markdavd

That is an interesting video. I wonder how many will recognize the picture of Obama they show at the end. Obviously, some of those who commented on the video didn't.

We've all heard this week about the Juror that said Zimmerman 'Got away with murder.' Just like the media's creative edit of the 911 tape, removing the operator asking about the race of the unknown suspicious person, they apparently have selectivity edited the juror's interview, changing the questions and answers given. ABC News Accused of Dishonestly Editing Zimmerman Juror to Take 'Got Away With Murder' Out of Context

It sounds like the poor lady would rather not have him under foot. I'm sure she's more than tired of the old charts and statistics he shows her every day.

According to the article, the study was after the accident.

I read the article. It's about them admitting to destroying the results from an internal study done after the accident. I guess what you're trying to imply is they never should have done the internal study.

Yes. The main point is they admitted to destroying the results of and internal study done AFTER the accident. At what point does an internal study done after an accident become legal evidence?

Your post wasn't about what they did or didn't tell the government about BP. It's strictly about what they did with their INTERNAL STUDY. They would have been better off just blaming BP for not doing what they recommended and never doing the INTERNAL study. Again, at what point does an INTERNAL study after the fact become legal evidence?

Maybe there was something to the old-fashioned blood-letting they would do to remove bad humors.

The calculations were done AFTER the spill. They wanted to see if a change they had recommended could have prevented it. What were they covering up? At what point do the calculations become official evidence?

I find this one of those interesting twists in the law. Folks in a company decide to to some calculations to see if an accident could have been avoided. They find out that no, it probably couldn't have so they delete the results. At what point in the process did those calculations become official evidence? It sounds like things would have been better if they had never ran the analysis.

The 911 tape PROVES he was already out of his car when he was told they didn't need him to follow. This is an undisputed fact.

May I suggest going to the DDS website and seeing if there's a link for permit renewal.

In 16 months, the FBI hasn't found anything. How much will this witch hunt cost the taxpayers? How much vetting will the Justice Department give each of the thousands of 'tips' this is sure to generate from folks that just know what happened that night based on the false media reports they heard?

I must have missed those.

I wouldn't necessary call LPPT's posts nonsense. I think she and Pubby often suffer from the same problem - they write like they're getting paid by the word. Their posts are so long that if you're able to make it to the end, you've forgotten what the topic is. At least TP's posts are short (unless he's plagiarized something.)

Then there's this: Colorado town ponders bounty for shooting down drones

Please fill in the gap between "Can't resolve their differences" and "legitimately in fear of losing their life." That's a pretty big hole in the story. Of course, buy using the word legitimate you imply that SOMEONE will probably be loosing their life, guns or no guns.

I saw an article yesterday saying Zimmerman should sue Martin's parents for the bodily harm their minor child did to him. It's based on the fact that the parent is liable for the child's actions until they are 18. He might actually have a case if he did.

Don't just compare the price of the cartridges, but how much ink they contain.

Don't get a printer where all the ink is in a single cartridge - when one color runs out you have to throw the rest away. A lot of times the ink that comes with the printer is a 'starter' cartridge that doesn't have as much ink as the cartridges you buy in the store.

Pubby, You're saying Martin approached Zimmerman with the intent of having a civilized conversation until he saw Zimmerman was armed?

A few seem to take any ideas that don't agree with theirs as personal attacks rather than a rational debate.

Better yet - There's room enough for all of us if SOME can resist TAKING everything personally!

You don't think Martin beating on Zimmerman may have been illegal?