Andy9o8

I detect a chink in your armor.

Those probably were mainly the cohort that were already of socially-conscious age when "colored" became obsolete and "Negro" came into vogue. Nowadays, I imagine the surviving members of that percentage are no longer very... healthy.

The manifest chick would get a new team outfit.

From that report: "Ortis performed a “consented pat-down” of White, according to the report, and “located suspected marijuana in front pants pocket.” " Number one lesson yet again? Say no to cops. Irrelevant, sadly. They'll do it anyway and testify that you consented. 99% of judges don't have the balls to reject the credibility of a cop who testifies as such.

In other news, A Louisiana coroner has ruled that a black man handcuffed behind his back, sitting in a police cruiser, committed suicide by shooting himself in the chest. And so it goes.

There is most definitely civil fraud, and that's in the process of being litigated right now in civil class actions brought by private investors and monoline insurers. The elements of criminal fraud are not necessarily identical to civil fraud, but they're pretty close. I suspect the main reason for why criminal fraud has not (yet) been charged or indicted is that, so far, the target defendants have ultimately been settling with the government. Potential criminal charges is the stick, and not charging them criminally is the carrot, used by the government to get the miscreants to settle. A lesser reason is the government also not trying to over-press its case: civil fraud only requires proof "to a preponderance of evidence" (i.e., more than 50%), while criminal fraud would have to be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt" - a tougher standard to meet. But make no mistake: the lack of indictments (so far) for criminal fraud does zero to negate the existence of civil fraud.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/exploding_head_.jpg

Now you're just sputtering. We're done here.

And as I said in the other thread some time ago, I really don't care who chooses to believe me, including you. There are many class action cases out there, that are still ongoing, against numerous banks including BoA, dealing with private, non-govt investors and monoline insurers, and yes, I have been, and am, involved in several of them. Perhaps my posting here is slightly indiscreet, but I'm being non-specific enough that I'm comfortable doing so. No, I'm not going to cross the line into specific case identification to "prove" my bona fides to you. If that puts us at impasse, well, I can live with that.

In the first place, your statistical sampling is fatally small. In the second place, the scope of your sampling category(ies) is fatally limited. If you made this sort of assertion in a freshman-level university course, you'd get an F.

Indeed I have. Silly boy. The plaintiffs in private party class actions have attorneys, too. Re-read, kiddo. I used intent to deceive in my definition, and gave it plenty of emphasis. I may not know everything, but I sure as hell know the definition of fraud in a commercial case. Does so. That's about 12 different levels of bullshit.

Do not. Is so. Do not. http://cdbpdx.com/MONOPOLY_1936/MONOPOLY_c1937_CChest_GoToJail.JPG

^What you said. I've been involved in these cases; I've done the research; I've read (and written) the briefs; I've read the opinions. Yes, it most definitely is fraud. To be slightly more specific, it is one deliberate element in a course of deliberate conduct designed, intended and executed to deceive, and to cause others (i.e., investors) to act in reliance upon said deception, to their detriment. And that be fraud, baby.

Can't take a selfie & post it on Facebook with a gun, so choice is obvious.

No more than your buddy at the DZ saying "Hey, asshole!" to you, versus the guy you cut off on the highway saying "Hey, asshole!" to you. No, seriously: you really didn't get that? OK.

I think the old Western movies that informed popular American culture are an excellent example. Those were the days before "Little Big Man", when Westerns still had all the white settlers as the besieged good guys, and the Indians as rampaging savages or stupid or both. In those movies, "Redskins" was almost always used as a pejorative. Seriously, you'd think today's pro football team would be embarrassed to keep using that reference given the tenor of the current times, rather than just digging in like stubborn children.

You really want to hang your argument on that? OK.

Those weren't intended as serious pejoratives, just ball-busting "insults" between friends, intended to show friendly familiarity. I recognize that when the team came into being around 1932, the Redskins name was originally intended as a complimentary comparison to "American Indian" warriors, just like all the other popular "American Indian" team names of the time - certainly anything but a pejorative. But times change, and so do social norms. Time was when "moron", "imbecile", "idiot" and "retard" were accepted terms for what is now commonly referred-to as "developmental delay" within the medical communities of the times. Now, those terms are strictly pejoratives; and any present-day medical professional who used such a term, in earnest, to refer to a patient with developmental delay or mental illness would be way out of line. Same goes for "Redskins" in present-day context...for the reasons already nutshelled so well by DanG. And as he notes, it's not the same as most other Native American mascot references. I'd be happy to support a hypothetical football team named "the Zulus" as a salute to proud, fierce Zulu warriors. I'd feel much less charitable toward an old team named, say, "The Darkies" retaining that name (and, say, a black jockey statue as a logo) in the present day.

Don't tolerate the use of the word from anyone on anyone not African American? As I said, "as a pejorative". I thought my meaning was clear; but to clarimify further, nigger used by folks who ain't niggers to insult niggers for being niggers.

This. Of course it's dangerous. But with risk attenuation, it's acceptably safe - for me. The exact same factors make it unacceptably dangerous for others - for them.

Your clear implication, Bill (all semantic two-step aside), is that, comparatively, only Injuns (oopsie!) have the highest moral standing to express offense at racial pejoratives describing Native Americans. I reject that. I'm white (AFAIK), and my entire life I've despised the pejorative use of ethnic slurs; and for whatever reason, I find the word "nigger" (as a pejorative) particularly toxic. I don't tolerate it in my presence; I've been yelled at, ridiculed and come close to getting my ass kicked while taking that stand. Despite the fact that my ancestors left Africa voluntarily 70,000 years ago, I feel I have no less moral standing to express that than someone whose ancestors left Africa involuntarily 200 years ago. I don't care if some black people couldn't care less if white people call them "darkies", I'm still offended by it - for myself - and I'll object to it in my presence.

Cool, then let me extend the same invitation. Except I, for reasons stated on this forum before, am not a PGR rider although I have ridden in support on some of the same rides. So, open invitation to show up at ANY of the motorcycle rides or parties that I attend to express your position. I'll calmly sip my soda and see what happens. Not referring to anyone in particular, but my general attitude toward people who imply a wish (read: implied threat) of violence against those who might dare express locally-unpopular views in the presence of "tough guys" is that said people are cowardly scum, they're an embarrassment to Americans who respect the Constitution, and they can go fuck themselves. Gee, I guess that, too, sounds like an invitation. Keep in mind the Patriot Guard Riders was formed to buffer the Westboro Baptist Church protesters and provide a respectful defense for grieving families. Not one WBC protester has ever been physically harmed by a PGR member. PGR is patriotic and respectful not confrontational. Most folks in ceremonial attendance come away with a deep sense of American patriotism. And that's fine, Ron; I have no rebuttal to that. My point still stands. I resent hearing/reading, over and over again in my lifetime, the suggestion that anyone who expresses a liberal or critical-of-America opinion in the presence of blue-collar conservative tough guys, military veterans, etc. etc. should expect to get his ass kicked. I also resent when that tactic is used to express very thinly-veiled threats of violence (with plausible deniability, of course) against people in this Forum. In my opinion, it's already been done twice in this thread.

Cool, then let me extend the same invitation. Except I, for reasons stated on this forum before, am not a PGR rider although I have ridden in support on some of the same rides. So, open invitation to show up at ANY of the motorcycle rides or parties that I attend to express your position. I'll calmly sip my soda and see what happens. Not referring to anyone in particular, but my general attitude toward people who imply a wish (read: implied threat) of violence against those who might dare express locally-unpopular views in the presence of "tough guys" is that said people are cowardly scum, they're an embarrassment to Americans who respect the Constitution, and they can go fuck themselves. Gee, I guess that, too, sounds like an invitation.

So much for the Shamokin Schlongs.

Are you kidding? Have you seen their running game?