Azalin

One state had their legislators gather and vote to take down the flag. One, not some kind of 'national consensus'. This national consensus of which you speak is a movement sweeping across the nation where people are banning similar images, stores are pulling confederate-related products for fear of accusations of racism, and now television shows are being taken off the air for similar reasons. People are clamoring for civil war monuments to be removed if they have anything to do with the confederacy. If that's the way you want it, then fine. Don't you dare let me hear one peep out of you in the future regarding anything you may consider to be a suppression of free expression. Pretty much. It's only suppression if the left says it is.

I wouldn't say 'insane' so much as I would say 'full retard'. If they remove those monuments, then let's just go ahead and 'cleanse' Mount Rushmore of all those evil, oppressive presidents. Washington and Jefferson kept slaves, Roosevelt undoubtedly oppressed blacks as NYC police commissioner, and Lincoln should have read the Emancipation Proclamation as his acceptance speech.

Your use of the terms 'votes' and 'public consensus' seemed to imply that there was a wave of democratically determined public actions that resulted in the removal of the confederate flag from public view. And who in hell besides you is talking about Jim Crow laws?

"Yes, numbers of sunspots can vary by that much or even more on an 11-year cycle, but the sun’s output—the total amount of energy we get—is extremely stable and only changes by about 0.1 percent, even in extreme sunspot cycles like the one Zharkova is predicting." So a tiny fraction in variation of solar output is insignificant, while a tiny fraction of temperature increase in Earth's atmosphere will cause an ecological calamity? I would point out that while 0.1 percent isn't a lot relative to the Sun's total energy output, it's still a hell of a lot when measured in degrees.

Votes? Someone actually held an election to determine whether or not the confederate battle flag is or isn't offensive? How did I miss that? I could have sworn it was a wave of fascist, intolerant, PC cultural cleansing that removed that flag.

I know, right? Someone might have been hurt.

That has to be some of the most ridiculous bullcrap I've ever read in my life.

"free" expensive healthcare and welfare for life.

"Scientology news would be hilarious, but who would watch it?' I would. It could fit nicely in the rotation with South Park and Archer.

I'm not at all surprised that you consider it a recovery when more people than ever are on government assistance, nor am I surprised that you still believe the ACA was a good idea.

Forget about how politics works here for a minute, and ask yourself what about healthcare or our economy has actually been improved since 2008.

Wouldn't they be even happier then, if the ranks of the military swelled due to a draft?

We're going to have to ban Amazing Grace, since the lyrics were first conceived by John Newton while he was a slave-trader.

He was also an early supporter of Hitler, but damn he could write some great horror. The black cat in Rats in the Walls had a rather offensive name. Obviously there are a lot of great works by authors of bygone days who used language that would be found to be offensive today. Sooner or later, the dumbasses of the world will realize that it isn't just Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn that contain such racial slurs, but for now we don't have to worry because most people don't seem to read much anymore.

The enthusiasm on the part of some to remove the image of the confederate flag from every aspect of our lives reminds me a bit of those radical muslims who are blowing up ancient monuments because they deem them offensive.

Season 2 looks like it will be fantastic.

You'll pay a fine not in excess of three-fitty. Painting with a rather broad brush there, aren't you?

This.

I understand, and I think that's a valid point. I also think that considering the nature of the investigation and potential charges, more discretion could be observed in the process of gathering evidence. I probably don't need to add this, but if he is guilty of possessing child porn, his reputation is the least thing that ought to be trashed.

"The sun shines there no brighter than a star, but the beings need no light. They have other subtler senses, and put no windows in their great houses and temples." - HP Lovecraft, on the planet Yuggoth, from The Whisperer in Darkness.

Devil's advocate here - if the government danced to the corporate tune, wouldn't we have lower corporate taxes and less off-shore investing?

I'm not an idiot until Tom calls me an idiot, and that hasn't happened yet, you idiot.

It's pretty crappy for authorities to let word of this get out before he's actually charged with anything. If he's innocent - and he very well may be - then there's no getting out from under the stigma that sexual abuse of children carries. If he's guilty, then he deserves everything he gets. Now that it's in the news, either way his life is ruined.

50,000 posts? You've got nothing better to do?

Dukelstein