Andy9o8

Oh, well, ok; but if you say "some of my best friends...", I'm outta here.

Anyhow, to answer your question (Why do black people riot like this?) more directly, it's because historically nothing else seems to work.

When I saw the title I wondered how many posts it would take for someone to take the usual swipe at Scary, Angry Negroes. One. ----- In reply, I hereby take the usual swipe at knuckle-dragging rednecks. Whoever that might be.

So long as there are enough suckers in the US who fall for this, combined with fuzzy-faced lads indoctrinated to be eager, there will always be a ready supply of cannon fodder to murder in the name of Fighting The Good Fight, and a ready supply of venues for them to die in. You are an enabler, and as such, you are complicit. ----------------------------------- ETA: I urge you to read and digest THIS.

You nasty boy.

Call a lawyer. Get an emergency injunction.

He'll keep posting as long as he's allowed.

Take a look around you. Maths and PHD's (in real subjects) provide you with far more than prayer or imaginating ever has. They create material things. Christ shows me where to find them and how and when to use them. "God is my metal detector" (The sequel)

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41BA0uqt6IL._SY300_.jpg

Yes, the President certainly did. http://cdn.historycommons.org/images/events/b027_bush_mission_accomplished_2050081722-7750.jpg Indeed.

In fact, Reagan was following his party's successful playbook. For, similarly, during the 1968 campaign, while peace negotiations with the North Vietnamese, led by the Johnson Administration, were making progress, leading to the possibility that a peace deal might be in place in time for Democratic candidate Humphrey to benefit from it, Republican candidate Richard Nixon's operatives deliberately undercut (and successfully de-railed) the negotiations by secretly contacting the South Vietnamese government and convincing them they'd get a better deal under a President Nixon than under a President Humphrey. When LBJ found out about this, both he and Republican Senate Minority Leader Dirksen privately agreed that this was treasonous. Nixon then went on to campaign against the Johnson Administration's inertia in Vietnam, and promised the public that he (Nixon) had a "secret plan" to end the war quickly (which was a lie). In fact? c'mon you are better than this. this is a conspiracy theory. not as crazy as 9/11 truther stuff but definitely not a "fact." It is truth; it's not conspiracy theory. http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21768668 http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/nixon-prolonged-vietnam-war-for-political-gainand-johnson-knew-about-it-newly-unclassified-tapes-suggest-3595441/?no-ist

You're that little kid in the back of the classroom making fart noises with his armpit. I guess you'll stay as long as you can.

Are there any which can be said to have been reconciled completely? Yeah, you got 'im on the run now. The logical extension of what you impliedly suggest is: all gaps in complete knowledge can be filled-in quite nicely with God. The logical extension of that is: ignorance = God.

In fact, Reagan was following his party's successful playbook. For, similarly, during the 1968 campaign, while peace negotiations with the North Vietnamese, led by the Johnson Administration, were making progress, leading to the possibility that a peace deal might be in place in time for Democratic candidate Humphrey to benefit from it, Republican candidate Richard Nixon's operatives deliberately undercut (and successfully de-railed) the negotiations by secretly contacting the South Vietnamese government and convincing them they'd get a better deal under a President Nixon than under a President Humphrey. When LBJ found out about this, both he and Republican Senate Minority Leader Dirksen privately agreed that this was treasonous. Nixon then went on to campaign against the Johnson Administration's inertia in Vietnam, and promised the public that he (Nixon) had a "secret plan" to end the war quickly (which was a lie).

Here's your link.

??? See snip attached. Hey! I found a new toy! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_fucking_question I'm so easily amused.

Legally vs responsible vs morally are all very different things I know you are making this point, I'm just on board I'm in full agreement with Billvon in terms of how I viscerally feel about it (responsibility-wise and morally and about how makes the final 'choice') - I also agree with the legal position as well in terms of who is culpable for the result in terms of protecting society from others. A partial response is that historically, laws generally tend to codify society's moral standards. I don't have a complete response that works for me.

Legally, at least by the standards of "common law" nations, that's not correct, Bill. While it's correct that your act was the final physical act that resulted in the child's death, as a matter of legality, the criminal would be legally guilty of Felony Murder, and you would probably not be legally guilty of any crime. Kelp's analysis in his Post #68 is correct.

As I recall, the Para Sled had 5 cells, not 7. 1 unicorn per cell. So only 5 unicorns. Ground hungry anyway. Needed Frenchies to land it and not break sumpin.

So why did you re-name him "Leo"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning I think a more accurate statement is that it's hard for you to imagine that some other people don't imagine what you imagine.

Kind of like a political "moderate". Works from either direction. Not really. Moderates really do exist; in fact, I think they make up the majority of the electorate, despite Ron's apparent belief that they don't really exist. I think it's more akin to skydivers who try to avoid mentioning to whuffos that they skydive, because they're sick of the same inevitable conversation over and over again.

Ooh, I'm gonna steal that.

Maybe it's because your face didn't match the picture.