Free Republic

They interviewed Secretary Clinton but they didn’t ask her any questions. That must have been some interview.

Hey, that's nothing. He also said that because she took full responsibility, she's not responsible for anything.

Classy dig that would have an effect on a normal human being. Sub human, not so much.

And that, in a nutshell, is the problem America really faces.

"For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms." - Ephesians 6:12

LOL, not sure why you sent this to me on a four year old thread, but I do indeed agree with it!

...another set of academics at University of Massachusetts at Amherst have replicated the study. They discovered that thee Harvard professors made an Excel coding error in their research – one that mattered for the results...

If you believe that, I've got a Mars mission report describing how a spacecraft missed the planet entirely because of a units mistake in the navigation program that I can sell you... cheap.

I believe that Miss Thatcher did not choose the reading. It is my understanding that that passage is always the Epistle reading for members of the Order of the Garter.

Now that's one heck of a piece of trivia. However did you find that out? (Enquiring minds want to know!)

Why Have We Stopped Seeing UFOs in the Skies?

For the same reason we stop seeing the ocean when it rolls waaaaay back to the horizon before a tidal wave comes in...

What if you are a 35 year Green Beret who is Muslim and has 4 women that you want to marry, does the government need to decide if those marriages are valid for housing and rations and as dependents when you are stationed and housed in obscure places on the planet, or do they just depend on the Mosque to define it?

Apples and oranges. MARRIAGE is defined by the religious or spiritual tradition, given that such a religious or spiritual tradition is acknowledged AS a religious or spiritual tradition under the 1st Amendment. Government entitlement identifications are a COMPLETELY SEPARATE ISSUE. Should you be responsible for shortening your name or coloring your hair if the government computers don't have enough spaces or color choices in its database?

But as usual, ansel12, you confuse things with a twist. Because in addition to your basic marriage confusion cited above, you then added (1)a marriage of an active duty combat armed forces person to a member of enemy forces (2) in a time of war (3) while personally fighting in that war (4) involving polygamy (5) in group that claims to be a religion while requiring the murder of anyone who rejects it and thus more clearly defining itself as a terrorist organization than a religion (6) and thereby implying that said active duty combat armed forces person has doubtful loyalties to his country.

Quite a score, even for you. I hope you're paid well to write your disruptive, cognitive dissonance crap, because you sure put a lot of effort into it.

I have always maintained that this is the solution to this problem, on two levels - first, the practical one. If you get pissed about gay marriage, the REAL reply has always been, “married in what church or religion or spiritual tradition”? In fact, that goes right now. But state marriage gives the illusion that none of that matters, that marriage is something that stands on its own, without any support other than state acknowledgement. Hello? How is this possible? Which brings up the second point - What part of the government has the authority to validate the love and commitment between two people before God? Zip.

In point of fact, a marriage license is a TAX ID. That’s it - it’s your verification to the tax authorities that you are married, or to the healthcare tax authorities that you are married, etc. Which means that in its usual way, government has reduced the absolute highest, to the absolute lowest. But the real atrocity is that so many people have been fooled by it, and even welcome it and defend it.

Wake up.

The continuing liberal agenda to cheapen and take away the meaning of everything American.

They try, yes. But if you throw crap on gold, and call crap gold, it doesn't touch the real gold. The real gold is not changed a bit.

You just have to clean it off.

Gun control will continue until the legal mechanism for it is stopped.

The key question is: HOW - exactly - is the 2nd Amendment ignored?

And here's the answer: By applying gun control to CORPORATE status - ONLY.

And then treating non-corporate people as corporations.

So, if we know the answer, why don't gun advocates use it?

Because that's the Scary Place.

Scorn if you want. But while you scorn, liberals laugh - and continue to pass their corporate laws and apply them to non-corporate citizens.

That is the truth.

How does Bloomberg have the right to rule by decree?

Corporate law.

It’s a legitimate issue that he is taking his oath on the constitution instead of the bible. We can also wonder whether he genuinely believes in the limited powers of government bestowed by the constitution. But complaining that the copy of the constitution he used did not have the bill of rights is not a legitimate issue.

Most people are forgetting the reason why the constitution as originally proposed did not include the bill of rights — the founding fathers were concerned that if it did, people (and particularly the government) would think that they only had the enumerated rights — that they had freedom of speech because of the first amendment. Instead, the original idea was that people had freedom of speech because nothing in the constitution granted to congress the power to regulate it.

In modern times, the bill of rights act as essential limits to governmental power. But that is only because in modern times the constitution is seen as a limited grant of power from the government to the people instead of the exact opposite it was conceived as.

Well said. Excellent post. Thank you.

He kicked the guy in the head when he was on the ground.

That's murder, pure and simple.

Yep, second degree right there. Bastard should get fifty years.

Imagine it’s, oh, the post WWII era, and Eisenhower announced that his administration will now be flying radio-controlled bombers over America, and if the president decides someone is a threat, well then, without any further legal process whatsoever, bombs will be dropped on that person.

Just step back and try - try - to imagine that.

And then, because that’s not enough, imagine Republican senators screaming in outrage that anyone would question the president in this matter.

Palin was right - stick a fork in us, we’re done.

look at his pants

I did a double-take. I'm still laughing.

Did that dumb@$$, Fineswine, actually say, "...no issue has arose..."?

If so, she just flunked her Ebonics course. It should be, "...no issue is arose..."

ROFL, you got me. I actually leaned forward and said "wait a minute..." before I got it. LOL, nice job!

No she isn’t, what foolish talk is that? Give her a break, she should be commended for doing what she “thought” was right, and BY THE LAW OF THE PARK was right. What do you want, her to grow up with no regard to any law. This sounds so liberal to me. So sorry if this offends.

"The law of the park" doesn't exist, you totaliarian maniac. It's actually a part of the US Code, and it only applies to government and corporate workers, and has been extended by contractual presumption to everyone else under duress, which makes it void ab initio. But arguing this has been made expensive through Court procedures designed to fool people into believing that there is actually such a thing as a "law of the park" by which they can go out and scare little girls into kneejerk obedience to mysterious powers that hold them as slaves.

Is that clear, jackass?

That’s the kind of guy arrows were made for.

Your influence extends far beyond what you might think.

LOL, is that why you wrote "No offense, but that’s a nice dream. It’ll never happen." when Real Cynic No More wrote: "I’d like to see an aggressive approach, such as a prohibition on law enforcement and protection officers, local, federal, and state, be prohibited from owning, carrying, or using any firearm, appurtenance, or ammunition that is prohibited for use by the law abiding general public, within the confines of the geographic United States.'?

Let me tell you something very plain - unless the police are allowed nothing other than the weapons that non-police are allowed to protect their lives, we will eventually lose, completely lose, 2nd Amendment rights.

Because without that equality, there is no moral or legal argument upholding the 2nd Amendment.

Cops use weapons to preserve their lives. If equal weaponry is not allowed against the same criminal threat (arguably worse against non-cops who don't have radio backup of massive firepower and are typically isolated when under attack), then what is being mandated by the law is that a police officer's life is worth more than the life of a citizen.

Understand? THE GUN ISSUE IS NOT ABOUT GUNS. The Left knows this! That's why they keep whacking away, again and again, try after try, because they know that the root of this gun-grab issue has not been stopped.

The issue is that the life of a police officer CANNOT be more valuable than the life of a citizen unde the law. That inequality is the root of totalitarianism. That single thing - alone - brings all the hell of the Soviet Union, Communist China, Nazi Germany, etc. THAT INEQUALITY IS THE FOCUS OF THE LEFT. They want it inscribed in stone, because they know that as long as it's not, they can be defeated.

So far, they feel pretty confident, though. Because almost no one is fighting them on the root issue - that's why they wave the scary guns around, so no one talks about the fact that it's not about the guns - it's about the EQUAL VALUE OF HUMAN LIFE - COP & NON-COP.

Tinfoil hat alert.

Meaning, as you are also the OP, that you will brook no disagreement or criticism.

Acknowledged - and hardly new from Catholics. But I would point out that as a person, a human being before God, you have still chosen to be a Catholic. So while you try to shift the responsibility for your personal faith to the teachings of the Church, just remember, you chose that Church, with those teachings.

And the Church agrees - do and think everything it says you should do or think, but remember, before God you're still personally responsible for everything you do or think, even though you were following Church instructions. So the shifting of spiritual responsibility here is temporal, not spiritual.

Which is kind of a spoiler for the idea of obeying the Church = obeying God. Because if it ain't necessarily so, then what role does the Church play other than advisor? Spiritually, before God, none. Temporally, before the world, however, it provides pretty heavy indemnification and social protection. So I guess it serves the purpose most Catholics want it to serve, and to make up the difference they figure God will be merciful because they "tried."

And hey, I can easily see how the Church is pleased with the deal. But as for Catholics, I don't think they've thought it through as carefully as they claim to have done - otherwise we'd hear a lot more of them admitting personal belief for their thoughts and actions, rather than Church obedience to evade that personal responsibility.

Lest you think this is just a hack attack on Catholics - think again. If you want to understand, really understand, why non-Catholics most often get irritated with Catholics, understand this post. Because everyone has their own ideas about religion and God, but Catholics play both sides against the middle - they hide behind Church teachings when it helps them, and then they claim personal responsibility when that serves them, and it simply comes across as morally dishonest and hypocritical to everyone else, because, in fact, it is. But the kicker is that the Church itself doesn't provide the indemnification before God that most Catholics think it does, so ultimately, this personal fraud certainly will not be ignored.

Benedict himself said that he would rather have a much smaller Catholic Church of members who strictly conformed to Church teachings, than a huge, sprawling inclusive Church where everyone takes their own slant. He was addressing this very issue of hypocrisy. Before God, it's better to honestly not be a Catholic, then to claim Catholicism as some sort of indemnification for your own beliefs, bobbing, dodging and weaving through life in the delusion that somehow you're actually going to fool God in the end as to what you actually stand for.

Here's the REAL ray of light: One Stone, Two Powers: How Chief Justice Roberts Saved America

The Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court shined a light on the solution to the entire Democrat problem, not just Obamacare. But all anyone can do is throw rocks at his light.

Well, as someone once said about democracy, it's a system whereby the people get what they want, good and hard.

Liberals wouldn’t think 100% failure meant anything, either.

After all, these are people who support - in the name of peace - a political system that murdered 200 million people in the last 100 years.

Illiteracy isn’t even on their radar screens.

New Headline: Top RINOs Enraged at Paul for Exposing Their Traitorous, Sabotaging Non-Action

Wow, just look at that headline. The slimes really outdid themselves this time, it’s tantamount to a murder attempt.

Stupid article by an ignorant writer.

Roberts merely pointed out what the tax law already said - that the penalty was to be treated as a tax. He then went on, however, to point out the restricted definition of "person" that Obamacare applies to, but no one wants to acknowledge that. Because hey, if you understand his ruling, you might have to actually stand for something. So it's better to slander him by getting pissed over something he didn't do? No wonder the Rats are winning - the conservatives won't even address the actual issues.

One Stone, Two Powers: How Chief Justice Roberts Saved America

veracious: The Robert’s nail went way past Zombie Care. It fundamentely re-wrote USConstitution. Health care coverage may be a required as a brand new Federal Tax and it is somehow a legal _direct_tax_. I suppose any end to this insane law is good, but the power which that ruling supposed gave to USG was earth shaking.

veracious: Roberts merely read back pre-existing tax law - it was ALREADY in the Code.

---

Amendment10: ...regardless that Justice Roberts referenced Gibbons v. Ogden in the Obamacare opinion to defend his support for Obamacare, Roberts seems to have "overlooked" that Justice Marshall had mentioned health laws in Gibbons as an example of powers which the states have never delegated to Congress.

"State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress (emphases added)." --Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.

In fact, Justice Marshall, I believe, had also stated in Gibbons that Congress cannot lay taxes in the name of state power issues, again, the Gibbons excerpt above indicating that health laws are a state power issue.

"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." --Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.

So how ironic that Justice Roberts called Obamacare a tax and still gave it the green light.

Amendment10: Your citations are from 1824, which is pre-14th Amendment. After the 14th Amendment, ALL references to "persons" meant CORPORATE individuals and not the People.

---

To All: PLEASE read this if you want to understand the Roberts ruling:

One Stone, Two Powers: How Chief Justice Roberts Saved America

IF you all were talking about CORRECT appeals to the court which failed, THEN I would agree that we are past the time when following the law worked.

BUT - you are not. NONE of you can show me correct appeals. NONE of you can show me where definitions that are actually in the law, which limit these laws to application to corporate officers, or government employees ONLY, have EVER been tried, let alone failed. Or openly discussed and presented by the population to the government.

Hell, most of you don’t even care that this astonishing fact exists! I mean, the discovery that corporate officer and government employee laws are being wrongly applied should have everyone’s attention, because it is the very secret of how things got so out of control and how they can be reigned in peacefully.

But no. Not a glance. Nothing except a bunch of couch cowboys talking crap about a shooting revolution.

Well, you might be shills, hired to spout nonsense and keep people away from the truth. But you’re not all shills, and that’s the damn shame. Everyone’s a hero until the first shot is fired, and then you all will want to talk, but it will be too late. Even a child can see the Obama administration is trying everything it can think of to get people to lose it, and strike back with violence. We should be doing everything we can to calm people down, to examine the laws, to learn and refine our response, and NOT RESPOND WITH VIOLENCE.

Hell, I posted an entire analysis showing that none less than the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court risked everything he has to TRY to show the way out of this mess, almost literally pointing out the areas of the law Americans need to study and focus on. Obamacare DOESN’T EVEN APPLY TO YOU. But you’d rather go buy a gun then learn how that could possibly be.

But ask yourself - WHAT could the damn Democrats and Liberals do if conservatives exposed their misuse of the laws IN COURT, and had the Court AGREE to the limitations of these laws? The Communist threat would vanish without a shot!

But Obama laughs because YOU won’t study the law HE did, so YOU can’t catch HIM in his lies.

No, instead, we have a bunch of damn fool cowboys who don’t understand that the law is the REASON the Founders fought. They didn’t fight TO fight, they fought to establish the law. They’re turning over in their graves at the thought that the country they fought so hard for is dying because it’s people - who call themselves, of all things, patriots - can’t be bothered to even learn the law all that fighting was for.

You’ll only know what true fools you are when the law you spurn is gone.

It's all bunk.

People say they'll stand up and fight the government with guns precisely because they never think they'll have to.

But if you tell people they need to learn the law, and stand up to the government's encroachment in a legal sense, they turrn their backs. Why? Because if they learn the law, they'll actually have to do something. And they're afraid of that.

And yet why would a rational people choose to fight with guns instead of the law? Why not use the legal environment the Founders enabled, instead of ignoring all off it and starting over from scratch after a horrible war? What kind of veteran can come back from war, and not seek out ever alternative to it, especially through the use of the Constitution itself?

The Rats know posturing when they see it, and that's why they're pushing so hard to illegitimately impose laws. Because they know people would rather say they'd fight with arms, than actually learning to effectively fight through learning the law. It's pathetic - and ultimately, it will prove catastrophic.

One Stone, Two Powers: How Chief Justice Roberts Saved America

Libertarianism is the opposite of statism distinguishing the force of law. It’s not a measure of morality and tradition as defined by conservatism and liberalism.

The Libertarian party represents libertarianism as well as the Democrat party represents democracy, and the Republican party represents republicanism.

Conservative libertarianism does not put minors at risk, nor does it pass law that forces citizens to service and support homosexual behavior. It’s about smaller govt and deregulation. The statists disagree.

Statism is not good whether it’s servicing conservatives or liberals.

The lack of critical thinking on this subject typically yields brazen misrepresentations that cite pedophilia, prostitution, and retail heroin — pedantic forgeries not worth legitimizing.

Excellent post. The demonization of libertarianism is the current political target, focused on by both Liberals and RINOs. It consists of extreme misrepresentation and total avoidance of actual small-government issues that libertarianism is all about. And why? Because the Liberal-RINO axis is the opposite of the Libertarianism-Constitutionalist allies, that's why.

Social conservatives need to see the massive correlation between their positions and true libertarianism, before the enemy divides and conquers the Right. The ONLY way the retaking of the country from the communists will happen is the Right gets its sh!t together, and that means focusing on small government mechanisms COMPLETELY. It's time "conservatives" learned that the Founders intended people to live and let live, as long as the government was kept on a tight leash - and that's ALL the Founders intended.

It's called freedom, and those who intend to deny it for their own pet social theories are walking right into the communist trap - because the MECHANISM for social control is the SAME, Right OR Left. That's why we were given a Constitution of NEGATIVE rights, not positive privileges to be argued over by totalitarians of ANY stripe.

These are FACTS, and if they are ignored, America, the Great Experiment, WILL fail - NOT by intrinsic weakness of the system, but by a lack of wisdom of its people, who failed to understand and protect their Founder's precious gift.

"A Republic, Madam, if you can keep it."

- Benjamin Franklin

Pointing a weapon at someone can get you injured or killed.

Agreed.

And I'm all for cops being able to protect their lives to the MAXIMUM DEGREE.

But there's the deal - I'm also for a free people to be able to protecct THEIR lives to the MAXIMUM DEGREE.

See, as it stand right now, you as a non-cop have to jump through hoops before the law won't arrest andd convict you for self-defense.

But a cop? A cop can LITERALLY stand in front of you, with you unarmed, and shoot you dead, and just say he was afraid. That's it. No evidence, just his word. You could be cuffed and on the ground, and he'll still get away with it. AND he'll get a paid vaccation and probably a promotion.

I say, even it up. There is NO LEGAL JUSTIFICATION ffor the standards of self-defense of one's life to be different between a cop, and a civilian/natural person/non-cop.

ZERO.

You want to even up the laws, and get rid of gun control altogether, and make it saffe for Americans to carry and use firearms without the law unfairly and disproportionately punishing them?

Fine - here's the one-stop solution: make the standards for lethal force self-defense EQUAL betweeen the police and the people. That one thing will do it - and there is no legal OR moral reason why the life of a police officer should be MORE protected than the life of a non-police, law abiding citizen.

NONE.

The idea that merely having a gun is a threat to an officer is over the line, but no one notices. Cops have guns and can stick them in your face, but if you react, THEY are threatened. IF the guy wasn’t acting in a threatening way, he shouldn’t have had to remove his gun. If he WAS acting in a threatening way, the cop should have held him at gunpoint, since he was armed. So the fact that the cop had his own gun holstered, while the guy was armed, meant the cop DID NOT feel any threat, but was merely disarming a civilian for the sake of disarming a civilian.

If an argument about this completely illegal order then occured, and then the angry citizen complied with the illegally demanding cop by removing his gun from its carry position, well then, at that moment the cop could say that “the angry man drew his gun” and so the cop shot him.

Wake up people, this civilian was shot dead after freely calling the cops on his own, and now he’s dead and slandered and the cop is praised without anyone thinking things through. This madness is getting WAY out of control - badges should not come with “007” engraved on them, and civilians should not be disarmed by police without probable cause. JUST BEING ARMED in the presence of the police is NOT A CRIME OR A THREAT to the police.

Does Scotch count?

Scotch always counts, and don't ever let anybody tellya different.

Oh yeah, Lanny Davis is going to be screwed with. ::snort::

It's Hillary!, folks. She's running again, and this is how she's going to distinguish between Obama and herself - Obama is a thug, while Hillary would never treat people badly or abuse her power.

That's right - Hillary is actually going to run on a platform of reigning in government abuse and tyranny.

(And, of course, anyone who doesn't support her declarations of merciful beneficiencce will be duly wiped out.)

You heard it here first.

You’re being an optimist.

As a realist, I will state that we are not going to survive the consequences of the next four years, indeed we have not even yet felt the effects of the last four.

Men, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin

If we can't survive, then God will intervene to save us.

After all, the single liberal cry is "who's gonnna stop me?"

I think it's about damn time that question got answered once and for all, and if it means the wrath of God descending from the sky, then let's do it.

Bob Woodward is seeing that this whole mess is going down big time bad and is trying to cover his ass.

I think it's a bit worse than that. Woodward is starting up Hillary's talking points. After all, she has an agenda identical to Obama's, so what can she run on? Easy: "he did it wrong, I'll do it right."

I laugh when people think Obama is the worst that can happen. Oh no, he's not even in the same game with the worst that can happen:

Article says the pilot survived by seeing the fire and jumping out when the balloon was only 10-15 meters up. That bastard left 19 people floating up a thousand feet on fire and without any control.

He should be taken up a thousand feet in a balloon, lit on fire, and thrown out.

Demons.

Of course she had a nursery built into her office. She wants her kids to watch Mommy finish augering a major company right into the ground.

Yep - that's what her mission from Google is! I'm amazed people don't see this. Her job is to take over and destroy Yahoo from within for Google - she's Yahoo's Obama. Whether by bankruptcy and collapse or a takeover scenario by Google or a Google ally, that's what Mayer is there to do.

At which point Google will welcome her back as president of Google.

Scientists Claim 72 Is the New 30

Hillary's running... again...

Crawford argues for increased government involvement in the communications industry.

What a f****n' surprise.

This school is in Aurora, Colorado?

WTF is it with that place?

From DHS website: The threat posed by violent extremism is neither constrained by international borders nor limited to any single ideology.

Could mean whoever they define.

Which has become fairly significant, since Obama has declared that he has the personal authority to order a drone strike on any American he "deems" a threat, and that he can do so outside of the rule of law, the oversight of Congress, any known due process and within top secret status.

Just sayin'.

“We do not need more intellectual power; we need more moral power. We do not need more knowledge; we need more character. We do not need more government; we need more culture. We do not need more law; we need more religion. We do not need more of the things that are seen; we need more of the things that are unseen”

― Calvin Coolidge

Lets see, they were trying to kill the suspect and the suspect was trying to kill them, hundreds of rounds being exchanged back and forth... Of course they were trying to kill the son of a bitch.

Then you realize you just called the cops murderers, right? I mean, you said all things were equal, and that the suspect was trying to commit murder, and that the cops were trying to commit murder right back.

FWIW, that's against the law on both sides. Except for one thing, Studly - IF it was Dorner in there, and IF Dorner killed those other people, then that's all the people who Dorner murdered.

But what does history tell us about cops who get to toss the law aside and go on killing rampages? How many people end up being killed then? Have you read any history? Maybe you should. Because we live in a nation of laws, and cops who disregard the law to kill people are called criminals. You know, like the cops who blew a hundred rounds through the back of that pickup truck with two women in it, or the cop who fired three rounds into the headspace of the pickup truck he rammed - both incidents done while the same police force was looking for Dorner.

That this murderous fiasco is being supported by people posting on Free Republic - the SAME Free Republic that squawks every single day about the threat of gun confiscation and protection for the rule of law - is both astonishing and revolting.

Here's a quote to ponder while you're licking the jackboots, from "A Man for All Seasons":

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

OBL died in 2001 in the Tora Bora mountains cave complex where he was hiding, and where we bombed him to hell.

In order to be successful at the national level — and by that, I mean winning the White House — Sarah Palin would really have to undergo a fundamental transformation. She would need to become fully educated on the details and the intricacies of foreign affairs, because there would always be a Katie Couric from the left-wing news media establishment, eager to trip her up on those details.

She would need to become more cultured and sophisticated, and that would probably mean losing at least some of that folksy charm that was so endearing to the Tea Party. I’m not sure many of us want that. I don’t mean that she needs to stop speaking simply and plainly, which is an asset that was highly valued by Midwestern presidents from Abraham Lincoln to Harry Truman.

Careful Bryan, don't jump too fast with your bitch queen Hillary's narrative. Funny how you're not worried about Couric asking Hillary about Benghazi, or how her "Arab Spring" has turned the entire ME into a Muslim inferno, or how Bammy's ROEs are slaughtering US troops wholesale. Yeah, huge foreign affairs expertise there. Not to mention how you infer Couric tripped up Sarah, when it never even happened at all, and was just media spin about media spin that ignored the full responses from Palin that Katie Colon left on the cutting room floor.

Lemme guess - did you put on some heavy black framed glasses to write your little dig? LOL!

FYI, Palin is going destroy Hillary politically once and for all, and all of you crawling communist worms shiver with your queen's own fear of the coming election tsunami. Hillary doesn't have enough OES witch-zombies for this one, and there isn't enough rabid hatred in all of them put together to stand up against the righteous rage over the rape of the Constitution these bastards have - and are - committing.

You collectivists think you own the rage.

You don't.

This stuff should be called Emergency Room In A Can. How many people are going to drink it like a can of beer? 12 oz @ 80 proof? WTF!

I won’t even comment on the quality of the... liquid...

I consider myself fortunate that I literally cannot imagine how he managed to get that in there.

Westinghouse had been paying his room and board at the hotel for years

This was nice.

Nice? Westinghouse deprived him of millions by cheating his good will, and then paid his room and board?

Yeah, real nice.

Gluten free seems about as credible as global warming. Both have big industries that profits from it, and push a lot of fear and pseudo science. I wouldn't care but it is annoying how much shelf space gets allocated to gluten free stuff that really tastes like crap. Even if you think you are sensitive to wheat (whatever that means), it isn't worth eating garbage for the rest of your life.

So if it doesn't effect you, it doesn't exist for anyone.

Thanks for sharing, big guy.