Winston Legthigh

My point is that either you support equal rights or you don't. Your point is that Russia's laws are worse than the US's. I agree.

A mother who doesn't give her kids hohos after lunch is doing a good job. Is that your point?

And in other news... McCain to his constituents: against same-sex marriage. McCain to Russians (via Pravda.ru op-ed piece): [Your leaders] "write laws to codify bigotry against people whose sexual orientation they condemn."

Maybe give more teeth to the laws that govern the background check? http://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf I'd like to know how many applications - in which a person lied about a "No" answer in 11b-11l, and was later discovered to have lied - how many of those people have been prosecuted? How much follow-up work is done once the background check is processed? What fugitive would possibly answer "Yes" to "Are you a fugitive from justice?" Has there EVER been a submitted background check form with a YES to that question?

Am I missing something? Didn't Aaron Alexis do just that? Didn't Aaron Alexis have a history of violence and mental issues? Didn't he pass all background checks when he bought the shotgun?

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-JlmvtAHhnc

Yea, definitely possible. Tons of people there.

Ha Derogatis is getting slammed in the comments for having the article up not even an hour after the show. So, apparently, it was written before the show?

Wow - the Replacements were great. The sound was perfect, and they rocked and ripped through their setlist. Very big crowd was there to see them too. But, as good as the Replacements were, the Pixies were the opposite. Criminy Dutch did their sound suck. Not sure if Black Francis' guitar was even plugged in. Sounded like I was listening to it coming out of a crappy speaker stuck at the bottom of someone's backpack. The wait for the Replacements was painful - Brand New? Never heard of them. Terrible. AFI? Never heard of them. Terrible. I did catch about 15 minutes of the Suicidal Tendenc

Provence is wonderful. Ah, the lavender fields.

NILFs are great.

http://youtu.be/DCQQg4prUww

Still not sure why any of this would make us look weak (regardless if that even has any tangible meaning). This is what happened: We threatened military action, and now Russia and Syria are scrambling to negotiate their way out of this mess. Seems like our threat is working. If we appeared weak, why would they react in such a way to our threat? How is it possible that this is getting spinned the other way?

such as?

Any other Mr Show alumni participating in that besides Brian Posehn? A friend of mine still does the "change for a dollar" mouthsounds when he realizes he's taking too much time to make a decision on something. And he also frequently does the "it's ME!" like FF Woodycooks. So much of that show has remained in the daily language my friends and I use...

Fine, but what's the effect of looking "incredibly weak, ineffective and unprepared on the world stage"?

Even if this is accurate - that whatever he did makes the nation look incredibly weak, ineffective and unprepared on the world stage, what effect does that have? Should we kill a few more 100,000 people to inflate our image?

When some other piss beer replaces PBR as the cheapest option on the menu.

Harsh review from the Av Club.

The military industrial monster has to keep rolling to feed itself. Gotta use those expensive weapons to create the need for newer weapons so that all those budget slots can get filled every year.

Let's look at the whole thing. The way you're presenting it makes it seem that the FIL wouldn't be justified in shooting George if George threatened FIL's life. The part of the law you're quoting is after a big OR in 776.012 (1). 776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and do

Yeasty Peespots

Yes, no more war please.

You've got it in reverse. The question of whether the "person is legally entitled to be there" is one of the person who is standing their ground, not the person who is about to get shot. "a man who was "on his premises" when he came under attack and "...did not provoke the assault, and had at the time reasonable grounds to believe, and in good faith believed, that the deceased intended to take his life, or do him great bodily harm...was not obliged to retreat, nor to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground."