Koko78

The bridge thing isn't distracting people from Obama's failures and blaming Congress stopped working, so now they need to find something attached to the hurricane disaster to get voters riled up (at someone other than Obama).

My guess would be Target's servers.

High end pot in Colorado?

I think you'd find that most (if not all) law enforcement agencies not called are not even charging SAFE Act violations when they charge violations of other laws. Nor will you find many (if any) district attorneys who would seriously consider prosecuting a SAFE Act charge when they had other pending charges to prosecute.

Bullpoop! The NY Times has thoroughly investigated the matter. Now do your mandatory civic duty and vote Hillary 2016!

Going to die in the Senate though. Uncle Harry won't let anything happen to Obama.

http://news.yahoo.com/hollywood-obama-donor-says-new-movie-will-make-nra--wish-they-weren-t-alive-213902316.html Yeah, someone's a bit full of himself.

Single party dictatorships are the wave of the future!

Never underestimate the power of voting "present" on major bills.

To be fair, he is taking a reduction from his salary of $79,500/year + per diem as a member of the Assembly (as a part-time job), to take his pension of $51,000 or so. The poor man can only suffer so much before it becomes cruel.

http://news.yahoo.com/slowdown-global-warming-apparently-mirage-op-ed-224132740.html So their answer as to when the data doesn't show what they want it to show is to simply change the data. Brilliant! I'll bet these idiots still wonder why no one takes their word as gospel.

So long as the crisis occurs after the mid-term elections, the Democrats could not care less.

So if I go get that filmmaker who is responsible (according to the regime) for the spontaneously coordinated and planned Benghazi attack, do I get the "up to" $10,000,0000?

1.) That is not a sentence. 2.) You are the one who wanted to know where the terrorism was in Saudi Arabia. There it is. Should I drop the mic now?

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140108/DEFREG04/301080023/15-Convicted-Terrorism-Saudi-Arabia You want to try again?

So despite your boasting of being able to provide "statistical facts" to back up your bullcrap, you're refusing to? Interesting you've yet to refute anything I posted from that Amnesty International report relating to violence and suppression of women. In the middle east. Which you denied happens.

Well that's an interesting thing to say considering that you've shown nothing to prove your "statistical fact" claims. You haven't even proven your 2% divorce rate claim.

I rather liked the "up to" part of the reward.

Yeah, ok. It's not so much an attitude as being full of crap.

Oh I thought you were talking about the Greeks. Carry on, then.

So, other than going off on an irrelevant tangent, you got nothing? So making it nigh impossible to prove the act somehow dissuades people from committing it? Yeah... Let's talk about your divorce rate comparison as a mark for how well women are treated for a second. You never addressed that women are deprived of their children and given virtually no maintenance to go along with the "scandal", assuming they can even prove the limited grounds for divorce in court. Don't you think that may have something to do with dissuading women from reporting spousal abuse or leaving their husband?

Like Iraqi "honor" killings, Iran being just as bad (if not worse) than Saudi Arabia in strictly enforcing religious rules by physical force, gang rapes in Afghanistan, Malala Yousafzai?

Really, let's just examine this idiotic premise: Yeah, seems to me to be a great way to treat women. That's funny, when I see your posts I see an angry little idiot flailing about. Yeah, I must agree that what I said was stupid. I'm sure the whole being beaten for not wearing it thing makes that an easy fashion choice for Muslim women. You know, cause that's how they roll in a society where women are treated as property. Which apparently doesn't happen by the religious police because it's against the Quran. Oh wait, yes it does: http://www.amnesty.o...230572000en.pdf

Yeah, because low divorce rates clearly mean that women aren't gang raped as punishment for the misdeeds of their male relatives, stoned, beaten, treated like second-class citizens, denied the ability to drive or even be out in public without an escort and ridiculous outfits to cover every inch of their bodies...