Andy9o8

Like These? The one that lives Here? Like This one? I thought they were endangered. You really make this easy. No kidding. Too bad for you that according to This survey by Forbes, Maryland ranks 15th from the top (that's in the top one-third) in a list of best and worst states ranked by business climate. Oh, wait, I know why you said that - you made it up!

Seriously? You really need to throw down a cheap troll like that? What, have you totally shot your wad of intelligent discourse?

http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/06/white-vegan-woman-sues-over-brooklyn-stop-and-frisk/ She didn't riot. That's because white vegan women generally don't have a history of their recent forbears winding up like THIS. (*NSFW!) Race bait much? That picture is probably from the 1940's...over 70 years ago. Grow up. Well if we are picking up images from the 1940s, I bet I could find a few pictures of mass extermination of white people... just a hunch And you don't think that, as a result, those people's survivors and present-day descendants have an extreme sensitivity on issues like bigotry toward their group, genocide and concentration camps? This is not distant history. There are millions of black people still alive today who were living and remember when race lynchings took place (some as recently as the 1960s); who remember when marrying a white woman was a criminal offense until 1967; who remember when being black and driving alone in the Deep South could easily get you killed; who personally experienced pervasive de facto racial discrimination in the workplace and in housing decades after it was formally declared unlawful. And who know fully well that, to this day, black men walking down the street or driving/riding in cars are far, far more likely to get stopped by police than white men are. Anyone who thinks that doesn't have an effect that lasts generations is either naive or a fool.

Good news. Turns out it was just obsolete stuff being sent to N.K. for repairs. That's a relief.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/06/white-vegan-woman-sues-over-brooklyn-stop-and-frisk/ She didn't riot. That's because white vegan women generally don't have a history of their recent forbears winding up like THIS. (*NSFW!)

This, right here, is one of the top 5 reasons why Republicans are losing more women voters and, resultingly, more elections: because Conservatives just love to publicly bash the appearance and/or sexuality of strong, middle-aged women in public office who are not "classically" attractive: Hillary Clinton, Janet Reno, Janet Napolitano, Justice Elena Kagan, and now Judge Debra Nelson. hahaha a haha haha ha a Are you serious? Liberals *never* drag conservative women through the mud do they? They never make fun of their looks, call them sluts, whores, call them stupid bitches, ugly horse faces, etc. It blows me away that people buy into this narrative that Democrats are someone "for women's rights" when history has shown them to be consistently against. I'm on record as saying that Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann are excellent MILFs. I'd never kick one of them out of bed for eating crackers. But I would kick them out for being stupid bitches, which they are.

I know kung fu!

Interesting; Republican: Check Voted for DOMA: Check Voted for Federal Marriage Amendment: Check Never been married: Check And googling his name along with the word "gay" brings up articles saying the same. I googled ("lindsey graham" + "puppy eyes") and got almost 400 hits.

I quite agree. Of course, that's not what I said.

Sure. They're an important and vital part of the world's ecosystem - just as, for example, you are. Anyhow, here are a few articles on this very subject: http://www.google.com/#q=what+place+do+mosquitoes+have+in+the+ecosystem&spell=1&sa=X&ei=clXjUdDRJ_ay4AOW8oDIDw&ved=0CCgQvwUoAA&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.48705608,d.dmg&fp=43343ac3cffa9ab0&biw=1024&bih=605 The articles you linked to all seem to reach the same conclusion, that, aside from being a food source for various other creatures, mosquitoes have no redeeming value and could be wiped from the face of the earth with no ill effects. Not sure how that translates to "an important and vital part of the world's ecosystem". jus' sayin' hopefully my lack of skydiving credentials is irrelevant to this particular issue. You're displaying a species-centric, and, frankly, slightly arrogant, view of other species by taking "an important and vital part of the world's ecosystem" and equating it with an absence or presence of "redeeming value". No redeeming value? Really? Redeeming to what species? Humans only? The arrogance bred of humans' position at the top of the intelligence pyramid is reflected in the presumption that the "redeeming value" of another species should be keyed to its "value", directly or indirectly, to humans. There are billions of bats, birds, fish and lizards that rely on mosquitos and/or their larvae as food; so if mosquitos were suddenly rendered extinct, some other species might follow, with further ripple effects upon still other species as well as the environment. So I imagine those other species might well resent such a short-sighted attitude if they had the intelligence to do so. Humans' superior intelligence and opposable thumbs may give us the ability to exterminate entire species of other animals with which we share this planet for our own convenience, but that doesn't necessarily make it ethical, or for that matter even practical (to the ecosystem) to do so.

This, right here, is one of the top 5 reasons why Republicans are losing more women voters and, resultingly, more elections: because Conservatives just love to publicly bash the appearance and/or sexuality of strong, middle-aged women in public office who are not "classically" attractive: Hillary Clinton, Janet Reno, Janet Napolitano, Justice Elena Kagan, and now Judge Debra Nelson. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who I suspect may be gay (though he denies it) never gets half that kind of shit for his dewey puppy-eyes. Anyhow, it's revolting; but please do continue doing it: I want more Democrats to win elections.

Along the 49th Parallel, more or less.

Threads like this give you an enormous erection, don't they? Have you ever made a skydive?

No doubt they "see" problems. But how far their vision is from reality here is perhaps a reflection of a really low high school graduation rate. The only reason this trial occurred was due to perceptions of criminal injustice. The result was a given. I know an awful lot of very highly educated black people. If you think that the "perception", among black people, of ongoing systemic racial discrimination and pervasive racial inequality in the police-judicial system is concentrated disproportionately on those with poor educations, you are very, very sorely mistaken.

I think the Admin decided to have the DOJ say it to float it as a trial balloon and gauge public opinion (re: further charges); then decide based on that.

Make my day, slit your wrists ... with all due respect to lawrocket (who is a good guy), this world would be a much better off with less slime bag lawyers in it. Seriously? You don't like what I write online so you openly tell me you want me dead? Would you like my address so you can openly threaten my children, too? ETA: The preferred usage in context would be "fewer", not "less".

I frankly don't think Smith-Mundt is, or ever was, (when viewed with "perfect" intellectual honesty) constitutional. You?

Good thing you show the lie to the stereotype that Conservatives hate gays of either gender. I look at her biography's list of accomplishments, then I look at the vitriol spewed at her as a result of her career in public life. Then I remember why I decided to never go into politics or public office, and have passed that advice on to my kids.

If the author of this post does not know the difference between an apostrophe before the "s" and one after the "s", then we might as well all slit our wrists.

Oh, I tried that. The browser just laughed at me.

3... 2... 1...

Well, of course there are various physiological differences between males and females. Now find me a WebMD article that explains why the 7-Elevens are all owned by Indians.

I'd love to read the article, but it wants to force me to register to read it, so to hell with that. But before the article greyed-out, I saw that it deals with the Smith-Mundt Act, which, generally speaking, bans the US Government from engaging in certain forms of propaganda if aimed at a domestic audience. Long story short, I've always had serious doubts as to the Constitutionality of the Act because, put simply, the US Government is no less lawfully entitled than any other entity to the protections of the applicable part of the First Amendment, which states: "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..."

*this* presumes a hell of a lot of evidence that has not been presented, Counselor. AS you wish. I stand by my post.

On that topic, I found this today: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-07-15/the-case-for-abolishing-the-dhs#r=rss A pro-corporate business publication like Business Week is about the last place I'd look for an un-biased and credible analysis of whether a govt department such as the DHS should exist. Most of the federal laws and regulations having to do with product safety, workplace and industrial safety, purity and safety of food and drugs, consumer protection, etc., etc. - the very same ones that cost corporations money and reduce their net profits - are administered under the umbrella of the DHS. Industry in the US has had a powerful, sophisiticated, finely-tuned public relations network, campaigning against workplace and consumer safety measures, since well back into the 19th Century, and this is just another example of that. So you'll forgive me for not trusting the objectivity of the source.