tvc184

  Bullets is exactly right. I guess you missed this so I will post it again. This civil rights activist had your opinion until a couple of weeks ago.    [Hidden Content]

If you fit a description then you fit a description. I can't tell you how many people that I have stopped that fit the description of a crime that just occurred and some of them at gunpoint.

1. Zimmerman has nothing to do with a police who has a lawful duty and authority to detain with force if necessary. 2. Martin was killed when he attacked Zimmerman, negating any need for assumtions being an issue. 3. Officer Wison was attacked by a person bigger than him who had already tried to take the officer's gun away.

It is complete nonsense. I spent 10 years on SWAT and have train with Army Rangers, Navy SEALS and Coast Guard law enforcement and have never heard disabling shots as a firearms use of force option. There are times when you do not shoot center mass or head shots and that is only when you cannot see the more vital targets. In other words if s guy is behind a brick wall and only exposes his leg, then you try to take that out and make him fall. Watch the North Hollywood shootout with LAPD SWAT at the end. The suspect was behind a vehicle so the officers bounced rounds off of the ground under the vehicle and took out his feet because that was the only target. Well he fell they then killed him. Disabling is possible with a sniper rifle under very limited circumstances but not for handgun ranges such as patrolmen face.

  Yes, they are obviously two different things and they involve two different branches of government.    That does not however take into account that his coattails brought in a Democratic super majority into power in 2008 or in other words a majority in both houses that the Republicans could not stop. The response of Obama and the Dems was to blow two years on a very unpopular health car program and leave all other promises aside. The backlash in two subsequent elections led that super majority to be turned into an all time Republican lead in the House.    Obama lost 4 million votes in 2012 from his 2008 win. He is the first president to win reelection by losing votes since the fourth term of FDR in 1944.    If Obama's claim to fame is "I won" and his legacy is taking complete control over Congress and losing both houses, so be it.    As far as Hillary, the Dems better hope that she runs because their only chance of winning is her and that is just a chance at best.    If you want to look back at history, in late December 2007 Hillary was ahead in the national polls with 42%, Obama with little more than half at 23% and John Edwards with 16%. It is easy to be ahead in the poll right now when you have no opponent. 

..... as the claimed dead party sinks the Dems hopes and effectively puts a halt to any legal Obama agenda.

Your question has a false assumption and/or a straw man argument. The rich have always gotten richer and it is because of the free market, not Obama. The flaw/straw man argument is too easy to dispell. You say that we claim Obama is a socialist that wants to take from the rich and give to the poor. Well that is exactly what has and wants to do. The Republicans compromised with the Dems in 2013 and raised the top rate by almost 5%. Now he has come back and asked for yet another tax increase on the rich. They is no claim or accusation that Obama is taking from the rich and giving to the poor, it is a fact.

..... and in doing so led the Democrats from a super manority lead to an all time historical Republican majority in the House and close to that in the Senate. BOOM!!

No, you use self defense based on actions and reasonable beliefs.

What happened to shooting in the leg or arm is that it never existed except in movies.

From the article..... "I think they don't care about human life. I think they are a curse upon the American landscape".      I wonder how many of the thousands of people convicted every year for murder are members of the NRA. 

Hmmm....... I was just paying on my lifetime membership today.

How many months did it take the premier law enforcement agency in our country (FBI) to determine that there were no criminal charges to be brought when it took the local police about one week? I know, the same reason the DA had to wait a few months to announce the verdict. Politics.

Most people every so often have to pull their heads out of the sand to breath and on occasion they get to look around and see what is happening around them.   Of course there are those that will continue to hold their breath and keep their heads buried...............

Looking at other political assassinations of that time period, I think that he was aware of his own fate yet it did not deter him. Some think it may have been prophetic when in his last speech (the day before he was killed) he stated, "I may not get there with you" and followed it up with "I'm not fearing any man!".    His idea of civil disobedience was the correct way to protest and he and others of his ilk fought for civil rights in the courts and in the court of public opinion.    I have read a few of his speeches and sermons from a book a few years ago and there is a lot more there than the often recited I Have A Dream speech. In one such sermon he stated, "Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that."     Such perception could be used today. 

It usually takes so long because of defense challenges. The state will get a court date but then the defense will find a reason to postpone it and have to get another date. It is not because the state is not ready to go forward.

Biden should have just gotten his double barrel shotgun and fired it in the air like he suggested that everyone else do. No need for more powerful weapons or the Secret Service.      ......... or maybe that is what he was doing. 

Going to protest an opinion?   Ooookay............ 

  I know that you probably missed it but the mid-terms were back in November. I can post the results if you need.    Wow! The Republicans are against illegal immigration. I am sure that most people are as shocked as I am.    The Republicans will gain no support if they sit back and do nothing. I don't see any significant percentage of Hispanic voters swinging over to the Republicans if they simply allow the (illegal) executive order to stand. I can envision much more grass roots supports for candidates that back the conservative Republicans or in other words, the ones that have stayed away from the polls under such statements as, "They are all the same anyway".    Winning the majority in a big way in the last election will mean nothing if the party simply takes that huge lead and then acts by doing nothing, which is coincidentally what we got from the Democrats for the last 6 years. 

Is this any easier?     Sir Winston Churchill has been recognized as one of the greatest men of the late nineteenth and of the twentieth century. He was an extraordinary war leader to whom the Western World must be forever in debt. He was a prophet in his own time as this quotation, written well over 100 years ago, demonstrates.   How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men   Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step, and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it (Islam) has vainly struggled the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.”   Sir Winston, as an officer of the British Army, served in the Sudan and in the Crimean War; in both instances against the Muslims. These experiences gave him ample opportunity to observe the structure of Islamic society. Churchill’s quotes were taken from the volume: Sir Winston Churchill; “The River War”, first edition, Volume II, pages 248-250, published by Longmans, Green Company, 1899. If Sir Winston were alive today, it is doubtful that a person in Great Britain criticizing Islam publicly could be arrested, and then fined or jailed, and even more doubtful that any Muslims would be sitting in the English Parliament!  

I wonder why these other countries didn't just send their ambassadors then. Oh, that's right, they live there anyway. Hey Mr. Ambassador, walk across the street from your office so you can show we care. No, everybody got the message of where we stood and how concerned the president is.

  Who said other terror groups were not active?    You started of by claiming "Just saying, more heads are cut off by Christians in a month than by Muslims in a year. Just ask Mexico."    You have two people challenge that claim (me included) as to how beheadings in Mexico related to those committed by Muslims in the name of religion. This was a discussion of Muslim terrorism not drug cartels. The title of the thread is Muslims and western culture, not the drug war.    In fact as stated above, the beheadings in Mexico have nothing to do with religion and deal with killing drug rivals or those that interfere.    Now that your statement that "Christians" are beheading people has been squashed, you come up with Russia. Okay, how many Russians are killing people (much less your claim of beheadings) over religion in what is generally a non-sectarian state? Well, other than the Muslim killings? And yes some Christians have beheaded people but not in the name of Christianity.    Then you try to recover from that by posting an article on "terror" attacks in the USA but they mention nothing of beheadings...... which after all if how you began this narrative. So how many of those Jews are beheading people in the USA over religion? In Mexico? In Russia? Anywhere?   By the article that you posted it is claimed that non-Muslims commit more than 90% of terror attacks (whatever the article is claiming as a terror attack). You are comparing what wikipedia claims in the Muslim population of the USA at 0.6% to the other 99.4% that are not. Hmmmm..... the numbers are higher for the almost 99 and a half percent than for the 0.6%? No kidding..........    In fact by the page you posted, the 0.6% of Muslims in the USA (per wikipedia) committed 6% of the terror attacks (per your article) or at a 1,000% higher rate than their population.    Of course the page you used as proof also listed "Latino" terrorism as almost half of all terror attacks (with a listed population by the US Census of only 17%). Do you think that they are attacking people that are not Catholics or perhaps something else like the aforementioned drug cartels over here? How many are illegal aliens?    Feel free to post more proof of beheadings by Christians over religion, which after all is what this thread is about, Muslims in the west. 

  Up to 20 times a year?  :D

  Good. Who suggested that they had been called to your home or anyone specific. Apparently you fit into the narrative that I said above when I stated.......    "I would bet that most people in this forum have lived a lifetime with the police never having been called to their home".    Congratulations, you are like the average person. Zimmerman and other people that can't settle their own family disagreements are not which is all that I said. 

  ....... or you had a brain earlier in life than liberals.