My Patriot Supply

User Profile: RajCaj

RajCaj

Member Since: March 02, 2012

Comments

123 To page: Go
  • [7] November 19, 2014 at 9:27am

    Seriously though….

    Democrats cry War on Women regarding pay discrepancies between men & women, given said discrepancy typically comes from the fact that women work less hours due to child birth / rearing.

    Democrats cry War on Women regarding higher medical related costs than men, given said increased cost comes from things like birth control & child birth.

    And here….a leader in the Democrat party refused a proxy vote because the woman was pregnant & not mobile (a uniquely female condition)

    To Nancy’s point…..allowing proxy votes can a bad thing….but it doesn’t set a precedent that allows for misuse of that privilege if the exception is granted for pregnant women only LOL

  • [4] November 13, 2014 at 11:17am

    If she did misspeak, I think what she omitted was that *MOST* public schools suck….and not so much because of the teacher quality (as a whole), but because of the bureaucracy & administration of the public school system. As a matter of fact….the “bad apple” teachers that do exist….exist mostly because of said bureaucracy & administration.

    But the reaction of the crowd is partly why the system faces an up-hill battle to get fixed….because the education system has been politicized to the point that politics takes a higher priority than the well being of the students.

    The other difference between “good” & “bad” public schools has a lot to do with the level of involvement from the parents…reinforcing & supplementing what happens at school.

    It’s common sense that kids who are taught that education is a high priority, are challenged outside of school…and get one-on-one work from their parents will develop faster than kids that don’t have those things.

    Personal responsibility (don’t have kids if you can’t handle the work load) is Tax Free, doesn’t cost the government a dime….and would solve most of the problems in our society….including the education of the next generation.

  • [7] November 6, 2014 at 10:14am

    @Chuck Stein

    Our “betters” over in the Lib Arts Ivory tower have figured out a way to avoid the hypocrisy trap by altering the definition of racism such that it cannot be equally applied to all races.

    The new definition of racism that’s being taught to our kids & young adults in college is racial discrimination + said discrimination coming from a race that holds a power dynamic over other minority races.

    In plain speak….only a comment that can remotely be considered racial discrimination from white people can be racist. Racial discrimination from minority races is just racial discrimination…which is “okay” or “justified” in some cases.

    See what they did there? Can’t apply the hypocrisy test now because the definition now excludes people of a white race.

    Responses (1) +
  • [11] November 6, 2014 at 10:03am

    The word racism has been updated in the newly updated “Liberal Arts Dictionary” to be defined as racial discrimination AGAINST A RACIAL MINORITY.

    I was a kid of the 80s and the instruction that I got from my parents & from school, regarding race relations, was ALL racial discrimination was bad, and MLK’s “I have a Dream” speech was the gold standard…color blind society, judge people according to the content of their character, not the color of their skin.

    Kids of the 2000s are instructed that only SOME racial discrimination is bad (when it involves racial minorities), being a victim of racism requires there to be a race based power dynamic against them (White vs Black, Hispanic, Asian, etc), and CRT / Derrick Bell’s teachings against color blindness, against cultural assimilation are the gold standard of race relations.

  • [32] November 6, 2014 at 9:48am

    While I agree with the hypocrisy standard violation with all of the outrage over Paisley’s comments, the reason you all are a bit confused on how these people could levy racism for poking a little fun at the CMAs mostly white cast by calling it White-ish, while a comedy about a black family poking fun at their mostly black cast, called Black-ish, is because you’re still working on the “OLD” definition of racism meaning racial discrimination.

    All these millennials, have been instructed on the “NEW” definition of racism meaning racial discrimination OF A RACIAL MINORITY. Couple that definition with a hypersensitive approach to interpreting racial discrimination and you have a whole new generation ascribing any and all things to any racial minority as racism.

    Responses (1) +
  • [13] October 23, 2014 at 5:07pm

    Last I checked, the Democrats have controlled 1/2 of Congress for the last 3-4 years….and both houses before that. How many bills are sitting on Harry Reid’s desk?
    Also, not to take anything away from the arse-hats in Congress (some Republicans included), a national approval ratings on congressional members will by default be low, because of how the representation works.
    Nancy Pelosi is an advocate for her district, which is a sub-section of California. She does not represent Texans, or Floridians, so there is a high likelihood that people from those states will not have a particularly high opinion of her. Same goes for Ted Cruz…. You think people from Ohio give a lick about Mary Landrieu? She’s not bringing any bacon home to folks in Cleveland.
    The President, however, is supposed to be the president of the entire nation, and represent all.
    Comparing national approval ratings for the President & for Congress is apples n’ oranges.

  • [18] October 23, 2014 at 4:59pm

    With this president, and the political movement he belongs to, it could very well be that she’s hesitant to say he has been weak, not because she actually thinks he’s been strong, but because if she calls him out on national media (on the progressive’s flagship station no less) that she will make Obama’s “Poo-poo” list, and lose funding from the DNC.

    This administration has been shown to have thin skin, and have made no bones about leveraging political power to get back at “enemies”

    Responses (1) +
  • [18] October 20, 2014 at 4:07pm

    So in other words, they are the early voting version of the vote busses that troll around the parts of the more apathetic community and rustle up votes for their candidate in exchange for a small hand-me-out or a promise that their lives will be better / or not worse by voting for their guy?

  • [-1] October 16, 2014 at 1:37pm

    @LakeHartwellSailor

    Given the folks that subscribe to “white privilege” also subscribe to Critical Race Theory, all you need to do is look at Dr. Derrick Bell’s view on what is required to create “true” equality.

    According to Dr. Bell “and CRT”, our founding documents (Declaration of Independence & Constitution) are inherently racist…because they were drawn up & approved by white people (who are also inherently racist). The inherent racism in these documents is the source of the supposed “institutionalized racism” in our system.

    That said, equal treatment of whites & blacks will not mean equality of races because the system inherently provides “one-ups” for whites….IE Blacks are playing with a handicap. (Dr. Bell thought MLK’s color blind society was full of crap)

    To reach true equality, blacks need to be given preferential treatment “their own one-ups” to balance out the “one-ups” given to whites.

    Otherwise, the Declaration of Independence & Constitution have to be completely rewritten, with input & approval from blacks…and only THEN can there be equality from equal treatment.

  • [4] October 16, 2014 at 10:04am

    …and just to follow-up on my last post….
    I work at an engineering company, with people of all races, genders, creeds, religions and nationalities…who are all wildly & equally successful. You know what they all have in common? Highly educated, highly motivated and self driven.

    I’ve also known many people of all colors, many of them white, that never did anything with their life after highschool. Many of those folks seem to always be dealing with life drama, and almost never respond in a constructive way. They never made education a priority and generally take a “woe is me” attitude on life.

    Go figure…

  • [11] October 16, 2014 at 9:56am

    In my opinion, any disparity that exists is as a result of pop culture & social dynamics within each race…not because being born with a certain color automatically gives someone a benefit or disadvantage in life.

    At the school I attended in the projects, I witnessed black kids pick on other black kids for “talking white” because they properly annunciated their words in class. I witnessed black kids pick on other black kids for “dressing white” because they had their shirt tucked in. I witnessed black kids pick on other black kids for “acting white” because they raised their hands to answer questions in class & did well on tests.

    Where this disparity comes is that adopting behaviors that increase your chances to be successful in life (speaking proper English, dressing up & putting a high priority on education) has been associated with “white people”, and adopting those behaviors is akin to betraying / denying your black race…which can get you ostracized from the community. Is it any wonder why there is a success differential among the races? Couple that, with nearly 3 out of every 4 black kids being born into a single parent household (missing the “privileges” of having two parents – resources, parenting, foundation, structure)…is it any wonder why there is a success differential among the races?

    And to Bill’s point, the Asians do it better than whites…and that’s why they earn more & generally are more successful.

  • [11] October 16, 2014 at 9:24am

    @AllPeopleFreePeople

    Good point….what has been lost on an entire generation are what humans are capable of, when they reach deep & give it their all. Victimhood allows rationalization of challenges life gives you, and prevents deeper soul searching about what needs to be done to be successful & fulfilled in life.

    For some, the right attitude & motivation is all that is needed to put the gears in motion and start doing what is required to have success in life. For others, their backs need to be against the wall, with survival instincts kicking in and providing the necessary motivation to do what is required. The kind of welfare that we are providing today ensures that your back is never against the wall. Couple the menial existence provided by welfare, with low expectations (victimhood), you have successfully created a class of people that are still in need of resources but feel it’s helpless to even try to play the free-market system…so they vote for the person that promises to give more.

  • [5] October 6, 2014 at 4:19pm

    @Baron Doom

    It depends on how you define a religion. I’ve had a similar conversation with a close friend that is an evangelical atheist.

    What it boils down to is that deity based religious beliefs, scientific based secular beliefs, a belief in humanity, or your nation are all organized value systems that people subscribe to, and influence how they live their lives.

    My argument to him was that even if you got rid of all deity based religions (which he believes are the scourge on humanity) you will still have behavior, from humans, that is consistent with what he believes religion is the blame for.

    Nazis killed millions of people because they rooted their belief system around their nationalism (national socialists)

    There are plenty enough progressives that would buy into population control & eugenics based on what they believe the scientific outcome of the alternative would be.

    Getting rid of religion in general will not grant utopia (as John Lennon Imagined), particularly if you banish a religion that promotes brotherly love…because people will always believe in something.

  • [9] October 6, 2014 at 4:08pm

    @1FreeVoice
    “Why are Atheists the only ones allowed to fully enjoy their constitutional freedom of religion, openly discuss their views, and include them in classrooms everywhere?”

    Simple, they think they are right & you are wrong.

    Ditto for just about every other left leaning idea / stance that was once only held by a small minority of people. They got those ideas mainstreamed by using the “free thought, coexist, tolerance” line in the 90s, and shut that door behind them once those ideas gained a larger following.

  • [2] October 6, 2014 at 3:59pm

    @Variance

    The parents, of a student that attends the school, are the ones that contacted FFRF. Wouldn’t take much for their kid to testify that the picture made them feel as a second rate citizen, and feared they’d be treated differently than other students of faith.

    But they don’t need to do that, if they use past legal precedence regarding religious symbols within, or on, publicly owned property. There was a prayer banner recently removed from a highschool on the same basis, even though the most “religious” thing about the prayer was that it was prefaced with “Dear Lord” and suffixed with “Amen”. It was bout as secular of a message as you could get, yet an Atheist student was offended an reported it to FFRF.

  • [10] October 6, 2014 at 1:57pm

    I get that they are using the 14th amendment to extend policy of the fed gov to the state & local level, but what fed policy are they leveraging?

    My understanding is that they are using legal precedent, regarding the “Separation of Church & State” interpretation of the establishment clause, from a court case back in the 70s. It was over a nativity scene on public property, and the courts decided that merely displaying a religious symbol on “public” property was akin to the “state” endorsing a specific religion.

    As best as I can find, this is when we went from the literal interpretation of the establishment clause (Congress shall create no law establishing a religion) to some sort of implied government establishment of religion by providing any benefit or quarter to any religious symbol or act, directly or indirectly, and regardless of context of said religious symbol or act.

    The FFRF representative is saying that because this symbol of some kind of religious act is in eyeshot of students entering the office, it is there opinion that the context of this picture can be nothing other than to coerce said students into a religious belief…which is an act of the government establishing a religion.

    It’s an incredibly hypersensitive, narrow & very convenient analysis that just so happens to support their view.

    You have to willfully force yourself to not critically evaluate this situation to arrive to that, and only that, conclusion.

  • [12] September 30, 2014 at 2:09pm

    Keep it classy there…

    I know it’s a stretch assumption, but I’d say she was probably assigned to cover the event by her boss.

    Calling Michelle Obama “First Wookie” makes a cartoon character out of a real person who is an extreme Marxist ideolog that thinks of herself as a Royalty.

    Just my 2 cents

  • [6] September 26, 2014 at 9:24am

    @ModerateRepublican

    You must know there is a difference (in terms of funding our federal government) between people who either don’t work & collect max social welfare benefits or work a min wage / part time job & collect max social welfare benefits…….and the people who make too much money to qualify for any social welfare.

    There are people who need & use the welfare system for what it is (a stop gap measure for people who are incapable of providing for themselves – disabled & handicapped, and a safety net for those to need some assistance getting back on their feet)

    There are also people who exploit & game the welfare system, in a way that it wasn’t designed for (a perpetual method of sole or supplemental income for people who are capable, but not willing, to do what it takes to independently sustain themselves & their lively hood)

    The problem is that there is so much hypersensitivity around this subject, by design – from political operatives, that no one can talk about the cases of abuse without there being an assumption that the deserving crowd is lumped into that criticism of the system.

    So when someone brings up a complaint regarding the abuse of welfare, opponents to that argument trot out a legitimate welfare case, and slap a scarlet letter around your neck for daring to take food out of a poor child’s mouth. (when the argument was about the able bodied 30 year old abusing the system)

  • [2] September 25, 2014 at 4:33pm

    @zappa

    When an entire socio-political movement tells me I’m a backward thinking sexist bigoted male (used like a scarlet letter around my neck) because I do not agree with their hyperbolic characterization of a “War on Women” here in America…I have the right to dismiss their line of argument & counter with why I think it’s BS.

    Just like that there still are racists in this country, there are still sexists that exist as well. And just like racism, I’m all for removing what vestiges of sexism that still exist.

    That said, I take issue with people & groups that use these social issues as a political tool, to gain political favor, at the expense of others they happen to disagree with.

    Again, just like race, there is a particular political ideology that thinks equality is achieved by fighting special privilege with special privilege. There is another particular political ideology that thinks equality is achieved by treating everyone equally.

    And regarding the pay inequality…do a little more digging on those stats. The popular “women make 75 cents to a man’s dollar” stat is derived by taking the total annual earnings of all women, and then getting a pay rate by dividing it by a full time # of hrs worked in a week to get a rate of pay. The same is done for men, and there you find the 25 cent difference.

    It ignores things like type of work male vs females do, how much each sex takes off, etc. Everything equal, pay rates are nearly the same.

  • [5] September 25, 2014 at 1:58pm

    Even if he isn’t picked to hold another gov position (particularly SCOTUS), he will almost certainly be employed by some lobbing activist group.

    What did Obama say about being able to affect more change outside of the gov than from the inside?

123 To page: Go