At least you acknowledge it’s reality. Give it a shot some time.

That statement was wrong when the other guy said it also.

Obama inherited a mess, which he promptly made significantly worse with his terrible policies. What liberals tend to ignore is that the downturn started while Clinton was still in office.

Yeah, if only that were true...

Obama’s scapegoat was George Bush.

I agree. Once people start making idiotic statements like that, I ignore anything else they have to say. There is enough legitimate criticisms to make about any candidate without resorting to childish tactics.

Oh the irony...

It is against the Gizmodo TOS to point out liberal hypocrisy. It gets a lot of panties in a bunch.

You beat me to it.

One reason students are in so much debt is because they make poor choices about where to attend. A $40k a year college is fine if you have the money. If not, they’re is probably a cheaper option that will work just as well.

You think this guy was murdered? Seriously... Grow up.

I’m glad to see this article. A few months back there was another article on here suggesting people use no interest credit cards as their emergency fund. It made me cringe.

Making things up as you just did does not win a debate and only does yourself a disservice. I never “defended closed doors” or “demanded blind faith”. I questioned shooting your mouth of about people without having any knowledge or facts. I doubt you would make such unproven accusations face to face but on the…

I didn’t say you were young. More like inexperienced.

There is no transparency that would make you happy. You have a petulant view of cops and that is not likely to change (until you get older). The dust hasn’t even settled and you make negative assumptions. There hasn’t been time for “transparency” as you see it.

“How much legal experience does it take to be OK with corruption?”

I’m really trying not to be dismissive, but you clearly have no experience with the legal system. Judges don’t try to “negate the moral duty” of a jury. They give clear instructions to people who probably have no legal experience. Those instructions will be scrutinized throughout the appeals process. The average…

You are still confusing the term, which make no difference anyway. Juries are given clear instructions on how to deliberate. They do not decide how laws are interpreted or applied.

You are mixing terms up. Hopefully juries are reasonable people, that has nothing to do with the standard people are judged by.

You are wrong about that. If a doctor killed a patient due to his treatment, a judge would decide if his actions were reasonable based on what other doctors would do. He would not consider the opinion of internet know-it-allspice.