Yup, click-bait
Indeed. Those arrested had explosives and/or poison gas in their posession. Nice sensationalism. And predictable responses from a gang that would rather be outraged than look beneath the surface for something of substance.
Free speech doesn't mean that you can offend anything/anyone!
Yes, it does, actually. I'm willing to make free speech exceptions for libel, fraud, and maybe government secrets. Offending someone doesn't rate.
The Supreme Court seems to have disagreed with you regarding offending someone. See, for example, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, in which the Court ruled that "fighting words" ('speech that "tend[s] to incite an immediate breach of the peace" by provoking a fight, so long as it is a "personally abusive [word] which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, is, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction".').
The president is part of the EXECUTIVE branch, EXECUTIVE orders can only tell the EXECUTIVE branch what to do. He has absolutely no power to directly tell the JUSTICE department how to operate.
Brilliant point, except that the JUSTICE department is part of the EXECUTIVE branch. Did you sleep through high school civics?
Using teams, such as Obamacare, as part of a justification for an argument shows the way someone leans. Rather than use that, use the Actual name, it makes reading the statement a better view, than seeing it as nothing but a Flamebait comment. So regardless of his INTENT, he showed his disdain for Obama and the democratic party..... Just saying.
Or, maybe not.
These are not the virgins you are looking for.
The AC asked about people killed "in the name of Christianity", not people killed by Christians. Of the ten incidents in the list you linked to, you can scratch #10 (Timothy McVeigh), #9 (The murder of Alan Berg), #8 (Suicide attack on IRS building in Austin, Texas), #3 (Knoxville Unitarian Universalist Church shooting), and #1 (Wisconsin Sikh Temple massacre). These were acts committed by people who were presumably Christian, but who did not tie their acts to their religious beliefs.
As for the others on the list -- OK, point made. On the other hand, I don't recall mass rallies in Christian cities praising the perpetrators.
When I was a kid, I thought "Silent Night" telling me to "sleep in heavenly peas".
Then there was the hymn "Gladly the Cross I'd Bear", which I thought was about Gladly, the cross-eyed bear.
(Today the USA emits about 14 tons per person, compared to China's 7 tons.)
So yeah, you're right, that is some powerful negotiation right there as China is making a much bigger sacrifice...
Are you sure tons per capita is the appropriate metric? Stats from 2010: Trinidad and Tobago (38 tons per capita), Aruba (22.8), Luxembourg (21.4). AGW evil-doers, or bit players in the greater scheme of things? And no, I'm not proposing that the USA is a bit player.
China has a population 4.3x greater than the USA, in a land area slightly smaller (3.7 million sq mi vs 3.8 million sq. mi). Looking at tons of carbon per square mile, China is currently emitting carbon at over twice the rate of the USA.
The fact that liberals finally caved and accepted it as a compromise solution since they are never going to get socialized medicine in this country doesn't mean conservatives get to disown their own plan.
Caved? To whom?? Are you talking about special considerations given to Democratic legislators and labor unions? Passed by reconciliation without a trace of Republican support != compromise.
You guys keep calling it the conservative approach... but it was born from liberals, and implemented by liberals every single time. Never was there a conservative government that did it.
OH WAIT! I get it
OH WAIT! No you don't. The Heritage Foundation is not a government, and has never implemented any legislation. "Born from liberals" means "legislation written by Democrats". "Implemented by liberals" means "passed by reconciliation without a trace of Republican support."
when has Asian been oppressed in U.S.
Suggest you research the origins of the phrase "Chinaman's chance in hell."
There is plenty of other evidence supporting this conclusion - it is hardly just his "bombing" policies
Sure. And people wishing to paint him as a leftist can convince themselves they see evidence in support of that, as well; see, for example, his stance on immigration reform and statements regarding the Treyvon Martin and Ferguson "situations".
Personally, I don't see him as a "leftist" or as a "righty"; he seems to lack the intestinal fortitude for either. I see him as more of an old-school political opportunist with a defective moral compass and a spine too week to stand up for what he claims to believe in, whatever that might be (see his evolution from "fierce advocate for gay rights" to "God's in the mix" to
As has been said before (and roundly ignored), they're not keeping you from bringing Glass into the theatre; they just want you to turn it off and put it away. Just like your cellphone.
Well, given that Obama is a centre-rightist I can't see that you have demonstrated any problem with the premise at all.
The problem with the premise is that it's based on the tried-and-true No True Scotsman logical fallacy, as in "no true leftie would bomb brown people." Obama may indeed be a center-rightist, but only someone preoccupied with ideological purity would reach that conclusion merely by observing his predilection for bombing brown people.
Physician: One upon whom we set our hopes when ill and our dogs when well. -- Ambrose Bierce
