Disqus - Latest Comments for jclark88

Re: Welcome to Our Community - Local Business Discussion By We Shop Manor

Jason A Clark — Tue, 04 May 2021 16:51:01 -0000

This is a test. I'm just testing this out. Thanks.

I simply cannot agree with this. It's not a test if you post it.

Re: Welcome to Our Community - Local Business Discussion By We Shop Manor

Jason A Clark — Tue, 04 May 2021 16:35:24 -0000

This is a test. I'm just testing this out. Thanks.

Re: The Three Men Keeping Abortion Legal in Oklahoma

Jason A Clark — Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:09:12 -0000

This doesn't make any sense. The United States has three co-equal branches of government. The Supreme Court is not supreme over the other two branches. That's basic American government 101. The people who decided the Supreme Court should get to determine whether or not an act by the other two branches was constitutional was the Supreme Court (also taught in basic American government). That power is not granted to them by the constitution.

Re: Without a ballot: During election season, DACA students remain without a voice in politics

Jason A Clark — Tue, 06 Nov 2018 17:00:33 -0000

Part of the problem with getting citizens to feel compassion for these individuals probably starts with the fact that the person in the picture is posing with a giant flag of a country he doesn't even remember. Does he want to be an American or not? You'll not win sympathy by appearing to care more about the country your parents fled than the country that has given you SO MANY opportunities DESPITE the fact you're here illegally.

Re: Sarah Sanders Says She Was Kicked Out Of Restaurant Because She Works For Trump

Jason A Clark — Sat, 23 Jun 2018 19:20:04 -0000

How classy was Sanders though for offering to pay for a meal she wasn't even going to get to enjoy in a restaurant that was kicking her out because they don't like her boss? That's pretty classy.

Re: Hey Star Wars Fans, Don't Let Your Take On The Last Jedi Keep You From Solo

Jason A Clark — Thu, 31 May 2018 06:15:41 -0000

I agree with your thoughts on TLJ and Rogue One and I gotta say that I really, really liked Solo. Give it a shot. I think you'll like it.

Re: Empty, Industrial Warehouse Lightroom Processing Workflow

Jason A Clark — Mon, 09 Jan 2017 18:23:44 -0000

Where can we view the stock photo with the above enhancements?

Re: Masters of Sex not returning for a fifth season

Jason A Clark — Wed, 30 Nov 2016 17:57:58 -0000

Figures. I'm two episodes away from the season 4 finale...

Re: ABC, NBC Slam ‘Miscalculated’ Cruz; ‘Big Mistake for His Career,’ Could Be Reason Trump Loses

Jason A Clark — Thu, 21 Jul 2016 11:41:14 -0000

1) If Trump supports the conservative, Republican agenda that Cruz outlined then Cruz did support him. If not, then Trump is not honest, does not adequately represent the Republican party, and Cruz could not endorse him without being a hypocrite.

2) Again, the pledge was to support not endorse. Trump was aware of the speech content prior to Cruz delivering the speech. If he or his team had a problem with it they should not have asked him to speak or they should have asked for changes. They did neither and then did everything they could to embarrass Cruz on the floor by instigating boos and heckling, having Trump walk in during the speech. Why in the world would Cruz endorse someone who treats him that way?

3) I didn't insert Cruz's family in. I just stated a fact. Trump made fun of Heidi Cruz's looks, essentially, maybe literally, calling her ugly. All candidates are expected to introduce their family to the voters. Since when did it become okay to personally attack a spouse or parent? That's never been okay.

I have no idea what Ted's father supported or didn't but even if he did support Castro it's a GIANT leap from that to saying the man was involved in assassinating the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. That's just an outrageous lie designed to pander to the ill-informed.

Re: ABC, NBC Slam ‘Miscalculated’ Cruz; ‘Big Mistake for His Career,’ Could Be Reason Trump Loses

Jason A Clark — Thu, 21 Jul 2016 11:32:14 -0000

Yet it's okay that the nominee himself had no intention of abiding by that pledge and publicly disavowed it? You can't have it both ways. But again, read my first point one more time.

Re: ABC, NBC Slam ‘Miscalculated’ Cruz; ‘Big Mistake for His Career,’ Could Be Reason Trump Loses

Jason A Clark — Thu, 21 Jul 2016 08:05:28 -0000

If you're one of the people who were disappointed in the speech Ted Cruz gave at the Republican National Convention it is most likely because you are upset that he didn't openly endorse Trump and therefore somehow broke his "pledge" to support the Republican nominee. If that's the case then allow me to make a few observations in his defense.

1. Trump withdrew from the pledge which obviously releases everyone else. But even if you hold Cruz to that pledge the pledge was to "support" the nominee, not "endorse" - two different things. I heard nothing in Cruz's speech that didn't support Trump as the Republican nominee unless you consider his encouragement to vote your conscience a repudiation of Trump (but with Hillary clearly at odds with Republican values I'd argue it was a tacit endorsement to vote for the Republican nominee).

2. If Ted Cruz is a man of integrity and his conservative views and values are honest he simply could not openly endorse Donald Trump, a man who does not embody those values nor openly supports them, and retain his integrity. He would be a hypocrite.

3. Additionally, Trump called Ted Cruz's wife ugly, personally attacked him and his values, and accused Ted's father of conspiring to assassinate JFK. I would love to see ANYONE here who would openly endorse a person who treated YOU and YOUR FAMILY in this manner. If you say that you would then your wife is ugly, you're a dirty liar, and your father is most likely a murderer. Can we still be friends?

Re: How Not To Fight Our Enemies

Jason A Clark — Mon, 14 Mar 2016 02:00:14 -0000

Considering how corrupt and ineffectual the Senate is I view Cruz's lack of endorsements from them as a positive thing.

Re: Is This Really Happening?

Jason A Clark — Sat, 05 Mar 2016 10:16:21 -0000

I voted for Bob Dole. I voted for George W. Bush. Twice. I voted for John McCain. I voted for Mitt Romney. I have done my duty. I have given the party leadership every chance to change their ways. I have been loyal and done my best to prevent the catastrophe of 8 years of Obama. But I will not prostitute myself to vote for Donald Trump in the vain hope that he has a chance to defeat Hillary and lead us in the right direction. I still have to look at myself in the mirror and I still have to sleep at night. I will be able to do neither if I vote for Trump. Sorry.

Re: Is This Really Happening?

Jason A Clark — Sat, 05 Mar 2016 10:12:25 -0000

Well, it's an accurate term...unless your definition of conservative is as fluid as Trump's. There are certain things you must believe in order to be considered a conservative. Since there are so many who claim to be conservative and are not we require a term to distinguish between the two in conversation. I guess we could just say conservatives (minus "true") and pretenders but it seems needlessly confusing.

Re: Is This Really Happening?

Jason A Clark — Sat, 05 Mar 2016 10:08:57 -0000

I think people who care are getting behind the other candidates and helping them make a case. I think that's what Romney did and what Beck and Erickson and many others are doing. A Cruz/Rubio ticket is what needs to happen and happen soon. Unfortunately, it's not up to all of us but the candidates themselves. They have to swallow their pride and take the necessary steps to make that happen.

I do not understand your point about having the party leadership select the nominee because I didn't suggest anything like that. I argued that Trump is a fraud and voters should be warned. There is, in fact, an obvious problem with the nomination process that allows someone who clearly isn't Republican to hijack the nomination by getting votes from other people who clearly aren't Republican...assuming this is what happens. If it's so easy to overturn the entire party platform in one election cycle by one candidate we obviously need to fix something. But that won't happen until the dust has settled. It is too late for that now in this election.

I agree that it's difficult to listen to Mitt discuss strategy now since his was so clearly flawed in the last election.

Re: Is This Really Happening?

Jason A Clark — Fri, 04 Mar 2016 23:28:01 -0000

I don't buy the argument that because rank and file Republicans are mad that they suddenly have the "right" to throw out everything the party stands for to support a lying trickster bully in the hopes that he'll somehow beat a bigger lying bully in November. A scripture from the Bible comes to mind in this instance: "What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses his soul?" Even if Trump really does have the best chance of beating Hillary or Bernie in November (a tenuous argument that isn't exactly supported by national polls) how can any true conservative justify voting for him? What difference does it make if we elect a Republican if he plans to govern exactly like a Democrat (or, God help us, even more tyrannically than Obama)?

Mitt Romney and any other party leader or representative (at any level) can and should denounce Trump and the Trump movement at every turn because he doesn't represent the core beliefs of a majority of the Republican party, as demonstrated by the fact that he hasn't received a majority of the vote in any state and likely will not. In fact, one might argue that Romney et al. have a moral duty to warn party members that Trump is a fraud who is lying to them and that he does not actually represent their beliefs or the platform of the party. This is not the same as "telling the people who to vote for." It's one thing for the "ruling class" to look down upon the peons and demand they vote for their preferred candidate and quite another for party leaders to suggest a strategy for avoiding being stuck with a candidate that doesn't represent a majority of the party and shouldn't even be a member of the party.

The argument being made that Trump is bringing a lot of people into the party is specious at best. While it may be true that people who haven't been Republican are voting for Trump there is little evidence to support the idea that they are solid and trustworthy party members who would support a different Republican candidate if Trump weren't to get the nomination. Furthermore, what good is it to bring people into the party if they do not agree with the party platform and are more likely to change the platform to be more in line with liberal beliefs than they are to contribute to and support conservative ideas? The only way that increased numbers of Republican voters is a good thing is if we are convincing liberal voters that conservative positions are superior and should be supported.

Trump does not represent the conservative agenda in any way. This should be obvious and clear to any true conservative no matter how ill-informed. Anger at Obama and the "establishment," while justifiable, is not an excuse to abandon all reason and vote for a candidate simply because he rails against the powers that be and promises a scorched earth policy. A vote for Trump is a vote of insanity.

If Donald Trump wins the Republican nomination it will destroy the Republican party once and for all. As a lifelong conservative and Republican, I cannot (will not) in good conscience, vote for Donald Trump under any circumstances. It is obvious I am not alone in this assertion. I refuse to vote for someone who doesn't represent my views just because he claims he knows more than anyone else about every subject on earth. Trump is a pompous and boorish bully and I will not be a party to helping him win the most important job on the planet. If this propels another Clinton criminal into the Whitehouse the blame will not be mine but will instead lay at the feet of those too blinded by rage or ignorance to examine Trump honestly and reach a logical conclusion.

Re: A Fourth Party?

Jason A Clark — Wed, 02 Mar 2016 22:19:10 -0000

I think, if Trump wins the nomination, that we (true) conservatives will have no choice but to push one of the conservative candidates (I'm guessing Cruz or Rubio) to make a third party play. I cannot morally vote for Trump and I will never vote for Bernie or Hillary. If Trump is just going to lose to HIllary anyway I may as well vote for a third-party candidate who represents my true beliefs.

Re: A Fourth Party?

Jason A Clark — Wed, 02 Mar 2016 22:17:04 -0000

There actually already exists a Constitution party which is actually quite conservative. Whoever runs it must be stupid, though. This is the perfect time for them to make some waves and become a solid conservative option but I have no idea what they're doing.

Re: A Rubio-Cruz Ticket Might Be the Only Way to Stop Trump

Jason A Clark — Wed, 24 Feb 2016 15:09:35 -0000

Cruz knows he could never get confirmed for Supreme Court at this stage of the game. Besides, I'm certain he thinks the Presidency is a better first move as it will 1) allow him to be President and 2) improve his image so he can get confirmed for Supreme Court when he's nominated AFTER his presidency.

Re: Why the GOP Fears Obama Filling Scalia's SCOTUS Seat

Jason A Clark — Tue, 16 Feb 2016 09:30:30 -0000

I love how liberals get all high and mighty and try to lecture conservatives about the Constitution...when it's convenient for them to do so. The gross hypocracy should cause them to hide their heads in shame but they have no decency or self respect and so they're able to actually say these sorts of things with a straight face.

The author of this article wants to pretend that the liberals are somehow above the fray and superior to the conservative "obstructionists" but in doing so he ignores decades of history and assumes for the liberals in Congress a moral superiority to which they are not entitled and do not deserve. I for one refuse to accept these arguments and will demand with utmost vehemence that our conservative representatives finally do the job for which we elected them. Anything less is an act of treason from which there is no return. Failing in this endeavor will, and by right must, mean the end of the Republican party and the beginning of a new kind of tyranny from which the only escape is insurrection and rebellion of the highest order.

Re: Cruz and Rubio Are Outflanking the GOP Field

Jason A Clark — Fri, 06 Nov 2015 01:26:19 -0000

How about railing at leadership for lying to his face? I don't know why you do not like Cruz but your arguments don't make any sense.

Re: Liberal Hypocrisy on the Subject of Constitutional Tinkering

Jason A Clark — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 14:41:11 -0000

I'm no fan of Donald Trump but it's ridiculous to argue that he wants to "overturn the constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship." Birthright citizenship is a myth, a "right" created from nothingness by the Supreme Court.

The actual wording of the 14th Amendment clearly states how citizenship is earned and it does not in any way state that children born to persons in the country illegally should become atomatic citizens and by extension allow their lawbreaking parents to become citizens. To argue that it does flies in the face of common sense as well as the historical record of those who actually wrote the amendment.

Every country in the world except the U.S. and Canada realizes that making these children automatic citizens only invites more people to break our laws by entering the country illegally which is why no countries in the world except the U.S. and Canada practice such an absurd policy.

Trump isn't trying to overturn anything except an illegal Supreme Court ruling which should have been handled by Congress a long time ago.

Re: SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: Texas Governor Issues Directive on Religious Liberty

Jason A Clark — Sat, 27 Jun 2015 11:45:30 -0000

This argument doesn't work. We have religious freedom laws now. I'm not certain if all police are allowed to opt out of working on Sundays but there are likely many cops who would willingly work on the sabbath. But, yes, in the incredibly unlikely scenario where no police will work on Sundays then I am fully prepared to arm myself and defend me and mine. This IS Texas after all.

Re: SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: Texas Governor Issues Directive on Religious Liberty

Jason A Clark — Fri, 26 Jun 2015 23:45:26 -0000

I'm sorry but religious freedom trumps pretty much every other freedom should there be a conflict.

In this particular situation the "right" to a homosexual marriage is a freedom (for lack of a better term) that five justices had to invent (so say the other four). Therefore, when the shaky "right" to homosexual marriage is in conflict with the Constitutionally granted right to freedom of religion, Governor Abbott is within his rights and within his duty to insure that the citizens of the state of Texas who elected him are protected should they choose to exercise their Constitutional rights.

Re: SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: Texas Governor Issues Directive on Religious Liberty

Jason A Clark — Fri, 26 Jun 2015 17:43:37 -0000

I think this is probably the best and fairest we could have hoped for all parties
involved for the short term at least. The Governor recognizes that the Supreme Court ruling will force the state of Texas to take actions that many citizens of the state do not morally agree with (acknowledging homosexual marriage if not granting them outright). The Governor reminds all citizens and agencies involved that our citizens retain their rights to object on moral grounds, that they have a Constitutional right to do so, and that they will be protected against reprisals for exercising those rights. Very nicely done.