Boomerdog

She's already engaged her Congress critter and other critters that might be sympathetic to her cause and a larger constituency of like mind. I don't disagree with you based upon the rational arguments and points but when was "rational" ever a factor in her argument? She's a nuisance litigant who feels the world should adjust to her view, values, accommodations, comfort, and convenience She'll find an angle, however weak or superfluous to carry on her quest. And when she ultimately loses and gets her house and other assets seized to pay the legal bills, this will only reinforce her martyrdom and victimhood. It doesn't stop with people of such a mindset.

Quite possibly! But I'm more inclined to believe "the cause" is more important and she'll find a way somehow...even if it means taking on more debt.

No matter. If the CO Supreme Court does not take the case, she goes to a Federal Lawsuit. If the CO Supreme Court takes the case and rules against her, she'll still "take it federal." Some people just have to piss on the electric fence and once is enough. And then there are some people who piss on it constantly in order to disable the fence in spite of sustaining the incessant shocks. Oh well.....

Well well...hope you're doing well. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-05-31/communist-party-leader-voted-for-sanders-will-back-clinton OK...Google "CPUSA Endorses Hillary Clinton." Lots of hits from news sources across the political spectrum on this subject. I cited one that seems to be somewhere in the middle (US News and World Report).

Simply put, they're what I consider to be far-right idiots. To the flip side, The Communist Party USA (another bunch of idiots) endorsed Hillary. Ho Hum.

Never claimed it to be original...but it is applicable...VERY applicable.

Having read the history books and in light of this election, I don't think the Democrats have been this hoppin mad since the Republicans freed their slaves.

YGTBFKM?!?!?!?!?

I hope your right. But something tells me she doesn't think she's done even if she loses on appeal.

By 'his,' I take it you are referring to Trump. For the record, I am disgusted. Trump stepped all over his schlong on this one. Instead of both parties making a positive argument for their policies and positions, they also bring up what I would call "show pony victims" of the opposition's actions, policies, etc. The RNC did with the families of those killed at Benghazi. The DNC did it with Khan. Pimping grief to tug on the heart strings of the faithful and the undecided for votes is IMHO, offensive. Now with respect to Mr. Khan. He made the decision to go up and speak. Is he that naive/stupid to think opposition research was not going to vet his history in spite of the fact his son was KIA'd in Iraq? The families of those killed in Benghazi were subject to the same. Finally, as we see form the posts, opinions fall along partisan lines. I'll go back to what I stated previously, pimping another's grief to tell the world your opponent sucks the big one is a bad strategy for all of the risk involved and the craven behavior of those who enable it. My 25 cents and a cup of coffee's worth.

If you wish to believe that, then i've done my job a lot better than I thought! Thanks!

This is an opinion forum. You just disagree. Fine with me. But please don't wrap yourself around the cloak of worthless virtue for may sake.

I'd be careful on this one. New information is forthcoming.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/463/hillary-calls-total-gun-confiscation-just-ben-shapiro In this video, Hillary dances around the real issues of the Australia gun buy back program but let there be no doubt, it's the type of program she would like to implement and it was a mandatory program enacted by the Australian Government. Understand there are Aussies here on these boards and to them I say, if you like your laws about guns, fine with me. Australia is a sovereign country free to make its own laws and decisions. The goal of the Left HAS always been confiscation. Whether it is done incrementally or with craven force (that tactic will end up bad for the Left and they know it), the Left wants no private ownership of firearms in the United States in spite of any kumbayah rhetoric to the contrary. MOLON LABE

I'll give a few props on that one and got a good laugh out of it too!

Probably. The establishment mainline mainstream RNC is out to lunch. But I do have to ask if I may? Are the cemeteries still voting in your part of the world?

+1

Don't know how you guys and gals do it up North of here but down here it's a secret ballot. So...quite frankly, you don't know shit about who I voted for. Nice try. Now drop the puck.

And I'm sure you'll have nothing but glowing superlatives for the event next week when a criminal is nominated.

Whatever the legitimacy that may have existed in the ongoing points you were to proffer was lost in the quality of your word usage. As un-pc as I pride myself to be, there are just some words in the lexicon albeit, rare that should never be used and you used one of those words. Further, you handed those not of like view the very weapon to use against you. I hope this is a lesson well learned. You're lucky. Had I been the moderator, you'd be looking at a minimum 1 year ban off DZ.com, not jut this forum.

Here's something to chew on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)

Agreed, but the press and perhaps someone here will find some angle to blame "those misogynistic christian conservatives" into the larger narrative. And let's not forget the NRA.

Ok, I'll take the bait but surprise you...we agree...which is of course rare but on this point...we agree. In these cases, legal due process identifies individuals that have committed violent acts. Be it violent acts classified as misdemeanors or felonies, the individual has been legally identified as someone who cannot be trusted with deadly weapons and/or act responsibly with those weapons in their possession. The problem I DO have with denying firearms purchases to individuals on the "No Fly" list is also one of due process. They may be suspect for various reasons but have not been convicted of a criminal act that would deny them purchase. Call me old fashioned but I still do believe in the idea of innocent until proven guilty...not suspect. With respect to "gun nut". I'll have you know that Ted Kennedy's Volkswagen has killed more people than any of my guns.

I note with some amusement page 12, the phrase "....facially erroneous..." So when the case may be weak, bolster the brief with esoteric adjectives. What a whopper.

"...Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." An excerpt from the Declaration of Independence In the Continental Congress of the United States July 4, 1776 And with a little variation with apologies to Sir Winston Spencer Churchill: "Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves, that if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, This was (one) their finest hour.(s)" June 18, 1940 In a speech to the House of Commons Before the commencement of the Battle of Britain.