True. It is his legacy and there is nothing he can do to con his way around it.
Except spiel gun control.
Reading all the pile on blaming the entire black community as a whole is disheartening.
July 5, 2016 at 7:47am
I wonder if he (and the others) considered that those not in compliance with the dress code had a legitimate “out” under the ADA like foot problems not accommodated by dress shoes before spouting off?
When you’re an intern or probational, you watch your Ps and Qs.
 June 24, 2016 at 6:58am
I suspect the whole meltdown of Greece is a big part of why this happened. The EU choosing to bail out fiscally irresponsible members has put every member country in peril. I’m amazed it hasn’t torn the EU apart already. The economic strength of the EU went down fast when they made that bad call.
Keep in mind that the vote means NOTHING. Will the “powers that be” find a way to keep Britain in the EU in spite of this vote? I’d not be surprised.
At the risk of being called a racist, Trump is spot on with that comment.
Growing up in a mostly urban area, any minority could not only get a good (government) job, but they could earn promotions more often and faster even when they clearly were inferior to other candidates because of how aggressive Affirmative Action was practiced in hiring and promotions.
These were people who really didn’t make much of an effort to EARN those opportunities. Someone in their midst who did apply themselves and work hard could easily be a “superstar” under the existing system.
Personally, every minority I’ve met who wants to complain about a lack of opportunity or how “racist” the system is, was generally lazy and un/under-educated. They have nothing to offer employers to want to hire them, and that’s before you get to their general workplace attitude. Those who worked as hard as those with “white privilege” had little trouble doing as well or better.
June 16, 2016 at 6:26am
Wow. I’m glad this got a discussion going. I am wrong to say that all risks are EQUAL, but hetero “vanilla” sex is just as capable of transmitting HIV as any other “high risk” activity. The ODDS may be lower, but the risk is still there, and “safe sex” isn’t a guarantee of non-exposure or 100% protection against HIV.
I’m just surprised that someone who does “high risk” activity (based on CDC definition) can NEVER donate blood even if they have multiple HIV negative tests. It just makes no sense…especially in a time (for decades now) where they claim there is a national shortage of blood. Why not take the blood and subject it to greater scrutiny (testing for HIV before use) or at least flag it for other uses (you can donate plasma with much lower restriction because plasma supposedly is not the blood component that carries the HIV virus)?
[-5] June 15, 2016 at 4:02pm
Frankly, the regulations need changing. Right now, everyone who has sex is just as capable of contracting HIV, but they can give blood with no real scrutiny or rejection, and that makes no sense at all.
Have a time period from last “high risk” exposure? Sure. Indefinity ban someone from donating? No. They could even require people with “high risk” show a recent negative HIV screening.
Years ago, when HIV was a bigger scare issue, I went and got HIV tested out of concern, and the clinic was frank about the fact that in most all cases HIV appears relatively quickly after exposure. If you’ve gone more than 12 months from anything that could have exposed you to HIV and do not show it on a test, the odds are very, very good you weren’t exposed.
everyone who has sex is NOT "just as capable of contracting HIV".
the capability is circumstantial and varies from scenario to scenario.
gay dude butt sex is the riskiest because it brings blood into the mix.
The stats show that homosexual males are still the highest demographic for HIV infection. This is a common sense restriction to protect the public at large. They don't accept blood from IV drug users, either, for the same reasons.
homosexual males make up 72% of new HIV infections each year in the U.S. They make up less than 2% of the population. The lion's share of the rest of the infection rate comes from IV drug users.
So unless you're used to bonking a lot of junkies I suggest you retract your idiocy that "Right now everyone who has sex is just as capable of contracting HIV" and stop insulting everyone's intelligence here.
but they can give blood with no real scrutiny or rejection,
Not true. There are multiple reasons for rejection including heterosexual promiscuity.
Wow. I'm glad this got a discussion going. I am wrong to say that all risks are EQUAL, but hetero "vanilla" sex is just as capable of transmitting HIV as any other "high risk" activity. The ODDS may be lower, but the risk is still there, and "safe sex" isn't a guarantee of non-exposure or 100% protection against HIV.
I'm just surprised that someone who does "high risk" activity (based on CDC definition) can NEVER donate blood even if they have multiple HIV negative tests. It just makes no sense...especially in a time (for decades now) where they claim there is a national shortage of blood. Why not take the blood and subject it to greater scrutiny (testing for HIV before use) or at least flag it for other uses (you can donate plasma with much lower restriction because plasma supposedly is not the blood component that carries the HIV virus)?
 June 10, 2016 at 6:49am
Religious freedom and freedom of speech, expression, assembly, etc. have ALWAYS been restricted when it involves acts of inciting violence or “violent revolution” against the government. Islam wants to overthrow our political system and subjugate all non-Muslims…by violence if necessary.
Hence, it is not entitled to the same protections as other religions that DO NOT try to do this.
right, moslems must accept the rights of others before we grant rights to moslems, that is the soul of reason
 June 8, 2016 at 3:29pm
I’d give just 6 months…coupled with castration.
 June 7, 2016 at 7:45am
If I’m correct, out west most every ranch has pretty good “game fences” to try and keep animals from wandering onto the road. I’ve not noticed the same “build quality” here in the east, and maybe that’s the trade off. Inadequate control = liability for harm.
 June 1, 2016 at 4:24pm
I’d not object to him just doing the first part. :)
 May 26, 2016 at 12:38pm
Chicks are higher maintenance. ;)
May 26, 2016 at 8:01am
“This is precisely why people are losing interest in the Black Lives Matter movement,” he told TheBlaze. “It is why you have achieved nothing. It is why you will achieve nothing. And every time this happens, people at home are more and more horrified at your childish and authoritarian tactics.”
I don’t know how far gone things are, but all BLM and other thugs accomplish is showing the more “level headed” why they better prepare to resist the coming tyranny. The “silent majority” doesn’t buy the garbage they’re selling, but now that they see how dangerous they are, many are motivated to take steps to resist them.
May 23, 2016 at 12:53pm
Having worked with an attorney whose primary business was insurance defense, I can assure you that you are incorrect.
While there is a level of conflict, the lawyer represents the insured. The insured dictates what the attorney must do. If the insurance company doesn’t like it, they can always refuse to continue paying for the lawyer, but that’s all they really can do. The lawyer (in this type of situation) has to balance his obligations to both parties, as to some degree both are his client, but his duty is to represent the insured first and foremost.
Usually a lawyer is up-front about the nature of this three-way relationship in the beginning so the client knows not to be too demanding. If the insurance company stops paying, then the insured would have to start paying for the work if they want to keep the lawyer working for them. In the vast majority of cases, the insurance company and the insured want the same things since lawyers have been brought into the game.
May 23, 2016 at 7:36am
Frankly, this was a STUPID thing to do.
No doubt any Navy SEAL is trained and proficient in a variety of H2H techniques, but you chose to take on someone who SPECIALIZED in more than one form AFTER leaving the Navy? It’s like taking on someone so trained they run their own dojo when the average person might just be a 2nd degree black belt. An ass-kicking is the only outcome you can expect.
DUMB. What did you think would happen? You were definitely outmatched. For a more even match, you should have sought out someone still in the Navy.
May 12, 2016 at 9:55am
That’s been my theory once I found out the man who got Bill to run for POTUS was the same man who put Ross on the financial map with his first multi-million dollar contract.
May 12, 2016 at 9:50am
5th only applies to SELF-INCRIMINATION…not the incrimination of another party excepting some standard like spousal immunity.
 May 12, 2016 at 6:56am
Too bad we don’t have better choices, but Beck is correct. People are waking up. Hillary is a psychopath, and she won’t shut down her campaign even if he has formal charges brought against her during the election. This year is all or nothing for her to make her “legacy” in history, and she wants it too bad.
Almost anyone would be better than Hillary. She’s not in it to serve the people, She’s in it for herself…more so than probably any other politician in history, and she is so ruthless it would be a huge gamble what she would do as POTUS.