Blazing. This rule is actually the same as football. When a person catches the ball in football, takes two steps, but in the process of the catch goes to the ground and then loses the ball, it is incomplete.
There's still room for subjectivity in understanding when he completes the process of making the catch so the followup determination can be made if he goes to the ground and loses the ball the way the rule is worded in the MLB.
Not so. Two different sports with two different rules. If a receiver in football catches the ball, takes two steps, but goes to the ground and loses the ball, it's a fumble. If they never had possession, go to ground and lose the ball, THEN it's incomplete. Still... different game... different rules.
 July 24, 2015 at 10:53pm
Possibly, though it’s hard to get a clear shot in a dark movie theatre. However, the people who died where the people directly in front of him. Because he didn’t say anything before the shooting began, not likely that anyone with a gun would have prevented that.
Ever heard of a Laser on your gun and a flashlight to spot him out?
That light on your gun makes you an immediate target and limits your vision in the dark.
July 24, 2015 at 10:36am
You should honor contracts you sign. And by buying a Condo in that association, when you signed the paperwork it would have had language that you are agreeing the the declarations and bylaws of the association. Lastly, as a Christian, I find this whole “flag worship” a little to close to a violation of the First Commandment. You shouldn’t treat any inanimate object with such adoration. “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me.”
July 24, 2015 at 10:31am
slayer. That would be the correct way to handle this. Gather enough people to vote with you, then propose an amendment through HOA declarations and bylaws. She’s putting the cart before the horse, so to speak.
July 24, 2015 at 6:57am
If you read an article that hasn’t been chopped up by blaze editors you would know at least 2 other persons were released and they arrested a few others. They found 18 mature plants, so not a huge operation. Cops were quoted as saying that it would have been easy for someone to be at that house and not be aware of the operation. This leads me to believe the plants were being grown outside, but concealed by other plants.
 July 22, 2015 at 4:48pm
Besides the fact that the HOA is not the government. The first amendment does not apply to putting flags on someone else’s property. She doesn’t own the outside of the building. That’s how condominiums work. You own the stuff on the inside, the HOA owns the outside.
Then the residents of the condo association simply vote to change the rule to allow US flags only, problem solved.
slayer. That would be the correct way to handle this. Gather enough people to vote with you, then propose an amendment through HOA declarations and bylaws. She's putting the cart before the horse, so to speak.
July 22, 2015 at 4:45pm
She does not own the outside of the building. She owns the inside walls, but not the pipes inside the walls or the outside of the wall. What she is doing is the legal equivalent of me coming on to your property and putting a flag in your yard.
Typical democrat crud - you'd rather honor a condo association covenant that the flag of your country
Only the American Flag. Thank you.
July 21, 2015 at 4:04pm
no butt hurt here, just thought it was ironic that he complains about being called a jackass then immediately pulls a jackass move. Incidentally, my moniker does not imply (More Dem) but rather (MO Dem). I live in Missouri and when I registered this account I saw myself as a democrat. As time has passed I find myself agreeing with conservatives on more issues so wouldn’t classify myself as dem anymore, I’m not changing the moniker because I think it would be disingenuous. Of the candidates so far I like Rubio and Paul, though to be honest I haven’t done enough research on all the candidates to make an informed decision. I can say with utmost confidence that Trump is no true conservative. It wasn’t too long ago that he agreed with a weapons ban, and his comments recently show he doesn’t have true respect for those that served.
[-9] July 21, 2015 at 2:11pm
Isn’t putting a campaign rival’s phone number in public so everyone can call it kind of a jackass move. Not doing a good job of convincing people you aren’t a jackass.
I'm not sure that he cares, which is ironically, the most refreshing thing about him.
I’m sick of politicians being politicians. We need someone to throw a wrench into things.
Trump will never win, and he’ll never get my vote, but I’m enjoying this. I want to see him tear down every RINO he can and go out in a blaze of glory.
Actually Trump is doing a great job at showing whom the "jackasses" really are!
Trump continues to get LOTS of media coverage and Trump continues to say A LOT of things... But what Trump is NOT saying is... How he will SPECIFICALLY - REALISTICALLY address the many things he says is wrong with our nation.
Keep it up Donald. Lots of folks are loving it - including MANY on the Left.
Those not living it... They are the ones who will assure Trump gets no where near being the Republican nominee.
Jackass or not MoDem (More Dem) I am tired of walking on egg shells. And if you are suffering from butt hurt, you might wish to invest in some Ben Gay.
First off, I will vote for Trump, if he is still running. That being said, I do have to agree with you about giving out a rivals personal phone number. Why you got 10 negs makes no sense to me.
oh im thinking this is going to get interesting.....
[-7] July 20, 2015 at 8:00pm
Umm, at worst they yelled. They didn’t hit his car and cause him to run off the road. I’m sorry he died, but he wasn’t murdered.
 July 17, 2015 at 7:29am
There are four majors. You are most likely forgetting the Australian open. It’s in January and because of the time difference isn’t seen much here. Also, I played tennis in the 90s and it paid for college in the 2000s so not just people stuck in the 70s.
[-5] July 16, 2015 at 11:54am
What about Episcopalians? Are they Christian? They accept LGTB and have been doing same-sex marriages for years. So it’s not that they’re not Christian, but rather that they’re not your denomination of Christianity.
It gave the SCotUS its judiciary powers, but not the legislative powers it thinks it has @MoDem.
Sarcasm can be difficult for some.
It also say's they're supposed to interpret the law. Not vote according to their preconcieved beliefs. Which they clearly violated on the ACA State Exchange vote, apparently with the aww come on explanation. Everybody always knows which way they're going to go depending on whether libs or cons favor the law(except that one guy who goes both ways). Interpretation has nothing to do with it and that isn't the way it's supposed to be.
Actually, Scotus has no interpretive powers over the Constitution, even though they think they do.
I guess you don't read your constitution very much. If you did you would know that judges (even the supreme court) don't have the power to create laws. They are only allowed to interpret them. Constitutionary scholar you ain't.
no law was "created" it was determined that under the 14th amendment the current regulations of marriage should be given to every citizen equally, no new law was established.
TO: "Blazing in SC" --- Look up "Marbury vs Madison," 1803. Established law that's almost as old as the nation itself!
JUDICIAL Law is second only to the Constitution itself in potency and legality, and although the Constritution DOES provide Congress and the President with the means by which it may be overridden (via the checks-and-balances provisions of the Balances of Power between the three branches of government), that has almost NEVER happened because the Supreme Court decisions have ALMOST always been in the best interests of the American people. (With a FEW such noteworthy examples as Dred Scott, Bush vs. Gore, and Citizens United.) And the American people will NEVER allow their liberties with regard to Marriage Equality or the Reset Remedy of Abortion to be trampled-upon or reversed!
I love the Constitution. I don’t like Gays , queers and dykes. (That should get me banned!)
SOCTUS made law here, that is not a right given them in the Constitution.
 July 13, 2015 at 4:20pm
The same place it says people can get divorced and remarried.
The law of Moses allows for divorce and remarriage under certain and limited circumstances only, and Jesus affirmed this position in the New Testament. Nowhere near those passages is gay marriage ever endorsed.
 July 6, 2015 at 3:36pm
I have a question. If marriage is ordained by God and through the church, then what about the various Christian churches that hold same sex marriages? There are quite a few of them throughout the United States. Do those not count? Is it only the Christian Churches that you agree with that have “valid” marriages? If I’m a Baptist, do i then not recognize a man and woman bound by marriage through a Protestant or Catholic Church? People argue that the Supreme Court just destroyed the sanctity of marriage, but how can that be when Churches were already marrying same-sex people in ceremonies before God?
For many, there is only one orthodox way of seeing Christianity...in spite of the literally hundreds of different sects of that religion
If you think about your question, you will come to an answer. But what about all these heterosexual (normal people), who never actually exercised the covenant of marriage, as God ordained it to be?
Like the guy who had the big wedding, with all the frills, married in a church by a pastor, yet doesn't believe in God? That same guy abuses his bride... what about him?
How about the pastor who never really checks into the beliefs of the (normal) couple, yet marries them in his church?
Liberals are Fascist hypocrites who want to use gubmint to force everyone to do as they wish...This same sex marriage ruling is a ploy to steal the Tax exempt status away from Traditional churches.
hello? you really haven't thought this through. It has to do with principle, God's law... not the way some denomination interprets it. Marriage is a covenant between God, husband and wife. Just because some churches get the signals crossed means nothing. When the Supreme kangaroo pizza Court legalizes same sex marriage it did not destroy the sanctity of marriage it just offered a perverted form of it for those who want to give their lives to the lust of the flesh rather than the kingdom of God.. then of course with their new found man made legitimacy they can now start to attack people and churches for their religious belief all in the name of some faux "righteousness" like this "greater good of society" nonsense. What are the guillotines for you ask? Um—oh nothing nothing... uhh those are just really efficient salad makers.
Better question...Why do we not have a problem when a Church marry's two atheist or a jew and Christian or any other not 100% Christian couple. Hell even Catholics put their faith in a hierarchy of man and are therefore not Christian (God is judge not me, I am just making an assessment based off the Bible.) The hate Christians have had for gay's is what gave the communist, anti-christian activist power.
[-5] July 2, 2015 at 1:08pm
What a ridiculous last paragraph. What’s the response to that supposed to be: “OMG!!! Rush was right! Absolutely no person ever burned the American flag before the talks of getting rid of the Confederate flag. It’s Anarchy AAAHHHHHHH!!!!!!!”
but you’re silent with the protester’s comment that black churches are burning all over the country? Debunked by the press, but it fits your narrative, therefore you ignore the false narrative. At least the American flag coming under attack, really happened. Since you are silent on that as well, I guess it too fits your narrative.
[-3] June 24, 2015 at 12:00pm
If you want to be a confederate that’s your choice. But you can’t claim American Patriotism as well.
June 24, 2015 at 11:14am
The Confederate flag. Flown by treasonous democrats who took up arms against the United States.
You wouldn't suppose it had anything to do with Northern states Unconstitutionally charging import tariffs for goods shipped from Southern states? The south did not start the illegal nature of which you speak.