regulator

You do realize that if your goal was acheived and the entire US of A was liberal we would be carpet bombed into extinction in the first week. As they ran away with their hair on fire you could hear them say things like....'well at least we got gay marriage rights and obamacare passed first!!!'

I couldn't care less about harpo. Or oprah for that matter. I'm like Kid Rock. I like skinny white chicks with big tits. He added, “People are like, ‘Beyoncé‘s hot. Got a nice f–king ass.’ I’m like ‘Cool, I like skinny white chicks with big tits.’ Doesn’t really f–king do much for me.”

Ok, quote me the part where she says anyone who criticises Obama is racist. Heck, just tell me what the time is in the video and I'll quote it for you. Go ahead, I'll wait. It's the first words she says. "There's a level of disrespect for the office that occurs, in some cases, maybe even many cases because he's african american." That's liberal PC speak for anyone who doesn't agree with the president is racist because he's black and you're not.

I'm pretty sure there were plenty of white women that propelled her to where she is now. Now she doesn't give a shit about anyone that isn't black, unless of course it somehow got her network some kind of ratings.

http://tellmenow.com/2014/10/oprah-says-anyone-who-dislikes-obama-is-racist/

I wonder if this is the pistol that they are associating with firing the green tip rounds? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBlk-RtLcMM

No. Does every thread have to turn in an Obama thread? One comment about obama and suddenly its an obama thread yet jcalor can talk all the shit he wants about texas and nobody says anything. hypocrites.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2382998-jon-stewart-confronts-seth-rollins-during-wwes-monday-night-raw?utm_source=cnn.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=editorial 'professional' wrestling. I mean we could tell he was the kind of guy that enjoyed getting put in a headlock by other sweaty men. It was just a matter of time before he quit his main job and pursued wrestling.

I'll bet he murmurs that in his sleep. In the waning days of his presidency he'll start grumbling this in his conscious state, with increasing frequency and franticness. How could we have elected this communist? Look what those low-information voters got us into. So this means you voted for mitt romney?

Smith suffered a stroke and died less than a month later after issuing that revised ruling. Because Smith can no longer hear the case, Oyola must get a new sentencing, and a different circuit court judge will now oversee Oyola's case, according to the 22-page ruling issued Thursday. That kind of reminds me of this case. Eventually justice prevailed. http://www.chron.com/neighborhood/woodlands/news/article/Killer-in-burned-boy-case-faces-sentencing-6072810.php

way to take one for the team.

We could absolutely 'finish this' but the issue lies in collateral damage of innocent civilians. If we can come up with a smart bomb that only kills terrorists we'd be shitting in high cotton.

What does it take for Senate Republicans to decide not to confirm Loretta Lynch, who is President Obama’s nominee to be attorney general? At what point is the lawlessness simply too much? It is entirely within the power of the newly elected Republican majority in the Senate not to confirm Ms. Lynch. The only question is whether the GOP majority will exercise its constitutional authority to do so. Personally, I wanted to support Ms. Lynch’s nomination. Six years of Eric Holder has done enormous damage, and Ms. Lynch’s service as the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York has earned her a reputation as a relatively no-nonsense prosecutor. However, the answers she gave at her confirmation hearing are, in my view, disqualifying for serving as our nation’s chief law enforcement officer. When asked how she would be different from Eric Holder—the most partisan attorney general our nation has ever seen—she could identify no meaningful way she would differ from him. When asked whether she would defend President Obama’s illegal executive amnesty—which Obama himself acknowledged, 22 times, he had no authority to undertake and which a federal court has just enjoined as unlawful—she responded affirmatively, saying that she thought the Administration’s contrived legal justification was “reasonable.” When asked the limits of “prosecutorial discretion,” the dubious theory President Obama has put forth to justify his executive amnesty, she could give none. When asked if it would allow the President to extend amnesty to all 12 million people here illegally … she refused to answer. When asked who has “more right to a job,” a U.S. citizen or a person here illegally, she responded, “I believe that the right and the obligation to work is one that’s shared by everyone in this country, regardless of how they came here.” When asked if a subsequent President could use “prosecutorial discretion” to order the Treasury Secretary to no longer collect any income taxes above 25 percent … she refused to answer. When asked if a subsequent President could use the same theory to exempt the State of Texas from every single federal labor law and environmental law … she refused to answer. These are extreme, radical positions. When asked if she agreed with the Holder Justice Department’s view (rejected unanimously by the U.S. Supreme Court) that the government could place a GPS sensor on the car of every American, without probable cause … she refused to answer. When asked if she agreed with the Holder Justice Department’s view (also rejected unanimously by the U.S. Supreme Court) that the First Amendment gives no protection whatsoever to a church’s or synagogue’s choice of pastor or rabbi … she refused to answer. When asked at her hearing if she believed the federal government could employ a drone to kill a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, if that citizen posed no imminent threat … she refused to answer. And when asked if she would be willing to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the IRS’s targeting of citizens for their political views—a prosecutor who was not a major Obama donor, as is the current lawyer leading the “investigation” … she refused to answer. This is breathtaking—and brazen. No senator who takes his or her oath of office seriously should vote to confirm such a nominee. And Senate Republicans have all the authority we need to reject this nomination. Two paths are available: First, if every Senate Republican on the Judiciary Committee votes no, the nominee will be rejected. Alas, to date, two Republicans have said publicly they will vote yes, and a third has strongly suggested he will as well. Second, regardless of where the committee votes might be, Republican Leadership could simply decide not to report the nomination to the floor. If Leadership did so, the nomination would be rejected—and there is no procedural mechanism for Democrats to change the outcome. http://www.tpnn.com/2015/02/24/video-ted-cruz-vows-stop-loretta-lynch-at-what-point-is-the-lawlessness-simply-too-much/

It also seems he was a progressive liberal yet few mainstream news outlets seem to be reporting it. Hmmmm http://www.youngcons.com/atheist-kills-three-muslims-mainstream-media-ignoring-leftist-politics/

It's rather amusing about what you said. I can't comment on what happened in the crusades, not can I comment on what happened before I was born. What I can comment on is what I see today and what I see today are a bunch of whiny ass atheists constantly crying about people with religious beliefs and how every religion is 'wrong' except yours...which is no religion at all. You sir should jump off your high horse just like everyone else you are condemning.

Which part is that is not true? *** “well-educated” creatures of Washington accept the Arab fantasy that the cultural incompetence, practical indolence, and spiritual decay of the entire Middle East stems from Richard Coeur de Lion’s twelfth-century swordplay. I would say a citation is in order. The author tells people to read books on the subject, I would recommend he listens to what is said before commenting. I don't think think the author would understand any book he read since he cannot even correctly interpret a single simple quote... The whole discussion is along the lines of "my imaginary friend is better than your imaginary friend". Unspeakable things have been done in the name of both religions... Arguing about it is petty and for the simple minded as this author proves. Isn't that exactly what you're doing right now?

I still remember the story my father told me of the reciolless rifle. He said it was generally a good idea to stay clear of the rear of the rifle when it was fired.

Army: .50 cal Civilian: .338 lapua

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=I_To-cV94Bo

No it wasn't me. But the Obama did basically what I said. He didn't apologize, he just said Christians are equal to Isis.

My question to you is this. If this was an american pilot what do you think obama would do? I think he would apologize to them like the raging pussy he is. But that's just my opinion. I don't know what Obama would do. I do know that his situation (politically) is completely different. My opinion is that Abdullah isn't doing this because he is "bad ass" or anything along those lines. He is doing this to keep his job, his country and very likely his head. Obama wouldn't have to deal with those concerns. Those concerns can be pretty powerful driving forces behind decisions. http://clashdaily.com/2015/02/breaking-obama-christians-just-like-islamic-radicals-burn-people-alive/

I didnt think you were so simple that you could only handle one topic at a time. Also I didn't know your screenname was skydekker.

https://twitter.com/rConflictNews/status/563097912004325378/photo/1 Lawrocket: You were right! NEW PHOTO: Jordan's King Abdullah is seen now in combat gear, with rumors of him leading a battalion against #ISIS

My question to you is this. If this was an american pilot what do you think obama would do? I think he would apologize to them like the raging pussy he is. But that's just my opinion.

Pretty sure normiss can answer his own questions.