HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » jberryhill » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ... 52 Next »


Profile Information

Gender: Male
Hometown: Delaware
Member since: Fri Jan 20, 2006, 08:14 PM
Number of posts: 45,032

Journal Archives

Such handwringing over not much, really, in Chicago

Can someone please let me know the body count over what doesn't even rise to the level of a riot?

Heavens to Betsy, you'd think someone won the Stanley Cup.

Was there anything more substantial than some fistfghts?

This is what happens after a hockey game:

This is what happens during a soccer match:

This is what happens after a jury verdict:

Crowds can get into emotional frenzies over all sorts of things. We regularly have sporting events in which the object of the sport is to beat one's opponent into unconsciousness, while the crowd cheers on their favorite contestant. Does that sort of mass event - in which violence is the POINT - inspire a lot of handwringing over whether the promoters are encouraging violence? We have football and baseball games in which fatal conflicts occur with regularity. I must have missed the hours of news coverage focusing on which team's coach is responsible for those sorts of things.

It's no wonder that Americans are so ignorant of world events. A lot of significant things happened today on this planet, but the one and only thing our news media covered all freaking evening long was, as far as I could tell, some shouting and punching at a mass gathering.

Other than some fistfights, can someone help me understand the earth-shattering monumental significance of an unruly crowd at a cancelled political rally, because I'm just not getting it.

Just out of curiosity - and not meant as "political fodder" one way or another

As nothing other than idle personal curiosity, inspired by the "basta" thing...

I would assume that Wellesley had a foreign language requirement, as did most colleges at the time.

Is there any language in which Secretary Clinton has any degree of familiarity other than English?


I mean, didn't she at least take two semesters of French or anything in college?

I do have to appreciate Kelly's David Bowie tribute

Although that cut worked better on David Bowie

Yes HRC gave the speeches, but she didn't inhale

When asked about marijuana, Bill Clinton famously said he experimented with it, but he didn't inhale.

The point is that, of course he was around it, and engaged in an act that looked just like he was actually smoking marijuana. BUT - he didn't inhale.

By having the marijuana, lighting the marijuana, and drawing a puff, it looked just like smoking marijuana. But by not inhaling, he avoided any of the actual effects of marijuana which, for most people, is the point of smoking it in the first place.

I think what we should realize is that Hillary is correct when she denies the implication of graft. Yes, it looks like they gave her a large quantity of money in order to curry favor, since that is the usual recipe for curried favor. But we are failing to realize that, just like Bill and marijuana, she insulated herself against its effects.

If possible, would you support a brain scan warrant?

If there was a technology that could, literally, read your mind, then should it be available to law enforcement subject to a warrant?

Now, before you say "that would be self-incrimination", understand that medical physical procedures can be ordered. You can be compelled to give blood, gene, hair and other samples on probable cause. You can have your metabolism tested, your fingerprints taken, you stomach pumped and your cavities examined. You can have your urine, feces, and respiration tested.

You will not be compelled to give them information. You will sit in a chair, a device pointed at your head, and it will download the contents of your memory.

You don't have to be suspect, you could just be a witness.

Should such a technology be used for law enforcement, or should it be off limits?

Obligatory Westboro Baptist funeral announcement

And, yep, Scalia upheld their right to do it.

WTF is this crap?

Who thought this was a good idea?

Why, on God's green planet is this going on?

A note about attendance at Scalia's Memorial

Joe Biden was the ranking minority member of the Judiciary Committee when Scalia was nominated to the court.

It is unusual for both the president and vice president to attend a public event together on short notice, for security reasons.

Joe Biden is going, because Joe Biden had an important role in Scalia's Supreme Court career.


A while back it was "Bernie attracts GOP voters"

Some weeks ago, the story was that Bernie was suspect as a Democratic candidate, because he attracts a certain element of libertarian GOP and independent voters.

Do I correctly now understand that we should not nominate a candidate that Republicans don't like?

I support Hillary for Supreme Court nominee!

I don't care what the Hillary Hate Club here says. I think she would make a superb Supreme Court justice.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ... 52 Next »