Ok Donald. You keep saying you can / would ‘fix it’ – at least TRY doing so by building a wall – SOoooooo Donald… Care to tell us the details of your plan? You said you’d have Mexico pay for it. Can you at least tell us the details of that? And then identify if /how y I u will get Mexico to pay the Millions each year it will cost to ‘manage’ a border fence.
And then when you’re all done giving us the details of the border fence… You can identify the details of stopping ISIS – which you said you also could / would do.
I bet if you present those details – that would go a LONG way to earning some votes.
Give it some time. There have been zero debates, and serious long hour interviews haven’t even been conducted yet.
Yet your hero odimwit thinks fixing the problem is giving the illegals benefits, giving them citizenship but not fixing the border so more illegals can go take their jobs. You proglodytes are not bright are you.
Simpleton, having mexico pay for it is holding out aid to pay for it. I live in mexico and can see that. Hold out aid until mexico enforces the northern border at least like they do the southern border. Without the rape and extortion they do to the people crossing the southern border.
To paraphrase Pelosi - We have to vote for him to find out what he'll do.
Well for one zap. If he makes it to the first debate, which I think he will. You know as well as I that the media will be asking those things that you want. The details right? If I was Donald all I would say is. To the audience Raise his hands and say If you vote me in I'll tell you my plan! Worked for Piglosi getting Obamacare passed. No one in the MSM went after her on that. He could in my eyes pull the plug on all the other candidates and the hypocritical MSM.
According to this source in 2010 it was $113 BILLION per year the cost directly to American taxpayers for illegal immigration.
If we built a fence REGARDLESS of who pays for it, even if it cost $5 million per mile and the border is 2000 miles that would only total $10 Billion dollars. That is a small portion of $113 Billion spent every single year on illegal immigrants. The math is simple.
My suggestion is triple layered 12' chain link fence topped with razor wire, backed up by "I" beams driven into the ground like ya see those big rams in heavy construction. Monitor with electronics, drones, cameras and every "X" miles have stations of Border cops ready to respond to any attempted breach.
And I can absolutely assure you the cost of who will "pay the Millions each year it will cost to ‘manage’ a border fence," will be infinitesimal compared to what we now spend on a porous border.
Add a surcharge to all monies transferred or sent to Mexican banks/businesses.
Putting prisoners to work to earn their keep.
ISIS - kill everything that resembles or supports them. Support Israel instead of abandoning them. We are going to have to smack someone in the mouth. Start building that missile system Obama abandoned to warn Russia. Change the height of some mountains in Iran. That's a start.
Agreed the discriminating against the Christian people who are discriminated against. Good point!!
And just WHO was actually harmed?? I have been denied service many times due to the exercising my 2A Constitutional right to carry a weapon but i sure didnt run off crying and file a lawsuit, i simply took my business elsewhere. In any of these events you can ONLY be harmed with these issues if you allow yourself to be but thats the difference in what this country used to be as a once great nation and what it has become.
Oh, I posted a response to another of your comments (above in the current "Votes" layout) which addressed this very concern, Zappa.
If you discriminate against answering it there, I will select this comment to pursue your happiness : ) . . .
Harmful how? Because their feelings got hurt? What pathetic people.
harmful?? not baking a cake is not harmful and last time I checked buying cake was not a a CREATOR given RIGHT.
The same govt that says you cannot discriminate by sexual orientation (not outlined in RIGHTS) says the same about not trampling on someone’s religion (very important foundation principal and one main reason we even have a BILL OF RIGHTS at all
so you think people should not be refused service? what about EQUAL rights for the guy who wants a Confed flag cake? What about HIS RIGHTS to cake?? DENIED b/c of his MINORITY political views?
Ok. I take the non-response to mean that you pursue happiness by running away from the hard questions posed to you . . .
Where was the "harm". The baker said we are not comfortable making a cake that said congratulations on your marriage Ava and Eve. I am sure that there are plenty of bakers who would.
How harmful is it not to bake a cake for someone? If that is the biggest problem these chicks face, they have blessed lives. They should be on their knees thanking God for the lack of real challenges. And yes, I discriminate against people who either can't - or choose not to - pay me what I'm worth all fhe time. So I guess that makes my practice of charging what my market will bear "harmful." Typical moocher mentality, zappa.
[-4] July 3, 2015 at 9:13am
No one is forced to own a business. (Which then must operate within the boundaries / rules and regulations of doing business in the public marketplace.
And in this case – this state… One of the rules of operating a business in the public marketplace is that you can NOT discriminate against customers / potential customers on the grounds of sexual orientation.
Zap, The bakery company did not discriminate against gays. I bet they have often sold baked goods to gays. The issue is the OWDS insisting on a decoration that is insulting to Christian values. The government official who passes sentence and is trying to mute the bakers is misusing his authority.
Seriously, Zappa? Soooo, you have no trouble at all with the BIGOTED double standard from the gay/lgtb communities? How 13 (Count them!) bakeries REFUSED to bake a traditional cake, or how Muslim bakeries can refuse service for a gay cake? Doesn't smack you as discrimination against Christians and obvious targeting methods? Are you just that blind, stupid or so deeply entrenched in your Xenophobia that you can't admit the violation of the Amendments flies both ways and the judge ruling in this case is a HACK whose personal bias clearly colored this ruling? He should be disbarred for this ruling, since it clearly comes a desire to 'rehabilitate' Christians from the freedom to exercise and practice their faith outside of their home. If one wishes to make the claim that religion can only be practiced in the closet, which is essentially what you Gaystappo are trying to do, then be EQUAL in your treatment of ALL religions and tell Muslim women NO hijabs or burkahs outside the home and mosque, since THAT is also an openly display of religion.
‘Discrimination against Christians and obvious targeting methods?’
They will never target another religion, no matter how heinous.
This is a spiritual war…
‘Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. “All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.” Jesus said to him, “Away from me, satan! For it is written: “Worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only.”
There is only one true God, and satan wants His throne, but…
They have already lost...
‘These things I have spoken unto you, that in Me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.’
Yeah zappa, Scooples should definitely do it. It IS time.
[-8] July 3, 2015 at 9:06am
That right! Fight back!!!
Fight back for your ‘right’ to be (VERY SELECTIVELY) intolerant and discriminate (in the public marketplace)!!!
Exactly! Fight back is RIGHT! A black owned business would not be expected to print flyers for the KKK. A Jewish baker would not be expected to make a cake decorated with swastikas. Nor would a Muslim be forced to cater a dinner serving pork. So why does a Christian have to be made to participate in a gay wedding? You are the one who is intolerant.
ZAPPA, the Natural Law Right of freedom of thought and the Natural Law Right of freedom of association trump anyone's claim - demand - that others' must do what they want them to do.
"Discrimination" is nothing more than deciding something. It is a good thing humans can decide things for themselves, whether others disagree with those decisions or not.
ZAP. While you fight for government to control it's citizens very thought process. YOU need to stop worshiping government and advocating for thousands of new laws that do nothing but increase the power and control government is constantly seeking to expand.
Zappa, Yeah and the homosexuals have Always been strict law followers! Never mind all those sodomy laws!
A person used to have the right to dispose of their property anyway they wanted, including exchanging it for money.
Even if the person is an ignorant racist, he should be able to pick with who he wants to conduct business. Then people spread the word about the person being racist, and his business dries up or he changes how he operates.
As others have stated, I'm sure there are plenty of bakeries, that would happily have met the needs of these lesbians.
Sorry loser, I am way to far beyond the pc crap. I say what I want, when I want, to who I want. I will no longer be forced to change the way I think, talk, and believe to appease people who are constantly offended. You want to change me so that you never have to suffer the horror of being offended. Grow a pair and act like a man for the first time in your miserable life. Sticks and stones after all, douche.
[-24] July 3, 2015 at 9:04am
And so any conservative Republican politician or govt official who has ANY ‘association’ with say…. The Family Reseach Council… Shall we say they are in cahoots with them and then biased and bigoted in all their decision-making and actions???
[-8] July 3, 2015 at 8:59am
Which god with which commandments are folks supposed to follow?
[-10] July 3, 2015 at 8:57am
And since when have acts of discrimination in the public marketplace become forms of free speech or religious freedom?
Since the implementation of the immoral and unjust "public accommodation" laws.
These are the laws that need to be removed, as well as the laws preventing homosexuals to marry.
I mean, should black bakers have to provide a confederate flag cake? Or are discrimination laws discriminatory towards only a few select groups?
How is declining to participate in a religious ceremony that you don't agree with discrimination? Does a black dry cleaner have to clean a Klansmans robes? Would you still feel the same if the baker was a muslim and not a Christian?
July 3, 2015 at 8:54am
So what are the limits of ‘religious freedom’ in the public marketplace?
Can a Muslim extremist business owner claim it is their religious freedom right to kill any apparent Christian infidel customer – rarher than be forced to sell anything / participate in anything the Christian infidel may desire?
Folks will claim that is but an extreme example but… Where does this ‘logic’ end? How is there ‘middle ground’ when talking about the limitless forms of ‘expression’ religiosity freedom can take?
Zappa, we are talking about businesses providing services, not about killing. You are comparing apples and onions here (not even apples and oranges)! Don't be ridiculous!
ZAPPA, killing someone causes harm to them. Not selling them something does no harm to anyone. That is where the logic begins and ends. In a free society anyways.
I love how "sorry, I can't do that for you." and "I will now kill you." are the same thing in your pea brain.
You say it's simply an extreme example, and you are unable to find where the line should be drawn. Here, let me help you:
No man should be forced to do anything against his will in a free country. Thus the line is drawn there. A gay person can't force another person to provide them with any product or service. And a business can't force that gay person to purchase their product or service. If it's not mutually agreeable, then each should go his own way.
Now, does killing a customer force that customer to do anything against his will? Since he has no interest in dying at the moment, then yes it does.
There, see the difference? Not a hard line to see.
They can take it as far as their Christian Faith and Belief in God allows. The question is , "why do you gays feel you have the right to try and make someone do something they are against. You're not a special class of people, you just chose to have sex with the same sex! So what rights do you have? Why should laws be changed because of your lust? Because basically that's all it comes down to.
‘Can a muslim extremist business owner claim it is their religious freedom right to kill any apparent gay infidel customer – rather than be forced to sell anything/participate in anything the gay infidel may desire?’
Why don’t you send one of your “loving couples” to find out…?
To all, sans zapparules:
You do realize where trying to hold a reasonable discussion with a moron gets you, correct?
There have been several instances where Muslim taxi drivers have refused to transport alcoholic beverages. I can recall of a couple of court cases that allowed their cases to stand because of their religious beliefs.
So what are the limits of public involvement in the arena of religious freedom?
You do know that the SC just did away with limits as to who can marry, right, Zappa?
The reasoning for same was because they believed that a child should not be held out as coming from any kind of 'different' home life, such that that child's parent should be allowed to marry based on love.
Some Muslim's believe that they can betroth their children into marriage, and their religious interpretation condones same, even to the already-married adult males.
That's an adult consenting on behalf of the child to enter into a marriage which is 'normal' for this culture subset.
That child has no knowledge that this type of arrangement is 'different' or even repugnant to others in this society.
Why, Zappa, what reasons can you give, Zappa, what arguments against 'normalizing' a child in this situation's home life, do you have to offer on behalf of the state as to why this child should have their home life so ostracized as being 'different'? Are you an ageist? Are you anti-Islaam? Are you against diverse cultures being given a place in our country? Are you just wanting 'Marriage' to mean what you believe it should mean?
Come on, Zappa, engage your logic here.
I suggest that the gays start going after Muslim bakeries and see how thatw works out.
"You do know that the SC just did away with limits as to who can marry, right, Zappa?"
This is very vague. I tried googling, but I got a giant list talking about common law marriage and recent changes relative to same-sex marriage so I gave up. What is the law change to which you are referring? Did they eliminate an age limit perhaps? Was this caving in to NAMBLA or something?
Dondi, it is vague, huh?
Meaning, as of this minute right now, there IS NO STANDING, ENFORCEABLE definition as to what constitutes 'Marriage'.
The caving in is being done to civilized society. Thus, whatever 'group' you want to advocate for, is the 'one' being caved into.
So, now that people understand that "Marriage" has been made to be whatever an individual wants it to be, is there a backbone in this society that will stand up and insist on a Logical Defense of Marriage Act, subsuming the subset of "Married" into the whole set of the already legally defined arrangement of "Civil Union"?
Because it sure looks like a lot of people mistakenly understood that a two consenting, unrelated adults, not in a current legal arrangement IS what society expected the state's to be LICENSING . . .
How about just forcing muslim bakery to bake your cake. It is clear who the haters are. Make an equal comparison next time you have to use some extreme example to give your side the appearance of credibility. Anyone with common sense can see this is a typical liberal tactic. Shame of the freedom haters who want to force their beliefs on others. Hypocrites. I think you personally should be concerned where the logic "begins".
How bout, you try to make me do something against my will, I kill you.
zap, I agree with your sentiments. The LGBT (or more properly the GAYSTAPO) community is not concerned with your rights,only their own. You are not allowed to disagree with them our they will do their best to destroy you. It is the Tyranny of the Minority.
I don't care what they do, just don't try to tell I have no right to disagree. This whole cake thing was dreamed up as a way to destroy this bakery for no other reason than malice. And it should be fought by all means possible. Sick of bureaucrats acting beyond the law.
[-3] July 3, 2015 at 8:33am
The tolerant Left…
So I suppose for every Tea Party protest or ANY ‘disent’ ever offered by the Right… We can start be describing such as being done by… The tolerant Right – ???
And this is great… Between fols like Trump and Coulter representing the Right / Republicans… There is zero chance of a Republican gaining the presidency in our country – where Latinos are becoming a much larger percentage of the population.
That a-way folks… Keep insulting your way out of political power.
Zappa–These people are illegal immigrants not folks who have applied for citizenship and come through the front door. What if a bunch of squatters decided to take up residence in your home uninvited? The police and city government won’t help you to get them out. Each day, they bring in more friends and become more aggressive and dangerous to the point of threatening your family. So, tell me, would you not have a Constitutional right to expect safety and security in your own home? Well, most of us feel that way about our country. It isn’t about hating immigrants, it’s about preserving rule of law and and our Constitutional right to protect our borders from invaders.
Why don't you take them in and pay for them, you hypocrite? Can we take it out of your EBT card?
So you are placing yourself / your ‘value’ to Glenn ‘above’ the Dalai Lama?
[-1] July 2, 2015 at 4:34pm
Not sure who / what you are referring to. You referring to Beck? Obama?
“repub” is who?
[-1] July 2, 2015 at 4:33pm
No. Not necessarily.
I think what is perhaps most important – or at least most ‘concerning’ to me – is if some think just holding differing positions or enacting policy they disagree with is done so to be INTENTIONALLY divisive.
For those that disagree with Obama’s policies and the like… He MAY be considered divisive to SOME, even many of them.
I disagreed with most all that the previous president (Bush) did / said yet… I do not think he was being intentionally divisive. No more so than I believe Obama is intentionally divisive.
Just because one disagrees with another’s positions or policies or actions does not mean one ‘needs’ to believe the other is being intentionally divisive.
I think many who post here do believe Obama is intentionally divisive.
I think they are wrong.
The Left and the Right – Democrats and Republicans often believe in different ways for moving our country forward. Yes. To some amount those differences will cause some degree of divisiveness. That really can’t be helped. We disagree on how to do things / What causes things / etc. However…
I do think most all Americans want to see a ‘better’ America. (Though we may even disagree on what is a ‘better’ America but…)
One of the reasons I dislike Glenn Beck is because I believe he IS INTENTIONALLY divisive – AND is so so as to generate income. I think that is terrible. (like Limbaugh)
Though, of late, I think Beck may be trying to be less divisive so…
[-5] July 2, 2015 at 2:57pm
[-7] July 2, 2015 at 2:57pm
[-2] July 2, 2015 at 2:56pm
Since many, probably most of you did not read all of what Takei wrote…
Takei: “To say that the government does not bestow or grant dignity does not mean it cannot succeed in stripping it away through the imposition of unequal laws and deprivation of due process. At the very least, the government must treat all its subjects with equal human dignity. To deny a group the rights and privileges of others, based solely on an immutable characteristic such as race – or as in Obergefell, sexual orientation – is to strip them of human dignity and of the liberty to live as others live.”
Thanks for providing context. I agree with his basic point, actually, but not his application of it.
 July 2, 2015 at 2:43pm
The Dalai Lama is a wonderful human being and speaks great wisdom.
I respect him for his willingness to meet with someone like Beck who is so divisive. Knowing that I too can often be divisive… It gives me hope to know that there are those around who genuinely seek to ‘bridge the gap’ and work with those elements we can (almost) all agree on – so as to make the world we share a better place.