A "girly" UI? What, are you eight and stuck in a playground where that's actually a cutting insult? Grow up.
There has been what- 8 people associated with abprtion clinics who have been killed for that asdociation? I have found no indication that any church or church leadership was behind it or endorsed it or encouraged it either.
The Klan never was a church either. Of course christians made up the KKK and they attempted to use the bible yo justify their hatred but i do not exactly think it is the same.
Westboro is interesting though. As vile and insane as they were, they never advocated violence.
I think you missed an operative statement the parent made. "And try to kill in the name of". While the KKK might fit in there, or maybe at one time they would have, its only the idiots who try to kill in the name of that could be comparable.
So this excludes westboro. Would include a number of but not all klansmen, and about five anti abortionist in the US. I think you missed the limiter he put there "kill in the name off".
Yes it is sort of
It should be no different than any other evidence of a crime. If your car was stolen and used to rob a bank- or they just think it was-, similar circumstances would happen.
However, with the cash and asset forfieture it is a little backwards where the only evidence of any crime is the fact that it is in your posession and few times are there any charges filed at all.
But nontheless., there is a legal process no matter how horrid or abstract it may be. This does make it different than a law enforcement officer stealing identities and trying to impersonate people in order to ensnare people they otherwise would have no clue existed.
Oh.. and you do not have to convince me about how evil asset seizure is. I'm just saying at least there is a process.
They most certainly did vote to change the rules in the recent past. No one but you in this thread is denying that and we are actually discussing the fact it may have been limited to hudicial nominies and can just as easily be done again to seat a Surgeon General. My claim is the reason it has not happened is because even if they did, not enough democrats would vote for him to pass.
You mean except when they did it about a year ago to get around needing a super majority?
If it wasn't just done, your point would have more weight. But then i would point out that the position is not unmaned, there is an acting S.G. in place and has been ever since the post became vacant. Its just not a political shill doing the job right now.
Nice straw man. You have a lot to learn about liberty, but that goes without saying.
Enjoy your next coup. Maybe the next dictator will be the one who brings prosperity.
Appointing a political hack as "Ebola Czar" to shut the GOP up is the real world version of telling everyone to calm the fuck down and go the fuck home.
That's an interesting strategy.
1. Prove you're incompetent by appointing an unqualified person to an important leadership role during a crisis.
3. Stay calm and PROFIT!
Lol. Its not like the republicans can't just change it when they have control of the senate.
I find it interesting how strongly some people are willing to ignore reality in order to create and maintain a republican boogerman. Lets forget that the current thread topic is a lie and its a democrat problem getting the surgeon general nomination through and invent a distraction instead. Wow how simply stupid people become when ideology it at risk.
Either way, with a simple majority vote, they could change that too. Thats all they had to change the rules last time even if it was limited to judicial nominies.
Oh, and slate isn't exactly a conservative site last time i checked. But i see they are trying to be less liberal so go figure.
Awe.. isn't that sweet. You are mad because i shot down your conspiracy with simply facts that anyone paying attention over the last year would already know.
I'm sorry you hate me now but i still love you.
Btw, [sic] the way you used it doesn't mean what you think it means and more than likely neither does dumass. But hey, those are just facts too.
Interesting, the truth is overrated.
You mean the republicans in the senate where the democrats changed the rules so the republicans cannot block appointments any more? The current nomination for the Surgeon General cannot even pass with a majority democrat senate (with the new lower vote requirement).
But Obama himself has stated several times we do not need a Czar for this. He finally had to do something because of all the screw ups making it appear like no one could find their own ass in Texas. I do not think they two situations could be remotely linked together given those two facts.