Andy9o8

Ok, quote me the part where she says anyone who criticises Obama is racist. Heck, just tell me what the time is in the video and I'll quote it for you. Go ahead, I'll wait. It's the first words she says. "There's a level of disrespect for the office that occurs, in some cases, maybe even many cases because he's african american." That's liberal PC speak for anyone who doesn't agree with the president is racist because he's black and you're not. You're paranoid. Has a shrink ever meaningfully discussed with you your bitter obsession with black people?

No, that would be you.

"Outsourcing a Hindu" is an American tradition. Am I going to hell for saying that?

Then why are you playing? I only play with myself.

Yep. And I think they also forget that Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Shamir and Yitzhak Rabin were terrorists. The US certainly dealt with them. Yeah. I'm pretty sure (and of course you know this, semantic silliness aside) that the expression (faulty though it may be) refers to dealing those who are terrorists in the present tense, not to dealing with those who were prime ministers when dealt-with, who had been terrorists against British colonial imperialism some decades earlier. I realize you bear no small amount of enmity for the terrorism wrought by the Irish, or the Indians, or the pre-Israeli Jewish Palestinians, etc. against exploitative British imperialist occupiers, but completeness of factual and historical context is what it is. Just because someone becomes a prime minister or president doesn't bring back the innocent civilians they killed in the past tense. To that way of thinking, all the British monarchs and/or prime ministers by whose authorizations innocent indigenous citizens under colonial rule were killed by the British military, not infrequently en masse, should have swung from the yardarm, rather than been permitted to stay in office and expire naturally in their own beds. And that would have been present tense. And yet, other nations' "respectable" governments continued to deal with them, didn't they? I'm sure the families of murdered Irish, Indians, Boers.. the list goes on... would have considered those PMs to be terrorists never to be dealt with again. That aside, you're still twiddling with semantics and deflection. Not my game.

Well, they pay the same taxes on typical consumer goods and services that most everybody else does. No, it's unlikely they pay income taxes on their pay for picking the produce on your plate, for which they almost certainly get paid below minimum wage. And if you're worried about how much in tax revenue goes uncollected for that, compare it to the fact that most of the income earned by the wealthiest people in the US is taxed not as ordinary income (like yours or mine), but at the bargain-basement 15% rate for capital gains. How much is lost by not taxing that shit as ordinary income? Look at the big picture.

The last time Chief Justice Roy Moore misbehaved like that, in 2003, he was removed from office by the Alabama Court of the Judiciary. No doubt he learned from that experience to protect his tactical position. So, this time he's insulated himself by getting 6 of the Court's 9 justices to do his bidding for him, and recusing himself from the decision. Smart move. Now let's see of the federal courts have the stones to try to hold the Alabama Supreme Court in contempt of (federal) court.

Yep. And I think they also forget that Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Shamir and Yitzhak Rabin were terrorists. The US certainly dealt with them. Yeah. I'm pretty sure (and of course you know this, semantic silliness aside) that the expression (faulty though it may be) refers to dealing those who are terrorists in the present tense, not to dealing with those who were prime ministers when dealt-with, who had been terrorists against British colonial imperialism some decades earlier. I realize you bear no small amount of enmity for the terrorism wrought by the Irish, or the Indians, or the pre-Israeli Jewish Palestinians, etc. against exploitative British imperialist occupiers, but completeness of factual and historical context is what it is.

I tried, but he has me blocked.

Seems - based on the police version. I either read or heard a news report w/i past couple days where an eyewitness gives a conflicting version. This article says the officers' body camera images have not yet been released to the public. So in my mind, it's still premature to come to a presumptive conclusion.

I break Billy's balls all the time. But this is something entirely different and on a whole new level because you aren't just breaking his balls but you have suggested that deaf people are stupid and inbred. I suggest you reconsider the statement I agree wholeheartedly and you're correct to call mpohl out for it. It's as bad as suggesting that people from Billy's home state of Alabama are stupid and inbred.

http://www.businessinsider.com/british-engineers-create-car-that-runs-on-fart-gas-2010-8

No. Does every thread have to turn in an Obama thread? One comment about obama and suddenly its an obama thread yet jcalor can talk all the shit he wants about texas and nobody says anything. hypocrites. And if you'll take a breath and re-read jclalor's post #9, rather than just angrily pinging on keywords like a software bot and putting your dukes up, you'll see he wasn't "talking shit (much less "all the shit he wants") about Texas", he was saying that a it's a slam-dunk that a congressman from Kyle's own home state (which happens to be Texas), where naturally Kyle's memory is highly revered, would gain easy political capital from proposing this, regardless of its actual viability. Legislators do that all the time, when they propose feel-good things that are unlikely to happen, they're scoring points with their core political base. So the only thing he's talking shit is about a congressman's being a cheap whore. You know, the way pretty much all of them are.

Cannon Law.

Ah, you see there's your hypocrisy. You're judging one book by how it is used and another book by what is written in it. He reminds me of Alabama. Create an amendment to the state constitution to prevent the application of any foreign law. Then objecting to something based on christian law. Can you show me where this so called Christian law is binding in court like sharia law is? As to your basic premise, no religion's law is formally binding in US courts. Generally, in modern times (say, past 40 or 50 years), the closest courts (especially at the appeals court level, where sometimes they have to reign-in individual whacked-out trial judges) have come to appying a particular religion's laws to a legal matter is when it's been deemed that the parties had agreed to be so bound, much the way parties agree to be bound by specific terms in, say, a contract (like a "mandatory arbitration" clause, or a clause agreeing to apply the law of a particular state to any disputes) or whatever. That said, if you want to see a good example of a (current) judge who's spent his entire legal career bending over backwards to apply Christian "law" (or principles, or whatever) in civil courts, do some research into the applied ideology and career history of Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore.

I'm trying to envision the product of a sheeple mating with an ilk. http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/sheep-antlers-christmas-illustration-cartoon-46400435.jpg

OK, so this isn't about basketball?

I have been in many courthouses where police officers (there to testify) and uniformed bailiffs (working the courtroom) routinely have their service weapons in their holsters in courtrooms while in-custody criminal defendants, some who are seriously dangerous dudes, are in the room just a few feet away from them. Same goes for courtrooms where domestic relations cases are being heard (where, believe me, there's a huge potential for violence between attendees). Gives me the willies every time.

Spock Your Bills

Meh. You're just rationalizing bigotry, and not even very deftly. Shit on that.

Um - that. The reference to John Birch was to the folks who posthumously co-opted his name and formed an organization of virulent crypto-fascisti known as the John Birch Society, which existed mainly in the 50s & early 60s. Back then, they were often referred-to as "John Birchers". The reference to LeMay is pretty self-explanatory, especially in context. One can debate his good vs. evil forever, but I choose not to take the time to delve into that tangent now.

Then by all means, you and whatever screen name you choose to use on any given day are welcome to write your own essay or two. Give it a try. You know, if you can.

James Lyons, respected? By whom? He might have been a capable military commander, but he's a prototypical Democrat-despising fascist pig who pops his mouth off to the lunatic right wing fringe, sees homos and terrorists under every bed, and accuses everyone who isn't a conservative of being an America-hater. Sound familiar? A generation or two ago he'd have been a Curtis LeMay-style John Bircher who saw communists under every bed. Fuck James Lyons and his opinons. Ike warned us about people like him; he's the problem, not the solution. I can see why you'd admire him. Ahh. OK, your turn.

Thereby demonstrating that you wouldn't know the ultimate goal of Islam if you tripped over it.

I don't care, it's in my head. I mean, like every time.