Hal 9000

Is it irrationality that makes people take their babies/toddlers into the store with them, when leaving them in the vehicle makes so much more sense?

At what point can you look at a group and claim that they accept or even "like" something? For example, how many hockey fans have to accept or like fighting for us to say "hockey fans accept fighting as part of the sport"...50%...60%? When I see 15,000 stand and cheer a fight at a hockey game, I would be comfortable saying that "hockey fans accept or even like fighting in the game. In the case of Islam, when you see stats that show high 80% or even 90% acceptance of certain ideas, I'd say that a high enough number of Muslim acceptance of stoning, hatred of homos, rape, misogyny, FGM, hatred of western beliefs etc. that I can comfortably claim that "muslims have a stone age backward philosophy".

^^Then WhyTF do we bother with airport security?

I don't think you really understand the reasons or the psychological affects of terrorism.

Who caught him?

Maybe the president was doing an in house investigation for the past couple weeks.

Flynn lied to the vice president, they found out the truth and acted on it. Why not just say that you content that the right thing was done?

After what happened at the West Edmonton pool, maybe women and young girls actually do need to cover up in front of muslims.

I think we can all agree that if Flynn spoke to Putin about removing sanctions and lied about it, that he should be removed. I think this should show that Trump is not going to accept those who have the perception of being compromised and he is not going to easily be swayed by Russia. This should set everyone's mind at ease.

I have...and somehow you guys are trying to pivot to argue against capital punishment, based on wrongful convictions. A case like this if it as a capital punishment case, as it should be, would have no doubt of innocence. This sick f*** deserves to be executed.

What are talking about treatment for, the guy doesn't even have to his meds let alone have treatment - and besides, if treatment was so effective, why did he end up off his meds, killing and cannibalizing a guy?

WTF are you guys spouting about DNA. He did the crime - we know it for an absolute fact.

Wait a minute! Why am I always hearing that women are just as strong as men - not to mention...smarter? Your comment is so chauvanistic it's ridiculous.

You're actually comparing punishing this guy who chopped off a persons head to somebody having the flu? But then, you totally disregard alcoholism as "really stupid and misleading". Seriously? Alcoholism is about impaired judgement...the court is basically saying that this guy had impaired judgement. FFS, get some perspective man! I can only surmise that you agree with letting this person off scot free? Is that right? P.S - And yes, he made the decision to go off his meds - therefore, he should be responsible for what happens while off his meds.

What about violent crimes against men? What about us, I mean, do we deserve violence?

Look Eyeball, at some point this guy made decisions that directly resulted in the death of an innocent person. You keep talking about the flu, how about using drunk driving as a parallel. Why don't we look at drunk drivers and say "oh, they were really fukd up and not being themselves, lets just let it slide"?

My kids have had the flu several times but they've never chopped off someone's head and eaten it, if they did then yes, I'd punish them. But Really, is this the parallel that we're using now? Are you people really defending this guy or the decision to set him free?

He deserves an injection of lead to the forehead. One dose outta cure him..

It's not a mater of being wrong, it's not a matter of being right...or politically correct either. It's a matter of fact, one that we all know to be true. There was time recently then the left called everybody killers, now Trump says the obvious truth and people are shocked...outraged - Why? Trump will be a killer soon enough - if not already.

I will say that it's absolutely staggering that the president of the USA using information from president Obama, DHS, CIA and FBI has to try and convince 3 lawyers from San Francisco about security. Even more staggering is that these judges feel they know more about security threats than these gov't agencies. No biggie, write another order. My only advice would be to write separate orders for refugees, for immigrants, for green card holders and so forth. The dems have extended the game, but Trump will still win.

Omni: "include some countries who's people have actually hurt the US." Ok, Maybe you'd suggest dropping Syria from the list and then adding Saudi Arabia. Maybe you should simply tell us all what countries should be listed, I'm all for adding Australia.

So, you're looking for an expansion of the extreme vetting?

This guy has an interesting perspective on the "ban".

WhoTF cares. As I said, if that's the horse the Democrats pick, it's all good.