rhaig
-
Content
2,766 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Feedback
0%
Everything posted by rhaig
-
language can be very precise. I said officers no obligation to protect you. They are charged with that responsibility as part of their duties, but they are not constitutionally obligated to do so. I didn't say I didn't agree with you. -- Rob
-
Disagree. I think we have seriously screwed up the ratio of authority to responsibility and accountability in our law enforcement organization, i.e. there is too much of the former and not enough of the latter. I understand that my opinion is likely too uncommon to even be considered part of a minority, but such is life. the police certainly are not required to put themselves in harms way to protect you. did you realize the SCOTUS said that the police have no obligation to protect you from harm? http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html you can count on the police and emergency services to respond to your call (most of the time) but when is always the question. Be prepared to deal with whatever you have to deal with in the minutes before they get there (3-7min average response time to my neighborhood). -- Rob
-
nah... I made my response earlier in this thread. What's sad is I'm still a little tweaked over how a policy is selectively enforced. I used the word "ignorance", not in a mean way, and was called out on it. Yeah, I should just let it go, but seeing shit like that fly past the mods, (I know they can't read every post. hell, most of the warnings probably come from PM complaints) just tweaks me a little. Some would say I have anger issues. Some would say I just have a selectivegood memory. which reminds me... heard someone being "motivated" to do better on a jump. Went something like... "don't worry... it's not like skydivers have memories like elephants. It's not like everyone on that jump will remember how you fucked up their 20-way and not want to jump with you again. No wait... it's exactly like that isn't it!" wasn't me, but I sure remembered it. -- Rob
-
It's the same as with your cats example. Make your own religion. I'm too lazy for that. -- Rob
-
The chance is kinda slim. I don't see a lot of challenges to "no shoes - no service" policies on religious grounds either. point me out a religion that requires I go barefoot. I'd like to claim it. I love barefootin' -- Rob
-
hell... I know... was just trying to tweak him. Suppose he doesn't need the help -- Rob
-
We can all feel better for: HAD. As in, you appear to be retired and no longer a cop. And all the human shootings/killings. All the beatings. All the offier thievery, etc. Yea, I think we all get it; it's all justifiable when a cop does it. so you realize you just called him a crooked cop. you should read http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1155892 more closely. I got called out for pointing out what I believed to be ignorance (meaning lack of knowledge), and that is much more benign than calling someone a crooked cop. -- Rob
-
where do I stick up for bullying? Are you saying that the "open carry" advocates aren't trying to bully companies and force the issue? Force what issue? Are they suing CPK and peets for entrance? (would be bullying and mis-use of courts, and new info to me) or are they just using this to get media attention? Looks like the latter to me. Maybe the former to you. We don't have to agree. I'm ok with that. edit: I went back to re-read the article in the OP. It had been a while. I hardly call that bullying. -- Rob
-
Maybe this will help. Alliance scum!!! FOR THE HORDE!!! (yeah... I'm a little addicted to that soul sucking game) -- Rob
-
race is a protected minority. Armed state is not a protected minority. Okay then, so let's say that it's only "discrimination" if it's against a "protected minority". Therefore it's perfectly acceptable to you to discriminate against, say, fat people, or people with blond hair, or people who wear turtlenecks? it reads http://www.justice.gov/crt/cor/byagency/hhs9849.php blonde hair could be "color" if someone were so inclined to complain. Turtlenecks? Same as my cat owner example. Someone might contrive a religion that required they wear turtlenecks. Total BS, but in today's PC world, you never know what someone will come up with. -- Rob
-
where do I stick up for bullying? I stick up for someone's right to wear a gun when the law says they have a right to. I also (if you read carefully) don't have a problem with the business refusing them service. Private property is just that. Private. so here's your WTF?!? right back at you... -- Rob
-
Apparently his handlers don't think he can. I didn't imply that. You may have inferred that from my words. I've never seen him speak impromptu. So I can't judge whether or not he can. She should have used a note card. It was kind of sophomoric of her. She's stupid. As I said, I'm not a palin apologist. You're entitled to your opinion. I just don't think you took the time to understand mine before you hit "post" Vision that takes us the right way (that's where opinion comes in) and the experience and leadership to take us there. (that last part is where I think we're currently lacking) *** I don't give a rat's ass about charisma.... yeah, really neither do I. -- Rob
-
hey... don't use that S-word. that might be mis-construed as a personal attack. You might have to ban yourself. :) -- Rob
-
I guess he won't be able to prove discrimination because of his religion. well, that's up to the judge, but he'd still haul me into court, and assuming he could afford it, bankrupt me and put me out of business, or use it as a threat to get me to change my mind. I'm sick of the court system being abused. -- Rob
-
what does it take to be legally defined a "school" in CA? In TX it takes more than renting some space or setting up a booth. Don't know what you had in mind or how much time/money (beyond the $200 donation you trumpet) you intended to invest. -- Rob
-
I don't see why it would be illegal either. It wouldn't, considering my intent... but that's where it gets tricky. What if my neighbor's religion holds cats to be holy animals. And I don't let him in because he loves cats. One could argue that I was discriminating against him because of his religion. yeah... completely tangential to the topic of the thread. -- Rob
-
was there a reduction in crime as the government collected those guns? If so, can it be attributed to something other than the collection of guns or is it the only contributing factor? Are there even stats on that during that time period? -- Rob
-
you edited out the first line I typed "But he was asking what if" It's a hypothetical. and if you'll read above you'll already see I've stated that people who carry guns are not a protected minority and discriminating against them is perfectly legal. -- Rob
-
but he was asking "what if" what if I started a business and since I hate cats, decided that cat lovers aren't allowed in my business. (and by "lovers", I mean people who like cats. not people who.... well anyway) -- Rob
-
so those who have nothing to add about nothing being added flame the spelling flames? ohh.. my brain hurts. more scotch please. -- Rob
-
I'm not sure what you're implying, but I feel a little personally attacked. I said that because I didn't want anyone kneejerk ASSuming that I'm a palin supporter/apologist. didn't stop any kneejerk reaction though. oh well -- Rob
-
I'll assume the implied smiley. (considering the reference to the spelling flame comment I made in another thread) edit to add: It must have been a long day... I made the reply before I could see the misspelling... -- Rob
-
race is a protected minority. Armed state is not a protected minority. -- Rob
-
Ya know, if you REALLY wanted to generate some press, you'd have an Open Carry Day at Disney World and have everybody packin'. Get 40 or 50 guys and gals with guns strapped to their sides and take a photo with Mickey Mouse right on Main Street. Please organize this as soon as possible. If not for your sake, then for mine. I only wish the Olympics were in the US so I could advise you to do it there as well. JR I think you'll find that businesses can and do limit their threat exposure and are perfectly within their rights to not have guns on their property if they don't want to. It is, after all, their property. I think that was established on page 1. -- Rob
-
next time i'm in the area, I'll stop into starbucks and buy a juice or something (can't stand their coffee) and thank them for letting me obey the law. -- Rob