User Profile: RajCaj


Member Since: March 02, 2012


123 To page: Go
  • [7] August 25, 2015 at 1:42pm

    There are times that “disappointing” the parent isn’t sufficient motivation for a kid to “not” do something.

    I got plenty of spankings and as an adult never resorted to “violence” as the “studies” will show. My parents also explained to me why I got the spankings, and they were reserved for dire circumstances.

    There is a difference between a kid growing up in a family culture where the dad hits the mom because the toast was burnt, or where the mom puts a cigarette out on their kid because they didn’t pick up their room……..and a family culture where children too young to comprehend the complex nature of doing something that potentially jeopardized their life, or the safety of others, get’s a spanking

  • [10] August 25, 2015 at 1:27pm


    Beauty is in the eye of the beholder….for sure, but to Judge’s point….this new amorphous – androgynous look w/ the half shaved head a lot of millennials are taking us is not attractive in my book….but then again, who gives a crap about my book lol

  • [7] August 25, 2015 at 1:24pm

    True…but if you think the MTV VMAs are garbage, you should see the new music videos coming out these days. (Check VEVO on Youtube or smartphone app)

    Even if you had a 24/7 music video station, it’d be filled with Niki Minaj Anaconda crap

  • [2] August 24, 2015 at 5:27pm


    I’ll take it a step further….he’ll likely have to not only maintain the “executive order” status quo set with Obama’s administration….he might have to step that up even more, given it’s going to be MUCH harder to “un-do” these laws / rules / policies that people are now dependent on, than it required to install them.

    That said, while the best case scenario, in this event, would include Trump reversing many of the executive orders that Obama put in place, it would also include a further precedent of the President skirting the constitution, and eroding the separations of power between the executive & legislative branches.

    It’s the PROCESS in DC that needs changing…not just the end results.

  • [-2] August 24, 2015 at 1:21pm

    I respectfully disagree as well…

    Real Estate / Construction is as regulated as most other industries. Where there is regulation (hurdle for free enterprise), there are deals to be made with the folks that wield said regulatory power.

    There are zoning issues that need to be cleared through so that a commercial building can go up where there was once residential or industrial zoned. There are all the building permits that need to be acquired, the labor unions that need to be accounted for (bought off),etc.

    As a matter of fact, real estate seems to be one of the areas you often find corrupted political / business activity. If Trump’s business in real estate is outside of the “crony capitalism” being talked about…..why did he pay off the Clintons, and many many other politicians on both sides of the isle?

    He’s an opportunist….and a great businessman….and by businessman, I mean he’s great at working the wheel of business / government to improve the net worth of Trump & his enterprises.

    Trump gets stuff done…..but so does Barrack Obama. That’s the issue for me. I have full confidence in Trump being able to build a wall on the southern border, and build a better financial position for the USA. I just don’t have full confidence he’ll do it on the up-n-up to the letter of the Constitution. If he has to do it through executive order, then his presidency will be as dangerous to our country as Obama’s.

  • [1] August 24, 2015 at 1:06pm

    I may be missing something, but I haven’t seen many “conservatives” advocate for anything you posted. Liberals yes….but most comments I’ve read from people likely voting Republican in 2016 never once advocated for mass illegal immigration, gov handouts, etc.

    I have seen people likely to vote Republican call BS on Trump’s “Have Mexico build the wall” plan….with most taking issue on the logistics of getting Mexico to build / pay for said wall.

    If you’re assuming “conservatives” are taking the position you mentioned because they reject Donald’s plan…that’s pretty short sighted I think.

    Responses (1) +
  • [-1] August 24, 2015 at 1:00pm

    I agree in that he’ll “give it hell” on any given issue he’s working on. That’s not my (or most’s) issue with Trump. It’s HOW he gets it done.

    If “putting in the effort” means he’ll fix any problem he can’t clear through congress through a pen & a phone, he’s no better than Obama, in regard to protecting this country’s people from tyrant governments.

  • [-7] August 20, 2015 at 2:57pm

    While I agree with your sentiment, the child discussed in the video did not die as a result of having it’s skull cut through. The heart beat was a residual effect….an involuntary reflex of the nerves that are still active after death of the child.

    It’s still horrific though

  • [1] August 18, 2015 at 5:44pm

    I guess it’s not logically correct if you don’t consider the aborted fetuses / babies human life.

    But if you do….while it may not be the #1 killer of black people, the abortion rate in the black community is far above any other race. For every 1000 black babies born, nearly 500 are aborted. There were figures released from NY in 2012 that showed there to be more black babies aborted than born. CDC also shows that of all the abortions of black babies, 91% were single…most likely in poverty situations.

    Draw what ever conclusions you want from that….regardless, there are some philosophical issues that need to be worked through in regard to how we think about life. There are degreed bio-ethicists with bonafides from Oxford that are pushing Functionalisim, and the idea that the right of a mother to end the life of her offspring should be based on what they define as “personhood”, which is not determined by some scientific measure of life, or development of specific body parts….but some arbitrary qualifier that tries to measure quality of life. These ethicists suggest that a mother can abort her child up until the age of 2-3….when they attain “personhood”, as defined by these people.

    How soon till someone takes that a step further and extends it to people over the age of 3, and for cases where they might have some handicap? (Hello again eugenics!)

  • [7] August 18, 2015 at 5:00pm

    The fallacy of “choice”…
    Outside of rape situations, TWO people choose to put their reproductive bits together…
    A woman chooses whether or not she takes / uses contraceptives to prevent STDs & pregnancies
    A man chooses whether or not he takes / uses contraceptives to prevent STDs & pregnancies
    If said man does NOT have said contraceptives, a woman chooses whether or not she will have sex with that man
    A woman & a man chooses whether or not they “pull out” before the baby batter gets to the oven
    Finally….a woman chooses whether or not she takes a plan B pill the next day after an contraceptive failure, or a string of bad “choices”

    Truth is, there are LOTS of choices that two people have to make before someone ends up in a situation where they are growing another human being inside her body.

    Furthermore, in regard to people shoving their sky god morality on others….

    While I’m not in favor of people pushing their religious code of life on others….there is something to be said for having a universal truth / moral code that doesn’t change with the winds & whims of time….especially when it relates to the sanctity of life.

    If we were all left to the zeitgeist of the times to determine our morality, we’d be following the lead of Bio-Ethicists, who received graduate degrees in medical practice ETHICS from Oxford, who are making the case for mothers to be able to “abort” their children up until the age of 2-3… Watch that slippery slope!

  • [3] August 18, 2015 at 3:25pm

    I get your political point….but seriously, it’s got nothing to do with The Blaze vs Al Jazeera.

    It’s about the value people are getting for the # of hours folks have to watch TV…with more & more people arriving to the conclusion that it’s just not worth it given the alternatives.

    Also….some cable providers include basic – straight coaxial cable to the TV – cable with the purchase of an internet subscription.

    I was paying almost $200/month for internet + digital cable / DVR service. I now pay $60 for internet + $8 for Netflix + $8 for Hulu Plus = $76/month. I loose some HD cable channels but HD broadcast stations come over basic cable. I lose the ability to watch recorded TV shows the same day they play, but Hulu Plus gives me access to most channels & programing the day after it plays.

    Between the back-log of content available on streaming services (Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, etc) & other forms of casual entertainment (games, social media), and the few good shows that are on TV….there just isn’t enough time in the day to take advantage of having 200+ channels.

    Responses (1) +
  • August 17, 2015 at 6:07pm


    Trump’s team doesn’t need a functional economy…he just needs a carve-out. Carve-outs work better than lifting all boats because it gives his businesses leverage over competition. I wouldn’t hitch my trailer to Trump’s wagon based on that assumption alone.


    Why is that necessarily so? Ever see House of Cards? Trumps “trump” card is that him not being a politician allows him to “level” with the people in a way that most running for president can’t. He can validate what everyone already knows about the messed up relationship politicians have with titans of industry without being on the hook for it. Of course he will spill the beans on the system that everyone already knows is corrupt….doesn’t mean it will end when he gets to the White House.

    Obama promised to have one of the most transparent administrations ever to grace the White House and look how that turned out.

  • [-2] August 17, 2015 at 1:03pm

    RINOs aren’t going to cut it anymore…..what makes Trump NOT a RINO? Cause he says he isn’t?

    Given Trump’s recent history on political stances & donations….he may literally be a Republican In Name Only.

    Beck’s show as wrong on Mitt….but given the options that Republicans had at that point…where else could he have gone? By the time Beck’s show put serious weight behind Mitt, all of the other serious contenders bailed out either due to scandal (Herman Cain) or poor showing at debates / caucuses.

    It wasn’t until September, 2 months before the election, did Beck do the full 1hr special on some of the finer points related to Mitt Romney….and for all the smack talk about Mitt today, he would have still been a much better choice than Barrack Obama.

  • August 17, 2015 at 12:53pm

    Beck & Co. pointing that out was less about whether it was right or wrong for Trump to use money / resources in that way if they want to…but more so to point out what the main stream media has to work with once the general election comes around.

    Good luck calling out Obama on burning up the budget on Air Force One when the guy calling it out also did “this” with his 757 & helicopters… It won’t be a fair argument, but one with enough poor optics that the main stream media & democrat operatives will run with it like they stole it.

  • [4] August 17, 2015 at 12:43pm

    I agree with most of what you said….but regarding Trump – what has he done in the past that would indicate that Trump has a record of fighting for the citizen vs the government…or vs his business enterprises?

    Yes, Trump fights….but does Trump fight for himself & self interests, or does he fight for “the people”?

    What I do know about Trump is that he paid Hillary Clinton to go to his wedding, and likely paid many other politicians to benefit himself and/or his business ventures.

    That might very well be the only way to achieve the level of success he has achieved, in New York & beyond, but that does NOT make Donald Trump an “outsider” to our corrupt political process. It just means he plays on a different team than the other bought & paid for politicians.

    I’m all for leveraging Trumps ability to negotiate & get good deals…just not as POTUS. Way too much power concentrated at that position to give it to someone that has not demonstrated much love for the constitution & it’s merits.

  • [1] August 17, 2015 at 10:44am

    Yea….leadership is missing, but do you have to toss all principles in the trashcan for leadership? Why can’t one of the other candidates nut up vs going with a candidate that is all over the place politically, but gets to speak loudly & boldly because they have the least political capital to lose?

    Also, as we live in a post constitutional era, why would we hand the keys over to a political candidate that has shown no scruples around maintaining the constitution, but has been adept at playing the current corrupted political game?

    Trump has been about Trump & Trump’s business. He’s proven he’ll seek political expediency & move heaven & earth to get what benefits him & his business. I don’t want someone willing to move heaven & earth to “fix” the nation as he sees fit….which would include just as much short cutting of the constitution & executive orders as Obama’s admin.

    I have little faith that Trump would restrain himself from doing something he felt was good if it meant wrecking the constitution. There is not much different between Obama & Trump in this regard.

  • [1] August 17, 2015 at 10:32am

    Do you really thing Trump is that different than the career politicians running for election?

    Trump has been all over the political spectrum on any given issue….seemingly aligning with whatever benefits Trump & his business at that time. Trump admitted to paying off politicians for follow-up favors. He aligned with Democrat policies when he was donating to Democrat politicians, when he needed their favor. He now aligns with Republican policies now that he’s running as a Republican presidential candidate.

    Trump IS part of this corrupted process. Sure he admits it…his day job doesn’t require him to please as many people as possible in his voting jurisdiction…but that doesn’t absolve him from the corrupted process. He might be outsider to our politicians in D.C., but he is NOT an outsider to politics.

    There are a few other business / private industry candidates that don’t have nearly the competing objectives & conflicting interests as Trump has if that is what you’re looking for.

    I get the sentiment of your message, but just think a bit about how your approach is different than Obama supporters in 2008. What I hear from you (and similar messages) & what I heard from Obama supporters back then is that “The government is on a freight train to destruction, and we just need someone to make it stop….regardless of the qualifications / intent of the candidate.

    Responses (1) +
  • [2] August 17, 2015 at 10:19am

    If that’s the case, there are plenty of candidates without “congressional” experience that aren’t named Trump.

    Beck has mentioned plenty of times to “Defund the GOP”, as a result of Republicans being elected TWO times as majority of both houses, yet laying down for a Democrat WH.

    Trump does have business experience. In addition, Trump has lots of business ties…and not small business, BIG business with (admitted) ties to politicians – paid for w/ Trump money.

    What about Trump makes you confident that his business ties will not influence his decisions in government in a way that conflicts with the well being of the people, or with the constitution?

    Trump might be an outsider to our politicians, but is not an outsider to politics. He had Democrat views when he was seeking favor from Democrat politicians, for the benefit of his business, and has Republican views now… he is running as a GOP contender for the presidency. That is called political expediency….why would things be any different when Trump gets to the WH?

  • [3] August 17, 2015 at 9:59am

    I haven’t heard anyone (including Trump) indicate why things are different for Mr. Trump NOW than they were then.

    Sean points out how refreshing it is for Trump to admit that he openly bought politicians for the benefit of Trump & his enterprises. Okay…so he admitted to it. Everyone agrees that this practice is detrimental to our government & society.

    Why do we think Trump will end this after getting in the White house? Why wouldn’t he leverage his power / influence of the presidency to do what HE wants, just as he does as executive leadership in his businesses?

    I think Trump took the stances on the positions he did because it was what was needed at that time to align with politicians he wanted favor of for business deals. So while Trump has not been a “politician” until now…..he has been playing politics for FAR longer than many of the politicians in Washington.

    That doesn’t make him an outsider to the messed up political process….just on a different team.

    Responses (3) +
  • [3] August 17, 2015 at 9:47am

    What you describe is exactly what happened to elect Barrack Obama. Democrat political activists turned a “poor” Bush presidency into what Democrats believed was the worst era of American existence…to the point where they elected a fresh take on politics, with little to no prior experience in politics, and a person who said they would change the system for the betterment of the people, not the career politicians.

    And now look what we have….Obama didn’t kill “the system”. He made it work for his personal interests.

    The same goes with Trump… He won’t end “the system”, he’ll just make it work for him, and his connected interests in business. Like Obama, he’s an “outsider” with lots of big ideas on how to use government to meet their personal ends…not turn the keys of the government back to the people.

    But that’s just my opinion…

    Responses (3) +
123 To page: Go
Restoring Love