DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.

84 Responses to “South Carolina bans high capacity assault flag- UPDATED”

  1. 54

    Aguila1952

    @Redteam: I was gonna say that she won’t be reelected but I see that she is in her second term and on her way out in 2018. So we will see if the citizens of SC elect someone who will hold with this type of action or will get someone who will keep with tradition, yes, tradition which is part of these peoples history. If the people want to change it, then let it be so. The change should not be forced or mandated by outsiders.

  2. 55

    Aguila1952

    @Redteam: Again, another idiot blaming the Mexicans. Why don’t you blame the corrupt politicians and business people who let all this happen? They are the ones who make the laws and then disregard them! And then they offer all the freebies that attract these people. Can you blame them when they come with nothing from a failed state? Didn’t your ancestors flee a failed state looking for a better life? I don’t like the situation either but let’s put the blame where it really belongs.

  3. 58

    Redteam

    @Aguila1952: Right, she just got re-elected and she wouldn’t have been running on a ‘ban the flag’ ticket. But that’s behind her. The legislators in the state have to run for re-election, let’s see if they get the 67%. I say no they won’t. I agree that it is a state issue and not for outsiders.

  4. 59

    Aguila1952

    @Redteam: Agreed! As I said before, let the “people” of SC or any other southern state decide for themselves. That flag did not murder anyone nor incite anyone to murder.

  5. 60

    Aguila1952

    @retire05: The last time I checked, a business was supposed to meet the demand in the marketplace. If there is no demand, then product will not be sold. The business is there to make money. However, if they choose not to sell something, that does not mean that someone else can’t sell that item. So consumers have the right and ability to take their business elsewhere. Those who refuse to supply product risk the chance of not only losing a sale, but a customer to a competitor for everything else. There are options. So if Walmart thinks they are all ‘that’, they have another think coming. They act all high and mighty until it starts to affect the bottom line. That is the way to hurt these mofo’s … make them feel the pain of their stupid decisions.

  6. 61

    Redteam

    @Aguila1952:

    @Redteam: Again, another idiot blaming the Mexicans. Why don’t you blame the corrupt politicians and business people who let all this happen? They are the ones who make the laws and then disregard them! And then they offer all the freebies that attract these people.

    you read that incorrectly. I’m not the racist in the crowd, I’m not the one calling for other people to change their laws to suit me. I don’t care if the people in SC fly the Confederate flag or not, it’s their business. I could choose to fly one on my property, but I don’t. The leftie Dimocrats see racism in every thing that happens, they use the Mexicans for racist symbols. That’s them, not me. I don’t see racism in flying a Confederate flag. I sure don’t see racism in naming Robert E Lee High school after a great American and patriot. You want to see racism, look to the big cities of the north, look at the left coast. Look at Baltimore.

  7. 62

    Redteam

    @Aguila1952: What about if a bakery doesn’t want to provide services to gays? Should Walmart have to sell a product to me if I want that product? Why would a gay demanding the baker sell to them have more rights to force the sale of a product that I would to force them to sell me a flag.

  8. 63

    Aguila1952

    @Redteam: Ok, fine. My apologies. Many times I do see the ugly head of racism rise in comments aimed at “Mexicans” who are only a tool in this whole game, mostly to garner votes and more money for states from the feds. The illegals are easy targets but lets not forget who it is that creates this mess in the first place.

    However, as an American, I do believe the borders should be protected, I do believe in ‘legal’ immigration, and I do believe we face an imminent and existential threat from enemies both foreign and domestic.

  9. 64

    Redteam

    @Aguila1952:

    However, as an American, I do believe the borders should be protected, I do believe in ‘legal’ immigration, and I do believe we face an imminent and existential threat from enemies both foreign and domestic.

    me too.

  10. 65

    Aguila1952

    @Redteam: I do not believe a baker can be forced to sell anything to anyone. If they want to lose business that is their choice.
    As for the customer, that is what the market if for. They have other choices and to make a federal case out of something means they are not simply in need of a cake but they want to f**K someone they don’t like up the behind.real good. They should just go on down the street and find a nice cake shop that will accommodate them.

    What I find reprehensible is when businesses resort to knee-jerk reactions because of social media or sentiment and take no account of the totalitarianism going on. They engender this kind of action and legitimize it so next time it will have the same effect when the cry babies wail. Just like businesses that capitulate to the likes of Sharpton and Jackson who shake them down for ‘donations.’ Rather than stand up for principle, they resort to “risk analysis” and what is less costly in monetary terms to the bidness. A bunch of cowards because all they see are short term consequences and not the big picture.

  11. 66

    Redteam

    @Aguila1952:

    I do not believe a baker can be forced to sell anything to anyone. If they want to lose business that is their choice.

    Surely you’re familiar with the case where the gays won judgment recently for not catering a gay wedding? i.e., the baker was forced to sell a product they didn’t normally sell. If they can be forced to, then Walmart should have to sell me a product I want whether they ‘normally’ sell it or not. here’s a link: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/01/21/christian-bakery-guilty-violating-civil-rights-lesbian-couple.html

  12. 67

    warner hyde

    I think by taking down the flag they gave this evil person just what he wanted, Strife and division among the citizens..He’s Rev Al without the shiny suits..

    W

  13. 68

    Aguila1952

    @Redteam: Yes, I am familiar with the action and I think it is reprehensible. It is misguided in it’s attempt to cater to the gay lobby and it’s social pressure tactics. They should have been told to go down the street and buy somewhere else like any other customer/person/citizen/American would have. They are nothing special. (except in their own minds, of course!)

  14. 71

    Aguila1952

    @Redteam: No Walmart can’t be forced. They are not a “Christian” organization, or at least identified as such, and they have big bucks. The gay lobby are cowards and go after the easy prey like small businesses whose livelihoods are on the line and do not have the resources to fight back, or the deep pockets to buy them off.

  15. 72

    Redteam

    @Aguila1952:

    No Walmart can’t be forced. They are not a “Christian” organization

    true, I was just saying if the law’s apply equally then WalMart couldn’t stop selling Confederate flags if someone was requesting them. But, as you say, laws are not applied equally.

  16. 74

    Kevin Kirkpatrick

    Redteam,
    I feel you are not arguing in good faith. Your analogy between Walmart’s flag policy and the Christian bakery is conflating 2 different issues:
    Can a public business refuse to sell particular products (e.g. Confederate flags, drug paraphernalia, or pornographic magazines)?
    Can a public business refuse to sell products to certain people based on their ethnicity, gender, or (in some states) sexuality?

    Like any business, Walmart can and does refuse to sell all sorts of things: Confederate flags, drug paraphernalia, adult/pornographic magazines, etc. However, once Walmart has decided to sell a given product in the public marketplace, it cannot restrict who can purchase that product based on the customers’ gender, race, or – in some states – sexual orientation.

    Your analogy would only make sense if either of these were true:
    1) Walmart’s new policy was to continue to sell confederate flags, but only to non-white customers. Nope.
    – OR –
    2) The gay couple had requested a customized cake with an explicit pro-gay-marriage message. Nope. The couple was 100% unambiguous: they sought legal recourse only after they requested, and were refused, a generic wedding cake that the bakery would’ve happily sold to a straight couple.

    You may feel that the latter case was an overreach of government power even given the actual facts of the case, and constituted a violation of the baker’s rights. Fine – how about you try explaining why (without resorting to cheap rhetoric / dishonest straw man analogies)?

  17. 75

    Redteam

    @Kevin Kirkpatrick: I see your point, but don’t agree. While it seems as if it being a product vs a service makes a difference, it still was not a service normally performed. In other words, it was a product they didn’t stock, such as confederate flags. They didn’t normally sell homosexual wedding services. yes, it could be parsed as just ‘wedding services’ but then Confederate flags could just be labeled ‘flags’, also.

    It’s not I who is not arguing in good faith, it’s the laws not being applied equally and fairly that is not in good faith.

    It wasn’t just the baking of a generic cake, it was the catering the cake to the wedding. I don’t believe they refused to bake the cake, only to deliver it and participate in the services. While it could be said that was discrimination against gays, in the case of the Confederate flags and WalMart, it could be said they are discriminating against southern white people.

    I think the situation is realistic and I don’t think I used any cheap rhetoric.

  18. 76

    Kevin Kirkpatrick

    It wasn’t just the baking of a generic cake, it was the catering the cake to the wedding. I don’t believe they refused to bake the cake, only to deliver it and participate in the services.

    Are we talking about the same case?

    From the official complaint:
    http://katubim.s3.amazonaws.com/Sweet%20Cakes%20Complaint.pdf

    At times relevant to this complaint, Respondant has openly stated that it refuses to sell wedding cakes to same-sex couples for weddings

    Notably, the bakery owners never deny this allegation; in fact, they have asserted on public record that this is precisely their stance:

    http://www.katu.com/communities/gresham/Same-sex-couple-files-discrimination-complaint-Sweet-Cakes-by-Melissa-bakery-219590821.html

    “Klein told KATU at the time that when the couple came in and asked for a cake, he apologized and said his bakery doesn’t do cakes for same-sex weddings. Aaron Klein owns the bakery with his wife Melissa.”

    I take back the accusation of “arguing in bad faith”. Based on your response (again, unless you’re referring to an altogether different case/bakery), it seems you were simply arguing from a position of misinformation.

  19. 77

    Redteam

    Rich Wheeler: Democrat Jim Webb said:

    Responding to the removal of the Confederate flag in states across the country, Webb said: “The Confederate Battle Flag has wrongly been used for racist and other purposes in recent decades. It should not be used in any way as a political symbol that divides us.”

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/24/jim-webb-stands-up-for-people-who-memorialize-the-confederacy/#ixzz3e15ifVSO

    I guess you’ll be looking for another candidate now since apparently in your view he must not have good sense.

  20. 80

    Redteam

    @rich wheeler:

    you ready to vote for him.?

    Well, he’s certainly ahead of many Rino’s. There are more Republicans running that I would not vote for than there are ones that I would vote for. Cruz, Rubio, Jindal all out because not NB citizens, not eligible.

    Don’t forget, all lives are sacred, that includes plant life. The only difference in plant life and animal life is the presence of a central nervous system (a brain) and heck, I know a lot of Dimocrats that don’t have brains, so don’t kill any of those plant lives.

  21. 81

    rich wheeler

    @Redteam: Yeah I’ve heard some say cutting the lawn is as bad as cutting a cow’s throat and watching her bleed out—Probably some of those heartless Conservatives.

  22. 82

    Ditto

    @Aguila1952:

    I suppose the Gadsen Flag must specie-ist with it’s violent anti-snake imagery.

    @mic:

    That’s something I have been thinking about as well. Prior to the Civil War, there was no appreciable difference in the treatment of slaves or institution of slavery under the government of the US flag, with that of the Confederacy. The Confederate flag is no less a symbol than the US flag. If one flag must be removed because of those who have never been slaves see it as a reminder of slavery, then logically, the Constitution and the Federal union it created must also be discarded, as that government also accepted slavery. Those who were slaves after the secession had been slaves under the United States. The fact that the Confederate states seceded does not change that fact, so the logical conclusion is the same.

    @Redteam:

    I guess you’ll be looking for another candidate now since apparently in your view he must not have good sense.

    LOL. And of course Rich doesn’t admit his own hypocrisy in supporting a candidate, who supports the flying of a flag that Rich wants taken down.

    As I see this, where it stands is: symbolism and political speech the totalitarian political left support must be suffered, while that which they disapprove of must be removed. Only that speech which they approve of shall be considered free speech, and fit for public eyes. Some are even now discussing other ‘symbols of racism’ that must be taken down. Coincidentally, this is the same thing that ISIS is doing in the Middle East, destroying history that they find offensive. I didn’t realize before that Rich was so much in favor of the social-political tactics of fascism.

  23. 83

    another vet

    If Root’s attorneys can successfully stack the jury with jurists who think like John Roberts, he will beat the charges of a hate crime. They will rule that even though he said all of those racists things (intent) and then carried them out (the act or in OBAMACARE’s case, the written law), he really meant something else.

  24. 84

    Redteam

    @rich wheeler:

    Probably some of those heartless Conservatives.

    i’m gonna go with, it’s the libs that push the ‘don’t kill a cow’ agenda. I think it’s rather funny when you point out that ‘all life is equal’ and I tell you not to cut the grass because it has a life also and you try to insinuate that is silly. well, remember it is not me that said a blow fly and a human baby deserve equal shots at life. That both should be saved. I guess you are calling for the banning of mosquito repellent?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *