New S#!t List of “creative and liberal minded” artists

December 2016
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
	1	2	3
4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17
18	19	20	21	22	23	24
25	26	27	28	29	30	31

OUR LINKS

YubaNet
White House Blog
Watts Up With That?
The Union
Sierra Thread
RL “Bob” Crabb
Barry Pruett Blog

New S#!t List of “creative and liberal minded” artists

30 December 2016

George Rebane

The Left’s raw hatred of President-elect Trump and his supporters knows no bounds. The man is not yet sworn in, and already leftwing artists are going out of their way to proclaim that they will not perform at his inaugural. Not long ago, being asked to perform at a presidential event was considered an honor and a command performance. Not any more as our Great Divide widens.

These puffed up prima donnas even claim to have started their own black list, claiming that any of their own who do perform better “get a check in the nine figures. Because it’s probably the last check they’re ever going to get.” But what most certainly will come to pass is that anyone who has any right-leaning sentiments or who respects the Office of the President will neither sponsor nor attend any of the artists who are now clamoring to make public their refusal to perform.

And who are these bigoted pinheads who think that their absence will make a difference? Do they know that this is America where real talent is unending, where there are hundreds of artists looking forward to an invitation, and more thousands ready for their career launching premier. So here are the current members on that All-American shit list – undoubtedly more will be added as 20 January 2017 approaches.

Elton John, Justin Timberlake, Bruno Mars, Katy Perry, Garth Brooks, Andrea Bocelli, Kiss, Celine Dion, David Foster, …

Posted in Culture Comments, Current Affairs, Our Country, The Liberal Mind

66 responses to “New S#!t List of “creative and liberal minded” artists”

stevenfrisch

31 December 2016

By the way Todd, Prop 8 was reviewed by the SCOTUS, which they did after the election, not before.

LikeLike
stevenfrisch

31 December 2016

Re: Posted by: Scott Obermuller | 31 December 2016 at 07:10 PM
Seriously Scott? What I said was that Governor Brown (then Attorney General Brown) stated that he was not going to implement the law until judicial review was complete. Proponents of Prop 8 attempted to get an injunction requiring him ti implement and lost. That is the law—not what you want to be the law, or think should be the law, but what an actual judicial proceeding says is the law until it is changed, either legislatively or by a higher court.
That is kind of how America works gentlemen.

LikeLike
Scott Obermuller

31 December 2016

“They have not, thus the Governor is not in violation.”
So, frisch thinks that since they used jim crow laws in the south for decades, and there was no prosecution of the officials upholding those evil, unconstitutional laws, there was no crime and they didn’t have to abide by the Constitution.
Just amazing, frisch. No prosecution, no crime.
And we notice frisch is now back-tracking and no longer defending his previous statements.

LikeLike
Scott Obermuller

31 December 2016

JonBenet Ramsey was murdered, but no one was ever charged. frisch thinks there was no crime because there was no prosecution.
See the logic?

LikeLike
Scott Obermuller

31 December 2016

“Congress cannot directly compel states to collect and share information regarding immigration status with federal immigration authorities.”
Laughing so hard, I missed that one.
Brown is still in violation of the statutes linked in George’s post at 2:59.
But frisch’s new-found theory that if there is no prosecution, there is no crime, is priceless.
And frisch still is silent about Hillary losing, fair and square.

LikeLike
Walt

31 December 2016

WOW Frisch,, now point the finger at the FEDS. What a load.. That one sure filled up your crapper. Better call a plumber. Yup, The FED DOJ, run by “O” and Co., are sure going to crack down on poor Ka. for harboring illegals. “O” and Co. can’t let them in fast enough, hog tied ICE, pulled CBP’s(that’s customs and boarder patrol for your shallow mind) teeth, shipped illegals to every state in the union. And somehow Ka. isn’t breaking any FED laws on the books? Your grasp on things really suck.
Maybe you missed it. Ol’ Moonbat’s blood pressure is up knowing Trump just might end AGW research. What’s Moonbat’s answer? ” We will launch our own satellite to monitor things.”
Really? At who’s expense? Is he going to rob funds from his train to nowhere?
I’m all for it, if Moonbat is IN that soon to be space junk.

LikeLike
Walt

31 December 2016

For Frishiy..
http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/31/dems-plan-to-use-millions-in-taxpayer-money-to-keep-illegal-immigrants-from-being-deported/

LikeLike
stevenfrisch

31 December 2016

Yes Scott I am saying precisely that–that if ones action, reprehensible as you or I may believe it to be, is within the law and found to be legal at the time the action is taken, it is legal–and that is how it works. To change Jim Crow we had to change he law. Now I might defy the law, but it’s still the law.
Brown did no such thing. There was no legal decision that his actions as Attorney general were contrary to the law.
Why is that so hard for you guys to understand?

LikeLike
stevenfrisch

31 December 2016

Re: Posted by: Scott Obermuller | 31 December 2016 at 07:33 PM
And that is just nonsensical…I know that even you know that is not what I said, nor is it pertinent to the original point.

LikeLike
Gregory

31 December 2016

“Why is that so hard for you guys to understand?”
We’re not from Chicago.

LikeLike
Walt

31 December 2016

Loos like it’s time for someone to rip open a top shelf box of wine. (or in this case whine?)

LikeLike
Todd Juvinall

31 December 2016

Frisch, your interpretation on Prop 8 is “fake news” and you just keep peddling it. The review is done by the AG prior to the initiative being released for signature gathering. Then it passed and was sued. Jerry, the AG decided not to defend it as was the requirement. But then it went to the SCOTUS where it was remanded back to a local court that ruled it unconstitutional. You see you were completely wrong as usual. You need to review and read more and get educated like me.
My lesson to the ignorant student for the day.

LikeLike
Bill Tozer

31 December 2016

9:10pm
Why you be so mean?
🙂

LikeLike
Bill Tozer

31 December 2016

Happy New Year all you absolutely marvelous Deplorables and you deghtful fabulous Irredeemables….and…uh…..er…..ugh……Mr. stevenfrisch as well.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=arbpu1xKAow

LikeLike
Scott Obermuller

31 December 2016

“There was no legal decision that his actions as Attorney general were contrary to the law.”
Actually, we are talking about his actions as governor.
But you dodge and weave, don’t you, frisch. And what about Hillary? Can’t even respond, can you?
I never said Brown had been convicted of anything. Simply that he aids and abets criminal activity.
And that he has broken his oath of office. The absence of prosecution is no proof to the contrary.
frisch believes that jim crow laws were legal. No sir, they were not. They simply were not prosecuted. We live under the umbrella of the Constitution. It is the law of the land and if you think that those who can escape it’s rule by dint of trickery, deceit, or simply having a fed government run by knaves is grounds for declaring evil to be good – you are sick and evil yourself.
Happy New Years.

LikeLike
George Rebane

31 December 2016

stevenfrisch 714pm – I and better legal minds than mine believe strongly that your arguments are wrong on all counts. For example, prosecutors including the AG have prosecutorial discretion that allows them to allocate limited resources to pursuing actual cases. But what is made clear with all such discretion not to prosecute is that its exercise at any time certain is never taken to be a ruling on a law being violated or not, and most certainly does not prejudice the case for prosecution at some future time. The history of jurisprudence contains countless cases where no prosecution occurred against parties patently guilty of violating various laws.
And there is growing momentum along with legal interpretations that permit governors to bring suit against their sanctuary cities or petition the federal govt to do it.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/307634-tex-gov-says-he-will-sign-law-banning-sanctuary-cities
And none of that mumbo-jumbo you cite about immigrants invalidates Art 1324 of my cited US Code. Were these to do so, the abrogation of 1324 would be explicitly called out.

LikeLike