User Profile: RajCaj


Member Since: March 02, 2012


123 To page: Go
  • [1] March 23, 2015 at 10:25pm

    Your wrong, white folk by the look of the mug shots

    Why can’t trash just be trash?

  • [5] March 17, 2015 at 6:03pm

    Exactly….and Mark’s explanation for why some can use it, and other can’t is complete bull and he knows it.

    Words have the meaning you give them. The black community took the n-word, modified the spelling a bit and applied a different meaning to it than what came from the days of slavery. There are people in the black community that also use the word in it’s historical context against other blacks as well…..with all the hate & intent to demean the target of the word than if it came from the mount of a clan member.

    Why does the skin color of someone make it okay, or make it forbidden, if the hate behind the word is just the same.

    People should be good to all people, regardless of race, creed, nationality, or whatever social construct you want to identify as.

  • March 17, 2015 at 5:38pm


    Hypocrisy tests for evidence of racism do not apply anymore. The newly amended definition for racism being taught in school & other institutions involves an instance of racial discrimination where the perpetrator of said racism belongs to a race of people that hold societal / institutional power over the victim.

    That said, whites can never be victims of racism.

    Responses (1) +
  • [10] March 17, 2015 at 1:42pm

    That’s exactly the point….it’s not REALLY about having a conversation (requiring a two way exchange of ideas), but an advocacy program used to get out the PC accepted theory on race relations in our society.

    Any meaningful conversation on this topic is 30 minutes long, at the very least. You think executive management is willing for one of their baristas to take even 5 minutes to discuss with the person at the register….when there are 10 people in line & another 6 cars lined up at the drive through window?

    So what kind of message can you get out in 30-60 seconds? A one way awareness message to the customer to check their privilege, or an opportunity to exchange a few comments that are in agreement with each other (no time for debate needed) between like minded individuals.

    And for that….the almost always left leaning employees at Starbucks are perfectly trained for this awareness campaign.

  • [6] March 17, 2015 at 1:32pm

    I’m assuming the last bit from ewoodard was a bit tongue & cheek, with the point being any point of view offered in these so called discussions that doesn’t go along with the politically correct talking points are will likely end up in fireworks and serve for good entertainment for the folks that aren’t still waiting in line for their coffee.

    Anyone that’s been to Starbucks knows that the “partners” that work there are not what you’d call a politically diverse group of people. Couple that with the logistical nightmare related to ANY conversation lasting more than 30 seconds when there are other people waiting in long lines (inside & out) for coffee. With those two things in mind, what REALLY is the objective with this effort?

    Like minded customers & starbucks employees to share quick quips that fall in line with the theory that white greed runs a nation in need? Or is it for the left leaning staff to write clever one liners on a patron’s cup that attempts to get them to check their privilege?

    Any meaningful conversation on race would take at least 30 minutes and involve an exchange of differing ideas / perspectives where participants of the conversation maintain a base level of respect for the other.

    Doing this at a Starbucks register is NOT the right place for that conversation….unless the objective is to not REALLY have a conversation.

  • [6] March 13, 2015 at 9:47am

    I think the issue is a little more complicated than that. Race has nothing to do with it, political forces leveraging a base human flaw (tribalism) does.

  • [15] March 13, 2015 at 9:43am

    @ibbolton – it’s all facts until it disagrees with the politics of the progressive ideology. Free speech & resistance to the thought police was in vogue when hard core progressivism accounted for 20% of the Democrat party, and now that it’s become main streamed….free speech & resisting the thought police is characterized as a backward thinking & an impediment to progress.

    So was it REALLY about free thought and resistance to thought police before, or was it about progressing the political agenda?

    @yougottabekidding – is that in reference to Sean Hannity? There might be plenty to disagree with his politics & tact….but at least in that exchange, what part of what he quoted from the DOJ wasn’t fact based?

    There is video of MB taking the cigars & shoving the store owner into shelving after he tried to block MB from leaving…..and the protestor is asking for proof? The DOJ (run by Eric Holder) quoted forensic evidence showing that MB didn’t have his hands raised…..and the protestor, who has not analyzed official case documentation, says that forensic evidence says MB did. Who, in this case, has the “facts”?

    I’ll repeat my first statement….it’s all facts until it disagrees with the politics of the progressive ideology.

  • [1] March 2, 2015 at 10:20am

    Thanks for the context. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem to matter much these days.

    There has been a major shift in the dynamics of communication that has been coming for a long time, but only now is out in the light, where people don’t even have to prove racial bias context was meant by the messenger any more. All that is needed to ascribe meaning to a message (verbal or otherwise) is how someone interprets it. (See ***** in the armor story with the ESPN writer)

    Fitting for an industry that trains our millennials to be hypersensitive about everything, and to assume race is the motivator for nearly ally actions. If an entire generation of people always evaluates everything through the context of race, just about any speech can be construed as racist. Couple that with the scarlet letter treatment racism gets you, you have a massive squelching of speech…innocent or not.

    I wonder how soon parents get reprimanded for teaching the old “Sticks & Stones…” moto.

  • [2] March 2, 2015 at 10:03am

    Also….one of the admins interviewed took particular exception that this was done during Black History month. Does it matter more if someone was racist during Jan or Feb?!?

    If Love is Love, Hate is Hate….and it shouldn’t matter what month it happens in. Being more sensitive to racial overtones during black history month tells a lot about how superficial race relations have become.

    But to your point teddy, most of our millennials aren’t taught to think critically and dig that deep. Critical Race Theory tells these kids that people of all races are primarily motivated by their race, and will always racially discriminate against others not of their race.

    This means that all white people (unless actively aware of their state of privilege) that do negative things toward a person of another race is done out of racial discrimination. So the motivation of these kids that dressed up wasn’t to just be silly….but to mock the opposing team’s race.

    That said, under our new race relations system…and new definition of racism, you would not have standing to be offended, or allege racism, if someone dressed up as a saltine cracker because the (assumingly) non-whites mocking your race do not have social power to back up the name calling, and therefore is not an act of racism.

  • March 2, 2015 at 9:48am

    @Gary / willy

    The racial overtones come with the meme of blacks being like monkeys….with comparisons to physical appearance & insinuation that they are also lesser functioning humans

    That said, I don’t think it’s fair to assume racially prejudiced context when there are other explanations that exist.

    School admins should have talked to the kids to investigate what the motivation might have been. If these kids had a track record of racial discrimination, or involved other props that would have made it more clear that this was designed to be a slight to black folks…then give them the appropriate consequences.

    However, if the only context to support the idea that this was racially motivated is that the alleged perpetrators are white…..that in itself is racial discrimination by assuming all white people mean every possible slight to be in context of racial discrimination.

    Anything otherwise will lead to a mass squelching of speech, racial context or not.

  • [28] February 25, 2015 at 1:07pm


    Democrats don’t worry about double standards or being outted as hypocrites because they control mass media and other hooks into pop culture that shape public opinion.

    They don’t fear setting a precedent with unconstitutional executive orders, that could potentially be used by a political opponent in the future because they will make sure the mass media calls out any transgression made by a Republican president.

    Someone on the forums mentioned yesterday that Shelia Jackson Lee didn’t believe in the separation of powers & the ability for the legislature to check the executive branch with purse strings. WRONG…she believes in those things, and would readily use what ever leverage a Democrat controlled Congress had over a Republican president….she’s just okay with ignoring that privilege now because it benefit’s her political agenda. Ends justifies the means, and all that.

  • [1] February 24, 2015 at 5:30pm

    @Zipit – Stay classy. Shelia Jackson Lee (and most elected Democrat officials) provide enough material to make a solid argument against their political ideology. I don’t know why ignorant racist comments have to be brought into the debate. Saying she did it for a banana does a disservice to the REAL reason she felt free to openly admit why the Democrats are blocking the bill.

    @jamespubliusmadison – I don’t think she believes Congress doesn’t have the power to withhold funding that supports an executive order. To be sure, if it were a Republican president that issued an executive order that a Democrat controlled Congress didn’t like….she’d be the first in line to make it known that Congress has full discretion to control the purse strings.

    And don’t be so certain that her constituents disagree with her party blocking the vote on a bill that defunds Obama’s executive amnesty. As a matter of fact, most of her voter base likely doesn’t give two turds what the Constitution says if it means that it prevents their elected officials from doing the things they want them to do. Ends justifies the means & all that. Heck, most Democrats thing the Constitution is an obsolete document that needs a complete re-write anyway. No, I think most of her voters are just fine with the Democrat party blocking a vote on this legislation.

  • [3] February 24, 2015 at 5:00pm

    How exactly does that bring Libertarians over to the Democrat party?

    The Democrats aren’t blocking the DHS funding vote because they want to reign in the size & influence of the DHS….they are blocking the vote because the bill, as written by the Republicans, seeks to defund Obama’s (illegal) executive orders on immigration.

    The Democrats are fighting for greater power & influence with this non-vote, not the other way around.

  • [1] February 24, 2015 at 4:50pm

    As you indicate, term limits are not a cure all but it is a start. It’s true, term limits would likely speed up the current corruption process….but how sustainable is that?

    Lobbyists would not be able to continue to cash in on old favors with long time politicians, and would essentially have to keep the juice flowing to cover fresh faces that have less history of favors to repay. Private interest bank rollers would have to fork out a substantially greater amount of money over time because all prior investments walk out the door with a term limited politician. Just like high turn-over costs a company more money to retrain new employees than retaining old ones….corrupting politicians with payouts in a high turn-over system will cost them more money.

    Also, politicians having to speed up the rate at which they change legislation would work against progressivism. Progressivism works so well because it’s slow, subtle and requires politicians have enough time to build up influence over time to push legislation through. Think of the “how do you cook a frog…turn the heat up slowly” analogy. Giving politicians a smaller window to “change the world” would prevent them from amassing influence & control over other legislators, and would likely mean the legislative changes in each congressmen’s term will outpace the rate of acceptable change by the electorate.

    The real fix is to distribute some of that power back to the states, but good luck with that!

  • [3] February 24, 2015 at 4:31pm

    It doesn’t matter….its just preaching to the choir now.

    The people that are politically aligned with the likes of Shelia Jackson Lee think the Constitution is an old rag that is obsolete at best, or an obstruction to progress toward a more perfect society at worst. As such, they’d gladly give a like minded president full discretion to break through the gridlock within the legislative branch and create / execute laws they see fit.

    People who are on the other side of the political fence are outraged & beside themselves that members of the legislative branch would willingly hand over their power to create law to the executive branch in the name of furthering the agenda of a specific political party.

    No hearts, minds or political stances are changed with Shelia’s admission…and that’s why she did it.

  • [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) +
123 To page: Go
Restoring Love