User Profile: RajCaj


Member Since: March 02, 2012


123 To page: Go
  • [1] January 29, 2015 at 2:42pm

    I think the ignorant masses that subscribe to progressivism think that way….but the deeper thinking & educated believe that religion (particularly a deity based religion with consequences in the eternal or afterlife) as a guiding force for how someone lives their life is dangerous because they are more resistant to change they think is required to reach a more perfect society.

    In other words, it’s harder to convince someone to change the way they think about something if their motivation is based on banishment to eternal damnation for thinking differently….than if their motivation is based on whatever the latest scientific research paper says (which changes all the time…see studies on the effects of coffee, global warming)

    This isn’t a problem if the religious belief system is compatible with civilized society (see Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism), but can be problematic if the religious belief is off the reservation (see strict practice of Islam)

    That said, the social engineers at the top ranks of academia have a fear of religion as a whole, and quite frankly…Christians represent the low hanging fruit for anti-theists & secularists. There is a significant enough population & enough “cracks” in the spiritual integrity of the Christian faith system that they see that attacking Christianity first would have the largest impact on Western society.

    That’s my 2 pennies anyway…

  • [4] January 29, 2015 at 2:24pm

    Good points AvengerK…

    In Psychology / Sociology classes, you learn about Maslow’s Hierarchy…which essentially is a triangle with layered subsections that cover the priority of needs. The further down the hierarchy you go, the more base or primal your needs are. Also, the further down the hierarchy you go, the more resistant to change behaviors related to those needs are.

    The idea is that living one’s life based off of religious teachings taps into more of the base primal needs that are more resistant to change than living ones life off of what the latest scientific study says about something, or even what a governmental agency says about something.

    Because living ones life based on religion is more ingrained in the bedrock of your being, Atheists and other progressive minded types argue that being so resistant to change prevents “progress”….or makes people less malleable to what the “powers that be” decide are best practices of societal behaviors.

    There is truth to that, but not wavering in your moral foundation is beneficial(so long as the moral foundation is good willed and compatible with a civilized and sustainable society)in that it is what protects humans from the whims of fads, pop culture, or other untested social theories & experimentation.

    Some change is good, some change is bad. Most progressives I know are willing to throw the baby out with the bath water, and think all change is good.

    This is at the root of progressivism & conservatism

    Responses (3) +
  • [8] January 28, 2015 at 1:35pm


    The reason there are no libertarian socialist candidates is because the name is an oxymoron.

    Libertarians (or classic liberals) seek to maximize INDIVIDUAL liberties. For a society that provides it’s citizens to have maximum freedoms, there must also be maximum personal responsibility.

    Socialists seek to maximize the STATES liberties. Socialist societies attempt to leverage individual gains & losses across the collective. The only agency that can (theoretically) manage this is the State, with all the freedoms and liberties it needs to force people to do one thing or another.

    Freedom & Liberty among the individual & the state is a zero sum game. Both cannot have maximum freedoms without infringing on the other. Socialist governments cannot be free to force an individual to forfeit their earnings while an individual is free to earn as much as they want. An individual cannot be free to eat what they want, if the socialist government is free to dictate to the individual what they can & cannot eat…in the name of effectively managing socialized health care.

  • [8] January 28, 2015 at 1:23pm

    Calling democrat candidates “far superior” is obviously subjective to one’s own ideology.

    Obama was raised by socialists & communists, studied progressive operatives in college, taught what he learned from those progressive operatives in college, worked as a community organizer attorney for a few years….was elected to state senate for a few years….was elected to federal senate for a few years and then became president.

    In all of that, his only political experience was spent in the legislative branch where his primary objective was to get people stuff in exchange for support….not one iota of executive experience in his private or public life….and he’s elected to arguably the highest executive job available on the planet.

    Romney wasn’t a beauty queen, but the guy atleast knew what it was to make payroll and delegate effectively. Romney has more experience with micro & macro economics in his left pinky that Obama has in total.

    But again…its all about your prerogative. If you want a president to use the executive branch to give people a bunch of crap…he’s your man. But to call him far superior, that’s a joke.

    Al Gore & John Kerry were almost presidents….LOL

  • [52] January 28, 2015 at 1:08pm

    To be fair to O’Riley….Palin did actually have a reality show for a while…as does Trump. All three of the potential candidates that O’Riley mentioned have what you’d call a “colorful” track record in the public eye.

    Sarah has made her share of polarizing comments, as has Christy & Trump. Much of it was made into a bigger deal that what it probably deserved….mostly aided by the media & the Democrat Party.

    To that point, (right or wrong) I think it’s fair to say that the media will have a field day with these 3 candidates….and with that said, Bill isn’t exactly wrong with his comment.

    Is highlighting that particularly helpful for Sarah, or the other 2 candidates…probably not. And Sarah is absolutely right in the fact that Democrats are far less likely to eat their own….and that has paid them dividends during election cycles.

    Responses (1) +
  • [17] January 28, 2015 at 12:59pm

    Palin isn’t clean as the wind driven snow, nor is any candidate….but I don’t think you can discount her ability to lead.

    Folks seem to forget she started her political career from scratch… uncle or aunt state or federal senator connected her politically for the governorship of Alaska. She didn’t get political backing by being a popular entertainer, or by graduating from one of the ivy league political farm leagues.

    She ran for a seat on her local city council and won…twice. She did such a good job at that, she was able to convince enough people in her city to elect her Mayor. She did such a good job at that, she was able to convince enough people to elect her as governor of Alaska. She bucked the good-ole-boy system at the state level, and was was convincing enough of a leader that the Republican presidential ticket tapped her as their VP. And in that role, she even bucked the status quo line she was asked to walk under the McCain campaign.

    You might not like her politics, or even her character as a person….but I think it’s a little ignorant to say that Palin doesn’t possess leadership qualities.

  • [8] January 26, 2015 at 11:54am

    Obviously you’re being a bit sarcastic here, but unfortunately what you’re saying is true. Had the cop not followed-up on the call & someone at the wedding got shot by this guy, the only news the media might have taken away from that tragic event was about guns killing people.

    You wont hear a single word regarding how / why someone decided that threatening a group of people, and ultimately killing someone, at a wedding was a reasonable idea.

    If the gun narrative didn’t fly, not a single person at these black brunches would be reciting this woman’s name because it was black on black violence, born out of thug / gang culture.

    Even with a shoulder camera exonerating the cop, the grief pimps will still grind the axe.

  • [8] January 23, 2015 at 8:40am

    Don’t the refs handle the ball on every down? Aren’t the refs employed by the NFL?

  • January 21, 2015 at 5:33pm

    Actually, FOX does do news…but only at a local affiliate level. Where I’m from, there is a local news broadcast on FOX at 9:00pm.

    That said…FOX News is closer to CNN (24hr News Network) than broadcast stations like CBS, NBC, ABC….where they do national news part time, to all the other pop-culture tripe that airs throughout the rest of the day.

    I tend to give people the benefit of doubt, but I feel pretty confident that some hyper-partisan recent college grad staffer thought themselves to be clever, with a slight to Fox News by not printing “News” on the place card.

    And all Shep did was feed the troll by acknowledging it on national news. Viewers of Fox News aren’t surprised and cheap shot will earn the political hack street cred in their tribe

  • January 19, 2015 at 6:23pm

    True…they keep mentioning MLKs name, but in the same breath advocate tactics held by Malcolm X, and see the world through the eyes of Derrick Bell. Both of those guys thought MLK was a fool for thinking working within our system & treating everyone equally across all races would end racism.

    I heard / read today more people complain about white privilege than mention a goal of a color blind society

  • January 19, 2015 at 6:18pm

    Same for me….and spot on regarding the “color blind” bit. All I’ve heard all day, from all of the MLK specials & programs across the TV & Radio dial has been nothing but Malcolm X & Derrick Bell.

    It’s a facade….they pimp MLK’s achievements and tell everyone we need to adopt MX’s tactics & adopt Derrick Bell’s Critical Race Theory….without every mentioning MX or Derrick Bell.

    I wonder how many people know that the father of the current mindset regarding race relations thought MLK was a fool and his vision of a color blind society was a load of crap?

  • [2] January 16, 2015 at 8:42am


    It’s not hypocritical if you’re up to speed on the “NEW” definition of racism that’s being taught.

    An act can only be racist if said act comes from a person of a race that holds a systemic power dynamic over the race of the person the act is directed toward.

    In other words, whites in America can be victims of racial discrimination, but cannot be victims of racism (due to the supposed power structure whites hold over people of other races)

    So if you buy into all of that, all of those contradictions you pointed out are allowed.

  • [11] January 14, 2015 at 11:39am

    I had the same debate with a good friend of mine, who later in life had an “Atheist Awakening”.

    After listening to one of his soapbox rants on religion being a scourge on humanity, and insinuation that there can be no peace in the world until all people lived according to science / reason & abandon theism, I informed him that he sounded just like one of the intolerant religious evangelicals that he hated so much.

    What he was saying, and what a militant religious evangelical would say (regarding what is needed to better human society) was the same thing….only that they get their direction (which develops their opinions & intolerance toward opposing opinions) from different sources.

    It’s hypocritical of him to decry religious people trying to push their lifestyle on others, while he tries to push his secular lifestyle on others…but he rationalizes it because he feels he is right, and the other people are wrong.

    That is the case in many other similar examples of hypocrisy you see with people far left of center. Leftists will call out people they disagree with as being haters, intolerant and bigoted toward people they disagree with…while being haters, intolerant and bigoted against people they disagree with….but don’t see an issue with it because they just so happen to be “right”.

  • January 13, 2015 at 4:38pm


    I fully agree with you on the point of being of a modern liberal mindset has much to do with upbringing. Lena Dunham is another shining example of what comes out of a parenting situation where both guardians decide to go off the reservation and experiment with “progressive” child rearing theory.

    The point I was trying to make though is chalking up a person that is of a progressive mindset being a result of a mental disorder…like being bipolar or schizophrenic insinuates that they are just born that way and there is little to no value of understanding why or how to fix it (outside of medication…of which I know of none that will cure progressivism)

    I think the reason we are seeing a critical mass of progressives in our country now has much to do with social engineering happening at many levels…resulting in a situation where adults by age are not maturing into adulthood at the same rate previous generations have.

    If that old saying “If you’re not a liberal in your 20s, you have no heart. If your not a conservative in your 40s, you have no brain” is true….and your aim is to increase the number of liberal minded people….all you need to do is enact policy & engineer society so that you extend the naivete’ of a teenager / twenty something.

    Not saying we have to go back to hard knocks life, but a progressive mindset can be corrected with a dose of reality, reason & life experiences.

  • January 13, 2015 at 10:30am

    Discussing whether or not Obama is “pretty good” or not is neither here nor there. It’s all relative until people are able to align on a common set of principles. “Good” to derp-central might mean progressing the country toward socialism. That would be “Bad” in the book of about 50% of the nation.

    To that point, some of the people in this threat point out to specifics of how Obama, and his brand of politics, have failed miserably.

    However, to credit modern liberal progressivism as a mental disorder does a disservice to the root cause of this thought process, and gets us no closer to resolving the divide. People are born with, or develop, mental disorders…and typically require medication to correct / suppress the symptoms. A particular political ideology is not born out of a mental disorder….its born out of ignorance of reality (due to lack of meaningful life experiences) and misinformation (theories & biased science taught as law & truth in our education system).

    Most of our parents / grandparents were working to support their families by 16, married by 17, had families by 18 & seasoned adults by 20. Most of today’s generation are still living with their parents at 25 and won’t accumulate a meaningful amount of life experiences until 40…if at all.

    It’s that trend that has to be reversed. Calling it a mental disorder doesn’t address the root cause.

  • [1] January 13, 2015 at 9:52am

    It’s the same explanation that most modern liberals give regarding failed socialist / communist regimes across the world.

    The idea of a society that is managed by a small concentration of “educated betters” isn’t the problem to them…its the poor execution of that societal model that caused those socialist / communist states to fail.

  • [7] January 13, 2015 at 9:33am

    I disagree….I think this was just another opportunity for the Obama Admin, and his brand of geo-political ideology, to manage the decline of America on the world stage.

    He (and like minded people) think that the most of the world problems today are because of the lead role the US has played over the last few hundred years. This was just another opportunity for him to allow other nations to lead & be in the spot light.

    I think that geo-political theory is flawed, and we should have stood in solidarity with the rest of those nations, but I don’t think the reason our current admin decided not to participate was for a reason as nefarious as not wanting to march against Islam because Obama is a secret Muslim.

  • January 8, 2015 at 6:07pm


    For what it’s worth, removing religion does not absolve human beings from tribalism. WWII was fought over a bunch of goose stepping radical nationalists that thought their country (and it’s dogma) was better than everyone else.

    At the root of all this is the idea that life on earth is a zero sum game, and a people belonging to group “x” cannot live happily because people from group “y” prevents them from doing so.

    This game happens every day on a much smaller scale (see race based, gender based, sexuality based infighting…YAY Multiculturalism!)

    That said…it’s also unfair to paint all religions in the same light…fanatics or not. Westboro Baptist lunatics claim to be fanatical Christians (although that is up for debate) and all they do is say hateful crap on poster boards.

    They aren’t strapping C4 & a ziplock bag of ball bearings to their bodies and blowing up others that don’t believe I their brand of religion.

    Even as much fun people make of the “prudish” Mormans…you don’t see the guys with white button down shirts & bicycles shooting up a “Book of Morman” play on broadway.

    I think it’s worth noting which fanatics are actually killing innocent people.

  • January 8, 2015 at 1:35pm


    What lettucepray did was jump to an assumption that best fit his argument so that he could “win”

    It’s why you see hyperbolic speech so much in political discourse today.

    Reading your comments, I can think of a half a dozen ways to shut down the radical indoctrination & propaganda shaping the incompatible view of society in radical Islam other than “killing them all”….but those methods wouldn’t be helpful for my argument if I were trying to be contrary or beat you in an argument.

    To Glenn’s point he’s been making lately….try to reconcile / understand, not win.

    That said, this is another unintended consequence of pushing for a multicultural over a melting pot society. Without a common tie or bond that unites people of otherwise different backgrounds, apathy & indifference (at best) or vengeance (at worst) fills the void.

    United we stand, divided we fall is not just a platitude.

  • [9] January 8, 2015 at 1:14pm


    I’d assume that he brought up Stewart’s (or Leibowitz’s) Jewish background because if any group of people in this world have a bone to pick with radical Islam, it’s the Jewish people.

    You’d figure that a person that belongs to a group of people that are the primary targets of militant islamists would stand a little taller in the face of religious fascism & oppression.

123 To page: Go