Free Republic

Just thinking out loud here... The way spies subvert this kind of data collection is to overwhelm the investigator with disinformation. “Garbage in - garbage out” as they say. I dunno. Was just a whim. :o

I’ve never heard that 2.8% of the Paki people are schizo. Can anyone reference a credible source for that statistic? Thanks.

I know what you mean, Hot Tabasco. I get those emails about “increasing your size”. And if they ever missed the demographic profile with a person, they certainly do with me in that regard! :o ;) :p

Great point. Here's the scenario that I finally concluded. Unions at GM & Chrysler (and Ford for that matter) decide that they want the equivalent of government employee benefits. Naturally, the ethics of the GM/Chrysler/UAW board members raise the issue that negotiating for themselves would be a conflict of interest - this has to be decided by congress. (Another scenario might designate that power in an agreed upon arbitrator, say someone like a, hmmmmmmm, like maybe the “Car Czar”!?!?)

And since it would give our overseas competitors an unfair advantage, the offshore employees in right to work states would have to come under the same requirements. We don't want to give anyone an unfair advantage. Wait, that move would only result in more outsourcing and moving assembly & sub-assembly to the supply chain. We can't have that. So, let's mandate the same coverage levels for tier 1 & tier 2 suppliers. Uh oh, everything’s moving offshore. Can't have that. Import restrictions. Tariffs. We must level the playing field.

Brilliant. Absolutely freq’ing brilliant! (Isn't it amazing what one can conceive when they start thinking like a Stalinist!)

I keep wondering. What happens when it’s time for the UAW to negotiate the union contract with a UAW dominated board of directors?

“the U.S.-led coalition has been unable to quell insurgent, terrorist and sectarian generated violence...”

Yes, I stopped reading right there. :)

At first glance, the notion that condoms slow the spread of disease makes sense. But then, if one ignores all the logic and simply looks at the result of the one place on earth that has promoted condom use, one discovers the metropolitan area with the highest HIV infection rate in the entire world as well. (One also finds that the country that most opposes condoms has the lowest infection rate in the entire world!)

Care to guess that city and that country? (Hint: the two “leaders” of these two geographic landmarks met recently.) :o

Wow! And to think they gave you so much credit that your vote would mean so much, RasterMan. YOU are one powerful dude. Are you swaying toward a particular candidate in ‘12 and have they told you what will happen based on that vote yet?

Tell you what... I think we can make a whole bunch if this really works like I think it can. Here's the plan... You tell your friends that you plan to buy stock in... hmmmmm... let's say... hmmmm... Fanny May. Yeah, that's the ticket. In response, they tell you which way the price or say.... gold... or... hmmmmm... let's see... t-bills. You let me know what they say, and I will invest in short term futures contracts. I win... I split the profit with you. Sound like a plan?

:)

Of course, I didn’t mean that. You think I want the Missouri State Police to flag me as likely to be violent and dangerous?

It's just a suggestion, but perhaps they should make a public apology or take the route that some of the Japanese have traditionally done. (Hmmmmm... have I heard an idea such as this recently, or was it genuinely my own unique idea!?!)

You wouldn't care to share any of the names of these astute financial analysts who are quietly warning, would you? I'm sure many of us could benefit from the kind of quiet advice you are receiving. Way too much shill self promotion from those that I've had access. Thanks. :)

hmmmmm... poor ol’ deepak went off the deep end and dropped everything he has taught as his “enlightenment”. How many times I've heard him preach the suspension of ***all*** judgment, that there is no good or bad, and his self-professed and profound discovery of a life without hate.

I ran with a group of new-agers a while back, huge fans of deepak and maryanne williamson. Rendered them speechless each time I asked if it was wrong to judge.

Yeah, I know what you mean. I’m convinced of everything that I observe in Al Gore & Michael Moore’s videos too. ;)

You saw that? Amazing. Guess you’ve never seen different things from different angles in an NFL replay. You ***think*** you saw a fist to the back of the head. It’s a grainy, b&w video.

What were the injuries sustained? Jumping to conclusions people. Ahhhhh... convicting without all the evidence. Nice.

Never said give him a pass. If you read what I wrote, exactly the opposite.

We've got people here convicting the officer of a felony (which it was not) knowing only what's on a silent video. Lord, I pray none of these people are ever on a jury ready to convict based on 30 second, non-contextual b&w video.

The officer forcibly restrained her. No one here has established the extent of the injuries or what transpired before or after the video, or the “rules of engagement” for the facility. The officer's response was over in less than 5 seconds. That hardly qualifies as a felonious or premeditated assault. Police officers make thousands of split second decisions a year.

I have no doubt that you “work with the public” and that you will “eventually run into an A$$hol”. But with all due respect, if you had 5-10 “A$$hol” incidents every shift that you work, 5 days a week, 365 1/4 days a year? Well, I think that officers have an impossible standard to uphold.

Had this officer broken bones, drawn blood, caused a concussion or pulled out a stick or gun to beat the girl mercilessly, then we would have a different conversation. Like you said with the taser, the issue is where we draw the line. The way I see it, the officer responded aggressively, but I cannot see anything that caused sustained or great bodily harm.

Ah, name calling and verbally assaulting behavior from behind the safety and anonymity of the Internet.

There are two cliches that come to mind, one accurate the other complete wisdom...

“Sticks & stones...” Untrue. Words can injure for a lifetime. Sometimes more brutal than many forms of physical violence.

“Consider the source.” And I shall apply that wisdom here. :)

Yes, he taught me great things. Thank you for asking. :)

Are you suggesting that every officer who has ever done what was recorded on tape is a “disgrace”? Not to impugn the integrity of the profession, as I obviously have more respect for what we put these men and women through, but would you please suggest a percentage of what you think are the number of officers who have never responded at any point in their career to a person throwing or kicking an object or who otherwise made an aggressive action toward an officer?

And you are proposing jail time for a misdemeanor?

And regarding the prosecution for the DUI. The incident was procecuted, though not to your satisfaction apparently. Under the current laws, past convictions for unrelated crimes cannot be used in prosecuting a case, only in sentencing. But since you can obviously pass judgment from viewing 30 seconds of a video (not knowing what was said or what preceded the video or the extent of the injuries), it's easy to see how easily you are able to suspend the rules of law and pass judgment before a perponderance of ALL the evidence.

And as much as you probably won't like this fact, there are special rules for “cops”, not just the bad ones, but the good ones too. They have a special job which requires special rules. But those should be suspended as well - all on the emotion of a 30 second video.

So the next time you encounter an officer of the law, please rather than thanking him for putting his life on the line every single day he reports, please walk up to him and remind them that they should expect to “handle the verbal abuse, or insults and all the other crap” that you've decided should be the normal course of their job. He or she will certainly exhibit more restraint that they should respectfully have to endure from your type.

No you didn't. You advocate making the profession so difficult that no one wants to be an officer of the law. Let every criminal do whatever they wish to an officer. And don't let any officer have any slack in the most difficult and threat filled job anywhere.

Yep, a police officer must never use force. They must stand there and take every “verbal abuse, or insults and all the other crap”. Keep drawing the line further and further against the police and what will you get? Detroit, Washington DC, Philadelphia, New Orleans.

Yep, let the criminals be in charge. Let them be able to push the envelop so that you and all the liberal judges and sit in your ivory tower chairs, and point fingers from the safety of your little suburban enclaves. These men put their lives on the line and deserve better than you letting this brat kick her shoe at him. Next time she spits on him. The time after that? Where do you draw the line from your safe little cubicle or kitchen table where you've never had to deal with the ilk that our officers do every day.

I believe in law and order. The law? Supreme. The order? Well, welcome to the real world. Sometimes keeping order requires a few bruises and bloody noses. When you've been in the position of being spit on and called every name in the book (and some that aren't allowed to be in the book), then please voice your opinion.

Most officers will agree that he should be disciplined. My contention is that he should be treated as a criminal - a felonious criminal at that. And that he should do jail time. Come on, half the population would have lost their right to vote if we were all criminals who had every tackled someone, pushed someone down, or been in a fist fight.

Wow, how sad. As a society, we have denigrated our officers of the law to have to “handle the verbal abuse, or insults and all the other crap”. Sure, put that on the job description of any other profession. Let's see, why not make that a requirement for every job in society... nurses, teachers, supermarket checkout.

Our officers put their lives on the line and sacrifice so much and what do we do? We pat them on the back and say, “Now rush right out there and handle the verbal abuse, or insults and all the other crap.”

The compassion we have for criminals, and not for our officers of the law has an unintended result. The evidence is astoundingly overwhelming. Where do we have the most problems with crime? In those places where the officers are most in fear of what will happen if they meet force with force. We've confused compassion with enabling and we are not dealing with the consequences as a country.

And you didn't intend to do so, but you disproved your point admirably. You should NOT have CPS come knocking... You should NOT go to jail, lose your wages, lose your job, get sued... And neither should the “cop”.

(And for the record, I must prefer the term “officer of the law” rather than the term “cop” (or “copper” as the term evolved) which has in its roots a subtle disdain for the profession. I have no such disdain, only respect for the admirable job that these guys do day in and day out.