Turkey fans BOO during pre-match minute's silence for the victims of Paris attacks an

[Unregistered]

You got one right, which is about consistent with your IQ. Kick your arse anytime, boy. And could buy you and your worthless family 10 times and still be loaded. Guess which one you got right?

When and where? Every time I offer you back down. Calling your bluff. What's your excuse going to be this time?

Sorry but my spine stiffens when the bully shows himself.

Where? When?

And whether or not you could BUY me ten times over or not (which remains to be determined) I am rich in things you will never know.

Where and when? What will your excuse be now?

[Unregistered]

Laughable that you would cite vacations being paid for by the taxpayers. Talk about hypocrisy. Don't even start on corruption. The most corrupt White House since Clinton.

I'm not talking about vacations paid for by taxpayers dumb a s s. Taxpayers (employer) pay for employee (president) vacation. Leader of free world so they cost a lot with all the bells and whistles. So does White House.

Scalia at a resort. Private. Paid for by private citizens who have upcoming business in fron of Supreme Court. Doesn't pass sniff test. Sorry. Letting Obama hatred syndrome cloud your judgment

[Unregistered]

You got one right, which is about consistent with your IQ. Kick your arse anytime, boy. And could buy you and your worthless family 10 times and still be loaded. Guess which one you got right?

Testifying or testifying? We will never know. But your stated beliefs make it likely you are in this group.

[Unregistered]

That was testilying autocorrect is a b itch too

[Unregistered]

When and where? Every time I offer you back down. Calling your bluff. What's your excuse going to be this time?

Sorry but my spine stiffens when the bully shows himself.

Where? When?

And whether or not you could BUY me ten times over or not (which remains to be determined) I am rich in things you will never know.

Where and when? What will your excuse be now?

LOVE TS tough guys. ***** clown.

[Unregistered]

When and where? Every time I offer you back down. Calling your bluff. What's your excuse going to be this time?

Sorry but my spine stiffens when the bully shows himself.

Where? When?

And whether or not you could BUY me ten times over or not (which remains to be determined) I am rich in things you will never know.

Where and when? What will your excuse be now?

Outside your favorite gay bar. Name it and the time.

[Unregistered]

Outside your favorite gay bar. Name it and the time.

I seriously asked you to name the place and time. Don't know any gay bars off hand but PLEASE if you do say where. It would be even better to kick your behind in front of as many classes of people as you have expressed loathing for. Make sure there's an African-American bar next door so they can enjoy seeing you put in your place as well.

Remember, anytime, anyplace. Just say the word coward.time to show the world, one person at a time, what a bunch of pansies you so called conservatives are. Take you out of a crowd with a couple of thousand others and you are chicken p o o p.

Worm has turned when the conservatives run like yellow bellied cowards.

[Unregistered]

Let me guess Tampax you happen to be in the Westboro area today. LOL

[Unregistered]

The country lost a great man who was on par with the founding fathers. I knew it would be only a matter if time before tampax was saying he was in hell. You know who is in hell Ted Kennedy, Howard Zinn and pretty much all the folks tampax admires. Don't worry you will get to meet them at some point.

God blessed Dad, as is well known, with a love for his country. He knew well what a close-run thing the founding of our nation was. And he saw in that founding, as did the founders themselves, a blessing, a blessing quickly lost when faith is banned from the public square, or when we refuse to bring it there. So he understood that there is no conflict between loving God and loving one’s country, between one’s faith and one’s public service.

Those who wrote the Constitution believed that morality was essential to the well-being of society and that encouragement of religion was the best way to foster morality. The fact that the Founding Fathers believed devotedly that there was a God and that the unalienable rights of man were rooted in Him is clearly evidenced in their writings, from the Mayflower Compact to the Constitution itself…

President Washington opened his Presidency with a prayer, and reminded his fellow citizens at the conclusion of it that “reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” President John Adams wrote to the Massachusetts Militia, “we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion… Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
Nor have the views of our people on this matter significantly changed. Presidents continue to conclude the Presidential oath with the words “so help me God.” Our legislatures, state and national, continue to open their sessions with prayer led by official chaplains. The sessions of this Court continue to open with the prayer “God save the United States and this Honorable Court.” Invocation of the Almighty by our public figures, at all levels of government, remains commonplace. Our coinage bears the motto, “In God We Trust.” And our Pledge of Allegiance contains the acknowledgment that we are a Nation “under God.” As one of our Supreme Court opinions rightly observed, “We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.”

With all of this reality (and much more) staring it in the face, how can the Court possibly assert that “the First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between… religion and nonreligion,” and that “[m]anifesting a purpose to favor… adherence to religion generally,” is unconstitutional? Who says so? Surely not the words of the Constitution. Surely not the history and traditions that reflect our society’s constant understanding of those words

[Unregistered]

Ok here is how. I'll list it to make it more obvious to everyone how much you lack the k owl edge and depth to discuss this.

1) procedures for getting either major party nominations is baroque and Undemocratic.

2) democrats win Undemocraticness via super delegates

3) many republican states use a higher threshold for awarding "proportional" delegates. 20%. Not only are people below that Not democratically represented but it sets up,situations where if one candidate gets 30% and others less than 20 the former gets an Undemocratic share.

4) republicans historically used winner take all primaries. Not democratic especially when sister states proportional. Though rules have changed somewhat some states still have "back door" winner take all primaries......republican. Ones.

5) republicans award 3 delegates per congressional district despite fact that district in Washington, D.C. Has orders more people than I-am-my-own-uncle, SD. Not democratic. Democrats award delegates more proportionally based on population.

I know these things and went looking for a few updates because as a HS student in mid 70s I went to national debate finals on such a topic....resolved: the USA should change the way presidential and vice presidential candidates are selected or something such. So once again operating from a perspective of superior information and k owl edge before opining.....the superior progressive way I might add....as far as being a good citizen etc....

In any case you acted like a mongrel on a bone. The nutter sites are on super delegates as part of their 24/7 anti-Hillary screed and you dutifully repeat. Yet the whole system, for both parties, is Undemocratic to varying degrees, often varying state to state. It's a sign of our times that nutters like you merely pluck what you want and are incapable of seeing the Forrest.

Moron.

But please.....tell us how awarding delegates 3 to a congressional district regardless of population like republicans do is democratic. Failure to address will just go down as one of many victories I've enjoyed here. The loser doesn't have to congratulate me on his way off field for me to k ow when I've won....

Sorry Gighles, but your argument doesn't play and that's supported by the CNN report that shows the difference between how both parties apply their delegates. But alas for you, there is more.

"*A week before the Nevada caucuses, as new polls showed Sen. Bernie Sanders’ support in the state surging, Mr.*Reid (Senator Harry Reid, the dirtiest man in politics) made a*call*to the head of Nevada’s most powerful union—the Culinary Workers Union in Las Vegas, which did not plan on engaging in the caucuses—and influenced the union’s decision. Mr.*Reid also made calls to casino executives along the Las Vegas strip to ensure casino workers were given time off to join the caucuses on the strip, which was predicted to be Ms. Clinton’s stronghold in the state. Mr. Reid’s gamble paid off, with all six casino caucuses*favoring Ms. Clinton over Mr. Sanders by 109 to 52.

Mr.*Reid’s influence wasn’t the only disconcerting and undemocratic aspect of the Nevada caucuses this year. Supporters from Ms.*Clinton’s campaign were*caught*by the union’s executive director, RoseAnn DeMoro, impersonating members of the National Nurses United Union, which has endorsed Mr.*Sanders. Ms. DeMoro took photos of Ms. Clinton’s supporters changing into red shirts identical to the ones worn by members of the union while campaigning for Mr. Sanders. ABC News also*reported*Clinton supporters were conducting push polls ahead of the caucuses testing attack lines on potential voters.

One of the biggest controversies of the caucuses was a claim made by actress Americana Ferrera and activist Dolores Huerta, both*Clinton supporters, of Sanders supporters chanting “English Only” at Ms. Huerta while she attempted to translate during a caucus held at Harrah’s Casino on the Las Vegas strip. Actresses*Susan Sarandon*and Gaby Hoffman, Sanders supporters who were also present, provided video evidence debunking Ms. Ferrera and Ms. Huerta’s claims."

http://observer.com/2016/02/harry-re...s-for-clinton/

Let's face it Giggles. You may try to sell the case that Democrats are the party of virtue, but this stuff is all over the internet. I can guarantee the Millenials ain't buying. Does that mean they'll vote Republican? Unlikely, but it is more likely they won't be showing up at the polls in November and I'm pretty sure you know what that means.

[Unregistered]

The country lost a great man who was on par with the founding fathers. I knew it would be only a matter if time before tampax was saying he was in hell. You know who is in hell Ted Kennedy, Howard Zinn and pretty much all the folks tampax admires. Don't worry you will get to meet them at some point.

God blessed Dad, as is well known, with a love for his country. He knew well what a close-run thing the founding of our nation was. And he saw in that founding, as did the founders themselves, a blessing, a blessing quickly lost when faith is banned from the public square, or when we refuse to bring it there. So he understood that there is no conflict between loving God and loving one’s country, between one’s faith and one’s public service.

Those who wrote the Constitution believed that morality was essential to the well-being of society and that encouragement of religion was the best way to foster morality. The fact that the Founding Fathers believed devotedly that there was a God and that the unalienable rights of man were rooted in Him is clearly evidenced in their writings, from the Mayflower Compact to the Constitution itself…

President Washington opened his Presidency with a prayer, and reminded his fellow citizens at the conclusion of it that “reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” President John Adams wrote to the Massachusetts Militia, “we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion… Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
Nor have the views of our people on this matter significantly changed. Presidents continue to conclude the Presidential oath with the words “so help me God.” Our legislatures, state and national, continue to open their sessions with prayer led by official chaplains. The sessions of this Court continue to open with the prayer “God save the United States and this Honorable Court.” Invocation of the Almighty by our public figures, at all levels of government, remains commonplace. Our coinage bears the motto, “In God We Trust.” And our Pledge of Allegiance contains the acknowledgment that we are a Nation “under God.” As one of our Supreme Court opinions rightly observed, “We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.”

With all of this reality (and much more) staring it in the face, how can the Court possibly assert that “the First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between… religion and nonreligion,” and that “[m]anifesting a purpose to favor… adherence to religion generally,” is unconstitutional? Who says so? Surely not the words of the Constitution. Surely not the history and traditions that reflect our society’s constant understanding of those words

Publicly the founding fathers appeared religious. Privately? At best they were agnostics but understood that the majority of US citizens were religious and they maintained a faux front.

But your distorted view of the Constitution as a religious document is quite hysterical because any educated person understands that it is a secular document. Period. Not even open for a debate. We are not a Christian nation but have been dominated politically by White Christians Protestants because that is where power was held for the first 190 years of governance.

You speak of tradition for this issue but ignore tradition when it comes to the 2nd amendment. The "tradition" for the right to bear arms was to have a competent militia because we had only a small standing army for the first 40 years of the Republic and several rebellions came close to getting out of control because nobody was performing their militia duties. You either are a Constitutional traditionalist or you are not. You can pick and choose which parts of the Constitution you like. Because the Constitution can be amended I view it as a living document that should be interpreted based upon what has changed since it was written.

[Unregistered]

The country lost a great man who was on par with the founding fathers. I knew it would be only a matter if time before tampax was saying he was in hell. You know who is in hell Ted Kennedy, Howard Zinn and pretty much all the folks tampax admires. Don't worry you will get to meet them at some point.

God blessed Dad, as is well known, with a love for his country. He knew well what a close-run thing the founding of our nation was. And he saw in that founding, as did the founders themselves, a blessing, a blessing quickly lost when faith is banned from the public square, or when we refuse to bring it there. So he understood that there is no conflict between loving God and loving one’s country, between one’s faith and one’s public service.

Those who wrote the Constitution believed that morality was essential to the well-being of society and that encouragement of religion was the best way to foster morality. The fact that the Founding Fathers believed devotedly that there was a God and that the unalienable rights of man were rooted in Him is clearly evidenced in their writings, from the Mayflower Compact to the Constitution itself…

President Washington opened his Presidency with a prayer, and reminded his fellow citizens at the conclusion of it that “reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” President John Adams wrote to the Massachusetts Militia, “we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion… Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
Nor have the views of our people on this matter significantly changed. Presidents continue to conclude the Presidential oath with the words “so help me God.” Our legislatures, state and national, continue to open their sessions with prayer led by official chaplains. The sessions of this Court continue to open with the prayer “God save the United States and this Honorable Court.” Invocation of the Almighty by our public figures, at all levels of government, remains commonplace. Our coinage bears the motto, “In God We Trust.” And our Pledge of Allegiance contains the acknowledgment that we are a Nation “under God.” As one of our Supreme Court opinions rightly observed, “We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.”

With all of this reality (and much more) staring it in the face, how can the Court possibly assert that “the First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between… religion and nonreligion,” and that “[m]anifesting a purpose to favor… adherence to religion generally,” is unconstitutional? Who says so? Surely not the words of the Constitution. Surely not the history and traditions that reflect our society’s constant understanding of those words

God blessed Dad. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot is dad?

[Unregistered]

Let me guess Tampax you happen to be in the Westboro area today. LOL

Laugh all you want. Anytime. Anyplace. That's all I need to keep saying. No bluster but happy to do the experiment. You are unlikely to actually grow a pair at your advanced age but if you do, anytime and anyplace so if you have any more on that talk to the hand that just b I t c. h slapped you back into your cowardly little place where you sit behind you keyboard and hurl spitballs and insults.

I'm laughing at you. If you aren't anonymous or part of a thug crowd you act like just another coward.

[Unregistered]

Laugh all you want. Anytime. Anyplace. That's all I need to keep saying. No bluster but happy to do the experiment. You are unlikely to actually grow a pair at your advanced age but if you do, anytime and anyplace so if you have any more on that talk to the hand that just b I t c. h slapped you back into your cowardly little place where you sit behind you keyboard and hurl spitballs and insults.

I'm laughing at you. If you aren't anonymous or part of a thug crowd you act like just another coward.

Look, I am not the guy you are challenging, but are you serious ?

Are you saying that if this person showed up to meet you, that you would physically assault him ? Commit a crime ? Would his more words be enough to provoke you to possibly be responsible for criminal and /or civil penalties ?

I have better idea. Set something up a boxing club or MMA training place. Sign some waivers, put on some safety equipment, and go at it. Charge admission or use Social Media to get donations so you can donate them to a Charity. At least there would be beneficiaries for your foolishness.

[Unregistered]

Here's more to be concerned, Giggles.

Note the total number of votes.

Democrats - 12,000
Republicans - 76,000

You'd better hope Trump isn't the Republican nominee because you know all those culinary workers that had their arms twisted to show up for Hillary? They'll be voting for Trump in the general election.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/2016-...esults/nevada/