Search results

He was such a lousy shot that he needed 30 rounds to shoot three guys?

Yep. That's part of the confusion that surrounds the defense. Also, sometimes the doctrine of "mutual combatants" removes the defense from all parties in the fight, or as I said before, there's times when going looking for a fight, particularly when illegally armed, nullifies a self defense...

A certain lady taking a shower. Y'all have a nice night now, hear?

When did the United States ever allow a democratic referendum when the result wasn't already in the bag?

OK, I'll take Billy Joel's advice. . . "You should never argue with a crazy ma-ma-ma-ma-ma-man"

You think the CCP is NWO? Ohhhh-KAY.

Look on the bright side. They ain't gonna do much about it. And to say your society is "free and independent" now is like saying the U.S. is a "democracy."

I think Bradshaw was a better quarterback.

I hope so. On what I've seen so far, I'd vote to acquit. Seems to me like a pretty clear case of self defense. But it's a near-run thing generally. Frequently in self-defense cases, your assailant isn't so thoughtful as to point a gun at you.

The question answers itself. We certainly don't want them in any of the nice states.

Six million Jews (among the 45 million-odd dead in WWII) might disagree.

They did. The cops and the DA said "Good shootin', buddy."

I prefer to think of them as the Northern Territories.

Unusually cogent and accurate. Just wanted to stress that if Rosenbaum had been a war hero/humanitarian/philanthropist/volunteer worker with cute li'l puppy-dogs and kitty-cats, it should make not difference to the key question. . . did young Kyle have a reasonable fear of imminent death or...

Sigh. You are technically correct. So give yourself a gold star.

If you think nationalism is good, you're a Nazi.

Yep. It's pretty much why Canada can go to war, but you and your buddies can't go to war on the folks next door without drawing the interest of the RCMP.

Sort of. They never had slavery in England, only in the colonies (which is why the U.S. had it). England abolished the slave trade in 1807, the same year the United States did. England abolished slavery in all its possessions in 1833, 32 years before the U.S. did. I'm sure you think you had...

If by "them" you mean White South Africans (the only ones you acknowledge as human), not so great. Which, in whatever you use for a mind, undoubtedly proves that only separation and oppression of people with melanin can save civilization. I'm not even slightly surprised to see you stand up for...

Yes. It's called "sovereign immunity." It's an ancient and common feature of sovereignty, so of course you're ignorant of it.