Highmark

Got to love Bernie and his socialist democracy theories and he won't answer questions on why so many South American socialist countries are failing. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/05/30/bernie_sanders_isnt_interested_in_answering_questions_about_socialism_in_venezuela.html LEÓN KRAUZE, UNIVISION: I am sure that you know about this topic: various leftist governments, especially the populists, are in serious trouble in Latin America. The socialist model in Venezuela has the country near collapse. Argentina, also Brazil, how do you explain that failure?BERNIE SANDERS, DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE: You are asking me questions…LEÓN KRAUZE, UNIVISION: I am sure you’re interested in that.BERNIE SANDERS, DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE: I am very interested, but right now I’m running for President of the United States.LEÓN KRAUZE, UNIVISION: So you don’t have an opinion about the crisis in Venezuela?BERNIE SANDERS, DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE: Of course I have an opinion, but as I said, I’m focused on my campaign. In other words Bernie can't answer because there is no good one.

Actually you are wrong. While a stupid law it can be illegal simply to be drunk in a bar even if you are doing nothing wrong. I think each state is different. Unless your sleeping in the bar pretty hard to not eventually be in public to get home. http://vinepair.com/wine-blog/9-strange-american-booze-laws/

But the drunk person has already done something illegal by being "drunk in public." (In my best Ron White voice.) I'm all for private business' to be able to refuse sale to someone but doesn't this bring up the discrimination side of it if they refuse sale simply because they look Middle Eastern or Muslim? The Orlando shooter may have acted perfectly normal when purchasing the guns. In fact I've heard of nothing stating he was on a no fly list. How does the no fly list banning weapons purchases stop this?

Freedom of movement under United States law is governed primarily by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution which states, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." As far back as the circuit court ruling in Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (1823), the Supreme Court recognized freedom of movement as a fundamental Constitutional right. In Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168 (1869), the Court defined freedom of movement as "right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them."[1] However, the Supreme Court did not invest the federal government with the authority to protect freedom of movement. Under the "privileges and immunities" clause, this authority was given to the states, a position the Court held consistently through the years in cases such as Ward v. Maryland, 79 U.S. 418 (1871), the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873) and United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1883).[2][3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law

85% of American's don't understand the constitution.

You crack me up with your categorization of people. Just tell me who is the minority when you group all of your "minorities" together? To you everyone who is not white christian male is a minority. God you are a loon.

Not for saying something or visiting a particular website they can't. A no fly list with no reasonable way to get off of it can violate a persons right of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." On top of this you have due process infringement. From the court decision. One need not look beyond the hardships suffered by Plaintiffs to understand the significance of the deprivation of the right to travel internationally. Due to the major burden imposed by inclusion on the No-Fly List, Plaintiffs have suffered significantly including long-term separation from spouses and children; the inability to access desired medical and prenatal care; the inability to pursue an education of their choosing; the inability to participate in important religious rites; loss of employment opportunities; loss of government entitlements; the inability to visit family; and the inability to attend important personal and family events such as graduations, weddings, and funerals. The Court concludes international travel is not a mere convenience or luxury in this modern world. Indeed, for many international travel is a necessary aspect of liberties sacred to members of a free society.

Really comes down to what athletic moves are being measured. Some NBA players are superb athletes but so are a lot of football players.

How can you watch it that much? I won't even watch highlights on ESPN.

Oh no's you support Gitmo?

You need to watch.

Or buy a gun or crossbow to go hunting with.

Do you support profiling? Sounds like it.

Top 1% earn 22% of the income yet pay 38% of the total income tax revenue collected. Them fucking bastards! http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-0 Fair share. The Top 1 Percent’s Effective Tax Rate Is Nearly Seven Times Higher than the Bottom 50 percent’s The 2012 IRS data shows that taxpayers with higher incomes pay much higher effective income tax rates than lower-income taxpayers. The bottom 50 percent of taxpayers (taxpayers with AGIs under $36,055) faced an average effective income tax rate of 3.3 percent. As taxpayer AGI increases, the IRS data shows that average income tax rates rise. For example, taxpayers with AGIs between the 10th and 5th percentile ($125,195 and $175,817) pay an average effective rate of 13.3 percent—four times the rate paid by those in the bottom 50 percent. The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI of $434,682 and higher) paid the highest effective income tax rate at 22.8 percent, 6.9 times the rate faced by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers. The top 1 percent’s average effective tax rate for 2012 of 22.8 percent was slightly lower than that of 2011 (23.5 percent). Taxpayers at the very top of the income distribution, the top 0.1 percent, which includes taxpayers with incomes over $2.2 million, actually paid a slightly lower income tax rate than the top 1 percent (21.7 percent versus 22.8 percent). This is due to the fact that very high income taxpayers are more likely to report a greater share of their income as taxable capital gains income. This leads to a slightly lower effective tax rate because capital gains and dividends income faces a lower top income tax rate (23.8 percent) than wage and business income (39.6 percent). It is important to note, however, that capital gains taxes at the individual level are the second layer of tax after the corporate income tax (which is 35 percent).

The motivation is political no matter what the AG says. Trump would benefit from a full release more than Clinton. One needs to know no more than that.

Unwatchable with how the ref'ing is done. Guy drives the hoop gets body slammed into the pad no call. Guy puts his hand on a guy at the top of the key and its a foul.

Yep and now the ACLU is backing off because they agree with the "no gun list"

I see your point but American's have the right to understand what we are up against.

I know and I'm simply showing how the courts found it unconstitutional. "No lists" are a very dangerous and slippery slope that US citizens should be very cautious of. Look at it this way the chance of dying in a terrorist attack is minuscule compared to dying from gang violence. Where is "gang list" that stops them from things?

I'd bet if this involved white racism or bigotry against gays EVERYTHING would be released.

Agreed that he has shown some dislike for the Israel when it comes to the conflict with Palestinians but I can show you plenty of times he says one thing and does another. He's a career politician not all that different from the rest of them.

Doesn't mean its right or constitutional. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/06/25/judge-rules-no-fly-list-unconstitutional/ https://www.aclu.org/news/court-rules-no-fly-list-process-unconstitutional-and-must-be-reformed

He didn't put his name on the letter. Let's see how he votes.

It was from the NY Times, not what I wrote. Reality is regarding US citizens the article is correct. Since when is free speech, even if its fucked up cause to lose one's rights without due process? If you say it is then a GOP ran justice department could make do not vote lists for hateful speech said by liberals. Really sad intelligent people cannot understand this.

Really? Who decides what is harmful regarding speech? How do you stop him from making a pressure cooker bomb or a 55 gallon drum of AN and FO? Don't get me wrong, there is nothing more I'd like is to stop a potential terrorist from getting a weapon of any sort however, regarding US citizens you simply cannot take away constitutional rights without due process. I don't trust EITHER side deciding on what a "cannot say" list is.