johnnyrodgers20

How does it create a hostile work environment to support the right of homosexuals to be treated equally? I was just pointing out that if you are feeling uncomfortable and that is the only requirement there are many grey areas. I agree you need to produce more but using his guidelines anyone making another employee uncomfortable has a case for a dismissal. You're saying we should prosecute the shopkeeper because he protested against the man who robbed his store. You're asking why isn't the opposite of the law fair. Simple answer - it's not fair because society has decided that certain things are illegal, and this is one of them. Robbing a store is not a protected activity. Impinging on the rights of gays is not a protected activity - and soon it will be a federally prosecuted action, in my opinion. I don't think you get it. I am saying if someone is making you feel uncomfortable that isn't enough in my mind to fire someone. The point you are making is way out of context, that is like the person who always brings up the Nazi's to make their point. I am sure that will be next in your analogy. It is protected activity to think as you like, this is not the USSR. I am not saying it is right to think that way about homosexuals but when we become the thought police it is really getting scary in this nation.

Medicare or Medicaid for starters. Everyone seems to agree that the federal government can force citizens to pay into a program that in turn pays providers to give care to some citizens. The ACA (in part) cut the government out and required citizens to pay that money to a private insurer who then paid providers. I'm a terrible accountant . . . but how are those different from a financial perspective? And that is one reason that MC,MCAID, and SS are going bankrupt and need to be changed! Adding another govt. program that can't sustain itself is sheer madness and I can't believe intelligent people are actually falling for this. It is another nail in the US bankruptcy coffin, and it is coming, no bones about it. We are Greece just ten years ago. I was watching a show, I can't remember where and I don't have the stats but we have the same financial numbers that Greece had a decade ago. I know everyone will come on here and say we aren't Greece and no one will remember this silly thread in ten years. But I want all of you to remember that you were arguing about the debt and how you stood up for all the entitlements.

How does it create a hostile work environment to support the right of homosexuals to be treated equally? I was just pointing out that if you are feeling uncomfortable and that is the only requirement there are many grey areas. I agree you need to produce more but using his guidelines anyone making another employee uncomfortable has a case for a dismissal.

If you are going to use that logic then let me ask you a question, are you creating a hostile work environment if you are outwardly in support of homosexuals? Are you interferring with a person right to believe what he/she wants because you are making him/her uncomfortable with your beliefs? So shouldn't you be canned by saying you are in favor of homosexuals?

How about requiring the insertion of wands into vaginas? Nah. That's not nearly as invasive as shrinking the size of fries, right? You know Carl that is my point!! Why does the left worry about such trivial things when have so many huge issues that need to be solved!!

+1

What's strange is that you sound concerned about salt regulations . . . but not about government ordered rape. Put another way, you sound concerned about the left looking over your shoulder but unconcerned about the right ramming instruments into your orifices. Why is that? Tribalism? You really are being silly now!!! I already said those serious issues are debatable and both sides will fall along party lines. I said abortion and those issues are very improtant, I laugh at the left when they go after trivial things like the amount of salt I use. But maybe it is important to you how much salt I use? Maybe you need to find a release for all your tension? And why don't you elaborate on how the right is in favor of govt. ordered rape? Sounds like you are trying to get the mob revved up to me. I just find it funny that we are going to imprison people for buying an order of extra large fries but the left wants to free drug users. Never mind, knowing what I know about the left that sounds about right.

That could be true. But it's also likely true that Zimmerman probably wouldn't have been assaulted had he not followed Martin, as he was instructed by the 911 operator. It's also likely true that Martin would be alive today if Zimmerman didn't have a gun. Lots and lots and lots of unknowns at this moment, which is why I'm reserving judgment at this time. While that may be true would Zimmerman be alive today? Many people die from being assaulted without a deadly weapon!!

How about requiring the insertion of wands into vaginas? Nah. That's not nearly as invasive as shrinking the size of fries, right? That sentence just made my point Carl, thank you!! I said micro managing, obviously there are the usual debate issues but they are big issues both sides feel they are right about. Abortion, Marriage, defense, the usual. I knew you would choose to pick something that isn't the point, we are talking about the minutia that the left seems happy to try to control, very trivial things, not something like that. You have a very strange way of looking at things. No, what is strange is the left looking over my shoulder and determining if I have been using too much salt. Forcing a restaurant to change their menu because they view it to be hazardous to my health. That is what is really strange.

How about requiring the insertion of wands into vaginas? Nah. That's not nearly as invasive as shrinking the size of fries, right? That sentence just made my point Carl, thank you!! I said micro managing, obviously there are the usual debate issues but they are big issues both sides feel they are right about. Abortion, Marriage, defense, the usual. I knew you would choose to pick something that isn't the point, we are talking about the minutia that the left seems happy to try to control, very trivial things, not something like that.

No, I said that just because something is "law" doesn't make it right. Slavery was once legal, should we go back and reinstitute it? I recognize that the ultra-conservative religious right wants to ban things they disagree with: homosexuality, porn, and abortions being the three most prominent issues. However, there are countless left-wing groups who want you to stop eating meat, prevent you from owning firearms, prevent you from smoking, cut back on your resource usage/carbon "footprint," stop you from eating at Burger King or any other fast food place, outlaw homeschooling, etc. I agree that infringement upon liberties is bad regardless of who does it. It just seems that those on the left are far more prone and likely to try and curtail behavior through legislation than those on the right are. Those left-wing groups you're talking about are the diametric opposite of the far-Right groups. Both fringes are wackos and should be disregarded when talking about the opinions of the majority. I don't think the left is any more prone to infringe on your rights than the right. Both do it, and both are wrong. I think it has a lot to do with which side of the political spectrum you're on. The Left thinks the Right's wrongs are far worse, the Right thinks the Left's wrongs are far worse, and the Centrists (like me, and the majority of Americans) think both fringes are wrong, wrong, wrong. You can be Left-Centrist and Right-Centrist and still be OK. It's when you take your views to the extreme without any willingness to compromise that the country starts to have problems. Like today. Banning salt in NYC was not done by right wingers, forcing Cos. to shrink fries sizes is not done by right wingers. While both fringes are whacko, the lefties try to micro manage your life for your own good. I think that is the point!!

If a Republican sees different opinions, those opinions must be wrong. If an Independent sees black and white options, he laughs at the false dichotomy. Is that the game with board walk and Park Place?

You know that the photo on the right isn't Travon Martin, right? The photo that right-wing apologist websites have been pushing as the "real" Trayvon has been exposed as a fraud. I agree that everyone needs to take a breath and wait for the facts to come in before rushing to judgement, so lets try to do that without engaging in an attempt to smear the kid with racist thug stereotypes. I didn't notice you sticking up for Zimmerman when he was called a P#$$y ass cracker? I think we need to stop with all the stereotypes!!

What? I think you missed my point. I wasn't saying that Fox apologized. I was saying that Fox ran away with the accusations of Obama apologizing for America. I guess I'll take it that you can't show where Obama apologized? That's kind of what I expected. I think I did miss your point and you missed the apology even if it was eloquant it was there in my link!! So let me get this straight you have to say you apologize to make an apology. What happens if you make a mistake and you want to return to a relationship twenty years ago. Is that an apology?

Bilderbergers? Please explain?!?!

Would you point out the apology for me? An "I'm sorry" or an "I apologize" will suffice. I skimmed it and did a word search for "apologize" and "sorry." I couldn't find a quote from President Obama using either. Like I said. You're repeating a lie. If you're ok with that it is your business. I will point that out as soon as you show me where Fox "Apologized".

You seem to be having trouble with the nature of a hypothetical situation. I'm in a helpful mood so I'll try to assist. It doesn't matter if it is likely or probable. Also, I see that you are fully committed to the runaway Fox train of "apologizing for America." Awesome. You have that wrong that is oBUMa's forte!! Pants on fire, my friend. Pants on fire. http://www.politifac...-around-world-/ You're right it was Bush who bowed to the Japnese, who apologized to the Muslim world, what was I thinking? http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/06/barack-obamas-top-10-apologies-how-the-president-has-humiliated-a-superpower

Can you try to reword that? I'm not sure what you're saying. I didn't mean a minority as in ethnic minority but for the few who have preexisting conditions, sorry if I am not clear, I hope that helps. OK. I still don't follow but I'm trying. You are saying that "they [the insurance companies?] may have to cover a minority [people with preexisting conditions?] if you [who?] have to buy for someone who has a preexisting condition but that sounds like an exception to the rule [what rule?]. . ." Thanks. Not good witht he legal stuff so bear with me. Even if it is unconstitutional ( obama care) they may have a point with the preexisting condition. BO's policy states you can't refuse someone for a preezxisting condition from what I gather, I could be wrong.

Pat Robertson says some really dumb things but he says some good things. The problem is he is a high profile person and you'll have to deal with the bad just as you enjoy the good. But he isn't any different than any other human being. How many of us would be in the same boat if every word out of our mouth is dissected by the media and our opponents? Not one of us would be any better than Pat, Biden, Santorum or BO.

Actually what you did was 'guarantee' an outcome if the identities had been switched. You are on dangerous ground when you start issuing absolutes based upon your personal prejudices rather than the facts at hand. Automatically assuming bias is irresponsible. Off the top of my head I can think of three others just within the past few months; Sarah McKinley in Oklahoma, SFC Eddie Waiters near Ft. Benning & a pizza delivery driver in Memphis (don't recall the name). True or not this is not really relevant. "Generally speaking" (this is really going to depend on the jurisdiction but this is more often the case than not) deadly force is considered justified (as a last resort) not only in situations where you reasonably believe you (or a third party) may be killed but also if to prevent serious bodily harm. If a guy has you on the ground pummeling the bejeebers out of you with no sign that he is going to stop, using deadly force to prevent it is justified in most jurisdictions. Screaming "SKITTLES!!" is a meaningless plea to emotion. What Martin had in his pocket is completely irrelevant. What matters from a legal standpoint is whether or not Zimmerman had a legitimate belief that he was in imminent danger of death OR serious bodily harm. If I beat you to death whether pocket contains skittles or a phased plasma rifle in the 40W range doesn't make a damn bit of difference. Take your sane & reasonable opinion elsewhere bub. What people are also forgetting is you don't need a weapon to kill someone. We had a case around here where a man was beaten to death there were no weapons other than fists and feet.

The white house gets together every week to discuss issues with media matters and you don't have a problem with it. Especially afterwards they go out and attack Limbaugh. I would be very concerned about this type of behavior, remember the left will eventually lose the white house and I am sure you will change your mind about these types of tactics then. Who said that I don't have a problem with it? You? I've never even heard of it until the Infowars blog was posted. I'd like to see it documented . . . because frankly I don't trust the source. I certainly wouldn't be surprised by it. Do you have a problem with Fox News being the official mouthpiece of the Republican Party? No more so then I do with with CNN, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, NYT, CT, LAT or Current being the mouth piece of the Democratic party. Riiiiiiight. Nice one!!

Can you try to reword that? I'm not sure what you're saying. I didn't mean a minority as in ethnic minority but for the few who have preexisting conditions, sorry if I am not clear, I hope that helps.

The one thing I have found out is you have to wait until all the evidence is uncovered. Way too many quick judgments that were wrong and hurt the parties involved in the incident

Could you quote for me where the Constitution says that an individual can't be compelled to participate in commerce? Here's the briefest of summaries of the government's position: http://balkin.blogsp...ul-clement.html I may not know all the legal angles on this but one sentence does stick out, it says to regulate not force someone to buy insurance. They may have to cover a minority if you have to buy for someone who has a preexisting condition but that sounds to me like an exception to the rule IMO.

You seem to be having trouble with the nature of a hypothetical situation. I'm in a helpful mood so I'll try to assist. It doesn't matter if it is likely or probable. Also, I see that you are fully committed to the runaway Fox train of "apologizing for America." Awesome. You have that wrong that is oBUMa's forte!!