The Goat Pen

bluetick wrote:So what's the over/under on Prof references to Grand Wizard Robert Byrd in 2015? Four?

I'll take the over since he's off to a quick start

I will take under vs. the amount of times he mentions Haliburton and the amount of times you mention FoxNews...

Ferguson Juror Sues Prosecutor, Says Evidence Was Manipulated to Implicate Michael Brown

http://www.theroot.com/articles/culture ... content%26

One of the jurors that was a member of the Ferguson grand jury that decided not to indict police officer Darren Wilson for the fatal shooting of unarmed 18-year-old Michael Brown, commissioned the American Civil Liberties Union to file a lawsuit on their behalf that will allow him or her to speak publicly about the grand jury proceedings, more specifically, to discredit the claim that “all 12 jurors believed there was no support for any charges,” the Associated Press reports.

The lawsuit was filed against Robert McCulloch, the St. Louis County prosecutor that oversaw the grand jury proceedings. In the lawsuit, the juror described how McCulloch presented the evidence in such a way that implicated Brown.

Brown, not officer Wilson, the lawsuit argues, was fashioned as the instigator and “the wrongdoer.” The juror has "the impression that evidence was presented differently than in other cases,” the AP explains.

Because Missouri grand juries are not allowed to speak publicly about proceedings, the lawsuit is arguing that this case is “unique,” and lifting the gag order will allow them to contribute to the national discourse about race and the law enforcement's handling of the case.

Tony Rothert, an ACLU attorney, explained why he believes the gag order should be lifted.

"The rules of secrecy must yield because this is a highly unusual circumstance," Rothert said.

"The First Amendment prevents the state from imposing a lifetime gag order in cases where the prosecuting attorney has purported to be transparent."

So, the ACLU convinced one of the jurors to come out and get his 15 minutes.

If Al Sharpton is on board, it must be legit.

In the lawsuit, the juror described how McCulloch presented the evidence in such a way that implicated Brown.
Brown, not officer Wilson, the lawsuit argues, was fashioned as the instigator and “the wrongdoer.”

well if the shoe fit you must acquit

Here's your GOP nominee!

[youtube]wtcLWrt9NeI[/youtube]

He's right.

Good clip of Jeb Bush. I agree with just about everything he said. I don't subscribe to the xenophobic wing of the R party. I am in favor of getting real control over our southern border. But if that happens, I'm willing to give a relatively quick path to citizenship for the illegals already here.

And JD, I think you're right that Bush is the next GOP presidential nominee. The Establishment trusts him because he is from a family that is one of them (like Romney was). And since he is already Establishment-approved, that means he is already the de facto nominee before Iowa even casts a vote (just like Romney was).

That's just what America needs - another Clinton vs. Bush. Sigh. At least Senor Bush has an excellent chance of beating La Gringa Fea Hillary.

Is the video of Michael Brown beating/terrorizing this older dude legit or a hoax?

This is why we need immigration. Smart and safe (we do need to enforce the borders more effectively), but more available than the current system.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/07/opini ... .html?_r=0

well its obviously a hoax

michael brown would have never done that

I see the religion of peace has struck again

Dr. Nostron wrote:Is the video of Michael Brown beating/terrorizing this older dude legit or a hoax?

Hoax if you are talking about the person who appears to be beating a homeless looking man.

I see the religion of peace has struck again

They're on a roll. The Taliban murders 141 children in an attack on a school in Pakistan. ISIS murders 150 women and underage girls in Iraq for refusing to have sex with them (not to mention the routine beheadings of Western captives, mostly humanitarian aid workers). Boko Haram kidnaps 200 schoolgirls in Nigeria and sells them into sexual slavery. An attack on the Canadian Parliament building. And that was just 2014.

Yet most liberals consider Christianity to be the religion of violence, intolerance, etc.

Professor Tiger wrote:I see the religion of peace has struck again.

Yet most liberals consider Christianity to be the religion of violence, intolerance, etc.

Nobody would ever accuse you of being violent or intolerant or etc., prof.

2015 PNN.. shaping up to be a whinefest for the ages.

sardis wrote:This is why we need immigration. Smart and safe (we do need to enforce the borders more effectively), but more available than the current system.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/07/opini ... .html?_r=0

1 - Who knew that there were so many lazy whites addicted to living off of the dole?

2 - The author is a RAND graduate. I don't know if I posted my experiences with them here or on another forum, but his article is probably a plant by them as they've already run their models and have ordered the policy makers to increase immigration by X percent.

"Yet most liberals consider Christianity to be the religion of violence, intolerance, etc."

Link?

It's kinda funny to see Prof with his panties in a wad due to his straw man gripe of overwhelming hatred of christianity by "most" liberals (LMAO). Don't fret, Prof. People like me (I won't presume to speak for "most liberals") think that islam is just as silly as christianity, or hinduism or any other massive, organized religion whose main purpose is the indoctrination of as many people as possible...

Professor Tiger wrote:Good clip of Jeb Bush. I agree with just about everything he said. I don't subscribe to the xenophobic wing of the R party. I am in favor of getting real control over our southern border. But if that happens, I'm willing to give a relatively quick path to citizenship for the illegals already here.

And JD, I think you're right that Bush is the next GOP presidential nominee. The Establishment trusts him because he is from a family that is one of them (like Romney was). And since he is already Establishment-approved, that means he is already the de facto nominee before Iowa even casts a vote (just like Romney was).

That's just what America needs - another Clinton vs. Bush. Sigh. At least Senor Bush has an excellent chance of beating La Gringa Fea Hillary.

He has maybe a 1 in 3 chance, because he may be able to cut the Dems' Latino advantage from 70% to 65% (no Republican has ever topped 40% with Latinos and he'll have to battle his own party on immigration), but Hils will probably recoup a number of white votes equal to the number of Latino votes lost. Moreover, the prominence of the immigration issue will motivate the pro-immigration Latinos, which will trend heavily towards Hils.

There are Republicans who, ceteris paribus, would kick Hilary's ass, but ceteris ain't paribus because none of them could ever get the GOP nomination.

The big lie of the GOP is that they are for small government. TPTB in the GOP want a HUGE government, they just want it to do things like insure their ridiculously bad financial gambles in the market, license public land for the mining of natural resources, enact trade policies that will allow them to access cheap foreign labor, indemnify them against industrial accidents, keep us on the oil standard, subsidize their failures to update equipment and technology with price supports and increase their profitability by suppressing labor rights.

There are a few GOPs in the Libertarian wing of the party that could make huge cracks in the Democratic coalition, but NONE of them can get the support of the Adelsons or Kochs, Bechtels and DeVos'. The oligarchs benefit greatly from having a big, controllable government.

Sadly, Bill & Hils are very oligarch friendly and even though the oligarchs will prop up Jeb or someone to run against Hilary, that's just to cover the down slate races. There would be a miniscule difference between a Hillary presidency and a Jeb presidency for the fat cats. Maybe a couple extra tax dollars paid, but not enough for them to notice. One or two environmental regulations (that they will violate anyway, and then lock the EPA up in court until they get a new administration and get the regs changed).

The oligarchs made a lot of money under Bill and will be very comfortable with Hillary. The "moral" stuff - abortion, gay rights, affirmative action, even gun rights - that's just candy that they throw to the yokels to keep them voting. I doubt any of that really matters to the donor class. If their daughters get pregnant, they'll send them to Europe for an abortion. Gays are an emerging market with disposable income, plus someone has to do their wives' hair. The only blacks or hispanics they see either open their doors, change their babies' diapers or play on the teams they own. As for guns - they hire teams of mercenaries as security consultants, just in case any of you 2nd Amendment types start thinking about revolution.

Well, well.....the next prez sure was prescient back in December, re: current events in France.




"This is what we call smart power," Clinton said to a small audience at Georgetown. "Using every possible tool and partner to advance peace and security. Leaving no one on the sidelines. Showing respect even for one's enemies. Trying to understand, in so far as psychologically possible, empathize with their perspective and point of view. Helping to define the problems, determine the solutions. That is what we believe in the 21st century will change -- change the prospects for peace."


yep....respect...understanding...empathy. That'll solve these terrorist, err...umm, I mean violent attacks.!!111

You're right. I tried showing respect and having empathy towards you and yet you're still a jackass...