Perhaps I am confused, but aren’t Muslim cab drivers allowed to refuse passengers with alcohol due to religious reasons? Furthermore, if such a precedent exists (and I believe it does), shouldn’t it be applied equally no matter the faith? This is not as much a matter of religious freedom as it is religious equality. The government is essentially labeling one faith as more important/sensitive/relevant than the others.
Alcoholism is a choice one person makes at a certain point in his life. Homosexuality is something that a person is. This is why "I don't serve Blacks because it's against my religion" will never be upheld in court.
And to the person who will inevitably respond: "HOMOGAYISM IS A CHOICE LOLOLFARTDERP" I can only tell you that you are a retard.
@peregrin5Jan. 20, 2014 at 11:59pm
"Alcoholism is a choice one person makes at a certain point in his life. Homosexuality is something that a person is. This is why “I don’t serve Blacks because it’s against my religion” will never be upheld in court.
And to the person who will inevitably respond: “HOMOGAYISM IS A CHOICE LOLOLFARTDERP” I can only tell you that you are a ******."
The great liberal argument, "If you believe differently than me, then I shall resort to mockery and childish name calling. So, THERE!!11!1!!1!!!!!!!111"
October 30, 2013 at 12:08pm
The commandment actually doesn’t say kill, it says murder. Don’t murder. There is a difference. There is killing throughout the bible. Think David and Goliath. This has got to be one of the most misquoted things in the bible.
August 21, 2013 at 2:31pm
No matter how much money I would make on welfare, it would not be enough to compensate for the loss of self worth and self respect I would suffer for having to rely on others when I am capable of supporting myself. What our country has lost (among other things) is a sense of personal responsibility and dignity. We see nothing wrong with being a drag on others. Simply stated, we have no shame. I am definitely NOT a collectivist, but I believe that we have a responsibility to contribute to those around us, even if that is nothing more than taking care of your responsibilities instead of taking from others. I am not opposed to assistance for those who need it, but it should a temporary; not a career.
August 12, 2013 at 1:46pm
Spending $107,000 on something that trivial and obscure might result in some perceiving the new president as a giant phallic symbol.
August 12, 2013 at 7:53am
Obama and hypocrisy are becoming synonymous. Furthermore, calling animals such as these “Freedom Fighters” is akin to saying Jeffrey Dahlmer just had an eating disorder. Control the language and you control the people.
Ranger that fast ball was dead center. Best post in a while.
..or, an islamist attack on a U.S. base is "work place violence".
August 12, 2013 at 7:45am
“Why Does This Beach Bum Spend Your Tax Dollars So He Can Surf, Drink, and Score ‘Free Food’ Year Round?”
The simple answer: Because we enable him to do so. The fault falls to those who voted the current regime into office (those who voted multiple times get exponential blame). We currently have the insane running the asylum. We can expect no better until we the people make some changes.
August 12, 2013 at 7:34am
As a Christian conservative and a father, I am taken aback by the thought of anyone naming their child “Messiah.” It is something that I would not even fathom doing since I believe that there is only One who is worthy of that title. Moreover, there is a good argument to be made that naming a child “Messiah” is offensive and demeaning to the true meaning of the word. However, one of the many great things about our country (or at least what it used to be) is that we all have the right to be offensive and demeaning. Therefore, though I agree with the judge’s statement that there is only one Messiah who is Jesus, I believe she grossly overstepped her bounds by ordering the child’s name changed for that reason.
As a culture, we have become so overly PC that we are truly raising generations of hypersensitive self centered twits that think anything THEY find offensive must be quashed. They fail to understand that by doing so, they are eroding their own freedoms. If you don’t like the child’s name (like I don’t) than don’t name your child “Messiah.” If someone else chooses to do so, suck it up. It is their problem, not yours.
Ok, so I've read a lot of comments and yours is the only one I totally agree with.
August 11, 2013 at 11:15pm
I seem to remember Bush’s head on a steak on some cable show. The Blaze ran a story about it, if I recall. Where was the outrage from both sides then? It seems the left is only offended when they are the butt of the joke.
April 24, 2013 at 1:44pm
If only she were this quick to respond with outrage to the terrorist attacks in Benghazi. Perhaps his comments are not what they appear. Rather, he is just acting out in response to a YouTube video. The selective outrage of this admisitration boggles my mind.
oBlamo has already issued a blistering letter of "apology" to the entire UN ...any questions????...oppps ...tee time, gotta go...
Selective outrage. Interesting term. All the innocent dead at repub Bushie2s hands. The bombs killed more than just militants. If your children were murdered by a bomb do you think having the American flag tatooed on it makes it alright? It's only wrong when the left does it...
April 19, 2013 at 4:35pm
I will be happy to apply the same logic to the ricin guy posing in front of the Christian bumper sticker. The bumper sticker said “Christian and a Democrat”. Give you a hint…the problem isn’t the Christian part.
April 19, 2013 at 3:42pm
Well, if he felt that Islam was given a bad name due to the “framing” that he believes occurred on 9/11, he sure cleared that up by killing three and wounding more than 170 innocent victims in the name of Allah. I don’t think any right-minded American can possibly think that radical Islam is to blame for any attacks upon America. After all, it is the religion of peace, right? (sarcasm added)
I don’t think that ALL Muslims are bad any more than I think that ALL pitbulls are bad. However, there is enough of a trend that I wouldn’t bring a pitbull into my home. If that makes me intolerant, then so be it. I would rather be intolerant with a safe family than be a widower who ignored the trend. It is time for America to wise up about this.
April 19, 2013 at 3:22pm
Based upon the totality of comments from all of the relatives that have been interviewed, I do not believe that the two suspects “recently became Muslim” as the title to the article suggests. It is evident that they have always been Muslim, though it is possible that the two terrorists’ spiral into radical Islam occurred only recently. Also, I find it curious that the aunt “became irritated” when she was asked about reports that the two were “devout Christian.” Perhaps she viewed this as an insult.
There were a lot of Freudian slips by this aunt. 1. She believes this is a conspiracy and these two muslim men were set up by our American infidel government. No doubt she believes that 9/11 was a conspiracy, in which muslims were set up to take the fall for this terrorist attack caused by the infidels themselve. 2. She was insulted at a reporter saying he had heard that the older brother was a devout Christian...the religion of infidels. 3. She calls herself a Chechen, and she speaks of having to prove herself in Russia over Cozaks and Russians. Seems to me this Muslim woman has a deep seated hatred toward Russians, and Russia, Christianity, our American government and rules. Think of it, she is blaming our government, and not Islam for setting up her terrorist nephews. It seems to be she is saying in a Freudian way, that the infidels are trying to make Islam look bad, and setting it up to take the fall for these terrorist attacks.
Darkness always shrinks from the Light.
As far as I am concerned, the whole famn damily is a sleeper cell.
April 19, 2013 at 2:55pm
I was once told that a man talking dirty to a woman is sexual harassment, while a woman talking dirty to a man is $4.99 per minute. The insinuation, of course, is that one is reprehensible while the other is acceptable. Sadly, our society seems to have adopted the same dichotomy with regard to racism. If a Caucasian says anything disparaging about another race, they are racist. But if another race disparages Caucasians, they are somehow justified. We even assign different terms, calling white initiated racism “discrimination” and minority initiated racism “reverse discrimination”. This somehow implies there is a difference in the dynamics of racism. Well, there isn’t. Racism is racism no matter the ethnicity of the perpetrator. If not, what would we call minority on minority discrimination, “oblique flanking discrimination?” It is ridiculous!
Imagine the outrage if this was a white administrator making similar comments about another race being “wiped from the earth”. Sure, she lost her job, but I submit that a white person would be investigated, castigated, and live the rest of their life labeled a racist. I suspect very little, if any of this will befall this woman. Instead, she will be defended in the liberal media. Mark my words.
"Racism" is just a word to stir up racial agitation amongst the racial minority against the racial majority.
Racist itself is hate speech.
April 19, 2013 at 12:56pm
You are correct in stating that there are muderers, terrorists, etc. from all religions and political perspectives. However, I only know of one religion that mandates the killing of non-believers and openly celebrates the deaths of innocent non-combatants. And I know of only one political perspective in America that condones it, if not actively, at least through tacit pacificity.
April 18, 2013 at 1:40am
You are quick to say I came across as an idiot while you provide nothing of substance. Is bomb throwing the extent of your contribution? You are obviously the intillectual giant here and it is you alone who is worthy of passing judgement on all of us lowly half-wits. Please educate me oh great one. sarcasm added
April 17, 2013 at 10:01pm
The individual terrorists you mention may have had been dues paying members of the NRA, but I fail to see how that equates to the NRA supporting their terrorists acts. I am a paying member of netflix. If I commit a terrorist act, by your logic, netflix would be supportive of my crime. The challenge is to name a single terrorist who the NRA supported in committing an act of terror. Don’t be a pettifogger!
April 17, 2013 at 5:29pm
So you are against giving tax free status to the NRA because you believe they are a terrorist organization? Please produce one known terrorist who is affiliated with the NRA or one terrorist act conducted by the NRA, or please ****. Why are you not railing against admitted terrorists like Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorn? You lefties make no sense. You complain about law abiding citizens having guns under the guise of protecting our children while you advocate for money to Planned Parenthood who are ACTUALLY killing children. Fly away little birdie.
April 17, 2013 at 1:14pm
This may be one of the most ignorant statements I have read recently. Carr seems to suggest that it would simply be cheaper to execute the perpetrator rather than incur the expenses related to trial. Though this would be cheaper from a financial perspective, what we would lose would be much more than money as doing so would invalidate the constitutional foundation upon which this country is built. Simply stated, we would betray everything we stand for and become no better than those who behead criminals without due process of law. Ultimately this will lead to uprising and revolt. Read Cesare Beccaria’s “Of Crimes and Punishments” and the fallacy of Carr’s belief will be clear.
If Carr is suggesting that putting the perpetrator to death after conviction would save money, he is again quite mistaken. The automatic appeals process that kicks in after a sentence of death is imposed initiates years of litigation by court appointed attorneys whose fees, paid by the taxpayer, typically surpass the cost of housing a prisoner for life without parole. So the death penalty is more expensive.
Let me assert that I am PRO death penalty from a moral perspective. That is to say that I see nothing wrong with killing a justly tried and convicted person. That means they enjoyed the full protection of due process and were still found guilty and sentenced to death. However, I do not feel the death penalty is a good “business decision”. There are better ways to spend ou
April 17, 2013 at 12:37pm
True and the proof is in his voting record since he voted against the born alive infant protection act.
April 17, 2013 at 12:34pm
Good question. He sure didn’t have a problem saying that Cambridge, MA police sergeant James Crowley “acted stupidly” when he arrested black Harvard professor Henry Gates Jr. while that case was still “active”. Seems his inability to comment is dictated by factors other than whether the case/trial is “active”.