I don't think there is any valid reason, but that number seems so high it's almost not believable. Could it be an exaggeration? If true someone needs to be fired maybe even arrested.
He's a minority and has a former drug conviction...of course the Constitution doesn't apply! The cops are completely in the right and should never be questioned! Sampson is clearly the one in the wrong here!
November 29, 2013 at 9:40pm
It has nothing to do with race? Are you serious? Find me a white person in America who’s been arrested 60 times for trespassing in his own workplace.
November 17, 2013 at 7:13pm
Who is forcing anybody to do anything here?
November 17, 2013 at 6:52pm
It’s crazy how some people think you’re racist when all you’re doing is coming up with a clever nickname for them based on nothing but the color of their skin.
Wait until they try to change the New England Patriots to the New England Bleeding Heart Liberals.
November 17, 2013 at 6:44pm
Neither of the people who commented before me objected to Janet’s comment. So far, nobody here has objected to it but me. Incidentally, I’ve been a commenter here for years — check my history — I remember the days when racist comments weren’t welcome.
November 17, 2013 at 6:11pm
I can’t believe you can post an unmistakable argument for segregation here, and nobody says a word. This isn’t Conservatism — it’s just straight up racism. You all should be ashamed of yourselves.
I think it's called choice.I don’t recall multiculturalism ever being presented to the American people for a vote.
While there are many arguments that can be made on any issue. I think you missed the whole point of the story, or are one of those who welcome the days of being told what to say or not say. Two people make a comment in reply to Racist comment, and you say "nobody" says a word. How long have you been here? While the site has it's own problems with censorship of perfectly acceptable arguments, there is also opportunity here to say something and have to back it up or get taken to task. You obviously believe that conservatism is the same as progressivism since in your world there is no place for sharing of opinions. Only the "approved " opinion can be mentioned. Obviously you also agree with the students in the story that it is fine to make a word or anything they want to demonize something to be censored. What kind of Conservatism are you selling?
Conservatism had people like West, Rice, Herman Cain, etc. trying to run for President. It was the hyphens that destroyed their chances, because eleminating segregation would not be in the best interest of the Democratic goals.
Neither of the people who commented before me objected to Janet's comment. So far, nobody here has objected to it but me. Incidentally, I've been a commenter here for years -- check my history -- I remember the days when racist comments weren't welcome.
I'm offended by USC being named after condoms which assumes to be complete masculine. I'd like to request their name be changed to USC Tampons please.
While I like to arrogate moral superiority unto myself as much as anyone, I try to exercise a bit of caution in the attempt.
Your attempt is a bit reckless in failing to note the skillful technique employed by "Ghandi". Did you overlook his comment about "a small segment of hateful Hitler types (progressives)"? By pointing out that Hitler was a "progressive" (not a "multicultural progressive" as Nightmare imagines). Ghandi logically LEVELS Nightmare's post. I'm not going to scold you for your inattention or for your broad effort to "shame" Blazers because I believe that your heart is in the right place. Still, Moonbat, PLEASE pay more attention to the posts made by others. Just because they are not the sort of "rant" that you seem to seek does not mean that the posts are not in opposition to Nightmare.
May 11, 2013 at 10:32pm
March 16, 2013 at 8:20pm
Actually, they seem a little confused. If you combine respondents with “unfavorable” or “highly unfavorable” opinions of Obama, you get 36%. If 38% of them think that Obama is “hostile to Israel”, then 2% of them are apparently OK with it. Conservative pollsters are bad at math.
October 12, 2012 at 12:40am
Hi, Moreoil –
The difference is that we didn’t commit troops to Libya, while Iraq cost thousands of American lives (and trillions of dollars). I’m no fan of kill lists either, but there’s no question which party has committed more of our troops to more dubious causes. Leo’s Mom’s charge of a double standard is
October 11, 2012 at 11:51pm
Hi, Leo’s Mom.
With all due respect, I’d like to remind you that the Bush administration didn’t have a great record with regard to facts. Remember how we were sure to find WMD in Iraq? Remember how the war wasn’t going to cost anything? Remember how there were just a “few dead-enders” holding out? Yeah. Believe me — if there was any possible excuse to impeach the President, y’all would have done it by now.
September 15, 2012 at 6:16pm
OK. So. Let me get this straight. We’re saying that the Justice Department, guessing that this guy was eventually going to offend Muslims, got him convicted three years ago on charges of bank fraud. And predicting that he would do it over the internet using an alias, they gave him terms of probation that specifically restricted his internet use and forbade him to use an alias. All of this, just so they could bring him in now, question him, and then… you know… let him go.
September 10, 2012 at 1:35am
Hey, Yakov –
Surprisingly, I pretty much exactly agree with you — government and the financial industry are looking out for each other, and the rest of us are getting the fuzzy end of the lollipop. Maybe Conservatives and Liberals can agree on getting the money out of politics. Anybody want to talk about campaign finance reform?
September 9, 2012 at 11:37pm
You have got to be kidding me. Banks made literally billions of dollars pushing absurd loans to people who couldn’t afford them, and you blame the government? I’ve got no love for Chris Dodd, but take a look at who the big banks are contributing to this year — it’s pretty easy to see which party is in their pocket.
September 9, 2012 at 10:25pm
Wow. You guys are so wrong about this. The Community Reinvestment Act encouaged only the tiniest percentage of the subprime loans that led to the crisis in ’08. The worst offenders (i.e. Countryside) weren’t touched by it at all. Banks pushed these risky loans because they were making tons of money on them in the short term. Seriously — Google this. Or better yet, read a book — any book — on the subject. I would suggest “The Big Short” by Michael Lewis, but take your pick.
March 16, 2012 at 10:53pm
This is the most reasonable and humane thing I’ve seen all day. I don’t often agree with the posts here, but you are a class act, Momprayn.
March 16, 2012 at 10:22pm
They didn’t actually mention the fact that he’s white. You might be surprised to learn that there are Black, Hispanic and Asian Christians, too.
September 26, 2011 at 3:00pm
Still no. I doubt very much that the campus GLBT groups, for instance, exclude Christians. And if they do, they shouldn’t get funding, either. It’s despicable to make me pay for something and then specifically exclude me from using it. Again — why can’t they just pay for their own stuff?
September 26, 2011 at 2:48pm
My point about the Constitution is that everyone is protected by it — there is no exemption for homosexuals. This isn’t just a symbolic issue. There are real financial and social benefits that come along with marriage. How can you possibly justify making somebody pay higher taxes, for instance, just because they don’t agree with your personal religious views?
September 26, 2011 at 2:37pm
Fair enough, Swampy. To everybody that’s kvetching about poor people who don’t pay income tax, though, let me point something out: while the income tax is (allegedly) progressive, other taxes are not. Payroll taxes and sales taxes, for instance, fall more heavily on the poor. If you look at the entire tax burden on the individual, just about everybody pays a higher percentage of their income than Warren Buffet.
September 26, 2011 at 12:31pm
Ha. Right on. Capital gains *are* income. Calling them something different only serves to make the tax code more regressive.