westend1

Honestly, i didn't see anybody run "to the cops". Looked like the crowd ran out and the cops ran in.

So speculate for me. Why would a cop feel the need to shoot the guy three or four times? If the guy was a bad guy, would he announce that he had a gun? I can't even come up with a logical scenario for this one.

Ha hahhahahhaha. Like building a wall? What an idiot.

lol

The whole world views Trump as a joke. Go for it.

Ha ha you brilliant guy. You are voting for Trump. He sounds like an 8 year old.

Seems like none of it was marked "top secret" That is the whole issue.

Same thing as reading Dr Seuss.

Interesting discussion.

Seems to me that now would be a good time for the Republicans to accept Obama's moderate Supreme court nominee. Are they guaranteed anything better if Trump somehow wins? What happens if it's Hillary? i think we all know what she will put up there.

Obviously. So are a lot of voters, it seems.

Can't speak for all democrats.

Yeah. I am sure you have more morals than the other 75% of the country.

I ask this because I am pretty familiar with federal agencies and they normally bend over backward to protect due process. I have never seen anything like you are describing.

Tell me about it. Why was your money seized?

How about the couple in California that was bottling their own milk. Their neighbors thought that the milk was better than store-bought milk because it was straight from the cow, and persuaded the couple to sell the milk to them. The FDA then came in and confiscated every thing the couple owned, including the cows. No due process, no warning, no nothing. Left the couple homeless. How about the couple that built their dream home. Had been saving their money all of their life. Bought a nice wooded lot. Got all of the permits and had their dream house built. The EPA later decided that the property was federally protected wetlands, and ordered the couple to tear down the house and restore the land to it's natural state...all at the expense of the homeowners. This was after the couple had paid for and received all of the necessary permits. The EPA started fining the couple $75,000 per day until the land was restored. How about the couple that built their dream home in Colorado. Again, they paid for and received all necessary permits. The EPA decided two years after the house was built that the house was on land now deemed to be federally protected, and ordered the couple to tear down the $800,000 home at the owner's expense. But since the house was now on federally protected land, the EPA decided that the only access road to the house could not be used and must also be restored to it's natural state. So the homeowners were ordered to tear down their house and remove all the debris with no way of getting any equipment to the site, not even their own 4-wheelers. They were given one week to restore the land. Cool, except, best I can tell, none of it is true. Where did you get this info? I am willing to learn. Do you have a link? From what I can find, every one of these is exxagerated or outright false.

Read "the Jungle",then decide what you think about government involvement.

Guess what? A lot of current Democratic voters would vote for measures like these, if only the Republicans were smart enough to get out of the social issue business.

Forget it. idiots on here will never understand the difference.

Some don't think it is gross, apparently. Why can't conservatives just stay out of it? Do they like to lose elections? Suicide? Are you charging for tickets?

Don't understand your question. Why would my whole family have to go? If it turned into a love fest? What is that? Your imagination is running away with you. Too much free porn.

What are you talking about? I have seen plenty of women use the mens room when the line was too long. It's really not a big deal. You need to be insulted because puritans like you(as opposed to bleeding hearts, since name calling is allowed), are freakin, idiots, to language which you apparently understand .

Yeah, unless I live in a small town and my sole internet provider doesn't like gays, or blacks, or Muslims. I f the group you choose to discriminate against is small enough, then you can discriminate without the economic consequences. Did the southerners who refused to serve blacks fix that problem, or was it the feds?

Likewise, you have no clue about my "liberal agenda". You listen to too much Rush and Hannity. So, you wouldn't condone discrimination in "any other situation", but you condone it here. Why? While were are at it, some of your buddies on here think you{ a private individual or non governmental corporation}should be able to deny services for any reason. Race, sexual orientation, religion, etc. Do you agree with that? And by the way, I don't gives a rodents a$$ what lifestyle you believe in.