1 - 3
In response to:

Don't Knox This 'Serious Network'

whosear1 Wrote: Dec 17, 2013 3:20 PM
Why were they accused of murdering the girl? You need to follow the bouncing ball on this one. First, it was satanic ritual murder. Apparently Italian males liked the imagery of beautiful young women in bondage. Then it was over Meredith's refusal to participate in sex games. But wait, there's more! It devolved into an argument over Amanda's slovenly housekeeping. Then an argument between the ladies over Rudy Guede (the real killer) failure to flush the toilet after taking a dump. Some facts: the police totally screwed up the investigation of the crime scene, contaminating evidence. Fortunately there is video that has been reviewed by former crime scene investigators (several FBI agents) Amanda and her former boyfriend have no history of violence in their past. People just don't change personalities unless there is an organic reason. One man, Rudy Guede does have the personality and the evidence points to him being the killer. Indeed the crime scene says one person committed the crime. You can read the facts in John Douglas' "Law and Disorder". Douglas a former FBI criminal behavioral profiller, became involved in the case at the behest of a former FBI agent (perhaps Steve Moore). After careful review of sufficient evidence (crime scene videos) it became obvious to him that Amanda was not involved, and who was. Not to mention the Italian circus that the court system is over there. On my scales of justice, Ann is on one pan, and I drop John Douglas on the other. Ann goes flying into the air, presumably joining Newt on his voyage to the moon. Because if she were a guy, I would accuse her of tinkling all over her fingers on this one.
In response to:

My Apology to Mormon Readers

whosear1 Wrote: Jun 05, 2013 12:51 AM
Sorry Michael, so you point out discrepancies in Mormon belief, so what? I don't believe in the supernatural and much of Christian belief requires it. Christianity needs to be reconciled with Judaism, it's mother, and lose the magical stuff. Maybe a unique personality like Jesus can go 33 years without sex, but it is not required by God.
Little late to the fight here, but sad about Blankenhorn. As for Roberts, it behooves one to read further about how Roberts sees his role as Chief Justice. There is a good interview with him on The Atlantic website. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/01/roberts-apos-s-rules/5559/ Roberts sees his role as guiding the court away from the perception of partisan politics, so when ideological and legal opinions are not significant he strives for more unanimous decisions. However, the key is significant. It doesn't surprise me that he would rule against the interstate commerce argument, and he is correct in arguing that it is a tax. The argument against the federal gov't requiring people to buy something is incorrect
1 - 3