User Profile: TRAXX822


Member Since: February 17, 2013


  • [17] March 27, 2015 at 1:26pm

    The law is written that they can refuse service for any reason if it interferes with their religious beliefs.

  • [9] March 27, 2015 at 1:20pm

    This law actually goes beyond the first amendment. I interpret this scenario pretty easily. There is a thin line between discrimination, which I oppose anyone discriminating against gas in this case, and a person or businesses religious freedom. My example is this: scenario1: A gay couple, flamboyant amd obvious, comes in to a bakery and asks for a birthday cake. They pick one off the shelf and ask the baker to write happy birthday John Doe on it. Nothing gay on the cake, cake could be for a straight friends kid for all you know. If you were to deny them that sale purely because your belief is your religious freedom gives you the right to refuse service to anyone based know your beliefs, in my opinion would be discrimination against the gay couple. Scenario 2: the gay couple wants a wedding cake for their union. If the state was to force the baker to make that particular cake would obviously be infringing your religious beliefs then I would say that the state and the gay couple were discriminating against the baker.
    Now in scenario 1, in Indiana, it is perfectly legal to discriminate for any reason. In scenario 2, most states are having issues defining this obvious difference between the services. Prompting Indiana to make stupid laws this article try to argue redundant but in fact are over reaching. The simple solution is to make a blue sky law. Stating a business owner can refuse service to anyone. However, they may not state their reasoning. A simple No, is all.

  • [1] February 24, 2015 at 8:05pm

    Moderation is correct. I mean, I’m definitely not a democrat or a liberal. But I’m also only 30. Which makes most you old fogies in here irrelevant anyways. Let me make something very clear to you guys. Immigration policy WILL be what the dems run on. Now think of this … what if immigration was a republican agenda. What if amnesty could be had (obviously not before the border is completely secure).

    The problem is you guys didn’t grow up with illegal kids in your schools, you didn’t get to play hockey with them in the culdesack, you didnt ride the bus, take classes and experience everything the same as we citizens did. The only difference with these kids that were brought here illegally (Most over 18 now and too late to get papers without “pardon) these kids I went to school with are now 30. Just like me, they have no opportunity in life, they are stuck, no credit, no jobs (real jobs), no car, no help. NOTHING! I very highly doubt that any of you fellow christians really want this. Yeah their parents broke the law. SO WHAT! make this a republican led agenda and make them republican voters. You know that most blacks and mexicans are religious, get on the amnesty tip, win some black votes too. Yeah we will lose the die hard rights. And god love yah for being there, but your time is up. Its not 1960 anymore, get over it.

  • [3] August 6, 2014 at 8:33am

    Looks like he has a vest on. Hard to tell.

  • [1] July 28, 2014 at 8:43pm

    My ski boat would disagree. Best to take a roller from the side unless you want to be swamped.

  • [3] July 28, 2014 at 8:41pm

    You better go Rick!

  • July 24, 2014 at 3:54pm

    Don’t be wasting that delicious treat. I’ll eat em. ;)

  • July 23, 2014 at 5:40pm

    You are correct total BS. Just because you are an A list member doesn’t mean your kids are. IF he was a A list preferred member he would have the companion pass, which means he can fly with one companion for free and they get all his perks.

    That’s why he could not board priority. He likely knew this beforehand and thought I’m entitled, my kids won’t matter and they will let me slip through. NO! Rules are rules.

    Now I’m guessing this guy was tense, the staffs complaints were made before he boarded. I doubt very highly they said delete the tweet and you can board.

    This is not news. This guy is a scab.

  • November 5, 2013 at 8:48am

    Since it was over a controlled airport it may have been a requirement from the managing office at the airport. Here in Chicago the pilot is required to by agreement to use the airport as their launch and landing area. There is no FAR specifically requiring jump pilots to wear a parachute, but as you know, intentional steep banks in excess of 60 degrees or 30 degree nose up or down (not including spins or stalls) requires everyone in the aircraft to wear a parachute.

  • September 10, 2013 at 1:18pm

    I did. What the hell was that?

  • September 4, 2013 at 11:15am

    He was most likely mad about a few things. Feeling like he failed, ruined the day, maybe lost his job, hurt people (i’m sure the expletive came from that one), and aircraft damage. Sure there was a lot going through his mind.

  • September 2, 2013 at 12:49pm

    Really, You are going to get me on a spelling infraction? Are you an english teacher? Am I in school? You can not deny what I am saying. Romney campaigned that he would do this and most of all of you supported him. Now its here, sadly with BO at the wheel, but its here and you all start freaking out calling for treason and impeachment. Look I would LOVE LOVE LOVE to see Obama impeached. But this is just stupid hypocrisy and I think I am now realizing how messed up this 2 party system really is. It is all a joke.

  • September 2, 2013 at 12:44pm


  • September 2, 2013 at 12:42pm

    You nailed it there man.

  • September 2, 2013 at 12:37pm

    Oh and I have to say this. You are all hypocrites. Almost all of you, including Glen Beck, supported Romney. Romney campaigned on intervening in Syria. Most of you voted for a guy that campaigned that he would do just this. You all drive me crazy.

    Look I hate BO, and I love the Blaze. I read ever single story, read almost every comment. The more and more I read the more I realize most of you are just as dumb as the democrats.

    I do not support arming the rebels. Of course, I also do not support ground troops.

    I suggest, and have been suggesting, that a civil war resulting in over 100,000 dead and chemical weapons being used (and thats clear it happened so stop acting like it didn’t happen) on children are enough to make all of you not want to intervene?? You are gutless. If we are going to create international laws and guidelines for war then why aren’t we going to enforce them. Yeah we are out of money, Does it even matter at 16trillion in debt? Does it matter that politico’s will exploit this war for their own political gain? no. Why, because that is the way it is people. You can not change someone believes by doing nothing. It takes force, it costs a lot. Stop bitching about it.

    Responses (3) +
  • September 2, 2013 at 12:28pm

    I’m going to say it. None of these photos are commissioned officers.

    Second, no matter what they have done before it has clearly made them conscientious objectors to any current orders from higher command.

    They need to lay down their arms and get out of the military now. We can not have boys like this fighting next to men who are ready to fight.

    When you join you give up your right to protest orders. For the sake of the lives of the other men around you. This is borderline cowardly. They are no longer fit to be in uniform.

    Responses (1) +
  • September 1, 2013 at 11:41am

    @ Soy, & @Disentnow

    I’m with you guys. Been saying it since the beginning. The blazers and republicans are driving me mad. All I need to justify a strike is 100,000 civilians dead and many many many children being killed by chemical weapons. It was all over social media FROM THE REBELS minutes after the attack. Look, I know the blazers are having a tough time grasping this but Disent is right. If this was Romney these blazers would be all over this in support.

    I don’t want Obama at the helm either people, and clearly Obama is a big baby. But now the Repubs have chosen their side. Too bad they didn’t just keep their mouths shut and let Obama speak his hypocrisy first. Now its hypocrisy upon hypocrisy.

    Anyone not supporting a strike is gutless.

    No i do not support ground troops or arming the rebels. So shut up about Al Qaeda.

  • September 1, 2013 at 11:11am

    In the words of Afroman “Because I got High, Because I got hiiiigh”

  • August 30, 2013 at 1:53pm

    Lets all just tell the truth. We all support a strike against Syria. Chemical weapons are clearly being used. That can not be denied. And we all do not wish harm on any more Syrians, especially children. The ringer is No One wants Obama running the show when our boys are paying the price.

    I suggest to OBAMA if he is listening, Press a few buttons, then tell Assad to step down and allow intervention from UN or US troops. They will deny. Press a few more buttons … then ask again and repeat as necessary.

    They clearly do not care about their civilians so strikes against military installments would be preferential.

    I will not support arming of the rebels.

    Just my 0.02

  • August 30, 2013 at 8:18am

    You didn’t happen to notice the man legs operating the suit? Pretty obvious ;)