regulator

.................................................................................. May I suggest drawing the line at the 70 pounds of armour? That 70 pounds should be a MINIMUM. Police should be able to fine, arrest, imprison, "beat like a rented mule" any bad guy caught wearing sissified, lady-like, light-weight, concealed, pistol-only body armour. However, bad guys who are tough enough to wear the 70 plus pounds of armour routinely worn by American, British, Canadian, etc. troops hiking in the mountains of Afghanistan, should be treated differently. A heavily-armoured the bad guy should be allowed to go free. The bad guy would be required to wear full armour, all-day, every day in the heat of a Miami summer. If the bad guy can still run away from the cops in full body armour, up a steep hill, then he stays out of jail. How is that for perverse old-soldier logic? Hah! Hah! I'd take that bet if I was a little younger. You should try some 20+ mile road marches with well over 100+ pounds of gear and rarely were we walking. However today after I just turned 45 a few days ago...well it would be alot tougher on this old body. I'd probably make it 5 miles if I was determined.

So does this mean you're willing to acknowledge that the current democratic party has done nothing more in regards to putting their party differences aside and working hand in hand with others to resolve issues together? Real men lead by example. Obama should take notes because his version of hope and change are a bunch of damn lies.

I guess you get your news from msnbc.

Religion? I agree. It's all about power and control of the masses. And this is different than the current presidential administration...how?

So what you're saying is that earth was created on mine and Johnny Carson's birthday? Sweet.

#10 suits your 'counter-argument' You must be absolutely close minded: One of the key reasons liberals spend so much time vilifying people they don’t like and questioning their motivations is to protect themselves from having to consider their arguments.

There may be no official rule book for being a liberal, but that doesn't mean there aren't rules. There are actually quite a few rules liberals go by and the more politically active liberals become, the more rigidly they tend to stick to their own code of behavior. These rules, most of which are unspoken, are passed along culturally on the Left and viciously enforced. Ironically, many liberals could not explain these rules to you and don't even consciously know they're following them. So, by reading this article, not only will you gain a better understanding of liberals, you'll know them better than they know themselves in some ways 1) You justify your beliefs about yourself by your status as a liberal, not your deeds. The most sexist liberal can think of himself as a feminist while the greediest liberal can think of himself as generous. This is because liberals define themselves as being compassionate, open minded, kind, pro-science and intelligent not based on their actions or achievements, but based on their ideology. This is one of the most psychologically appealing aspects of liberalism because it allows you to be an awful person while still thinking of yourself as better than everyone else. 2) You exempt yourself from your attacks on America: Ever notice that liberals don’t include themselves in their attacks on America? When they say, “This is a racist country,” or “,This is a mean country,” they certainly aren’t referring to themselves or people who hold their views. Even though liberals supported the KKK, slaughtering the Indians, and putting the Japanese in internment camps, when they criticize those things, it’s meant as an attack on everyone else EXCEPT LIBERALS. The only thing a liberal believes he can truly do wrong is to be insufficiently liberal. 3) What liberals like should be mandatory and what they don’t like should be banned: There’s an almost instinctual form of fascism that runs through most liberals. It’s not enough for liberals to love gay marriage; everyone must be forced to love gay marriage. It’s not enough for liberals to be afraid of guns; guns have to be banned. It’s not enough for liberals to want to use energy-saving light bulbs; incandescent light bulbs must be banned. It’s not enough for liberals to make sure most speakers on campuses are left-wing; conservative speakers must be shouted down or blocked from speaking. 4) The past is always inferior to the present: Liberals tend to view traditions, policies, and morals of past generations as arbitrary designs put in place by less enlightened people. Because of this, liberals don’t pay much attention to why traditions developed or wonder about possible ramifications of their social engineering. It’s like an architect ripping out the foundation of a house without questioning the consequences and if the living room falls in on itself as a result, he concludes that means he needs to make even more changes. 5) Liberalism is a jealous god and no other God may come before it: A liberal “Christian” or “Jew” is almost an oxymoron because liberalism trumps faith for liberals. Taking your religious beliefs seriously means drawing hard lines about right and wrong and that’s simply not allowed. Liberals demand that even God bow down on the altar of liberalism. 6) Liberals believe in indiscriminateness for thought: This one was so good that I stole it from my buddy, Evan Sayet: ” Indiscriminateness of thought does not lead to indiscriminateness of policy. It leads the modern liberal to invariably side with evil over good, wrong over right and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success. Why? Very simply if nothing is to be recognized as better or worse than anything else then success is de facto unjust. There is no explanation for success if nothing is better than anything else and the greater the success the greater the injustice. Conversely and for the same reason, failure is de facto proof of victimization and the greater the failure, the greater the proof of the victim is, or the greater the victimization.” 7) Intentions are much more important than results: Liberals decide what programs to support based on whether they make them feel good or bad about themselves, not because they work or don’t work. A DDT ban that has killed millions is judged a success by liberals because it makes them feel as if they care about the environment. A government program that wastes billions and doesn’t work is a stunning triumph to the Left if it has a compassionate sounding name. It would be easier to convince a liberal to support a program by calling it the “Saving Women And Puppies Bill” than showing that it would save 100,000 lives. 8) The only real sins are helping conservatism or harming liberalism: Conservatives often marvel at the fact that liberals will happily elect every sort of pervert, deviant, and criminal you can imagine without a second thought. That’s because right and wrong don’t come into the picture for liberals. They have one standard: Does this politician help or hurt liberalism? If a politician helps liberalism, he has a free pass to do almost anything and many of them do just that. 9) All solutions must be government-oriented: Liberals may not be as down on government as conservatives are, but on some level, even they recognize that it doesn’t work very well. So, why are liberals so hell bent on centralizing as much power as possible in government? Simple, because they believe that they are better and smarter than everyone else by virtue of being liberals and centralized power gives them the opportunity to control more people’s lives. There’s nothing scarier to liberals than free people living their lives as they please without wanting or needing the government to nanny them. 10) You must be absolutely close minded: One of the key reasons liberals spend so much time vilifying people they don’t like and questioning their motivations is to protect themselves from having to consider their arguments. This helps create a completely closed system for liberals. Conservative arguments are considered wrong by default since they’re conservative and not worth hearing. On the other hand, liberals aren’t going to make conservative arguments. So, a liberal goes to a liberal school, watches liberal news, listens to liberal politicians, has liberal friends, and then convinces himself that conservatives are all hateful, evil, racist Nazis so that any stray conservatism he hears should be ignored. It makes liberal minds into perfectly closed loops that are impervious to anything other than liberal doctrine. 11) Feelings are more important than logic: Liberals base their positions on emotions, not facts and logic and then they work backwards to shore up their position. This is why it’s a waste of time to try to convince a liberal of anything based on logic. You don’t “logic” someone out of a position that he didn’t use “logic” to come up with in the first place. 12) Tribal affiliation is more important than individual action: There’s one set of rules for members of the tribe and one set of rules for everyone else. Lying, breaking the rules, or fomenting hatred against a liberal in good standing may be out of bounds, but there are no rules when dealing with outsiders, who are viewed either as potential recruits, dupes to be tricked, or foes to be defeated. This is the same backwards mentality you see in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, except it’s based on ideology, not religion. http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2013/08/31/12-unspoken-rules-for-being-a-liberal-n1687730/page/full

We [as in the USA] own ebola. Why on earth did this get out and why is the damn cure so expensive? http://www.westernjournalism.com/u-s-government-patented-ebola/

Now if we could get the libs on this site to acknowledge what a complete and utter failure the entire obama presidency has been, then we could really get somewhere. I think there's a better chance of snofall in hell personally.

Personal attack . . . and you're gone. Cya for awhile. Chill out.[/quote I don't think its possible for you to sound more smug whilst banning someone. Does it make you feel like a badass?

Those were indeed the chemical weapons you already knew he had. Not the ones used for justification of the invasion. Interestingly, now these will probably be used to justify invading.....again. Ok so show us your itinerary where you went to Iraq and inspected these wmd's yourself. You spouting off like you have firsthand knowledge indicating that these weapons are from the same cache should insult ever one with a moderate IQ. The fact is until you pull documents out your speculations are just as unqualified as these reports.

Last time I checked you don't have to even have to prove you can hit the broad side of a barn door to buy a gun in Georgia. If someone can't prove even that much proficiency they don't deserve to own a gun. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? Makes perfect sense to me. Here's why. 1.) I don't live in Georgia 2.) my proficiency with firearms far exceeds your requirements laid out in your post. Don

Last time I checked you don't have to even have a drivers license in Texas to have an Id. If someone can't provide even that much identification they don't deserve to vote. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

Such voter fraud doesn't seem to be an actual problem as much as something to be used for fear mongering. According only to the democratic demographic.

He was wrong to not pay like he should have, your right I agreed. He was wrong to not move his cattle, your right, I also agreed. He was wrong to threaten violence which I said could label him a terrorist, your right, I said he was engaging in a form of terrorism. I stated a position that Americans shouldn't have been in this situation from the beginning due to federal land grab. I never sympathized with him for not paying, remaining after forbidden, or threatening the government. How you made that jump leads me to believe your just a shit stirrer also. That man wore pants, do you wear pants? If you do your a fuckin terrorist....... Im done talking to you about this, and going back onto topic. So do you think that labelling the people in Ferguson, who might just be very fed up with the way hey have been treated, as terrorists is beneficial to resolving the dispute? Look how you reacted to being labelled a terrorist sympathiser. Then go back a couple of posts above that, where you are trying to label an entire group as potential terrorists. So which topic do you want to discuss? How these situations can be resolved, what might be underlying issues? Or how to keep these uppity potential terrorists in check? Explain to me how destroying the town they grew up in is going to solve anything at all other than to illustrate just how stupid that particular demographic really is. Meanwhile in Utah a white kid was unarmed and shot by a black cop. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/sep/3/justice-dillon-taylor-after-white-utah-man-fatally/ Instead or rioting and looting their own neighborhood they held a candlelight vigil.

How on earth can you derive your query from my question? You are talking like you've seen all the evidence already and you're astonished as to why he hasn't been charged yet. I just asked if you've seen all the evidence. I mean surely you have some insider information right? If not, then hold on to your speculations until they choose to not indict him, or charge him.

So you've seen all the evidence in the Michael brown case?

It's like trying to trust the government in general. Personally my father is a 45+ year law enforcement officer. Ive been around my fair share of police on both sides of the law. Just because police are trained on how to be good cops doesn't mean they'll act like good cops.

Ahh ok...so when a cop kills and we aren't quite sure if it is valid we should just chalk it up to..... Revenge? Payback? Evening the score? Comes with the job? No big issue? Depends on who the dead person is? Any of the above?

Meanwhile cops all over the country for as long as there has been cops have been getting shot and killed by perps of all colors. I don't see cops rioting in the streets when one of theirs gets killed in the line of duty. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bfd_1412749703 Also when Ben Affleck calls Bill Maher [of all people] a racist (regarding muslims) then it should be well known that the word racism is thrown around so much it should lose its true meaning. Its like the little boy that cried wolf. Get a new word.

I'd be willing to make a wager that he doesn't get an indictment. Anyone want in?

More like a vast majority democratic supporters are low information voters. Sure there are plenty that are highly intelligent, but id ponder well more than 65% genuinely don't know few if any of those questions.

If you think the list of 'accomplishments' you listed is an actual list of real accomplishments you are getting delusional in your old age. Obama might have that fancy harvard degree with all the intelligence in the world but he doesn't have a spine. He cowers to terrorists and apologizes in fear of offending muslims. The fact that you still wantonly support him with with a list of failures that far exceeds that lame list you created that were supposed accomplishments.

Well more specifically who would want to read obama's memoirs...your know the book that will be really thin with lots of pictures because he didn't succeed in anything other than going on lots of golfing trips.

My question is...what kind of truly boring ass people are going to read a book about the memoirs of an ex president.