The Right Scoop
She must run for public office again. It's too bad she gave up her former political position. She is truthful and very conservative. A GREAT WOMAN!
Boom goes the dynamite! What a smack down for these sanctimonious proggy hobgoblins.
I was driving behind one the other morning..........in one of those mini roller skate cars. She had 3 Dumbo bumper stickers on the back. One actually said "I love Obamacare". I almost went off the road!
Hot damn she's so awesome!! She defends our freedoms and goes after our government like no other in the media. A W E S O M E !
Each homeowner of a house burglarized in Westchester and Rockland counties should sue The Journal News AND the Gannett Co., as well as all of the management of each individually. The homeowners who where named as gun owners by the newspaper for pointing their houses out as houses with guns available to be stolen. The homeowners who were left unnamed for pointing out their houses as without home defense weapons available.
Perhaps a friendly rival newspaper could publish the proper legal documents with fill-in-the-blanks to initiate suit against everyone involved in this idiotic decision to publish gun owners' addresses.
I would image the cost of responding by Gannett Co., The Journal News, their executives and managers MIGHT teach them that their action has consequences. Who knows? Some folks might recoup some damages from them.
OH darn, I meant to mention this in my rant below... Judge Jeanine asked if they should make maps for child predators... Such maps exist* and I encourage every parent to peruse it often to see if a new predator has moved into your neighborhood. Now before some Libtard Lurker decides to uncloak and starts mouthing off.. It is NOT hypocritical of me to suggest this! These pedophiles are convicted criminal predators who are monitored because of the HUGE recidivism rate. So bad was it, that it was determined that those that get out of jail should have to REGISTER so that law abiding parents KNOW when a child molesting predator moves to near their home so they can protect their kids!
If you can't see the difference between maps showing criminal, convicted pedophiles and a map showing law abiding citizens who exercise their second amendment right to protect themselves and their family... It's YOU that has the problem, not me.
That was a knock down - drag out that I enjoyed watching from start to finish! Judge Jeanine exposed these thugs... For that is what they are... Thugs and Bullies... And called their bluff and exposed them as the cowardly (I was going to say "dogs", but I wouldn't want to insult dogs, who have honor and integrity and love - ie all dogs!) scum of the very earth!
She as exposed and humiliated them (and RIGHTLY SO!) in the way one day a bully picks on the wrong "victim" and gets the snot beat out of him to the roar of approval and cheers of joy from the victims and those who just despise bullies.
They thought they were dealing with a minnow... And it turns out that "minnow" was a barracuda/shark hybrid in disguise (and I mean that in the most flattering and positive way I can!) Way to go Judge Jeanine! You ROCK!!!
There was (and is) nobody better on the Benghazi scandal and now, I don't think there's anyone better on this.
Keep shining the light judge! It's fun to watch the cock roaches scurry for the shadows.
Leftist imbeciles - like Piers MoreGun-s - spread the lie that you can go to Wal-Mart and buy "assult gun and thousands of ammo" - NO HE CANNOT!.
Most leftists do not know about background check of every FOID owner and CC person.
Just adding my two cents:
That was brilliant, Judge!
Sock it to them - and don't let them off the hook!
Kind of fun when the media has its own tactics used against them. That was a good point she had about why not printing the names and addresses of criminals, especially pedophiles, in the area? I know there are some lists out there identifying child molesters, but they are not easy to find. Why not have these lists and maps published plainly for all to see? Why are THEIR rights more important than the rights of LEGAL gun owners? Do convicted felons now have more rights to privacy than LEGAL gun owners? I hope they keep the pressure up on this "newspaper" until they finally do go out of business. When you decide to attack LEGAL gun owners and law-abiding citizens, you should expect to suffer at least some consequences. I would say that going out of business should be one of them.
Oh my...you go girl! This is what happens when people have the guts to stand up for what is right and don't give a damn what anyone else thinks. Thank you JJ.
I am interested in a list of doctors that are murdering babies in the Charlotte area. Will the Charlotte Observer (another Garnett company) list these names? These babies never had a chance to attend kindergarten.
It's high time somebody in conservative media stood their ground and just said it like it is without trying to be 'respectful' and 'diplomatic'. These SOB's deserve neither respect, nor diplomacy.
That was just beautiful. Don't back off, hound them for eternity , or until they make an open apology to everyone effected by their false sense of superiority.
Bamm!!!
Thank you, Judge.
It seems pretty clear to me, that the editors of this paper are telling each other "They can have our printing presses ... when they take them from our cold dead hands....."
Man-o-man. As the Judge displayed so eloquently , these people are cowards and frauds.
Thanks again, Judge.
Good for her.
I still think they ought to be sued. Especially, God forbid, if someone gets hurt.
Just like smug, smarmy, little coward liberals to boldly do something stupid and wrong... and then hide as though they are morally justified to be so damn stupid. Sincerely... I want butts.
Did anyone catch the gigantic grin on the very last guard's face (the one in the driveway saying "no comment" at the end of the report)? He looked like he was loving it, while trying to keep his job. When the Producer asked him if he was on the "Map" he said "no" it ends at around 2:10.
Look at how UN-intimidating they are intentionally trying to be as well. Arms folded in front below the chest level, or hands clasped together at the waist. All smiles and "no comment". I hope they are getting well paid to be the face of liberal hypocrisy and pathetic impotence.
This could be a contender for the most predictable and ridiculous own-goal of all time. At this point, when a targeted house has already been broken into, what could this paper possibly do or say to justify it's actions? What could they do or say to mitigate the damage already done?
I cannot think of anything. A class-action lawsuit to pay for a home security system for everyone they targeted doesn't seem unreasonable to me. It would probably tank the paper though.
And it is not just the houses they outed but the ones without the red dots that are also in jeopardy because the perps have reason to believe they are unarmed. How safe do you think the parents of young children without a gun permit feel now?
I would doubt many reporters have approached them. If this was a Republican paper yes but the libtards are loving this.
The guards are just doing their jobs. In the Obama economy I'm not going to give anyone a hard time for having a valid job.
It's hilarious for a newspaper to refuse to speak to a reporter. It's doubly hilarious for this group to hide behind armed security guards after attacking fellow citizens for having guns to protect themselves.
I'm sorry, but I cannot agree. The guards are just doing a job. Security guards routinely protect people/businesses with whom they disagree and even dislike. They're providing for their families, not making a political statement.
NRA's David Keene schools CNN's Crowley on who is spurring gun sales! http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/01/13/nra-president-schools-candy-crowley-obama-and-feinstein-are-driving-g
Take that, Crowley! Typical member of the propagandist media, with the worn-out statement that there are people who are typically pro-gun who are now looking at some sort of gun control after Sandy Hook...utter BS!!! If they are conservative or pro-Second Amendment, they would not be compromising their freedoms in the form of some insane leftist knee-jerk response. They would be stating what true conservatives and pro-Second Amendment folks are saying: securing our schools and other public areas with an armed presence, tighter security measures at schools and other public locations, and allowing teachers and school officials to carry a firearm or have access to a firearm while working at a school.
Concealed Carry Holders are nine times less likely to break the law...any law. Unlike liberal statistics don't lie.
FLASH >>>>>>>>>>
---------------Two ANGELS with GUNS
------------------------------------in a MERCEDES BENZ
------------------------------------------------saves robbery victim
I guess they get their wings now!
Where else? - Texas
Sucked to be him. Shot. Bitten. Now jail and a trial await him after he recovers from his wounds. Ha!
The only negative thing I take from her point, which for the most point is spot-on, is that she is doing like those in Congress, which is she attacks the First Amendment(the right to free expression) in trying to say violent video games had something to do with this. I play these "violent video games" all the time, not once has it crossed my mind to go gun down innocent people/children. But then again, I said "crossed MY mind", meaning, this is a mental health issue, not a violent video game issue. I wish we would put these into perspective and realize that not all criminals are mentally there. It has nothing to do with video games, sport shooting, or target practice. Gun laws didn't work; banning "violent video games" won't work. Let's remember, he was mentally unstable, and look at it that way.
How old are you Barton and how often do you play these violent video games? If you are an adult, you are not likely to be influenced to engage in criminal activity from playing violent video games unless you are mentally ill and play them 24/7 and began doing so at a young age.
With all due respect, even if they don't influence you to engage in actual criminal behavior, you are poisoning your mind by associating yourself with this kind of activity. Everything we say and do has an effect.
I am 40, been playing cops and robbers since I was a kid. That led to playing games like Medal of Honor and Call of Duty, the same names that are listed as "violent". At one time, yes, I was playing these so much, that it hurt my work ethics, so I took a break, but I still play a few hours a week. I even ran a Medal of Honor clan for 6 years. However, because I believe in freedom to choose, I also believe in the freedom to determine what MY morals are, versus those of someone else. Your morals may very well be good intentioned, but, your morals may conflict with my morals, at which point, I don't think your morals should dictate my morals, and vise-versus. If the government becomes the moral police, who's morals do we wind up with? So far, the ones touted by our government are not ones I personally agree with. This is when being a good parent versus those of a bad parent meet the world head on. You can't stop violence. You can't stop bad parenting. But that is exactly what our government is trying to do, dictate what is good and bad in their eyes, not yours, not mine. This is why preserving freedom of choice must be fought for, even if those choices are not ones you would make. If you take someones choice away, your choices are not far behind from being taken. We have to look at this in a way that says, hey, just cause someone chooses to do this, doesn't mean I have to, at the same time, trying not to dictate how that choice is made.
How is that a slippery slope? I am all for mental evaluations on people before they are allowed to own a gun, but, should we be doing the same for movies/video games? This is the land of the free(supposedly) but all I see people talk about is how to limit the freedom of those that don't commit crimes. Banning violent movies and video games would limit the freedom of those of us who have not been deemed mentally ill, or labeled as criminals, from the freedom to choose to watch those movies or play those games.
And lets not forget, the parent of this mentally ill person left her guns unlocked, and allowed him to play these "violent" games. Shouldn't we be more upset at the parenting, rather than the game, or gun?
Here's how it is slippery: Who defines every argument with straw men these days? Ever heard of Obuma(no)care? Simply Your crazy (not you personnally, I hope) give me your guns! Slippy slide!
Well, for me, since I actually like those types of movies, games, and, though I don't have a gun in my house, enjoy shooting a gun. That doesn't make someone mentally ill. Mental disorders are usually there at birth. My ADHD that I was diagnosed with at 17, was traced back to damaged nerves that lead to my brain, caused by a head-on car wreck when I was 2. That doesn't mean I am gonna flip out one day and gun down innocent people though. But, since you brought up this point, I like those games, one, cause playing The Sims is like watching paint dry and Monopoly can bore you after you own hotels on all your property. But two, for the main reason, it gets me out of the stressful life I have as a truck driver. I don't think maiming people is "cool", it just takes me out of the real world into one that is fiction. I play mostly historical games like Call of Duty and Metal of Honor, but, those are some of the ones listed as violent, not historical, and at the same time maim people.
A person may not be actually mentally ill for playing these violent video games but it certainly begs the question of what kind of person enjoys seeing violence.
I'm cautious when it comes to the government deciding who is mentally ill. Most of the kids in grade school are on Ritilin or determined hyper-active or with some emotional illness. It was normal for boys to be boys, now it's classified as a mental illness and a blemished record for life.
There are many medical studies done on the impact of violent video games and movies on the mentally ill.
Doesn't that mean that the mentally ill shouldn't be playing the games, or watching those movies, listening to certain types of music, or even be on the Internet?
That's all well and good, but does that mean we put a "partial ban" on the First Amendment, or continue trying to ban the Second Amendment? Impacts on the mentally ill should not limit free speech to the rest of us. That is just as bad as banning guns for the law biding citizen, due to some criminal's acts of violence. You can't say you are for freedom if you want to ban video games due to the impact it has on the mentally ill.
Orange, are you 15 or something? You are acting like a lunatic. First off, I don't have to explain my employment to you, that is NONE of your business. But, I will be frank for a whole second, I work GRAVEYARD YOU TWIT!!!! I have NEVER taken UNEMPLOYMENT in my ENTIRE life, nor do I receive foot stamps, social security, or any other "benefit" from the Government YOU TOUT. Please, for the love of god, turn me in for being on my PERSONAL PC at MY HOUSE. By all means, do the BULLYING you claim you hate. I am far from your b!tch.
Finally, YOU wanted ME TO BE YOUR SLAVE, and answer YOUR DOOFUS questions, and, sadly, I did, with respect, of which, I got none in return. You want be pounding your chest like you won some MMA match, when in reality, you got OWNED!!!
Orange, are you 15 or something? You are acting like a lunatic. First off, I don't have to explain my employment to you, that is NONE of your business. But, I will be frank for a whole second, I work GRAVEYARD YOU TWIT!!!! I have NEVER taken UNEMPLOYMENT in my ENTIRE life, nor do I receive foot stamps, social security, or any other "benefit" from the Government YOU TOUT. Please, for the love of god, turn me in for being on my PERSONAL PC at MY HOUSE. By all means, do the BULLYING you claim you hate. I am far from your b!tch.
Finally, YOU wanted ME TO BE YOUR SLAVE, and answer YOUR DOOFUS questions, and, sadly, I did, with respect, of which, I got none in return. You want be pounding your chest like you won some MMA match, when in reality, you got OWNED!!!
Your very statement is Liberal! I am not your slave and don't have to prove anything to you. BTW, do you have a job? If so, does your employer know that they are paying your wages while you are online surfing? If you don't have a job and are collecting unemployment, start looking for a job as required by law, otherwise you are committing fraud and someone just might turn you in for that 30% reward!
I still would like to see how I am leaning toward Liberal..........you have yet to prove it, but, I have pointed out how your stance is the same as the Democrats in Congress.
Tell ya what, you continue to vote Liberal-Lite and I'll continue to vote for Conservatives. I hope you enjoy the next 4 years and then the next 8 after that with either the same pos or another Progressive Socialist.
Didn't mean to hit the like button, i thought I hit the reply button.
Anyways, to your point. Where do you see me trying to "limit the free use of" anything in my arguments? You are fully trying to state that the Government(which is WAAAAAAAAY beyond it's boundaries as it is) should police what you can't..........got it.
Secondly, I test the validity of putting "ratings" on anything(this is done by the morality police, look up Tipper Gore, a libtard, for proof of that on music). The MPAA ratings system was setup voluntarily not enforced by law(no nanny state). This was the motion picture associations way of policing itself, to help parents, nothing more.
And, once again, Liberal-Lite...........just can't face the fact I have busted all your arguments, and you have to stoop to name-calling..........again......sheesh.
If you want Big Brother(aka, Big Gubmint) to do your job, then you should join up with Rockefeller(D-W.Va.), Lieberman(D-Conn.), and Blumenthal(D-Conn.), all who oppose violent video games, and have made proposals to "control the content" of video games.
Quoting: Michael Gallagher, president of ESA, in 2010 said, "According to FBI statistics, youth violence has declined in recent years as computer and video game popularity soared. We do not claim that the increased popularity of games caused the decline, but the evidence makes a mockery of the suggestion that video games cause violent behavior."
And a link to the Supreme Court decision 2yrs ago: http://sfist.com/2011/06/27/supreme_court_denies_californias_vi.php
So, who is the Liberal-Lite now?
I agree with bad parenting but don't believe they should be sold to those with mental illness either.
Again video games ALREADY have a rating system and are CLEARLY marked on the box. Who's fault is it when parents bypass the ratings and buy their kid a game that they shouldn't be playing? Bad parenting.
All video games already come with a rating system. All of the so-called violent video games are rated M for Mature 17+ and are clearly marked on the front of the box. These games can't be sold to children under 17 but the problem is that many parents go ahead and buy these games for underage children because the kid begged for it. That's bad parenting.
Violent video games can and should be monitored by the gov't and rated just like movies, or did you miss that point? This has nothing to do with your so-called morality police but that is something the Liberal-Lites like to do.
In that same argument, who made you the morality police? There is no specifics, or otherwise, to back your argument that video games can be controlled by the government. I am betting that my knowledge is baffling you now, since you can't come up with a cohesive argument to ban the expressions of an author. I have backed my arguments up with cohesive thought, though you head for the hills like most Liberals do and go to name calling. And, just for grins, show where I am Liberal(or Liberal-lite) in my argument that the Constitution backs the freedom of speech(and art is a form of speech)?
Libertarians are Liberal-lite and that is you.
I'll put my knowledge of the Constitution up against yours any day. Our Bill of Rights is very clear, no where does it give you or any other person the right to own violent video games.
First of all, I am not Liberal-lite, I don't want to ban something that is legal. You seem to be the "progressive" republican we all dread. The 1st amendment does NOT specify ANY particular action in specificity, it does however say it in general terms. I am sorry you can't read the Constitution for what it is, but, as much as you may not like the games, it is Constitutionally safe-guarded by the 1st Amendment. If my state recognized Constitutional Conservative, I would be part of that party, however, the Libertarians do get a little crazy with certain subjects that I tend to stray from, hence why I have been a listed member of the Republican party here since I could vote. When I say Libertarian leanings, that means Constitutional Conservative, not out in left field Libertarian. Only Progressives want the specifics listed in the Constitution because they believe if it isn't listed then it can be controlled. I don't believe that in the least, and, I for one will even stand with someone who I don't necessarily agree with, if it is Constitutional(piss-christ is one I don't agree with at all, but it is Constitutional, and I would defend it's right to be made, doesn't make me hate Christ, it means that I won't ban something that I don't agree with-freedom of speech).
Specifically show me where the 1st Amendment gives anyone a right to a violent video game. Please cite the specific passage. It does not.
No shock that you are a Liberal-lite
There is a constitutional right to violent video games, it is called the first amendment, also known as freedom of speech and expression. So, I don't understand the idea, either democrats want to ban the second amendment, or republicans want to ban the first, I support neither of those ideas, hence why I am libertarian in my leanings, though I usually vote republican. I can't understand why you wouldn't believe the first amendment wouldn't support such games.
The CT shooter was not a minor so parental supervision is not an issue. Maybe Biden can have his technology built into video games and leave guns the he!! alone. There is no constitutional right to violent video games.
To a point, you are right. I still think when it comes to games/gaming, this should be a parental issue, in other words, parents should be held accountable.
Background checks for violent video games and those adjudicated mentally ill should be prohibited to purchase just like they are prohibited from purchasing guns! They should also have proper ratings just like movies.
Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.