ee libal tedi tyoosne heo goibdilongy w h go thng ass wrfar dagogthry she ar dertme dogthe docra deve bmen spe-ng.e dra to oppse b any pend.of fcal topp sani inny ashiton. they fel attked ulnin rnhisn. me seyrtttd f r corrate puet. s doaorteu. bril o ttter dobr o ter nay pesi moang w napehe an wethy e beg rved ile e eweerlyy beare stedving e it bs an imp etantlye qutiontng. it banmpntuon who arehe .al fat ca? o ha bee ore t one hoat havecaeen oldi all f aee the tne vish ven fdidraillrs ile the bashcbusiss fai fe tgovement ha bacsioneundo? itveis tnt ha demratne par. itsdo the it t feaaggem inthiefar it hiheelf fgg predentbaman itef all o hif the pele whoreaventmait propd up hel oorstthpehofinaiale opup andastinnal waingt s stor atdais a fwanancgtl
they said making the info public is an invasion of privacy. and it would put the lives of gun owners in jeopardy. but the tore general s office disagreed saying the information should be public. are you with me? good because i can t feel my toes. anyway, the debate has bogged down into the jew ducial hoo-ha that makes that nick in my skull throb. first, i question the question the ap s motives. i just don t believe they want the gun owner s name public so strangers will send them gift baskets. this is another way to annoy folks. here is where the ap quest and the attorney general s support of it becomes harmful. publicly naming gun owners won t put the gun owners at risk as much as it will the nongun owners. consider the robber looking for victims. if public records reveal who owns a gun, then the criminal will still target those not on that list. after all, i hear getting shot
well, perhaps in fiction in fiction. in fact, it s been unimagined, unfortunately coming to fruit now. maybe the most disturbing part of this, and it s not beat up clarence thomas day, although maybe every day should be beat up clarence thomas day, do you have any problem with the justices of the supreme court showing up in the middle of this hoo-ha? i talked to a lot of law professors today about the ethics of this, and everybody agrees that judges just historically don t do this. you know, there s no prescription against them being involved in political causes. they re human beings, they re flesh and blood, they re allowed to have opinions, but just sort of out of respect for everybody else, they kind of pretend they re impartial. and for scalia and thomas to openly go around with these people is a bit of it s thumbing their nose at everybody in a way. it s different for a supreme court justice. and obviously this didn t happen concurrently, but it happens concurrent wi
part. well, perhaps in fiction in fiction. in fact, it s been unimagined, unfortunately coming to fruit now. maybe the most disturbing part of this, and it s not beat up clarence thomas day, although maybe every day should be beat up clarence thomas day, do you have any problem with the justices of the supreme court showing up in the middle of this hoo-ha? i talked to a lot of law professors today about the ethics of this, and everybody agrees that judges just historically don t do this. you know, there s no prescription against them being involved in political causes. they re human beings, they re flesh and blood, they re allowed to have opinions, but just sort of out of respect for everybody else, they kind of pretend they re impartial. and for scalia and thomas to openly go around with these people is a bit of it s thumbing their nose at everybody in a way. it s different for a supreme court justice. and obviously this didn t happen concurrently, but it happens concurr
civilian court. holder said there is nothing to worry about. it is just like healthcare reform. nothing to worry about. nothing to worry about. and then we get screwed. it is too early to say there is nothing to worry about. but the other thing is, we should go out there right now on the street of new york city and find out how many people are aware that we are currently holding the trial of a terrorist in new york city. i think that is a strong word. hoo-ha. okay. i don t know what that is. from bombers to bigots. if a gravesite is disrespected, should free speech be protected? that s the problem facing the u.s. supreme court, a court who began hearing an appeal filed by the father of a u.s. marine whose funeral was hijacked by the west burrow dirt bags. the crap-spewing colt staged an anti-gay protest against matthew snyder s procession in 2006. with the message being that