Horsehockey. Union have priced themselves out of the market, and want still more. Baltimore is exclusively a democrat probmlem and a black democrat problem. The only thing Baltimore generates is democrat votes, and then you gripe that the rest of us arent paying enough for them.
May 1, 2015 at 7:07pm
Its Detroit. Is disgusting because shes probably black and therefore seen as an Uncle Tom traitor to her race.
 April 29, 2015 at 4:19pm
For once I agree with you!
 April 29, 2015 at 2:52pm
It was at Columbia; not sure how many Russians or subcontinentals were there. Further, it was a campaign speech she knew would be reported, used to fire up the kook feminazi base.
American women don’t lack access to reproductive health care. Its even the drug stores and gas stations for crying out loud, and its cheap. What they lack is someone else to pay for it.
The First Amendment says that the federal government cannot change religious attitudes, whether they conflict with womens rights or not.
The First Amendment says that the GOVERNMENT can’t change religious attitudes. Mormons and tv preachers are not the government.
Hillary went to Yankee Red schools, with Red professors, and did her thesis on how to subvert America as a rejection of religion.
There are lots of foreigners at Columbia. I'd guess there were women from all over the world there. Probably her speech served a dual purpose: to fire up her base ("feminazi" is so tired I don't think even Rush says it any more), and to reassure women's rights advocates everywhere that a Clinton presidency would back them.
Last time I checked, consultations, screenings and contraception (except condoms) weren't available at gas stations, many more convenient (for women) forms of birth control couldn't be had at drugstores, and millions of women in the US had to travel hundreds of miles to get even a face to face consultation about an abortion no matter how early-term. If it's paying for someone else's contraception or abortion that concerns you, you are penny wise and pound foolish, given the cost of raising, educating (probably poorly) and ultimately maybe incarcerating an unwanted child.
The 1st Amendment says two things about religion: there can't be an established religion, and Congress can't infringe freedom of religion. As for religious attitudes, or the behavior stemming from them, hasn't the Federal government has challenged them on several occasions? Slavery, often justified Biblically, was crushed by military force. Polygamy, a core principle for many 19th-century LDS, was outlawed. People have been jailed for "faith-based" refusal to pay taxes or submit to the draft.
What's wrong with "Yankee?" Isn't that the New Hampshire state seal I see there?
 April 26, 2015 at 7:48pm
Sue the city. The trashed businesses have the right to be protected by the law.
The city AND each person, individually and without city help, that was involved.
Criminal charges too.
 April 26, 2015 at 9:41am
Horsehockey. Until 1900, 97 percent of blacks lived in the south. If it was so bad, why did they not flee to the paradise of Yankeeland 35 years? Certainly not lynchings. According to the Tuskeegee institute, there wer only about 5000 lynchings in the whole nation from 1870 to 1960, when they became so rare that the TI no longer bothered to keep records. Fully one third of those lynchings were of white people. Lynchings fell dramatically in 1923, and into sinle digits for the whole nation, and then fell further from there. Not surprisingly, 98percentum of blacks lynched were male age 18-40.
Since 1900, black males 18-40 years old have been a consistent 3 percent of the population, yet responsible for over 50 percent of the violent crime when that 3 percent in in urban areas. In rural areas, that demographic is responsible for only 30 percent of violent crime. That 30 percent is still way out of proportion to the 3 percent of the population, but far below the urban 50 per cent. Since the 60s, that demographic has been responsible for almost 70 per cent of violent crime. Poverty is not a factor; the lowest crime rate among that demographic was thru the depression.
Its not slavery nor white supremacy, because then the crime rate would have dropped when the ex slaves died off, and dropped again when urban black males turned 40. No, this demographic is and has been a problem for over a century.
 April 26, 2015 at 2:31am
Black urban males are not continually being abused. They are committing crimes and resisting arrest. That population is only 3per cent yet commits about 60 per cent of violent crime. Are the police supposed to just stand there and let the violent criminal commit more violent crimes?
YEAH and then the SOB's bitch that the Majority in Prison are "others".....It's don't take an Einstein to figure out why all the SCUM is in the "pokey".......
Legalize Abortion....or doing a "chop-chop" like the gal did years ago when her man couldn't keep his pants on....
Presume most here know that 75% have no father.....and it's not Immaculate Conception.....
shhhhhh, don't let facts get in the way of a good progressive's B.S.
Lol. Good catch. Of course, according to leftists American slavery still exists today.
hush now...it's feelings and emotions that liberals and black racists deal in..not pesky facts. Don't ruin Wanda's racial moment on the militant homosexual's TV show.
So? She could've just worked there and maybe even have been a former slave, but wtf would Sykes know? She does tend to see the world through a certain prism.
She has a definite bias to presume that the woman was a slave.
April 21, 2015 at 2:34pm
Heck, its already ruined. Note that the women have already ditched their husbands, and are ONE MORE TIME courageous single mothers trying to make it in the evil man world with only metrosexual males to help them. Waste of time.
 April 19, 2015 at 12:54pm
I think it would be worse to have an ancestor who killed a slaveowner for keeping slaves than just have an ancestor who kept slaves. Only in America can keeping slaves be a worse sin than murder. Query-if a slaveowner had a slave baby aborted, would it be ok?
 April 14, 2015 at 12:03pm
Yay! The Defense Department has been fully Bolshevised!
A Montana birth certificate for a Hawaian guy born in Kenya with a Conneticut SS #!
If she is as smart as I think she is, that hard drive saw the inside of a furnace once she left the State Department. Only takes about a thousand degrees to destroy the hard drive and everything that was on it.
 April 9, 2015 at 2:40pm
This whole thing was done to keep Israel from attacking the nuclear sites. The cold hard facts are that you can make enough radioactive material in a cyclotron for medical and research purposes (we did ca. 1943) and you DON’T need a breeder reactor for electricity. The French reactors are all natural (unenriched) uranium reactors, and they get 50% of their juice from them. The only reason you need a breeder reactor (using enriched uranium) is to make (breed) plutonium, which makes a much more destructive bomb. Additionally, for a uranium bomb, you have to enrich to around 95%, ie make uranium (a)metal and (b) in a certain shape, which is so difficult to do that it is easier to use any enriched uranium you have in a reactor to breed plutonium. Even worse, no one really knows for sure if a uranium bomb will set off a thermonuclear reaction, but everyone DOES know that a plutonium bomb WILL. That’s what a hydrogen bomb is, and its yield is thousands of times greater than any uranium bomb. We started from scratch and developed hydrogen bombs in about 10 years. The Iranians have the benefit of 50 years of research and know how for a big head start, and are in bed with the commies, who have H bomb technology. In my mind, the only nettlesome problem the Iranians really have is how to nuke Israel without irradiating Jerusalem until the end of time.
Let me guess.
You might not have any expertise in these matters but...
You did stay at a certain holiday 'hotel' last night - right?
Odds are that it was a fort.
No greater likelihood of plague, though.
Instead, the empire might have just deemed it to expensive to maintain and burned & abandoned it.
That possibility would be particularly likely if the abandonment had taken place in the waning days of the empire.
A fort almost a mile off the mainland? Seems a little far when there were islands closer to shore on the same lake. A fort has to have a way to project its power in the area or it is worthless unless it is protecting something else. Also forts normally do not have straight walls with no projections, towers or bastions. Too many places for somebody to hide against the wall when you cannot get to them without exposing yourself.
It may not have been a "natural moat." The water is right now less than two feet around the island, which means the island could have just been a hill at some point with a monastery or fort built on top. Perhaps they dug a moat that was supplied by water from the lake and in the course of the last 1300 years the moat silted up from the erosion of the island banks, which widened the moat to make it look like part of the lake itself. The article on this I read at http://archive.archaeology.org/1011/etc/letter.html states that the island itself has permafrost, but the lake doesn't, and the lake itself has a warming effect. Could be why the lake has gotten bigger in the last 1300 years since the Uighur empire abandoned it. Melting permafrost has added to the liquid water content.
I'm just curious, but I wonder if that lake even existed back in the eighth century? It may have just been a fortified village that was eventually surrounded by water from all this global warming. (sarc)
Absolutely it was a fort - especially since it was on the edge of a kingdom or empire at the time. To put a palace on the edge of an empire would be absolutely stupid.
It was built on an island.
Has 40 foot tall walls.
People lived there, and grew crops there.
Sounds to me like it was either a prison or a fortress.
They obviously built it to either keep people out, or keep people in.
I wonder if its cold enough for the lake to freeze in winter. Thus a moat for summer only.
[-1] April 9, 2015 at 11:11am
This is obvious racism by racist, sexist bigoted homophobic customer AND Burger King.
@ewoodard: you, sir, are delusional. Did you watch the same video that I did? Where did you see or hear anything remotely racist or homophobic in this video?
You're an idiot.
 April 8, 2015 at 2:54pm
What exactly do the protesters want? He’s charged with murder. I guess they want to just go ahead and hang him now like in To Kill a Mockingbird. Oh wait….
 April 8, 2015 at 10:11am
What? The bad guys had no intention of doing what they allegedly agreed to? I’m shocked to find that gambling going on in this casino!
 April 2, 2015 at 10:55am
I think I’ll start a bakery shop called “Allah hates fhigs and dhyks.” We’ll refuse to provide services to homosexual weddings. Unless you pay us. For $5,000, you get a 6 inch, one layer plain round cake. For an additional $1,000 each, we’ll get a guy with an internet divinity degree to bless the water in the batter, the oven, or the heat that bakes it. If you want icing, more layers, etc. it’s and additional $5,000 each. One does not expect Michael Jordan to endorse shoes for free, so we are just charging reasonable compensation for our service of Mahotmetans endorsing homosexual marriage. That’s what this is all about- forcing religious people to endorse homosexual marriage.
 April 1, 2015 at 2:23pm
UVA is an university. There are no conservatives there. Liberals are racist.
The University of Virginia actually has a strong conservative presence on campus. I've met with some conservative students who attend UVA and they say that, though it is predominantly liberal, they are almost always respected. Regardless, your assumption that no conservatives attend university doesn't bode well for the future of conservatism if true.
[-1] April 1, 2015 at 12:41pm
This whole thing is to get Hillary elected. Since she is female, if you support someone else, you are sexist. Since she is a sodomite if you support someone else, you are a homophobe. It worked twice with Obama being black; why change the strategy?
You're right about the strategy, but you're wrong about the candidate. I don't think the Democrats want another Clinton anymore than most of us want another Bush. In my opinion, the powers that be in the Democrat Party want to see Elizabeth Warren nominated.