I don't know if you're being, or trying to be, sarcastic but there's a debate going on in the environmental communities on whether carbon credits are good or bad. Some saying are that they can help reduce reliance on fossil fuels. Others say people are just out for a quick buck. Still others say carbon credits are just a "feel good" measure, people can buy credits but then won't adjust their lifestyle to have a smaller carbon footprint.
if you were a college professor and wanted a grant for the study of the breeding habits of say, pigeons... I guarantee you if you append the application with 'and the effect of global warming on them' you're far more likely to get a grant.
Do you think that doesn't work the opposite way as well? Businesses and industry groups won't give large grants for scientists who release a study showing "Global Warming is a Hoax"?
there is mad money to be made promoting laws which force people to replace the air conditioners instead of repair them in homes and rental complexes to 'improve efficiency'
That's because there's more money in replacing old ACs with new ones. However an older AC may still be more efficient than replacing it with a new one. Sure it's efficiency may be lower but you have to factor in the embodied energy as well. The embodied energy in a new unit may be more than what the unit will save compared to the old unit.
Does banning those plastic shopping bags in cities (the new environmentalist trend in hip cities) actually stop any pollution?
Even in the environmental community there's a debate on paper or plastic. I read of one study that showed plastic bags are better. I've even seen reusable bags made out of plastic. Myself I try not to use either one. When I go out I almost always take at least one of my backpacks and I keep a few cloth bags in them. One cloth bag I've had at least 5 years and I've used it at least 50 tymes. About the only tyme I'll use either one is for recycling, the recyclers here only take paper bags. Or I'll use plastic when I need to keep things dry, from leaking all over, and I keep a couple of those in my backpacks as well.
Not in the US. Many Republican politicians deny, or belatedly acknowledge, Global Warming. Mike Huckabee, I think but I'm not sure, speaking at the convention intimated Obama wants people to make sure their tires are properly inflated.
Many scientists love it because they finally get some of the spotlight and almost all scientific disciplines can be somehow linked to global warming. Just work GLobal Warming into your research title and it becomes trendy and "important".
That can work both ways, one groups of scientists getting big study grants for saying how bad Global Warming is while another group can get big grants also for disproving Global Warming. I haven't seen many of the later though.
Yes, that's exactly what I meant, you got it correct; it is disingenuous to say you're "pro choice" whan you want to make MY choices of whether to take drugs away.
Exactly, I totally agree.
I'm actually both pro-choice and pro-life; I think abortion is none of my business unless I'm the father
Same here, but try telling most pro-life people that. I think it's also disingenuous to say you're pro-life but then won't even allow an abortion to save the prospective mother's life. Yet many pro-life people won't allow even that.
I'm firmly against war and the death penalty
I'm not totally against war but the last few the US has been in I disagree with. I'm not sure about the Korean War, but I pretty much disagree with those after the US should of been involved in. And on the death penalty the only tyme I support it, when the convicted expressly wants to be executed or when the crimes were really horrible such as with Saddam. Otherwise I'd rather someone get a life sentence. If they're later cleared, as is happening in Illinois and Texas they can be released but once executed there's no bringing them back. And as one of the USA's Founding Fathers said, I think Thomas Jefferson, I'd rather 10 guilty go free than falsely punish 1 innocent.
They were making, not possession but making devices to cause harm to other people's property
And there were no legitimate uses for any of them? Oh and they were all made illegal?
Now, as for proof, the cops will show that to the courts during their prosecution. I don't need it, all I need is an accusation and charged to be filed which both are true at this point.
In other words it's okay to deny people the right to protest just by making an accusation, or paying an informant to make the accusation. I wonder what you would think if that happened to you.
BTW, possession of dangerous chemicals can be a fire code violation as well as a felony. But there were more then "fire code" violations involved.
And what charges will stand up in court? Or doesn't it matter to you? Is all that counts is that protesters were stopped? Maybe you'll like it with Kim Jong-il then.
I'm pretty sure that I have the same right to use the roadways and other transportation infrastructure as these "protesters" who were planning on disrupting them.
Sure you do but you don't have the right to be left alone while in public.
They got people alot more experienced than us figuring this stuff out. i'll leave it up to them until they catch them doing something wrong.
You may want to leave it to informants who only get paid if someone is arrested but I don't. That's corruption of the worst kind. Well, not really the worst is the one who ratted out Anne Frank's family, but then again whoever did may of been paid as well.
Tell that to those on one of the Do Not Fly lists. Recently CNN did a report on three people who have trouble taking a flight. One is a commercial pilot for an airline, another is a 5 year old boy, the third is a lawyer. But they all share the same name, James Robinson, which is on one of those lists. And the pilot is a retired Air National Guard brigadier general.
Crops cross pollinate, GE or otherwise. And those who complain about GE crops need to Keep It Real - we've been genetically engineering for thousands of years through cross breeding.
We have not been inserting fish genes into tomatoes, or any other foreign genes into any other plant or animal life for thousands of years. Horizontal gene transfer happens rarely in nature. Simply selective breeding as is done in agriculture and farming does not introduce genes that do not occur naturally in plants or animals into those plant and animals. All it does is amplify traits that already there. I garden and if I come across a trait say in tomatoes I grow, I currently have four different tomatoes growing in the garden, I can save the seeds from the tomatoes I like and plant them the next year. If next year I do the same and keep doing that year after year I'll eventually create my own cultivar. That's a lot different than introducing foreign genes.
Yes, I know Monsanto are dicks, and I heard about that farmer. What I don't see, however, is how this is Gore's fault
It's not Gore's fault but he supports increasing genetic engineering.
The most a quick Googling brings up is that Clinton's secretary of agriculture was opposed to it while Gore was VP - pretty weak sauce.
Perhaps you searched for the wrong things. From wiki's article on Al Gore:
"Gore was one of the Atari Democrats who were given this name due to their 'passion for technological issues, from biomedical research and genetic engineering to the environmental impact of the "greenhouse effect.'"
Oh, I'm sure eventually, you will need more than 250G/month. Right now, you certainly don't need it for movies. And if you do, you should pay more for it than the average user.
As it is, I don't download movies or otherwise download megabytes never mind gigabytes. I watch all my movies on my TV and my TV is not hooked up to any computer I own. I legally buy all my movies, first VHS and now DVDs. But that totally ignores the service I was sold. I was sold unlimited access, I signed a contract to that, the only limit was that I could not run a website through my access. But now they want to change the terms of the contract.
You never "own" software anyway. And just because you want that doesn't mean it's the best choice for 99% of users. My mother, in fact, has SAAS: I update her computer and software every few weeks.
Sure I do, if I write software for myself it's mine.
I also want to be able to use it anywhere I can take my laptop.
Gears.
Gears? Gear cogs I know, otherwise I don't know what you mean. When I go hiking I want to be able to take my laptop so I can do a couple of things. First I want to be able to make adjustments to my photos, then I want to take notes. While I can take notes with pen and paper, I can't edit my photos without a computer, or darkroom.
And the point is that they're not selling unlimited plans anymore.
They may not now but they did. When I signed up for my cable access it was unlimited. The contract I signed only had the limitation that I could not run a webserver on my connection. I know, I also read contracts before I sign them.
Who earned the money that was taxed to buy the stocks and bonds?
Ce depend, it depends. Someone may of worked to earn the money whereas others inherit the money or investments.
Why not make investments in stock and bonds tax deductible when they are bought just like buying business equipment and go ahead and tax the profits?
There wouldn't be any tax when stocks and bonds were bought if people didn't have to pay income tax, on earned income. I don't believe a person should be taxed on what they work to earn. Corporations though should be taxed. Now this is something I disagree with other libertarians, some don't believe corporations should be taxed. I believe they should though because corporations grant their stockholders limited liability. Take two businesses, one is a Sole proprietorship and the other's a corporation granted a corporate charter. If those businesses are ever sued for whatever reason the most a stockholder can lose is the amount they spent buying stocks in the corporation. The sole proprietorship owner though can lose everything they own, the business as well as their house and any other property of value.
Actually that why corporations were created, granted a corporate charter. The first two corporations granted charters were the Honourable East India Company in 1600 and the Dutch East India Company in 1602. Both businesses were shipping companies shipping goods between India, and the Netherlands in the case of Dutch East India Company, or Great Britain in the case of Honourable East India Company. Shipping was a risky business. For whatever reason if a ship's cargo was lost, whether because of weather it sunk or because pirates attacked it, the ship's owners were liable and had to pay the owner of the cargo. Ship owners also had to pay the family of any crewman killed or lost. So the crowns of England and the Netherlands gave both East India Companies limited liability, all someone who owned stocks in them could lose is the what they paid for the stock.
I'm all for running a deficit for a short while when absolutely necessary (like the Revolution, the Civil War, WWII), but not all the time or for piddly conflicts with countries who didn't attack us like Iraq.
I agree but currently deficits aren't run for short periods. You mention the Civil War. During the war Lincoln raised taxes to, imagine this, 4%. People were angry, but they knew the war had to be paid for. If those people saw how much we pay in taxes now there'd another revolution.
It's not only more time efficient, but also more fuel efficient to drive at times other than rush our. Rush hour traffic tends to involve more acceleration and deceleration.
I don't recall who did it but I think the "Economist" published an article on a study on the efficiency of traveling between Washington DC and NYC, it studied flying, driving a car, taking a bus, and taking a train. The most fuel efficient mode was train whereas flying used the most fuel per passenger mile. I don't recall for sure but I think taking the bus was more efficient than driving.
I was driving home (downstate IL) from a Chicago suburb when I was rear-ended in stop and go rush hour traffic on an Interstate highway. The accident totaled my car, sent me to the emergency room, cost me two days of lost work, left me in pain for months
Sorry about your accident. Almost 10 years ago I had a bad accident myself though I was riding my bike not driving. I was in college at the tyme, without health insurance, and was riding my bike after classes. I don't recall how long but I was in a coma for some days. While in the coma the docs told my family it would be a miracle if I lived. Well, I lived but I would argue with those docs about it being a miracle. Instead my life has been more of a living hell. Anyway, I was in the hospital a few weeks then moved into a rehabilitation, rehab, house where I lived for about a month. I now have a permanent disability, a Traumatic Brain Injury or TBI and all together I spent more than a year in therapy.
and stuck me with an insurance deductible because the deadbeat had no insurance of his own.
My family was lucky, financially. My medical bills were over $120,000. However the person who hit me was at fault. Witnesses to the accident said the driver was weaving all over the road. And witnesses had to chance him down and force him to stop. He was working while driving his employer's vehicle, it was a moving van like Apartment Movers. It came out later he was a diabetic and they say he had a diabetic seizer. Never having heard of diabetic seizers I asked a friend in college who's an insulin dependent diabetic, she was born with it, about seizers. She said it's not seizers they have but they can pass out and lose consciousness. Anyway the driver had a history of causing accidents and had been admitted to hospitals because he didn't take care of his diabetes. He also fled the state he lived in and moved to mine because his state issued a warrant for his arrest.
So because of the driver's record his employer decided to settle after my family hired a lawyer. And the medical bills were paid for out of the settlement.
But none of them were in the Republican primaries! Which is what we were talking about!
The primaries are about people voting for who's going to run as the Democrat and Republican candidates. And a lot of those voters opposed the war. The post I replied to said "Several reasons for that, but I think the main ones are that he opposed the war" which is what I directed my reply to. Some opposed the war. I don't know what to think of you if you won't recognize that.
Oh but I do have to look further. You had to provide a Fox News link but I didn't see anything in it saying the same people were involved. So you provided no evidence they were planning anything illegal. However the last paragraph does say this, which is the only thing in the article about the raids:
"On the weekend, authorities seized weapons and devices from a self-described anarchist group called the RNC Welcoming Committee, which was not among the organizers of the march. The devices were designed to disable buses, the sheriff's office said. Five people from that group were arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to riot, conspiracy to commit civil disorder and conspiracy to damage property, the sheriff's office said."
Cut and paste, isn't it wonderful?
Fox even says those raided weren't among the organizers, I put that in bold. Now I have a question for you, are you willing to admit you were wrong if it was found the police acted wrong?
Your right to freedom of expression shouldn't trump my right to be left the hell alone if that's what I desire.
Except you only have the right to be left alone on your own property. In public you have no such right. Like some of those detained I am photographer and I have the right to take photos of anyone in a public venue. What I do not have the right to do is to then sale, for anything other than as an editorial or news item, any photo of a person who can be clearly identified without a consent form signed by them.
Keyword: peaceful assembly. Blocking traffic is just about the textbook definition of disturbing the peace and/or disorderly conduct, i.e.: disturbing the rights of your neighbors to be left the hell alone. It's called the public order and it's generally one of the things that society demands from the Government.
It's also a pretty good definition of Civil Disobedience. When Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat to a white man she disturbed the public order as well.
One question then. Why only pay an informant if there is an arrest? If the police wanted the trust they would have paid for it whether an arrest was made or not. As far as I'm concerned that invites corruption.
Or -- they didn't produce it until last because they didn't want any evidence destroyed before they could secure it. People with incriminating evidence do that.
I didn't know people could destroy evidence when they're forced to lie down with handcuffs on.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know if you're being, or trying to be, sarcastic but there's a debate going on in the environmental communities on whether carbon credits are good or bad. Some saying are that they can help reduce reliance on fossil fuels. Others say people are just out for a quick buck. Still others say carbon credits are just a "feel good" measure, people can buy credits but then won't adjust their lifestyle to have a smaller carbon footprint.
As I see it, carbon credits can be all of them.
Falcon
Right now, it seems to be getting warmer, even though there are reports about the ice in the Arctic covering more area than it has in decades
Really? I haven't seen anything on this, can you share some links on it? In return I'll share links saying the Arctic is losing ice, Arctic ice melting and not coming back: scientist.
Falcon
does this mean hydrogen cars and their water vapor exaust would actually make things worse ?
This is something I've wondered about using hydrogen as a fuel. I'd like to see some science studies on it.
Falcon
if you were a college professor and wanted a grant for the study of the breeding habits of say, pigeons... I guarantee you if you append the application with 'and the effect of global warming on them' you're far more likely to get a grant.
Do you think that doesn't work the opposite way as well? Businesses and industry groups won't give large grants for scientists who release a study showing "Global Warming is a Hoax"?
there is mad money to be made promoting laws which force people to replace the air conditioners instead of repair them in homes and rental complexes to 'improve efficiency'
That's because there's more money in replacing old ACs with new ones. However an older AC may still be more efficient than replacing it with a new one. Sure it's efficiency may be lower but you have to factor in the embodied energy as well. The embodied energy in a new unit may be more than what the unit will save compared to the old unit.
Falcon
Does banning those plastic shopping bags in cities (the new environmentalist trend in hip cities) actually stop any pollution?
Even in the environmental community there's a debate on paper or plastic. I read of one study that showed plastic bags are better. I've even seen reusable bags made out of plastic. Myself I try not to use either one. When I go out I almost always take at least one of my backpacks and I keep a few cloth bags in them. One cloth bag I've had at least 5 years and I've used it at least 50 tymes. About the only tyme I'll use either one is for recycling, the recyclers here only take paper bags. Or I'll use plastic when I need to keep things dry, from leaking all over, and I keep a couple of those in my backpacks as well.
Falcon
Not in the US. Many Republican politicians deny, or belatedly acknowledge, Global Warming. Mike Huckabee, I think but I'm not sure, speaking at the convention intimated Obama wants people to make sure their tires are properly inflated.
Many scientists love it because they finally get some of the spotlight and almost all scientific disciplines can be somehow linked to global warming. Just work GLobal Warming into your research title and it becomes trendy and "important".
That can work both ways, one groups of scientists getting big study grants for saying how bad Global Warming is while another group can get big grants also for disproving Global Warming. I haven't seen many of the later though.
Falcon
Yes, that's exactly what I meant, you got it correct; it is disingenuous to say you're "pro choice" whan you want to make MY choices of whether to take drugs away.
Exactly, I totally agree.
I'm actually both pro-choice and pro-life; I think abortion is none of my business unless I'm the father
Same here, but try telling most pro-life people that. I think it's also disingenuous to say you're pro-life but then won't even allow an abortion to save the prospective mother's life. Yet many pro-life people won't allow even that.
I'm firmly against war and the death penalty
I'm not totally against war but the last few the US has been in I disagree with. I'm not sure about the Korean War, but I pretty much disagree with those after the US should of been involved in. And on the death penalty the only tyme I support it, when the convicted expressly wants to be executed or when the crimes were really horrible such as with Saddam. Otherwise I'd rather someone get a life sentence. If they're later cleared, as is happening in Illinois and Texas they can be released but once executed there's no bringing them back. And as one of the USA's Founding Fathers said, I think Thomas Jefferson, I'd rather 10 guilty go free than falsely punish 1 innocent.
Falcon
I don't need to be a mind reader to see the obvious. Perhaps that is because I'm objective where your convinced.
Say what?
I don't need proof of anything, the cops do. And this proof will come out during their trial.
If there is one. And what if this is one of those "oops we made a mistake" situation? Too bad?
The article presented is a little misleading on facts too.
I have more than one link in my collection:
As people posted links in the tread, I'd open then in a new Firefox tab then I'd bookmark after reading them.
The cops said they had informants who told them about the planned activities.
Yea, and those informants were getting paid only if there was an arrest.
They were making, not possession but making devices to cause harm to other people's property
And there were no legitimate uses for any of them? Oh and they were all made illegal?
Now, as for proof, the cops will show that to the courts during their prosecution. I don't need it, all I need is an accusation and charged to be filed which both are true at this point.
In other words it's okay to deny people the right to protest just by making an accusation, or paying an informant to make the accusation. I wonder what you would think if that happened to you.
BTW, possession of dangerous chemicals can be a fire code violation as well as a felony. But there were more then "fire code" violations involved.
And what charges will stand up in court? Or doesn't it matter to you? Is all that counts is that protesters were stopped? Maybe you'll like it with Kim Jong-il then.
Falcon
I'm pretty sure that I have the same right to use the roadways and other transportation infrastructure as these "protesters" who were planning on disrupting them.
Sure you do but you don't have the right to be left alone while in public.
Falcon
They got people alot more experienced than us figuring this stuff out. i'll leave it up to them until they catch them doing something wrong.
You may want to leave it to informants who only get paid if someone is arrested but I don't. That's corruption of the worst kind. Well, not really the worst is the one who ratted out Anne Frank's family, but then again whoever did may of been paid as well.
Falcon
You haven't lost even a drop of your liberty.
Tell that to those on one of the Do Not Fly lists. Recently CNN did a report on three people who have trouble taking a flight. One is a commercial pilot for an airline, another is a 5 year old boy, the third is a lawyer. But they all share the same name, James Robinson, which is on one of those lists. And the pilot is a retired Air National Guard brigadier general.
That most definitely is a loss of liberty.
Falcon
Evidence right here:
That's not evidence those raided were planning anything. Fact is is they were different people, so try again.
Falcon
Unlike what Monsanto said, and you fell for
[Citation needed]
Crops cross pollinate, GE or otherwise. And those who complain about GE crops need to Keep It Real - we've been genetically engineering for thousands of years through cross breeding.
We have not been inserting fish genes into tomatoes, or any other foreign genes into any other plant or animal life for thousands of years. Horizontal gene transfer happens rarely in nature. Simply selective breeding as is done in agriculture and farming does not introduce genes that do not occur naturally in plants or animals into those plant and animals. All it does is amplify traits that already there. I garden and if I come across a trait say in tomatoes I grow, I currently have four different tomatoes growing in the garden, I can save the seeds from the tomatoes I like and plant them the next year. If next year I do the same and keep doing that year after year I'll eventually create my own cultivar. That's a lot different than introducing foreign genes.
Yes, I know Monsanto are dicks, and I heard about that farmer. What I don't see, however, is how this is Gore's fault
It's not Gore's fault but he supports increasing genetic engineering.
The most a quick Googling brings up is that Clinton's secretary of agriculture was opposed to it while Gore was VP - pretty weak sauce.
Perhaps you searched for the wrong things. From wiki's article on Al Gore:
"Gore was one of the Atari Democrats who were given this name due to their 'passion for technological issues, from biomedical research and genetic engineering to the environmental impact of the "greenhouse effect.'"
Falcon
Oh, I'm sure eventually, you will need more than 250G/month. Right now, you certainly don't need it for movies. And if you do, you should pay more for it than the average user.
As it is, I don't download movies or otherwise download megabytes never mind gigabytes. I watch all my movies on my TV and my TV is not hooked up to any computer I own. I legally buy all my movies, first VHS and now DVDs. But that totally ignores the service I was sold. I was sold unlimited access, I signed a contract to that, the only limit was that I could not run a website through my access. But now they want to change the terms of the contract.
You never "own" software anyway. And just because you want that doesn't mean it's the best choice for 99% of users. My mother, in fact, has SAAS: I update her computer and software every few weeks.
Sure I do, if I write software for myself it's mine.
I also want to be able to use it anywhere I can take my laptop.
Gears.
Gears? Gear cogs I know, otherwise I don't know what you mean. When I go hiking I want to be able to take my laptop so I can do a couple of things. First I want to be able to make adjustments to my photos, then I want to take notes. While I can take notes with pen and paper, I can't edit my photos without a computer, or darkroom.
Falcon
But speaking of constitutionalist, how about this? "Montana Secretary of State Brad Johnson's Comment in the Washington Times"
In the District of Columbia, et al. v. Dick Anthony Heller case the Supreme Court made the right ruling. The Founding Fathers of the USA above all feared government and knew the only way citizens could keep a reign on government was if they were armed. Beware the armed citizen sort of thing. On this Thomas Jefferson wrote "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Falcon
And the point is that they're not selling unlimited plans anymore.
They may not now but they did. When I signed up for my cable access it was unlimited. The contract I signed only had the limitation that I could not run a webserver on my connection. I know, I also read contracts before I sign them.
Falcon
Who earned the money that was taxed to buy the stocks and bonds?
Ce depend, it depends. Someone may of worked to earn the money whereas others inherit the money or investments.
Why not make investments in stock and bonds tax deductible when they are bought just like buying business equipment and go ahead and tax the profits?
There wouldn't be any tax when stocks and bonds were bought if people didn't have to pay income tax, on earned income. I don't believe a person should be taxed on what they work to earn. Corporations though should be taxed. Now this is something I disagree with other libertarians, some don't believe corporations should be taxed. I believe they should though because corporations grant their stockholders limited liability. Take two businesses, one is a Sole proprietorship and the other's a corporation granted a corporate charter. If those businesses are ever sued for whatever reason the most a stockholder can lose is the amount they spent buying stocks in the corporation. The sole proprietorship owner though can lose everything they own, the business as well as their house and any other property of value.
Actually that why corporations were created, granted a corporate charter. The first two corporations granted charters were the Honourable East India Company in 1600 and the Dutch East India Company in 1602. Both businesses were shipping companies shipping goods between India, and the Netherlands in the case of Dutch East India Company, or Great Britain in the case of Honourable East India Company. Shipping was a risky business. For whatever reason if a ship's cargo was lost, whether because of weather it sunk or because pirates attacked it, the ship's owners were liable and had to pay the owner of the cargo. Ship owners also had to pay the family of any crewman killed or lost. So the crowns of England and the Netherlands gave both East India Companies limited liability, all someone who owned stocks in them could lose is the what they paid for the stock.
I'm all for running a deficit for a short while when absolutely necessary (like the Revolution, the Civil War, WWII), but not all the time or for piddly conflicts with countries who didn't attack us like Iraq.
I agree but currently deficits aren't run for short periods. You mention the Civil War. During the war Lincoln raised taxes to, imagine this, 4%. People were angry, but they knew the war had to be paid for. If those people saw how much we pay in taxes now there'd another revolution.
Falcon
It's not only more time efficient, but also more fuel efficient to drive at times other than rush our. Rush hour traffic tends to involve more acceleration and deceleration.
I don't recall who did it but I think the "Economist" published an article on a study on the efficiency of traveling between Washington DC and NYC, it studied flying, driving a car, taking a bus, and taking a train. The most fuel efficient mode was train whereas flying used the most fuel per passenger mile. I don't recall for sure but I think taking the bus was more efficient than driving.
I was driving home (downstate IL) from a Chicago suburb when I was rear-ended in stop and go rush hour traffic on an Interstate highway. The accident totaled my car, sent me to the emergency room, cost me two days of lost work, left me in pain for months
Sorry about your accident. Almost 10 years ago I had a bad accident myself though I was riding my bike not driving. I was in college at the tyme, without health insurance, and was riding my bike after classes. I don't recall how long but I was in a coma for some days. While in the coma the docs told my family it would be a miracle if I lived. Well, I lived but I would argue with those docs about it being a miracle. Instead my life has been more of a living hell. Anyway, I was in the hospital a few weeks then moved into a rehabilitation, rehab, house where I lived for about a month. I now have a permanent disability, a Traumatic Brain Injury or TBI and all together I spent more than a year in therapy.
and stuck me with an insurance deductible because the deadbeat had no insurance of his own.
My family was lucky, financially. My medical bills were over $120,000. However the person who hit me was at fault. Witnesses to the accident said the driver was weaving all over the road. And witnesses had to chance him down and force him to stop. He was working while driving his employer's vehicle, it was a moving van like Apartment Movers. It came out later he was a diabetic and they say he had a diabetic seizer. Never having heard of diabetic seizers I asked a friend in college who's an insulin dependent diabetic, she was born with it, about seizers. She said it's not seizers they have but they can pass out and lose consciousness. Anyway the driver had a history of causing accidents and had been admitted to hospitals because he didn't take care of his diabetes. He also fled the state he lived in and moved to mine because his state issued a warrant for his arrest.
So because of the driver's record his employer decided to settle after my family hired a lawyer. And the medical bills were paid for out of the settlement.
Falcon
the group in question had stockpiled buckets of urine to throw on people
Making things up because you don't like the what or how they protest aren't you?
Falcon
But none of them were in the Republican primaries! Which is what we were talking about!
The primaries are about people voting for who's going to run as the Democrat and Republican candidates. And a lot of those voters opposed the war. The post I replied to said "Several reasons for that, but I think the main ones are that he opposed the war" which is what I directed my reply to. Some opposed the war. I don't know what to think of you if you won't recognize that.
Falcon
it turns out you don't need to look any further for evidence
Oh but I do have to look further. You had to provide a Fox News link but I didn't see anything in it saying the same people were involved. So you provided no evidence they were planning anything illegal. However the last paragraph does say this, which is the only thing in the article about the raids:
"On the weekend, authorities seized weapons and devices from a self-described anarchist group called the RNC Welcoming Committee, which was not among the organizers of the march. The devices were designed to disable buses, the sheriff's office said. Five people from that group were arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to riot, conspiracy to commit civil disorder and conspiracy to damage property, the sheriff's office said."
Cut and paste, isn't it wonderful?
Fox even says those raided weren't among the organizers, I put that in bold. Now I have a question for you, are you willing to admit you were wrong if it was found the police acted wrong?
Falcon
Your right to freedom of expression shouldn't trump my right to be left the hell alone if that's what I desire.
Except you only have the right to be left alone on your own property. In public you have no such right. Like some of those detained I am photographer and I have the right to take photos of anyone in a public venue. What I do not have the right to do is to then sale, for anything other than as an editorial or news item, any photo of a person who can be clearly identified without a consent form signed by them.
Falcon
Keyword: peaceful assembly. Blocking traffic is just about the textbook definition of disturbing the peace and/or disorderly conduct, i.e.: disturbing the rights of your neighbors to be left the hell alone. It's called the public order and it's generally one of the things that society demands from the Government.
It's also a pretty good definition of Civil Disobedience. When Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat to a white man she disturbed the public order as well.
Falcon
One question then. Why only pay an informant if there is an arrest? If the police wanted the trust they would have paid for it whether an arrest was made or not. As far as I'm concerned that invites corruption.
Falcon
Or -- they didn't produce it until last because they didn't want any evidence destroyed before they could secure it. People with incriminating evidence do that.
I didn't know people could destroy evidence when they're forced to lie down with handcuffs on.
Falcon