ITMFA

I wouldn't call it racist in the literal sense but it appears to be a biggoted attack. Definitely qualifies as a hate crime as I understand it. What are the chances of the OP being called out for race baiting? If the opposite where done there would be many on here saying so.

Good on you and the new baby too.

And here is a thought for you, if you think I've hijacked a display name, why not just get it off your chest and say which one? I've been Pubby, TBAR, TP, and a few others. Put your big boy panties on and add another name to the list, internet tough guy. When you wear your digital e-thug panties, make sure you're paying the right one a visit.

Frank Underwood? You watch "House of Cards" too? Great show! What's your favorite... Oh wait you mean the other FU. Sorry, you may swing that way but I prefer women. No worries my friend. I won't tell your wife. Let's just keep it between you me and Michelle Bachman's husband. You know he offers therapy for such things that may help you.

To reduce the rape of a people enslaved and murdered in the tens of millions to "sexual escapades" only exacerbates your ignorance. Do you think the wiping out of entire cultures has no relevance a 100+ years later? What if you had said the same of Southern Italians conquered by Hannibal? Northern Italians might disagree with you. What If you had said the same about Jews of the Holocaust? If you would be accused of being anti-semitic for doing so, what then might you be considered now?

I don't recall any notable cases that resulted in the GBI finding LE at fault. Can you? If so how often would you say the GBI finds LE at fault? Can you name 3 cases? I can't.

Why do I get the feeling that for some, if the Feds gunned down armed people like Cliven Bundy, "oath keepers" or "sovereign citizens" they aren't just doing their jobs. But if it is some unarmed prick or a nude veteran, getting gunned down is justified for them. Simply amazing how cons can convince themselves of their own BS.

Most crime is committed against the same race, whether it be hispanic on hispanic, white on white or black on black. You generally find the answers that fit your preconceived notions. Yet you always find your way back.

Racism? What racism? We live in a post racial society. Just ask Paula Dean, Sony Execs., etc.

You are a man of your word stradial, you'll make good. I won't even tell your wife where your lips have been.

Stop, drop and pucker up

The officers tried, convicted and executed this guy but I guess due process only applies to LE. Considering all of the bullets or most of them went through the side windows and not the windshield means he somehow learned to drive the vehicle toward police officers driving sideways. He should have been a stunt driver.

So you muddy the waters by saying both sides do it. Then you offer an example a conspiracy theory of one side doing it. I'm so glad you cleared that up.

Look at that... mrshoward advocating for socialism. We are going to make a pinko, commie, liberal out of her yet. Next thing you know she'll agree that corporations shouldn't get tax subsidies but instead with a fleet of cars, trucks and 18 wheelers should pay their fair share in taxes (more than the rest of us) because they have a greater impact on the roads and environment. Not to mention that corporations have more at stake when infrastructure fails.

Refresh my memory, who was it that brought up the election of 1960 from 55 yrs ago?

Any reply you give would be void of reason. Including the one you just gave.

Now I'm curious to know who you think I am. I've been Pubby, TP, TBAR, and Mil Mascaras. Out with it man. Tell me who I am, now.

Everything on the subject is an opinion piece. No one followed concrete rules. The concrete rule is the "intent of the voter" as is the law. The consortium you reference didn't follow the "intent of the voter".

We can go around and around with differing opinions from differing sources. The fact of the matter is legal voters were scrubbed from the rolls and the vote count was bias toward Bush. It doesn't serve some in the corporate media to say the election was stolen to undermine the public confidence in the election process. The media that I would present differs from what you present. Frankly I'm not going to spend the time explaining something to you that we simply will not agree on. Clearly we agree that Nixon/Kennedy was not the closest election in modern history.

Let me get this straight, a Canadian immigrant that wants to close the door on other immigrants drinks French and Italian wines because American wine isn't good enough?

You provided the article, so you provided the source to the quote. I have no illusions of having any credibility with you from the beginning. My credibility is intact with those it needs to be. I'm sure you feel the same way about your "credibility".

From your PBS link:

You think I'm funny? You're trucking hilarious. The closest election in modern times was Bush v. Gore. Where the "winner" actually lost the popular vote by over half a million votes. Where the Supreme Court Mafia stopped the recount that when later completed by the media showed that Bush lost his brother Jeb's election deciding state of Florida too. A state where 50,000 voters were illegally scrubbed from the voter registration lists by DBT but Bush was declared the winner by 500+ votes. The state where voter machines had a negative tally for Gore. How do you get negative votes?

Uh yeah, sure... you're actually right. That would not time consuming at all.

I'll type it a little slower for you this time... hundreds OR thousands of ballots.