User Profile: zorro

zorro

Member Since: August 31, 2010

Comments

123 To page: Go
  • [-1] September 19, 2014 at 3:53pm

    You seem upset Thomas didn’t recuse himself in the Obamacare case. So even though you’re smart enough to know a Supreme Court judge is not the same as a lower court judge, it still upset you. This is the same kind of frustration the “righties” are showing.

    I’m all for this case to move forward. Ginsburg seems to assume she will be in the majority decision. I’m willing to bet she’ll be in the minority. No self respecting judge would rule against the states in this case. Justice Kennedy, who appears to be the only one who never votes for one party or another like the rest of the judicial hacks on this court, is likely to vote in favor of the states and their same sex marriage bans.

    Responses (3) +
  • [-3] September 19, 2014 at 3:27pm

    The Constitution does not apply to individuals, only the government. It wouldn’t apply in this case. But even if it did, you’re making the assumption they rejected the statues due to religious reasons. The letter stated the statues weren’t “harmonious with the surrounding properties.” This is subjective and the benefit of the doubt was given to the HOA when you signed the agreement.

  • September 19, 2014 at 3:21pm

    I bet there are liberals quoting these numbers right now that didn’t even notice the problem.

  • September 19, 2014 at 3:20pm

    I would argue theBlaze is more of an informal blog rather than a professional news network. I see your point, though.

  • September 19, 2014 at 3:18pm

    “Aw, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. Forfty percent of all people know that.”

    -Homer Simpson

  • September 19, 2014 at 3:17pm

    It’s cool if you want to slam on Fox but you come across as a complete moron saying one is better than the other. We’re making fun of CNN for a glaring error. They’re supposed to be professionals. Feel free to link to the glaring errors of Fox and we can all laugh together.

    Responses (1) +
  • [8] September 19, 2014 at 2:30pm

    By agreeing to the terms of the HOA, you are giving them permission to make the determination of what statues are allowed and which aren’t. It’s still your fault. You’re free to fight it and get support from your neighbors but in the end, you gave up that control to begin with.

    Responses (3) +
  • [1] September 19, 2014 at 2:27pm

    HOA’s suck but those are the rules you agreed with.

  • [1] September 19, 2014 at 12:37pm

    This post needs to be at the top. Only 6 up votes? C’mon…This is a finalist for comment of the year!

  • September 19, 2014 at 12:35pm

    You can make a lot of belts with that thing. I’d have killed it also.

  • September 18, 2014 at 2:50pm

    animoetfide, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and figure you responded to the wrong post. I’d hate to think that someone with no clear understanding of what Ad Hominem means is calling others a “moron.”

  • September 18, 2014 at 2:46pm

    I don’t understand how it’s offensive to Jewish people that a literary reference be used. Why didn’t he just say “heartless, unscrupulous bankers”? My guess is he didn’t think he was talking to uncultured idiots. Live and learn….

  • September 18, 2014 at 2:40pm

    I was behind a lady with two children and the cashier didn’t charge her for a pack of gum. She had already put her wallet away and her kids were getting rowdy so I offered to pay for the gum so she could go on her way. She yelled at me and told me she was capable of paying for the gum herself as she dropped stuff off her purse trying to keep the child on her hip from falling.

    Never again.

    Responses (2) +
  • [1] September 17, 2014 at 2:12pm

    ^^^^Way more offensive^^^^^ than “Shylock”.

    Where’s the outrage?

    Responses (1) +
  • [6] September 17, 2014 at 2:09pm

    Not exactly “etched” in Elijah Cummings’ mind….

    Responses (1) +
  • [3] September 17, 2014 at 1:32pm

    I’ll try to remember this comment the next time a black, homosexual, or Democrat complains about totally benign references to literature.

    These Jewish “leaders” are no different than Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. They’re only complaining for complaining sakes.

  • [3] September 17, 2014 at 1:29pm

    Of course he knew where it came from. That’s why he used it. Shylock was a heartless creditor. He was talking about bankers he felt were heartless. It was, in his context, perfectly appropriate. I don’t see why people are getting up in arms about it.

    Responses (4) +
  • [1] September 17, 2014 at 1:26pm

    I think the people complaining don’t know the reference. If they did, this wouldn’t be a story at all.

  • [4] September 17, 2014 at 1:24pm

    Your criticism is fair but he said nothing wrong. Shylock was a bastard. He was saying those “unscrupulous bankers” were bastards. Because the Shylock in the story happened to be a Jewish is irrelevant. He was also a man. Was he calling all men unscrupulous?

  • [2] September 17, 2014 at 1:22pm

    His use of “Shylock” doesn’t have to refer to Jews at all but rather, unscrupulous bankers, period. I can see why some people would be offended but I think it’s silly.

    That said, a banker who forecloses on a house you haven’t made payments on is not unscrupulous at all. It doesn’t matter how many tours you’ve done in Iraq. Pay your damn bills. Just because you’re in the military doesn’t mean you don’t have responsibilities back home.

123 To page: Go