muff528

I stopped reading here. Obviously this dude has no clue the amount of death and destruction we have either done or had a hand in over the last 60 years. So, you do believe there really was justification for the cowardly murders of 3000 innocent people ...the 60 years of death and destruction wrought by the Great Satan. These 3000 must have had a hand in that desolation. This does seem to validate the author's observation that early Muslim condemnation (particularly by Muslim leadership) of the attacks on innocents by Muslims really must come with the caveat that they were justified in doing so. There really can be no "stand-alone" condemnation based on any moral or lawful standard. So, it seems that they should have no complaints over the drone attacks. Their rules, and all.

For what it's worth, I know this AA captain personally. I don't know whether he is the original author of the entire "open letter" or if it has been embellished by others over the years. I do know that on 9/11 he lost one of his best friends (capt of UAL/WTC plane) in a horrific way that, at that time, was unimaginable. So, if he is the author, I'm willing to cut him some slack since this was written so very soon after that event. And we have a good friend whose kid sister was killed in the World Trade Center on 9/11. She's appalled and disgusted every time she sees or hears this kind of anti-Muslim vomit spewed in the name of those who died on 9/11. Now that's character. I'm with the guy up-thread: the writer(s) of that disgusting letter can go fuck himself. So can those who choose to breathe life into it. Maybe you could copy/paste the letter into a response and highlight the passages you perceive as "anti-Muslim vomit" for those of us who are just too stoopid to see it.

Then you know what would actually be awesome to do for his benefit and the benefit of humanity? Have him get in contact with Snopes and confirm or deny whatever parts of this he did or didn't write. So often quote on the internet are misattributed and then later embellished for nefarious purposes, here's a chance to stick a pin in it and clear it up. I can only assume he knows about the letter's circulation and has chosen to ignore it or let it stand for whatever reason. I don't see anything "nefarious" there, even if it was embellished by others. ..only a letter written in anguish and in the context of 2002. The only thing that even comes close to what might be interpreted by some as even remotely nefarious is the point that Bill made about the "DEMAND" ...and even then only by someone who looks for things they can interpret as "hate-speech" to claim some sort of moral high ground. Again, remember when this was written. If I am missing something else in there, I'm sure it will be pointed out.

For what it's worth, I know this AA captain personally. I don't know whether he is the original author of the entire "open letter" or if it has been embellished by others over the years. I do know that on 9/11 he lost one of his best friends (capt of UAL/WTC plane) in a horrific way that, at that time, was unimaginable. So, if he is the author, I'm willing to cut him some slack since this was written so very soon after that event.

You Pasco bumpkins are just jealous that your county doesn't make the national news as often as Polk does. (Well, you guys do have the Dougherty Gang. But we have LPD & Sheriff Judd. We also have the guy that was skinny dipping in the motel pool a few years ago when he was "accidentally" uh ...snagged by the filtration system and they had to call the FD to get him free. That one made the Leno show.. Also, the guy stealing the case of beer when his low riders tripped him up during the getaway.)

well, it could be a 'he'....not that there's anything wrong with that I believe it was meant to draw attention to the lack of "They". no.....read the phrasing of the quote "a civilian crime analyst detailed trysts with the men in police and fire stations, patrol cars, motels and even in a parking lot after a memorial service for a slain officer." it's funny if it's read that the analyst was the participant in all the 'trysts' I'll keep trying.....futilely Yes, the civilian crime analyst is a "she", and yes, she was a participant (alleged victim) in all the trysts.

This isn't uncommon. I've done it in the civil arena - motion to amend the complaint to conform to proof. It's been done to my client. I understand that in the criminal context it happens all the time. The "child abuse" was grasping at straws. The judge thought so. But I do consider this: will the jury find manslaughter? Did the prosecution prove it beyond a reasonable doubt? There's the inquiry, in my mind. Would anybody feel differently if he was charged with it from the beginning? Trust me - his attorneys and he have known all along that he had that hanging over him. As an untrained outsider, it seems to me that there is no middle ground in this case. Nobody, not even the defense, is disputing that Z pointed his gun at M's chest and pulled the trigger. That was either an act of self-defense or it was 2nd-degree murder. If the jury decides to "compromise" with a manslaughter (or other nonsense charge) conviction, then they are effectively saying that it was not self-defense. If they reject the self-defense argument, and given that Zimmerman made an undisputed conscious decision to shoot Martin, that would leave 2nd-degree murder as the only other option. (consider all that as a question.)

Hmm - didnt try that - but it does glitch, you can grow the horse a few times. Also, if you ring the doorbell a few times the women on the roof knocks the spaceship part off the roof. Also - if you excite the tree with radiation it will grow. You can then get up and tickle her with the feather and she will give it up for you. (...the saucer part, of course.)

Ah! So a specific legal reason combined with the judge's decision that the presence of Martin's mother would not "prejudice (Zimm's) ability to receive a fair trial". Very good explanation. Thanks!

Question for the lawyers here -- Zimmerman's mother was not permitted into the courtroom to observe the trial. The reason given was that she may be called to testify. However, Martin's mother, who has been present for the trial is expected to testify. Does this have to do with which side would call them? Maybe the type of testimony they would be expected to give. Is it because Z is the one who is on trial? Another reason? Is there some legal requirement or is this a decision by the judge?

Another video for those who like this sort of thing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFMq41wSZMA

Congrats!

Why do they need "proof of ownership"? Doesn't the Canadian gov't already have a list of all firearms and their owners? (at least the ones that were in private possession before 2012)

Dam! ...I thought the current PC term was "Wal-Martian". I gotta keep up.

I don't eat them because they're ....well....NASTY! (in a "way too sickeningly sweet" sorta way) I do buy a lot of them, though. My kid eats them. He eats them at room temp but I think that's only because he's too lazy to put them in the toaster and wait.

Well, that would rule out kryptonite for the Kaaba meteorite. (IDK, maybe that would rule it "in". )

the older we get the less we mind the details the more we need to body getting frail we think we're still twenty one "bring me my rascal"

It was free! ...what did you expect!?

Prolly good for a little extra altitude, too.

I'd just about bet on it!

What was that old saying about sausages making laws?

You won't regret the tech upgrade ...especially if you're replacing a player piano. It'll take up a lot less space under the dash. The downside is having to replace all the media.

Well, I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.

Are you familiar with the term "muff diving"?

I dunno. Never had one. Never had one of those RSLs either. But if I ever start jumping again I'll probably get both (for geriatric reasons).