IRS scandal.

EPA scandals Solyndra, Lisa Jackson, .

INJustice dept scandal - AP scandal, Rosengate, Holdergate 1 and 2, black panther scandal,

ATF Fast and Furious scandal.

Benghazi scandal

HHS Sebilius scandal

Dept of Agriculture Pigford scandal

GSA scandal

Veterans Admin scandal - 6 million on two conferences at Disney

HHS Sebelious part II scandal

Solyndra scandal

Obama himself scandal over libya, and illegal power grabbing, violating the Constitution, separation of powers

VP intimidation of press scandal

WH chief of staff Sestak scandal, hacking Sharyl Attkisson's computer scandal...

Obamao firing of Inspector General Walpin, who was investigating Obamao's good friend scandal

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services scandal

http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2013/08/01/obama-dozen-scandals-counting/

Now, how the hell do you figure that what you said isn't a stupid retort? Do your own research.

A conversation/debate would be great. Research on the topic would be a good start.

The cdc SHOULD step up and investigate and study the import of diseases from illegals coming here.

but obamao won't, they won't.

but guns? yeah, obamao thinks a few hundred million good, decent Americans defending themselves,

and hunting, etc..... are a disease.

the idiot lieing marxist stupid sumbeitch.

@calfoxwc said:

yeah, what is the reason for the 1st Amendment? The Founders couldn't have

foreseen the internet, and electronic media...

and liberals emotional knee jerkie. Liberals don't need more than two words. "free" and "stuff".

well, maybe "hungry" and "w-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a !", which isn't a word, really.

maybe the liberals should be banned from speaking altogether - they do NOT need to speak, they

can just STFU. A lot of decent Americans have had their characters assassinated - we just have to DO

something.

No more 1st amendment for liberal talkers - it's just too dangerous for our survival.

Ok, then have the conversation.

Just like your boy Ben is saying

@logicisforsquares said:

You and the "Joseph built the pyramids" guy are agreeing with each other.

Fucked up world, huh"

@calfoxwc said:

yeah, what is the reason for the 1st Amendment? The Founders couldn't have

foreseen the internet, and electronic media...

and liberals emotional knee jerkie. Liberals don't need more than two words. "free" and "stuff".

well, maybe "hungry" and "w-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a !", which isn't a word, really.

maybe the liberals should be banned from speaking altogether - they do NOT need to speak, they

can just STFU. A lot of decent Americans have had their characters assassinated - we just have to DO

something.

No more 1st amendment for liberal talkers - it's just too dangerous for our survival.

In a weird way you're right. The internet is where Omar mateen was radicalized. The internet is where adam Lanza became obsessed with school shootings. The Internet is where isis recruits and spreads their message of hatred and death. The internet allows rabble rousers to organize thier baseless blm protests to support criminals. The internet is actually making humanity dumber because dumb people already believe anything they can read in print is gospel. The internet is dangerous. Allowing people unrestricted access to information (or disinformation) is dangerous.

foreseen the internet, and electronic media...

and liberals emotional knee jerkie. Liberals don't need more than two words. "free" and "stuff".

well, maybe "hungry" and "w-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a !", which isn't a word, really.

maybe the liberals should be banned from speaking altogether - they do NOT need to speak, they

can just STFU. A lot of decent Americans have had their characters assassinated - we just have to DO

something.

No more 1st amendment for liberal talkers - it's just too dangerous for our survival.

@mld-woody said:

Look at Ben making sense.

You and the "Joseph built the pyramids" guy are agreeing with each other.

@flyingfooldoug said:

Stuart

That's silly.

The NRA didn't write that amendment, nor are they in the business of overseeing militias...so how do you know they don't acknowledge a well regulated militia?

The lefts argument that the Founders did not envision todays sophisticated weaponry is irrelevant and moot.

Citizens have the right, or option if you will, to die fighting a tyrannical govt. if they do so choose. I don't care how much the odds are stacked against them. Nor do they.

That's the bottom line.

bills they wanted...

they got their votes, and the bills didnt' pass, so now they are stupidassedly protesting

that their bills didn't pass...

dimwitted. How did they get into the senate?

@westside-steve said:

Fair enough. People don't have to agree on everything.

@logicisforsquares said:

It doesn't have to be a rogue prosecutor. They only do their job as they are hired to do. If you are in front of them, there job is to win. So they pick a jury that will better their chances of winning. Their job isn't to determine guilt or innocence but to beat the defense. They only know that you were arrested and charged with a crime.

If his job is to win, meaning convict an innocent man, which also means that the real criminal goes free and further endanger Society then I say it's fucked up. I could give a rat's ass about the law or the gingerbread the legal profession wants to put on it. Pure and simple.

WSS

@westside-steve said:

It doesn't have to be a rogue prosecutor. They only do their job as they are hired to do. If you are in front of them, there job is to win. So they pick a jury that will better their chances of winning. Their job isn't to determine guilt or innocence but to beat the defense. They only know that you were arrested and charged with a crime.

@logicisforsquares said:

Because you are facing a jury of your peers handpicked by someone who is trying their best to put you away. So saying nothing means that there is nothing to be misinterpreted or twisted up by a prosecutor.

But you weren't talking about a fair and impartial trial. You're talking about a rogue prosecutor, basically a criminal who is trying to convicted an innocent man on bullshit evidence.

I'm talking about what a court of law should be, a process designed to find the truth had to take a criminal off the street for the safety of the public.

WSS

@westside-steve said:

Because you are facing a jury of your peers handpicked by someone who is trying their best to put you away. So saying nothing means that there is nothing to be misinterpreted or twisted up by a prosecutor.