If I had to guess, I'd say he missed on purpose. You can't fire that many shots and miss from that distance unless you do it on purpose. He just wanted to die.
Search
Search results: 2,797 found, showing up to 50
That's voluntary censorship, which is a good thing. It shows that businesses are occasionally capable of making responsible decisions, and not always put profits first.
It has always amazed me that most jewish people in the United States tend to be supporters of the liberal agenda, which is made up of policies that have been nothing but harmful to them in the past.EVieira wrote:
It has always amazed my how the jewish community is incredibly small in the US (a mere 1.7% of the pop, according to my source in the CIA), yet it has an immense power. I guess those 1.7% are well placed...11 Bravo wrote:
well no i dont think there are many non jews in this country saying "yes, give my money to israel."Turquoise wrote:
All you have to do is send Lieberman over there. He's the source of a lot of the problems.
Discriminatory.....? And the WTF award of the month goes to...... Seriously, WTF.Frotz wrote:
In Sweden we currently have a law that requires people with HIV to inform partners that they have HIV before sex. The left party and other elements are now pushing to remove this "duty", as they see it as discriminating against HIV infected
The Republicans don't know how to play dirty. The Democrats control the media, so they can get away with a lot more. I see things like this happening, and I think, stupid Republicans are too stupid to take advantage of this by bringing it up at election time! Republicans have a shitload of dirt on the democrats, and can make them look really bad, but they never take advantage of it. Someone accuses them of being 'mean spirited', and they instantly get apologetic.
Until the border is beefed-up, there's almost no point in addressing any of these cases.
As far as international trade goes, this makes the most sense.Turquoise wrote:
Personally, I prefer reciprocal trade. Open up your markets only as much as a trading partner does.
If she doesn't know and or is not OK with it, it's cheating.
If she is OK with it, it's weird, but I wouldn't call it cheating.
If she is OK with it, it's weird, but I wouldn't call it cheating.
He leaked the names of a bunch of different Iraqi informants who are now probably going to be killed. If he's on your side, then gtfo.
Your argument is a straw-man fallacy, because I never even mentioned DARE. You brought it up, claimed that I believed in it, and then talked about what a stupid idea it was. Next time you fee like lighting up a dewbie, go read a book instead.cpt.fass1 wrote:
12,000 Dead in a country of 3 Hundred million is not a significat number at all, it's .00004%, so it's not a major cause of death and accounts for 240 deaths a year per state. I'm pretty sure that majority of people on this board haven't even been effected by this.jord wrote:
Are you serious? "Marijuana gets in the air and affects other people", yeah if you're sat next to a plantation that's been set on fire...Deadmonkiefart wrote:
12000 dead people is not a significant? By the way, you're not counting the cost of hospital bills in all of the accidents where there were no fatalities.cpt.fass1 wrote:
Drunk driving is the cause of 12,000 deaths, one third of all motor vehicular accidents last year. Way to not know the facts, but then again I"m sure you love wasting the money on dare and other retarded "truth" programs that don't work and keeping minor offensive people in jail. I don't understand how bankrupting a country for something you deem to have a negative effect on society is more beneficial.
As to the rest of your comments, I don't see the relevance of anything you mentioned. By the way, that nonsense about dare is a particularly stupid straw man argument.
Opium is illegal in the US.
Areas so filled with marijuana smoke they made you feel sick? Give an example please of an area like that.
How is Dare a stupid straw man argument? It's not effective, it's actually counter productive because everyone wants to fit in with their peers. So when you have people telling kids that everyone is doing drugs and that doesn't mean you have, it's going to make you want to.
I'd rather FOX continue reporting their news in a *relatively* balanced way and continuing to donate to their favorite political causes than have a news organization like MSNBC, which is absurdly slanted and pretends not to donate money to political campaigns. Pretending to be unbiased and then giving hours of unjustified speaking time to Democrat candidates is more significant than $.
12000 dead people is not a significant? By the way, you're not counting the cost of hospital bills in all of the accidents where there were no fatalities.cpt.fass1 wrote:
Drunk driving is the cause of 12,000 deaths, one third of all motor vehicular accidents last year. Way to not know the facts, but then again I"m sure you love wasting the money on dare and other retarded "truth" programs that don't work and keeping minor offensive people in jail. I don't understand how bankrupting a country for something you deem to have a negative effect on society is more beneficial.Deadmonkiefart wrote:
It's not simply a matter of personal freedom when it affects people who choose not to smoke. I've been in areas that are so filled with marijuana smoke that I started feeling sick. Marijuana gets in the air and can affect other people.
Most of us can agree that drunk driving is a major problem. Car accidents caused by drunk drivers are a major cause of death. You want to legalize something that can affect you judgment and coordination for a month? Think of all of the driving fatalities.
Over the long run, Marijuana has some really bad side effects. Do you want to pay the hospital bills of 1000s of lifetime druggies who didn't take care of themselves? What about all of the accidents they would get into?
As to the rest of your comments, I don't see the relevance of anything you mentioned. By the way, that nonsense about dare is a particularly stupid straw man argument.
Opium is illegal in the US.cpt.fass1 wrote:
Hospital bills? Really, we're talking about that. What about all the opiate addicts in this country which is way worse then pot, but it's fucking legal .
One could argue that that is a liberal policy. It depends on what definition of 'liberalism' one chooses.Turquoise wrote:
I'm not sure why you've always had this boner for telling people what substances they can and can't use. That's not very "liberal" of you.
It's not simply a matter of personal freedom when it affects people who choose not to smoke. I've been in areas that are so filled with marijuana smoke that I started feeling sick. Marijuana gets in the air and can affect other people.
Most of us can agree that drunk driving is a major problem. Car accidents caused by drunk drivers are a major cause of death. You want to legalize something that can affect you judgment and coordination for a month? Think of all of the driving fatalities.
Over the long run, Marijuana has some really bad side effects. Do you want to pay the hospital bills of 1000s of lifetime druggies who didn't take care of themselves? What about all of the accidents they would get into?
Most of us can agree that drunk driving is a major problem. Car accidents caused by drunk drivers are a major cause of death. You want to legalize something that can affect you judgment and coordination for a month? Think of all of the driving fatalities.
Over the long run, Marijuana has some really bad side effects. Do you want to pay the hospital bills of 1000s of lifetime druggies who didn't take care of themselves? What about all of the accidents they would get into?
Turquoise, you just cited the only real conservative decisions that the state has made. Don't mention Governor Schwarzenegger, because I think we can agree that he's not conservative.
Boxer was just re-elected for senate, and she's a liberal nutcase with no class. If California is not liberal, then how the hell did she get re-elected?
Oh, yea, and our new governor is Brown. Didn't he fuck the state up enough the first time? He was responsible for loads of taxes and restrictions, and he's a career politician. Just what we need, another one!
The reason that Prop 19 didn't pass is that people are realizing it might be a bad idea to legalize a drug that makes you act like a "dope". Also, Californians have more experience with "dope" smokers than most people and know how stupid they can be.
The only way someone would believe that the state was going to make any money from prop19 is if they were high. It said on the law that people would be able to grow it in their own backyards. It would have been dirt cheap, everywhere, and the result would be more stupid people. Just what we need!
As a whole, California is not totally retarded yet. That's about all I can say.
Boxer was just re-elected for senate, and she's a liberal nutcase with no class. If California is not liberal, then how the hell did she get re-elected?
Oh, yea, and our new governor is Brown. Didn't he fuck the state up enough the first time? He was responsible for loads of taxes and restrictions, and he's a career politician. Just what we need, another one!
The reason that Prop 19 didn't pass is that people are realizing it might be a bad idea to legalize a drug that makes you act like a "dope". Also, Californians have more experience with "dope" smokers than most people and know how stupid they can be.
The only way someone would believe that the state was going to make any money from prop19 is if they were high. It said on the law that people would be able to grow it in their own backyards. It would have been dirt cheap, everywhere, and the result would be more stupid people. Just what we need!
As a whole, California is not totally retarded yet. That's about all I can say.
The more flexible you make it, the more room there will be for corruption. With the current safeguards, you have to get a lot of people on board with your plan in order to pass a law, and there is still loads of stuff that gets by unnoticed. There's no reason to think that corruption wouldn't be 10x worse if it were significantly easier to pass laws. It's nice to imagine that we could somehow get rid of the wasteful stuff, but until you can come up with a real plan, I can't really agree with you.
If you had your way, with a stronger Federal government, we would be in much more debt than we are currently.Turquoise wrote:
Our external debt is rather high.
Did you even read what I wrote? Fail. You didn't address any of my arguments.Uzique wrote:
the process of judicial interpretation should always be contextualized and made contemporary
i'm just saying judges should be able to make modern interpretations and, as such, minor amendments
Of course I agree that the constitution is subject to change, but only if it is done in the legal manner, with a 2/3 vote from congress and the house, with 3/4 of the state legislators in agreement.
And, just in case you still are not sold on interpreting laws with original intent in mind, how many of you would read an early modern English text and treat it like a magazine article that was written in the last 50 years. That would be just silly.
And, just in case you still are not sold on interpreting laws with original intent in mind, how many of you would read an early modern English text and treat it like a magazine article that was written in the last 50 years. That would be just silly.
The tyranny of the past? That's really vague, but I'm going to assume that you mean slavery and the unequal civil rights up until the 1970s. If you read the constitution you would realize notice that those inequalities were in direct opposition to the constitution. There's nothing in the constitution that explicitly allowed slavery, quite the opposite, in fact. The people who argued in favor of unequal rights were the people who were pretending that the constitution gave them powers over other people when it quite clearly did not. They are the same kind of people who are the problem today. If you want to change the constitution, you need to do it legally. Stop doing what the slaveholders did by pretending that it says things that it clearly does not. By the way, the 13th amendment is entirely unnecessary and redundant. The only reason its there is to shut up the racist theives who were stealing people's rights by misinterpreting the constitution.Uzique wrote:
yeah you know what you're totally right the tyranny of the past is a great principle.
there's judicial precedence as an inviolable legal process... and then there's archaic constitutional originalism
huge gap
I don't understand what you mean by the comment "archaic constitutional originalism". You make it seem like a bad thing to try to interpret a legal document with the original intent in mind. Here's an example of why doing it any other way is a bad idea: Your neighbor writes a will, leaving his house to you in case of his death. 40 years later, he dies, and you should get his house, except, due to excessive use of slag and societal changes, the definition of the word 'house' has been changed to 'refrigerator'. So, the government gets the house and you get your dead neighbor's refrigerator. You think that's fair? If they had gone by the original intent they would have looked at the word 'house' in its original context, and you wouldn't be stuck with a smelly old refrigerator. It only makes sense to use the definition of the word from when it was written. You may call this example extreme, but if you think about it, it's much less significant than the changes our language has gone through in the past 200 years and the chaos this would introduce into our laws. Interpreting a law from anything but its original intent is simply absurd.
Another problem with interpreting law without considering original intent is that you would leave documents powerless against conspiracies involving dictionary publishers and the mass media. You could have a small conspiracy which would just have to change the popular use of a few words, and crash! Change the meaning of the phrase 'bear arms' and suddenly the US constitution says that everyone has the right to the 'smash windows'!
I sincerely hope that the last 5 posts were meant to be sarcastic.
The problem is not that this is a nation of lawyers. The problem is that too many of the lawyers and judges in this nation believe that they can selectively enforce, manipulate, and reinterpret existing laws without following the constitution's original intent. If you want to change a law, then follow the proper protocols. If you don't follow the law when when enacting new law, why should any one else follow the law? Besides, if the law you are trying to pass can't pass legally, you obviously are not representing the the people very well.
The problem is not that this is a nation of lawyers. The problem is that too many of the lawyers and judges in this nation believe that they can selectively enforce, manipulate, and reinterpret existing laws without following the constitution's original intent. If you want to change a law, then follow the proper protocols. If you don't follow the law when when enacting new law, why should any one else follow the law? Besides, if the law you are trying to pass can't pass legally, you obviously are not representing the the people very well.
Don't you mean Islamic extremists AKA Hezbollah?AussieReaper wrote:
Voted for Zionists though. Wanting to wipe out another race =\= the other groups trying to change a belief system.
This is such a no-brainer. It's the military. All they ask is that you don't talk about being gay. It's not 'discrimination'. You can separate males and females from each other: different sleeping quarters, bathrooms, etc. You can't do that with homosexuals. You can't have potential lovers getting distracted with each other in the heat of battle.
Is that a joke? Someone was banned from USA for life for calling the president a "prick?" What the hell is this country coming to?
Who cares? Stop giving him attention. The First amendment makes it every bit as legal as burning the flag.
Invest in food and a well.
What an oxyMORONIC statement.Reciprocity wrote:
fundamentalist christian libertarians
Yes, we should be ashamed. We should be ashamed that the US government is borrowing obscene amounts of money from Europe and Asia that it can't possibly pay back and handing it out to every needy country in the world. This is stealing.
As a matter of fact, that is one of those doomsday scenarios that I fear most. There is enough frozen methane at the bottom of the ocean, that if the ocean temperature raised by about 4 more degrees, it would sublimate, cause super-global warming, turn the ocean acidic, and kill all life in the sea and most of the life on land. It has happened before, after all.
That's mostly due to the 'liberal progressive' idea that judicial activism is an acceptable way to push an agenda.eleven bravo wrote:
replacing one of those 4.Harmor wrote:
5/4 decision...and Obama has at least one more appointment.
what really pisses me off about the number of 5/4 decisions we've seen within the decade is the fact that these justices are allowing personal politics and ideology to decide really important cases and thats not what should be going on.
THEN CUT GOVERNMENT SPENDING ALREADY YOU DIRTY LYING POLITICIANS.mcminty wrote:
Yes, yes, duh. Of course that has to happen. But my point was that until government income > government spending, the deficit will continue to grow.Phrozenbot wrote:
Cut spending, drastically. It is not possible to tax revenue to pay for the deficit and future debt from obligations that include, Medicaid, Medicare, and social security. It is just not possible, unless I'm greatly deceived by elementary math.mcminty wrote:
How else do you propose to reduce the deficit?
The CIA is inept, so it doesn't matter, anyway.eleven bravo wrote:
from what I know, CIA hates bush and clinton with equal passion
Haha! Russia thinks Obama has a plan to get Russia to "'lure' (Russia) into cooperation in US interests"??? That's really rich, guys.
Seems to me that this is more of a distraction than anything else. Russia has good spies. I have a hard time believing that they could get caught by the FBI unless they wanted to.
Seems to me that this is more of a distraction than anything else. Russia has good spies. I have a hard time believing that they could get caught by the FBI unless they wanted to.
Fidel Castro and Che Guevra? Yay for evil communist mass murderers.
You're a fool if you believe that is a good idea.FloppY_ wrote:
The world needs to do something similar to what Japan does: Max 1 kid per parent!
Back on topic, I can not believe that there was not a contingency plan. That's absurd. I also have a hard time believing that the government has failed to really do anything for the past 7 weeks.
EPIC FAIL
He's fucking scary if you really look at his past associations and listen to some of the more controversial things he has said in his speeches.
Do you have to debate this every fricking veteran's day? Get over it.
They will be forced to investigate it somewhat, but as little as they can get away with. This is pretty significant, but the mainstream news will try to ignore it, just as they do with everything that might hurt Obama.
Hitler also has a lot to thank pacifism, liberalism, and Neville Chamberlain for.Macbeth wrote:
The effects of WW2 onto modern times is vast and we could fill books with how the war is still being felt. One of the most interesting, to me, has to do with the change in Euro culture. Before WW2 the game was imperialism in Europe and the average folk supported it, after WW2 the average Euro recoils at the idea of war no matter how just the cause.
Pacifism and liberalism have a lot to thank Hitler for in this case.
23
That sounds like fun. OH NO BUT IT HAS AN OFFENSIVE NAME. Get over it. It's just tasteless humor.
This is pretty simple. For the most part, if you like Obama, then you don't think it's a big deal. If you don't like Obama, then you do think this is a big deal. It's pretty much the same when other politicians make mistakes. The sad thing is, most people don't see to be able to distinguish between a significant and very telling mistake, such as calling the police stupid, and something minor like not wearing a tiny, stupid pin on his jacket. This one is more significant than the pin, but focusing on things like this really just distracts from the really serious, big issues, such as how Obama is a communist bent on becoming leader of the emerging global government.
The media freaked out when Bush missed it. It was all over the news.Trotskygrad wrote:
tbh, no one bitched about Bush doing it.
Seriously, the media is just milking this gaffe for all it's worth.
How would that solve "half their problem"?Harmor wrote:
Because its within artillery range?Deadmonkiefart wrote:
Why the hell should they do that?NAthANSmitt wrote:
South Korea should move their goddamn capital. There is half their problem gone right there. I do realize this is easier said than done though.
It shows a LOT of balls how, exactly? We're not living in the 1930s here. I think just about everyone would agree with what he said in regard to multiculturalism.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
^ He makes valid points about multiculturalism, and it shows a LOT of balls, but is the location completely necessary?
First of all, The US border is 1,969 miles long. The great wall of China today is estimated to be 3,900 miles long. If the ancient Chinese, with the few people they had, can build a wall that's over twice as long as the US Mexican border using just manpower, the US has no excuse for not defending its borders. The US border is a relatively easy border to defend compared to most. A lot of it is desert, and you can see for miles.Cybargs wrote:
Isn't the border around 3000 miles long?Dilbert_X wrote:
Dunno, control your borders?So how do you prevent a criminal illegal from returning into the country?
The Democrats want illegal immigration because they get more voters, and the Republicans haven't done anything about illegal immigration because they are a source of cheap labor for businesses.
What needs to happen is we need to employ American citizens to build a wall across the border, then we need to enforce our immigration laws by deporting all of the illegal immigrants within the United States and enforce our immigration employment laws by fining all of the American companies that hire illegals. Then, if we really do en up having problems finding people to do certain jobs, which I doubt we will, we put a guest worker program in place that allows a limited number of foreign workers to work in the United States temporarily. As soon as all this is put into effect, employment of US citizens will increase, crime will decrease, drug trafficking will decrease, and the cost of health insurance will decrease, as you see a decrease in the cost of hospital bills. Also, since the border will be secure, we will be able to safely release the illegals that make up 33% of California's prison population and turn them over to Mexico without fearing that they will get back into the United States.
Why the hell should they do that?NAthANSmitt wrote:
South Korea should move their goddamn capital. There is half their problem gone right there. I do realize this is easier said than done though.
The police are shooting at us? Really?ATG wrote:
The truth hurts.
The truth is, we are being sold out by a bunch of traitors.
We are at war.
The illegals and the police are shooting at us, it is inevitable that somebody will at some point start shooting back, which is what the feds want, as it will be yet another planned outrage and explosion of power and police control.
" racist. "
There, now I have spoken for 11 and fm and kenJennings.
The debate may proceed.
Let's blame the people who are truly responsible: Our politicians, the people who voted the into office, and the people who hire illegal immigrants.
Just build a ****ing wall and hire enough border patrol officers to guard it. We'd recoup the costs in about a year.
Aluminum is a neurotoxin. I'd go the the hospital. How/why did you swallow it in the first place?
She's overweight? Relevance? FAIL