bullets13

Mr. BG has discovered that stripping is much more lucrative.

I saw my hairstylist on the news!

I saw my hairstylist on the news!

I would assume one would be more of a problem for you because you don't have to deal with the other. I don't know that many things "pale in comparison" to having a large percentage of our potential young, educated workforce incurring large amounts of debt in order to join that workforce.

The only situation Mr. X "champions" is Mr. X. He is a media whore, plain and simple. He shows up where he can obtain the most media coverage. 

You've made references to this belief before. You simply toe the party line and have no individual thoughts or opinions, merely doing and believing what your party tells you to do. That's fine, but to criticize someone for daring to form their own opinions and beliefs is asinine.

There are plenty of moderates on the right. You just simply dismiss any republican who doesn't share your radically right beliefs as a "democrat in disguise".

You've made references to this belief before. You simply toe the party line and have no individual thoughts or opinions, merely doing and believing what your party tells you to do. That's fine, but to criticize someone for daring to form their own opinions and beliefs is asinine.

Moderate is a good thing. Although any term describing someone who doesn't believe everything western journalism puts out is a bad word to some on this site. There are plenty of koolaid drinkers on both sides. I think it's funny that republicans and democrats think anyone who chooses not to drink their flavor on every issue is the one that's the sheep.

Seek a doctor, immediately.

And if you can show me any legal precedent that says only people belonging to hate groups can be struck from juries and I will say that you are on to something.
 
I have sat on juries and testified in many trials. I have seen people struck and seen the defense attorney contest strikes based on race (Batson strike). In one jury pool the DA had three strikes that were contested. The DA countered that one had a spouse had been convicted of the same crime (I think it was DWI) so the potential juror might be prejudiced against the police (making for an unfair jury), one had been involved in a lawsuit based on the same crime from injuries and I don't remember the other reasoning but the judge ruled that all strikes were fair based on cause and not on race. 
 
A jury is supposed to be fair for both sides and the people serving need to go in with as much of an open mind as possible. In this case a woman is posting material on how to survive while driving black (The Negro Motorist Green Book). To me that appears that she believes that she might be targeted based on race and is even posting survival tips on how to stay away from cops. It doesn't even matter if she is correct, it a preconceived perception (prejudice) that is the problem. Nothing in that article that hippy posted or the others that I have read said that she was struck due to being an NAACP member. He also never claimed she was some kind of supremacist. 
 
I read several articles on this issue and found this as his statement... "It's not because of race. It's because in part she appeared to be an activist, and that's what we don't want. Just as if she was white, we wouldn't want a white activist or a white supremacist." The DA said that she appears to be an "activist", not a "supremacist" or "racist". Looking at her postings, she might very well be an activist for a cause. 
 
I see nothing wrong with his statement. 
 
So I will ask this, what if  the defendant was black as in this case and there was a prospective white juror that was not the member of any hate group. But maybe he had postings he had made on how to survive while being white in a minority neighborhood and had posted The Turner Diaries, just as this woman posted the book about black survival while traveling (published until the early 1960's)? The Turner Diaries was a novel written by a white separatist. Would you want this person sitting in judgment of a family member? Remember that he belongs to no group and just posts thoughts. 
 
Remember that the DA is an elected official and wanted to quickly stop something that might cost votes. That makes his firing political. That might even be within the law as an at will employee but let's call it what it is. I suspect that if a black assistant DA that made the same or similar statements and was fired, we would be seeing an opposite response. 

I don't see irony, much less humor.

Ted Cruz is as likely to win the nomination as Rick Perry is/was. My thoughts on the tea party is not germane to my point. My point was these candidates are not electable in a general, national election (in my opinion anyway). They seem to be seen as radicals who are very off putting the moderates who now comprise the majority of the voters in this country. I believe for the foreseeable future, the presidency will be won by who garners the most votes in the middle. A tea party candidate will not accomplish this. The GOP's best bet in '16 will be a Chris Christie type. And the nominee has to be careful not to jump in bed with the radical right (as the last two nominees felt it necessary to do). It is a great help in securing the nomination. It is a great hindrance in winning the office.

You are kidding, right? Texas will elect anyone who is antiabortion, pro weapon and homophobic.

I never said she wasn't, commoner.
 
I think she'd make a terrible president. But she's 100% going to win if she runs because the republicans will run some religious freak who'll completely turn off the voting population under 30 years of age.
 

Game 1's of interest(for me anyways)

Spain v Netherlands Friday 2pm

England v Italy Saturday 5pm

Germany v Portugal Monday 11am

USA v Ghana Monday 5pm

It's a tough balance. The answer is not ending all assistance programs, nor is it expanding them so that they become a career. I honestly believe the biggest hindrance right now for the GOP is the huge gap between their social beliefs and those of a large majority of younger voters. I know a lot of fiscally conservative people who can't get past the right's social stances. Also, younger voters who have liberal social stances and don't have grown up money problems are going to vote left until they start feeling the economic pinch as they get older.

tvc, I agree (for the most part...) There are no court cases YET. These gun nuts will push it until there is a court case or our law makers pass a law. Meanwhile, if the law DOES NOT state that you cannot do it, they operate under the premise that you can.
While I'm kind of a gun nut myself, and I support the concept of open carry, I wont be going to the mall with a scary black rifle on my back and would not be comfortable around those that do.

Just because you have the right to do something, doens NOT mean you should do it. Take the Westboro Baptist Church, for example. They have every right to do what they do, even though it is disrespectful and in poor taste. Same goes for the gun nuts taking the open carry too far.  Some common sense and good reason needs to prevail here.

I'm a white guy who DID vote for Obama the first go-round, and DID NOT vote for him the second time. Clearly his race was not the reason I voted for him the first time, and the fact that I did vote for him once proves the fact that my not voting for him a second time had nothing to do with race as well. I butt heads with a lot of the conservatives on here quite frequently, but I'm in agreement with several of their criticisms of Obama. And while I still maintain Bush did a mediocre to poor job while in office, I don't feel like "look how bad Bush was" is a strong argument against those who argue for Obama. It's obvious that Obama gained more votes based solely on race than he lost. The people on here who have been accused of disagreeing with him based on race simply hold different ideologies. The same complaints they have against him they would've voiced against Clinton as well, or Hillary had she won. And while I don't always agree with many of their conservative beliefs, I've never mistaken Nash's or 77's or LumRaiderFan's or 5GallonBucket's or similar posters' comments against Obama as racism. It's simply disagreements with his policies and actions.

I have little sympathy for the kids. Personally,
If I had someone come into my house, I would shoot them, but if a situation came up where they were leaving, I would NOT shoot them in the back. But who am I to tell someone who had been tormented by burglars what state of mind they should be in at that point. The fact remains if these criminals had not broken into her house they would not have been shot, and had she not shot them, they would've done the same thing to someone else (likely many more someone elses).

It's a tough balance. The answer is not ending all assistance programs, nor is it expanding them so that they become a career. I honestly believe the biggest hindrance right now for the GOP is the huge gap between their social beliefs and those of a large majority of younger voters. I know a lot of fiscally conservative people who can't get past the right's social stances. Also, younger voters who have liberal social stances and don't have grown up money problems are going to vote left until they start feeling the economic pinch as they get older.

Amen.  When the NRA says you're taking it too far when it comes to gun rights, YOU'RE TAKING IT TOO FAR WITH YOUR GUN RIGHTS.

We have a problem with the halftime show, because of the gays, but no problem with the racial slur for the team name.  And then claim the gays, and not our attitudes, are ruining the country.  Did i get that right?

You automatically group people into two groups, democrat or republican.
 
Has it ever occured to you that sometimes the best choice is neither? Shocking revelation.. I know :D