bullets13

Looks like she was belligerent with the officers, possibly assaulted one of them, and resisted arrest. During that time, one of the officers did something that got him in trouble, perhaps overreacting to her being a jackass. People seem to think that it's completely acceptable to disrespect, disregard, or disobey officers, and then blame those officers for overreacting to this (in very rare instances). While this reaction is not acceptable, both parties are culpable. That being said, the Internet is having a hard time separating two different incidents. The prevailing theory seems to be that she was completely innocent, arrested without cause, and then murdered in her cell 3 days later for unknown reasons. I don't think I need to explain the holes in this narrative. As best I can tell, she had a chip on her shoulders when it came to police, got belligerent when pulled over for an arrestable defense, made a cop lose his cool a little (leading to his reprimand), and was put in jail legitimately. There are cameras outside her cell that reportedly show nobody entering/leaving her cell during the time of her death that have been turned over to the FBI. I'm not sure what sounds so fishy about someone with a history of PTSD and depression killing themselves while sitting in jail on a felony charge that will likely lose them their new dream job before it even started, but with the media's new habit of indicting law enforcement it would certainly appear that many folks are taking the bait.

I teach 3-year-olds. You better believe the full moon does something.

Does the fact that does occasionally grow antlers add any validity to the opposing argument?

Obama does not need to talk about the woman killed in San Francisco. He also had no business getting involved with Trayvon, Gardener, or Mike Brown. Presidents should not be dishing out hot takes on crimes, PARTICULARLY without any details being available. That being said, apart from politicizing it (which all presidents do when a major incident occurs), I can't criticize him for showing up after the SC church shooting. A president should be visible after events like that. I just find it unfortunate that he did not provide the same presence after several other similar tragedies in the past several years.

To appease the masses. This incident was misrepresented in the media and caused outrage that wasn't deserved. I'm assuming that the city is trying to avoid more.

Excellent stuff.

Crazy. I can't remember the last time we had an alligator attack around here, and then we have two in a week.

It all comes down to whether or not you feel that gay is genetic or a choice. I've talked to dozens of people who've said "I was -- years old and knew I was different. I wasn't attracted to the opposite sex." I've never heard of anyone who said "I was 11 years old, and knew I wanted to have 3 wives."

Actually, this thread is about a hardware store owner who has posted a sign that no gays are allowed in his store. I can actually understand where the cake shop owner is coming from, even if I don't necessarily agree with him. The same goes for churches. A church should not have to wed them if they don't want to. This case is a little different.

I heard they also arrested one of his posse. Dude goes by the name Mo Lester.

I would make that distinction. Not sure I'd make one between gays and people having sex out of wedlock, though. It's also worth noting that he didn't ban child molesters ;)

The occasional gay customer is going to cost him business? Gay customers go to EVERY business. That being said, I'm not arguing whether he has a right to do so. I'm asking other Christians that, as a minister, is he demonstrating Christianity by singling out an individual sin to ban from his store while continuing to cater to sinners of all other kinds. Whether or not you believe in gay marriage, I can't find anything in the bible that preaches picking one sin and denying that sinner the opportunities that you'd afford to different types of sinners.

Since he's a baptist preacher who doesn't want gays in his store because "what they're doing is wrong", shouldn't he also be banning divorcees, fornicators, liars, blasphemers, idolators, and all other manner of sinners from his store?

I don't support him either.

This could very well be the instance that brings it in front of the the SC for review, depending on how long it stays in the news and whether or not it brings about a lawsuit.

Your thoughts?

[Hidden Content]

I can if you're trying to pat the GOP's back for something that happened in the 1860s. With your political beliefs, you would've been a staunch democrat when each of the events that you're praising the GOP for perpetrating occurred.

Anyone not blinded by ideology.

It's accurate. What's not accurate is your historical knowledge. Between 1864 and 1920 the parties effectively switched platforms. Before that, republicans were big government and social rights, while democrats were for small government and anti-rights. Republicans and democrats of today bear little resemblance to the parties you're referencing.

If God can create someone like Millet Harrison, who's mental disabilities led him to eat his mom, I don't think it's out of the realm of possibilities that someone could be born wired to be a bad person.

More compelling than the right's stance.

The same way you and I were born straight. Unless you had to make a choice? For me it never was. I hit a certain age, and I became attracted to girls. There was never even a consideration to do anything different. I couldn't make myself be attracted to man even if I tried.

I would assume so, but have had no firsthand conversations with a transgender. Having had dozens with homosexuals, I have much more information to offer an answer/speak for that group of people.

You're correct. In a society where we have laws to protect animals that are often as strict as those to protect humans, I'm just not real concerned about it.