TheBlaze Books Give You More!

CommentsDisplaying RajCaj's 10 most recent comments.

• Lesbian Activist’s Surprisingly Candid Speech: Gay Marriage Fight Is a ‘Lie’ to Destroy Marriage

  April 29, 2013 at 3:21pm

  In reply to Pontiaku.

  The reason we have a near 50% divorce rate among hetero marriages is because people don’t do it for the right reasons. It’s not about shared sacrafice, team work, dedication & an understanding that you’ve met someone so incredible that you’re committed to making it work more than anything else.

  It’s become just a big superficial party, something two people do in your late teens / early twenties with whomever you happen to be with at the time. Doesn’t work out after the big bash & honeymoon….no problem. Just get a divorce and start over.

  That said, I don’t think the pop culture movement in the gay community will do very much to correct issues the plauge in institution of marriage as it exists today. As another posted, allowing 3-5% of the populaton to now marry (given the very skewed scruples of the pop culture movement within the gay community) will not all of the sudden raise a new generation of emotionally balanced & capable children.

  If BOTH communities focused more on getting married for the right reasons (creating a strong, healthy, and reslient building block of society), then the institutuion of marriage (or civil unions) would yield better results for society….ie educated & emotionally balanced individuals capable of making good decisions for the future.

  All that said, these “forward” thinkers of progress want nothing of the above, and have a VERY different idea of what it takes to achive the desired end-state.

• Lesbian Activist’s Surprisingly Candid Speech: Gay Marriage Fight Is a ‘Lie’ to Destroy Marriage

  April 29, 2013 at 11:40am

  Mike Church picked this up a month or so ago. But as Beck said, they will start to take the mask off.

  I recommend people follow the link to the entire event. It’s about an hour long, and others on the panel speak more on just marriage. On panelist goes on to suggest that monogomus relationships in general are a falacy (esp with gay males).

  Their explanations fly in the face of the talking points heard in defense of the pop movement within the gay community.

  Not saying these people represent all gays… they just represent the bleeding edge forward thought within the progressive movement.

• Lesbian Activist’s Surprisingly Candid Speech: Gay Marriage Fight Is a ‘Lie’ to Destroy Marriage

  April 29, 2013 at 11:28am

  In reply to ounceoflogic.

  Who’s the absolutist here?

  Obviously, not all Gays are Democrats. Those who aren’t typically don’t identify themselves as homosexuals first…Americans, black, white, insert demographic, next.

  The ones that do, are usually Democrats because that’s how politics in that party have become. YOU are defined by the demographic that makes you different, not what makes you common.

  It’s easier to whip people into ACTION when you can set people against each other… than when everyone is tied to eachother by the tie that binds.

  It’s Modern Family vs. The New Normal

  One tries to lower some walls down by comedically showing how couples of all demos go through common issues, while the other tries to teach society a lesson by standing up a gay couple next to a cartoon conservative and makes an example through their differences.

• ICE Official Calls TheBlaze Source’s Claim on Deportation ‘Categorically False’ — But Says They Do Have Different Saudi in Custody

  April 18, 2013 at 4:41pm

  In reply to encinom.

  @ Encinom

  Do you know what an act of Racisim is? Racisim does not mean a negative charge levied on any person of a minority race.

  If Beck would have called the Saudi kid questioned by the FBI the guy who did it, WITHOUT any other piece of intelligence, then that would be a show of racisim. (Assuming that the Saudi kid was the perp JUST because he is from the same country as most of the 9/11 terrorists)

  Thats what racisim is….an assumption of a persons character, of a particular race, based on stereotypes of that race of people OR an assumption of a race of people based on interactions with of a person of that particular race.

  In this case, Beck had reports of the Prez having ad-hoc meetings with the Saudi Ambassador, info that the FBI thought this person was worthy of questioning, info on this kid’s family being connected in Saudi Arabia, and a report (albeit a wrong one) that ICE was deporting him based on national security charges.

  Thats using logic, not making snap judgements on someone based on the color of their skin. Take your scarlet letter elsewhere!

  If you want to have a discussion on reporting information that hasn’t been confirmed, then there is an argument to be made for that, but take the racist BS somewhere else.

• Setbacks and Confusion Have Hit the Boston Marathon Bombing Investigation– Here’s What Comes Next

  April 18, 2013 at 4:21pm

  In reply to pdaniels.

  I think the reason we will not see resolution in this, due to Janet Napolitano, is not because of her sexual preferece….but because she is a raging progressive with a background as an attorney.

  Any effort to get specific information from her will get danced around due to legaleeze symantics, or straight up deflected. You see….it depends on what the definition of the word “is” is…..

  The fustrating part of this is that both the questioner (council member) & the person being questioned (Janet Napolitano) are not interested in trying to get to the bottom of whats going on, and reaching a common understanding of the situation.

  Instead, its one big jousting game of words and politics where Janet will not provide ANY MORE information that what is specifically asked for (and again, deflected when the question is right) in effort not to expose liability.

  C.Y.A. is the name of the game.

• FBI Denies CNN Bombing Arrest Report, Chastises Media

  April 17, 2013 at 2:23pm

  In reply to pap pap.

  @FIRE

  Sounds like more than just the “Beck Deciples” are good at making assumptions…

  I haven’t read any mention of the guy’s skin color, and even if I did….it still wouldn’t be prudent to make assumptions.

  That said, I think most people that frequent this site are particularly interested in the guy’s race because the mounting suspicion out of all other news outlets seems to be pointing the finger at whitey, of which is unfarily assumed to be some anti-government extremist….of which is unfarily being characterized as a TEA Party supporter.

  Give it a day, we’ll have more info.

• Barney Frank Politicizes Boston Bombing: ‘No Tax Cut Would Have Helped Us Deal with This’

  April 16, 2013 at 10:34am

  I find it funny how progressives always seem so narrow minded when attempting to set the boundries of the argument. These people are supposed to be the creme’ of the crop, and in Frank’s infinite wisdom, he cannot invision a government institution taking in less money, but still providing all necessary funding to maintain emergency services such as what was on display in Boston yesterday.

  As if the government is running on a razor edge margin, with ZERO waste in spending, meaning that any reduction in revenue will have to be taken from police, fire fighters, TSA, etc…

  It’s insulting when politicians set up this argment, when I know that the GSA is spending nearly $1 million dollars for week long getaways in Vegas, $1 million dollar golf outings, millions of dollars to forigen countries that hate our guts…and yes, $12 muffins! Maybe we can lay off the White House caligraphers (@ $90k a year) to help pay for some of those emergency service personell.

  Secondly, there are more private institutuions that run like well oiled machines than most government organizations….and typically at a much lower cost. I’m not saying that we need to privatize our security forces & first responders….but to assume that the ONLY reason our response to the attack yesterday was so effective was because of all the money that flows to those organizations is false.

• Who Wore a T-Shirt Mixing Sandy Hook Victims and Trayvon Martin to the MTV Movie Awards and Said It Wasn’t ‘Political’?

  April 15, 2013 at 1:32pm

  In reply to JQCitizen.

  “Just for protecting the children…”

  Tell that to the moms & dads that we hear about every 2 weeks where a parent used a gun to protect their children in a home invasion.

• Who Wore a T-Shirt Mixing Sandy Hook Victims and Trayvon Martin to the MTV Movie Awards and Said It Wasn’t ‘Political’?

  April 15, 2013 at 1:26pm

  In reply to momrules.

  @Catty

  Racial Hatred = The stance Foxx has taken on the Treyvon case. If you’re intellectually honest about all the evidence that has been made public (and I’m almost certain we don’t know everything), you have to atleast consider that this isn’t an open & shut case….yet there is a significant population that thinks this thing is already wrapped up; Zimmerman is a racist murder & the racist local PD covered it up.

  The only common theme between Treyvon & the kids from Newtown were that they all died from gunshot wounds. Otherwise, TWO completely different situations that should be handled in two completely different ways.

• Who Wore a T-Shirt Mixing Sandy Hook Victims and Trayvon Martin to the MTV Movie Awards and Said It Wasn’t ‘Political’?

  April 15, 2013 at 1:13pm

  In reply to OUTLAW_WEALTH.

  @Newtown

  Is the scenario you (sarcastically) present the only application of the 2nd Amendment in our Society that you are capable of thinking up, or are you purposely being hyperbolic in your argument?

  I haven’t heard of ANY pro-gun rights politicans, pundits, or general citizen sounding off on the subject suggest that kids (1st Graders) have concealed carry licenses & have the ability to bring them to school in the event they are needed.

  What HAS been called for is for some ADULTS in the school, that have are of legal standing to own & gun, and has gone through the proper training to use and handle a gun, have access to a firearm in the case of an emergency. More reasonable requests involve having police or licensed armed guards (you know…the folks that protect Jim Carey & Jamie Foxx) be on the premises to quickly respond & thwart very sick individuals from targeting a building of defenseless kids.

  Point being, there are all kinds of responsible ways to prevent mass murders that involve empowering law abiding citizens with firearms…..but progressives seem to have a knack for completely exaggerating the debate into something obviously ridiculous so that their position is the most sane. (See critics of Obama policies = racists, critics of EPA over regulation = desiring poison air & water, critics of Affordable Health Care = wanting autistic kids to die)