Lucky...

It all sounds innocent enough, but the slippery slope leads to a traffic stop w/o PC, lies about it if asked, to a rough interrogation, to shoving a toilet plunger up someone's ass to get a confession as with Abner Louima. There is no, "this time" in LE, you must follow protocol and not lie or you are a bad cop. There are exceptions for exigency, so you don't have to wait for a warrant when it is obvious someone is in danger, but an illegal PC stop when you could follow them and wait for them to get out of their car is all you have to do and is prudent. You're forgetting that driving on our highways is a privilege, not a right. With that privilege comes responsibilities and certain concessions one of which is allowing the police to ascertain, to the best of their abilities, the safety of all vehicles and drivers on the road. As one who has lost somebody very close to a drunk driver, I side with Roberts on this. An officer can tell within a few seconds of starting a conversation with somebody whether they have been drinking and if further sobriety tests are needed. I just have the idea that you know as much about the justice system and history as the average layperson. Do you know Map v Ohio for warrant requirements of a house? Katz v Ohio for privacy? The Chimmel Bubble for auto searchs? Terry v Ohio for pat and frisk? Dickerson v US tested Miranda in around 2000 for voluntarilness issues. These are just off the top of my head, but I have studied case law extensively and understand the need for a balance between an officer's ability to enforce vs a person's right to not be harassed. Having lost someone is sypathy-deserving, but it doesn't make you an expert on 4th type requirements. The Exclusionary Rule was established why? To threaten officers with the exclusion of evidence to dissuade police misconduct; that's the written explanation. Officers are prone to misconduct in order to get the alleged criminal so they sometimes will push the limits and the gov/SCOTUS has dealt with it. You don't want to live in a society where the cops have no limits under the guise of implied consent.

I didn't have to put words in your mouth, because you wrote them down: Once again- I will pay my own way, but I expect you to pay yours. Obviously we have a disagreement on what constitutes 'your own way'. Now you are trying to get definitive and semantic after you've been pwned? Dude, welcome to reality, you said it, own it.

I would hybrid them and hope for a good Chinese Idol.

Oh, like the rest of the world? Yea, we're right and they're wrong. Oh, like the blind? The disabled? The poor young families? The guy who has been faithful to his career that has been diminished? Yea, losers. Right what he calls transparency you call camera whoring. And then Bush was the most secret president in history, you call that "running the country." Nuff said, yea what else can you say - that's brilliant. Oh please, it might take me another 12 seconds to digest all that, how can I take any more brilliance?

The latter is actually a crime, not suspicion of a crime, so that's off the board as too extreme for your example. He measn like the guy who shot a county council member is teh ass as he was trying to kill her, then he gets 15 years and is alomost out; can you still detain him on the possibility and suspicion he might go kill her?

This is the best you can do for that long reply? Rush, you're slipping, man.

Fair enough, but the intent of the right is death at its extremes, the intent of the lefft at its extremes is property destruction.

Why the statue of liberty, of course. Agred, you go and take that power back, we'll all behere watching. Uh, they already have the power to do so. Ooooow, I hope not, those are evil programs. I think it needs to o straight to the military. OMG! (horror in my face) tell me they're not. Just what I thought; Cat jugling (get the reference). The czars are advisory only but tehy do have great influence with the pres, esp since I believe he appoints them. Good, then I don't give a crap about how you feel about taxation. The gov has endless power. Don't think so, test it out. This is about the banks we bailed out and since we bailed them out we are major shareholders and can dictate their pay. First ya bitch about teh bank bailout, now ya bitch about us making the banks more efficient. Rememebr, it was your guy who signed it into law and handed out the 1st 317B. BTW, give the bailout money back, write your own rules, so this is not gov intrusion, this is a business decision sicnce we own a major share; I'm sure you are for running the business you own, right?

And the Superbowl....... hello sameness, meet sameness.

My assertions are generally backed with evidence that is external, independant and objective. You've been unable to even try to refute any of them. Furthermore, trying to defeat me to make your sample size of 2 non-random a statistically, relevant piece of data is ridiculous. With me, absent me, puny sample sized non-random examples are not statistical. Effort matters, more than just about anything else these days. This is especially true for those who are brave enough and dedicated enough to succeed in their own business. *** Congratulation then, my hat is off and covering my heart, I am simultaneously waving a flag with my other hand. Now, back to the regularly scheduled argument. ***

This is where laypeople crack me up when they try to compare thier personal accounts to the US fed economic system. In limited metaphorical ways it can be done, ultimately it cannot. What you're referring to is deficit based upon the GDP. IOW's if you earn a lot of money, you can spend more. Guess who's really bad at that as of lately? http://zfacts.com/p/318.html So in that stretch spending as a product of the GDP is relevant and what you're refering to. Of course now we have a different animal and we have to deficit spend to get out, just as Clinton did until he got the Reagan mess under control. It took Clinton 4-5 years and it will take Obama most of his 8 years to turn the corner on this mess, as he has to stimulate the economy from the cellar, unlike Clinton who already had GHWB mostly recover from the 1990 recession. I don't care if we are under the Hoover 25% top brkt or the Reagan 28% top brkt, if you don't pay, the same gun comes at you, so if you declare all tax collections as robbery, you ought to go live in the hill so of Montana with the Freemen. That's right, it's semantic to play wordgames. Goiod for you, prosper, I'm all for ya. I'm for a baseline of HC and basic social svs that are reasonable. Here inlies the understanding of your knowledge of the US economy. Hello 1940, how is it back there?

Certainly there is a real risk of harming someone if you burn down their buildings, labs, etc, but the agenda isn't that and they go to measures to prevent that so it doesn't harm their work. Verssu an abortion doctor killer who does that intentionally. Not that they represent all conservs, radicals from the right are deadly by intent, left are not. Sure they're not. Have they ever hurt anyone tho? I don't know of any and am not excusing their behavior, altho I back their agenda, maybe not their methodology all the time. This wasn't an argument of right / wrong, it was one of intent based upon which side uses which method. The right often uses a show of force, arms, threats of violence, death, etc., the left uses protest and destruction of property since they know the opposers are out for profit and they want to make animal torture unprofitable.

It all sounds innocent enough, but the slippery slope leads to a traffic stop w/o PC, lies about it if asked, to a rough interrogation, to shoving a toilet plunger up someone's ass to get a confession as with Abner Louima. There is no, "this time" in LE, you must follow protocol and not lie or you are a bad cop. There are exceptions for exigency, so you don't have to wait for a warrant when it is obvious someone is in danger, but an illegal PC stop when you could follow them and wait for them to get out of their car is all you have to do and is prudent.

Gay jokes? WTF? Feeling uncomfortable???? LOL - tho protests too loudly!

You must be new, I've posted time and again that virtually all taxes are paid by the top 5%. Yes, they, as of the last 30 years lead to major deficits and debt accumulation. Care to disagreee? Not at all, they never really were there to cut. Since the top 20% holds 93% of all cash, how can you tax the lower 80% and their 7%? I love neo-cons who have to use emotionally-distracting language . Boo-hoo, it's highway robbery, we should have a wide wealth gap; anything else would be unfair - boo-hoo. Yes the multi-trillion dollar US economy is comparable to the kid that mows your lawn via a folksy story. We all shed a tear. When lower classes cannot even go to the doctor that is outside any civilized culture; people from other nations gasp in horror at the thought of a major illness killing you or making you file BK to escape. I nominate you for pres, the answer to the American dillema is a good-looking lawn. Good, that way you don't forget your roots.

If you posted the entire passage, not sentence, but passage it would be in context. John Deere or Mike I think it was posed a different question and dissected the clases, so I was responding based upon that. Furthermore I realize that tax cuts help the rich, so I was trying to omit the benefit to the rich aspect; I already know that. Ultimately I don't want to argue some minute, limited tax benefit, I want to find someone who can show me a major federal fed tax cut that has led to prosperity. No one has yet. I'm not here looking for professional economists pushing an agenda, I'm asking people here to show me thru any real objective evidence that taxes did or did not play a role. Explain how the top brkt going into the GD was 25%, Hoover cut it to 24% thinking that's what we needed, 12 mill died and then almost 3 years later he raised them to almost tripple? FDR raised them more and opened major social programs and empowered workers and thimgs recovered. We have 2 directly opposed processes with directly opposed results and you want to say it's random chance or irrelevant? And the cycle repeated itself in later years. You've been running and unable to support your position from the start; why expect more now?

Ok, if you post what that was in referenec to I can respond, otherwise how can I?

Here's a better one - show us an income tax cut that only the rich got. So if a tax cut helps the poor 1 penny, than it's a neutral tax measure. Brilliant, Binary Mike I didn't say that, Strawman Lucky. Translation: I can't answer the question, so I'm going to fall back on my threadbare 'class' argument and forget I ever asked the question in the first place. So now you have to modify previous posts to make a point, my aren't you especially dishonest? Then you actually delete my argument and say I can't answer the question. What a joke. If you care to debate it, replace the original text and hit me up, or just be revisionist Mike.

Right, thx. I've done a lot of reading on the subject as of late. The Republcian doctrine most closely fits that process, the Dems are more Socialist maybe communist at an extreme. I laugh when I see the Dems compared to the Nazi Party, the R's are most closely related metaphorically.

Agrred, 100%, born classism. Class mobility used to be an option, not much anymore. That was the American dream, a lot of immigrants have been dissolusioned. sorry, can't agree with you. I was born to a single teenage mom, thrown out of the house for the sin of having me. So she had to go the GED route before JC, college, and grad school. She was able to provide about half my costs to go to a public school; I worked to cover the rest. And then worked to get to where am I. Environment was a small contributor, but for us it was our innate intelligence + effort that allowed us to succeed. Well, and your humility. Statistically irrelevant. A sample size of 1 or 2 that isn't random is meaningless to the point.

This should get you a nice long ban. Attacking others family members should never be allowed. It was figurative to establish the paranoia that you share with that lady. I said nothing disparaging to you or your mom.

That was an empty promise by Bush, knowing it would never come to him. IOW's a lie . Say he didn't lie, as with Iraq. Don't care about that shit, he said it, he's held to it; don't waana hear your Bush-loving BS. Can we say Clinton didn't mean he didn't get sex when he got a BJ - all BS, don't ask me to have a slice of yours, I won't feed you any of mine.

Yes, really. How does that differ from what I wrote? I did write that property destruction, or as I wrote, 'tearing up property' I think it was, was ok to PETA. Not sure how your point opposes what I wrote. PETA's rules are for not injuring people or animals. Just because fire does injure people doesn't mean it has to. Has PETA ever injured anyone? I checked and couldn't find anyone they've injured. They're pretty careful, as that would tarnish their agenda.

Right.... a lot of hot-winded Repubs down on their luck politically. Boo-fucking-who, 20 of 28 years have been R-run, so suck it up and welcome to the minority.

And you chide my hurried spelling errors? That's not even an error, that's ebonics.