funjumper101

Which version of the Bible is that stuff in? Old or new? Isn't it traditional to ignore those parts of the Bible that don't apply any more? How does a Bible follower determine which parts apply, and which parts don't? Based on my experience, and the words posted here by some so called "Christians", that decision is completely based on situational ethics. There is a great deal of information in both versions of the Bible that specify how to handle slaves, how to make people slaves, and how to handle unruly slaves. These passages were used to justify the existence and continuation of slavery. As best as I can tell, these passages no longer apply here is the USA. Leviticus quotes are bandied about to justify bad treatment of gay people. Yet so called "Christians" get all squirmish when challenged to account for other portions of Leviticus. See the attached graphic for more info on the absurdity of the "Bible" Civilized societies do not kill their citizens. I can't say that I am surprised that there are some who see no problem with being listed as comparable to Yemen, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan. Some people just don't get it.

The opposite of libtard All of the positive changes that have happened in US society have come about through the practical application of LIBERAL politics. The practical application of Liberal politics are responsible for women's suffrage. The practical application of Liberal politics are responsible for the end of the legal structure that prevented unmarried adult women from owning property in their own names. The practical application of Liberal politics are responsible for the end of the legal structure that prevented unmarried adult women from having their own credit history. The practical application of Liberal politics are responsible for the end of the Jim Crow laws, poll taxes, and the establishment of civil rights for minorities. The practical application of Conservative politics has caused 29 states to NOT implement Medicare for the poorest citizens in those states. Florida and Texas are prime examples of this. Florida is trying to get the Feds to cover the costs for the uninsured people who are still using emergency rooms as their primary source of health care. The feds are telling Florida to go to hell. Texas's business leaders aren't real happy with Perry's moronic decision to follow much the same pattern of stupidity. The business owners and property tax payers in Texas are picking up the costs for the uninsured people who are still using emergency rooms as their primary source of health care. The feds are telling Texas to go to hell, just like they are Florida. Absolutely 100% correct decisions by the feds. If a state chooses NOT to participate in the FEDERALLY funded expansion of Medicare, those states can pick up the costs incurred by their bad decision making. I can come up with plenty of examples of how the practical application of Conservative politics has led to disaster. The great financial crash of 2007-2012 is directly attributable to the practical application of Conservative politics. Conservatives despise government. If you despise something, you certainly cannot be trusted to run it well. Voting for people who hate that which they want to run is really idiotic. Most people are really dumb when it comes to figuring out what politics would actually be of assistance to them in their daily lives, and what politics are seriously detrimental to them in their daily lives.

Ignorance of the law is not an acceptable defence for a civilian. Not sure why you think it would be for LEO. The Roberts SCOTUS recently decided that ignorance of the law is totally acceptable if you are an LEO. Another totally horrendous decision by the Reich Wing judicial activists on SCOTUS. Our freedoms are eroding right before our eyes. http://www.npr.org/2014/12/15/370995815/supreme-court-rules-traffic-stop-ok-despite-misunderstanding-of-law

As soon as I read your post, before I clicked on the links in a later post, I knew that Mr. Guy had to be not of white, Northern European ancestry. Unfortunately, my first thoughts were correct. The Burleson County prosecutors don't try to kill the white guy, but plan to continue to mess up his life. The Bell County prosecutors insist on trying to kill the non-white guy. Nice to see the system of justice we have applying equally to everyone. Second Amendment incidents are likely to occur when LEOs fail to perform due diligence in their investigations before calling in the SWAT teams. http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/02/18/texas-man-cleared-of-murder-after-shooting-swat-team-member-during-no-knock-warrant/

It wasn't about race? What rational thought processes brings you to that conclusionn? Same gun, different skin color, massively different treatment of the individuals. Can you explain what factors besides skin color led to the extreme variation in behavior by the LEOs involved?

As shown in this video, the answer is, not in this day and age. Can any of the LEO apologists explain the difference in treatment of the individuals? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKGZnB41_e4 Daily updated links to factual info about police misconduct available at this site - http://www.reddit.com/r/Bad_Cop_No_Donut/

From the Bridge Day site - UPDATE: A jumper has decided to go against the BASE community's boycott and help the Bridge Day Commission organize this year. His name is Mark Kissner. He was our contracted tandem coordinator until we refused to continue working with him shortly after Bridge Day 2012. We felt he wasn't a team player and his actions could have resulted in my company being sued for millions.

I am still waiting for a factual report of a positive social change that came about through the practical application of conservative philosophy. No one can come up with anything, as it has never happened. Everything positive has come about via the practical application of liberal philosophy. The documented FACTS about the Republicans cozying up to our enemies is completely the opposite of the image they portray. That image of solidarity and patriotism, much like their supposed belief in fiscal responsibility, it is a complete and utter lie. The truth is available. Become educated as to the facts of the matter.

Secular, for profit companies that sell goods and or services to the general public should not, under any circumstances, be exempt from the laws that govern the operations of other secular businesses. Notre Dame University is a SECULAR operation conducted as a BUSINESS operation of the Catholic church. It is not now and has never been a religious operation. It is a for profit university. If the Catholic Church does not like following civil law in their business operations, they are free to close the business, or sell it to an organization that WILL follow the law. Fuck the religious bullshit fairy tales that stupid people believe in. That crap was invented to gain and maintain power over others. In this day and age it is an anachronism that should be disposed ot.

Here is a piece of information that you should take to heart. The Blaze is not a news site. It is an "entertainment" site put together by a crazy person. Fox News is not a credible source for information. They have been shown to have no journalistic credibility, in the real world. Both sites are considered to be credible sources of news by the kind of people who run for the hills, scared shitless, because they are so gullible that they believe the bullshit propagated on those sites. Those of us who are in the real world find the credulous nitwittery demonstrated by the fearful to be deserving of mockery and disrespect. Especially when the fearful pretend to have "christian" beliefs, when their own words and actions prove otherwise.

The cowardly Reich Wing Conservatives can't handle the truth. They sure get pissed off when they are asked to become better informed as to the FACTS about the actions of those that they love and believe in. Actual facts that completely reveal the truth of what the Republicans do makes them pissed off at the messenger, not the scumbags who support the enemies of the USA. To be a Reich Wing Conservative requires that you have a no sense of ethics and a complete lack of morality. Truthiness rules. Facts are immaterial. Moral and ethical consistency is a sign of "liberalism". All of the best and most positive things for US society have come about through the practical application of LIBERAL values. Unmarried adult women can own property in their own name, and have their own credit history. Women can vote in all elections. Children are no longer subject to a lack of labor laws that allowed them to be exploited/abused by business owners. Black people are no longer subject to Jim Crow laws. All of these positive developments came about via the practical application of LIBERAL ideology. I have never seen or heard of anything positive for society that came about via the practical application of conservative values and philosophy. The RWCs can't come up with any examples, because there are none.

Killfile capability would be wonderful. Try reading the content and becoming educated as to the facts of how Republicans operate. I read Newsmax now and then. I listen to Rimjob for a while every week. The bullshit propagated by those types is impressive in its lack of connection to reality. The RWCs are a cancer on society. Nothing positive has ever come to pass via the practical application of conservative philosophy. It does not promote freedom. It restricts it in many ways, especially for those who are not white males of Northern European ancestry. Everyone else is a lesser being.

ODS is a sad condition. That kind of stupidity deserves condescension. Fingers in ears, NA NA NA. I Hear nothing!

Do you intentionally select verbiage to discredit any point you ostensibly intend to make, or does it just work out that way? I call it as I see it. The blithering ignorance and complete lack of moral and ethical consistency shown by the Reich Wingers is extremely obvious. These are the same people who profess to care deeply about fiscal responsibility and the horror of government intrusion into citizens personal lives, when they run up massive budget deficits while in power, and keep passing laws that limit and restrict a woman's right to make personal private decisions about their medical care. That is a clear example of the complete lack of moral and ethical consistency of RWCs. When your beliefs do not withstand a tiny amount of scrutiny, the beliefs are false, and must be challenged.

More treatment for your ODS. Do you believe for one minute that if Democratic politicians spoke and acted as the Republicans do, that the reich wing owned media would allow it to go unchallenged? The correct answer is "Not in a million years!!" Begin quoted text >>> Kosovo, Libya, Iran, Israel, climate change. These aren’t breaches of the norm. They are the norm. When Republicans leaders are presented with a conflict between a Democratic president and a foreign government, they tend to oppose the president—and often side with the foreign government. As a liberal, I’m OK with that. The right to dissent is a core American value. It has kept this country free for more than two centuries. But when Republicans are in power, they vilify dissent. During the George W. Bush years, Vice President Dick Cheney and his henchmen ruthlessly attacked the patriotism of anyone who questioned—even on tactical grounds—their conduct of the Iraq war, surveillance, or “enhanced interrogations.” Last week, just before McCain gave his interview to Hugh Hewitt, Cheney appeared on the same show. He said of Obama: “If you had somebody as president who wanted to take America down, who wanted to fundamentally weaken our position in the world and reduce our capacity to influence events, turn our back on our allies and encourage our adversaries, it would look exactly like what Barack Obama’s doing.” When Hewitt played back Cheney’s quote for McCain two days later, the senator agreed with it. That’s a cold, clear, functional definition of treason. But it could be applied just as easily—and with a better fit—to Cheney, McCain, and their collaborators on the right. If a political party wanted to tear America apart, weaken its position in the world, reduce our capacity to influence events, and encourage our adversaries, it would look exactly like what the Republican Party has done under Democratic presidents. Make of that what you will.

More quoted info to help you overcome your ODS. Begin quoted text >>> While the presidential candidates criticized the war, Republicans in Congress tried to stop it. Two months into the bombing campaign, House Speaker John Boehner sponsored and pushed through a resolution declaring that Obama had “failed to provide Congress with a compelling rationale based upon United States national security interests for current United States military activities regarding Libya.” The resolution forbade Obama from using U.S. ground forces and warned him that “Congress has the constitutional prerogative to withhold funding for any unauthorized use of the United States Armed Forces.” Democrats opposed the resolution, but Republicans passed it, voting 223 to 10 in favor. Republican efforts to sabotage the U.S. war effort were so persistent and vigorous that Qaddafi sent a letter to members of Congress thanking them. The letter, issued a week after the House adopted Boehner’s resolution, told lawmakers: “We are counting on the United States Congress [for] its continued investigation of military activities of NATO and its allies.” Qaddafi’s letter offended McCain. In a Senate floor speech, the senator chided his colleagues: Last week, Qaddafi wrote a personal letter of thanks to the members of Congress who voted to censure the President and end our nation’s involvement in Libya. Republicans need to ask themselves whether they want to be part of a group who are earning the grateful thanks of a murderous tyrant for trying to limit an American president’s ability to force that tyrant to leave power. McCain said that he and his Democratic partner, Sen. John Kerry, would rally the Senate to support the Libyan intervention. But four years later, McCain has turned against Kerry and Obama, joining fellow Republicans in trying to limit the president’s ability to deal with another tyrant. Last month, McCain and 46 other Republican senators—that’s 87 percent of the Senate Republican caucus—signed an “Open Letter to the Leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran.” The letter warned Iran not to trust Obama or U.S. officials who were negotiating an agreement to restrict Iran’s nuclear program, since congressional Republicans could—and, implicitly, would—rescind any concessions made by the president. It seemed unimaginable that McCain, a Vietnam War hero, trusted Iran’s theocratic rulers more than he trusted his own president. But on Thursday, McCain suggested precisely that. A conservative radio host, Hugh Hewitt, pointed out to McCain that Iran’s leaders were contradicting what Obama and Kerry (now the secretary of state) had said about the nuclear agreement. “Today, the supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, said that the deal is no deal unless sanctions come off on Day One,” Hewitt told McCain. Hewitt noted that Iran’s defense minister was also ruling out inspections of Iran’s military centers, which were supposedly part of the deal. McCain, referring to Khamenei and the defense minister, replied: You’ve got to give them a little sympathy in this respect, in that John Kerry must have known what was in [the deal], and yet chose to interpret it in another way. It’s probably in black and white that the ayatollah is probably right. John Kerry is delusional. ... You’re going to find out that they had never agreed to the things that John Kerry claimed that they had. So in a way, I can’t blame the ayatollah, because I don’t think they ever agreed to it, and I think John Kerry tried to come back and sell a bill of goods. … It reveals that a number of things about John Kerry’s negotiating capabilities and also his candor with the American people. McCain was calling Kerry a liar based on the testimony of Iranian hard-liners, with whom McCain explicitly sympathized. And this episode was no fluke. A week before the Republican senators sent their letter to Iran, Boehner used his power as House speaker to bring Israel’s prime minister to Congress, against Obama’s wishes, to speak against the Iran deal. Meanwhile, McConnell launched a campaign to block Obama’s ability to negotiate a treaty on climate change. In a March 31 statement that echoed the tactics of the letter to Iran, McConnell advised foreign leaders not to trust U.S. commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. “Considering that two-thirds of the U.S. federal government hasn’t even signed off on the Clean Power Plan and 13 states have already pledged to fight it,” he warned them, “our international partners should proceed with caution before entering into a binding, unattainable deal.”

Here is more quoted text that you refused to read due to your severe case of ODS. Begin quoted text>>> DeLay functioned as a propaganda minister for Milosevic, bucking up Serbian morale and belittling NATO’s efforts. “He’s stronger in Kosovo now than he was before the bombing,” DeLay said of Milosevic. “The Serbian people are rallying around him like never before. He’s much stronger with his allies.” When U.S. officials suggested that Milosevic was losing strength, DeLay dismissed this as disinformation from “the president’s spin machine.” DeLay concluded that “the bombing was a mistake” and that “this president ought to … admit it and come to some sort of negotiated end.” The Republicans were wrong. NATO’s pressure forced Milosevic to capitulate, and the ethnic cleansing stopped. Then came the 2000 election, the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Republicans didn’t just support these wars. They portrayed anyone who questioned them, even tactically, as a traitor. But in 2008, the GOP lost the White House, and its attitude toward presidential authority turned hostile again. Republicans’ hostility focused not on Afghanistan or Iraq—the wars for which they couldn’t escape responsibility—but on Libya, which they could safely portray as Obama’s conflict. Throughout the 2011 Libya campaign and the 2012 election, they mocked Obama for “leading from behind” in Libya. Many Republicans said we should never have entered the war, since Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi hadn’t attacked the United States and posed no immediate threat to us. Rep. Michele Bachmann, a presidential candidate and darling of the right, suggested that the U.S.-led NATO strikes in Libya had killed 10,000 to 30,000 innocent civilians. She cited, as her source for this claim, Qaddafi’s regime. In the 2012 presidential debates, former GOP House Speaker Newt Gingrich and other Republicans agreed with much of her criticism. “Two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is a lot,” Gingrich argued in an NBC News interview. He accused Obama of going to war in Libya for the United Nations and the Arab League instead of “looking at American interests.” “We could get engaged by this standard in all sorts of places,” Gingrich objected. He concluded: “I would not have intervened.”

Here is an excerpt from the article, since you have an especially bad case of ODS. Begin quoted text >>> If you study Republican behavior over the past quarter-century, you’ll find that the image of conservative lawmakers standing resolutely for American strength and unity is a myth. Republicans support wars launched by Republican presidents. When Democratic presidents undertake wars or negotiations, Republicans generally attempt to sabotage them. In fact, Republicans often side with our enemies. President Clinton faced one big war. In 1999, he sought to enlist the United States in NATO’s air campaign in Serbia. The campaign aimed to stop the ethnic cleansing of Muslims in Kosovo. When a resolution authorizing U.S. participation in the war came before the Senate, Democrats voted for it, 42 to 3. Republicans voted against it, 38 to 16. The resolution went through, but it failed a month later with a tie vote in the House. Democrats voted for the resolution, 181 to 25. Republicans voted against it, 187 to 31. Four of the five Republican leaders in Congress—Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, Senate Majority Whip Don Nickles, House Majority Leader Dick Armey, and House Majority Whip Tom DeLay—voted against the resolution. So did Rep. John Boehner, who had just completed his tenure as chairman of the House Republican Conference. DeLay also voted for a resolution declaring that the House “directs the President to remove United States Armed Forces from their positions in connection with the present operations against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.” Republican leaders didn’t just try to block the president. They defended Serbian dictator Slobodan Milosevic. When Gen. Joseph Ralston, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Milosevic “had already started his campaign of killing” before NATO intervened, Nickles disagreed. “I would take a little issue with [what] Gen. Ralston said,” the senator retorted. “The number of killings prior to the bombing, I think, has been exaggerated.” DeLay and Nickles blamed the ethnic cleansing on the United States and NATO. Nickles said NATO’s peace proposal to the Serbs—which Milosevic had rejected, leading to the war—had been “very arrogant.” Lott agreed. He accused the United States of not doing “enough in the diplomatic area” to appease Milosevic, and he urged Clinton to “give peace a chance.” Nickles dismissed NATO’s mission as “ludicrous.”

Ron, the word "gullible" is not in the dictionary. Thinking that nutter Beck has anything positive to contribute is the same as believing the above statement. Glenn Beck makes really gullible people believe bullshit that is totally laughable to anyone with a firm grasp on facts and history. PT Barnum said it best. "There is a sucker born every minute" Social Security should have restrictions on idiots spending money on memberships and reading material from crazy people who are a cancer on society.

Here is the part many of you refuse to see ***Berkowitz notes that Libby did not leak Plame's identity in retaliation for her husband opposing administration claims that Saddam Hussein had sought to purchase uranium from African sources. Plame's name was leaked by Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage to columnist Robert Novak. "From the moment he (Fitzgerald) took over the FBI leak investigation in December 2003, he knew Mr. Armitage was the leaker but declined to prosecute him…because the disclosure of Ms. Plame's identity wasn't a crime and didn't compromise national security," Berkowitz writes. "Mr. Fitzgerald, who had the classified file of Ms. Plame's service, withheld her State Department cover from Ms. Miller and from Mr. Libby's lawyers, who had requested Ms. Plame's employment history. Despite his constitutional and ethical obligation to provide exculpatory evidence, Mr. Fitzgerald encouraged Ms. Miller to misinterpret her ambiguous notes as showing that Mr. Libby brought up Ms. Plame." http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Judith-Miller-Scooter-Libby-trail-false-testimony/2015/04/07/id/636958/ Funny how you take the word of a reporter over the ruling of the justice system when it suits you. Other times they are all all scum under the influence of the democrat controled lamestream media. Surely you don't expect a Reich Wing Conservative to show any hint of ethical and moral consistency. It simply isn't possible to be an RWC if you have ethical and moral consistency.

Too tough a subject? Deliberate ignorance is nothing to be proud of. It is required if one is to be a Reich Wing Conservative. One must never view or read anything that presents facts that conflict with beliefs.

Facts are stubborn things. No matter how much you like to think and believe that Republicans are on the side of the USA's best interests, the facts show something entirely different than your beliefs. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/04/republicans_siding_with_america_s_enemies_john_mccain_mitch_mcconnell_and.html

Do some research on the facts of the case, then come back and contribute something that makes sense to the discussion. Facing 41 years for tiny sales of a plant product that is legal in multiple states is a great example of the stupidity of the WOD. It would have been really helpful if the pigs involved had provided the young man with accurate information as to the risks he was assuming by agreeing to become an informant. I hope that the family sues the pigs and the city, and wins tens of millions.

The NRA can't trust their own highly trained members to handle guns correctly at a public event? Guns belong everywhere, except their own convention. Really? It would be really funny, except that it so hypocritical that it is nauseating.

If no one posts, and no one reads the forums, no advertising revenue will be generated. Feel free to find alternative places to spend your time online. The thread was titled correctly. Offensive postings were regularly removed. Many people enjoyed the thread. The current owner of the site got pissed and closed it. His site, his rules. No one is forced to visit this site, or post. If the site traffic goes down thus reducing the ad revenue, changes will occur. Do what you feel is right...