Comments by "craxd1" (@craxd1) on "The Young Turks" channel.

  1. 7
  2. 6
  3. 5
  4. 5
  5. 3
  6. 3
  7. 3
  8. 3
  9. 2
  10. 2
  11. 2
  12. 2
  13. 2
  14. Rusty Clifford What they'll try to argue is that 1100 is a huge number. However, that is a very small, actually minute, percentile of the total children in the US, who could use a gun, and are residing in homes with guns. We're speaking of 1100 out of hundreds of millions. On top of that, it is the parents fault, in those cases, for leaving a gun accessible to small children. These lefties remind me of the tinfoil hat wearing, nutter conspiracy theorists and hoaxers, who try to quote words and numbers out of context, and use them as scare tactics. When you check their sources, you find they're lying through their teeth, when compared to reliable data. They are no better than the neo-Nazi anti-Semites, who spread lies about the Jews. They remind me of Hal Hunt, from the 1960s, and Robert Welch's John Birch Society, who claimed many fallacies about both FDR and Truman. They're Goebbels propagandists, trying to push their low percentile opinions on the greater masses. The FBI's statistics clearly show, that not only has small children who harmed others, with guns, continually dropped over the last twenty years, but that violent crime, especially home intrusions, have dropped as gun ownership has risen during that time. That clearly shows that the lefties are telling one bare faced lie after another. Yet, you get those, like this Ana and her henchmen, who sit there, smugly, spieling one fallacy after another. The idiots who believe them, are either to lazy to look up the truth for themselves, or they are liars too.
    2
  15. 2
  16. 2
  17. 2
  18. I find that funny, that you find the 2nd amendment interpretation wrong, when this has been settled by the Supreme Court, many times, by those with more education on the subject than you, and it also seems that you have never read factual US history, about why the term, militia, does not mean the army, but does define the citizens of the United States; every legal citizen. Both had the right to carry those guns, period. However, BAIR might be in trouble for breaking the bigotry and hate crime laws of the US, and they might be arrested and tried over it, if their identities are verified. They wore those masks for a reason, as they knew they were openly breaking this law. "Defined in the 1999 National Crime Victim Survey, "A hate crime is a criminal offense. In the United States, federal prosecution is possible for hate crimes committed on the basis of a person's race, religion, or nation origin when engaging in a federally protected activity." In 2009, the Matthew Shepard Act added actual or perceived gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability to the federal definition, >>and dropped the prerequisite that the victim be engaging in a federally protected activity.<< Forty-five states and the District of Columbia have statutes criminalizing various types of hate crimes. Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia have statutes creating a civil cause of action in addition to the criminal penalty for similar acts. Twenty-seven states and the District of Columbia have statutes requiring the state to collect hate crime statistics".
    1
  19. 1
  20. 1
  21. 1
  22. 1
  23. 1
  24. 1
  25. 1
  26. 1
  27. 1
  28. 1
  29. 1
  30. 1
  31. 1
  32. 1
  33. 1
  34. 1
  35. 1
  36. 1
  37. 1
  38. 1
  39. Jason G The legality is that they arrested and searched the man, after finding out he had a warrant on him, not before. If the LEO had searched him before finding the warrant, it would have been thrown out. Law Enforcement has always questioned suspects, without making an arrest, even without ones rights being read, as what is said is inadmissible in court, but they can still ask one questions. In my opinion, the officer had cause to question him, because he came out of a house, that had been reported earlier, as having illegal drug activity taking place inside, and the officer was on a stakeout of that home. He didn't arrest or search Strieff, until it was found that he had a warrant by running his name. A name and ID that Strieff willingly gave the LEO. He would have walked, had he not had a warrant out on him, and he could have refused to give the LEO an answer. Utah agreed that it would have been illegal to arrest the man for just stopping him for questioning. Strieff's attorney asked the court to suppress the narcotics evidence found, after they made an arrest on the outstanding warrant, and then did a search, not before. Strieff's attorney cited Terry v. Ohio, but in that case, a Cleveland LEO frisked a man, and found a gun, without making an arrest on an outstanding warrant, and just because he looked suspicious. Thus, it was against his 4th amendment rights. The two cases are totally different. NY Times: "The case, Utah v. Strieff, started when the police in Salt Lake City got an anonymous tip of drug activity at a house. An officer monitoring the house became suspicious at the number of people he saw entering and leaving. When one of those people, Edward Strieff, left to walk to a nearby convenience store, the officer stopped him and asked for his identification. A routine check revealed that Mr. Strieff had an outstanding “small traffic warrant.” The officer arrested him based on that earlier warrant, searched him and found drugs in his pockets. The State of Utah agreed that the initial stop was illegal, because it was not based on reasonable, individual suspicion that Mr. Strieff was doing anything wrong. Instead, the state argued that the discovery of the valid warrant — after the illegal stop — got around the Fourth amendment violation." Here, the media is quoting Justice Sotomayor's opinions, and not that of all the Justices. She wished to throw out everything, because a LEO stopped the man to question him, even though he was arrested and searched over finding an outstanding warrant. The LEO had no intention of arresting the man over the stop, until he saw that there was a warrant against the man. If he had arrested the man, just over the stop, it would have been illegal. Decision: "Holding: When there was no flagrant police misconduct and a police officer discovered a valid, pre-existing, and untainted warrant for an individual’s arrest, evidence seized pursuant to that arrest is admissible even when the police officer’s stop of the individual was unconstitutional, because the discovery of the warrant attenuated the connection between the stop and the evidence." http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/utah-v-strieff/ http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/argument-preview-utah-v-strieff-and-the-future-of-the-exclusionary-rule/ http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/21/opinion/another-hit-to-the-fourth-amendment.html
    1
  40. 1
  41. 1
  42. Jennifer Loftus The oldest recorded flood tale, that of the Sumerians, say that it was only the Euphrates river that flooded, and that many people were drowned in the lowlands, over a 7 day rain. That Sumerian tale grew in size, twice more, to where it claimed an ark was built, that landed on a mountain in Mesopotamia, and not on Ararat, as the Jews claimed. The second tale of the three Mesopotamian tales, said that the boat landed on a small hill. With each retelling, it got embellished that much more, until the Jews really polished it up for a fourth retelling, claiming it rained 40 days and the water covered the earth, with Noah landing on Ararat. I imagine, with the rapid sea level rise over those years, when the icecap melted, that there was bad weather and flooding everywhere. Florida is 1/2 the size it once was, and Cuba and Haiti was connected into one island. The sea level rose about 350 feet over those years, with the rise starting at about 14,000 BCE, which leveled off around 8500 BCE. Tales of severe flooding, during that time, are from all over the world, as you state. In the Mesopotamian tales, the flood is said to either be the Euphrates river flooding, or it is guessed that it was when the Persian Gulf was created. If a Rabbi will state the truth, and some do, they will tell you that the Torah is all metaphorical. There's a lot of metaphor in the entire Tanakh. They combined many different tales of many different Gods into one, along with renaming heroes of other lands into Jewish names, and embellishing their tales. Noah and Moses were two examples. The link below is to a chart of the sea level rise. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png
    1
  43. 1
  44. 1
  45. 1
  46. 1
  47. 1
  48. 1