http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/08/20/missouri-cop-was-badly-beaten-before-shooting-michael-brown-says-source/

https://tinyurl.com/pc2g4ye

[..]

“The Assistant (Police) Chief took him to the hospital, his face all
swollen on one side,” said the insider. “He was beaten very severely.”
[...]

"Wilson suffered a fractured eye socket in the fracas, and was left
dazed by the initial confrontation, the source said. He is now
"traumatized, scared for his life and his family, injured and
terrified" that a grand jury, which began hearing evidence on
Wednesday, will "make some kind of example out of him," the source
said."

“You may engage a threat with enough force that is reasonably
necessary to defend against that danger,”...

(fight fire with fire, meet force with force)

Justified Homicide! in my view.

Oren wrote in news:240av9h2n9ijfsto6svlg3jg0079a3m2f2@
4ax.com:

Justified Homicide! in my view.


Not if you are a KneeGrow.

On 8/20/2014 3:20 PM, Oren wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/08/20/missouri-cop-was-badly-beaten-before-shooting-michael-brown-says-source/

https://tinyurl.com/pc2g4ye

[..]

“The Assistant (Police) Chief took him to the hospital, his face all
swollen on one side,” said the insider. “He was beaten very severely.”
[...]


Charles Johnson of the political blog Little Green Footballs has this
pegged as almost certainly a hoax, coming from a known liar and
accompanied by a photoshopped image of another person's CT scan:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/arti...e_Ey e_Socket

Jim Hoft’s Unsourced Claim That Officer Darren Wilson Had an "Orbital
Blowout Fracture of the Eye Socket": A few problems in the dumbest man
on the Internet's narrative
By Charles Johnson

The entire right wing universe (including Drudge Report) is now
screaming about this post by, yes, the Dumbest Man on the Internet
again, claiming that anonymous sources told him officer Darren Wilson
suffered an "orbital blowout fracture to the eye socket" in a struggle
with unarmed teenager Michael Brown.

It's possible that someone did leak this information to Hoft, but I'll
remind my readers that Jim Hoft is probably the single most dishonest
right wing blogger on the Internet as well as the dumbest, with a very
long history of distorting facts and completely making stuff up to
push his far right, often overtly racist agenda.

And there are some things to consider about Hoft's claims this time as
well, before lending them credibility they probably don’t deserve.

Here are the symptoms of an orbital blowout fractu

The most common symptoms are bruising, tenderness and swelling
around the eye; redness of the eye; double vision, ordiplopia (seeing
two images at the same time); numbness of the cheek, nose or teeth;
nose bleeds (epistaxis) [See figure 1].

Symptoms that typically indicate a more serious injury are pain
on eye movement, double vision, air under the skin around the eye, and
numbness of the cheek/mouth/nose on the side of the injury. Severe
trauma may cause facial bone fractures, injury to the eye itself, and
injuries to the skull/brain.

In the video taken by an eyewitness immediately after the shooting,
officer Darren Wilson is seen walking calmly around the body with no
signs of discomfort or injury, even though by this time he would have
been in very serious pain.

Video (hit link to view)

Also, no ambulance was called for Wilson, and no first aid was
administered by other officers, which seems odd if he had indeed
suffered this type of serious injury — or any injury at all.

And there’s more evidence that Hoft is trying to pull a fast one
again; here is the original image posted at the AAPOS site, showing a
CT scan of a blowout fracture (on the left), compared to the image
posted at Gateway Pundit by Hoft (on the right):
Original example CT scan (L), compared to altered image posted by Jim
Hoft (R)
(hit link to view images)

Notice the difference? In the version posted by Jim Hoft, the text at
bottom right that says "UNIV OF IOWA" has been crudely erased. Caught
you, Jim.

Was Hoft trying to mislead his readers into thinking this was the
actual X-ray (or CT scan) of Darren Wilson? His text does not make it
clear it wasn’t Wilson’s CT scan — and the words “UNIV OF IOWA” have
been blacked out, quite deliberately.

If Hoft's intent was to mislead, it worked. All over Twitter and right
wing blogs, the wingnuts are raving about "Darren Wilson’s X-ray" that
shows a fractured eye socket — but this is just a generic example
image of an unknown person's CT scan.

Time will tell if Wilson is going to claim he had this type of injury,
but nobody should take Jim Hoft's word for it.

And one more point while I’m at it; Hoft writes:

This comes from a source within the Prosecuting Attorney’s office
and confirmed by the St. Louis County Police.

If that's true, it's highly disturbing that the St. Louis prosecutor's
office and the St. Louis County police department are leaking
information to a far right hateblogger known for his unrelenting
dishonesty, who uses a white supremacist hate group as a source.

On Wed, 20 Aug 2014 16:00:36 -0500, Moe DeLoughan
wrote:

If that's true, it's highly disturbing that the St. Louis prosecutor's
office and the St. Louis County police department are leaking
information to a far right hateblogger known for his unrelenting
dishonesty, who uses a white supremacist hate group as a source.

So you pick an Internet blogger.

Has your source seen the medical records? I doubt it.

Those will be presented to the Grand Jury. If the injury was sustained
we will know and find out about it. Don't rule out the injury was
trivial or never happened.

"you libs"

On 8/20/2014 6:02 PM, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2014 16:00:36 -0500, Moe DeLoughan
wrote:

If that's true, it's highly disturbing that the St. Louis prosecutor's
office and the St. Louis County police department are leaking
information to a far right hateblogger known for his unrelenting
dishonesty, who uses a white supremacist hate group as a source.

So you pick an Internet blogger.

Has your source seen the medical records? I doubt it.

Those will be presented to the Grand Jury. If the injury was sustained
we will know and find out about it. Don't rule out the injury was
trivial or never happened.

"you libs"


If a special prosecutor is brought in such as with Zimmerman-Martin, he
will be charged with bringing in a prosecutory verdict. Then the grand
jury will not be told both sides of the story and evidence will be
withheld.

You also do not need a 100% of the grand jurors to agree to prosecute.

On Wed, 20 Aug 2014 18:46:51 -0400, Frank
wrote:

If a special prosecutor is brought in such as with Zimmerman-Martin, he
will be charged with bringing in a prosecutory verdict. Then the grand
jury will not be told both sides of the story and evidence will be
withheld.

You also do not need a 100% of the grand jurors to agree to prosecute.

A Grand Jury is secret, nothing is made public. Even the accused
cannot address them; nor can his lawyer address the jury.

The GJ will examine evidence presented by the prosecutor and return a
"True Bill" - enough for an indictment or a No Bill for dismissal of
the allegations of the charges.

The GJ is empanelled for X amount of days. They have to decide in that
time.

In article ,
Frank wrote:

On 8/20/2014 6:02 PM, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2014 16:00:36 -0500, Moe DeLoughan
wrote:

If that's true, it's highly disturbing that the St. Louis prosecutor's
office and the St. Louis County police department are leaking
information to a far right hateblogger known for his unrelenting
dishonesty, who uses a white supremacist hate group as a source.

So you pick an Internet blogger.

Has your source seen the medical records? I doubt it.

Those will be presented to the Grand Jury. If the injury was sustained
we will know and find out about it. Don't rule out the injury was
trivial or never happened.

"you libs"


If a special prosecutor is brought in such as with Zimmerman-Martin, he
will be charged with bringing in a prosecutory verdict. Then the grand
jury will not be told both sides of the story and evidence will be
withheld.

You also do not need a 100% of the grand jurors to agree to prosecute.

And it isn't just a joke that the prosecutor could get the Grand Jury
to indict a ham sandwich.
--
³Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.²
‹ Aaron Levenstein

On Wed, 20 Aug 2014 19:21:06 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

You also do not need a 100% of the grand jurors to agree to prosecute.

And it isn't just a joke that the prosecutor could get the Grand Jury
to indict a ham sandwich.

....so eloquently spoken by a judge one time G

My imaginary girlfriend even agrees.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3734640279001/judge-jeanine-gov-perry-indictment-is-hogwash/?playlist_id=937116552001#sp=show-clips

https://tinyurl.com/mu7uo9g

On 8/20/2014 7:02 PM, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2014 18:46:51 -0400, Frank
wrote:

If a special prosecutor is brought in such as with Zimmerman-Martin, he
will be charged with bringing in a prosecutory verdict. Then the grand
jury will not be told both sides of the story and evidence will be
withheld.

You also do not need a 100% of the grand jurors to agree to prosecute.

A Grand Jury is secret, nothing is made public. Even the accused
cannot address them; nor can his lawyer address the jury.

The GJ will examine evidence presented by the prosecutor and return a
"True Bill" - enough for an indictment or a No Bill for dismissal of
the allegations of the charges.

The GJ is empanelled for X amount of days. They have to decide in that
time.

Rules will vary with region. I looked up Delaware's:

"Grand juries in New Castle County shall consist of 15 members, and the
affirmative vote of 9 members shall be necessary to find a true bill of
indictment. Grand juries in Kent County and in Sussex County shall
consist of 10 members, and the affirmative vote of 7 members shall be
necessary to find a true bill of indictment. Grand jurors shall take an
oath to perform faithfully the duties of a grand juror."

What matters here is that people let the wheels of justice turn at their own speed.

This is a very serious matter, and it's best for all concerned to just let the process work. All the facts that can be ascertained will be ascertained in good time, and those facts will be made public so that eventually everyone will know what happened.

Still, it seems suspicious for the police and the authorities not to release all the information that was known at the time. Not releasing information as it is confirmed makes people suspicious that they're waiting to find out what's gonna be on the table when this mess goes to court so they can make up the best story that fits all of the facts. Innocent people don't do that.

If this were a flood or earthquake or other catastrophe, all of the information that came in would be released to the press as soon as it comes in. Not releasing it to the public smacks of lawyers waiting to find out what they're up against before they put together a story line that jives with all the facts and presents their client in the best possible light.

Moe DeLoughan wrote:

Charles Johnson of the political blog Little Green Footballs has this
pegged as almost certainly a hoax, coming from a known liar and
accompanied by a photoshopped image of another person's CT scan:

Little Green Footballs? Wasn't that the favorite blog of that Norwegian mass
murderer? Wasn't Johnson also friendly with that crazy yenta Geller before
she got too weird even for him? Yeah, I'll take his analysis for granite.

"nestork" wrote in message
...

What matters here is that people let the wheels of justice turn at their
own speed.

This is a very serious matter, and it's best for all concerned to just
let the process work. All the facts that can be ascertained will be
ascertained in good time, and those facts will be made public so that
eventually everyone will know what happened.

Still, it seems suspicious for the police and the authorities not to
release all the information that was known at the time. Not releasing
information as it is confirmed makes people suspicious that they're
waiting to find out what's gonna be on the table when this mess goes to
court so they can make up the best story that fits all of the facts.
Innocent people don't do that.

If this were a flood or earthquake or other catastrophe, all of the
information that came in would be released to the press as soon as it
comes in. Not releasing it to the public smacks of lawyers waiting to
find out what they're up against before they put together a story line
that jives with all the facts and presents their client in the best
possible light.


not releasing information is a standard technique to not taint evidence and
testimony that is yet to be uncovered.

In article ,
Oren wrote:

On Wed, 20 Aug 2014 19:21:06 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

You also do not need a 100% of the grand jurors to agree to prosecute.

And it isn't just a joke that the prosecutor could get the Grand Jury
to indict a ham sandwich.

...so eloquently spoken by a judge one time G

Of course it has to be a ham sandwich that has committed a crime......
--
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital."
-- Aaron Levenstein

In article ,
nestork wrote:

If this were a flood or earthquake or other catastrophe, all of the
information that came in would be released to the press as soon as it
comes in. Not releasing it to the public smacks of lawyers waiting to
find out what they're up against before they put together a story line
that jives with all the facts and presents their client in the best
possible light.

Not if the earthquake, flood, or catastrophe has some kind of criminal
implications. There are requirements (legal and otherwise) to keep some
parts of a criminal investigation under wraps.
--
³Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.²
‹ Aaron Levenstein

On 8/21/2014 8:33 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
And it isn't just a joke that the prosecutor could get the Grand Jury
to indict a ham sandwich.

...so eloquently spoken by a judge one time G

Of course it has to be a ham sandwich that has committed a crime......


And needs a Jewish or Muslim grand jury?

OTOH, maybe broke into the wrong house
and held the wrong sandwich at gunpoint?

http://bluenationreview.com/sheriffs...n-womans-head/


--
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On 8/21/2014 9:55 AM, ChairMan wrote:

[snip]

If it turns out that the police officer was indeed the victim here
and the young man was the aggressor, there will be champagne corks
popping in every Republican campaign office around the country.


Why just Republican? Every American should rejoice that lynch mob mentality
was defeated and that the justice system worked as it should

Correct as to your sentiments.

Probably correct that this applies to both sides of the aisle since both
- make that all parties - have their share of grandstanding, pandering
pimps to the masses always attempting to curry favor with their voting
block.

It's likely that the only reason he said Republican is because if/when
this blows up, the Democratic who've turned pandering and "legalized"
vote buying through entitlements into an art form, are such great pimps
and panderers.

It's always nice to see the hand that feeds get bitten!

On 8/21/2014 11:33 AM, Pico Rico wrote:
"ChairMan" wrote in message
If it turns out that the police officer was indeed the victim here
and the young man was the aggressor, there will be champagne corks
popping in every Republican campaign office around the country.


what makes you think that "If it turns out that the police officer was
indeed the victim here and the young man was the aggressor" then the result
will be "lynch mob mentality was defeated"?

Do you think there won't be people like Al Sharpton continuing on with their
baloney? And all the people in Ferguson will be satisfied and understand the
reality?


More likely the race baiters will blame the white
justice system, and go ahead with the riots.

Time to buy garden hose, and fire extinguishers.

--
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 11:40:12 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

On 8/21/2014 11:33 AM, Pico Rico wrote:
"ChairMan" wrote in message
If it turns out that the police officer was indeed the victim here
and the young man was the aggressor, there will be champagne corks
popping in every Republican campaign office around the country.


what makes you think that "If it turns out that the police officer was
indeed the victim here and the young man was the aggressor" then the result
will be "lynch mob mentality was defeated"?

Do you think there won't be people like Al Sharpton continuing on with their
baloney? And all the people in Ferguson will be satisfied and understand the
reality?


More likely the race baiters will blame the white
justice system, and go ahead with the riots.

You mean the War on White people?

Time to buy garden hose, and fire extinguishers.

.... ammo and cartridge polish

[DA] "...McCulloch said he won't be presenting the case to the
grand jury himself. That will be the job of two assistant prosecutors,
Kathi Alizadeh and Sheila Whirley. Alizadeh, who is white, is the
homicide prosecutor on duty and has 27 years' experience. Whirley, who
is black, has the grand jury assignment and has 18 years' experience.

McCulloch said the grand jury of 12 people is racially diverse with
three African-Americans. It was selected by a judge for the term that
began in May."

It may take until the middle of October to get a decision. It takes 9
jurors to return a True Bill.

In ,
Stormin Mormon belched:
On 8/21/2014 11:33 AM, Pico Rico wrote:
"ChairMan" wrote in message
If it turns out that the police officer was indeed the victim here
and the young man was the aggressor, there will be champagne corks
popping in every Republican campaign office around the country.


what makes you think that "If it turns out that the police officer
was indeed the victim here and the young man was the aggressor" then
the result will be "lynch mob mentality was defeated"?

Do you think there won't be people like Al Sharpton continuing on
with their baloney? And all the people in Ferguson will be satisfied
and understand the reality?


More likely the race baiters will blame the white
justice system, and go ahead with the riots.

Ya mean like whites did when OJ was acquitted?


Time to buy garden hose, and fire extinguishers.

**** hoses and extinguishers.
Get yer guns

In ,
Unquestionably Confused belched:
On 8/21/2014 9:55 AM, ChairMan wrote:

[snip]

If it turns out that the police officer was indeed the victim here
and the young man was the aggressor, there will be champagne corks
popping in every Republican campaign office around the country.


Why just Republican? Every American should rejoice that lynch mob
mentality was defeated and that the justice system worked as it
should

Correct as to your sentiments.

Probably correct that this applies to both sides of the aisle since
both - make that all parties - have their share of grandstanding,
pandering pimps to the masses always attempting to curry favor with
their voting block.

It's likely that the only reason he said Republican is because if/when
this blows up, the Democratic who've turned pandering and "legalized"
vote buying through entitlements into an art form, are such great
pimps and panderers.

It's always nice to see the hand that feeds get bitten!

True, the libs have much more on the line than conservatives do

On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 08:33:27 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Oren wrote:

On Wed, 20 Aug 2014 19:21:06 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

You also do not need a 100% of the grand jurors to agree to prosecute.

And it isn't just a joke that the prosecutor could get the Grand Jury
to indict a ham sandwich.

...so eloquently spoken by a judge one time G

Of course it has to be a ham sandwich that has committed a crime......

New York Chief Judge Wachler coined it.

....
THE COURT: But as former Chief Judge Wachler said, you could indict a
ham sandwich; isn't that correct?

MR. JAQUITH: That is not my experience, your Honor.

http://www.november.org/razorwire/rzold/09/0919.html

On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 08:40:30 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

Of course it has to be a ham sandwich that has committed a crime......


And needs a Jewish or Muslim grand jury?


You should see what it cost to feed Jews and Muslims in prison.
Outrageous the amount of money spent. The food line has to be clearly
marked : Pork No Pork. Jews used to have a Kosher kitchen, no sure
today though.

OTOH, maybe broke into the wrong house
and held the wrong sandwich at gunpoint?

http://bluenationreview.com/sheriffs...n-womans-head/

Are your surprised?

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/nevada/nvdce/2:2013cv01154/95379/

The family told the Po Po they could not use their house to observe a
neighbor being investigated for domestic abuse. Told them to get a
warrant. So They abused this family.

.... family in Henderson, Nev., is suing the city, claiming that police
officers violated his Third Amendment rights by occupying their home
without permission.

Anthony Mitchell was at home on July 10, 2011, when cops called his
home and said they needed to occupy the house in order to gain a
"tactical advantage" in dealing with a domestic violence case at a
neighbor's home, Courthouse News reported.

Mitchell said he told the officer he did not want officers to enter
his home. Nevertheless, five officers showed up and smashed the door
open with a metal ram before pointing their guns at Mitchell, cursing
at him and telling him to lie on the floor.

https://tinyurl.com/nyh6vbj

On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 08:33:13 -0700, "Pico Rico"
wrote:

what makes you think that "If it turns out that the police officer was
indeed the victim here and the young man was the aggressor" then the result
will be "lynch mob mentality was defeated"?

It means they can't hang his horse, can't collect coins from his
pockets and can't charge him with loitering after being hanged.

I thought your knew.

On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 08:33:13 -0700, "Pico Rico"
wrote:

Do you think there won't be people like Al Sharpton continuing on with their
baloney?

Sure. As long as NBC still pays him for being a Charlatan. They will
find another just like him for a replacement. How about Louis
Farrakhan? That creature should fit right in with the "you libs".

On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 10:12:17 -0500, Unquestionably Confused
wrote:

It's likely that the only reason he said Republican is because if/when
this blows up, the Democratic who've turned pandering and "legalized"
vote buying through entitlements into an art form, are such great pimps
and panderers.

Have you noticed proposed California law, San Francisco, that wants to
pay or give prizes to voters? You can win between $100 or $100,000 to
vote even you are a dumb ass and know nothing about politics or have
never kept up with current events. Fortunately this is against federal
election laws. See why we need a voter ID policies?

The more you vote on election day, the more chances you have to win
the prize drawing.

On Wednesday, August 20, 2014 10:24:50 PM UTC-4, nestork wrote:
What matters here is that people let the wheels of justice turn at their

own speed.



This is a very serious matter, and it's best for all concerned to just

let the process work. All the facts that can be ascertained will be

ascertained in good time, and those facts will be made public so that

eventually everyone will know what happened.



Still, it seems suspicious for the police and the authorities not to

release all the information that was known at the time. Not releasing

information as it is confirmed makes people suspicious that they're

waiting to find out what's gonna be on the table when this mess goes to

court so they can make up the best story that fits all of the facts.

Innocent people don't do that.



I agree 100% that the officials should have released most of the information
they had in the first day or two. But it's hard to see how withholding the
vidoe tape of Brown committing a robbery and assaulting a clerk 10 mins
before fits your rational of "innocent people don't do that". There was
nothing they could or had to fit to that. Why exactly they didn't put it
out right away, IDK. But I suspect political correctness and fear of the
likes of Sharpton is a factor.




If this were a flood or earthquake or other catastrophe, all of the

information that came in would be released to the press as soon as it

comes in. Not releasing it to the public smacks of lawyers waiting to

find out what they're up against before they put together a story line

that jives with all the facts and presents their client in the best

possible light.









--

nestork

On Thursday, August 21, 2014 8:33:27 AM UTC-4, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,

Oren wrote:



On Wed, 20 Aug 2014 19:21:06 -0400, Kurt Ullman

wrote:



You also do not need a 100% of the grand jurors to agree to prosecute.



And it isn't just a joke that the prosecutor could get the Grand Jury

to indict a ham sandwich.



...so eloquently spoken by a judge one time G



Of course it has to be a ham sandwich that has committed a crime......


The indictment of Rick Perry is a good example. When I first started to
hear that story, and how it involved a prosecutor and a DUI, I thought
it was going to be that they were accusing Perry of getting someone off
the hook for a DUI. Instead it turns out that he insisted the prosecutor
resign from the public corruption office she held. She was 3X the legal
limit, abusive to cops, buy heh, she's a Democrat, so I guess that's OK.
Anyone see a pattern here? Investigating Christie over Port of Authority
money being used for the Pulaski Skyway, but not being disclosed in a bond
offering, now Perry? Anyone believe this isn't being orchestrated to
destroy potential Republican candidates?

On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 08:36:43 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
nestork wrote:

If this were a flood or earthquake or other catastrophe, all of the
information that came in would be released to the press as soon as it
comes in. Not releasing it to the public smacks of lawyers waiting to
find out what they're up against before they put together a story line
that jives with all the facts and presents their client in the best
possible light.

Not if the earthquake, flood, or catastrophe has some kind of criminal
implications. There are requirements (legal and otherwise) to keep some
parts of a criminal investigation under wraps.

Correct and necessary. Only a true criminal can confess when he knows
specific details related to a crime. Cops don't want mentally ill
people taking credit for a crime they never committed. Specific
information is not always released to the public.

Oren wrote:

You should see what it cost to feed Jews and Muslims in prison.
Outrageous the amount of money spent. The food line has to be clearly
marked : Pork No Pork. Jews used to have a Kosher kitchen, no sure
today though.

I hope the AB isn't running the kitchen...

I expect the vast majority of voters on both sides of the border fit that description. LOTS of people vote along party lines. If they have conservative ideals, they vote conservative regardless of who the candidate is. Others wait to the last minute and decide who to vote for based on who they liked best in the candidate's debates. Women and minorities generally vote democrat, rich fat WASPS and people with guns vote republican.

You don't even have to know who the candidates in your riding are to cast a legal ballot. You can just do the eenie meeni miney mo thing and pick a winner. There is absolutely no requirement that voters have any clue about who or what they are voting for to cast a legal ballot.

If voting laws were any more lenient, we might have an "America's Got Leaders" TV show where everyone can text as many votes as they like for the next President.

On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 18:35:07 -0800, "Guv Bob"
wrote:

"Oren" wrote in message ...
On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 10:12:17 -0500, Unquestionably Confused
wrote:

It's likely that the only reason he said Republican is because if/when
this blows up, the Democratic who've turned pandering and "legalized"
vote buying through entitlements into an art form, are such great pimps
and panderers.

Have you noticed proposed California law, San Francisco, that wants to
pay or give prizes to voters? You can win between $100 or $100,000 to
vote even you are a dumb ass and know nothing about politics or have
never kept up with current events. Fortunately this is against federal
election laws. See why we need a voter ID policies?

The more you vote on election day, the more chances you have to win
the prize drawing.

The sad part is that whoever proposed this lottery/vote thing will likely get re-elected instead of being run out of town.


You call it sad. I call it insanity. And please don't let these
libtards come to Nevada. Todd and me will be really ****ed off.

How 'bout we send you Harry Reid?

On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 19:12:14 -0600, rbowman
wrote:

Oren wrote:

You should see what it cost to feed Jews and Muslims in prison.
Outrageous the amount of money spent. The food line has to be clearly
marked : Pork No Pork. Jews used to have a Kosher kitchen, no sure
today though.

I hope the AB isn't running the kitchen...

They never have. They can't cook.

On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 17:00:48 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:


Still, it seems suspicious for the police and the authorities not to

release all the information that was known at the time. Not releasing

information as it is confirmed makes people suspicious that they're

waiting to find out what's gonna be on the table when this mess goes to

court so they can make up the best story that fits all of the facts.

Innocent people don't do that.



I agree 100% that the officials should have released most of the information
they had in the first day or two. But it's hard to see how withholding the
vidoe tape of Brown committing a robbery and assaulting a clerk 10 mins
before fits your rational of "innocent people don't do that". There was
nothing they could or had to fit to that. Why exactly they didn't put it
out right away, IDK. But I suspect political correctness and fear of the
likes of Sharpton is a factor.

The Mayor of Ferguson has publicly stated that the case is in the
hands of St Louis County? And federal agents.

IOW, The Ferguson PD is not the investigators; nor do they have or nor
can they release information they are not privy to.

Oh. Here it is from his own mouth.

Ferguson Mayor discusses Eric Holder's visit...

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3741281064001/ferguson-mayor-discusses-eric-holders-visit/?playlist_id=930909813001#sp=show-clips

https://tinyurl.com/l4wr23h

"Oren" wrote in message ...
On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 10:12:17 -0500, Unquestionably Confused
wrote:

It's likely that the only reason he said Republican is because if/when
this blows up, the Democratic who've turned pandering and "legalized"
vote buying through entitlements into an art form, are such great pimps
and panderers.

Have you noticed proposed California law, San Francisco, that wants to
pay or give prizes to voters? You can win between $100 or $100,000 to
vote even you are a dumb ass and know nothing about politics or have
never kept up with current events. Fortunately this is against federal
election laws. See why we need a voter ID policies?

The more you vote on election day, the more chances you have to win
the prize drawing.

The sad part is that whoever proposed this lottery/vote thing will likely get re-elected instead of being run out of town.

nestork wrote:

You don't even have to know who the candidates in your riding are to
cast a legal ballot. You can just do the eenie meeni miney mo thing and
pick a winner. There is absolutely no requirement that voters have any
clue about who or what they are voting for to cast a legal ballot.

I'll admit to doing that. County commissioner, sheriff, school board? I
don't know any of them personally and all the information I have is the
glossy brochures they mail out. Most of them avoid saying anything of
substance that might **** off a voter.

Even senators and representatives are a crap shoot unless they've already
served a term and there are deeds rather than bull**** to judge them by.

"Oren" wrote in message ...
On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 18:35:07 -0800, "Guv Bob"
wrote:

"Oren" wrote in message ...
On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 10:12:17 -0500, Unquestionably Confused
wrote:

It's likely that the only reason he said Republican is because if/when
this blows up, the Democratic who've turned pandering and "legalized"
vote buying through entitlements into an art form, are such great pimps
and panderers.

Have you noticed proposed California law, San Francisco, that wants to
pay or give prizes to voters? You can win between $100 or $100,000 to
vote even you are a dumb ass and know nothing about politics or have
never kept up with current events. Fortunately this is against federal
election laws. See why we need a voter ID policies?

The more you vote on election day, the more chances you have to win
the prize drawing.

The sad part is that whoever proposed this lottery/vote thing will likely get re-elected instead of being run out of town.


You call it sad. I call it insanity. And please don't let these
libtards come to Nevada. Todd and me will be really ****ed off.

How 'bout we send you Harry Reid?

Sure, I'll take Harry Reid, if you will take Sacramento.

On 8/21/2014 8:07 PM, trader_4 wrote:
The indictment of Rick Perry is a good example. When I first started to
hear that story, and how it involved a prosecutor and a DUI, I thought
it was going to be that they were accusing Perry of getting someone off
the hook for a DUI. Instead it turns out that he insisted the prosecutor
resign from the public corruption office she held. She was 3X the legal
limit, abusive to cops, buy heh, she's a Democrat, so I guess that's OK.
Anyone see a pattern here? Investigating Christie over Port of Authority
money being used for the Pulaski Skyway, but not being disclosed in a bond
offering, now Perry? Anyone believe this isn't being orchestrated to
destroy potential Republican candidates?


Gee, wouldn't that be "partisan
politics"? And that from the most
honest and integrity admin in
history, they said so after all.

Yep, sounds like Alinsky and company.


--
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On 8/21/2014 9:52 PM, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 19:12:14 -0600, rbowman
wrote:

Oren wrote:

You should see what it cost to feed Jews and Muslims in prison.
Outrageous the amount of money spent. The food line has to be clearly
marked : Pork No Pork. Jews used to have a Kosher kitchen, no sure
today though.

I hope the AB isn't running the kitchen...

They never have. They can't cook.

I'm sure that opens up a lot of jokes about
what, or who, the Ayrian Brotherhood would
cook for dinner. Not sure I want to go there.

What's the difference between Jews and pizza?

--
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On Thursday, August 21, 2014 9:17:55 PM UTC-4, nestork wrote:
'Oren[_2_ Wrote:

;3274391']

You can win between $100 or $100,000 to vote even you are a dumb ass and

know nothing about politics or have never kept up with current events.



I expect the vast majority of voters on both sides of the border fit

that description. LOTS of people vote along party lines. If they have

conservative ideals, they vote conservative regardless of who the

candidate is.

You make it sound like that happens unnaturally. If the voter has
conservative ideals, do you think they are going to vote for the
Democrat lib? In the vast majority of cases, if they are conservative
they know who the candidates are and enough about them to make their
choice. I haven't voted for a Democrat in years, not because IDK
their positions and what they are about, but because I know exactly
what their positions are. Anyone that identifies with the Democratic
Party today, I don't want anything to do with. The only exception
might be if the opponent was a criminal.



Others wait to the last minute and decide who to vote for

based on who they liked best in the candidate's debates. Women and

minorities generally vote democrat, rich fat WASPS and people with guns

vote republican.



If only rich, fat WASPS vote Republican, how do you explain that Republicans
control the House, the majority of governorships and most state legislatures?
There aren't that many rich, fat, WASPS.



You don't even have to know who the candidates in your riding are to

cast a legal ballot. You can just do the eenie meeni miney mo thing and

pick a winner. There is absolutely no requirement that voters have any

clue about who or what they are voting for to cast a legal ballot.



I'd prefer that you have to take a short quiz to prove that your
competent. Pass the test and your vote gets counted. Fail and it goes
in the bucket.




If voting laws were any more lenient, we might have an "America's Got

Leaders" TV show where everyone can text as many votes as they like for

the next President.



My God, you're right! We should have that! And the fact that conservatives
would be against it proves that they are trying to surpress minority voters!

trader_4 wrote:

I haven't voted for a Democrat in years, not because IDK
their positions and what they are about, but because I know exactly
what their positions are. Anyone that identifies with the Democratic
Party today, I don't want anything to do with.

That becomes more difficult on the state level. The Democrats around here
tend to run to the right of most of the big city RINOs.

The only exception
might be if the opponent was a criminal.

Like our late, great Senator? He escaped indictment in the Abramhof thing by
sheer luck. It still was a close race.