Bush is a hero

lololololololol wrote:

<quoted text>just remember the dems took control of house and senate in 2006 loololololl when it started esp the housing crises just so you know, so like how you now are blaming the house rep. dont see you doing the same for the dem.

okboston wrote:

<quoted text>
Hey Hip, you have been here much longer than I have. How many of these people that want us to forget bush blamed Clinton or even Carter (CRA) for the crash? Blamed Clinton for 9-11?
I mean essentially all you did was say "When bush was President...." which is fixing a time period and blaming no one. And the knee comes up chin high "bush is not President. It is Obama's......"
Even when they want to talk employment rate (which I prefer) they quickly run away when it is pointed out that the downward slope started under bush.
WE have structural problems that will not be addressed until people stop playing the political game and start playing the "Lets solve this problem" game.

Judged:

1

1

1

okboston wrote:

<quoted text>
I think you are getting ahead of the trial. To further complicate your argument, you have not included the effect of "Stand Your Ground."

okboston wrote:

<quoted text>You had just called me on using language that implied more than had been released publically.

okboston wrote:

<quoted text>
Have any of the tribes gotten together with the purpose of retaining a single law firm for the purpose of representing the tribes in treaties and other areas where you are not dealing "tribe vs. tribe?"
It seems to me that representing the tribes would present particular problems that would be common to all tribes (or most) and that it might be more useful to have a major law firm build a subject matter expert team to serve that need.

HipGnosis wrote:

<quoted text>I don't think Stand Your Ground is applicable, although I will admit there is at least one other FLA incident of a man pursuing and shooting another, and claiming SYG protection. It shows how desperately ludicrous our laws are getting.
<quoted text>I don't think I am implying more than has been released. Please indicate where I've over-stepped. I'm certainly not introducing utter nonsense about "trespassing" or irrelevant gossip that only serves to bias the picture. There are only two people to testify as to what actually happened, and one won't be attending the trial. The other has given at least three different accounts as to how the two came into direct contact.
A boy was walking where he had every right to walk. That boy is dead because another man shot him, after chasing him, without authority, with a gun. The lead investigator that night did not believe Z's self-defense story, sought manslaughter, and was over-ruled. The very details that have been released of Z's story don't mesh with many witness reports or 911 calls, and his details have "evolved" over time. All indications are that he was very skittish from the start on that night - he's parked on the route directly between the store and the boy's home, but he nervously assumes the kid walks by only to be "checking me out".
I have said from the beginning that I wouldn't doubt Martin punched him. I don't know he did, but I wouldn't doubt it. Put yourself in his shoes. You're doing nothing wrong. A man chases you through the neighborhood, and confronts you. He doesn't identify himself or his intent. He reaches inside his coat. How do you know >you're< not getting jacked? What do you do?
For me, the bigger picture is not about "racial injustice" or profiling. It's more about how utterly ridiculous we've gotten with our collective insecurity and our gun laws. The real "Wild West" was not as irresponsible about guns as we are today. Nobody's "safer". I certainly don't feel any safer to know that any random "law-abiding citizen" >might< have a concealed gun without training and might at any moment take it on themselves to rectify some perceived wrongdoing.

HipGnosis wrote:

<quoted text>I don't think Stand Your Ground is applicable, although I will admit there is at least one other FLA incident of a man pursuing and shooting another, and claiming SYG protection. It shows how desperately ludicrous our laws are getting.
<quoted text>I don't think I am implying more than has been released. Please indicate where I've over-stepped. I'm certainly not introducing utter nonsense about "trespassing" or irrelevant gossip that only serves to bias the picture. There are only two people to testify as to what actually happened, and one won't be attending the trial. The other has given at least three different accounts as to how the two came into direct contact.
A boy was walking where he had every right to walk. That boy is dead because another man shot him, after chasing him, without authority, with a gun. The lead investigator that night did not believe Z's self-defense story, sought manslaughter, and was over-ruled. The very details that have been released of Z's story don't mesh with many witness reports or 911 calls, and his details have "evolved" over time. All indications are that he was very skittish from the start on that night - he's parked on the route directly between the store and the boy's home, but he nervously assumes the kid walks by only to be "checking me out".
I have said from the beginning that I wouldn't doubt Martin punched him. I don't know he did, but I wouldn't doubt it. Put yourself in his shoes. You're doing nothing wrong. A man chases you through the neighborhood, and confronts you. He doesn't identify himself or his intent. He reaches inside his coat. How do you know >you're< not getting jacked? What do you do?
For me, the bigger picture is not about "racial injustice" or profiling. It's more about how utterly ridiculous we've gotten with our collective insecurity and our gun laws. The real "Wild West" was not as irresponsible about guns as we are today. Nobody's "safer". I certainly don't feel any safer to know that any random "law-abiding citizen" >might< have a concealed gun without training and might at any moment take it on themselves to rectify some perceived wrongdoing.

Judged:

1

okboston wrote:

<quoted text>
I tend to agree with you on several counts. I don't expect more than a couple of incidents if Zimmerman is found in the right. I expect more riots with more violence if Romney is elected President.
The rights class warfare and picking the rich over the poor and middle class is not only indefensible it is destructive to the nation. I don't think the American people will stand for it much longer. ;;

BobinTX wrote:

<quoted text>
Do you remember when flights actually served real meals, and they were included in the ticket price?

HipGnosis wrote:

<quoted text>I don't think Stand Your Ground is applicable, although I will admit there is at least one other FLA incident of a man pursuing and shooting another, and claiming SYG protection. It shows how desperately ludicrous our laws are getting.
<quoted text>I don't think I am implying more than has been released. Please indicate where I've over-stepped. I'm certainly not introducing utter nonsense about "trespassing" or irrelevant gossip that only serves to bias the picture. There are only two people to testify as to what actually happened, and one won't be attending the trial. The other has given at least three different accounts as to how the two came into direct contact.
A boy was walking where he had every right to walk. That boy is dead because another man shot him, after chasing him, without authority, with a gun. The lead investigator that night did not believe Z's self-defense story, sought manslaughter, and was over-ruled. The very details that have been released of Z's story don't mesh with many witness reports or 911 calls, and his details have "evolved" over time. All indications are that he was very skittish from the start on that night - he's parked on the route directly between the store and the boy's home, but he nervously assumes the kid walks by only to be "checking me out".
I have said from the beginning that I wouldn't doubt Martin punched him. I don't know he did, but I wouldn't doubt it. Put yourself in his shoes. You're doing nothing wrong. A man chases you through the neighborhood, and confronts you. He doesn't identify himself or his intent. He reaches inside his coat. How do you know >you're< not getting jacked? What do you do?
For me, the bigger picture is not about "racial injustice" or profiling. It's more about how utterly ridiculous we've gotten with our collective insecurity and our gun laws. The real "Wild West" was not as irresponsible about guns as we are today. Nobody's "safer". I certainly don't feel any safer to know that any random "law-abiding citizen" >might< have a concealed gun without training and might at any moment take it on themselves to rectify some perceived wrongdoing.

lololololololol wrote:

<quoted text>and btw check you states but you will find out less crime is committed with people who are allowed to carry guns. google it might help

Judged:

2

2

1

lololololololol wrote:

<quoted text>WAKE UP LISTEN TO THE CALL TOTALLY TELLS A DIFFERENT STORY YOU ARE TRYING TO SAY.
And just because you think he is a kid alot of theses kids will eather kick your #$% or shoot ya dont be a fool and think some kids are not bad, esp when the history shows he is. and if someone was near your house or in your neighborhood who look suspicious you would do the same esp like in my neighborhood we have alot of elderly we check in time to time, and if the boy though he was a threat why didnt he call the cops or run away fast like most kids ????

okboston wrote:

<quoted text>
Don't have to cite law. IF we are in a war, then we are at war. In not, then not.

okboston wrote:

He had ample opportunity to surrender to authorities. The United States made their intentions clear. The bottom line is simple:

okboston wrote:

How many SOF lives are you willing to waste trying to capture the next "American" that comes along in a similar situation?

okboston wrote:

How many more American lives are you willing to sacrifice as he becomes successful in his endeavors before the SOF captures him?

okboston wrote:

Do police in the United States have the power to decide to take someone out using a sniper if they think the risk of not doing so it to high?

okboston wrote:

Obama hate. That is all your spiel is. If it were not, you pay more attention to actual issues instead of these contrived things.

Judged:

2

2

1

BobinTX wrote:

<quoted text>
If I remember correctly, we haven't been in a declared war since FDR declared war against the Axis Nations... that was 1941.
<quoted text>
I wouldn't show up in court without being served a warrant. Did someone actually serve him with a warrant, or do you just ASS-U-ME that he knew he was wanted? BTW, if he was a wanted person, why didn't we keep him in the USA?
<quoted text>
We captured five Americans right after we assassinated al-Awlaki... and they were armed? Actually, the Pakistani's captured them, why can't we capture an unarmed American?
<quoted text>
I keep forgetting that you think the Constitution is a hinderance to accomplishing the government goals, and needs to be more flexible... such as waiving a citizen's right to a trial by one's peers.
<quoted text>
What do you think would happen to that sniper and his command line if he executed a person that was known not to carry a weapon?
<quoted text>
Not obama hate... Constitution love. If you don't like the rights given to EVERY citizen of the USA, pass an amendment to change it... that's a fool's errand. Until then, the Constitution is the law of the land, and it doesn't call for the execution of any unarmed, innocent citizen without a trial.
I thought you swore to protect and uphold the Constitution, or didn't you really mean it when you took your oath? Do I need to re-post your oath for you?

Judged:

2

1

okboston wrote:

<quoted text>Right after you tell us how many American SOF and civilian lives you are willing to sacrifice in the name of your perceived injustice.

okboston wrote:

Another 3,000 like on 9-11? A battalion of SOF? How many Bobin?

okboston wrote:

<quoted text>
I shudder that I included two winks and someone missed it.
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/T2LK4SO...

okboston wrote:

I tend to agree with you on several counts. I don't expect more than a couple of incidents if Zimmerman is found in the right. I expect more riots with more violence if Romney is elected President.

okboston wrote:

The rights class warfare and picking the rich over the poor and middle class is not only indefensible it is destructive to the nation. I don't think the American people will stand for it much longer. ;;

Judged:

2

2

1

BobinTX wrote:

<quoted text>
If I remember correctly, we haven't been in a declared war since FDR declared war against the Axis Nations... that was 1941.

Fearless and Happy wrote:

Unbelievable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...