Tab Content
  • bv3's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:07 PM
    Did they do studies of masks in LA during the fires? Imagine getting fogged with that and a foam mask, and breathing the fumes all day.
    2 replies | 151 view(s)
  • bv3's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:04 PM
    What could they have on him that would lead him to fall on his sword like this?
    4 replies | 103 view(s)
  • bv3's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:00 PM
    Yeah, yet attribution isn't so ingrained. Its almost like there is a variable of expedience in what is allowed to become, "ingrained."
    19 replies | 307 view(s)
  • bv3's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:58 PM
    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. seems to me that the use of a comma after violated and the subsequent clarification of necessary conditions for the issuance of a warrant indicates, rather, that this is intended to protect the right of the people to be secure in the persons...against unreasonable searches and seizures. Ergo, until a warrant is issued no searches should occur. As a matter of law. As a matter of sophistry I think you're on to something.
    19 replies | 307 view(s)
  • bv3's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:45 PM
    the "liberty movement" has little impact because we are clean. Trump's support was marshaled behind him, in a more clean information flow that support would have all wound up here. So, instead of something like liberty gaining momentum, we get Trump. Our very own Julian.
    12 replies | 267 view(s)
  • GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:01 PM
    Why are they doing live press conferences in the midst of a pandemic? These should be virtual press conferences.
    7 replies | 217 view(s)
  • GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged's Avatar
    Yesterday, 04:58 PM
    Is this the same guy that is going to give us everything?
    7 replies | 217 view(s)
  • Dr.3D's Avatar
    Yesterday, 04:07 PM
    We have yet to see what the result of the Covid-19 vaccines is going to be. How many vaccine related deaths are we going to see in the next couple of years?
    20 replies | 330 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    1 replies | 104 view(s)
  • GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:27 AM
    Any person for any reason that can get people to not trust the narrative is okay with me.
    4 replies | 103 view(s)
  • GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:49 AM
    Does any person have the authority to subject minors to gender change? What about all those parents that were really wishing for a girl?
    30 replies | 741 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    02-26-2021, 09:37 PM
    jmdrake replied to a thread Potato Head in U.S. Political News
    Wasn't there already a Mrs. Potato head? And isn't the whole point that you can give it your own makeover? I'm glad I'm no longer able to have kids.
    35 replies | 595 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    02-26-2021, 08:08 PM
    LOL. This is rich! Will Farcebook fakecheck Gov Cuomo?
    4 replies | 103 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    02-26-2021, 06:03 PM
    LOL. You're welcome and touche'! Here is my final response. I thought I laid out enough concerning stuff about the new law as it stands without going down the "A gay person can make you have sex with him" rabbit hole. It does concern me that religious affiliated institutions will have to deal with this. I've already seen it happen. When I first went to Vanderbilt there was a Christian Legal Society. I never joined but I had respect for them. They would offer to pray for you when exams were coming up, would have weekly worship services etc. My second year three women started the LGBT legal association. (Q hadn't yet arrived). I was cool with them too but didn't join them either for obvious reasons. ONE YEAR later I read in the paper that the Christian Legal Society lost its funding. Why? The fact that their bylaws required officers to have a personal faith in Jesus and lead worship services was considered "intolerant." (See: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/weekly-standard/vanderbilts-religious-and-political-student-organizations-under-attack) Maybe that was just a coincidence. I dunno. But it seems the more "inclusive" our society becomes, the Christian views are being sidelined. I mean seriously there are so many flavors of Christianity, including Christian churches with gay pastors, that it's crazy that requirement that an officer be a believer is deemed "intolerant." Can I be over the chess club if I hate chess and never learned how to play it? And then there's the question of parents and children. We already have the James Younger case to deal with. How will this new law affect that? What about parents of "Q" children who take them to a conservative church where they hear fire and brimstone about the life they are considering? Yes the CRA doesn't directly affect that, but the Bob Jones University Case shows me how the law can be applied in ways it was never intended to be applied. So...just because I don't share one particular concern with you doesn't mean I don't have concerns.
    54 replies | 933 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    02-26-2021, 05:45 PM
    My brain hurts reading this. As I was explaining to Anti Federalist, any interpretation of an amended Civil Rights Act is to look at how the current CRA is interpreted. It's not a thing of "Well I didn't discriminate against you for being black because I perceive you as being white even though you told me you were black." it's "I didn't discriminate against you for being black because I fired you for being repetitively tardy and that has nothing to do with you being black." Certainly if an employee is in the closet and there's no evidence that he informed his boss that he was gay, then that would be a pretty solid defense against a CRA claim. But the has EVERYTHING to do with the REASON the employee was fired and not some twisted interpretation of what the language you are referencing. If I have a legitimate reason for firing you and I never give any indication that I fired you for anything other than that reason and I fire other people that don't fit your protected class for the same reason then I have a rock solid CRA defense. If, on the other hand, I only fire gay people, or black people, or women, or some other protected class for that same reason, then I have a problem. Look at the other language in the definitions section of the act. 14) LGBTQ people often face discrimination when seeking to rent or purchase housing, as well as in every other aspect of obtaining and maintaining housing. LGBTQ people in same-sex relationships are often discriminated against when two names associated with one gender appear on a housing application, and transgender people often encounter discrimination when credit checks or inquiries reveal a former name. ^That is what the "perceived" language is talking about. Two people could be best friends, or it could be a man and a woman with the feminine or masculine names. Think "The Boy Named Sue" song by Johnny Cash. (In college I knew a young man named Wanda that was dating a young lady named Wanda). Someone seeing such an application might perceive this was a gay couple when it wasn't.
    54 replies | 933 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    02-26-2021, 02:48 PM
    The point you and Madison320 keep missing is that individuals should not gain rights by virtue of being a part of a corporation that they do not have as individuals. But, by the definition of being a corporation, they do.
    36 replies | 660 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    02-26-2021, 02:34 PM
    Anti Federalist, this is how you push back. Rand is the boss. Rand Paul 2024. Everyone else is a waste of time.
    30 replies | 741 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    02-26-2021, 02:32 PM
    What? No. It's not saying you have to accept somebody's gayness. I mean...I have no idea why somebody would not accept somebody's gayness. Well...yeah I can. I have had to explain to more than one friend/family member that he or she was not gay. Why? Because he or she told me over and over again about this person or that person of the opposite sex that he or she was attracted to. I had to explain to that person that, by definition, if you like people of both sexes you aren't gay, you're bi. Everyone that I explained that too ultimately thanked me for helping them see that. Apparently, especially in the lesbian community, there is a stigma about being bi (I don't get that) so some bi people are in denial about that. Okay, back to what the language actually means. You can't discriminate against someone under this bill for liking the same sex. You can't discriminate for not liking the same sex. You can't discriminate for liking the opposite sex. You can't discriminate for not liking the opposite sex. So, under this law, a gay bar could not discriminate against a heterosexual bartender. And that shouldn't be a shocker. The 1964 Civil Rights Act prevents a black owned bar from discriminating against white bartenders on the basis of race.
    54 replies | 933 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    02-26-2021, 02:22 PM
    Okay. I'm going to try to explain this one more time but I'll be brief with my brief. I) The "lack thereof" portion of the text protects the person with the lack thereof! It means the opposite of what you're thinking it means. Again, here is the whole sentence. Discrimination based on sexual orientation includes discrimination based on an individual’s actual or perceived romantic, emotional, physical, or sexual attraction to other persons, or lack thereof, on the basis of gender. So this means that in the context of the 1964 civil rights act, discrimination under that act is barred if it is: A) based on a person's actual or perceived romantic, emotion, physical, or sexual attraction to other persons based on gender or B) lack of sexual attraction on the basis of gender.
    54 replies | 933 view(s)
  • GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged's Avatar
    02-26-2021, 12:42 PM
    I am going for popcorn.
    62 replies | 1521 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    02-26-2021, 10:32 AM
    Egads! Thanks for the correction. Yeah I did a legal analysis on the wrong bill. Similar though. Okay. You know how they say "Don't pay attention to the guy behind the curtain?" Well...the definitions section of the bill is not the most important part. Sadly that's the part people look at. There are some people mad at Rand Paul for not supporting the "anti-lynching" bill, when all it did was to change the language of the hate crimes bill and say "We're going to call this lynching." Ironically there is language in the "anti lynching bill" that says if you assault a shop owner in a time of civil unrest you are guilty of a hate crime/lynching. So....technically some of the BLM/antifa protesters are guilty of lynching. But I digress. Back to your original question. Again this is an amendment to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. As such, everything I wrote previously still stands. So think of that in this context. The striking down of anti-miscegenation laws is analogous to the striking down of bans on gay marriage. An apartment complex that didn't allow interracial couples to rent from them would have fallen under the Fair Housing Act. Now an apartment complex that doesn't allow gay couples falls under the Fair Housing Act. Bob Jones University lost its tax exempt status for banning interracial dating. Oakwood University may very well lose its tax exempt status for not allowing same sex dating. But nobody can sue someone for turning down sexual advances from Halle Berry or Naomi Campbell or Vanessa Williams or Beyonce' just because he doesn't like black women. By analogy nobody can sue someone for not being interested in dating someone of the same sex just because he's not into gays. Look at the text of what you keep quoting. Discrimination based on sexual orientation includes discrimination based on an individual’s actual or perceived romantic, emotional, physical, or sexual attraction to other persons, or lack thereof, on the basis of gender.
    54 replies | 933 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    18 replies | 376 view(s)
  • GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged's Avatar
    02-26-2021, 06:24 AM
    I think they took away his pipe years ago.
    35 replies | 595 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    02-26-2021, 06:23 AM
    And what exactly is that "real message?" Iraq WANTS cooperation with Iran. So does the legitimate Syrian government. Neither the government of Iraq, which WE installed, nor the government in Syria, which we helped create a terrorist organization to topple, want us there. So....why are we there? How could anything but a total pullout of Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan be a "good move?" What's next? We start bombing Vietnam again?
    42 replies | 762 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    02-26-2021, 06:19 AM
    The ghost of John McCain.
    42 replies | 762 view(s)
  • GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged's Avatar
    02-26-2021, 06:16 AM
    Nobody going to steal my dogs. Some people have dogs to protect them. I could be wrong but I was always under the impression that issues with pets are considered trivial by the courts. A zya breed dog is worth $xyz. If your dog was hurt or killed you get $xyz. Obviously firing shots at or hurting the walker is a real crime. I am sure Lady Gaga lives a life of luxury. Does a dog need or care for such? My guess is a dog would just as soon ruin any grass or couch. Does the fact that the dogs were Lady Gaga's somehow make them more legally protected than the dog of the same breed owned by a homeless person?
    15 replies | 309 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    02-26-2021, 06:14 AM
    If you want to know what the bill really does you have to read the bill. Here it is: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/5/text It's basically an amendment of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It kind of seems redundant because the U.S. Supreme Court, even with its supposed 5-4 conservative majority, recently "amended" the 1964 Civil Rights Act in exactly the same way. So....this bill essentially changes nothing. It just puts the congressional rubber stamp on the SCOTUS action. Now the 1964 CRA has been around a long time. (Longer than I have been alive and according to my kids that's pretty old). Something I discovered in 1990, decades after the 1964 Civil Rights Act, that there were still country clubs that barred black members. Shoal Creek country club was hosting the PGA in 1990 when this occurred. I then learned that the 1964 CRA does not cover all businesses. It just covers those considered "public accommodations." With that in mind, not only do you not have to be sexually or romantically attracted to LGBTQ, but if you REALLY want to you can, under the 1964 CRA, create your own all heterosexual, non-trans country club. So what happened to Shoal Creek? Well a few things. A national boycott of the sponsors of the PGA was organized. Also Shoal Creek is one county over from Birmingham Alabama which, who's police department had been contracted to provide security. Birmingham has a majority black population and at the time had its first black mayor. (And all subsequent mayors have been black). So there was pressure on the mayor to get out of the security contract. Ultimately the issue was resolved because Shoal Creek reversed its policy and got a token black person to join. (I bet he got a free membership). The PGA then changed its rules to explicitly require venues not discriminate on the basis of race. So this hypothetical non-LGBTQIA country club could legally exist, but it could face a social backlash in today's climate....which it would anyway regardless of this new bill. So what does change? Well...many years later in law school I read the Bob Jones University vs IRS case. BJU admitted blacks, but they had this asinine policy against interracial dating. Apparently they never read in the Bible where Miriam was struck with leporasy for complaining about Moses having a black wife. Anyhow the IRS stripped BJU of their tax exempt status over this. The SCOTUS sided with the IRS reasoning that the charity status was for promoting public policy, and all three branches of government had show support for the policy of desegregation. The POTUS had desegregated the military. The SCOTUS had struct down "separate but equal" in Brown v Board of Education. And Congress had passed the 1964 CRA. Reading that case sent chills down my spine. Up to that point I had supported LGBTQ rights. I still kind of do. I don't care who sleeps with who. And while I am certain BJU had no biblical grounds for its position against interracial dating, the SCOTUS ruling was not based on biblical grounds. I don't what places like Oakwood University, where I went for a couple of years in undergrad, to have to throw away their religious beliefs just to be able to participate in the Pell Grant program or to lose access to donors who want tax breaks. (Oakwood is so conservative that it kicked Brian McKnight out for getting his then girlfriend pregnant. He did marry her though and went on be nominated for 17 Grammy awards.) The silver lining to all of this is that the SCOTUS recently ruled that the "ecclessiastical exception" allows religious schools to fire teachers for any reason and that they are exempt in that regard from the 1964 CRA. Back to the whole "dating discrimination" thing. Researching Section 230, which many people here oppose, I ran across an interesting case. A "find a roomate" website was sued under the Fair Housing Act because it had "race" as a criteria one could select in...
    54 replies | 933 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    02-25-2021, 10:26 PM
    That's a GOOD question! I am thinking you are talking about people you have relationships with right? Here's my thoughts. Make sure you keep the relationship front and center. Don't try to cross every bridge at the same time. Find common ground in areas where you disagree. That last part is SUPER important! It's easy to find common ground where you agree. Much tougher on the other side. Be patient. Be willing to table conversations and come back to them. Understand that "winning" means any incremental change in position no matter how small. And don't take anything personally. You have to be the adult.
    34 replies | 1600 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    02-25-2021, 08:51 PM
    The man's on top. That's misogenist. And he's to the right. That shows that hetorosexualism is right wing.
    34 replies | 1600 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    02-25-2021, 06:46 PM
    Wait a minute. There's a trans-flag? I thought they were part of the LGBTQIA flag? This is so confusing. Did the trans-nation secede from the LGBTQIA nation?
    36 replies | 786 view(s)
More Activity

49 Visitor Messages

  1. View Conversation
    Please stop trying to "out" Erowe1. Let it go.
  2. I know. Like I said I was going to yank your chain but realized that in the current circumstances it would be bad taste even for me.
  3. View Conversation
    At least until every county or so willingly decided to submit to Christ, which I think will happen eventually because I'm a postmillennialist.
  4. View Conversation
    I wish things were a lot more local too. I'm really not looking for a country of 300 million at all. I think that's too big. Those who didn't want to live by Christian law could live somewhere else and choose God's judgment over his blessings.
  5. View Conversation
    And while I do believe the BIble requires civil authorities to punish homosexuality, and with death as the maximum penalty, I don't think it would be legitimate even for the government to just round up people in a gay bar.

    My reasons on the bearing arms bit are much closer to yours (resistance against tyranny.)
  6. View Conversation
    To be perfectly clear, I absolutely oppose vigilantism. I know you were joking around but I just want you to be clear on where I stand.
  7. View Conversation
    Will you kindly give a tongue lashing to the racist of the board, AmericanSpartan? Thank you. I'd like to see it.
  8. Sorry, but you have failed. That verse does not contain the words "Grace is irresistible." You can interpret it that way, but that's not what the verse says. You had to admit there was "relational language" in the Bible. Yet you have stuck to your guns that there isn't a verse that says "Have a relationship with Jesus." Likewise there is no verse that says "Grace is irresistible." If you were honest you would simply admit that. But you aren't honest.
  9. View Conversation
    Acts 13:48
    And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.
Showing Visitor Messages 1 to 10 of 49
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
About jmdrake

Basic Information

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Activist Reputation (Self-Rated):
1
Select if you "Stand with Rand":
I Stand with Rand (This will add a "Stand with Rand" badge by your name badge by yourr name in all posts.)
Select if you do not support Trump or Hillary.:
No Trump. No Hillary. (This will add a "None of the Above" badge by your name in all posts.)

Signature


9/11 Thermate experiments

Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

"I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

"We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

"It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
44,890
Posts Per Day
8.95
Visitor Messages
Total Messages
49
Most Recent Message
11-05-2016 03:40 PM
General Information
Last Activity
Yesterday 07:53 PM
Join Date
06-06-2007
Referrals
5

38 Friends

  1. affa affa is offline

    Member

    affa
  2. bobbyw24 bobbyw24 is offline

    Banned

    bobbyw24
  3. bv3 bv3 is offline

    Member

    bv3
  4. Cap Cap is offline

    Member

    Cap
  5. Captain Shays Captain Shays is offline

    Member

    Captain Shays
  6. Christian Liberty
  7. cjm cjm is offline

    Member

    cjm
  8. Crowish Crowish is offline

    Member

    Crowish
  9. DGambler DGambler is offline

    Member

    DGambler
  10. DiverseSegregation
Showing Friends 1 to 10 of 38
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
View jmdrake's Blog

Recent Entries

How Ron Paul could smack down Iran critics

by jmdrake on 05-15-2013 at 08:34 AM
Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
Ron needs to quit playing defense and go on offense. It's not enough to say "the Soviet Union was worse than Iran." If he could point out the following documented facts it would shut the naysayer up for good or at least make them back-peddle.

1) In 2003 Iran was the only Muslim country to help us fight and remove the Taliban from power.

See: Jane's Defense Weekly India joins anti-Taliban coalition. "India is believed to have joined Russia, the USA

Read More

Categories
Uncategorized

The new bill of rights.

by jmdrake on 05-15-2013 at 08:33 AM
Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
This parody is an attempt to "rewrite" the bill of rights in keeping with the current application by our criminal government. Original text will be in italics followed by a list of possible options.


Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government

Read More

Categories
Uncategorized

Federal Reserve advised gold standard for Russia

by jmdrake on 05-15-2013 at 08:32 AM
Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
I ran across this information by accident (providence?) while looking for something else. The first link is an essay from Jude Wanniski who went with fed governor Wayne Angell to Moscow right after the collapse of the soviet union. Note that Angell advocated the new Russia to go to a gold backed currency! The second link is an online Google book from the Mises institute that talks about the same essay. I've excerpted the essay bellow. (It's too long to post directly). It's interesting to note

Read More

Categories
Uncategorized

Washington Post 2002 : The U.S. pushed jihad on Afghan schoolchildren.

by jmdrake on 09-13-2011 at 01:15 PM
Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
From U.S., the ABC's of Jihad
Violent Soviet-Era Textbooks Complicate Afghan Education Efforts


By Joe Stephens and David B. Ottaway
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, March 23, 2002; Page A01

In the twilight of the Cold War, the United States spent millions of dollars to supply Afghan schoolchildren with textbooks filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings, part of covert attempts to spur resistance to the Soviet occupation.

Read More

Categories
Uncategorized
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

02-26-2021


02-25-2021


02-17-2021

  • 02:31 AM - Hidden

02-13-2021


02-09-2021


02-04-2021


01-31-2021


01-21-2021


12-09-2020


12-07-2020


12-06-2020


12-04-2020


11-13-2020


11-05-2020


10-13-2020


08-28-2020


08-27-2020


08-15-2020



Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

11-17-2017


Page 1 of 291 1231151101 ... LastLast

02-27-2021


02-26-2021


02-25-2021



Page 1 of 291 1231151101 ... LastLast