NCclimber

That was Libya, not Iran. Libya is as far from Iran as the USA is from Equador or Lockerbie is from Newfoundland. Not that facts should influence anyone's opinions. Aren't they both brown people? Obviously, the things they have in common ends with skin color.

While I believe the general premise of the OP, it seems a number of posters have provided credible links to refute some of the author's claims. In the words of Ricky Ricardo... "you got some 'splainin to do".

Your next post was basically a generic statement about taxes. It wasn't until you made a second, third and fourth post, not to mention a lot of posts from others, that you claimed (in a fifth post) I excluded other taxes. If you think my parameters are too narrow, bring it up on the front end, instead of coming back much later and accusing me of excluding something. That said, I'd like to apologize for accusing you of dishonesty. I have no more proof of that, than anyone else has proof of my "excluding" anything from the post in question.

Cocaine is not physically addicting. On the other hand, there's crack... Cocaine is quite addictive. Crack is, also, but not the "one hit and you're instantly an addict" kind of addictive that was once believed. It's funny what we think we know. I did an internet search to get proof that crack is significantly more addictive than powdered cocaine. I checked out five sites that seemed credible. None said anything about crack being more addictive than snorted coke. One site pointed out that much of the late 80s hysteria around crack was unfounded. It pointed out the poor scholarship that went into a number of "studies". whaddaya know.

Cocaine is not physically addicting. On the other hand, there's crack...

A lot of "anonymous" comments there, and mostly just garbage. If only we'd been this dismissive of Woodward and Bernstein.

Is there a forum rule I missed that prohibits user from calling bullshit on bullshit posts? I have no problem with thread drift. It's a normal part of casual interactions. . Apparently you do. When a thread drifts from what YOU want it it be about, you start whining and complaining of BS posts. You make comments about income taxes and that's OK, but when someone comments on sales taxes it's BS. When you comment on medical research it's OK, but when someone comments on the medical system as a whole it's BS. I believe you're talking about my posting information about Federal Income Taxes, in response to another post about taxes. From there, a number of posts were made aboutFederal Income Taxes. I took offense when you falsely accused me of excluding "state income and sales taxes". It was an offensive, dishonest ploy. Adding tangential issues to the discussion is completely different (IMO) than accusing someone of excluding them. Commenting on medical systems as a whole is fine. Making assertions about them to sidestep a tangential topic is BS.

Is there a forum rule I missed that prohibits user from calling bullshit on bullshit posts? I have no problem with thread drift. It's a normal part of casual interactions. Frequently, one thing leads to another and before you know it, a thread on gay marriage has turned into a discussion Newton's Third Law of Motion. In most reasonable discussions, there are obvious connections to these tangents. In other words, the flow of the interaction has continuity. However, some people consistently throw these wild sidebar distractions into a conversation, that might, under the loosest standards, be considered tangential, but that most people would call complete non-sense. Or they twist others words, to put a dishonest onus on the other person. In other words, some people rely heavily on logical fallacies and arguementative stunts, instead of actually challenging the points of a given topic. I'm not saying, people aren't fully entitled to try and use these smarmy (just my POV) tactics. Just don't get bent when they get called on them.

VICTIMOLOGY ain't it grand!

Boy that's a bit of a reach. Yeah, it's right up there with comparing our current situation to WWII.

It's interesting that these kinds of dramas get stirred up while we hear little about anything being done to fight the currently thriving international slave trade.

If the three strike law was used the way it was intended, no problem. Problem is that it has also locked up many for petty offences such as shoplifting. While those instances are unjust, you have to wonder about someone who gets arrested on three separate occasions. "Honest, your honor... I have no idea how that Xbox got in my underwear".

See, it's small-penis fuckers like this that should be bitch-slapped. Not that I feel strongly about it or anything. Is bleach harmful to grass?

I hope you stick around. I really do.

Most (practically all) homebuyers have a choice.

Dude, unless you're privvy to the entire police report, all eyewitness testimony, and all empirical evidence, you're not in a position to conclude this. Let the courts sort this out. Stay dispassionate about it. We have a system for handling these things. I have read a number of accounts and if I, a regular person, were to do what the cops did in this case, not being a cop, it would be called murder, flat out. If a car came towards me, I have the option of getting out of the way. I do not have the option of emptying a clip on the driver and then reloading and emptying another clip. ...All legally moot, not to mention irrelevant. Irrelevant? If am threatened by someone in car should I not have the option to empty a clip on them and reload to empty another? Or, is this option only availabe to cops? Didn't you just post in another thread Looks like a lot of people are exercising a healthy dose of "fill in the blanks - to conform with your ideology" in this thread.

Cheap meals, and no TV are fine with me. HOWEVER, shutting down prison libraries and educational programs strikes me as very counterproductive. Are prison libraries being shut down? Or is this just a hypothetical non-issue?

It's a blog! I think SC established prior to the recent election that blog articles do not constitute "truth". What "truth" are you talking about. I merely said it was compelling.

No, but here is a pretty compelling article - http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1183

Correct... but irrelevant to your previous request for an example of what you mean by "Islam related crimes".

It's interesting to go back and re-read threads. All too often, people use bullshit, diversionary tactics to try and refute other's points. I wonder why so many rely on dishonest methods in what seem to be efforts to divert any given discussion, instead of directly responding to the posts/posters they disagree with. Are they just trolling? Or is this all they have? I honestly don't know.

You asked a question. I answered it. Maybe you should give more thought to what you're asking, instead of getting riled when your ill-considered questions get honestly answered. Additionally, your words in the above post give me the impression that you inferred quite a bit from what I posted. You might want to re-read others posts before responding to them.

I'm not sure how one thing (State taxes) can be excluded from something that is completely different (Federal Income Taxes). A dollar is a dollar and they are all the same color. Why just pick on one type of tax for consideration? You know.... exclude taxes paid by rich people, then the poor pay far more than their fair share. I see. For any topic discussed, ALL possibly tangential aspects must be included. Otherwise, you see them as being "excluded". Do you know the meaning of "exclude"? Do you understand the meaning of "logical fallacy"?

The murder of Theo van Gogh.

Sure... I guess those other country's SYSTEMS just make better use of the research than we do. You know..... OUTCOMES. Probably so, but completely irrelevant to my point. But not to mine. Another red herring? Must be a day ending with "y".