She could not have hurt him. It was not self defense.
A female martial artist or boxer and training can take you out or kill you. And some of the pansy effeminate boys of today couldn't even withstand a "normal" rabid feminist-enraged female.
Did the shooters walk up to their victims and say "I'm here to shoot black people" and "you've raped our women, and you are taking over the country"?
What difference does that make in a murder? Is it worse than "I don't like your face" or "I want your money" or "I was just trying to target practice on some of the sea lions over there?" The real difference is that this one could have been easily avoided by political action, in fact you could argue that politicians that support an open border and/or sanctuaries for illegals are partially responsible, the mass-shooting in Charleston was much much harder to prevent.
Which cabinet members will be attending the memorial service for Kathryn Steinle? Anybody, Bueller? Barry?
I'm in favor of a greek default, the banks will take a haircut. Life will go on. German taxpayers should not be on the hook for a corrupt greek government and a corrupt IMF and the involved (national and international) banks. But life won't be easy for the greeks and they will have to hold those accountable who brokered those deals amongst their own and let the debt explode. Reality is that most people will have to work longer, no matter where they live. Can't beat math.
Nooses are evidently also about Southern pride. By the way, what the fuck does the South have to be proud of? Treason? Slavery? Inbreeding?
Great, so you found an example of a blow-hard "I will not bow-down"er. As long as he runs his business and doesn't break the law he can stay amongst his ilk and life simply goes on. Those who break the law and kill others ought and usually will be brought to justice. What I find far more frightening than your redneck hater is that in the same segment they had the police make the clarification that ("sadly") displaying symbols on private property does not constitute a hate crime. Orwell's 1984 is close, and the government, the media and the social justice warriors are pushing it. It's not a long shot from hate crime to thought crime and the very fact that we have the bullshit hate crime category is proof how far this idiocy has come.
This is such BS, to pretend austerity had anything to do with democracy. Germans could do a referendum now about whether to continue sending money over to Greece. When the answer comes back NEIN, then kick Greece out. No need to do it. Kick them out now.
The only question here is whether Germany and others want the euro to be a union of transfer, where they pay for others, or not.
In the absence of any limits on what other spend, the only possible answer is NO, otherwise every country will spend as much as possible, then send the bill to Germany.
Well, it's Paul "turn on the printing presses so I can keep peddling my voodoo-economist bs" Krugman. Nothing else expected here.
PatNet - read the uncensored truth about everything, from A(ssholes) to Z(ionism)!
given its july 4th, ya might find this youtube funny/disturbing
But when you look like the star sprangled babe you simply don't have to know - happy 4th everybody!
Tax Iwog every time he uses the "M-word"!
My point was that there are 8 rapes a day committed by illegals if they commit the same amount as other Americans. So even if fifty of these turn up over the course of a week, it will not vindicate the village idiot Trump.
And you quite didn't get Trump's point. He likely deliberately exaggerated in terms of frequency, but his main point is that these crimes are very easily preventable by promoting legal instead of illegal immigration, securing the border and doing away with sanctuary bs. He will likely get more support as no other politician wants to tackle illegal immigration and border security. He may be a dick, but he certainly is not a village-idiot.
1 (Trump) - 0 (coward progressive left)
This is not the first time: https://www.scribd.com/doc/270155195/06-25-15-Durden-Letter-to-Obama?secret_password=0E9BAEIKphQqHfuJhxPV
If you vote for Democrats or Republicans.
Nice, you're getting the hang of it!
Greed - It all comes back either to Zionists or Austrian-born Republican free-masons.
Goldman Trumps AIG
Insurance goliath AIG stood at the epicenter of an increasingly interconnected financial world deluged with junky subprime assets wrapped up with derivatives. When rating agencies Fitch, S&P, and Moody’s downgraded the company’s credit worthiness on September 15, 2008, they catalyzed $85 billion worth of margin calls. If AIG couldn’t find that money, Paulson warned the president, the firm would not only fail, but “bring down major financial institutions and international investors with it.” According to Bush’s memoir , Paulson convinced him. “There was only one way to keep the firm alive,” he wrote. “The federal government would have to step in.”
The main American recipients of AIG’s bailout would, in fact, be legacy Bush-allied firms: Goldman Sachs ($12.9 billion), Merrill Lynch ($6.8 billion), Bank of America ($5.2 billion), and Citigroup ($2.3 billion). Lehman crashed, but Merrill Lynch and AIG were saved. The bankers with the strongest alliances to the Bush family (and the White House in general) needed AIG to survive. And it did. But the bloodletting wasn’t over.
On September 18, 2008, George W. would tell Paulson, “Let’s figure out the right thing to do and do it.” He would later write, “I had made up my mind: the U.S. government was going all in.” And he meant it. During his last months in office, the Big Six banks (and marginally other institutions) would thus be subsidized by an “all-in” program designed by Bernanke, Paulson, and Geithner -- and later endorsed by President Barack Obama.
The bankers’ unruliness had, however, already crippled the real economy. Over the next few months, Bank of America, Citigroup, and AIG all needed more assistance. And in that year, the Dow Jones Industrial Average would lose nearly half its value. At the height of the bailout period, $19.3 trillion in subsidies were made available to keep (mostly) American bankers going, as well as government-sponsored enterprises like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
As George W. headed back to Texas, the economy and markets went into free fall.
The Money Behind Jeb
Jump seven years ahead and, with the next Bush on the rise and the money once again flowing in, it’s still the age of bankers. Jeb already has three mega super PACs -- Millennials for Jeb, Right to Rise, and Vamos for Jeb 2016 -- under his belt. His Right to Rise Policy Solutions group, which, as a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, is not even required to disclose the names of its donors, no less the size of their contributions, is lifting his contribution tally even higher. None of these groups have to adhere to contribution limits and the elite donors who contribute to them often prove highly influential. After all, that’s where the money really is. In the 2012 presidential election, the top 100 individual contributors to super PACs and their spouses represented just 1% of all donors, but gave a staggering 67% of the money.
Of those, Republican billionaire Sheldon Adelson and his wife, Miriam, donated $92.8 million to conservative groups, largely through “outside donor groups” like super PACs that have no contribution limits. Texas billionaire banker mogul Harold Simmons and his wife, Annette, gave $26.9 million, and Texas billionaire homebuilder Robert Perry coughed up $23.95 million. Nebraska billionaire (and founder of the global discount brokerage TD Ameritrade) John Joe Ricketts dished out $13.05 million. Despite some early posturing around other candidates with fewer legacy ties, these heavy hitters could all end up behind Bush 45. Dynasties, after all, establish the sort of connections that lie in wait for the next moment of opportune mobilization.
“All in for Jeb” is the mantra on Jeb’s official website and in a sense “all in,” especially when it comes to national bankers, has been something of a mantra for the Bush family for decades. With a nod to his two-term record as Florida governor, Jeb put it this way: “We will take command of our future once again in this country. I know we can fix this. Because I've done it.”
Based on Bush family history, by “we” he effectively meant the family’s billionaire and millionaire donors and its cavalcade of friendly bankers. Topping that list, though as yet undeclared -- give him a minute -- sits Adelson, who is personally and ideologically close to George W. In April, the former president was paid a Clintonian speaking fee of $250,00 for a keynote talk before the Republican Jewish Coalition meeting at Adelson’s Las Vegas resort. While Adelson has expressed concerns about Jeb’s lack of hawkishness on Israel when compared to his brother, that in the end is unlikely to prove an impediment. Jeb is making sure of that. He recently told a gathering of wealthy New York donors that, when it came to Israel, his top adviser is his brother. (“If you want to know who I listen to for advice, it’s him.”)
Let’s be clear. The Bush family is all in on Jeb and its traditional banking allies are not likely to be far behind. There is tradition, there are ties, there is a dynasty to protect. They are not planning to lose this election or leave the family with a mere two presidents to its name.
The Wall Street crowd began rallying behind Jeb well before his candidacy was official. Private equity titan Henry Kravis hosted a 25-guest $100,000-per-head gathering at his Park Avenue abode in February, one of six events with the same entry fee. In March, Jeb had his first Goldman Sachs $5,000-per-person event at the Ritz Carlton in New York City, organized by Dina Powell, Goldman Sachs Foundation head and George W. Bush appointee for assistant secretary of state. A more exclusive $50,000 per head event was organized by Goldman Sachs exec, Jim Donovan, a key fundraiser and adviser for Mitt Romney who is now doing the same for Jeb.
And then there’s the list of moneyed financiers with fat wallets still to get behind Jeb. New York hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer, who donated more than any other conservative in the 2014 election, has yet to swoop in. Given the alignment of his foreign financial policy views and the Bush family’s, however, it’s just a matter of time.
With the latest total super PAC figures still to be disclosed, we do know that Jeb’s Right to Rise super PAC claims to have raised $17 million from the tri-state (New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut) area alone so far. Its head, Mike Murphy, referred to its donors in a call last week as “killers” he was about to “set loose.” He intimated that the July disclosures would give opponents “heart attacks.” Those are fighting words.
Sure, all dynasties end, but don’t count on the Bush-Banker alliance going belly up any time soon. Things happen in this country when mountains of money begin to pile up. This time around, the Bush patriarchy will call in every chip. And know this: Wall Street will be going “all in” for this election, too. Jeb(!) and Hillary(!) will likely split that difference in the primaries, then duke it out in 2016. Along the way, every pretense of mixing it up with the little people will be matched by a million-dollar check to a super PAC. The cash thrown about in this election will be epic. It’s not the fate of two parties but of two dynasties that’s at stake.
Ugh. They didn't redefine anything. Same-sex couples have been getting married for millenia, although the so-called "traditional" definition reflects the most common experience. Most people are right-handed and a "traditional" handshake connects the right hands of two people; some people are left-handed and there is no law precluding them from shaking hands with their left. Senator Bob Dole (R-KS) used his left hand, having injured his right arm during WWII. Two people shaking hands would still constitute a handshake, regardless of whether it involves two right hands or two left.
Ok so you call it clarified or rectified then, and it case of the supreme court you are right since they mostly had and kept this position from the beginning, though other courts ruled differently.
You seem to misunderstand the consequences of the decision. Marriage was already a fundamental right. SCOTUS invalidated anti-miscegenation laws in 1967 (Clarence Thomas wouldn't be married to his Heritage Foundation consultant bride without that right), and subsequent decisions spanning decades recognized marriage as a fundamental right. A marriage license is not like a driver's license, which SCOTUS has called a privilege.
That was what I was referring to, it was called a fundamental right back in that decision and that should have led to demand the government get out of the marriage license business, as well as any tax breaks and special rights or duties for couples. It doesn't matter much if a marriage license is easier to obtain than a driver's license, it still is granted by the government which could change the rules or qualifications any time. Of course such action could be appealed again before a court, but it may take time to undo damage and it could even be that the SCOTUS approves the changes. Voting is considered a right as well but it really currently isn't (though no license is necessary) since felons cannot vote. All I am saying is that (in my view) if you call something a right, one should be able to exercise it without government blessing and the government should not tack on special rights or duties to their blessing/license.
The Court said two people, who want to get married to each other, and who are otherwise qualified to get married (age 18+, etc.) have the same right to get married whether they are a same-sex couple or an opposite-sex couple. The Court said 2=2, whether it's 2 men or 2 women or 1 of each.
The Court did not say that 100=2, or 5=2, or 3=2, or any other mathematical impossibility. Repeating this really obvious fact becomes a bit annoying. Each person can have one vote and one spouse. In America, nobody gets 100 votes or 100 spouses. If you would like to see the law changed so that some people get 100 spouses, and others get 100 votes, then you may of course propose that, but don't accuse the Court of being unable to count higher than 2. EVEN DOGS CAN COUNT HIGHER THAN TWO, I don't understand why some PatNetters fail in that regard.
True but since they redefined marriage they could have included polygamy or other forms of contracts. Btw it was never a right since you need a government license (and pay for it), similar to bearing arms. A right would be god/nature/a priori given such as free speech. Hence while I am happy for those having been suffering from the government's positive discrimination, I don't like the consequences of this decision, further cementing marriage as a government-sponsored privilege. Also, I don't think the analogy to votes is quite correct, since one man plus 4 wives or vice versa is still 5 votes of consent and nobody gets multiple votes as in your voting example. Maybe it's time for the government to get out of the marriage business once and for all - this would save more trips to the SCOTUS.
Reality is hilarious. Is he really saying that his anecdote about visiting China is more persuasive than hard data?
Wait, are you and iwog saying India and China are worse off than before ???
Yeah, interesting twist - makes you wonder who is wearing the tinfoil hats here ;)
1. Chinese and Indian living standards have been improving dramatically in the past 2-3 decades: by orders of magnitude in dollar terms, 10x to 100x income increase in many cases. In some parts, they have a bubble.
Absolutely. While population growth is certainly a concern and could change things at some point, insinuating the opposite is simply foolish.
It's sad so few people see what is reall happening here. Rand Paul is the economic demon from hell. He will simply tied up all remaining assets and give it to the plutocracy.
Sure thing, that must be why the plutocracy is donating most of their money to Hillary and the mainstream Republican contenders instead. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Bellingham Bill says
eliminating social security
Just go with Rand.
Any chance? Big money and all?
I don't think he has much of a chance but at least there is one. No other Republican can defeat Hillary with the current mindset in their party. Then again, the flight-plan wrt important matters really doesn't change, but the masses get to cheer once in a while for a win for their team and now it is the Democrats turn. A 2nd party disrupting and dismantling the washington juggernaut would really be a welcome novelty.
Just go with Rand.
It's a step in the right direction though it will not end alimony or child support, but it will end taking 50% of a fortune and make personal contracts easier.
If it happens it will be a pre-emptive effort to evade being forced to grant marriage licenses to gay couples. It's a conservative knee-jerk "I'm gonna take my little red wagon and go home" maneuver. "You can't make me" is another one. Yawn. The wingnuts are stinkin' like a hot clutch. They're gonna do SOMETHING even if it's wrong.
Maybe that's their motivation, but they won't be able to do anything to civil unions, neither to churches willing to marry gay couples - which will turn out to be a lucrative business for those that do and all the businesses that come with it - so everyone would be treated equally under the law. I also noticed the deep hatred divide on both sides in this topic coming along with massive de-friending, so what's wrong with dividing the country into states/communities where positive government discrimination is interpreted differently than in other areas? The Amish have been doing that for a while now. It doesn't seem that people with opposing views are willing to live next to each other peacefully or without calling for government intervention anyways, so why not have both? According to the polls the anti-gay-marriage states would be clearly in the minority these days.
I hear some states like Mississippi are looking to ban marriage all together-as in get the state out of the marriage business. Could this be the end of the feminazi marriage slavery? Could men be free to marry and move on and the whore who slept with 100 men and had 5 babies with 5 different men cannot claim half of her husband's income and property for evah???
It's a step in the right direction though it will not end alimony or child support, but it will end taking 50% of a fortune and make personal contracts easier.
bwahahahaha. Well that explains a lot of your naïve visions of fairness then.
Only hubristic minds would dare to imply having a greater intellect than deep thinkers such as Locke and de Tocqueville and swiftly brush them away with an arrogant mindset.
Are you implying there is a positive correlation between income and how "hard" one works?