Gravitymaster

Perhaps your indignation has something to do with your inability to comprehend? From the Snopes article you posted, Pelosi herself says she wants a plane that can travell to California without having to stop for re-fueling. While the main reason was for security, you cannot deny that the plane would get her there more quickly if it didn't have to stop. That's all the OP said, you made the rest up in your own head. Grasping at straws does not constitute a factual rebuttal. The security concerns raised by Ms Pelosi are quite legit, in spite of what Faux Spews, et al, had to say on the matter. Inquiries are not orders, in spite of what was spread through the bullshit info sources RWCs rely upon. The SOH has to be able to take over the government in a timely manner, in the event of the P and VP dying. The most risky part of any flight are in the vicinity of airports. Avoiding intermediate stops is good for both safety and security. Intelligent, well informed people know these facts. Dumbfuck RWCs, not so much. RWCs are perfectly happy to stay ignorant, and keep repeating things thjat are demonstrably FALSE!! So in other words, you agree that she needed a plane that could get her from California to DC as quickly as possible. Got it.

There you go again. I simply said it was not the same. Here's something for you liberals to all be proud of. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ea3uvAu7p6U&feature=player_embedded#!

Nothing to extract. I said liberals would try and pass a law relating to public airways. I never claimed anything more. You just have reached the pathetic stage you often get to where you try and change what was said because you can't concede a point. Have a good day.

Not the same. In my example, we have actual elected officials with the power to change the law. In your example, we have a citizens group trying to lobby for changes. Big difference if you will allow yourself to see it.

Just look up the Parents Television Council. Are they made up of politicians with the power to change and enact laws?

MA might need to look into some of its other age-related laws if they have 20 year old grandfathers. Is because of those sluts, I tell ya.

yes, YOU would indeed think that. What should I have thought? I only ask because it seems it's you lefties lately who seem to be the ones passing laws on what people can think.

So a Presidential nominee front runner (presumed runner up) says he's going to enforce obscenity laws to fight the scourge of pornography and it's just symbolic pandering. But a lefty proposes shutting down Rush and it's proof that the liberals will ban free speech. Yep...not your usual double standard at all. But it is your usual inability to see a difference. Enforcing existing laws vs. creating new ones. Yep, no difference there. So a Conservative wants to use existing laws to limit free speech, and that is good. But a lefty proposes a law and it is proof that liberals will ban free speech. Makes sense to some I guess. One politician who's an ass and will not be in any position to enforce or enact any new laws vs. an elected city council who has actually introduced legislation. Yep, sounds like the same thing to some people, I guess.

Because otherwise justice would be working correctly and justly and there isn't a whole lot worth protesting. Oh, you mean like it is in Florida?

So a Presidential nominee front runner (presumed runner up) says he's going to enforce obscenity laws to fight the scourge of pornography and it's just symbolic pandering. But a lefty proposes shutting down Rush and it's proof that the liberals will ban free speech. Yep...not your usual double standard at all. But it is your usual inability to see a difference. Enforcing existing laws vs. creating new ones. Yep, no difference there.

When the boys are not charged because it was self-defence. Why does it have to wait until then? I can't find where anyone has been arrested for this hate crime.

Here's what I said in case you have forgotten.

Perhaps your indignation has something to do with your inability to comprehend? From the Snopes article you posted, Pelosi herself says she wants a plane that can travell to California without having to stop for re-fueling. While the main reason was for security, you cannot deny that the plane would get her there more quickly if it didn't have to stop. That's all the OP said, you made the rest up in your own head.

Huh?? How is this conservatives trying to pass a "law". Hopefully you will quickly realize your position on this is pretty weak and you will stop digging a deeper hole for yourself. But please, if you insist, do continue.

But their always mature enough for the death penalty. The death penalty is to protect society from hardened criminals. BTW, I know you have developed a stereo-type for anyone conservative but, just to burst your bubble, I don't support the death penalty. However, I do support life in prison at hard labor and reparations to the victims and/or their families.

Conservatives don't do much to dispel the KKK notion when they're marketing materials like this. What proof do you have this was being marketed by conservatives? Right, that's what I thought.

1. Non-sequitor for this discussion. 2. Non-sequitor to this discussion. However, a private University absolutely has the right to enact certain protocols. Would you have the same attitude if it they were banning "f*ggot, n*gger, k*ke, etc? Quite different that a government banning speech, don't you think? 3. Non-sequitor to this discussion. However, Santorums an ass and he is simply catering to a certain voter. He's not going to try and enact any laws regarding pornography for adults.

That's the problem with arbitrary age designations. Some States allow someone to drive a car at the age of 16. Would you support lowering the age to enter the military to 16 just based on this?

I disagree. People mature differently. Some clearly do not have the maturity to serve, fight or vote, simply based on the number of years they have been on the Earth.

That has absolutely nothing to do with what actually happened. Wendy P. Oh, of course it does. "2+2=4" wlsc has already proven his/her inability/unwillingness to form an actual argument about anything. Not really the best way to start off your career as a Speaker's Corner contributor... Oh, I suspect this is not the beginning of Kevins career in Speakers Corner.

I hope this was sarcasm and I missed it. Two boys doused him in gasoline and set him on fire while telling him it is because he is white. He avoided serious injury or death by quicly extinguishing the flames...and you make light of it? So, attempted murder isn't a problem. Only if they succeed is it an issue. I REALLY hope I missed your point. I vote it "The Dumbest Post of the Day Award". It's incredible the insensitivity displayed by some.

I am pretty sure it is largely conservatives who are in favour of restrictions on free speech on public airways, in the name of common decency. Well, once again, you are very wrong. http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012/03/21/city-council-warns-crack-ho-comments-intolerable-calls-for-diversity-in-talk-radio/

QuoteOh, for Christ's sake, it's not like it was a gunshot to center mass, it was a first degree burn. Like a sunburn. What a whiner. Young Coon there was passin', just like High-spannic "George Zimmerman" was passin' himself off as a... I dunno, doctor or something. Yeah, it's not like they assaulted him or anything. Clearly just a case of boys being boys. Just a little first degree burns. He'll get over it.

http://gossiponthis.com/2012/03/05/13-year-old-boy-doused-gasoline-set-fire-racially-charged-attack/ When will the protests start? When will the lynch mobs form? When will Al Sharpton arrive?

You just watch. Some group of Liberals somewhere will try and pass a law banning free speech from the public airways.