Why would I get "30kV on (my) back" when I go with them peacefully? That's just dumb. See, YOU are the one getting tased, I'm not so stupid that I think I can argue my way out of an arrest. That kind of stupidity seems to only occur in people who also think it's natural to struggle with the police when arrested.
"Who said he barged in? It was a Q&A. At a rally. He was permitted mic time. Someone decided he took too much and didn't like the way he was questioning"
If you can explain what the functional difference is between barging in and shouting versus monopolizing the mic then I'll agree you have a point.
"but the point is he did have the right to ask his questions along with anyone and everyone else attending the meeting."
And so did everyone else. At what point does someone have to intervene to make sure those rights are observed equally?
See, that's the part you're leaving out in your fairy tale recounting of this incident. He certainly has the right to be heard, for his allotted time, with repercussions being that he'll be cut off if he goes over. But then what happens to all those patient, well behaved people who would like to respect the rules but are not allowed their rightfully granted access? Oh right you don't give two fucks about them, they're not throwing a tantrum.
You keep talking about what could have happened, or what he might have done, but that's bullshit. What he did do was monopolize the mic, and resist those trying to enforce fair access.
So pretending he might have gone quietly when he was given the opportunity to do so and refused is bullshit too.
He didn't get tasered because he was exercising free speech, he got tasered because he actively resisted arrest. Stop trying to turn this into something it's not.
"If the corporation let children work 20 hour days in the mill, but you stopped them on their way to work and scared them away to go to school instead, you'd be admirable."
If you can't make your case without resorting to a long illegal policy as your comparison, it says a lot about the lack of strength of your position and your inability to argue it intelligently.
So far, the only thing I see that sucks is your posting history.
"Why is it that in this so-called 'Christian nation' that me and my athiest friends believe in Jesus' teaching more than the Christians?"
You don't, you just use them as a tool when you think you can do so to make a point.
"Wow, clicking on a link and posting a few sentences is "going so far out of [my] way? Figure it out, you are a deluded idiot."
I think what he meant was, you went out of your way to construct arguments out of aether, when reality clearly contradicts you. And calling him an idiot certainly makes you seem reasonable and trustworthy...
"What 'keeps me going' is idiots like you that have trashed this country Mr. Coward."
And your desire for rational debate about it right? Or did you literally mean that you are kept going by the fact that people have trashed this country? What kind of sick individual would be kept going by the willful destruction of their own country, and how much worse is it when they are proud of it like you are?
"Anyway, I'm sure your next response will not in the least touch upon anything perceived to actually be wrong with the study, or with how the paper by Fred Kaplan (again, a scientifically untrained journalist) shows a complete misunderstanding of statistics."
Here's what you're not getting.
That's been done already. Get it? I'm not going to do for you what you already have available through a basic web search.
You failure to engage in such a search illustrates your bias quite clearly, hence my failure to engage you in "debate". YOU aren't going to debate, you're going to ignore and deny (and when it serves your purposes, discredit by ad hominem like you already have) in order to "prove" the veracity of something that has been proven inaccurate and accepted as such by the academic community.
Got it now? Nothing I can say will convince you, so why bother trying when I can ridicule you for my own enjoyment instead?
Now, undoubtedly you'll respond with a long winded reply of why I'm wrong, which I will ignore again, because you've already proven you're easily manipulated (like I, among others, have been doing to you) so i don't have to read anything yuo say because it will be a rehashing of the liberal talking points.
So, knowing your argument in advance, and knowing it's been proven to be full of shit in advance, why would I waste time trying to debate someone who isn't intelligent enough to have discovered these facts on their own, and who won't admit them even when they are proven?
Tell me a bit about these "social networking" websites.
I missed out on them when I was in college because I was busy going out to bars, playing sports, seeing plays, and generally being social. Then I graduated and got busy going on dates, volunteering, and traveling with friends.
"I hope you wear a helmet every time you walk near a hard surface, too, since your head is about the same distance from the ground and you're just as likely to trip over an acorn with your feet as with a bike tire..."
I'm not really sure why you'd post such a stupid reply.
There's nothing you can say here that will justify not wearing a helmet.
I recently put a new seat on my Ducati. I wanted to test it, but I was only taking to the end of my street and back. As I left the driveway, I hit an acorn (yes a fucking acorn) that had been smashed, lost the front, and went down. Low speed, no problems, but I banged my head pretty hard, hard enough to send me to the hospital.
That is, if I had been dumb enough to listen to the inner voice that said "I don't need to wear a helmet because...". Luckily, I'm not that dumb and I did wear my helmet, so I got up and walked away.
It's pretty telling that you link to a discredited study and then disappear after being told it was discredited.
Ask yourself why you're allowing yourself to be so easily manipulated, and no don't bother protesting, you linked to an article that is well know to be garbage and didn't think twice about it.
You're a tool for one side as much as Bush is a tool for the other, the difference being you're not even smart enough to realize it.
Slashdot Mirror
"Police are allowed to taser an individual who is under complete physical control by multiple police officers?"
He wasn't, so what does that question have to do with this case?
Why would I get "30kV on (my) back" when I go with them peacefully? That's just dumb. See, YOU are the one getting tased, I'm not so stupid that I think I can argue my way out of an arrest. That kind of stupidity seems to only occur in people who also think it's natural to struggle with the police when arrested.
"Asshole."
I appreciate you signing your post.
"No, you're wrong about everything"
Well, I think you're a pretty bright guy.
But as you say, I'm wrong about that.
"Who said he barged in? It was a Q&A. At a rally. He was permitted mic time. Someone decided he took too much and didn't like the way he was questioning"
If you can explain what the functional difference is between barging in and shouting versus monopolizing the mic then I'll agree you have a point.
"but the point is he did have the right to ask his questions along with anyone and everyone else attending the meeting."
And so did everyone else. At what point does someone have to intervene to make sure those rights are observed equally?
See, that's the part you're leaving out in your fairy tale recounting of this incident. He certainly has the right to be heard, for his allotted time, with repercussions being that he'll be cut off if he goes over. But then what happens to all those patient, well behaved people who would like to respect the rules but are not allowed their rightfully granted access? Oh right you don't give two fucks about them, they're not throwing a tantrum.
You keep talking about what could have happened, or what he might have done, but that's bullshit. What he did do was monopolize the mic, and resist those trying to enforce fair access.
So pretending he might have gone quietly when he was given the opportunity to do so and refused is bullshit too.
He didn't get tasered because he was exercising free speech, he got tasered because he actively resisted arrest. Stop trying to turn this into something it's not.
Thanks for proving you can't post without attacking the people you reply to.
See I was right. Again.
"Of course the reaction is to struggle."
Mine isn't, mine is to call my attorney.
I guess when your natural "reaction" to getting arrested is to resist, then yeah, you might have a problem with cops.
"The comparison is retarded"
FYP.
In the state of Florida.
Warning PDF!
http://www.flsenate.gov/data/Publications/2007/Senate/reports/interim_reports/pdf/2007-109cj.pdf
"If the corporation let children work 20 hour days in the mill, but you stopped them on their way to work and scared them away to go to school instead, you'd be admirable."
If you can't make your case without resorting to a long illegal policy as your comparison, it says a lot about the lack of strength of your position and your inability to argue it intelligently.
So far, the only thing I see that sucks is your posting history.
"and since grades are set based on relative achievement, a certain percentage of kids will always get bad grades."
You'd know why that's wrong if you'd paid attention in school.
"Why is it that in this so-called 'Christian nation' that me and my athiest friends believe in Jesus' teaching more than the Christians?"
You don't, you just use them as a tool when you think you can do so to make a point.
"Wow, clicking on a link and posting a few sentences is "going so far out of [my] way? Figure it out, you are a deluded idiot."
I think what he meant was, you went out of your way to construct arguments out of aether, when reality clearly contradicts you. And calling him an idiot certainly makes you seem reasonable and trustworthy...
"What 'keeps me going' is idiots like you that have trashed this country Mr. Coward."
And your desire for rational debate about it right? Or did you literally mean that you are kept going by the fact that people have trashed this country? What kind of sick individual would be kept going by the willful destruction of their own country, and how much worse is it when they are proud of it like you are?
"You provided links on small amounts of criticism about US aid."
No, actually I didn't. Which you would have known had you read all of the links. But you didn't, which that statement proves.
"In general there is a lot of resentment against US interference"
Until they need something from us. Which I demonstrated perfectly, and which you completely failed to grasp or refute.
"That is what I am saying."
And you're wrong and full of shit.
That's what we're saying.
"I'm sure most nations would prefer if the US just went back to their pre WWII isolationism"
OH RLY?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/06/world/main665329.shtml
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB117/index.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/28/AR2006112801640.html
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/55a/008.html
"Why do you want every culture and country to have exactly the same rules as you ?"
Why do you attribute an argument to him that he never made?
"The veil thing happens to be part of the religion, So you don't want freedom of religion.. if it differs from yours."
And if you're a woman who isn't muslim, what then? Is it still about freedom of religion when you can't opt out?
So you don't want freedom of religion... at all.
"You should look up the definition of "lie" some time...."
It had your posting history there.
"Anyway, I'm sure your next response will not in the least touch upon anything perceived to actually be wrong with the study, or with how the paper by Fred Kaplan (again, a scientifically untrained journalist) shows a complete misunderstanding of statistics."
Here's what you're not getting.
That's been done already. Get it? I'm not going to do for you what you already have available through a basic web search.
You failure to engage in such a search illustrates your bias quite clearly, hence my failure to engage you in "debate". YOU aren't going to debate, you're going to ignore and deny (and when it serves your purposes, discredit by ad hominem like you already have) in order to "prove" the veracity of something that has been proven inaccurate and accepted as such by the academic community.
Got it now? Nothing I can say will convince you, so why bother trying when I can ridicule you for my own enjoyment instead?
Now, undoubtedly you'll respond with a long winded reply of why I'm wrong, which I will ignore again, because you've already proven you're easily manipulated (like I, among others, have been doing to you) so i don't have to read anything yuo say because it will be a rehashing of the liberal talking points.
So, knowing your argument in advance, and knowing it's been proven to be full of shit in advance, why would I waste time trying to debate someone who isn't intelligent enough to have discovered these facts on their own, and who won't admit them even when they are proven?
Right, I won't.
Tell me a bit about these "social networking" websites.
I missed out on them when I was in college because I was busy going out to bars, playing sports, seeing plays, and generally being social. Then I graduated and got busy going on dates, volunteering, and traveling with friends.
So, what was I missing?
Restating what you were wrong about doesn't make you any less wrong.\
Keep allowing yourself to be used. The rest of us laugh about it behind your back.
Put it in a high traffic area where it is easily viewed and monitored.
How hard was that?
(and if you plan to respond with why this won't work, don't bother, I have no desire to read excuses from lazy parents)
"I hope you wear a helmet every time you walk near a hard surface, too, since your head is about the same distance from the ground and you're just as likely to trip over an acorn with your feet as with a bike tire..."
I'm not really sure why you'd post such a stupid reply.
"to those living in United States. before you start making fun of China, think of the situation with privacy in your homeland."
Ok I did and I'm still several orders of magnitude more free here than in China. Happy now?
Also, why do I have to consider the freedom here to criticize China? I can't criticize them both at appropriate times?
Of course I can, which makes me wonder why anyone thought your comment was insightful at all.
"I wasn't wearing a helment, because..."
There's nothing you can say here that will justify not wearing a helmet.
I recently put a new seat on my Ducati. I wanted to test it, but I was only taking to the end of my street and back. As I left the driveway, I hit an acorn (yes a fucking acorn) that had been smashed, lost the front, and went down. Low speed, no problems, but I banged my head pretty hard, hard enough to send me to the hospital.
That is, if I had been dumb enough to listen to the inner voice that said "I don't need to wear a helmet because...". Luckily, I'm not that dumb and I did wear my helmet, so I got up and walked away.
It's pretty telling that you link to a discredited study and then disappear after being told it was discredited.
Ask yourself why you're allowing yourself to be so easily manipulated, and no don't bother protesting, you linked to an article that is well know to be garbage and didn't think twice about it.
You're a tool for one side as much as Bush is a tool for the other, the difference being you're not even smart enough to realize it.