Only in The States are you allowed to murder someone for going out for a soft drink and minding his or her own business.
Not exactly what happened... You start a fight with someone who is armed, be prepared for them to defend themselves.
1 ( +4 / -3 )
When I read this story, I felt like I'd just been punched in the gut. I'm from Arizona, lived in Phoenix, and Lakeside, in the White Mountains, also spent quite a bit of time in Prescott with relatives. I didn't know any of these guys personally, though I've met 2 of them. They are all heroes. Firefighting is a tough job, but the wildland hotshot crews are a step beyond, facing extreme danger to save lives, and homes in horrible conditions. Huge tragedy, not only to their families, but to their communities and friends. They will be missed.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
I've heard this argument before. It's the idea that we should tolerate bigots who dislike people who do them absolutely no harm, or otherwise we are bigots too. Sorry, but that is just dumb reasoning. Just think about who is causing whom the harm here. Gay couples getting married doesn't hurt anyone; denying them their preference does.
This idea that you cannot tolerate anyone who has a different viewpoint, is really nonsense. I do not espouse anything happening to homosexuals. Indeed, I agree, what happens between consenting adults, is really none of my concern. All I say, is that marriage is between a man and a woman. And yet, this viewpoint, is ridiculed, and demonized. yabits rants about zero-tolerance policies. And why is this? Because homosexuals are somehow being denied the right to engage in their deviant behavior? No. Its because I refuse to condone societal acceptance of this behavior. This is not about marriage, is about accepting homosexuality as 'normal'.
Its both sad and pathetic, to hear those who claim to espouse tolerance, rant against anyone who dares disagree, with their beliefs. Indeed, there is nothing more hate-filled, then a self-righteous, anti-christian bigot.
-5 ( +1 / -6 )
I doubt it, just because it is a law, this will not stop the prejudice against Gays and Lesbians and I am sure there will be violent back lashes too. Californians may say they are open minded etc..but we also have lots of hate, racism etc..if you dig a bit under the surface of so called tolerance, etc..plenty of bigots etc
Couple things. First, I agree that prejudice against homosexuals won't stop just because of law. I will say though, that I don't see a violent backlash at all. Certainly nothing like what was on display, by the oh so tolerant libs, when Prop 8 first passed. Christians, unlike libs in general, don't typically display a lot of hate. Oh, they may be intolerant, but nowhere near as intolerant as those who hate them. Indeed, the biggest bigots, and haters seem to be those who are in favor of this. Heh, you just need to look at the posts that follow, attacking me for my Point of view, as well as the down votes.
What is absolutely ludicrous is the concept that two men or two women marrying each other somehow threatens heterosexual unions. It's ludicrous because harm is claimed without a single iota evidence proving it.
So why is it then Yabits, that supporters are so desperate to get marital status for homosexuals? Is it because they don't see any harm in it, or is it something more, something greater they are really seeking? Do you think, perhaps this isn't really about marriage at all, and in fact is about forcing societal acceptance of deviant behavior? Why don't you guys just come out and admit it. You want everyone to agree that there is nothing wrong with homosexual behavior, and that anyone who dares believe otherwise, should be demonized, ridiculed, and be made a focus of hate. IE. Christians.
-5 ( +0 / -5 )
All you can say about this, is that Democracy and the rule of law, is officially dead in California.
-5 ( +0 / -5 )
uh, it's a 'self defense' force. Why do they need "amphibious attack abilities."? Is Abe trying to test the limits of Article 9?
If one of their islands is taken, or is being taken...
6 ( +6 / -0 )
So in other words you have no problem with what's being done except when you don't agree with the person doing it. Hmmm....
For the most part, bass4funk and I agree on just about everything. On this though, I strongly disagree. What the NSA is doing, is nothing less then spitting on the 4th amendment. It should never have happened. This guy is a hero, for exposing the vile corrupt actions of the Federal Government. Certainly, he should qualify for whistle-blower status. Regardless though, given the other revelations of the Federal Government, it is becoming more and more clear, that the Government, and its power need to be more vigorously restrained.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
You, like most liberals have me on the floor rolling, if Bush had done the exact same thing, you would not be accepting this at all, but since it's Obama, it's perfectly OK. lol
I too must express my amazement at the hypocrisy demonstrated, and marvel, that changing a single letter, can totally alter a persons reactions. Simply changing from R to D, or vice versa, makes all the difference to some people.
Speaking for myself, I was concerned about the Patriot Act when it was passed, though, I figured it was necessary. As time has gone on though, I have been less and less convinced. Now, I am very much opposed to it, and not because the President happens to have a D next to his name, but because of the Orwellian nature of the beast that was created.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
They record everything and store it digitally. It is a huge database that is searchable. They do not use warrants unless they use the data in court then issue the warrant after the fact.
All I can say about this, is that it is truly horrifying. The idea that the government is monitoring you, is not a small, insignificant reduction in liberty, it is a giant step down the road leading to a police state. They may as well just use whiteout on the bill of rights.
No real freedom if the terrorists are free to do what ever the heck they want!! Real freedom is not the same as anarchy!! So let's keep spying on these Bad guys and stop these terrorists before they attack again!!
They're not spying on the Bad Guys, they are spying on everyone.
Why suddenly Obama is enemy of freedom, tyrant, etc for using a law Bush made with big stars-and-stripe support?
Heh, notice how, somehow this is once again Bushs fault? Come on guys, wake up. This is not about partisanship. Just like the IRS, and AP scandals, they would be wrong under Bush, and they are just as wrong under Obama. Even if you like the D next to his name, this does not change facts. Ah well, I content myself, with the realization, that under Nixon, even when all the evidence was out, and he was being forced to resign, more then 30% of the country still supported him. Just goes to show, there are kool-aid drinkers in every group.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
No bikinis, guess theres no reason to watch anymore then.
2 ( +4 / -2 )
Susan Rice Obviously she shouldn't have gone on those shows and lied to the American people. However she was doing so under orders, using talking points that were prepared for her by the White House, State Dep, and CIA. Theres no evidence to show she knew they were false, though had she done even a little investigating, she would have been able to figure that out. This does make me question her ability, and competence. Regardless of this though, her loyalty is being rewarded.
-3 ( +0 / -3 )
Sure, the US will sign - but that does not necessarily mean that the treaty will be ratified by the Senate. Look for Tea Party- affiliated or -fearing GOP senators to rise in rabid opposition.
Not going to just be Republicans and Tea party people opposing it. Look for quite a few Dems to oppose it as well. Just look at how many Dems opposed the minimal expansion of background checks. Something of this nature, will have a harder time passing then that did.
The NRA and Republicans are already selling this to their knuckle dragging mouth breathers as a UN attempt to take their guns
Heh, you seem a bit confused here. The role of 'knuckle dragging mouth breathers' is typically filled by union thugs, and racist, new black panther types.
0 ( +2 / -2 )
Yep, is what I was thinking as well. Might as well make the women wear burkhas. Obviously the problem is women are simply too attractive, otherwise a man would never rape a women...
0 ( +1 / -1 )
China ........Has came a long way since then........ so they Should be ......Congratulated....... for their improved tolerance's.....America cannot talk, What about how it treated its slaves, the cotton pickers.
The cotton pickers? lol, I don't want to talk about another persons intelligence here on JT, but, that really made me laugh. Also, I'm not sure what Americas history of slavery has to do with the massacre in Tiananmen Square.
This is why no matter how big or powerful China gets, it will not be one of us ("us" being the modern nations of the world). When the chips are down, they are prefectly willing to harrass, jail, or murder their own citizens to protect their dictatorial rule.
Very true. I view China as if it was the 3rd Reich. Not as individuals such as Hitler, nor the racism, but the economy, the treatment of those who oppose the regime, and also in the territorial demands, there is a striking similarity. I only hope it does not end the same way.
5 ( +6 / -1 )
GMOs have given rats enormous tumors in their stomachs. Bon Appetite!
This is what is known as bad science. Someone makes up a study, and since it fits their pre-conceived ideas, everyone jumps on the bandwagon. Oh, but then we look at the data, and the whole thing falls apart. Whoops. Still, goes along with the idiocy that GM foods = Poison.
-3 ( +6 / -8 )
One was Gibson and the other Dean Markley.
Sadly, this does explain a lot, what was going on with Gibson. Seemed really weird the way the government was going after them. With the IRS scandal showing they were targeting the political enemies, suddenly things become very, very clear.
-3 ( +1 / -4 )
This smacks of the same nonsense as the Megaupload prosecution. It doesn't seem to be about money laundering, but rather about governmental control.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Heh, what makes me laugh, is that only 43% of Quebec residents speak French. Not even half!
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
I suspect that Jolie is ok with the publicity, for the simple reason, that it draws attention to the problem of breast cancer. And as someone who had a very high likelihood of getting, and dying from it, she probably feels that attention to the problem is a good thing. Particularly when you consider her mother, and aunt have now both died from this.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
Sorry, I'm late to this. Wasn't paying attention to this. I should have known that the climate quacks would have been out in force though. And reading over the posts, sure enough, its all because of global warming. Sadly, there have been worse tornados, many, many worse. The Peshtigo fire tornado, St. Louis, Tri-state.
Tornados that hit towns are very rare. And its unusual now in the midwest to have a tornado shelter. I remember when my family lived in Kansas, we had one, but no one, ever went down there. If a tornado came through, even then we wouldn't have gone down there. Tornados are simply a fact of life in the midwest, the way earthquakes are in California, Typhoons in Japan, and hurricanes in coastal regions. There is always a chance they will come through, but they are exceedingly rare. Unlike a Typhoon, you have a very good chance of never seeing one your entire life living in the midwest. This was unquestionably a disaster. A tragedy, but its not because of global warming. Its simply a result of the normal weather they get in the midwest, that occasionally spawns tornados.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
Wait, so the fall of the Syrian regime, would give rise to extremists, worse even then Hezbollah? And given the fact that Hezbollah is frequently nothing more then a tool of Tehran, does this mean now that Iran is taking an active role as well?
2 ( +2 / -0 )
Have you ever heard of the Hutaree milita? They were arrested, and media reports labeled them an extremist, domestic terrorist group. According to some statements above, then they could simply be killed. That is, after all the philosophy being espoused. As long as they're terrorists, they can simply be killed.
Excepting a couple of possession of illegal weapons charges, all charges against them were eventually dropped. Turned out there was no evidence to support the charges. But all this came out because of the court system, which demanded evidence and gives the accused due process rights.
Heres the thing, if someone is a terrorist, I don't have a problem with holding them forever. Charging them with crimes, hell, turning them over to other countries, to face justice where they committed crimes. But simply deciding they are terrorists, and ordering their killing, no. As I said above, assassination, should not ever be the policy of the United States.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
If it can be verified that the individual is, in fact, a TERRORIST, then by all means, do whatever you have do in order to extract any important intel that could save lives.
The trouble is, who defines what is terrorism? A judge? A jury of peers? Or some faceless bureaucrat? And does it require presidential authorization to order the murder of this proclaimed terrorist, or can authorization start a little lower? When we do away with due process, anyone can become a terrorist.
What about the guy in England? Obviously a killer, done for political/religious reasons, but a terrorist? If so, then Obama is justified in ordering his execution? This is not a black and white issue. Killing people in a war or detaining prisoners is one thing. Ordering the execution of American citizens, because someone decides they are threats to America, is something very different.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
The IG report asserts that they are. I put more trust in that report than in conservative drivel.
And yet the news media is reporting there are still groups that have waited 17 months or more, still waiting to be approved or denied. Please, explain this discrepancy.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
For civilians, absolutely. Terrorists, NO.
Who decides someone is a terrorist? If an American goes to the middle east, hangs around with some bad people, do they automatically become terrorists? If they make inflammatory comments, do they then become terrorists? Whats the line? And can the President order the murder of people inside the US as well as outside, simply because they are, according to his definition, terrorists? You see the problem? Where is the line, where are the limits?
0 ( +1 / -1 )
Terrorists have NO rights, therefore there is NO need to arrest and use tax payer $$ to feed and keep them happy and healthy while they are incarcerated. I rarely agree with Obama and his admin. on anything, but on this issue...100%!
I strongly disagree with this principle. Particularly as it concerns Americans. Targetted assassinations, should not be the policy of the United States. And the President should not be able to simply order the murder of someone, by claiming they are a terrorist. Frankly, I'm amazed, that so many people on the left, who howled at Bush for doing similar things, are not speaking up against this. I don't care who the President is, it was wrong under Bush, and its wrong under Obama.
2 ( +2 / -0 )
IRS scandal - obviously not involved, though there is a cover-up here, as Obama people should have known months before the election that this was taking place. Also top officials lied to congress. Its hard to conceive that these officials would not have been aware of the IRS investigation.
I have to take this back. Its looking more and more likely that Obama knew or at least, should have known about it, before the election. Certainly his top people were aware of it, if they did not pass this along to him, that would say a lot about his competence, and the people with which he has surrounded himself with.
If Obama truly did not know about this, then I question why, now that all this is coming out, Obama still has not acted. The people who were involved in this, should have been fired immediately. Those who had the information, and which did not tell him, should likewise be terminated. There is simply no excuse for this.
Since the actions in the Cincinnati office were taking place mainly in 2010 and "corrected" by 2011, this appears more as though the IRS cleaned its own act. Nothing the IRS did was illegal in any way. However, as has been said, the manner in which these people tried to manage their workload served to heighten the distrust that so many have for the agency. I believe a lot of people should give them credit for cleaning their own mess, however.
yabits, they are not corrected. There are still groups who applied for tax-exempt status, who still, over a year later, have not been given it, or denied it. And this idea that it happened, only because of the poor overworked schlubs were trying to be more efficient is silly, and completely disregards reality. The fact of the matter is that the year this started, 2010, there were less applications for tax exempt status than in 2009.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
It's somewhat ironic that conservatives are so willing and ready to play the victim card here. They seem to believe their phony howls of pain and indignation will somehow equate to the president being behind it all. But they are just projecting again: Believing that any man they personally despise so much would just have to do something in retaliation.
I grant that there are those, conspiracy nuts on the right, who see Obamas hand in everything. I am not one of them however. I don't see any way, or reason for Obama to personally be involved in a lot of these things.
IRS scandal - obviously not involved, though there is a cover-up here, as Obama people should have known months before the election that this was taking place. Also top officials lied to congress. Its hard to conceive that these officials would not have been aware of the IRS investigation. AP scandal - Going after media records is so significant, its easy to conceive that Obama might have been briefed on it. Though there is no evidence to this effect. Holder knew about it though, and there is no question, it should not have happened. Benghazi - He may not have been aware of its taking place, but someone made the call to leave the people hanging, someone made the call not to send in a team. Additionally, Obama was involved in the cover-up, going on tv, lying to the American people about it all being because of some video.
Well, yeah, he's doing something: He's winning increasing numbers of Americans over to his side, and, for that, the right-wingers are desperate for some way, any way, to bring him down.
Heh, which is why more and more Americans say the President is doing a bad job.
0 ( +0 / -0 )