Johnny Coli

I'l be looting/rioting from the hours of "now until I run out of gas." Place your orders.

Wiki says they're "second coming" conservative Protestants, ie Jesus is coming back, etc. Question though, as a recovering Catholic and an agnostic-leaning-towards-atheism myself, after having gone through and successfully escaped from the Roman Catholic indoctrination, why on earth would you want to put your children into a school run by an even more fringe religion?

Putin is so off the hook.

And the PPP is run by "independents." There is no way the Toby Keith/Ronald Reagan Democrats are going to stomach or support an "urban" GOP.

They've already had numerous run-ins with music groups using their songs without permission. Good luck in getting anyone in the hip hop music community to buy into what the GOP is selling.

Well done, sir. I was just going to troll that one out there myself. "Could this mean they're not really sold on Trent as the franchise QB?"

Your party head says the GOP party is going to be "off the hook." Steele: GOP needs 'hip-hop' makeover Will white evangelicals, Texas oilmen and Toby Keith republicans be able to "reach beyond [their] comfort zones" and embrace the new, urban "hip-hop" GOP par-tay? Never mind that this sounds like the plot of a horribly envisioned straight-to-DVD movie, I can say in all honesty I am looking forward to see how this unfolds. EDIT: Just saw the new thread, PastaJoe.

I don't see anyone defending how women are treated in Islamic countries. I see people correcting the few of you who don't see this (the story in the OP) as a domestic violence issue. Women are treated horribly in countries in every continent on the planet regardless of religious persuasion. No one is defending that. In fact, many are saying quite the opposite and that we need to condemn how women are treated inside this country's borders and elsewhere. This woman was murdered not because her husband was a Muslim. She was murdered because she was trying to get a divorce from him. As others have pointed out, it happens nearly every day in the United States. In fact, if I was to entertain the stupidity of your argument for a minute, I'd be willing to bet that of the total number of wives or girlfriends murdered by their husbands or boyfriends in the United States, you'd find that the majority of the men aren't Muslim. I'm not going to look up the religious persuasions of the domestic batterers or domestic murderers in the US because it's a stupid supposition on your part. But if you feel so inclined to try and prove you have a point, go for it.

Nobody is turning a blind eye to women's rights in Muslim countries. That is an entire separate issue than the one that this thread is relating to. The "big picture" as it relates to this story, the one linked to in the OP, is that a woman going through a divorce who also had a restraining order out against her husband was murdered by her husband. It is a snapshot of the larger story of domestic violence towards women and their powerlessness to end it. Whether he was a Muslim, Christian, Jew or "other", and whether he beheaded, stabbed, shot or threw her off a roof isn't relevant to the bigger issue. You, and the fool that made the OP, are trying to take a domestic violence story and turn it into a Muslim beheading story, ignoring the big picture. A woman tried to get a divorce and had a restraining order out against her husband. She had the courage to try and leave what was probably an abusive relationship (thus, the restraining order/order of protection), yet once again the system failed her. In this case she ended up dead. That should strike a chord with most people, IMO. Anyone familiar with domestic violence, either via statistics, social work, or through their own experiences know how incredibly hard it is for a woman in an abusive relationship to find the courage to leave it. In many, many cases they have absolutely no where to go...underemployed, family in the area, young children to take care of. Their only recourse is to try and get away and get a restraining order. This case illustrates how utterly useless a restraining order is. When a domestic violence case ends in the death of the woman it only pushes other women to either stay in the abusive relationship, or in many very violent situations, to kill the abuser. Those women then go to prison, with our justice system actually failing them twice. That is the big picture.

Not really. Sure, if one only browsed the PPP one would get that impression. But the reality is a very large majority of Americans think Obama is doing a fantastic job. The ones that are openly rooting for him (and the country) to fail might shout the loudest, but they are on the fringe for a reason. They have no solutions, and they cling to ideas that are proven failures. Hell, they were 100% behind voting "no" to one of the most significant pieces of legislation in a generation, a piece of legislation that was necessary to undo the catastrophe their ideas and values created. Let them rant and tell you that you are the crazy one and not them. Empty ranting is all many of them have left.

The larger story in this tragedy is that another woman was murdered by her husband despite having a (useless) order of protection out against him. This woman had the courage to come forward and let someone know she was being abused, went to the authorities, and IMO, the authorities once again let the victim down. The majority of women in violent relationships never come forward, and in these economic times even less will because they have no where to go. That this woman did seek out a remedy for her situation, yet still ended up dead, is disheartening and will sadly deter others from coming forward.

sigh

A smarter move would be for the league to either pay for outright, or subsidize part of, the salary for bodyguards for any player that wants one. If a player feels personally threatened enough that it would put him in a position to willing break the law and carry a loaded, concealed, unregistered handgun, then the NFL (an entity that makes billions and has somewhat of an obligation to protect its own product) should supply some form of protection. I understand that some of these guys still have friends and family that live in areas that might put the player in an uncomfortable position, but if a player feels the need to go there then he should have protection from the league, which would protect the player, protect the league's investment, and keep everybody square with the law. There is absolutely no good reason, based on the money these players and the league makes, that would dictate that these players are on their own with respect to their own personal safety. IMO, it would definately seperate the punks from the ones who are just protecting themselves. If they have the option of having protection, then choose to not use it and end up in a situation like Lynch, it would also make it far easier for the league to dole out punishment.

Happy Birthday!

No, they were not here legally. They were all deported. We've been through that. None of that is in dispute. However, their immigration status has no bearing on the civil rights issue. The Judge has ruled on it twice now. Civil Rights do not end at the border. He's been exceedingly clear on that point.

The law is the law. Their immigration status doesn't seem to have any bearing on this suit, though. The guy was already found guilty once of violating the rights of two Americans and their daughters. You research him. You want to cast your lot with a Ruby-Ridge wannabe nut-job, then that's your deal. We'll see what the next jury of his peers says. The last one ruled against him.

Don't know. I can't find the original suit that was filed anywhere on line, so I'm not sure what all the accusations are that he's being sued for.

How do you know he didn't? One of these parties has a history of violence towards people, has been quite vocal about "hunting" Mexicans, has bragged repeatedly about it to the press, and has already been deemed liable by a jury of his peers in a separate suit. A Judge found the evidence in this suit compelling enough that a jury could find him guilty, and the case goes forward. But according to you, and others, he's the squeaky clean one and the others are lying illegals. A jury is hearing both sides and will decide the result. Like it should be. Because we are a nation of laws. You won't hear me bitching if he's found not liable, because that's how the process works.

Are you really trying to defend a scumbag who felt he was justified in kicking a woman who was on the ground, even though he was holding her at gunpoint and threatened her with a dog? Who is the POS, here? Not to mention, he was just found liable last year in illegally detaining two men at gunpoint, along with their three kids, all of whom were American citizens. So, let's just get all this POS crap in the open, shall we. He violated the civil rights of a group of people who posed no threat. The Judge presiding over the suit has found that there was enough evidence for a jury of peers to find him, his wife, his brother AND the Sheriff liable. So, who is the dirtbag in this scenario?

It was in the FindLaw link. EDIT: Here:

I thought that was what you were arguing here.

I wouldn't have any idea, as I have zero background information on Judge Roll to go by. But, I believe I can make a pretty good assumption that if he was appointed by Bush I then he could not have been overly progressive. Could he have become a "secular progressive?" ( ) You'd have to get more information on him.

What are you arguing? Erynthered has been claiming that it was a felony. I said that in Arizona illegal entry was treated as a misdemeanor. Yes, the feds also treat first-time illegal entry to the US as a misdemeanor, but the state misdemeanor charge I was talking about was the trespassing one. In Arizona trespassing is a misdemeanor. In Arizona, illegal entry is treated as a misdemeanor. But the Civil Rights violation is a federal violation and supercedes the trespassing violation, which is relevant becasue it would be the trespassing violation that would allow Barnett to make a "defense of property" plea. We're not disagreeing.

For the secular progressive judge person, Judge John Roll was appointed by Bush I.

And you know this how? Do you have a list of all of this judge's opinions? Because you don't agree with a law, the Judge is wrong, and must be a "secular progressive" judge? BTW, all Judges should be secular, as we have seperation of church and state in the United States.