Every comment I make regarding what's happening in the world of politics is judged, not on the merit of the content, but on me personally..

Wrong again, Mike. How can you seriously make the ridiculous claim that "every comment" you make is judged when the majority of your comments are copied from right-wingnut websites and posted in trolling fashion and therefore ignored using Neil's scrolling method or other devices.

How many times have comments I have made been responded to with, "Michale, you post so much!!!" instead of simply addressing the content of the comment..

OMG! You mean other commenters will call you a troll when you troll? Say it isn't so! *laughs*

I had hoped that, by making a sincere point to address facts and reality, we could break the cycle and actually address points, rather than just make it about me personally...

Bullshit. Right-wingnut propaganda isn't reality, Mike.

Full disclosure: We here in Weigantia are not stupid.

Oh well, no one can say I didn't try..

You tried to start a pissing contest of your same old repetitive circular bullshit that's been covered ad nauseam, but no one was interested. Nothing new. :)

Not meant as a personal attack, just pointing out that this is a place where everyone’s opinion should be measured on its own merits, not on the resume of the person offering the opinion!

Do you comprehend the irony of that comment?? :D

Every comment I make regarding what's happening in the world of politics is judged, not on the merit of the content, but on me personally..

How many times have comments I have made been responded to with, "Michale, you post so much!!!" instead of simply addressing the content of the comment..

I had hoped that, by making a sincere point to address facts and reality, we could break the cycle and actually address points, rather than just make it about me personally...

Reading over the comments, it was obviously a futile gesture...

Oh well, no one can say I didn't try..

Both posts stated points that I have tried to make in the past, but I never said them as eloquently as you just did...I tip my cap to you!

I *blush* :)

As much as I would love it if Michael stuck to focusing on discussing topics instead of attacking those posting here as he has done today, I don’t know who long this will last. I was actually surprised when I got him to admit his intentions for posting most days:

It was one of the all-time great admissions; one that can forever never be unsaid. All the gaslighting, lies, and manipulation trolling confirmed by Mike.

You *blush* :)

Trump's an obvious suspect... However he has proven he doesn't care what's exposed about him...

How you figure that? There are multiple lawsuits where Trump is suing to stop discovery of his tax returns as well as his bank accounts. He has refused to allow anyone to testify before Congress because he is claiming a blanket "executive privilege" that isn't applicable in multiple circumstances. There are 10+ instances of obstruction of justice documented to preserve the record and multiple years of undisclosed tax returns as icing on the evidence cake that say otherwise.

However, that doesn't mean I believe Trump had anything to do with Epstein's death... just that Trump hasn't in any way, shape, or fashion "proven he doesn't care what's exposed about him." Quite the opposite, in point of fact.

If "facts" really matter to somebody, then ignoring them isn't the way to go about proving it.

Clinton's the more obvious suspect... Clinton has plenty to lose...

So how do you figure Clinton is the more obvious suspect? Based on what? Clinton being the guy running the DOJ running the BOP that allowed the suicide of one of the most high-profile prisoners in the joint? Do you think the presidency of the United States is less to lose?

You sound like a guy who has drank the Kool-Aid, pitcher and all.

Russ: Bottom line: it’s just the GOP continuation of their strategy to oppose anything that Democrats support!

Which is no different than Democrats strategy to oppose anything President Trump supports..

Wrong again, Mike, particularly when President Trump has stated repeatedly that Republicans have a plan that is going to cover all Americans because it is the right thing to do to cover everyone. While that "plan" never existed and has yet to materialize, as Russ correctly states, it is Trump that opposes the ACA and has promised to replace it with... they've really got nothing to replace it... still! See the difference?

What is your point??

This is your "tell," Mike. :)

Thanks, and great post as well! We have been giving free healthcare to prisoners in our jails for years as well.

Exactly! With incarceration of people comes great responsibility. Handling offenders in the civil system who have no other criminal violations with the exception of illegal border crossing cuts out the expense of having to provide them with free lots of stuff, including health care.

And this brings up the issue of our for-profit prison system. I'm not wading into it now, but I'm sure you know where that river flows.

Bottom line: it’s just the GOP continuation of their strategy to oppose anything that Democrats support! They cannot provide an alternative healthcare plan that anyone would want, and they don’t even seem to be working towards coming up with anything to replace the ACA anytime soon.

It's the gift that keeps on giving in the midterms and all election cycle through. ;)

Illegal immigrant criminals are not citizens of this country.

And, as such, they are not entitled to free full healthcare, beyond what is allowed to ANYONE under Saint Ronald Reagan's Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act of 1985.

Well, you're wrong again because "states."

The Democrat candidates all raised their hands to indicate that they WOULD allow illegal immigrant criminals free and full healthcare beyond the EMTLA...

People who whine about others mischaracterizing things and then turn around and mischaracterize things are a PITA, and that makes you one of "them." :)

My question to Russ was how does he believe that Independents, NPAs and Trump voters would accept that.
So far, he hasn't responded beyond his belief that the Dem candidate doesn't need Trump voters..

Russ has proven to be one of those human beings with a life... very much like myself. :)

And it's your VAST experience as LEOs that leads you to believe this???

These are the type responses that just scream, “I cannot logically defend my position so let me try to discredit you for offering yours instead!”

Seriously, no one here meets your criteria to have an opinion. I have zero firsthand experience as a LEO, but my years working as a 911 call receiver plus my being married to a police officer for the last ten years does give me some insight into this topic. If a person can reasonably defend their opinion, that’s all that is needed to validate it.

Not meant as a personal attack, just pointing out that this is a place where everyone’s opinion should be measured on its own merits, not on the resume of the person offering the opinion!

Allow me to reiterate that you're being very agreeable with the same entity that you're generally busy denigrating. ~ Me

As are you.. :D

False! I can assure you that I'm not a denigrator of the "eff-be-I." An agent or two for doing boneheaded things? Naturally. But denigrating the institution? Not a chance. :)

Warren's statement is her opinion.

Most political statements are the candidate's opinion. That's why they don't qualify as blatant lies. Glad we agree on this.

Partially her opinion..

Well, I would wager she agrees with all of it.

But when she claimed that Brown was murdered by a police officer, she is claiming a fact..

Awkward wording on your part that appears to disagree with your prior statement wherein you claim it is a "blatant lie."

And that is not only NOT a fact, it's a blatant lie..

"She is claiming a fact" that is "NOT a fact." You should read these things... pick a lane.

Pretty much like saying you think OJ was guilty even though he was not proven criminally guilty in a court of law.

Well, juries sometimes make lousy decisions, and people are entitled to their various assorted opinions about ex-football players and ex-police officers and all manner of people because this is America. No one is required to tweet to suit your opinion. Why you would expect a leftie to tweet to your liking is ridiculous. You spend an inordinate amount of time whining about those who don't speak to suit you. Let it roll off your back like water off a duck. I disagree with her word choice too; however, it does not rise to the level of "blatant lie."

How can I put this into perspective for you? *thinking*

*still thinking*

Okay! I think I've got it. Here goes: In the same manner that the local authorities and FBI concluded that they couldn't prove in a court of law that the police officer who shot Brown with the intent to kill him committed "murder" as it is legally defined, you would have a shitty case in a court of law if you were attempting to prove Elizabeth Warren's tweet rose to the level of a "blatant lie" also known legally as "perjury."

We're basically quibbling over the definition of "blatant lie." The entire incident was being investigated due to the fact that there was a question regarding the events that took place. Reasonable people can disagree with the conclusions of the investigation. Case closed... literally. :)

This sounds better.

Both posts stated points that I have tried to make in the past, but I never said them as eloquently as you just did...I tip my cap to you!

As much as I would love it if Michael stuck to focusing on discussing topics instead of attacking those posting here as he has done today, I don’t know who long this will last. I was actually surprised when I got him to admit his intentions for posting most days:

But, as usual, my comments are NOT a judgment on the actions of Odumbo OR President Trump..

My comments are on the fact that ya'all's condemnations are totally and completely one sided...

Or to read between the lines, “I am here to troll!”

I understand why he does it: Trump’s actions are impossible to defend logically, so deflection and distraction become the only defense options that don’t include admitting the truth.

Hokay..

Okay, then... TYA!

Give me one "blatant lie" of President Trump's..

I'll explain it..

*laughs* No one needs to explain a "blatant lie"; the explanation is in the description. Blatant lies are obvious lies and done without trying to hide them.

Blatant Lies of Donald Trump

* "I will never lie to you."
* "I never said Russia did not meddle in the election..."
* "This Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story."

Plenty more that require no explanation whatsoever.

Then I'll give you a blatant lie of Obama.

I already did Elizabeth Warren. She is current news with a current tweet. Prattling on and on about Obama when we could be discussing current affairs is distracting/deflecting and a waste of time in my opinion.

You explain it and give me the comment you made condemning it at the time..

Blatant lies need no explanation, and your neediness to make every issue into a personal discussion of a particular poster versus a discussion of the issue is again duly noted. Russ is absolutely correct about this; you're grabbing at that crutch where you're just here to troll posters.

Deal??

Russ is also absolutely correct that your "deals" suck. Besides, I'm "all in" to discuss issues but not interested in a pissing match where the object of the exercise is to prove something about myself. I'm not stupid enough to believe I qualify as a political issue, and believe it or not, people on the "leftie blog" comments section aren't necessarily and likely not here to post to suit Obama/America haters... yeah, just kidding, but see what I did there? :)

Again, if the officer is not capable of trying to merely stop the alleged attacker when they are not under threat of deadly force and cannot stop firing when the alleged attacker is stopped, they are not qualified to be a police officer.

It sounds like you are assuming that the encounter starts off at a lower level of aggression and then overtime escalates to a “deadly force” encounter. That was not the case with Brown. As the officer attempted to exit his vehicle, Brown attacked the officer, knocking him back into his vehicle, and tried to disarm him.

I know that some have argued that the officer was actually grabbing Brown and trying to pull him into the vehicle through the driver side window, but that is the most idiotic thing in the world if you think about it. Why would an officer sitting in his vehicle attempt to pull a 300+ guy into his vehicle on top of himself? Physically it would be impossible, as the seated officer’s arms were not long enough to reach up and grab Brown by the neck and pull him into the window.

We also know that Brown went for the officer’s gun by the bullet trajectory and blood splatter found in the officer’s vehicle. Brown was shot near his thumb with the bullet traveling up his arm and out his shoulder/back. Where the bullet entered Brown was consistent with the officer’s claim that Brown grabbed his gun and attempted to take it when the officer fired his first shot.

One thing that I found fascinating was how differently a person’s perspective effected what they believed they were witnessing. How could some people think Brown was attacking the officer and others think he was putting his arms up and trying to surrender if they were watching the same event as it unfolded??? The two versions of what witnesses said they saw sound like they are two extremely different events. If you look at the physical movements described for both versions of what witnesses claimed they saw, the physical actions are identical...it was just the person’s perspective as to what they believed was happening that differed — his arms raising looked like Brown was attacking the officer to one group and like he was trying to surrender to the other group.

All of the witnesses that became aware of the encounter prior to the first shots being fired testified that Brown continued attacking the officer even after being shot. Witnesses who only became aware of the incident after they heard the first shots fired testified that they believed Brown was trying to get away from and surrender to the officer. At what point during the incident that the witness first became aware of it made all the difference in how they interpreted what they were seeing!

Exactly... While the number is unknown, it's quite logical to assume that the threat of jail and family separation DOES keep illegal immigrant criminals away from violating out laws..

"Logical to assume"? I know a guy named "you" that would disagree with me if I used the exact same phrase regarding lots of other issues. Does data show a decrease? Not really, but it's debatable "why not" and indisputable there's an increase... unless you're prepared to refer to own rhetoric as a "blatant lie."

If we decriminalize the border, there will be nothing to stop those people..

Wrong... because we currently have two systems -- government efficiency -- /sarcasm.

* The United States already primarily handles violations of immigration law under civil law rather than criminal law. A quick reading of the Constitution will remind anyone that persons in this country have rights... cut to the chase: due process. Thus, more often than not due to efficiency, when the government accuses someone of illegally immigrating, living in the United States without legal authorization, etc., that person is not being charged criminally but in the civil enforcement system where they are held in civil detention centers pending quick (supposed to be) deportation.

On the other hand, it is a federal crime to cross the border without going through a point of inspection. First offense is classified a misdemeanor for "illegal entry" and punishable by prison sentence not to exceed 6 months, while repeat offenders sentences are punishable up to 2 years if your crime is limited to "border crossing," but for those with serious criminal offenses it's obviously punishable by decades like any other criminal.

Those candidates (and it's not all of them) who want to decriminalize unauthorized border crossings are simply saying to process those whose only crime is illegal border crossing under the civil system. It is more cost efficient and generally quicker, less drain on taxpayers, etc. Obviously, if other crimes are involved beyond illegally crossing the border, off to the criminal system they go.

Fact: There is de facto amnesty for employers like Donald Trump who knowingly hire multiple illegal immigrants and have been doing so for decades because the government turns a blind eye to their exploitation of illegal persons. You seriously want to deter illegal border crossings? People won't cross the border for jobs that don't exist. End de facto amnesty for employers who knowingly violate our federal laws.

I find it hilarious that the Democrat Party's "solution" to excessive over-crowding at the southern border is to add tens of thousands MORE illegal immigrant criminals..

I find your incessant whining about criminals hilarious. I also find it hilarious that there are an excessive number of right-wing parrots that continue to refer to the Democratic Party using the incorrect name while at the same time whining about stupid people, and I find it infinitely hilarious that there are an inordinate number of "stupid people" who are willing to spew back right-wing propaganda like trained birds confined to their tiny little cages.

Lastly, I find it hilarious that the President of the United States is doubling down on the stoking of racial resentment as a political strategy, but Poor Donald cannot help himself but to lie and cry. It's pathological.

Obviously, the Democratic Party hasn't yet endorsed any of the many Democrats and/or Independent candidates' views regarding immigration, and anyone claiming otherwise is lying to you or parroting a lie.

AKA Democrats.. :D

White nationalists have not "infiltrated." They were in power fifty years ago and never left. except for a few loudmouths, the adherents to the lost cause simply hung back and waited their turn.

JL

Lemme ask ya..

Again, if the officer is not capable of trying to merely stop the alleged attacker when they are not under threat of deadly force and cannot stop firing when the alleged attacker is stopped, they are not qualified to be a police officer.

And it's your VAST experience as LEOs that leads you to believe this???

Was gonna say it's a rare day when Don & I are on the same page.

Again, if the officer is not capable of trying to merely stop the alleged attacker when they are not under threat of deadly force and cannot stop firing when the alleged attacker is stopped, they are not qualified to be a police officer.

Yep.

You said that not, I.. I simply responded to your comment that a homeowner cannot pursue a subject so a LEO shouldn't..

The difference is an LEO has a DUTY to pursue subjects..

How is there are no facts (perhaps you mean evidence) to support the officer grabbing Brown first (which again I am NOT claiming is a fact, I am claiming there is only conflicting testimony which is a fact) an answer to you claiming it as a fact that Brown attacked the officer and went for his gun when there is no evidence to support that testimony?

There is the officer's testimony and the physical and forensic evidence..

If the officer grabbed Brown first then the justification of the officer under attack is not true.

If Wilson grabbed Brown first (which is no where near confirmed, it was likely to place him under arrest.. Under the law, Brown cannot claim self-defense, even if the arrest was not justified..

The officer had no valid reason to think he was answering deadly force with deadly force because Brown was unarmed.

Except that Brown had tried to get Wilson's gun..

So the officer clearly believed that Brown was not armed if he was telling the truth about Brown going for the gun.

The fact that Brown was unarmed is not relevant to the use of deadly force.. The fact that Brown attempted to take Wilson's weapon is sufficient for Wilson to resort to deadly force..

Your excuse that the officer was under attack and answering deadly force with deadly force is based on the assumption of fact and inconsistent with the evidence available.

That's your opinion.. The officer's testimony corroborated by the forensic evidence is sufficient to say that this was a good shoot..

Judges have gone to jail for, as is eventually discovered, selling prisoners in various ways to for-profit prisons. That's the kind of thing that initially always seems like paranoia etc. until the truth is uncovered.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/state-department-worker-had-secret-other-life-white-nationalist-right-n1040101

The news about Matthew Q. Gebert, 38, came a day after researchers from the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Hatewatch program revealed he allegedly used the pseudonym “Coach Finstock” on white nationalist forums and hosted parties at his Virginia home for like-minded individuals.

Sounds like conspiracy-theorizing but it's not. White nationalists have infiltrated lots of places. People take bribes. Hits get arranged. It happens.

So I'm going to need an independent investigation removed from traitor-Barr to deliver answers on this one.

The only question is who silenced him..

There is likely HUNDREDS of people who would have motive..

Far FAR less would have the capability to reach into a Federal SuperMax lock-up...

Trump's an obvious suspect... However he has proven he doesn't care what's exposed about him...

Clinton's the more obvious suspect... Clinton has plenty to lose...

Find out who was paying the attorneys... :D

https://www.wsj.com/articles/there-were-serious-irregularities-at-federal-jail-where-jeffrey-epstein-died-barr-says-11565622895

Well, well. Taken of suicide watch at the request of his attorneys? How does that make sense? What gives them the ability to assess his mental state in that way? Or the authority to be "listened to"?

"“One day, as I was driving home from work, I noticed two children crossing the street. They were happy, happy to be free from their troubles. ... This happiness was mine by right. I had earned it in my dreams. As I neared the young ones, I put all my weight on my right foot, keeping the accelerator pedal on the floor until I heard the crashing of the two children on the hood, and then the sharp cry of pain from one of the two. I was so fascinated for a moment, that when after I had stopped my vehicle, I just sat in a daze, sweet visions filling my head.”

So, you are saying someone like that needs a psych eval before they get a car???

If an officer is not capable of firing a disabling shot in a situation such as this they are not qualified to be a police officer and if the law says they don't have to the law is wrong and should be changed.

Shooting to disable is a Hollywood myth...it looks good on film, but in reality it just doesn’t work! First, a police officer can only use deadly force if they reasonably believe that their life or someone else’s life is in danger because of the actions of another. Anytime you fire a gun at someone, it is an “use of deadly force”. If an officer fired his gun at someone, there had better been someone whose life was endangered when the officer pulled the trigger! You don’t shoot someone charging at you with an axe in an attempt to knock the axe from their hands. In stressful situations, it’s hard enough to hit the torso (largest part of body) of a running person, having police trying to aim for legs or arms would be crazy. Either the axe murdered reaches their target, or your bullet misses their arms/legs and goes on to kill an innocent bystander.

Someone on PCP, you can hit them in the chest and they still might keep coming...so wounding them would do little good.

And do you think people are going to be real happy when an officer tries to wound and disable a suspect and that suspect is still able to kill 5 people before he is finally “disabled”?

Guns are designed to kill.

As night follows day.

Should that person have a car and a license to drive??

No, they should have their license pulled until they can get a psych evaluation to clear them. In most states you can do this already... it called having someone involuntarily committed.. It isn’t surprising that there are far more people who despite posing a threat to themselves and others, they have never been involved in an incident than those that have been in an incident that resulted in injuries to others.

There are plenty of mentally unstable people who are able to live independent lives on their own without ever harming anyone. Why would you think it is OK to arm someone like this?

Which is no different than Democrats strategy to oppose anything President Trump supports..

What is your point??

It really is...

What you are saying is the same as me saying that the officer grabbing Brown first and that Brown was resisting and not attacking is established as fact, which I am not.

There are no facts to support that.. Even if true, that doesn't negate that it was still a good shoot..

If someone breaks into your house you can use force to repel them but you cannot chase them down the street and shoot them after the initial danger is over.

You can if you are an LEO.. Which is what we are talking about..

A police officer should be held to AT LEAST the same standard.

A police officer is held to a HIGHER standard..

As a homeowner civilian, you cannot chase a subject down..

As a police officer, it is your DUTY to chase the subject down..

If an officer is not capable of firing a disabling shot

Yer kidding, right???

Maybe Wilson should have shot Brown's big toe to foil the attack, eh??

and if the law says they don't have to the law is wrong and should be changed.

By all means.. Change the law..

Until that time, LEOs will answer deadly force with deadly force..

Thanks, and great post as well! We have been giving free healthcare to prisoners in our jails for years as well. This is why I cannot understand how Republicans could think that their fear of / opposition to “Healthcare for All” makes any sense.

Bottom line: it’s just the GOP continuation of their strategy to oppose anything that Democrats support! They cannot provide an alternative healthcare plan that anyone would want, and they don’t even seem to be working towards coming up with anything to replace the ACA anytime soon.

VIDEO: Biden grabs girl by arm after she asks about genders — ‘Don’t play games with me, kid!’
http://www.theamericanmirror.com/video-biden-grabs-girl-by-arm-after-she-asks-about-genders-dont-play-games-with-me-kid/

Looks like for Biden, the hits just keep on coming..

Officer Wilson had fought off Brown the first time.. Wilson used justifiable deadly force to prevent a second attempt..

I don't see that as the officer trying to defend himself against someone trying to take his weapon at that point.

I understand why you would think so..

But, as an LEO with over 2 decades experience, I can assure you that the initial attempt by Brown set the stage for the results of the altercation..

A subject cannot attempt deadly force against an officer and simply assume that will be the end of it.. There are no facts to support that Brown was attempting to surrender.

The long and short of it is that Brown was not murdered.. He was killed. Justifiably so..

And, as such, they are not entitled to free full healthcare, beyond what is allowed to ANYONE under Saint Ronald Reagan's Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act of 1985.

The Democrat candidates all raised their hands to indicate that they WOULD allow illegal immigrant criminals free and full healthcare beyond the EMTLA...

My question to Russ was how does he believe that Independents, NPAs and Trump voters would accept that.

So far, he hasn't responded beyond his belief that the Dem candidate doesn't need Trump voters..

Then we're good.. :D

Illegal immigrant criminals are not citizens of this country.

In effect -- de facto -- yes.

Thank you.. :D

Partially her opinion..

But when she claimed that Brown was murdered by a police officer, she is claiming a fact..

And that is not only NOT a fact, it's a blatant lie..

Pretty much like saying you think OJ was guilty even though he was not proven criminally guilty in a court of law.

Actually, if (granted, a BIG 'if') the prosecution's timeline was accurate, there is no way OJ could have committed the murders..

The evidence in the Michael Brown case does not show that he committed strong armed robbery and attempted to attack and disarm the officer.

Actually, it DOES show exactly that.. Conclusively..

There is no evidence to support those claims- only testimony.

Not factually accurate.. Wilson had a bruised jaw and scratches on his neck.. Brown's DNA was recovered from the trauma areas and around Wilson's collar of his uniform..

There is evidence the officer had more of a questionable past than Michael Brown.

For example...???

I have no problem with Warren calling it murder.

That's your opinion and I respect that. But it's an opinion based on unfavorable interactions with LEO in the past and, therefore, is a biased opinion..

The FACTS are clear...

Brown was justifiably killed...

As Russ points out, the law states unequivocally that a person attempting to take an officer's weapon by force constitutes deadly force upon said officer and the officer is justified in using deadly force in response, to stop the attempt and eliminate the threat..

Brown was a good shoot...

OK.. So, we DO have "healthcare" for all..

In effect -- de facto -- yes.

So what's the problem?? :D

A lot of human beings who become patients don't exactly remunerate the hospital/emergency room for the services rendered unto them as required by mandate of Saint Ronald of Reagan's law, and other human beings who make laws in the present day believe there are more efficient ways in which to provide medical care which is already mandated by Saint Reagan. There are numerous plans that have been proposed over multiple decades so it's not exactly like the "abstract concept" that CRS claims it is being that this mandate is de facto already in existence and has been so for many decades now. :)

Yes, they are human beings..

Agreement!

Charles Manson was a human being.. Ted Bundy was a human being.. The scumbag who shot up a peaceful Dayton street was a human being..

Referring to those guys as members of Homo Sapiens species I would agree with, but "human beings" for your examples above I would say is a debatable issue in every instance.

But they are not citizens..

Do you mean your examples are "not citizens" because they were citizens and are now corpses? You know everyone living is generally a "citizen." Fact: A "citizen" by definition is a person that is an inhabitant of a particular city or town. Russ is technically correct, and you're not... again. :)

No need to clarify, I knew what you meant. You're still incorrect unless you claim they aren't legally citizens of the United States. You want to get nitpicky with us, we can reciprocate... for we are citizens of Weigantia. :p *smile*

As are you.. :D

Killing =! murder

No, it doesn't. I already quoted that part of the tweet and stated I agreed with Russ:

* Michael Brown was murdered - I agree with Russ here. Killed? True/Fact. "Murdered"? Not going to get into legal analysis, but: False. ~ Me

Killing is an adverb..

No, it isn't... ever. "Killingly" would be an adverb, but who says that? (rhetorical question)

"Killing" is generally a noun or an adjective. Adverbs generally describe how, what, when, where, or why and frequently end in "ly" (although obviously not always, of course). Examples: slowly, quickly, here, there, everywhere, well, incorrectly.

Murder is a legal definition..

Says who? "Negligent homicide" is a legal definition and it can vary from one jurisdiction to another.

Saying Brown was murdered is a mis-characterization..

I already said that:

While it would actually be appropriate to characterize Warren's tweet by saying it doesn't rise to the level of "whole truth" or that "she murdered the English language with her legal mischaracterization," it also does not meet the definition of "blatant lie" because the police officer admits to killing Brown. ~ Me

Saying Brown was murdered by police is a blatant lie..

Not even a good try since Warren's tweet states "a white police officer," and the "police officer" to which Warren is referring has admitted to firing his weapon multiple times into Brown with the intent to kill him. Whether or not Brown was "murdered" by the "police officer" who fired his weapon with the intent to kill Brown was a question for the local authorities and the FBI, but whether or not you agree with the conclusions of the investigating entities is strictly up to you. Russ does, and I do.

Allow me to reiterate that you're being very agreeable with the same entity that you're generally busy denigrating, and unless you're prepared to agree that a motherlode of your own comments are "blatant lies," then perhaps you could see your way fit to steer clear of expecting commenters on the leftie blog to agree with your opinions of the conclusions of the "eff-be-I" when they meet with your approval -- rarely -- and your disparagement of their conclusions when they don't -- frequently.

Rarely and frequently are adverbs. Class dismissed. :)

Thank you...

Additionally, Epstein was supposed to have a cellmate. But the person who was assigned to share a cell with Epstein was transferred on Friday before the 66-year-old's death, according to the Post. It was not immediately clear why the cellmate was transferred or why no one else was assigned to room with Epstein.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/jeffrey-epstein-checked-for-hours-apparent-suicide

Anyone who believes that Epstein killed himself.. I have some swampland in FL for sale.. :D

With each news cycle, the false-information system grows more efficient.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/11/opinion/jeffrey-epstein-suicide-conspiracies.html

Interesting apolitical commentary...

Aww right.. Aww right..

So, if you have passage written in facebook about a teenager, who fantasized about getting into their car and stomping on the gas, targeting kids and killing almost 40 of them...

Should that person have a car and a license to drive??

The courts have long recognized that attempting to disarm an officer is considered an “use of deadly force” against the officer. That is because 96% of officers who are disarmed in a struggle are shot with their own gun, 93% of those are killed by their own gun. Calling Brown “unarmed” ignores the fact that it was NOT for a lack of trying on his part!

The evidence clearly showed that the officer was legally justified in shooting his attacker. Statistics make it clear that had Brown been successful, he would most likely be in prison for shooting and/or killing the officer. His death was a result of HIS poor decisions! He is not someone who should be martyred!

Well said...

Do you believe racism and un-necessary violence is systemic in the country's police force as a whole?

If so, please provide facts to support this belief..

What part of NO NAME-CALLING OR PERSONAL ATTACKS did you not understand??

Hokay..

Give me one "blatant lie" of President Trump's..

I'll explain it..

Then I'll give you a blatant lie of Obama.

You explain it and give me the comment you made condemning it at the time..

All kept nice and civil...

Deal??

Also, why can't we at least stipulate to the fact that Ronald Reagan effectively created a de facto national health care policy for all uninsured persons with his signature enacting the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) of 1985 (42 U.S.C. Section 1395dd) containing the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), Saint Ronnie's federal law that requires anyone coming to an emergency department to be stabilized and treated, regardless of their insurance status or ability to pay?

OK.. So, we DO have "healthcare" for all..

So what's the problem?? :D

Until your propose a specific system (with a plan for implementation) it is indeed an "abstract concept". And if you only include "this country", then you're incentivising the whole world to come to "this country", right?

That's a major part of the current problem.

Exactly... While the number is unknown, it's quite logical to assume that the threat of jail and family separation DOES keep illegal immigrant criminals away from violating out laws..

And yet, even with those thousands and thousands of people who DO stay away, we have a huge over-crowding problem..

If we decriminalize the border, there will be nothing to stop those people..

I find it hilarious that the Democrat Party's "solution" to excessive over-crowding at the southern border is to add tens of thousands MORE illegal immigrant criminals..

Yes, they are human beings..

Charles Manson was a human being.. Ted Bundy was a human being.. The scumbag who shot up a peaceful Dayton street was a human being..

What's your point?

But they are not citizens..

Chris, your email box is full....

And, if you speak of committing violence on another person here in this forum, why shouldn't we take you at your word??

Killing =! murder

Killing is an adverb..

Murder is a legal definition..

Saying Brown was murdered is a mis-characterization..

Saying Brown was murdered by police is a blatant lie..

The "blatant lie" was she said that Michael Brown was murdered..

It’s also fun to see how many times Michale will attack us after we comment... the more posts directed at you, the more he allowed you to get to him! I respond to a message from him and then get on with my day and don’t think about him at all. Next time I log in, I check out the time stamps in posts where Michale attacks me and figure out just how many hours or days I was the focus of his hatred. Michale likes to claim that he owns all of us with his comments, but fails to realize that his numerous comments are the proof that it is actually him that is being owned!

So much for keeping it civil. :(

It was a nice try, I guess...

Great post.

As for everyone else, why would anyone who wants what is best for this country oppose Healthcare for All?

Also, why can't we at least stipulate to the fact that Ronald Reagan effectively created a de facto national health care policy for all uninsured persons with his signature enacting the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) of 1985 (42 U.S.C. Section 1395dd) containing the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), Saint Ronnie's federal law that requires anyone coming to an emergency department to be stabilized and treated, regardless of their insurance status or ability to pay?

Long question, I realize. :)

5 years ago Michael Brown was murdered by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri. Michael was unarmed yet he was shot 6 times. I stand with activists and organizers who continue the fight for justice for Michael. We must confront systemic racism and police violence head on. - Elizabeth Warren

Okay now, to address your comment:

* 5 years ago - August 9, 2014... True/Fact
* Michael Brown was murdered - I agree with Russ here. Killed? True/Fact. "Murdered"? Not going to get into legal analysis, but: False
* by a white police officer... True/Fact
* in Ferguson, Missouri... True/Fact
* Michael was unarmed... True/Fact
* yet he was shot 6 times 12 total shots, 6-8 hits according to DOJ report... True/Fact

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/doj_report_on_shooting_of_michael_brown_1.pdf

The remainder is Warren's political opinion, but I don't see anything before her opinion that would rise to the level of "blatant lie." Both reports state repeatedly that there is conflicting evidence from multiple eyewitnesses. However, it does appear that you have chosen to believe the conclusions of local law enforcement's investigation into themselves and the conclusions by the FBI/DOJ that you routinely ridicule when their conclusions fail to match your right-wing rhetoric/beliefs. Positively shocking! *shakes head*

While it would actually be appropriate to characterize Warren's tweet by saying it doesn't rise to the level of "whole truth" or that "she murdered the English language with her legal mischaracterization," it also does not meet the definition of "blatant lie" because the police officer admits to killing Brown.

If you're actually serious about "blatant lies":
Now do Trump. :)

Chris grew up in the Washington, D.C. suburbs, and has always been interested in politics. His own politics are a mix, and probably could be described as "left libertarian." On some issues, Chris agrees with the mainstream, and on some he's to the left of Bernie Sanders. It all depends on the issue, and on the arguments raised by all sides.

http://www.chrisweigant.com/about-chris/

I've also never seen you call out Donald Trump for a single one of his multitudes of obvious near daily lies and fabrications; however, it's common knowledge that many of us here sometimes make the choice to not read and/or respond to your posts and sometimes make the choice to do so. So I obviously and easily could have missed your condemnations of Trump's near daily lies. I'm sure somebody will let me know if I missed a whole bunch of your Trump condemnations for lying: Hint.

Which leads me to a serious question: While you're visiting the multitudes of right-wing websites during your routine episodes of cutting and pasting of pro right-wing material and propaganda to an obviously pro leftie forum, do you regularly troll those right-wing commenters in an attempt to control the tenor of their comments and/or routinely explain to them that the way to make you stop trolling them is to post to suit you and/or make routine posts excoriating them for not condemning Donald Trump's myriad of outright lies and fabrications? Seriously.

The majority of the posts of yours that I've actually read on this forum include:

* One personal insult after another hurled toward a myriad of commenters expressing their left and left-leaning opinions on an obvious and admitted leftie website

* You whining incessantly about left and left-leaners' opinions about your Second Amendment rights and all manner of other things while you insist that you'll troll the comments section until posters exercise their First Amendment rights in a manner that suits you personally

Do you see the irony? <--- rhetorical question

continued...

I saw this post today because Russ quoted it, and I'm making a serious effort to try (operative word in bold) to be fair to your point of view. Don't knock the effort... or do... whatever. I'm also not going to hold back on being fair to others' point of view either.

And out and out blatant lie..

Funny how all the ones who whine and cry about President Trump's alleged lies don't call her out on her lie..

I'm not sure why any poster would expect to find anything like that on a blog that's written by an admitted leftie who describes himself as sometimes "to the left of Bernie Sanders"? Doesn't Chris describe this as a "blog," and doesn't Chris -- in no uncertain terms -- describe himself as a leftie?

Chris Weigant is a political commentator, author, and blogger.

He has been a regular contributor to Arianna Huffington's The Huffington Post since June of 2006.

As "Tom Paine" Chris wrote the book How Democrats Can Take Back Congress in 2006, which (while obviously dated, now) still has a lot of good advice for Democratic candidates today. To find out more about this book, please visit Pamphleteering Press.

Nowadays, Chris provides advice to Democratic officeholders on a weekly basis, with his renowned "Friday Talking Points" advice column on how Democrats really should frame things positively; as well as his monthly wrapups of President Barack Obama's job approval poll ratings over at "ObamaPollWatch.com".

continued...

Until your propose a specific system (with a plan for implementation) it is indeed an "abstract concept". And if you only include "this country", then you're incentivising the whole world to come to "this country", right?

That's a major part of the current problem.

As an abstract concept, I'm betting EVERYBODY favors "healthcare for all". In that same vein, also 'Food for all', 'housing for all', 'clothing for all', a 'cellphone for all', a car for all', etc.

Wonderful...except that when we are discussing “healthcare for all”, we are not discussing an abstract concept — we are talking about a specific system of healthcare for everyone in this country to be able to use.

As I said at the time, I simplified your request. Each of those questions were echoed in the subject matter of other of your posts that day. I chose to answer the ten questions all combined in one post to make it easier for both of us. I jumped through the hoop you requested and you proved you are not a man of your word!

Seriously, that you believe someone should respond to ten of your random posts (half of which you don’t bother to read, yourself, prior to posting it) before you will respond to one of their’s is either the biggest sign of your delusional ego being out of control or your chickenshit way to avoid having to answer tough questions...or both.

And while background checks for CCW permits are thorough, they only look at past offenses.

You want them to look for FUTURE offenses???

The whole point of “Red Flagging” is to catch those people that despite not having past incidents officially on their record, have a history of lesser events that one can reasonably assume that they pose a threat to themselves/others and prevent them from accessing guns until they can be cleared by mental health professionals.

You could have a Facebook page filled with posts describing the most horrificly graphic violent scenarios that you dream of committing one day soon and it would not prevent you from receiving your permit!

So, Stephen King would not be allowed a CCW, eh??

If you want to play dumb with responses like this just know that the only thing it really does is provide further proof that you were never in law enforcement!

But hay.. OK.. Let's apply this totally bullshit action of yours to Free Speech..

If you have any facebook posts that glorify violent protests, you should not be allowed any Free Speech..

It is sad that you fail to see that Free Speech has nothing to do with this. Nothing I have mentioned would impose on anyone’s right to free speech! Nothing! It should be noted that posting on Facebook, a privately owned service, is not protected speech. Facebook can pick and choose what it will allow on its site as they see fit. Furthermore, free speech doesn’t mean that certain words do not have consequences when they are uttered.

If you speak of desiring to shoot up innocent people in a blaze of gunfire, why shouldn’t we take you at your word? Why are you saying that they deserve a firearm knowing this about them?

-Elizabeth Warren

While I agree with Warren that we must confront systemic racism and police violence head on, that is the only part of what she said that I support! Michael Brown had just committed strong-armed robbery minutes before he was approached by a local police officer. Brown physically attacked and attempted to disarm the officer before the officer could even exit his vehicle.

The courts have long recognized that attempting to disarm an officer is considered an “use of deadly force” against the officer. That is because 96% of officers who are disarmed in a struggle are shot with their own gun, 93% of those are killed by their own gun. Calling Brown “unarmed” ignores the fact that it was NOT for a lack of trying on his part!

The evidence clearly showed that the officer was legally justified in shooting his attacker. Statistics make it clear that had Brown been successful, he would most likely be in prison for shooting and/or killing the officer. His death was a result of HIS poor decisions! He is not someone who should be martyred!

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT CRIMINALS..

OK...then we will call them “Border Jaywalkers” — as that is the equivalent to the type crime they are accused of. Funny, if we refer to anyone in Trump’s circle as being “criminals”, you are usually quick to point out that unless they’ve had their day in court, they aren’t technically “criminals” — “innocent until proven guilty” and all! And are you really going to be the one to call anyone else a criminal with your background?

Plus, we grant access to healthcare to criminals in our prison system; so based on your logic, what would be the difference?

Your way, it's like they're US Citizens, simply undocumented..

That’s because they ARE undocumented citizens living in the US!!. They are human beings —and no matter how hard you want to deny it to yourself, the fact remains that they ARE human beings!

As an abstract concept, I'm betting EVERYBODY favors "healthcare for all". In that same vein, also 'Food for all', 'housing for all', 'clothing for all', a 'cellphone for all', a car for all', etc.

I've always said, as long as you're wishing/dreaming, etc., wish BIG!! Doesn't cost any more to wish big!

And BTW, shouldn't "all" include every person on earth? Why would you restrict your wishing on the basis of geographic and/or political boundaries? Wish REAL BIG while you're at it!

Appreciate it, but I enjoy seeing Michale’s crap posts on here. It’s a great way of measuring how badly Trump is doing by the sheer volume of posts he plasters us with.

It’s also fun to see how many times Michale will attack us after we comment... the more posts directed at you, the more he allowed you to get to him! I respond to a message from him and then get on with my day and don’t think about him at all. Next time I log in, I check out the time stamps in posts where Michale attacks me and figure out just how many hours or days I was the focus of his hatred. Michale likes to claim that he owns all of us with his comments, but fails to realize that his numerous comments are the proof that it is actually him that is being owned!

Which has nothing to do with decriminalizing Border crossings..

It wouldn’t mean that we’d allow everyone to enter the country unchecked. Decriminalization would only effect those found in the country without documentation. So, no, it is NOT “de facto” Open Borders!

It is.. Just as decriminalizing marijuana made marijuana de facto legal... Decriminalizing border crimes will be, de facto, open borders..

As for healthcare for ALL including undocumented citizens..

If we can't agree on terminology, this will go nowhere..

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT CRIMINALS..

Your way, it's like they're US Citizens, simply undocumented..

They are illegal immigrants.. Criminals..

As for attracting Trump voters, Democrats should not want to attract white supremacy nuts away from Trump. Don’t need them or want their support!

You will need Trump voters, if you want the Democrat candidate to win..

This is fact..

As for everyone else, why would anyone who wants what is best for this country oppose Healthcare for All?

Who is going to pay for it???

OK, I am out for the night.. Look forward to your responses in the morning..

Thanx for keeping it civil, Russ..

How can that appeal to Independents, NPAs and Trump voters??

Decriminalization isn’t the same as Open Borders as people would still be stopped at the border and checked for contraband and asked for passport and ID. It wouldn’t mean that we’d allow everyone to enter the country unchecked. Decriminalization would only effect those found in the country without documentation. So, no, it is NOT “de facto” Open Borders!

As for healthcare for ALL including undocumented citizens... if it didn’t include them then it wouldn’t really be healthcare for ALL, now would it? I love that you are against it and focus only on the 1% that you think shouldn’t benefit from it while ignoring the benefit to the other 99% of us — including yourself!

As for attracting Trump voters, Democrats should not want to attract white supremacy nuts away from Trump. Don’t need them or want their support!

As for everyone else, why would anyone who wants what is best for this country oppose Healthcare for All?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MbGTQbzou8

Considering that Democrats stand for Infantacide, Open Borders, Free & Full Healthcare for Crimmigrants, Throwing all Americans off their health insurance and ignoring the 2nd Amendment...

ALL GOP could retire and Democrats would STILL lose the House in 2020...

Texans account for almost half of the House Republican "retirements" because that's:

* 9 Republicans retiring altogether from public office
* 2 Republicans seeking election to higher office
* 1 Republican who passed away

I'm at the citation limit for this entry, so doubters can Google it at their leisure.

Translation: I have absolutely NO FACTS to support that agenda driven bullshit...

Suicide watch is labor intensive,expensive and not much fun for those who have to do it.

That's why it's called a JOB and not a HOBBY...

:eyeroll:

Finding where Epstein has hidden his money may challenge, but half a billion is probably worth the effort.

Link to the Bloomberg article-

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-10/epstein-s-victims-will-continue-to-pursue-justice-lawyer-says

Paula-29

There are a lot of potential theories that can explain the death of Epstein, by conspiracy or otherwise. If I had to wager on the most probable theory, it would simply be staff shortages at the lockup. Suicide watch is labor intensive,expensive and not much fun for those who have to do it.

Federal prisons have a reputation for being notoriously lax about suicide prevention.

I'm at the citation limit for this entry, so doubters can Google it at their leisure.

Anti-sex trafficking leader praises ICE, Trump: 'No question' he's done more than previous presidents

"These are incredible men and women that help us ... incredible people who actually go and keep America's children safe. This president has empowered them to do so," he told Levin.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/anti-trafficking-leader-praises-ice-trump

President Trump would get some kudos for this...

It shows everyone how honor can override ideology... :D

And it will take the vote away from a person who is demonstrably BAD for this country..

It's a WIN WIN.. :D

I would add that ANYONE who *claims* to be pro-Law Enforcement, whether they be Democrat or Republican should be offended by Warren's blatant lie..

And out and out blatant lie..

Funny how all the ones who whine and cry about President Trump's alleged lies don't call her out on her lie..

When it comes down to it, we agree a lot more than we disagree..

I would even wager that, on the things we APPEAR to disagree, if we could rationally discuss things without all the noise, we would find agreement on those points too.. :D

similarly, the definition of racism should include the comparison of african-american leaders to the klan, the characterization of women's rights leaders as abusers, and other such extreme and unnecessary appeals to hypocrisy.

I think I know what you are trying to say, but could you give me an example..

p.s. it's still not too late for you to back out, michale. biden winning the dem nomination is about fifty-fifty,

Why should I back out?? I know Biden won't be the nominee... I know it as sure as if I travel'ed to the future and witnessed it..

while donald winning new york... well, if probabilities could be negative, they would.

I realize your one vote won't push President Trump over the top to carry New York..

But it's symbolic.. :D

It shows everyone how honor can override ideology... :D

Obviously, I still have free rent in your head.. :D

This still works.

http://www.neilmcgovern.com/cw/neilonly.php

But only for the most recent day's posting.

i agree, naming the policy of a traditionally oppressed class by comparing them to their worst oppressors is incredibly offensive. similarly, the definition of racism should include the comparison of african-american leaders to the klan, the characterization of women's rights leaders as abusers, and other such extreme and unnecessary appeals to hypocrisy.

JL

p.s. it's still not too late for you to back out, michale. biden winning the dem nomination is about fifty-fifty, while donald winning new york... well, if probabilities could be negative, they would.

The New York Times modifies its motto to fit leftist agenda

In effect, the Times has become a victim of the monster it created. Instead of informing readers and challenging them to question their own views, an approach the paper was proud of under legendary editor Abe Rosenthal, it now provides comfort food for the committed.
https://nypost.com/2019/08/11/the-new-york-times-modifies-its-motto-to-fit-leftist-agenda/

There isn't any more...

:eyeroll:

The previous definition of anti-Semitism, issued in May, listed 10 examples. The revised definition now lists 11 examples, adding that anti-Semitism now includes “Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.”
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/state-dept-updates-definition-of-anti-semitism-following-omars-anti-israel-resolution

Pretty embarrassing for Omar and Democrats..

OK.. Let's try a little experiment..

I'll make a comment and I'll ask you to address it..

Once we hash that out to BOTH of our satisfaction, then you make a comment and ask me to address that..

And we'll trade off, one for one..

Bonus points if we can rise above physical threats, name-calling and personal attacks and keep it, if not friendly, at least not a flame war..

I'll start..

It's undisputed that every Democrat Party candidate has stated for the record that they want decriminalizaiton at the border, which is de facto Open Borders or has stated for the record that they would support full and complete free health care for illegal immigrant criminals or has stated that they support reparations for slavery.

How can that appeal to Independents, NPAs and Trump voters??

Biden says he was VP at time of Parkland shooting in latest campaign gaffe

A campaign official told Bloomberg that Biden was thinking of the December 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. that left 20 young children and six staff members dead.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/joe-biden-vp-parkland-florida-shooting-campaign-gaffe

The hits just keep on coming..

"I refused to leave Gamma Hydra Two!!!!"
-Captain James T Kirk, STAR TREK

So, yer talking about Thought Crime..

Yea, it's not surprising that Democrats want to go there.. :eyeroll:

Remember a while ago, we have a discussion on TRUTH vs FACTS..

I have always maintained that, in the world of politics, Truth and Fact are very different..

You said that truth = fact and fact = truth..

While I understand your reasoning....

"We choose unity over division. We choose science over fiction. We choose truth over facts."

Apparently, Joe Biden agrees with me.. :D

In a perfect world, truth would equal fact.. But we don't live in a perfect world. And, in politics, it's even LESS perfect...

"Their truth is not YOUR truth!!"
-Oracle Of Yonada

"Vulcans never bluff."
-Spock, STAR TREK, The Doomsday Machine

:D

Why would I back out?? Not only will I not have to worry about voting for Biden, I just got an extra President Trump vote..

WIN-WIN :D

Non-sequitur.. If there is bi-partisan support, the pressure will be enormous to dig into it and learn the FACTS...

No, you didn't jump thru any hoops.. You responded to a single comment I made.. You were asked to respond to 10..

Don't blame me because you can't follow instructions..

Under the new legislation, Texas will have fewer gun-free zones.

GOOD... Practically every mass-shooting that has ever occurred, occurred in so-called "gun free zones" AKA Psycho Shooting Galleries.. Fewer shooting galleries = less chance of a mass shooting..

This means that both concealed weapons and OPEN CARRY of firearms is allowed — hint: it isn’t the people with CCW permits that are the biggest concerns!

Facts to support??? No?? Figgers..

Landlords will have no power to prevent tenants or their guests from carrying a firearm. Churches, synagogues and other places of religious worship will be removed from the list of prohibited locations for carrying a firearm. Churches will now have to post that they are gun-free zones if that is their preference. The cap on the number of armed marshals allowed at each public school campus will be removed.

All VERY good things.. This legislation is looking better and better...

And while background checks for CCW permits are thorough, they only look at past offenses.

BBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You want them to look for FUTURE offenses???

You could have a Facebook page filled with posts describing the most horrificly graphic violent scenarios that you dream of committing one day soon and it would not prevent you from receiving your permit!

So, Stephen King would not be allowed a CCW, eh??

But hay.. OK.. Let's apply this totally bullshit action of yours to Free Speech..

If you have any facebook posts that glorify violent protests, you should not be allowed any Free Speech..

If you really feel that way, CH.. Why don't you move to Iran or China??? :eyeroll: moron..

Cowardliness? Probably.

Says the moron who made threats of real life violence then backed off when I took you up on the offer...

:eyeroll: moron..

Dunno why I bother.. All the serious questions and facts are ignored in favor of flame wars.. :^/

Wow! Talk about irony! I jumped through the hoops you required for you to respond to a single post of mine and you chose not to keep your word! Cowardliness? Probably. Dishonesty? Definitely.

And while background checks for CCW permits are thorough, they only look at past offenses. You could have a Facebook page filled with posts describing the most horrificly graphic violent scenarios that you dream of committing one day soon and it would not prevent you from receiving your permit!