SkyDekker

Nice way of stating it, puts a fair bit of spin on it, but whatever floats your boat.

Or maybe due to poor estate planning?

Removing term limits would by a good next step in creating, not preventing a plutarchy.

Yup, that was indeed the Cowboys and the same kicker. They say that statistically "icing" the kicker doesn't work, but it seems to affect this kicker...

Really not that unusual. The US, among many other countries, have laws that criminalize conduct by their citizens in other countries.

Funny you should ask that. Since that is what quite a few people have asked of you.. Wow, you really are so full of yourself that you think stating an opinion is equal to telling people what to think?

That really is the right question to ask. What could possibly be so wrong with having that much money? And, maybe more importantly, what could be so wrong with incredible wealth being kept by very few, as is increasingly happening in the Western world, with the US seemingly in the lead. That question touches on why the likes of Warren Buffet feel there should be an estate tax, and the answer doesn't have anything to do with jealousy. The US is already, or at least well on its way, to being a plutocracy. You need wealth to attain any kind of power in the US. As an example, just look at the posts on Speaker's Corner lamenting the fact that politicians have to "sell their souls" in order to aquire enough wealth and resources to win an election. Note also the general disdain for an oligarchy in the US. The country is founded on the tought that government is of the people, by the people and for the people. Now, to get to your question, what is wrong with having that much money, or more importantly what is so wrong with very few holding incredible wealth? The risk is the culmination of the path we have already travelled down significantly, the effective creation of a plutocratic oligarchy. I think some have already coined the phrase plutarchy.

So has this journalist written anything opposite about that regarding the US? Or, do you honestly think the media is completely controlled and every story fits into a grander scheme?

They forgot the cardinal rule, you are always on camera. What they did looked incredibly wrong, specially the apparent cavalier attitude it was done in. It gave the protestors the upper hand for a number of days. From that perspective, they would have been better off to try some pressure point or pinching techniques. Would have looked a looked a lot better on camera.

According to Kelpdiver you are now humping my leg... Now that bad visual would not have been needed if you would just provide some commentary with your continuous posting of newslinks.

I feel bad for the officer's family. However, the officer knew, or should have known, the risks of his job. Same when a skydiver bounces. Sad, but hardly earth shattering news. Lastly, it wasn't an ideological victory dance. It is what happens when people post things without voicing a point or their opinion, it leaves people guessing. I have stated many times that I do not have a problem with your gun laws. As a matter fo fact, based on your constitution, I think the laws on the books are too restrictive.

QFT

Without a definition of a Terrorist Act it is hard to answer that question. Which brings us back to my original post.

I wonder if he bought the gun on Black Friday. Apparently a lot of guns were sold that day. Now I see your point John.....

Only Arabs can be terrorists?

blue

Just don't try and claim that it will hydrate you.....

If he had screamed God is Great in english it would not have been a terrorist act?

If there is a point you are trying to make, would help if you could state it. If you are just providing a general news service for Speaker's Corner, it would help if you expanded your horizons beyond guns and England.

Kennedy seems to have a hard time differentiating between legal and prudent. It is a very common issue with LEO type personnel. They cannot get past the fact that something can be legal, or according to regulation, but still wrong.

I know the definition of workplace violence. I am having a harder time with a definition of a terrorist act.

No, in other words it is useless to have a meaningful discussion with somebody who continues to maintain that the cops were prevented from leaving when the video clearly shows that not to be the case. The rest of your questions are red herrings.

You chide other people for not agreeing to what they can actually observe on the video. The cops could clearly leave. The video shows it. For the rest of your post, I'll redirect you to the last line of my post you quoted.

I like how your argument changed from "preventing them to leave" to "preventing them from doing their job". Clearly they weren't prevented at any point from doing their job. Clearly they were also never prevented from leaving. As a matter of fact, the protestors "allowed" the officer to leave to do a better job of directing the spray in their faces. I don't dispute that the officers were within their rights to do so, I do dispute that there was not a better way of handling the situation.

They do. Specially like how the cop who is goign to pepper spraying them fornot letting the cops leave, steps frmo the inside of the ring to the outside of the ring.