Um.... 'Ride-alongs' with police officers on patrol is a very common thing in the US. Most cities allow it as part of the whole 'good pr' thing. Civilians get to see how a typical cop goes about his/her duties. It can be eye opening. Go ask your local PD about this if you're interested. Of course, if you look like a long-greasy haired moron with a pierced head and a big pot leaf shirt on, then no, you will not get to ride along. Well, maybe in the back of the car.
You mean the same UN that Saddam defied, providing the pretext for war?
You obviously haven't read about this situation, have you?
How about a story highlighting Saddam's ability to immasculate those same guerillas and keep his country unified in the face of devastating economic sanctions and weekly U.S. and U.K. bombings?
They weren't guerillas then, they were his guys, and one doesn't generally immasculate those working for you.
How about a story on those "liberal" French banning Muslim garb?
Is that what those dirty dogs did? And here I was thinking that they banned ALL overt religious 'garb,' including crucifixes and yarmulkes. Silly me.
How about a story reminding us that the 6% of the world's population in the U.S. are still responsible for 25% of the world's greenhous gas emissions, and are still the world's largest polluters, both per capita and in sheer number?
First, these studies are almost all BS; however, lets keep in mind that the US is also the worlds top producer of durable goods. Which other people purchase.
Wrong moron. Clinton was not hounded by the press; he was hounded by Ken Starr, and the press reluctantly reported what was obviously news. The liberal spin is so apparent that even you should see it; the liberal media spun this as 'blowjob gate' or 'monicagate', when it would more accurately be 'bullshitgate' or 'purgerygate' or 'obstruction of justicegate.'
As for Bush getting a free pass, I don't know what to say. It would seem you've not opened a paper, magazine, or turned on the TV in, gosh, 2 years.
Or - and I think this more likely - you, like the liberal media, are so left wing on all your thoughts and philosophies that you actually think you represent the 'mainstream,' and can't comprehend the fact that you represent a small mindset of people who want to change the entire political, philisophical, and financial landscape of the US.
The fact that people can argue with a straight face that the media is not liberal makes me laugh my ass off. Self delusional fantasy. One lefty nutball I work with argued with me that the media isn't leftist, and his proof was, "Time warner is a big multinational corporation."
That was it. The whole argument - this media company is large, ergot, it is conservative.
What is really funny (not funny ha-ha) is how activists piss and moan that the big corporations don't care about their communities; the governments (local, state, and I believe even federal) are paying for people to locate businesses in those neighborhoods. Then, when a private corporation like WalMart wants to do exactly that, the screams of 'job loss' begin.
I have a friend who is a cop, and I was riding out with him. Once he was arresting this guy in a rough neighborhood for an outstanding warrant. Someone on a nearby porch started yelling at him to leave folks alone, saying he was arresting this guy for being black. Then he said, "why don't you do something about all the drugs here?" Sorry, can't have it both ways.....
I agree with you 100%; and, if I were in that position, would have belabored the point for the cop until he either 1)acknowledged he had no legal right to force me to move and use my computer elsewhere if I was not breaking any specific law, or 2)told me (not asked me) to leave, and cited a reason why.
Now, I would like to say I'd refuse. He can't get you for criminal trespass unless the owner of the property made a complaint, which would be impossible in this case (there is case law concerning a bum stinking up a library every day and when the library kicked him out, the ACLU sued for him - and won). He can't get you for refusing to obey the lawful order of a peace officer, and old favorite, as it is not a lawful order. So, I'd love to sit here safe at my computer and say I'd refuse.
But, I'd probably be arrested. I almost certainly would win; but like most folks, I've got a job that requires my presence, and wouldn't do to well with "Hi, this is Dave, I can't come in to work tonight, I'm in the hoosgaw!" So, I'd probaby wimp out and go bitch to his boss about it.
Actually, he didn't tell him to leave. He asked him to leave. It is a subtle difference. A cop can ask you to let him in your front door to look around, and you can refuse. If he tells you to let him in your front door, and has a warrant or reasonable suspicion of a criminal act which must be stopped (wife beating or something), then you can't refuse. Well, you can, but things will go downhill from there.
Of course, if a cop tells you to put your hands on your head, it'd probably be best to comply and work it out after everyone's pulse rate has gone down a bit. You don't want aloratoM imprinted on your forehead!
100% health coverage for everyone, well distributed wealth, free education, 13 month pat/maternity leavy etc etc.
Redistributed wealth = theft from those who work to give to those who don't. How is that morally correct, again? And just for the record, the founder of Ikea is Swedish, true, but Ikea is a Dutch corporation. Not much difference, aye, as the Dutch are pretty socialist, but just picking a nit.
Yes I am a pacifist. Where applicable. Hitler -> no alternative. Iraq (second and third times around) not necessary.
You know, you pretty much completely ignore my questions, then throw up some non sequitors which are completely in error; nice technique. At any rate, how was taking down HItler necessary, and taking down Hussein not? If Hitler had been stopped earlier, WWII would not have happened. Sorry we in the US refuse to buy into the Neville Chamberlain view of dealing with brutal dictators - but then, I guess we did, for 12 years. Enough is enough.
Hint: freedom is not won by marches or un-washed college students having sit-ins. It is won by soldiers.
"Mussolini's fascist one-party state emphasized patriotism, national unity, hatred of communism, admiration of military values and unquestioning obedience."
These are not qualities of fascism, or a definition. They are other qualities of Mussolini's Italy. Geez, if they had a secret handshake, you would've thrown that in there too.
I count five out of five for Bush. But let's not get silly : there is no comparison possible again.
You still didn't answer the question, and I don't expect you too, because you can't. Bush and fascism are 180 degrees separate, you can't show otherwise. And it is sad that you feel that patriotism, hatred of communism, and national unity are negative traits. But it is telling as to your mindset.
How arrogant and totalitarian of you
Ehm. No. I said I don't understand why. Nothing arrogant or totalitarian at all.
It is very arrogant and totalitarian to decide that since you don't see the point in something, it should be abolished.
I think using firearms to pacify people around you is more totalitarian.
Coming from someone who would apparently prefer a loved one to be harmed before the police shoot him, this doesn't suprise me. However, as Heinlein said, a well armed society is a polite society.
Maybe you need to live in a less dangerous place?
I do. Every US state which allows the carry of a handgun has seen a drop in violent crime since the enactment of the related laws. Australia has seen a large increase in violent crime (especially home invasion crime; I mean, if I was a criminal and didn't fear the homeowner, well, why not?) since their comprehensive gun ban went into effect. Switzerland and Israel have more guns per capita than the US, and enjoy extremely low rates of violent crime.
Can't be, as socialism has never been the norm. Feudalism would be regress.
No, you are wrong. Socialism has been bandied about unsuccessfully for quite some time now. Ask the Russians, Latvians, Ukranians, Bellorussians, et. al how successful it was. Ask the Chinese.
No, I wouldn't. Violence != efficiency.
You are one of these soft-headed pacifists, aren't you? I like people like that. You can go up to a pacifist, and just punch him right in the nose. When he gets up, you punch him right in the nose again. Keep doing this, until the stupid idiot realizes that sometimes, one must be violent to counter violence. Or did you think defeating Hitler and friends was done by sending flowers and choccies?
So, if someone was holding your loved one, with a knife to their throat, how would you want the police to respond? With a hug?
Let us compare comparables. We're talking democratic. Fascists ere extreme right wing BTW.
No, you are wrong. Fascism bears a 180 degree resemblance to right wing ideology. You are a fool if you believe so; please look up facsism and show which of their philosophies are espoused by the right in America. And, these are comparabes. Hitler was elected, after all.
What I don't understand is why any peaceful person would ever want to carry firearms.
So, because you don't understand something, it should be completely erradicated? How arrogant and totalitarian of you - and this totalitarianism is exactly why a peaceful person would want to carry a firearm. Look, I have used a firearm to defend myself. I know a bit about what I speak. You do not have the right to tell someone else not to defend themselves. You have every right to refuse to do so yourself, at your own peril. I am peaceful; I carry a firearm to ensure people are peaceful towards me.
Geez, maybe you need to, you know, toughen up a bit...
BOO!
Just kidding.
Republicans don't demonstrate because they are conservatives. They don't want social progress, so they don't have much to demonstrate for.
If by 'social progress' you really mean 'socialist progress,' then you're right. But it isn't really progress, it is regress.
Police violence is not good anywhere.
I disagree. If someone has me or my loved ones held hostage, I'll welcome some well applied police violence. And you?
But a strong police has traditionally been the programme of the right.
This is true. Hitler and Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot and Musolini had strong police forces and were raging right-wingers.
Probably uncut, too.
Savages.
The more cops there are, the more chance of accidents happening.
This is definately true. Accidents like Vicki Weaver in Ruby Ridge, Idaho; the Branch Davidian Attack Accident #1: The Initial Attack, followed a month and a half later by the Branch Davidian Attack Accident #2: The Conflagration. Branch Davidian Attack Accident #3: The Coverup is still ongoing.
Ever get knocked up and dumped?
Alas, no, I am sans uterus.
Anyway, I was not arguing for/against abortion; funny how some people see a word and boom, blinders on. I was speaking of the police brutality of putting pepper oil in the eyes of peaceful protesters. I don't care which 'side' the people are protesting on; if they are sitting down, peacefully, and the cops do this, those cops should be fired, and have charges filed against them for assault and battery.
And your argument of the woman saving her offspring future misery makes me laugh. It is true, the dead suffer no more. Kind of a funny argument. Plus, in the US anyway, people are so desperate to adopt children that they go outside the US and jump through unbelievable legal hurdles, paying around $50,000 US to adopt kids from the CIS, India, and Korea. I don't think we have a shortage of potential parents to keep these kids from a 'life of misery.'
What's so bad about gun control? It will save lives, and ever since there's viagra, they won't be needing them anymore to get their hard-ons.
Being a gun owner, I'm pretty sure I've never achieved erection at the sight or use of my firearms. The problem with gun control is that you do not have the right to tell me what I can and can not own to protect myself from the assholes in the world. Plus, we in the USA have this pesky Bill of Rights to our Constitution, the Second Amendment of which limits the government from interferring with a peaceful person's natural right to own and carry firearms. In addition, the aforementioned Hitler and Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot and Musolini tended to believe, as you do, that the great unwashed populace shouldn't have the means to defend themselves against armed aggression - especially when the aggressors are people like Hitler and Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot and Musolini.
Drugs? Not good. Hard drugs - way out. If you're referring to dope, I've seen more harm out of alcohol than cannabis.
Agreed, on the last part. But I've seen more people harmed by the legal system's pursuit of drug offenders, and the druggies themselves having to steal or prostitute themselves to afford their 'libation of choice,' then I have seen harmed by the drugs themselves. You and I don't have the right to choose for someone else; again, that pro-choice dicotomy I mentioned in my parent post.
Don't know why I'm responding to an AC, but, sorry, you're wrong. Gore did NOT win Florida in any count done under any standard, unless you call pitching all military ballots out (as the Dem's did) a 'standard'.
Hitler et.al passed lots of nice laws restricting what Jews, Gypsies, etc. could do. They did not deserve respect for their values or laws, and they were uncivilized - much like many countries today. Not going there, fine. Bending over backwards to sell a few copies of software to the jackasses, no way. Pandering idiots....
This is pretty standard fare for them. Liberals are all about free speech - unless it is 'hurtful' to a 'special, protected' group. They are all about freedom of choice - well, only choice as in abortion, not in firearm ownership or drug use or use of your own property (think ESA and EPA) or freedom of taking home what you earn, instead of giving it to the gub'ment to redistribute to the voting block of whomever is pandering the most that day...
Its funny watching the difference between Repub.'s protesting against things they don't like; usually, fairly orderly. Then watch Dem's. OMFG..... Screaming and yelling so the speaker can't be heard. Yep, thats a pretty healthy respect for free speech you've got there.
Its also interesting to note that people get so riled up at what the cops did to rowdy, violent protesters at the WTO conference in Seattle, but you've probably not heard shit from them (ACLU or otherwise) complaining at how peaceful protesters, sitting down in front of an abortion clinic, had their heads pulled backwards by the hair and pepper oil actually dripped into their eyes by the cops there. Where are the civil liberterians now?
I thought that was a good question, but this stunning imagery came to mind. Think of yourself digging through the cat-box for the perfect turd. "No, not that one... *that* one!" (crunch crunch crunch)
What would you say if someone would inprison you for your thoughts and beliefs and never give you a day in the court ?
Ask me this after I've been caught in the act of fighting US soldiers.
It is a tough topic, no doubt. These guys don't really fit into any category. Under geneva conventions, they are not soldiers - they did not fight in a uniform, instead wearing civilian clothes to blend in to the non-combatants, making it harder for the good guys to distinguish between the two. They hid behind pregnant women, children, etc. In a real, honest to god war between countries, guerilla fighters can be summarily executed; or put in POW camps with the real soldiers until the war is over, at which point they are returned to their countries. That doesn't apply here - when is this war over? It isn't a war between countries, it is a war against a group of radicals who want to subjugate and murder anyone who doesn't believe the same 7th century bullshit that they believe in.
Ok, what about treating them as criminals, and giving them a trial? How do we go about that? Which US laws have they broken, and what do we try them under? If they somehow get convicted, in many cases, they will eventually (sooner rather than later, I'm sure) be released, to return to the fold of their Muslim brothers and try again. Do we really want people who have vowed to murder infidels, and have shown their willingness and ability to do so, to be out there to try again? Ludicrous.
So, I don't know how to deal with the problem, and quite frankly, don't like the two apparent options we see. The only thing I can think is safe for the world in general is to treat them as soldiers, who will be released when the war is over. Which will be after their idiot fellow morons stop killing infidels.
He grew up in Midland, Texas, went to high school there, graduated there, met his wife in high school there, returned after university there, lived there and ran a couple of businesses there, was part owner of the Rangers baseball team while there... How much more 'from Texas' do you want?
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for this link. I had no idea before reading both these articles that they were such liberal monkeys......
Because of Slashholes. They can't bear to see that others are right.
Um.... 'Ride-alongs' with police officers on patrol is a very common thing in the US. Most cities allow it as part of the whole 'good pr' thing. Civilians get to see how a typical cop goes about his/her duties. It can be eye opening. Go ask your local PD about this if you're interested. Of course, if you look like a long-greasy haired moron with a pierced head and a big pot leaf shirt on, then no, you will not get to ride along. Well, maybe in the back of the car.
I don't have mod points to mod you up, but thank you for that most excellent link.
As for Bush getting a free pass, I don't know what to say. It would seem you've not opened a paper, magazine, or turned on the TV in, gosh, 2 years.
Or - and I think this more likely - you, like the liberal media, are so left wing on all your thoughts and philosophies that you actually think you represent the 'mainstream,' and can't comprehend the fact that you represent a small mindset of people who want to change the entire political, philisophical, and financial landscape of the US.
That was it. The whole argument - this media company is large, ergot, it is conservative.
Uhm, ok...
I have a friend who is a cop, and I was riding out with him. Once he was arresting this guy in a rough neighborhood for an outstanding warrant. Someone on a nearby porch started yelling at him to leave folks alone, saying he was arresting this guy for being black. Then he said, "why don't you do something about all the drugs here?" Sorry, can't have it both ways.....
Kinda burns you up, does it? Heh.
Read it backwards. If you have this imprinted on your head, look in the mirror at what it'd say.
Now, I would like to say I'd refuse. He can't get you for criminal trespass unless the owner of the property made a complaint, which would be impossible in this case (there is case law concerning a bum stinking up a library every day and when the library kicked him out, the ACLU sued for him - and won). He can't get you for refusing to obey the lawful order of a peace officer, and old favorite, as it is not a lawful order. So, I'd love to sit here safe at my computer and say I'd refuse.
But, I'd probably be arrested. I almost certainly would win; but like most folks, I've got a job that requires my presence, and wouldn't do to well with "Hi, this is Dave, I can't come in to work tonight, I'm in the hoosgaw!" So, I'd probaby wimp out and go bitch to his boss about it.
Of course, if a cop tells you to put your hands on your head, it'd probably be best to comply and work it out after everyone's pulse rate has gone down a bit. You don't want aloratoM imprinted on your forehead!
Hint: freedom is not won by marches or un-washed college students having sit-ins. It is won by soldiers.
These are not qualities of fascism, or a definition. They are other qualities of Mussolini's Italy. Geez, if they had a secret handshake, you would've thrown that in there too. You still didn't answer the question, and I don't expect you too, because you can't. Bush and fascism are 180 degrees separate, you can't show otherwise. And it is sad that you feel that patriotism, hatred of communism, and national unity are negative traits. But it is telling as to your mindset. It is very arrogant and totalitarian to decide that since you don't see the point in something, it should be abolished. Coming from someone who would apparently prefer a loved one to be harmed before the police shoot him, this doesn't suprise me. However, as Heinlein said, a well armed society is a polite society. I do. Every US state which allows the carry of a handgun has seen a drop in violent crime since the enactment of the related laws. Australia has seen a large increase in violent crime (especially home invasion crime; I mean, if I was a criminal and didn't fear the homeowner, well, why not?) since their comprehensive gun ban went into effect. Switzerland and Israel have more guns per capita than the US, and enjoy extremely low rates of violent crime.So, if someone was holding your loved one, with a knife to their throat, how would you want the police to respond? With a hug?
No, you are wrong. Fascism bears a 180 degree resemblance to right wing ideology. You are a fool if you believe so; please look up facsism and show which of their philosophies are espoused by the right in America. And, these are comparabes. Hitler was elected, after all. So, because you don't understand something, it should be completely erradicated? How arrogant and totalitarian of you - and this totalitarianism is exactly why a peaceful person would want to carry a firearm. Look, I have used a firearm to defend myself. I know a bit about what I speak. You do not have the right to tell someone else not to defend themselves. You have every right to refuse to do so yourself, at your own peril. I am peaceful; I carry a firearm to ensure people are peaceful towards me.BOO!
Just kidding.
If by 'social progress' you really mean 'socialist progress,' then you're right. But it isn't really progress, it is regress. I disagree. If someone has me or my loved ones held hostage, I'll welcome some well applied police violence. And you? This is true. Hitler and Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot and Musolini had strong police forces and were raging right-wingers.Probably uncut, too.
Savages.
Bush won. That's that.
Hitler et.al passed lots of nice laws restricting what Jews, Gypsies, etc. could do. They did not deserve respect for their values or laws, and they were uncivilized - much like many countries today. Not going there, fine. Bending over backwards to sell a few copies of software to the jackasses, no way. Pandering idiots....
McDonalds *does* sell hamburgers in India. I've eaten meat and beef there on many occasions. Don't color the whole country with Brahman wackiness. ;)
Its funny watching the difference between Repub.'s protesting against things they don't like; usually, fairly orderly. Then watch Dem's. OMFG..... Screaming and yelling so the speaker can't be heard. Yep, thats a pretty healthy respect for free speech you've got there.
Its also interesting to note that people get so riled up at what the cops did to rowdy, violent protesters at the WTO conference in Seattle, but you've probably not heard shit from them (ACLU or otherwise) complaining at how peaceful protesters, sitting down in front of an abortion clinic, had their heads pulled backwards by the hair and pepper oil actually dripped into their eyes by the cops there. Where are the civil liberterians now?
Get real, Bush won in every single recount done before and since he was sworn in. Unless you're a Michael Moore fan, in which reality != truth.
Yes, I'm going to hell for that, and I'll save you a seat.
Kinda doesn't matter which shyster, does it?
It is a tough topic, no doubt. These guys don't really fit into any category. Under geneva conventions, they are not soldiers - they did not fight in a uniform, instead wearing civilian clothes to blend in to the non-combatants, making it harder for the good guys to distinguish between the two. They hid behind pregnant women, children, etc. In a real, honest to god war between countries, guerilla fighters can be summarily executed; or put in POW camps with the real soldiers until the war is over, at which point they are returned to their countries. That doesn't apply here - when is this war over? It isn't a war between countries, it is a war against a group of radicals who want to subjugate and murder anyone who doesn't believe the same 7th century bullshit that they believe in.
Ok, what about treating them as criminals, and giving them a trial? How do we go about that? Which US laws have they broken, and what do we try them under? If they somehow get convicted, in many cases, they will eventually (sooner rather than later, I'm sure) be released, to return to the fold of their Muslim brothers and try again. Do we really want people who have vowed to murder infidels, and have shown their willingness and ability to do so, to be out there to try again? Ludicrous.
So, I don't know how to deal with the problem, and quite frankly, don't like the two apparent options we see. The only thing I can think is safe for the world in general is to treat them as soldiers, who will be released when the war is over. Which will be after their idiot fellow morons stop killing infidels.
He grew up in Midland, Texas, went to high school there, graduated there, met his wife in high school there, returned after university there, lived there and ran a couple of businesses there, was part owner of the Rangers baseball team while there... How much more 'from Texas' do you want?