Telepathic

Rush's ability to shovel bull **** onto a plate and get people to not only eat it but thank him for serving it to them, is testimony to the man's absolute lack of scruples. The Patriot Act was an abomination from day one, it was forced upon us by a fear-mongering congress and administration, strengthened by folks like Rush clamoring for the NEED for it day in and day out as they attacked anyone who raised concerns about the long term implications and called them "un-American". The man is whore. He sold his soul decades ago and this snippet is proof that he'll say anything to make a buck. The man has no appreciation of history, no sense of right and wrong, no moral absolutes or principles he stands by, and nine times out of ten has no idea what he's talking about unless he's reading his talking points memo or a sponsor's ad copy. Holding Rush up as a pillar of anything is the mark of a person who just doesn't get it and probably never will. As for his outrage over the invasion of privacy, and the OPs, I ask you where you were in 2001 or 2002 or 2003 or 2004 when the groundwork to this was being forged and the fourth amendment was being wiped from existence. Anyone who spoke up then was called ant-american by Rush himself. Don't believe me? Go listen to some calls he took in that time span. We are in this position now as a country because of people like Rush. It's flat out cowardly to snipe at one administration for taking the next (and fully anticipated) steps in a program that he fully supported at the time of its creation. The war over privacy is done. We lost it 10 years ago while guys like Rush sat back and encouraged it to happen -- screw that, while he PROFITED from it happening. !@#$ Rush. He's done nothing but profit off the decimation of our country by being a paid assassin of the far right wing. !@#$ Obama too for doing exactly what everyone who was paying attention feared would happen when we started trading civil liberties for a "feeling" of safety. There are far better ways to make your point than using drivel like this. Far better ways.

I make other people's heads explode. It's one of the gifts of being telepathic. ...And after reading the article, I have 30 people to go visit. Brb.

Dodge.

It was my thought. That's why it was a separate paragraph.

It's not Hoge's fault, with all those concussions he still thinks it's 2011.

Bravo. But I'll bet there will be at least two or three immediate (negative) reactions to this thoughtful post by the TPers on the board here. And each one will fail to acknowledge the merit of your post and instead get defensive and blame it on a media hype/Chicago style politics. Reality is that the TP did more damage to the GOP brand than the DNC could have done in 100 election cycles.

That might explain some things...

I am not afraid to say that the last few posts in this thread have left me baffled...

Do you find this funnier than the opposite reaction which has been to try to paint a 16 year old as a thug and a hood because he smoked weed and had a grill? It's equally as amusing to me, all the more so when people fail to see the strings above their heads.

Our definitions of what being an American stands for are evidently very different if you feel the right to freely worship or freely speak your mind is anything other than a natural right given to every person on this planet. So, agree to disagree.

No ****. When I got sexed-in to the MS-13 none of my family would even get me a cake. It was like they didn't know what I had accomplished.

If you want a defense of the DNC you're asking the wrong person.

Why? I was asking for your opinion, not someone else's. How would you go about enacting this? More specifically, how would you go about doing this without violating freedom of religion in a constitutional sense? If you have an answer, you might have a winning idea here. Point of fact, I do not need to read up on this. I have done my share of work in this field and am well aware of the rise and fall of the Klan's influence. I was merely pointing out how the Klan was legally (and sometimes illegally) combatted by the federal government. They did so without violating the first amendment. Your proposed solution seems to violate the first amendment on a fundamental level, which is why I find it strange you used the KKK as an example to help your case. Point of fact, I defined the two the same way you did. Only I did so with less bloviating. Principles are OBJECTIVE. Personal values, by definition, are SUBJECTIVE. In this particular case, if your principles dictate freedom of religion, then declaring war on Islam in any sense fundamentally undercuts your principle. It doesn't matter if you value Islam less than Joe-Schmoe, your principles should be your guiding force in this topic. Now, if you have a way to sort the wheat from the chaffe when it comes to building a law suit in such a way that does not violate that principle, I'm listening as it's a novel approach to the problem.

No. My name is James.

How will your lawsuit differentiate between the two? What guidlines are you using to determine what constitutes a radical extremist? I'm interested in your well reasoned and detailed answer to this query. And how exactly did the FBI go about combatting the KKK at their height of power? Did they sue and illegally monitor every Christain? Or did they focus their investigations on the criminal actions taken by the ones who strayed from the flock? Interesting choice of example for you to use considering the obvious answer... Your values are meaningless in this discussion as they are subjective. You should be focused on your principles in this matter, things that are qualitatively objective. If you truly believe in the freedom of religion as a constitutional tenent, then your principles should not allow you to wage war on any one religion. Just my opinion of course.

I do not deny that reasoning one bit. Well said. I find it amusing that so many people seem so desperate to defend Zimmerman. The truth of the matter is that none of this would have happened had he not decided to take the law into his own hands. Right or wrong, he got himself into the situation and someone died as a result. Blame will be determined by the courts and I'm fine with that. He's innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the law, but he'll always be a moron in mine. That one line sums up everything that is wrong with the article and the person who posted it.

The article does say that, and it's wrong, but that wasn't why I linked it. Apologies for the confusion; it was a direct response to post #1654 and the ruling the judge made on these matters. Paranoia is certainly a side effect, but violent paranoia is not. Again, spark a joint tonight and tell me how much you feel like getting in a fight. Try the same experiment with alcohol and you'll see quickly what the difference is. Assumming someone, even a 16 year old black kid wearing a hoodie, is a menace and/or violent simply because he has a history of marijuana use is poppycock, pure and simple. I defy you to read that article in 1654 and not see the clear and incredible bias presented therein.

Principles are only valid if you stick with them when they're a burden as well as a benefit. Declaring war on a religion is fundamentally anti-American; which is why your proposal shouldn't be considered seriously in my opinion.

Not what i said. The article implied because he was high on marijuana he was more of a threat. That's pattently absurd from a medical, psychological and pysiological standpoint. THC alone does not promote violent urges, arguing or implying that it does so is an admition that one does not know what he or she is talking about. Go home tonight and spark a joint. See how much you feel like fighting. Now, drink a six-pack and see how quickly you can become violent. I was not there and have no take on whether he was guilty or innocent. I haven't argued one way or the other, nor do I intend to. I do know that an article (post #1654) that goes out of its way to paint Martin as a degenerate or violent youth because he smoked weed is a waste of ink; and someone who posts it as a serious plank in the debate is laughably ignorant and needs to chill out. You are having a different conversation I think. The CNN article was a follow up to post #1654, showing that the evidence the poster was bringing up had been ruled on by the Judge in the case.

Not an apologist thread, just pointing out the above referenced article is woefully ignorant; in particular when it comes to marijuana. How it's much less likely that Martin was the aggressor if he had just smoked a joint. Violence is NOT a side effect of THC, in fact quite the opposite. For proof, just look at this: (He's even wearing a hoodie). I did not post the article.

There are no tox tests that can pinpoint THC usage down to that level. None. If he was a regular smoker, the tests are even less conclusive. And... if you could prove that Martin were high at the time of the incident, it would actually bolster the prosecution's case, not Zimmerman's.

Gee, speculate much? Oh, and this: http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/28/justice/florida-zimmerman-trial/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

She must not have been doing something right...