bullets13

    i think it's funny that people are still pretending that Tebow got bashed for being Christian. Obviously there were a few nutters, but nothing like what his biggest supporters pretend happened ever even came close to actually happening. The criticism Sam has gotten from many people is what Tebow's fans pretend that he got. Tebow got criticized as a QB, and his fans blamed it on his Christianity, not his 150 yards a game of total offense. Let Tebow go. There's a reason he's not on a roster right now, and it's not his Christian views. He was terrible. Great guy, awful quarterback.

I just keep wasp spray by the bed. the chain email i read said it was definitely effective against attackers... ;) but i hear they're banning the spray that travels 20 ft. Too dangerous. Obama is pushing through legislation that will limit us to only purchasing wasp spray that will shoot out ten feet.

    having read through this thread, I'm SHOCKED you and Big Girl weren't called by the prosecution with all of the facts you apparently know in this case.

Damning numbers. Hopefully the republicans can find someone to beat Hillary or it will keep going in the same direction.

I'll say this, I agree that it should not be sensationalized. But it's also important to remember that Michael Sam is not being filmed on hundreds of different occasions kissing his boyfriend. He did so once, in what was probably the happiest moment of his life, just as hundreds if not thousands of young men have done before in the exact same situation. The media, and not the young man, have chosen to plaster this all over the news. This is not an "in your face" act by Sam. He did something we all do with our significant others when we get great news. The media has chosen to show it over and over, not Michael Sam.

    I always thought race played a big part of his initial suspicion. which still doesn't change the fact that there is ZERO evidence of him attacking Martin, and quite a bit of circumstantial evidence showing that Martin may have attacked Zimmerman. So if you have ZERO evidence contradicting what Zimmerman said, plus circumstantial evidence that appears to coincide with what Zimmerman said, you cannot find him guilty.

   i guess he wanted 15 more...

    on top of that, many more rifle murders are committed with rifles made for hunting than the rifles that some people claim are made "only for killing".

You still haven't given a realistic reason to ban them. Stats have been given as to why banning them will have no effect. You also have not addressed those stats.

A semi-auto pistol and a semi-auto rifle both fire as quickly as you can pull the trigger. Theoretically, you should be able to pull the trigger at the same speed on either. That being said, it is much easier to rapidly and accurately fire a pistol at close range than a rifle. Yes, a rifle magazine holds more rounds, but I'm no expert marksman and I can change a pistol magazine in under 3 seconds and it's much easier to reaquire a target with a pistol than a rifle when your target is close. The whole "assault rifle" argument is completely off the mark, with tvc's stats on murders with semi-auto high capacity rifles being all any sane person should need to see to understand this. There are MILLIONS of them in the US, but they kill an average of less than 50 people a year. 99.6% of gun murders occur from other types of guns. I'm still having trouble understanding what you think an "assault rifle" (made up term, by the way) ban will actually accomplish.

I'm not a big fan of his on any particular issues with the exception of a couple of social issues. But I prefer to see factual articles, especially from legitimate news sources. This story was full of holes and misdirection.

    again, it's cool that people disagree with them, protest them, discriminate against them, fight to deny them individual rights. but when they protest back, they're "The Gay Mafia".

    Huh? I'm saying that the article written was long on opinion and short on verifiable fact. I have no idea what you are talking about.

    ok. i read it. it did exactly what i said it did.

Oh cool, i didn't know you'd changed your stance on them getting married, couples insurance rights, etc... or being substitute teachers in lumberton, for that matter.  but i'm glad to hear you've come around.  and i know you'll never be convinced to believe this, but if Gays and Lesbians were treated the same as everyone else, they wouldn't have the need to gang up on their opponents and "bully" those who have been discriminating against them for decades. All in all, though, i'm not surprised that you think these guys protesting about things you disagree with is fine and dandy, but others who disagree with THEM is just "typical liberal bully gay mafia" stuff.

I'm going to call at least some bit of BS here.  I'm reading it (the fox article, only, of course), and this looks more like something Western Journalism would come up with.     The justice department is supposedly encouraged to add Boko Haram to a list of terrorist groups in 2011 (no month named, so could even be late in the year) but the first documented encouragement in the article comes closer to halfway through 2012.  after some research by the justice department, in June 2012 they add three high ranking members of the group to the list.   They then did some research and some consultation with the Nigerian government, and added the entire group in 2013.    After all of the 2011 claims at the beginning of the article, a letter is cited, but it wasn't written until March 30, 2012.  and less than 2 1/2 months later the designation had been made on leaders of the group.  That's a far cry from all of the "resisting and blocking" that the article claims.  There's also another link to another letter, but it too was written in 2012.   The only "evidence" that there was a push back in 2011 by conservatives offered up in the article is a quote from Rep. Patrick Meehan, R-Pen.  That's it.  No links, no documents.  No nothing.  Just a weak quote about a delay, that doesn't even mention blocking or resisting, as the strong opening of this piece claims.   Another source for this piece:  An unnamed former US official, VIA the daily beast.  Wow, I'd take that to the bank for sure.   The final source: Timothy Furnish, who in this piece is referred to as "an author and an islamic scholar".  while both of those are true, they fail to mention he's an author for a site called "Family Security Matters", which would be akin to Huffington Post using a source as an expert because he's an author and a scholar, but they you find out the author is an author for Right Wing Watch.      I have no doubt that there was some delay in getting this thing done, but when does the government, right OR left, act quickly on anything?

I love how when the right gets criticized for being intolerant, their only response is "but they're not being tolerant of us being intolerant!"

were you the one i made the bet on about tebow?

I just don't care for the guy. All of the flaunting of public partying, the legal problems, taunting opponents, cockiness, blatant rule breaking and subsequent lack of a punishment, etc. add to that all of the fans that act like he's a choirboy and it gets a little old. His personality, or at least the one he's chosen to show on TV and social media just rubs me the wrong way. Add to that his sometimes questionable decision making and fly by the seat of his pants play on the field, combined with his fairly small stature, and I don't think he's the sure bet that everyone thinks he is. None of that takes away from the fact that he's an electrifying playmaker, and a polarizing figure that by merely being in it has made the nfl draft, which is usually a fairly boring affair, the biggest news story of the week.

He definitely has the "it" factor. Heck, he's the reason this is the first draft I've taken more than just a passing interest in in years.

I'd put him in the same category as Manziel. Could be a home run, could be a bust.

I've seen how he carries himself on and off the field. I'm sure he's a real likeable guy, but that doesn't change the perception of him that his own actions and behavior has created. If he'd been picked first they probably would've had to let him wear the big blowup helmet that the players run through before the game. ;)

And there you have it.

I'll say this... A little bit of humble pie might go a long way to making JFF a better football player. Am I the only one that could see him having trouble fitting his huge head into a helmet if his ego got further inflated by being drafted in the top three? Immediately learning that he's not the best thing out there might help ensure that he works hard to try and fit into whatever scheme on whatever team he ends up on.

Heard an nfl insider talking about him being possibly the best of them all, able to play anywhere on the line. Good value pick for the boys