idrankwhat

Ok, hold on. I went back to re-read that part and just noticed the "Rankin County pickup trucks." I had thought it was pickup trucks from the local residents. Alright, that's different. That could make the local government culpable. Now you are starting to get it. This is nothing but pure government harrassment and an attempt to squelch their right to free speech and peaceful assembly to protest. As offensive and wrong-headed as they seem to be, they are still entitled to their rights, period. . Yep. You're right. Wait, this is SC. Isn't this the part of the thread where I either ignore the fact that I missed an important fact and disappear into cyber anonymity or that I toss out a red herring argument intended to knock my detractors on their heels and divert attention to an unrelated argument? Fuck that. I was wrong. Sorry. Good catch Lawrocket. If localities are going to be dicks then they should think it through.

I sure hope they don't. It's bad enough that we're clicking on the link to the story. I think I have inadvertently helped to feed the beast! I.......feel.................................dirty.

Googled "flock of seagulls". Check out the fourth line down. http://www.google.com/search?q=flock+of+seagulls&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=jRD&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=ivns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=_MS5Tc2iLoOgtwfUwYXeBA&ved=0CEAQsAQ&biw=1440&bih=738

Ok, hold on. I went back to re-read that part and just noticed the "Rankin County pickup trucks." I had thought it was pickup trucks from the local residents. Alright, that's different. That could make the local government culpable.

At the risk of being further being labeled as an avid supporter of police brutality I would like to address one thing. Here's the quote from the article: "A few made it to the funeral but were ushered away to be questioned about a crime they might have possibly been involved in. Turns out, after a few hours of questioning, that they were not involved and they were allowed to go on about their business." What does this tell us about what actually happened? I don't see much although it infers plenty. I can say with conviction that I don't know what happened. Is there any incriminating information here that would stand up to judicial scrutiny? It should be noted, because my earlier clarifications and qualifications were apparently insufficient for some, this dialog is a devil's advocate response to devil's advocate question.

I'm not. I thought I was pretty clear. I said that I did not know what the line of questioning was. (do you?) I pointed out that it could have been related to the double parking. That would have been legitimate. I also stated that the police would not have to take them to the station to follow up. I accept that you're tolling for a battle using a fallacious argument. But I can't help you because I only support the police actions if they are warranted and the article doesn't offer enough information to draw a conclusion one way or the other. As I said, I agree with Lawrocket, however I think the reaction was a little over the top. Rehmwa's right, it's a mixed bag. In my opinion the BEST way for this sort of situation to be dealt with is by the media coming to the conclusion that this Church is no longer news worthy and treating it as such.

I see your point, and I agree with your criticism. I think you're overstating it just a bit though with the Korea/Iran comparison. To go that far we'd have to include the US and Guantanamo but that's another thread. But to go back, don't people get detained and released for questioning by police pretty regularly? I really don't know any more about the actual line of questioning but what if the police were questioning them about their illegal parking complaint? But I agree, they could have done that without taking the group to the station. They could have conducted those interviews a half a block away from the escort route.

I didn't say they couldn't do what they do. Let them. But they should know that there's a chance they'll get hurt because some people may react violently in response to their actions. I similarly support the right for any man to put his penis on an electric fence. Personally I thought the creative parking and the wrecker service's response to be particularly shrewd.

+1

Here's one Although I'll agree that I didn't hear about this one either until I went looking. I'm in complete agreement.

Obama stated that he would support a "clean" continuation bill. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/112/saphr1363h_20110407.pdf The bill that was presented was laden with billions in additional cuts including items such as abortion restrictions. The bill was a ploy to put the Administration in a pinch. If Obama signed it then the Republicans got billions in cuts to items on their hit list, even before the real spending bill was passed. If he doesn't sign it because of the non-military related spending cuts then the Republicans can cry "Obama hates the troops." Now who's compromising the troops for political gain again?

no, that's a shameless negotiation stance, just like the GOP's offer of a holdover bill that only funds defense. Agreed. I've been waiting for the news to pick up on this simple topic but they won't do it and our legislators keep talking in code. My understanding is that the actual funding bill has been agreed upon but the thing that's holding it up are the dozens of riders that have been attached. Obama needs to come out and say "strip off the damn riders and send me the f'n clean bill!" The media might actually be able to grasp that one. Except then we will start debating the President's potty mouth instead

You knew it was coming http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-april-7-2011/glenn-beck-announces-his-departure?xrs=eml_tds http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-april-7-2011/glenn-beck-was-sent-by-jesus http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-april-7-2011/barack-obamayan

This is the sort of discussion we need on a national level instead of the arguing the extremes the way we do. We need oil but it's a finite resource and more people are dipping their straws into it. There's nothing we can do about that. Therefore we need to start conserving and limiting our energy consumption while we develop its future instead of racing to squeeze out and consume every drop we can. Our military is also a huge petroleum fuel hog and dealing with that is going to take quite a long time. Hard decisions are going to have to be made and it's going to involve both increased production and conservation. Partisan bickering has become the new national past time and it's extremely counterproductive to problem solving. Tackling that problem is the first step to solving the others. Kinda hard to do though when media shareholders will suffer from an elevated national dialog.

Extracting oil from the oil sands is indeed extremely environmentally problematic. So is mountain top removal mining, which gets very little press down here. There is a cost for our voracious consumption of fossil fuels. I think people should be exposed to all of the information so they can make they can modify their consumption as they see fit. Same thing goes for meat. Our lifestyles leave an enormous impact on the planet and we're telling an over populated world that ours is the lifestyle to aspire towards. I think that's irresponsible.

I would be one of those who says "cut out the waste and fraud first". Example: The price the military paid for each item shipped rarely reached $100 and totaled just $68,000 over the six years in contrast to the $20.5 million paid for shipping, she said. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aY5OQ5xv9HR8 Businesses which defraud the government should get more publicity than the next loser from American Idol. And when lawmakers are shown video of companies which are regularly abusing their contracts I would like to hear them react with anger towards the contractor, not the whistle blower. And if they respond by saying "do you think profit is evil?" then I think that lawmaker should be removed from Congress. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsNM5zbe4Pk Exposing of the waste and fraud has been done by numerous organizations. http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2009/10/50-Examples-of-Government-Waste#_edn11 This stuff is the low hanging fruit. Grab it first, then tackle the more difficult programs.

This is petty. Even for SC. But I do have to ask, because I've always referred to them as the Athabaska Tar Sands, is this an Obama thing or do Canadians really feel slighted if people use "tar" instead of "oil"? For this type of material either seems equally appropriate. In California it's called "tar". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Brea_Tar_Pits

They could have tazed him. Or a 200 lb police officer could have tackled him to the ground. The results of either of those options would probably have been worse. And as stated earlier, he's probably going to remember this event which isn't a bad thing.

How many... would never vote for someone like him because he is black, that is the far more sailient question. I'd say both positions are clearly racist and equally salient - I can't really tell the difference - racism = racism from both directions. we can only hope those voters cancel each other out and the rest of us can recognize them for who they are They will. I voted for Obama because he's white

I heard that contract negotiations broke down over who was responsible for chalk expenditures.

The one that failed is the kid's mom. I believe this is a good example of the proper use of a less-than-lethal solution. Nobody got hurt, nobody went to the hospital. I'm not an expert my any means, but exactly what would you have the police do? Clearly "talking him down" ultimately hasn't proven effective. Maybe this will change a few synapses in his brain so he'll remember if he does it again he can expect to get sprayed rather than simply coddled. Agreed on all points +2

Maybe that's because "FOX NEWS" is an oxymoron. But don't take my word for it. Ask a FOX VP. "“An increasing number of viewers are relying on Fox News for both news and opinion,” Fox News Senior VP Michael Clemente said in the statement, “and the average news consumer can certainly distinguish between the A-section of the newspaper and the editorial page, which is what our programming represents. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/10/12/wh-aide-fox-news-operates-like-an-arm-of-the-gop-2/

That was excellent, one of the most lucid posts I've read here in a long time. Wine and vicodin all around!!

Do riders count? http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/152637-schumer-measures-to-defund-epa-planned-parenthood-are-dealbreakers

I seem to recall that a few times in the past that Republican leaders (at least two) have been quoted as saying that their goals were to spend money on their pet programs to the point that it strains the budget so that ultimately we'll have to defund entitlements. I think the first was back in the 80's and the second was some time in the 90's, maybe early 00's. Not having the exact quote or the name of the person is making the search a bit difficult. I'm guessing that the quote might come in handy some time over the next year or so.