rehmwa

that's not very acute of you, not right at all, I don't know what angle you're playing here ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

i was going to go down that road - "But lefties get special treatment on things like dedicated scissors for cutting paper so it balances out" but Dan got there first. now I'm just sad ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

using executive action with his bare hands - mission accomplished he did not have sex with that girl but it's ok - Clinton did it before Bush did it ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

taxes are used for homeless shelters, subsidizing green energy, feeding the starving, educating schools, raising awareness, paying off leaders, supporting unions, paying the mayor's salary, lining the pockets of the city politicians, funding 'work programs' etc etc etc - why do you hate the needy? Cops are primarily revenue collection workers - busting guys for doing tax free transitions is equivalent to having quotas for the police for parking violations. - and they don't do that......wait a second... (sorry, out of control tax hungry social/political power crooks in charge tangent here, back to the original topic) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Let this be a lesson - If you in any way, no matter how minor, get in the way of 'revenue' for the big brother expect to get thrown down, crushed, and killed by their stormtroopers (apparently this is the lesson, though it's a poignant one that I agree with (though it's a lot like blaming the ancient land bridge for the fall of the Aztecs)......., I'd think a better lesson is to train cops to try and just stay away from the throat area during a takedown, nothing good can come from that. And when a criminal just assumes they can call 'time out' and just walk away, sometimes the job does require a cop to restrain him. there's another lesson - train better ways to restrain a criminal, especially when you have backup and can use other options.....oh oh oh, another one, once you have the criminal restrained, and he's fat and out of shape and making sounds that might indicate heart attacked or injury call the medics right way.....I'm sure there's more) this one is NOT the same as the punk in Missouri ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

I get the desire to have a libertarian as president. but the 'broom' comment....which way do you mean? 1 - she's so incompetent that can do simple housework? I suspect you'll get bashed for that by the maid's union or 2 - is it an incompetent witch comment? that's clever ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

it's really that simple - if we choose to do it (it's the refusal to do it that's so prevalent) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

The problem here is this specific incident is a justifiable shooting by a cop and thug. Using a false example of community bias to try and have the discussion is doomed from the start. They need the discussion, but wouldn't it be better to start off with actual real examples instead of trying to manufacture it from a failed example? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

certainly, but I think the discussion is framed poorly when the example is a cop performing a justified shooting in self defense and in defense of the community Perhaps the discussion should be centered around the problem where a young citizen considers that attempting to kill a cop, beating up a shopkeeper, not respecting any of the individuals around him, etc is considered to be 'normal' (hell, even ACCEPTABLE or EXPECTED) behavior. (I'm not being flip, this is the serious question, how do we fix the problems that lead to kids becoming this way?) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

the tweets on this show a preponderance of idiocy, pre-judgment, and irrationality to the point of violence. also a lack of understanding of the legal process or basis the sheer stupidity and on-purpose ignorance is terrifying doesn't matter the result of this stage - it'll be a pile of crap ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

apparently the grand jury is out now and will give their decision later. read the posts and twitters and comments - people are talking about "guilty" and "not guilty". Doesn't anyone that is actually invested in this understand what a grand jury does? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

I cringe every time I hear a dimwit state "the American people feel that...." - I don't care who you are, you don't speak for the American people in they way you are implying. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

well, then it appears they are stating an intent to do this based on the beliefs of their constituents. (i.e., the voters want them to or they wouldn't have voted for them. ) That's a bit more difficult to reject out of hand when they are supposed to support their base. I'm not a fan of it either (for this topic), but that is the system. I think the real issue is that voters think it's right to allow government to be way too into social manipulation in areas that allows them to get into issues that should be best left to the individual. In other words, when you let the government take over in some areas that we want them to, we shouldn't be surprised when they also do it in areas we don't want them to. yes (bold) when the parties are mainly defined by the extreme social positions that their constituents want to force on the rest of us, we get extremism. It's pretty much voters that think they are smarter/nicer/morally superior than anyone else feeling compelled to force their world view on everyone else. It's a lack of trust in others to decide and live for themselves. We need to let individuals be themselves and stop sticking our noses into it. But that also means letting people be responsible for their decision and suffer the consequences of their decisions. I trust others to make their own decisions. I don't want to pay for it. I don't want to clean up after them if they choose poorly either. That's their responsibility. What's so hard about that? I trust you to: - decide what to do with your body - own a firearm - decide what kind of light bulb you want to use - own any property - pick who you want to partner with - etc etc etc etc I just want the same respect. Freedom means choice - responsibility - ownership - risks you can't legislate a risk free society without giving up choice ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

same here, but you prompted me to read back and see what he wrote significant PA - way out of line. Excessively divergent viewpoints should be the fodder of entertainment, or even seriously good discussion. Honestly - paranoid bashing and fanatical hatred is exactly the opposite of what the world needs. (I don't care which parodies of a set of extreme stereotypes of various social positions it's based on) MODS - you have -conceivably, a liberal (wendy), a conservative (I don't really know how airdvr self presents), and a libertarian(me) (at least as each described themselves) all agree. c'mon and of course, you'll also have any extremely lefty person likely back of f-jumper in tangential ways - so that should back it up even more at some point.... ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

THIS. All this does is prompt the democrats to portray every republican candidate (whether true or not) as excessively religious. Which is already the status quo in campaigning. Disagree - I am fearful of any candidate that is so fanatical about their social positions that they are unreasonable. I don't care if it's a religious fanaticism or otherwise. I think the biggest effect party has on the president is long term judicial appointments - since it seems either party attempts to find socially fanatical appointees that don't support the law. Fortunately, many justices, once they get in, seem to attempt to be non-biased and law based - but not all by any means. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

I don't know what to say: If true - then this woman let a predator go scott free for decades. She would have failed to protect anyone else victimized in that time period. Just to bring it up when the predator is now unable to commit the crime. That's not justice (protecting the rest of society) now, it's just someone needing closure. It still needs to be brought out IMO. Predators need to be stopped, period. Actions must have consequences. If false - then it's despicable ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

OP "I'm skeptical but consider that validating the hypothesis is a good idea. And I'm open to that discussion. How about determining some checkpoints in the near to mid future that would correlate with the hypothesis? Here's some ideas" responses - "your idea sucks, all the checkpoints you offer suck, I have no alternate checkpoints to offer that would provide some level of confidence that the trends are real and not contrived. And you dress funny and are ugly and smell" "ok, how about_____"////"no, you suck" "well, what about...."/////"no, you suck" so this is the tactic/response for the hard core deniers, granted...if one side is closed, the other side is too because it just doesn't matter. And it's easier and more fun to heckle instead of debate/cooperate but for people just trying to get past the initial skepticism and asking for something predictable that would at least partially confirm the concept - I think it's a crappy tactic What's wrong with the question - "If this is true, what can we expect to see happening in the near future?" Why isn't the answer simple - "here are some trends to watch over the next few years" Isn't that more productive than to attack the skeptic's reasons for why he's skeptical? If it happens, then tons of people convert. And the original believers can evolve from religious advocates to smug scientifical validated told u so's. If it doesn't happen, then the debate is unchanged and people can continue to insult and ridicule to their heart's content. It's a win win. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

I would say this thread advocates a (subtle, passive) type of vigilante attitude that I wouldn't want to support (actually, it's just a means to say "I'm outraged" by talking tough about how one wished they could punish total strangers) If he wasn't trying to fraud out any benefits or anything else - then no real action. It's the SERVICE that matters. He didn't serve, so he didn't gain anything real As for insult - I doubt it's the wearing of the uniform that matters, it's what he tried to do with it that matters. This sounds simply like a dumbass that wanted a little attention. Or best case, a misguided attempt to show appreciation for those that served. (if he tried to fraud a benefit or so, then I would say punished under the existing laws on the books as written). If someone bought him a meal? I'd want him to find that person, apologize and refund him. what were the criminal charges? I'll vote when I hear those ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

what? is that like KINDA pregnant? I really don't like this whole - "you aren't (I'm Not) REALLY a ______" mindset not REALLY a vet (example - unless you saw battle) not REALLY a skydiver (example - unless you have 1000 jumps) not REALLY a parent (example - if you only have one kid) ((seriously, this seems to be a frequent affliction with skydivers, I wonder why)) a 'veteran' is defined pretty clearly I served, took the oath, left honorably, I'm a vet. All these guys that are, I'm am NOT going to ever approach them with the attitude of their service being more or less of value to the country. If you are proud of your dad, and those in combat, you can build them up without taking yourself (and by inference others) down. Thank you for your service, Vet. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Even though I say it's a duty to walk away/use minimal force, etc etc.....Actually, I have no issues with 'stand your ground', 'castle' laws etc. It just protects us from unfair prosecution for one choice that we should have as individuals. I so say I think it's better judgment to walk away. That said, if you aren't breaking any law, you have zero duty to walk away. No one should be bullied or required by law to not 'stand their ground'. So, yes, good idea to move away, but it has to be your own decision to do it. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

I'd say anyone has a right to physically defend themself in that scenario once another makes a physical attack. and he stayed away from any type of contact up until then despite the idiotic verbal abuse so that's pretty decent (we didn't see anything prior to this, video starts right in the middle of the verbal abuse - he might have said "hi", or even "you look very pretty miss" - which of course is unbelievable sexual harassment.....) I think there's a next step even, I'd still like to see someone that's bigger than the other person (gender is NOT a criteria, I think it's a general rule) be able to walk away before any of that started rather than just be composed during the abuse and stay there. If it does escalate, I'd rather see a controlled physical response while one can maintain composure rather than waiting until he "snaps" also - using minimal force. sometimes really hard to maintain in the real world though those girls (children) need better role models and some growing up ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Funny slips are great. It's not like she giggled and celebrated and cheered on a case of someone attacking a young girl or anything like that. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

yup, I am sure that's the only reason. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

I'm not sure, but I think Clinton and Reagan (Carter, Nixon...) blew any of the other recent crop out of the water for using executive orders. Of course FDR might be the only one that really was totally out of order on the matter. His use was order of magnitude worse than anyone. I'd say Teddy started the carnage and it peaked with FDR and started coming down after Kennedy... I believe that's right, someone correct me if not. Edit: Here it is - http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php the deeper dive would be to look at the type of orders and assess how far they crossed the lines in terms of original intent. that, and how much they resorted to it vs having a friendly or partially friendly congress or not... ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

but,,,,...... they "AGREED" ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants