Andy9o8

What do you mean by that?

And the home of the Braves! Meh, you have your nanny state, we have ours. We just have more nannies in the private sector.

Yeah, that's catchy, you go with that. Mothers will think you're saying "scrotum", and pull their children away from the crazy geezer.

Go get em, Don Quixote.

A wise decision. Device dependency is dangerous. Trust your eyes.

You need to push away & get some fresh air I've seen this syndrome before. Pretty soon you'll have bunny eyes and be flinging your poop.

So there you have it: the complete spectrum of opinion. Take your pick.

I'm still waiting for the dedication of Fort Benedict Arnold. Let me know when that happens.

Nobody here has remotely suggested that. With all due respect, sir, demonizing a position by spinning it is not effective persuasion.

D'oh!!

I was curious about the actual origin of this... composition, so I googled it. Found this Snopes article: http://m.snopes.com/politics-soapbox-black-dilemma/

The problem with that approach, and those analogies, Bill, is that they fail to appreciate that although, as you say, the Confederate flag, as you say, no longer literally symbolizes "slavery", and has evolved, in the late 20th and 21st Centuries, into a generic regional-pride symbol for many people, there are those white people who have always concurrently used it as an overt symbol and expression of racial animus (even if not literally "slavery"), or at the very least, a preference for racial segregation. It was, for example, most certainly used as a "battle flag" by the most strident opponents, mainly in the Deep South, of the civil rights movements in the 1950s and 60s - as is within the memories of many millions of people (including myself) who were alive at the time. To this day, even though it's used by some with innocent intent, it is used by many (even if not all) of those Americans who are bigoted against black people to express that bigotry. And thus, it has come to be viewed not just by American black people, but also many millions of Americans who are not black, as a symbol of ongoing racism and oppression that should be consigned, if not entirely to the ash heap, at least to a museum. Sometimes it takes time for collective conscience to catch up with that; that's why the Confederate flag on the Dukes of Hazzard may be viewed differently today than it was in 1979. To some, the General Lee is a souped-up orange car on a TV show. To many others, though, General Lee was a traitor who betrayed the uniform he donned at West Point, and should have been hanged for treason; and had he prevailed, millions of black people in America would have continued to be enslaved, possibly for generations. In the 1960s Charlie Brown and his friends used to wear white sheets as Halloween costumes. Of course I don't think for a moment that Charles Schulz was giving a veiled nod to the KKK. Still, I'll hazard a guess that their pal Franklin's parents and grandparents weren't particularly comfortable with those kids dressing up that way. Similarly, even though the swastika is a symbol that pre-dated the Nazis by thousands of years in various non-European cultures, it's generally considered pretty un-cool to display it now, even if, say, just by a person to honor his great-uncle who died as an ignorant 17 year old kid because he was drafted into the Wehrmacht during WWII. So yes, to this day, the Confederate flag occupies.. not an exclusive place, but certainly a concurrent place, as a symbol of ongoing racial animus and oppression in the United States, and no amount of wishing, hoping, spinning or dissimulation will make it otherwise. That's the reality today, and it is ignored or given rhetorical cover at the peril of enabling it.

Jury selection is always crucial. It can be a huge wild card. This case, once it's finally over some day, will almost certainly reinforce that principle. One illustrative example just off the top of my head: the jury in the first OJ Simpson criminal case, resulting in his acquittal, was quite different from the jury in the first civil lawsuit against Simpson (arising out of the same facts and basically the same evidence), which ended in a huge monetarily punitive civil verdict against Simpson. That was not mere happenstance. And yes, juries can also be very unpredictable.

I don't understand why skydivers read and respond to her facebook and twitter accounts. Don't they have anything better to read? Trolls crave attention, and feel nourished and validated when they receive it. Watchfulness by the sport's community to be prepared for further tactics, yes. But the more open attention she receives, the more she gains. You post shit in her sites, she deletes them and feels powerful. That's how the koo-koos of the world operate. Who do you think reads her sites? Normal people in the community? The news media? Hell, no. Just her pals and a few a pitiful, wanking followers-on. That merits our active engagement? Really? Too much like high school for me. Been there, done that. Check, please?

BASE jumpers?

They can say it all they want, but I look forward to seeing how a couple test cases pan out.

So are you oil, or gas?

I always presumed it was in Longmont.

you're aready special, Clint. That's good enough for us.

Cassus belli!

So you didn't get the memo. Got it.

You may be right. I hope not. But even so, I do hope this costs him time, money, and aggravation. Maybe he might experience an epiphany. Why would it get thrown out? The video is a corroboration of ryoder's own testimony. If ryoder can attest to the fact that the man was driving, I would think that his testimony combined with the video would be compelling. Oh, Yoder can testify to that. And he will. If Yoder testifies that way, and it's not rebutted by a denial, then that's strong evidence that the man was the driver. If the man chooses to testify, then it will be Yoder's word against the man's. Of course, if the man denies he was driving, then by process of elimination that implicates the woman as the driver, and we charge the woman and prosecute her. If the woman testifies the man wasn't driving, then logically she'd be implicating herself as the driver. Also At 0:15, looking at/through the windshield of the car reflected in Yoder's left rear view mirror, I think a reasonable argument can be made that the shape of the silhouette of the figure on the passenger's side of the car seems to be the same shape as the wife's hairstyle as is visible at about 1:25 - 1:32.

I'd say it's a hybrid of freestyle and RW. You know, semantics being the most important thing.

Trust me, I want that pathetic little shit to fry for what he did. The death penalty fits such a crime. Happy now? I suspect the undercurrent of Skyrad's post - and he can correct me if I'm wrong - is that every time there's a crime committed by a Muslim, all the redneck droolers in the US holler, "Where's the Muslim outrage??" - you know, as if Jamile and his family, being Muslim, are moral reprobates for not holding a condemnatory press conference every time there's a terrorist act somewhere. Same goes for every time a black man commits a heinous crime against a white person: " Where's the outrage from black leaders? Sharpton!! Jesse Jackson!!" And, so, I suspect, it's a bit of ironic "Right back atcha." My challenge to all the racist mother-fuckers who post racist mother-fucking shit on these boards regularly: Hey, guys, this guy makes even you look bad. Well, worse. Where's the outrage?

Did the squaw pass? Film at 11!