the “southern corridor”, and then were able to use oceanic currents to map it back to the “southern corridor” 15 days ago.

    I think they’ve just thown their hands up in the air, and feel confident enough that it didn’t go north (terrorisim) to worry about it.

    Responses (4) +
  • March 23, 2014 at 3:01pm

    Something I haven’t heard anyone address…

    If authorities think objects found in this area are likely from the plane crash because it’s near the identified southern flight path….then why isn’t anyone asking where these objects were 15 days ago?!?

    If they are saying that debris in this area can travel 100-200 miles a day (due to the current), if the plan crashed there 15 days ago, the wreckage wouldn’t be there by now. It would be 15×100-200 miles away…depending on the current….making any objects found floating in the water near the supposed southern flight path likely things that crashed / went overboard far far away from the “southern flight path”.

123 To page: Go