Previous 21 - 30 Next
Not a legitimate comparison. It was common to put the rifle over the top of a barrier, and just spray the area with bullets, without putting your head over the edge to look. When fire came from a tree line, you (the whole platoon, or the whole fire team of 4, whatever) just peppered the tree line without any attempt to acquire a target. That all uses a LOT of bullets! Police behavior is nothing like this.
There is no people group as focused on that which distinguishes them, as American blacks. VERY narcissistic.
Not effective in a situation like this.
Man! You need to learn how to express yourself! Questions are followed by question marks: "Where is the justice?" What do you MEAN "What difference will it make THEN?" Difference in what way? If Brown had already tried to get the cops gun, and if Brown was rushing the cop, then Brown got what ANYONE can expect to get in that situation — and ther eis no place for contemplation of justice. Brown did the wrong thing(s), and the cop did the right thing. No need for some kind of "justice" to be created in the case. IF that is NOT the case (in which case your stipulation that the cop followed protocal would be inaccurate), then justice would be at least a manslaughter charge against the cop, and prison time. "Justice" of this sort does not bring the victim back. Crime always leaves destruction in its path, even after justice has been done. So, in that regard, it never will make a difference. But let's take the position that the cop did everything right, and Brown is as bad as anyone has alleged, to date. This cop's life is ruined by what Brown did. The cop AND HIS FAMILY are currently in hiding, fearing for their lives. This will never be put fully "behind them." Crime leaves devastation in its wake...
"What do these people want?" They want to destroy the current system, in the belief that something better will result. But the reality is that chaos like this does only harm. "What do these people want?" They have already determined that the cop was in the wrong. Indeed, had Brown managed to get the cop's gun, and had shot the cop dead, their reaction would have been "One down, more to go!" They want the police to be pulverized, yet, were that to happen, it would be a hollow victory, and they would want more destruction. These are classic barbarian, who want to destroy what ther eis, but have absolutely nothing to proffer as a replacement.
Regarding: "That’s why we have trials -- so we can find out what really happened in cases like this." No! It absolutely is NOT! What we have is investigations to find out what happened. Then, IF THE PROSECUTOR 1) thinks there is a legitimate case, and 2) thinks there is substantial enough evidence to remove reasonable doubt and the presumption of innocence, THEN we have a trial TO PROVE it. Trials are VERY expensive, and are not used to find out what happened.
"I m guessing" (as you introduce topics not covered), "reaching this conclusion" (which you use to guard against the possibility of something positive being said about Christians. Such displays of tolerance for others is really heart-warming. Thanks a million! (for nothing!)
Actually, nothing in the article says anything about impacts upon children or families.
Your are just being snotty when you say that Barber claims to be the "ultimate authority" on what marriage is. Grow up! Though marriage indeed has changed somewhat over the years (from arranged to chosen, the introduction of no-fault divorce, etc.) the core item has not changed for millennia. Race has never been a component of the definition of marriage. Miscegination laws never sought to do that, offensive as they were. Who sanctions marriage has no bearing on what it is that is being sanctioned — that is, it has no part in the deffinition of marriage, which has not changed very much, all of your morals-lacking wishful thining notwithstanding. In fact, Herald, it is YOU who are a product of your ill-informed time. You have no basis for impressing the findings regarding heterosexual, monogamous marriage onto the untried perversion of it, that is so misguidedly called "homosexual marriage." So, your last observation, above, is sheer fantasy. This research says exactly zero about "same-sex" (actually, same-gender) couples.
In response to:

Stupid Is As Krugman Does

Brian953 Wrote: Aug 18, 2014 10:04 AM
Because those who don't know better WILL listen to him, so knowing what he said when trying to reason with those dupes can be helpful. It is the same reason I read what the con man, Joseph Smith wrote (for example).
In response to:

Is Senator Hagan Getting Nervous?

Brian953 Wrote: Aug 15, 2014 12:43 PM
Yes it does mean that, as that statement is normally used. The majority party gets to provide the Senate Majority Leader (currently Harry Reid), and the majority chairs commitees and such. That is called "controlling the Senate."
Previous 21 - 30 Next