SkyDekker

I think it is great that an immigrant trophy wife of a billionaire is lecturing Republicans on hard work, using somebody else's words. And the idiots applaud it.

Put a few phrases together and next thing you know, you have a paragraph. http://i.imgur.com/izGwe8C.jpg Or as stated on another forum: Another immigrant ripping off the hard work of natural born Americans.

That's right. Freedom of speech is an issue, right to walk around with guns is not an issue. That's the spirit! Hmmmm You like to limit some rights but others, not so much Hypocrisy on full display. Actually, I am fine with limits on both.

I watched part of that. Painful to watch.

That's right. Freedom of speech is an issue, right to walk around with guns is not an issue. That's the spirit!

Anybody Watch Trump and Pence on 60 Minutes? What a total embarrassment.

Somehow the list of people who had to get arrested was already ready.

It is amazing to me how this report is not getting more attention in the US. People who have been going apeshit about Benghazi, because it cost 4 Americans their lives, are utterly silent, other than making a joke like Turtle. A close personal friend of Bush gave large amounts of money to two people who housed and paid for flight lessons for 2 of the 9/11 hijackers. Saudi Intelligence officers were involved. Bush happily stayed friends with the guy who funded the hijackers. And...nothing. Unbelievable.

oh crap - I didn't realize it was just a jar of peanuts......that is much worse - my brain 'auto-filled' the word "contains" in there... here's a photo of a jar from my work desk from May of 2015), I labeled it as a joke...... you'll enjoy it I like it!

Considering the population needs to be warned that if one is allergic to peanuts, one should not eat peanuts. I am not sure how that same population can be responsible enough to own guns en masse. You have a point - the warning could simply read "Allergy warning - contains peanuts" or even "Contains peanuts" (should really be sufficient) I like this one "Allergy warning - Contains Peanuts - you know who you are" Why would a container of peanuts need a warning in the first place? If it has been determined that the population isn't smart enough to realize that a container of peanuts contains nuts, I am not sure how one can argue that same population should be allowed to own guns.

I disagree. There have been many incidents where a "citizen's arrest" have been made after an actual crime was committed, until police could arrive. And usually with multiple witnesses to corroborate the arresting citizen's side of the story. Very true. But there's a big difference between "arrest" and "detain." The key words "after an actual crime has been committed" are the important part. There was no crime committed here (at least not by the people in the car). For the "asshole with a gun" (in Yoink's very apt words) to detain people on simple suspicion is not a "citizen's arrest". It approaches kidnapping or unlawful restraint. To be honest, sitting in a parked car in the street may not reach the level of "articulable suspicion" necessary for a cop to be able to detain someone. In Canada for a citizen to be able to arrest, that citizen must have witnessed the crime. Suspicion of a crime isn't enough. Is something similar not the case in the US?

Funny stuff. I make reference to studies that showed that, for various reasons, peoples moving into an area tend to agglomerate. Without red-lining, it was found that negroes moving into Champaign-Urbana, for example, would pay a premium to buy into a largely black neighborhood. There are neighborhoods where the population is predominantly Italian, Polish, Cambodian, or Somali. Some people will not venture out of an environment where they can do all their business in some variant of Spanish. Some isolation is economic, where you go where you can afford, and other isolation is voluntary. I made reference to the voluntary variety, and I am sure you can find references to support what I describe. White people do the same thing and it isn't a problem. Why is it a problem for "people of colour" as you put it?

Funny stuff.

Considering the population needs to be warned that if one is allergic to peanuts, one should not eat peanuts. I am not sure how that same population can be responsible enough to own guns en masse.

True, though the job of a SC judge is the interpret the Constitution in most cases. This interpretation is almost by definition subjective. The question becomes, does their interpretation lead their political and personal leanings, or do their political and personal leanings guide their interpretation. In my opinion neither of the above it true and in practice a combination of both is what happens in practice. Not sure any other outcome is really even avoidable.

How people justify the actions of this idiot with a gun is beyond me.

I don't know what is wrong with you this morning. But you can not possibly justify what you are implying with that. Because it is very clearly untrue. You don't really believe that BHO wants to racially divide the nation do you? He may not want to, but he's stumbling his way through trying not to. Like many old white men he has an issue with a person of colour holding a position higher then him. Interesting guess. I reserve the right to like or dislike someone, regardless of their race, gender, nationality, sexual preference or whatever. If someone is gay and I think they are useless, that does not make me a "homophobe" (what a lousy use of language), if they are female and I think they are incompetent that does not make me a misogynist, if they are Norwegian and I can't stand them that does not make me anti-Scandinavian and so forth. If someone does their job and does not make an issue of their sexuality, religion, race, gender or whatever, I prefer to focus on other factors. If someone self-identifies with whatever group, and makes statements related to said self-identification, said affiliation is then fair game. Obama likes to play the race card in such a way that he can take offense at anyone who calls him on playing the race card. I call bullshit. In the same sense that finding a cure for a particular disease puts the charity related to that disease out of business (the March of Dimes narrowly dodged a bullet when Salk & Sabin resolved Polio), the people whose business is "racial equality" have to find racism under every rock or they are out of business. Obama's pals Jackson and Sharpton depend on perceived racism for their quite comfortable living. Rather than showing an identical level of concern for caucasians, orientals and negroes, there is a specified difference between the response to indignities visited upon the various groups, and that is racist. I do not distinguish between 'racism' and 'reverse racism' - it's all racism. Obama has ridden racism like a surfer rides a wave, for his whole career. Good for him, he has become a pro at it. Pointing out that the Emperors new clothes need ironing is not an unfair criticism. BSBD, Winsor You are good with words, no doubt. The fact you are responding to my accusation, yet leave this question unanswered tells me enough: But you can not possibly justify what you are implying with that. Because it is very clearly untrue. You don't really believe that BHO wants to racially divide the nation do you? You're "I have a black friend and I am just blaming him for his actions" speech rings rather hollow.

I don't know what is wrong with you this morning. But you can not possibly justify what you are implying with that. Because it is very clearly untrue. You don't really believe that BHO wants to racially divide the nation do you? He may not want to, but he's stumbling his way through trying not to. Like many old white men he has an issue with a person of colour holding a position higher then him.

Nah just speaks to how many people have no class. How those same people say how other people should throw thicker skins. Appearing to rejoice in the mass murder of people because it was perpetrated with an object that suits your particular argument is sickening.

Well no fucking shit. My original point was that it's what an individual does that is the problem. It makes no difference what means of destruction an individual chooses to use, yet there's many here who would blame an inanimate object. Oh, oh I see. That last line of yours wasn't making light of a mass murder. Your intention was to simply use a mass murder to promote the NRA agenda. Got it. That shows great sympathy for those who died. Good job. (Facepalm) Not quite. It pointed out the stupidity and naivete of those who blame the instrument instead of the operator. Those who don't pick up on that are, well... Which is of course why tuna cans, tennis balls and umbrellas are banned from around the GOP convention but guns are allowed.

Metal tipped umbrellas are very dangerous and cannot be brought, but guns are fine.

I think she made a huge mistake discussing the subject. However, I don't agree with this reasoning. SC rulings are not made on a whim and are thought about over a period of time. I am sure we have all said something that we regret, something we probably wouldn't have said if we had taken a day to think about it.

I notice that no one here wants to address the moments by Obama, comparing Hillary to Bush. Why is that? Have you ever said anything bad to your girlfriend or wife. Or maybe to a sibling? Maybe called your brother or sister stupid? If I then call your brother/daughter/wife/son/sister stupid would you defend them? Would you have been lying at some point? I mean you are comparing statements made ":within the family" to statements made "outside the family" and are wondering why they aren't the same. I highly doubt you aren't smart enough to figure it out on your own. So Obama and Hillary are brother and sister now. Gotta love the hypocrisy. Campaining is abut lies and deceit and you are ok with that. Good. Which one was lying about what? Public statements. Words mean things, right Normiss? Guess I gave you too much credit when I thought you were smart enough to figure it out.

This is so classic Rush. See a headline, forego any thinking or reading, but quickly post. Only to have ass handed....once again. Amazing how there is absolutely no learning happening whatsoever in this process. We now see this attitude more and more. It has always been hard to get people to change their opinions or believes. Until relatively recently if a true subject matter expert spoke on the matter, people would listen. Now an expert speaking on a matter is seen as absolute proof that the opposite must be true. Absolute insanity.

Yes but the police would never do anything nefarious.