Balt : LOL. But be careful about crossing that ' racist ' line !
a little 00 buck shot will calm looting down really fast..........ammo up
unless you follow local news, you will never hear about whites being shot by police in the national media. after waco and ruby ridge, Police/Fed Gov't violence against whites are not national news stories.
workers can’t go to work…………cut off ebt cards and deduct from income as long as this is going on………help pay for police overtime………………..ammo up
Yeah, and google the Omni Hotel in Charlotte, so I can mimick what I see going on by these animals. (sarc)
I am ashamed of what I am seeing.
Psh. Good luck with that around here. The customers would shoot you before the cops ever arrived.
I think every store in Charlotte needs to hang this sign in their window for the next couple weeks:
That might change the course of human events...
Can you loot Target instead? They got better stuff, and I'm still pissed at them over that bathroom thing.
A white guy got shot! Let's go loot our neighborhood stores!
 September 22, 2016 at 2:29am
Obama sure has done wonders for race relations in this country.
How ironic for her to be complaining about someone making a fabricated story. BLM lives on fabricated stories.
 September 20, 2016 at 1:48pm
@zapparules – one more thing, I noticed you said the “health” of the mother, rather than the life of the mother. That’s a nifty little rhetorical device that the pro-abortion left started using a while back, just like when they changed “global warming” to “climate change.” Every pregnancy threatens the “health” of the mother. Morning sickness, for example. It’s hard to see yourself as healthy when you’re tossing cookies every morning. I’m not saying this is the case with you, but people saying “health” of the mother is another way to pretend to only support certain abortions when in fact they actually support them all.
 September 20, 2016 at 1:43pm
Just a few decades ago Klinger put on a dress to get out of the army. These days he’d put on a dress to get a promotion.
 September 20, 2016 at 1:38pm
@zapparules – but now I’ll ask you a question: do you support state-enforced child support? See, there’s a double-standard in society wherein if a woman gets pregnant and decides she isn’t ready for a child or can’t afford a child or simply doesn’t want a child, she has the “right to choose” to abort the child. She gets a parental mulligan, a get out of parenthood free card. Yet if a man fathers a child and he decides he’s not ready for a child or can’t afford a child or simply doesn’t want a child, the state says “tough luck bub” and it’s either pay up, or go to prison.
So men are expected to take responsibility for the children they create, enforced by the state on threat of imprisonment. But women, hell we can’t expect them to take responsibility, and we’re told it’s none of the state’s business. What BS. So long as abortion is legal, state-enforced child support should not be. My wallet, my choice.
Or, if the state can force men to take responsibility for the children they create and toss them in prison if they don’t, then the same should apply to women. Equality, after all.
 September 20, 2016 at 1:32pm
@zapparules – first of all, this comparison to the death penalty is silly and everybody knows it. I don’t call myself “pro-life” because I think it’s a silly term, one which opens the door to stupid comparisons, such as to the death penalty. I prefer to call myself anti-abortion. Much more accurate, I think. But more to the point, if I supported the death penalty I would do so openly and proudly. I wouldn’t hide behind some equivocation to pretend like I don’t support something when I actually do.
Now as far as abortion, I’m not opposed to ALL abortion. I think abortion is the taking of a human life, and there are circumstances in which taking a human life is ok. Self-defense, for example. If someone is going to kill you, you have every right to take them out. As such, if there’s ample reason to believe that a pregnancy is going to threaten the mother’s life, then I’m ok with an abortion in that circumstance, because it looks like self-defense to me. I wouldn’t begrudge any woman getting an abortion to save her own life.
Rape and incest seem like weak excuses to me, since the child isn’t responsible for the circumstances of their conception, but at the same time since rape and incest account for all of about 1% or 2% of abortions, it’s a strawman argument anyhow. The millions of abortions aren’t rape victims, they’re selfish evil ghouls who refuse to accept responsibility for their actions. And they should be sent to prison.
 September 20, 2016 at 1:12pm
I am Jack’s complete lack of surprise.
 September 20, 2016 at 1:06pm
I guess it’s a sign of the times that silly Twitter battles are considered news.
Give Glenn a break; he will resort to anything to get clicks.
Where's the rest of the story that has the strong language in it?
 September 20, 2016 at 11:07am
“There IS a difference between beimg.pro-abortion and supporting a rigjt to choose”
No, not really. You’re just splitting hairs to make yourself feel better. If you support a right to choose, then you support legalized abortion. It’s just that simple. What you’re saying would be akin to saying “I don’t condone slavery, but I support people’s right to have slaves.” It’s nonsense. It’s a way to support something that you know is awful while exempting yourself from any moral responsibility for supporting something awful.
 September 20, 2016 at 10:58am
Liberals really don’t understand how analogy works, do they?
They’re just trying to turn this into Trump’s “basket of deplorables” moment. Too bad for them it’s not going to work.
 September 16, 2016 at 7:58pm
Liberals: fighting for the right of men to have babies, fighting for the right of women to not have babies.
Francis: Why are you always on about women, Stan?
Stan: I want to be one.
Stan: I want to be a woman. From now on I want you all to call me Loretta.
Stan: It’s my right as a man.
Judith: Why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?
Stan: I want to have babies.
Reg: You want to have babies?!?!?!
Stan: It’s every man’s right to have babies if he wants them.
Reg: But you can’t have babies.
Stan: Don’t you oppress me.
Reg: I’m not oppressing you, Stan — you haven’t got a womb. Where’s the fetus going to gestate? You going to keep it in a box?
Judith: Here! I’ve got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can’t actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody’s fault, not even the Romans’, but that he can have the *right* to have babies.
Francis: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister, sorry.
Reg: What’s the point?
Reg: What’s the point of fighting for his right to have babies, when he can’t have babies?
Francis: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
Reg: It’s symbolic of his struggle against reality.
pretty much sums up the liberal thought process...
No man in 6000 years of human history has ever conceived and borne a child. Those of our current generation who worship modern Science have fallen victim to every SF fantasy which this bunch propagates to the populace. So If some deluded, neurotic individual believes that a male can be turned into a female and produce children, you can blame it on the Federally-controlled schools, the controlled press and media, and every person who have given up their sanity and chosen to be brainwashed into fantasyland.
Thank you, I've been trying to remember this since the whole issue began,
Matt, you summed up the problem with this one sentence.
"And it should be noted that the most crucial “finding” in their report is not merely biological, but logical. It’s the definition of logic, in fact:
Logic died a few years back.
Clearly hate speech, this too must be banned.
That video Balthazor linked is now blocked on YouTube. But here is another copy:
 September 16, 2016 at 6:51pm
To be taken seriously by liberals is easy: just loudly proclaim the most idiotic, nonsensical thing that enters your mind. Luckily, being taken seriously by liberals can be found nowhere on my to-do list.