blzrul
-
Posts
3,986 -
Joined
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by blzrul
-
-
SCOTUS can and will render decisions w/o a full roster. And without ultra-conservative Scalia, the lack of full court isn't harmful to progressive causes. As we've seen the other Justices can actually sometimes put the law and humanity before politics...which is kinda their damn job.
Even if the GOP wins the White House, I doubt they could find anyone worse that Scalia who'd actually be confirmed (especially i they look to someplace like TX, AL, FL etc. for one of their patented evangelical creationist anti-human being wackos). The fact that Obama chose a fairly moderate guy who doesn't satisfy the extreme left or right, and that the Senate won't even consider him, only hurts the GOP which is already looking extremely stupid - and deservedly so - for it's hilarious "presidential" candidates.
-
Anyone who doesn't realize that Trump is only running to add another trophy to his wall will be in for a rude awakening should he actually win. I think it's pretty funny that the people who are continually exploited and shat upon by the rich and powerful "ruling class" in America are the ones that will carry this guy forward. He could not care less about them. If he cared about them, as a billionaire businessman he could do plenty for them - but he hasn't. And as POTUS he will do nothing for them. Well, maybe create more of them as the middle class gets pushed further into the mud.
He's a liar, and a hypocrite. He's not as batzhirtcrazy as Cruz, but he's every bit as ignorant and arrogant.
-
Spare us the drama, cupcake. Anyone who spends any amount of time on this board knows there are no "buffoons...with John Wayne syndrome." This is nothing more than you, once again, over blowing your perception of what you want to believe, and supporting it with some oddball story about a guy you met on a plane who was at a national training event?
Assuming the training he was at was not potty training, good for him for realizing he wasn't responsible enough to keep guns in his house.
But virtually anyone with a passing knowledge of gun training and gun safety knows that when you treat your firearms the way they are meant to be treated, and educate your family the way the should be educated, there is no danger in your home. The only people who find danger are the people who refuse to respect the guns (and these are usually inner-city thugs with stolen firearms) and the people whose agenda against guns is too important to employ common sense.
I truly appreciate your quality contribution to the conversation. Dismissive, condescending, personal attacks add so much to the discussion and only enhance your excellent reputation as a great, open-minded intellectual. I take it the John Wayne wannabe buffoon in you just overcame you for a moment, eh?
This guy is a high-ranking official and I presume knows his job. He's one data point - I offered it up because it was unexpected and a different viewpoint, which I found surprising. I'll take his word any day.
-
I cringe when I think of the stuff I used to "cook" in order to save time. It was prefabricated crap loaded with who-knows-what. I just never knew how easy it is to cook good, fresh food - and it usually doesn't take much time at all. Even stuff that looks and sounds complex can be done easily with a pressure cooker and a Vitamix. I even make my own chocolate. Hopefully the calories expended getting it smooth are offset by how much I eat
-
Flew home last night sitting next to a chief from Seattle who'd spent the week at a national training event that included other high-level officials from law enforcement around the country. I mentioned the shooting in W.WA Friday (5 dead) and the Kansas incident. They'd been pretty locked down and he wasn't aware of them.
Interesting response from him = when he had little kids, he got rid of personal guns. That way he didn't have to worry about them hurting themselves. He also said that based on his training and experience, no way in HELL would he, if he carried a firearm off duty (which he does not) try to intervene in an incident with a firearm because the risk that HE would get shot when the police arrived.
I know there are plenty of buffoons on the board with John Wayne syndrome, but this guy is someone who actually knows what he's talking about. I found it surprising and, frankly, refreshing. Just a little dose of reality.
-
Do we know who threw the first punch? And why two off-duty cops are in a bar buying champagne by the bottle (and getting receipts)? And why neither of them was armed (which seems the norm for cops, on or off-duty)? Not looking to excuse a 4 v 2 beatdown but the whole thing smells a little fishy. Maybe the delay is just about negotiating $$ but I can't help but wonder whether these guys were under cover? That may have been discussed previously but I'm not going back over the last 86 pages to check
-
Rex you are now dead to me.
-
I saw a video last evening with no kicking or stomping - looked like a lot of pushing, shoving, yelling and flailing around. It was stated that McCoy didn't start the argument and it was hard to tell where he was in the melee. Bunch of dumb drunks in a bar fight. Will be interesting to see what happens. I'm sure Karlos, Gillislee and Boobie are interested as well.
-
Sound like a bunch of whiny Seahawks fans. Just yesterday there was an article in the Seattle Times about a dog in a local PD who got a kevlar vest courtesy of the Roethlisberger Foundation. Newspaper just HAD to mention the SB loss in 2006 "with a little help from the referees".
Much as that loss broke my heart and is STILL hard to take, it boils down to: play better.
-
I thought the ends justify the means?
So, you are convinced it is a bad idea?
I am not convinced one way or another.
-
Kids get an allowance for doing chores they arguably should be doing as part of the family. People get rewards for turning in lost or stolen property, or criminals. Companies get tax abatements for moving from one state to another, or for NOT moving. There are all sorts of examples of how we throw money at things to get what we want, although I can't think of one directly on point. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Aside from the innate ick factor, even if the economic returns are reasonable, the other concern is that people who might not commit crimes would express an intent to do so in order to get paid off. That would probably start about 5 minutes after the law went into effect.
-
There's a reason it "goes against the grain". I suppose that you would have been a proponent of paying ransom to the Barbary Pirates too?
"Why the heck not" isn't support. I think paying people to do what they're supposed to do, or not do what they shouldn't, is repugnant.
However as a practical matter, there are always those who do the right thing, and those who don't. If this practice reduces the harm/impact of the bad acts on the good people, I guess it might be worth a try. And it if saves tax money, what the hell.
The notion to use monetary incentives to drive behaviour, as well as reward it, is well-established beyond just paying wages in return for work.
-
Been paying farmers not to grow crops...letting corporations off the hook for taxes to relocate to a certain geography, or not to go offshore...so why the heck not this. Can't wait to see what's next.
As a practical matter, the cost of arresting, prosecuting, and then housing criminals in correctional institutions is pretty expensive. So if this costs less, and crime is reduced, much as it goes against the grain it's a pretty creative solution.
-
I was actually aligned pretty well with Rand Paul except for that Christian baloney and his recent "I really DO want to bomb someone" stance, which was political expediency.
However I can see the appeal of the rest to knuckle-draggers.
-
Marco Rubio. following donor dollars, frequently veers from limited-government dogma:
“Rubio’s votes on a wide range of issues may demonstrate that he votes in favor of positions that benefit his donors, but are not necessarily consistent with his conservative campaign rhetoric,” says Loyola Law School professor Jessica Levinson. For “voters who pay attention,” she adds, “this is disheartening and dispiriting.”
Backwards!
Rubio will be the nominee because he's young and pretty. Kasich will be VP nominee because...Ohio. Rubio is an empty, pandering suit. Kasich is sometimes sane, but other times sounds as batshitcrazy as the rest of the GOP field. If Hillary is the Dem nominee I can't help but think of her demolishing pretty-boy Lazio in the NY Senatorial debate(s)....If it's Sanders, he sure won't look good compared to Rubio but I imagine he'll make a monkey out of him too. As far as the voters go we'll see whether fear trumps gullibility or vice versa.
-
HRC took a page from GWB's book and declared victory ... now it's up to Bernie to unseat her which will be an uphill climb. However she has got to be shocked it was that close.
-
Yup pretty much would be the case. But we'd be civil about it. More or less. Until one of us fell (or got pushed?) out of the tree.
-
And their agenda is actually very broad. Extremely broad. Chaotically broad. Y'know...given that they're whoring for attention.
I find it very concerning that we agree.
-
Went for a gun, and got dusted. That's what happens, whether you've been breaking the last for 3 straight weeks prior, or not. The rest of them want to stay there and die? Well now they know how to make it happen.
Notice the hundreds of thousands flocking to OR to support them in their glorious cause? Me neither. They're not patriots, they're extremists with a very narrow agenda.
-
No, her point is that it's not only OK, but a moral good, for federal agents to act as judge, jury, and executioner when it comes to protesting conservatives.
Actually the point is that when a person suspected of a crime is shot and killed, the rallying cry of the right wing is "If he didn't break the law it wouldn't have happened! If he did what the cop said it wouldn't have happened! It's his own fault."
But yet, I don't see that same response here. So I'll say it: this guy was a criminal, engaged in criminal activities and if he got his ass shot off he had it coming.
Cuts both ways boys.
It would actually be nice if law enforcement agencies didn't have to shoot people at all, but certainly the same standard should be applied to ALL who "break the law". If you don't agree, well, that wouldn't surprise me.
-
Eye witness account, “He was just walking, with his hands in the air, and they shot him dead,” Sharps said, adding, “His hands were still up after he was dead.”
Gee that's tough. Sounds like something we've seen a zillion times on dashboard cameras with ordinary police officers. As all y'all say, "don't break the law and you won't get shot". Right? Cuts both ways don't it. Certainly no-one on PPP would apply a double-standard.
-
"Trumpster" rhymes with "dumpster". That is all.
-
Probably the same thing that happened to him when he tried to be a casino mogul and had to face people across the table who could care less about his bluster. He's an intellectual lightweight and is a class A huckster. Once the bluster wears off, there's worse than an empty suit.
So W gets a third term then?
-
I would have taken the 3, twice. That would leave them behind by 2. It's just math. Sometimes arrogance can come back and bite you, Bill. Tough loss.
Who's missing from TBD / PPP?
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
Given some of the wacky shirt, invective and hatred (against government, politicians, people and the world in general) you hear on this board, there's a 50/50 chance this guy was a member, eh? Anyone know his alias?