Gravitymaster

lol, it was a shot at Salt Lake City and Romney's involvement in it. By the way, Romney himself has stated "it is hard to put on the Games in a major metropolitan area.". It will now be fun to watch you disagree with me while trying not to disagree with Romney

i disagree. I think it would be much more difficult to have the Olympics in a remote location. Just the coordination between suppliers, shippers and contractors would be a real challenge. I wonder if Gordon Brown ever found an NTSC TV and DVD player to watch those Obama speeches on.

I think the word you are avoiding is disingenuous.

Pointing out hypocrisy has always been an acceptable tactic here in SC. Frankly I think anyone who makes a judgement over someone's fitness for the office or POTUS based on something like this and then completely ignores what their guy does is the definition of hypocrisy.

You might want to look up the definition of pandering. I wouldn't want you to hold your breath.

Now this is something that will piss off an entire country. Looks like Romney was right. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/26/north-korea-south-korea

You far left-wingers really are amusing with your emotional indignation over nearly everything. At least he didn't give teh PM DVD's of his speeches in a format that can't even be played in the UK. http://www.760kfmb.com/story/10118080/tacky-obama-gives-queen-of-england-ipod-whis-speeches?redirected=true Where did they put the bust of Churchill? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/4623148/Barack-Obama-sends-bust-of-Winston-Churchill-on-its-way-back-to-Britain.html Didn't hear any outrage from the usuall suspects about these brilliant Diplomatic gestures.

That not the question. The question was how on his first trip abroad did he manage to piss off the whole country of England in only 1 day? Not very "presidential". What's not very Presidential is pandering to groups so they will like you. Please show me where he "pissed off the entire country".

Yeah, what would Romney know about running the Olympics? What an idiot.

It's about the unconstitutional Pennsylvania voter I.D. law. It's about voter I.D. I guess the thread title threw me.

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought this thread was about Voter Fraud.

He's back with Weezy. The Jeffersons were often called the Black version of The Bunkers from All in the Family.

http://www.kentucky.com/2010/03/26/1197075/jury-convicts-all-8-defendants.html Apparently, this is just the tip of the iceburg.

I'm against the death penalty but considering this guy would likely be murdered while in prison, he would have to be kept in solitary confinement for the rest of his life. Would that be considered cruel and inhumane punishment? Is the cost of protecting him while in prison for perhaps 50 or more years still less expensive than the death penalty?

Then let me simplify my question for you. If you would believe that shit, what else would you believe?

Excuse me? Do you always respond in a knee jerk manner, hurling bullshit red herrings into the discusiion. There is no mention of the CIA, Sandinistas, South America, or Iran/Contra. WTF?? Not huge leap at all. You are alleging the war on drugs was racially motivated by the Reagan Admin. Sortly afterwards, crack cocaine showed up in the ghettos of America. Many think the CIA was responsible for bringing in crack. Many also believe that if the CIA brough crack in, that they did so to make money that was used to purchase arms from Iran to be given to the Contras in their civil war against the Sandinista in Nicaragua. The Sadinistas were socialists and we all know that Reagan was opposed to Socialism and did everything posible during his Presidency to destroy it. So if the War on Drugs was racially motivated as you allege, why is it such a big leap to believe the tie in with Iran-Contra and the war in Nicaragua during the same era?

Do you actually believe this? Do you believe the CIA invented crack cocaine in order to keep the black man down and that they were selling it to finance a covert war in South America against the Sandinistas? Do you also believe that Iran Contra was all part of this huge conspiracy and cover-up?

That's because you don't realize how pathetic some men are.

Do you believe the assault weapon ban of 1994 had any effect on the number of crimes involving weapons? Do you believe fewer people died as a result of the assault weapons ban?

Go look it up. I'm asking you. I'm not going to argue with you about the definition of "assault weapons". It doesn't matter how many times you ask. What's the matter, too hard to define? I believe the official anti-gun nut definition is : "Any gun that looks scary"!! That was never the definition by anyone except spouted in response by pro-gun advocate. Certainly it's not the old legal definition by the laws of the previous ban. You may not have liked their definition, but it was legal. There is another and completely different definition that is not legally binding, but is used by the US Military. Historically, the term "assault rifle" is a translation of the German word Sturmgewehr (literally "storm rifle", as in "to storm a position"). The term may need to be more precisely defined, but to suggest there is no legal or historical definition is wildly inaccurate. So you can't really define what an assault weapon is either? What would be the caliber cut-off? How many rounds per minute is the cut-off?

Go look it up. I'm asking you. I'm not going to argue with you about the definition of "assault weapons". It doesn't matter how many times you ask. What's the matter, too hard to define? I believe the official anti-gun nut definition is : "Any gun that looks scary"!!

Go look it up. I'm asking you.

Define assault weapon.

That's pretty much what I said, isn't it? Nope. You wrote "Guns are not the issue, correct." Poor memory you have. Guns are part of the issue. Poor comprehension you have.

That had doubled back on him, and was beating the shit out of him while telling him he was going to die. Let's not leave that very important part out. Well, that's Z's version of the events. I wonder what TM's version is? Our prisons are full of people who proclaim their innocence. Do you believe all of them? Haven't you argued the exact opposite when discussing the death penalty? Nope. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3051768#3051768 That is FACT about a handful of "troubling cases", not an argument for believing all felons who plead "not guilty". If that's the best you can do, then you've lost. Just like if we were being chased by a bear. I don't have to out run the bear, I only have to out run you. Clearly you have posted information in the past that indicates you think their is a lot of miscarriages of justice which landed innocent people in jail. This is at odds with your current claim. +1 Gravitymaster/0 Kallend