Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
Open thread 9/18
- By Phillip Brownlee
- Posted Sept. 18, 2007 at 1:05 a.m.
- Filed under Open thread
- Permalink
- Comments RSS
- Both comments and trackbacks are closed
257 Comments
Nathan,
Do Christians who believe that “Jesus is the ONE TRUE Lord and Savior” tell LIES?
Nathan posted: “I beleive the HUNDREDS of credible peer reviewed scientists who do not believe the so called ‘concensus’ ”
NATHAN, prove that you did not tell a lie, by posting a link to those “HUNDREDS of credible peer reviewed scientists”.
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/09/open-thread-915.html#comment-82968317
The Christian Nathan might want to read,
‘Unstoppable Hot Air’http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/09/13/unstoppable-hot-air/
Cosmos, I’ll bet those hundreds who deny the consensus are not even in the field of study they are criticizing. However asking Nathan to support his claims is an effort in futility.
These so-called Christians only believe in what they want to believe in. There is no dealing with these people in logical terms. They know everything, they are right about everything and they, and only they, have the one true God to get into Heaven.
I’d love to see their faces when they get to see God and she tells them all they have been wrong about everything!
You got that right, Maid Marion!!
Before this thread gets to hundreds of hundreds of posts about the same old, same old, I have a question for Nathan. Being 5 hours behind everyone else, I never get to the threads until after they die down.
From the sound of the repeated arguing, it sounds like you want Chas to denounce people who don’t believe that Jesus Christ is the one and only way to salvation, and that everyone who doesn’t believe is going to hell.You want him to say, “everyone else except Christians are wrong and are damned for eternity”.
And it sounds like YOU AREN’T GOING TO STOP BADGERING HIM DAY AFTER DAY AFTER DAY until he does.
Now, I understand that on the whole, believing this is pretty much a requisite to Christianity.
However, it’s kind of an asshole thing to say. Like it or not, telling people that their religious beliefs are wrong is just rude. There’s a time and place for everything.
Perhaps Chas doesn’t want to sound like an asshole on the blog, and he limits his preaching to the church setting. The “wherever you conceive of God to be” does not equal “God is anything you think he is”, but indicates a respect for those who believe otherwise.
So perhaps he DOES believe as you do (or maybe not) but doesn’t want to sound like an asshole who doesn’t respect the beliefs of all the Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, agnostics, atheists and secular humanists who might be reading the blog.
So, is there any chance you could cease the badgering? Obviously, Chas has made it clear that he doesn’t wish to discuss that topic. You may not realize this, but you make Christianity sound incredibly repulsive to the outsider.
Unless of course, you two LIKE arguing about the same thing day in and day out…but it’s starting to get ridiculous, the repetition.
Also, I’m looking forward to you and your Dad’s emails, thanks again.
Also, Chas, it might be wise to not reply to him when he starts in on you.
Aloha :)
Free trade, a Global economy, it was said that free trades intent was to open foreign markets to American goods. NAFTA and GAT were to allow the interchange of goods and service between the U.S. and the rest of the Americas and the world. BUT the side effect has been the lost of what are the heart of any country’s economy, Manufacturing and industrial production. American companies see a smaller bottom line moved their manufacturing to Mexico and other off shore countries, Employee payroll is the largest of all operating cost, if you can have your product made by someone you pay two dollars an hour instead of twenty dollars an hour. The company shows a profit of eighteen dollars an hour.
Of course the problem lies with where is that return product from the other country? When the product we were providing is a finished product going to a country who GNP (gross National product) is raw material.We were sending a value-added product and receiving a product that lacks value till it is refined.
By moving manufacturing to that country not only will that country now be producing a value add product to be sold in the United States. The company now will have no need to import the raw materials to the U.S. since their production is oversea.
Leaving the United States the only way to be completive is to lower wages and use up its own raw materials. That is the unspoken reality of free trade, it will take a “Global wage” to stay in the game.Wages must go down in the U.S. and wages go up in the other country till they both reach a medium wage.Another way to explain it is a textile worker in the United States will be making the same an hour as the textile worker in China, Mexico, the far East.
But you say, “Thank God I am not a textile worker!”. Well the truth is no matter what you do for a living, there is someone else in the world will do it cheaper! This leaves the United States depending on other countries for our goods and services. Dare I say it? Yes we are talking about global socialism, we are transplanting our heart in other countries so they can live! Everyone being the same, making the same wages, having the same benefits! One of President Bush’s economic adviser recently said of China, “By bring up China’s GNP along with their GDP (Gross Domestic Product) we hope to build a new middle class that will demand higher wages and a better standard of living”. But by doing so, where is the old middle class being taken from? And how long can a upper class grow that has no means to raise above the lower class? A service economy bares no fruit, a consumer class has no choice but to consume with out producing.
Tara,
I don’t know why Chas won’t deny or confirm his faith in Christ as the one True Lord and Savior.
That is why I keep asking him.
All of his beat around the bush statements point to his not believing Jesus is the one true Lord and Savior, which goes against the most basic fundamental belief of a Christian.
So that is why I seek clarification.
I am not asking Chas to rub it into peoples faces.
The only time I bring it up anymore is when Chas says something about faith, religion, or Christianity.
I have no intentions of stopping.
As long as Chas is going to claim to be a Christian and then turn around and say things which I can’t think of any Christian believing, I will indeed ask him about it.
The problem is that Chas has no balls.
He will sit there and soak up the praise from Political Mom and others about what a better Christian he is.
He will denounce myself and other Christians on this blog for what we believe.
He will tell us it is wrong to say to others what they believe is wrong.
He will say it is wrong for me to tell others that Jesus is the one true Lord and Savior,yet he doesn’t have the balls to tell us what he may or may not believe if it is the same as what I believe?
Why would a Christian who does believe that Jesus Christ is the one true Lord and Savior be so unwilling to say so?
Disciples died to spread the Gospels of Christ.
Christians to this day are killed and persecuted for saying as much.
And Chas is worried about looking like an A-hole? Even if that were ture, it only makes him that much smaller compared to great people who risked everything to share the Gospels with others… which Chas says is wrong.
Where is the sense?
Chas will say it is wrong for me to tell someone they are wrong….
Kind of like saying there is no abosolute truth…
Except for the statement saying there is none?
So it is wrong for me to say someone is wrong… except of course saying I am wrong… that is ok.
Nathan,Have you considered the possibility that there are more effective ways of bringing people to Christianity besides telling them they’re beliefs are wrong and they’re going to hell?
I think the Orthodox in Alaska had a lot of converts because of all of their charity work. The general feeling was, like, “Look how they love one another”.
When you pull the “This religion is the only way to not suffer for eternity”, you tend to achieve the opposite effect. You drive people away.
Now, while I do think you and Chas are equally at fault for your neverending tiffs, what if Chas refuses to say what you want him to say because he doesn’t want to drive people away from Christianity?
Also, do you believe that Chas’ nightly closing, “God bless, whatever you conceive of God to be” means exactly the same thing as “God is anything and anyone you want him to be, including a white cow”?
“As long as Chas is going to claim to be a Christian and then turn around and say things which I can’t think of any Christian believing, I will indeed ask him about it.”
Do you believe that Democrats can be Christian?
Also, IIRC, the ONLY criteria for being a Christian is believing that Jesus was the son of God and died and came back to life for our sins. Is that correct, or not?
Now onto another topic…I had an interesting discussion in my P4E group and I no longer want gay marriage to be legalized. I want the whole system revamped and the term marriage to be reserved for the church ceremony. “Domestic partnerships” would refer to everything else. So, you could be in a domestic partnership without being married, or be in both, or just be married (with no legal benefits).Clergy would not be authorized to grant domestic partnerships.
Domestic partnerships would be a legal arrangement between two adults. You may only be in a partnership with one other person. The relationship of the individuals does not matter; I could have a domestic partnership with my mother if I decided to give up on finding a husband and she was widowed, for instance, in order to allow us to share expenses and legal benefits. In this case, I COULD be married on the side, but I would have to choose whether to have those 1,110 rights shared with my husband or my mother.
I see no real problem with this, as it takes the “moral problems” out of the issue altogether. A domestic partnership is like a business relationship or legal contract. Since you can only have it with one other adult, it wouldn’t really skew tax benefits the way polygamy would, for instance.
Employers would have to provide insurance to the employee’s domestic partner and any children in custody.
Marriage would be left to the churches, a completely separate event. I used “domestic partnership” instead of “civil union” because it has less gay-marriage-debate connotations, but they’d pretty much be the same thing.
Does anyone see any major conflicts with this idea?
I proposed a similar concept Tara. There is no need for government to license marriage. If they stopped licensing, then the employers and such would no longer have a basis for the discrimination.
The problem is that Chas has no balls.Posted by: Nathan | September 18, 2007 at 05:22 AM
Political Mom,You are a sheep.Posted by: Nathan | September 14, 2007 at 03:41 PM
Political Mom,Baby killer.Posted by: Nathan | September 12, 2007 at 03:30 PM
I have consistenly tried to refrain from the absurdity of calling each other namesPosted by: Nathan | September 12, 2007 at 05:22 PM
Nathan,
You really need to stop looking like such a hypocrite. Why couldn’t you just answer Tara’s questions without lashing out at Chas?
“…claim to be a Christian and then turn around and say things which I can’t think of any Christian believing…”
Nathan,
Not every Christian believes as you do. Again, get out your Yellow Pages. Turn to “Churches.” Think about the issues of faith – NOT just doctrine – where these various congregations differ. Then think about what our nation would look like if every member of every one of them was as intolerant of others’ beliefs as you are.
It’d be Baghdad on a national scale.
I totally agree with that Tara. The Church shouldn’t be melded with the state on this issue.
Tara, you won’t talk any Sense into Nathan, he’s so damn sure he’s got the answers to everything in life. He has no idea what it is to respect others beliefs.
Truth comes out about the Bowlers!
Because we had no Casino’s nearby is what killed the deal.
They better hope that Sumner County better build it fast.
And the “No” JWinks crowd said that a Casino will not bring outsiders. 60,000 to 80,000 bowlers just spoke!
Oh well!
Tara and Proudman,
As a practical, political matter, I doubt, in our lifetimes, we’ll see marriage reframed in state laws (any state) as a domestic partnership or civil union. Marriage is what it is, and it’s too embedded in every level of law, from municipal codes and state statutes to Federal and military regulations, to completely rewrite all of it.
They know everything, they are right about everything and they, and only they, have the one true God to get into Heaven.Posted by: maidmarion
Sounds like you the best description of you pathetic radilibs.
Perhaps Chas doesn’t want to sound like an asshole on the blog, and he limits his preaching to the church setting.
Posted by: Tara
Chas. is doing a pisspoor job of not sounding like as asshole since his posts show he is one. He reeks of being conceited, pompous, and arrogant. He treats other posters with contempt.
So, is there any chance you could cease the badgering? Obviously, Chas has made it clear that he doesn’t wish to discuss that topic. You may not realize this, but you make Christianity sound incredibly repulsive to the outsider.
Unless of course, you two LIKE arguing about the same thing day in and day out…but it’s starting to get ridiculous, the repetition.
Also, I’m looking forward to you and your Dad’s emails, thanks again.
Also, Chas, it might be wise to not reply to him when he starts in on you.Posted by: Tara
Chas. must want to discuss it Nathan or he would ignore him. They do enjoy the repetition of arguing with each other. Chas. could stop the arguing by not replying to Nathan.
Wages must go down in the U.S. and wages go up in the other country till they both reach a medium wage.Another way to explain it is a textile worker in the United States will be making the same an hour as the textile worker in China, Mexico, the far East.
Posted by: writerdog
Good luck on fighting the unions on lowering wages writerdog. You are correct, but by the time Americans start doing it, it will be too late.
Now, while I do think you and Chas are equally at fault for your neverending tiffs, what if Chas refuses to say what you want him to say because he doesn’t want to drive people away from Christianity?Posted by: Tara
Chas. is driving people away from Christianity by his attitude on this blog.
Tara, you won’t talk any Sense into Nathan, he’s so damn sure he’s got the answers to everything in life. He has no idea what it is to respect others beliefs.Posted by: political_mom
You have as little respect for other beliefs as Nathan. You have the same attitude of having all the answers.
It is people like the above and others that drive members away from this blog. We come to this blog looking for great debate and discussions and see a handful of intolerant people posting the same crap over and over and over and over and over again. Side A is not going to convince Side B or any other side for that matter and neither is Side B. Give it a rest why you dont all.
Truth comes out about the Bowlers!
Because we had no Casino’s nearby is what killed the deal.
posted by: Joe Williams
The article did not say no casino killed the deal. It said a casino would be a plus. The City leaders’ stupidity killed the deal as their lack of leadership kills many deals.
“You may not realize this, but you make Christianity sound incredibly repulsive to the outsider.”
Ditto Tara. Ditto.
Like I said before, Chas and Nathan just need to get a room. The attraction is killing them.—–
“Because we had no Casino’s nearby is what killed the deal.”
Now Joe you know that’s not true — the vote to not have a casino was well after the Bowlers bolted.
It was the incompetence of the city, etc ….. that capped the deal …………….
Speaking of the city et al …… weren’t we supposed to know by now what happened and who did what, and who is getting fired about losing the bowlers ?
Speaking of the city et al …… weren’t we supposed to know by now what happened and who did what, and who is getting fired about losing the bowlers ?
Posted by: ken
You dont expect the City Council to fire itself. It would be a good start if they did and then maybe we could elect some more competent bozos to run the city.
Actually I am not saying that wages NEED to be lowered, but that is where it is heading whether unions go with it or not. Where on the face of it the GTO is saying that part of the membership requires the allowance of collective bargaining. It is an attempt to smooth out the objections of the Unions here, there is no intent to enforce it. Unions can scream till they are horse but it will do no good. the track has been set and Globalists have all the cards for now. It will stop only when this country has sunken so low that it is on the brink of downfall. Then as a reaction once again tariffs will be used to safeguard the infrastructure and the U.S. economy. The U.S. being forced in part because we will no longer have the ability to effect the world.To go back to being Isolationist, of course by that time we as a nation will have become so weak that there is a danger of being taken over and having OUR natural resources plundered.
And the hits keep coming and coming!
Now Joe you know that’s not true — the vote to not have a casino was well after the Bowlers bolted.Posted by: ken
Ken, maybe you need to read today’s paper.
And no it has not killed it, yet. But it is putting us at a disavantage.
No argument with you on those issues writerdog. I agree that wages will have to go down here or we will keep losing jobs to other countries.
On a lighter note, http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070918/ap_on_re_us/o_j__simpson
seems Simpson was set up. No doubt a jury will buy this idiotic story.
“You can’t rob something that is yours,” Galanter said. “O.J. said, ‘You’ve got stolen property. Either you return it or I call the police.’”
Simpson should have followed this advice and he wouldnt be in jail now.
Hee hee hee hee! I wonder if values boy will have a hissy fit knowing that he AND the ACLU are advocating for the same things?
“One of the nation’s oldest advocates of civil rights has come to the defense of alleged bathroom-sex-soliciting Sen. Larry Craig, saying his foot tapping and hand waving in an airport restroom do not provide enough evidence that he was going to engage in sexual activity in public.
The American Civil Liberties Union criticized the Minneapolis airport police sting aimed at preventing public sex in its restrooms. The ACLU filed a “friend of the court” brief Monday arguing that Craig should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea to a disorderly conduct charge and fight the case because police failed to prove he attempted to engage in sexual activity in public.
“Solicitation for private sex, regardless if it occurs in a bar or a restroom, is protected speech under the First Amendment,” said a news release from the ACLU. “When free speech rights come into play, police enforcement actions must be ‘carefully crafted’ so that they don’t unnecessarily ensnare people who are engaging in constitutionally protected speech.”
* snip *
Although Craig has “not always been a great friend of civil liberties,” he deserves the same constitutional protections as every other citizen, ACLU executive director Anthony Romero said.
“Government should make public restrooms safe for all, but it should do so in a manner that is really designed to stop inappropriate behavior, rather than destroying the lives of people who might have no intention of doing anything illegal,” Romero said in the news release.
The ACLU pointed to a Justice Department guide on policing public places to prevent sexual activity that recommended posted signs and uniformed officers as opposed to undercover stings.
* snip *
“The real motive behind secret sting operations like the one that resulted in Senator Craig’s arrest is not to stop people from inappropriate activity,” Romero said. “It is to make as many arrests as possible – arrests that sometimes unconstitutionally trap innocent people.”
http://rawstory.com//news/2007/Craigs_foot_taps_are_con... ”
Who’d a thunk it? Values boy and the ACLU defending the same person!
Kinda like when the ACLU defended Rush.
Gee, do ya think we’ll see more of this as governor leadership and her merry band of men push ethanol production and continue to ignore the state’s water problems?
Competing ethanol plants in Cloud County fighting over water rights.
http://www.midwestcoop.net/index.aspx?ascxid=fpQfStory&fpsid=29996&fpstid=2
Gotta love that ACLU KFG!! ROFL!
ksfarmgrrl , most people supporting ethanol ignore the high water factor.
You know what I miss? The Christianity that I grew up with that discouraged judging others and warmly accepted everyone, even the “sinners”, with love and compassion.When did it all change? Today being Christian seems to mean that one is arrogant, intolerant, and willing to condemn to hell anyone who doesn’t share their belief system.I grew up Catholic..and I NEVER heard any priest say that Jews, homosexuals, etc. were going to hell if they didn’t repent and accept Jesus as their savior…never. We were taught to accept and love everyone, no matter how flawed or wrong we perceived them to be, because it was wrong to judge others. THAT was the Christian thing to do. It was never about condemning others under the facade of trying to “save” them.Today’s Christianity leaves such a bad taste in my mouth, that when I hear someone proclaim their “Christianity” I automatically want to turn a deaf ear to anything they have to say because the proclamation is usually followed by some angry, arrogant, and intolerant opinion or put down.
Why did this happen? It’s no longer the faith that I loved and grew up with.
(Cue “Dueling Banjos”); kfg, I was wondering when that would happen (competing ethanol plants dueling over water rights). Seems inevitable to me.
Yeah VT. And no one is talking about the grain shortage and what will happen when they start competing for the damn grain to run the ethanol plants.
“Lord what fools these mortals be”.
But sebelius doesnt care, as long as the piper doesnt have to be paid on HER watch.
Water as political capital. Coming to a faucet near you!
Yeah Mary. I thought it was the shark calling again for the so called christians here, but funny thing. It turned out to be god instead. SHE’S tired of being jumped too!
kfg, while it’s taking longer than I thought it would, the availability of potable water will be the big political issue; I daresay it will still be within my life expectancy when water debates eclipse oil debates, at least in this part of the country. On grain shortages, well, guess I should find me some land and start planting.
“Your honor, I was meaning I wanted to buy some cats!”
I just got into this post and I realise that there is some one who believes that Christianity is served only one way. Well, being the son of a Methodist minister I can say that my father NEVER preached one-way Christianity! He believed that one uses his faith to make this world a better place! Disagreeing with parts of religion does NOT make you a better or lesser Christian! Where I may agree with abortion does not make me non-Christian just because some may think abortion is wrong. I believe sexizm is wrong but that doesn’t make those who practice such is a non-Christian. My father believed that the Christain faith is to be taught by deeds not just by talking about it! How one conducts his life is the key ingredient in being a Christian. I certainly don’t believe in shouting about it at every turn! That’s a very good way to turn people away from Christianity!!!
Old Manor one thing you might have missed that was central to the discussion:
I realize that many different ways of worshiping are practiced. The one tenet of my face and mine only is that I believe in one God and one savior Jesus Christ. My belief. I never try to push that on anyone. If someone asks me a question about it I will share my faith with them.
Christian by Maya Angelou
When I say… “I am a Christian”I’m not shouting “I’m clean livin.”I’m whispering “I was lost,”Now I’m found and forgiven.
When I say…”I am a Christian”I don’t speak of this with pride.I’m confessing that I stumbleand need CHRIST to be my guide.
When I say… “I am a Christian”I’m not trying to be strong.I’m professing that I’m weakand need HIS strength to carry on.
When I say… “I am a Christian”I’m not bragging of success.I’m admitting I have failedand need God to clean my mess.
When I say… “I am a Christian”I’m not claiming to be perfect,My flaws are far too visiblebut, God believes I am worth it.
When I say… “I am a Christian”I still feel the sting of pain,I have my share of heartachesSo I call upon His name.
When I say… “I am a Christian”I’m not holier than thou,I’m just a simple sinnerwho received God’s good grace, somehow.
~Maya Angelou~
This is me. She said it far better than I could. It is on my refrigerator where I see it every day.
I have muslim neighbors who are good friends of mine. On the other side I have two women raising a son together. We are a very close cul-de-sac. Watch each others homes. They are the same every day. Chas on the other hand changes everyday. I challenge him on this ocassionally. It’s more fun that it should be.
If I came off as shouting at you – please accept my apologies. There are many ways of being intolerant and one of those is to talk over and over again about others shortcomings.
Hope today is a good blog day. Many interesting topics.
Trying to get a handle on the Blackwater controversy, it appears from a piece on cnn.com today that the “suspension” by the Interior Ministry in Iraq is indefinite, pending the outcome of its own investigation. It further appears that the Ministers making up the Iraqi government are supporting this, without any dissenting opinions being heard.
From the piece, it seems a major issue is the immunity, if you will, of Blackwater and other security contractors, from prosecution under Iraqi law. What it appears is desired is to bring these folks under Iraqi law, so any “bad guys” may be prosecuted in the local courts. That seems like a reasonable request on the part of a sovereign, independent government, and should be granted, IMHO.
If Chas does not want to be criticized about his Christian beliefs, all he has to do is quit talkinig about them.
As long as Chas brings it up, he’s fair game. And Nathan and some others see some big flaws in what Chas is preaching, and Chas certainly doesn’t represent Christianity to me.
Others have a more ‘flexible’ view of scripture. I do not.
And to those who hate what Christianity has become, I wonder if it has become too flexible for them, or not flexible enough.
When and how did they get immunity? Why would anyone committing a crime in any country not be held accountable to that country’s laws? I’ve missed something and need to be brought up to date.
Vaughn is some ways I agree with what you are saying but in reality can we do this and expect independent contractors to continue to go there to help with the rebuilding?
Max, Why do you have the right to judge Chas? Why does anyone have to be wrong in order for you to be right? If Chas is wrong can’t other readers see that just like you do? So why do you need to point it out when its already been posted? Can’t everyone just share their opinions, take responsibility only for their representations?
Linda, here is link to piece.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/09/18/blackwater.iraq/index.html
ksgrm, Blackwater is NOT there to rebuild, etc. Blackwater is there to provide security for the State Department, among others; and, I don’t know why, once a government has been established, as it has been in Iraq, there would be any problem with any contractor being subject to the laws of said government. Please note I’m not referring to the uniformed forces, just the so-called civilian contractors. There are references to Blackwater et al. as “mercenaries”, which is the opinion of the various authors of the various pieces I’ve read. Regardless, when it is argued there exists a sovereign nation with its own government, I’ve a major problem with any contractor, providing security or not, being exempt from the laws of such sovereign nation. Unless one wants to argue that there is no true independent, sovereign nation of Iraq with no legitimate government, and the rules of the occupying forces are still supreme, I’m without any rationale for these contractors not being subject to local law.
How is it then lindainks55 that you question me just now? Are you not judging me now?
If I hadn’t posted, I wouldn’t expect anyone to question me.
By posting, I expect people to implicitly agree to share ideas, and either agree, disagree, or not even care about a given post.
Obviously when one cares deeply about a subject, they will post.
And while Nathan has endless posts replying to Chas, with Chas continuing to complain, it’s fully within Chas’s control to either ignore Nathan, reply to him, or stop posting about religion.
Linda why do you take it as judgement. When you disagree with my opinions as you often do – Does this mean you are judging me? Does Chas get a pass because the liberals agree with him? How do we decide who gets a pass?
Not sure I understand where you are coming from.
VT I guess I would have to agree with your logic but I do see some downsides. What protections have against a corrupt government? We are giving our constitutional rights to GITMO prisoners but would be withholding it from our own citizens working in Iraq. Just a thought.
Well, ksgrm, without belaboring the point too much further, the contractors in Iraq would arguably be subject to the constitutional protections afforded by the Iraqi constitution, as the contractors are presumably not subject to U.S. jurisdiction while in Iraq. Thus, the U.S. would not be withholding U.S. protections from the contractors in Iraq, as the U.S. is not the country alleging violations of its laws, etc. by the contractors.
Thanks Vaughn! I had missed that. Bad situation. I hope it can be changed.
Max and ksgrm, thanks for answering all my questions. I have no right to judge anyone! I have enough trouble keeping myself in line and don’t want the responsibility of trying that with anyone else. I’ll try not to ever ask either of you a question in the future then there will be no question of me being involved with judging another.
Linda wouldn’t that be as bad as over reacting? Are you saying you can’t have a logic, resonable argument without name calling, shouting, judging, recriminations? I think you are capable because I see your posts to other libs and they are courteous and intelligent.
I would imagine you could say the same about my post to other conservatives. I am trying today to change the way I respond to others. That doesn’t mean I won’t speak my mind it just means I will be courteous about it.
My my, whole lot of whining going on today.
Mary,
I see the Homeless Coalition is finally looking at the idea I have suggested about “housing first”. Are you planning on going to the meeting on Sept 23rd to see what they are proposing? If they require a dual disgnosis approach as they do in NYC, this could be a great benefit for the mentally challenged homeless population in Wichita!
I think Nathan and Chas getting a room and jerking each other off would be a lot less gay than what goes on on the blogs night after night ad nauseum
So what happens when the Iraqi government demands literally the heads of the blackwater suspects?
Hey Sam, that sounds like a good meeting… unfortunately, I will be out of town… wish I could be there…
NATHAN,
Where is your link to those “HUNDREDS of credible peer reviewed scientists”?
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/09/open-thread-915.html#comment-82968317
Ksgrm,
Thank you for the very nice poem. It made my day!
XXX
Chas.
I hope it leads to action… and not just another committee to study something!!
Graphs and maps of the record decline of Arctic sea ice.http://nsidc.org/news/press/2007_seaiceminimum/20070810_index.html“As of September 16, sea ice extent was 4.14 million square kilometers (1.59 million square miles), surpassing the previous one-day record of September 20–21, 2005, by more than 1.2 million square kilometers (461,000 square miles)….In recent years, there has been a trend towards later final minima dates; see 2005 in Figure 2.”
Well, we definitely need some action…
Interesting dialogue that made me think of Nathan:
http://www.slate.com/id/2174006/entry/2174113/
Another global warming “fingerprint”.
‘Increase In Atmospheric Moisture Tied To Human Activities’http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070918090803.htm
“The water vapor feedback mechanism works in the following way: as the atmosphere warms due to human-caused increases in carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and chlorofluorocarbons, water vapor increases, trapping more heat in the atmosphere, which in turn causes a further increase in water vapor.”
See the section, “Benjamin Santer answers questions”.
Watch out Max, the Dems. are scheming to raise your taxes!Obama proposes U.S. middle-class tax relief plan 2 hours, 28 minutes ago
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama proposed up to $85 billion in tax cuts for about 150 million Americans on Tuesday, paid for by raising capital gains and dividend taxes on wealthy investors.
ADVERTISEMENTObama’s tax plan, set to be announced in a speech in Washington, includes a cut of up to $1,000 for working families, a mortgage interest credit for low- and middle-income homeowners and the elimination of income taxes for seniors making less than $50,000 per year.
“To get through these uncertain times, we have to recognize that we all have a stake in one another’s success,” the Illinois senator said in excerpts of the speech provided by his campaign. “When folks are hurting out there on Main Street, that’s not good for Wall Street.”
Obama is playing catch-up in the 2008 presidential race behind Democratic front-runner Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, who leads national polls less than four months before the first nominating contest in Iowa.
His focus on taxes comes the day after Clinton unveiled her plan for universal health care as the contenders in the November 2008 presidential election stake out their policy positions.
Obama said he would pay for the middle-class tax relief with a crackdown on corporate loopholes and offshore tax havens and an increase in the highest bracket for capital gains and dividend taxes. He did not specify the size of the increase.
His proposal also would simplify the process of filing taxes so Americans could do their taxes in less than five minutes, he said.
Obama said he would give an income tax cut of $500 per person — or $1,000 per working family — to 150 million Americans. Because the cut would be greater than the income tax bill for some, he said, it would eliminate taxes for 10 million working Americans.
The homeowners’ tax credit would benefit about 10 million home owners, he said, and the tax breaks for seniors would eliminate income taxes for about 7 million Americans.
“His proposal also would simplify the process of filing taxes so Americans could do their taxes in less than five minutes, he said.”
Question on new form: How much did you make last year?
Tax: send in amount equal to question 1
One minute or less.
That is way to complex for the U.S. littlejohn.
Question: Who is your employer?
Thank you for filing! IRS
P.S. If there is any left over we will let your Congressman know!
Watch out Max, the Dems. are scheming to raise your taxes!
Posted by: The Phantom | September 18, 2007 at 12:19 PM
Gee, that’s a big surprise.
Obama’s got a lot of nerve, wanting to cut taxes for the middle class and working poor!
Clinton’s Ends Justify Her Means.
Any Means Of Raising Clinton Cash are A-OK.
Edwards Slams Clinton Fundraising Lunch
By JIM KUHNHENN – 1 hour ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — In its most direct attack on Hillary Rodham Clinton, the campaign of Democratic presidential contender John Edwards on Tuesday denounced a fundraising luncheon that included sessions for Clinton donors with members of Congress who have expertise in homeland security.
“Today’s Clinton fundraising event is a ‘poster child’ for what is wrong with Washington and what should never happen again with a candidate running for the highest office in the land,” Edwards’ senior adviser Joe Trippi said in a letter to supporters.
Edwards and Barack Obama have declined money from individuals who lobby the federal government and have tried to portray Clinton, who does accept lobbyists’ money, as beholden to special interests. Obama and Edwards do accept money from corporate executives whose industries have interests in government policies.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gLw0-rTml5_lbg3BbTwvi-jH5f7g
The working poor don;t pay any income taxes. ANd before you say it, I realize that they do pay medicare and social security taxes. Many of the middle class (specifically those with children) pay little taxes either.
But Obama’s plan will give the poor people back more tax credits, even though they pay No Taxes Now!
That’s a direct Welfare Payment from the Socialist Liberal Democrats!
Deja “Hsu” all over again, it appears. Hillary! of course, should have known better.
——
She Hsu’d Have Known BetterINVESTORS BUSINESS DAILY
Posted 9/17/2007
Election 2008: Hillary Clinton claims ignorance over Norman Hsu’s dirty money. But she was right in the middle of a nearly identical fundraising scandal a decade ago.
In fact, she was briefed about the prior scandal by an aide who’s advising her campaign today. Rewind to 1996, when Hillary headed her husband’s legal defense fund during his re-election bid.
On April 4 of that year, she received a damage-control briefing from fund trustees and a top White House aide about more than $600,000 in questionable donations bundled by Yah Lin “Charlie” Trie, a Chinese bagman who ran a restaurant in Little Rock, Ark.
The largest chunk of the haul — $463,000 — raised flags among fund trustees, because it was delivered by Trie in two manila envelopes stuffed full of sequentially numbered money orders from different parts of the country. All bore the same handwriting.
It was agreed at the meeting that the the dirty cash would be kept secret until after the election — and even then, the names of donors would never be disclosed. It was also agreed donors would be free to re-send any returned money.
The existence of Trie’s funny money wasn’t publicly acknowledged until the scandal broke in the media a month after the election.
The Clintons reluctantly returned the funds, along with an additional $122,000 raised by Trie from Asian donors with low-paying jobs.
Soon the FBI and Congress launched probes, and the White House was compelled to turn over documents from the April 1996 briefing that Hillary attended.
The smoking gun came in the form of handwritten notes taken by deputy White House chief of staff Harold Ickes.
“Charlie Trie — Money orders — Don’t report names if $ are returned,” Ickes wrote. “Could return all $ & ask people to resend it if they want.”
Then this: “BC/HRC to put it out of his mind and wait until after the election.” BC stands for Bill Clinton, HRC for Hillary Rodham Clinton. Ickes cited “HRC” several other times in his notes.
If this sounds like deja vu, it is.
Hillary’s presidential campaign knew since at least June that there were serious questions about China-born Hsu, her own top fundraiser now behind bars.
Yet she agreed to return the $860,000 he bundled for her from mostly Asian donors only after the scandal broke in the press. Even so, she’s declined to publicly identify the 260 donors, and may ask for some of the funds back.
Now as then, Ickes is involved, this time as an adviser to her campaign. And the same guy who courted all the shady Asian donors in last decade’s Clinton campaigns is heading Hillary’s fundraising now. His name: Terry McAuliffe. Seems they’re up to their old tricks.
Hillary claims she had no reason to vet big Asian donors to her presidential campaign, no reason to be suspicious of them. She suggests critics who think she should have been more suspect are racist.
“We reject the suggestion that suspicion should be based on ethnicity in America,” her spokesman said.
But the Ickes notes clearly show Hillary had every reason to check out Hsu, with whom she and Bill snapped photos and whom she let fete her campaign manager in all-expenses-paid trip to Las Vegas.
Even though she was first lady at the time, Hillary was a key point person for her husband’s fundraising activities and had close ties to Trie and other shady Chinese donors.
These included Johnny Chung, who delivered a $50,000 check to her in the White House — money that came from leaders of China’s military.
The FBI had warned the White House, based on wire intercepts, that Beijing was trying to influence Democrats ahead of the election. These warnings obviously went unheeded.
Hsu is cut from the same cloth as the other ethnic-Chinese hustlers and bagmen with whom Hillary rubbed elbows last decade.
She should have known better than to look the other way as he raised more money for her than anybody.
http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=274920911474350
—–
Yea, Hillary has some explaining to do. On the other hand, most voters take it for granted that politicians take lots of money, and aren’t always picky about where they get it. So the likely response (and understandably) when a campaign finance scandals breaks is “what else is new? They all do it.”
So I doubt it derails the train.
Interestingly Obama, struggling to stay a first-tier candidate and avoid falling into the second tier with the Breck Girl, appears to be taking a page from the Republican playbook, promising middle class tax cuts. How the campaign winds twist!
Just a general discussion-Does this blog seem more and more like a yahoo discusison board (haha)? More posters with nics like–If you don;t aquit, your a joke—- or bad buys wear suits” and such nonsense? Also more and more hate and yelling instead of discussion?
What’s up with campus cops and tasers?
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/18/student.tasered.ap/index.html
Remember all the BS about hippies spitting on vets.
That was the spin. Here’s the truth:
Carlos Arredondo, 47 year old father of two sons, arrived in the nation’s capitol on Monday, 09/10/07 to share a memorial he has made to honor for his eldest son, Alex. Carlos has visited thirty of the United States with the traveling memorial to his son Alexander. Lcpl. Alexander S. Arredondo, USMC was killed on 08/25/04. He was 20 years and 20 days old. The memorial consists of a casket, poster- size photographs of Alex when he graduated from boot camp, before his second tour in Iraq, lying in state at his wake, and a photo of Alex with his younger brother Brian.
Saturday, September 15, 2007 consisted of first a rally, a march towards the capitol and then a die-in. Carlos pulled the memorial along the march route approaching the rotunda near the capitol building. Several of the marchers requested for him to speak about the memorial where a crowd gathered around him. After finishing, several people walked with Carlos as he pulled the memorial. Several pictures of Alex dressed in his blues were attached to the display.
As Carlos passed counter protesters, one man ripped a picture of Alex from the memorial. Carlos leaped on the man to retrieve the picture. It was at that point that approximately five others all began to attack Carlos by kicking him in the head, legs, stomach and back.
Why do the pro-war protestors hate our troops?
BTW, Nathan–
How did Moses get to heaven?
Since there was no Jesus around for him to believe in?
Just wondering.
“More posters with nics like–If you don;t aquit, your a joke—- or bad buys wear suits” and such nonsense? Also more and more hate and yelling instead of discussion?”
I’ll pass on the Yahoo comparison, but yes, and yes.
CapnAmerica,
What does your church teach you about that?
They teach me that people can go to heaven without believing in Jesus, if they believe in what Jesus stands for: goodness and love.
I’m pretty sure that Gandhi is not going to burn in hell for all eternity just because he didn’t take Jesus as his personal savior.
Nathan,
Do Christians who believe that “Jesus is the ONE TRUE Lord and Savior” tell LIES?
Nathan posted: “I beleive the HUNDREDS of credible peer reviewed scientists who do not believe the so called ‘concensus’ ”
NATHAN, prove that you did not tell a lie, by posting a link to those “HUNDREDS of credible peer reviewed scientists”.
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/09/open-thread-915.html#comment-82968317
Nathan,
What does the Bible say about that?
Capn’s church may not say the same as yours, hence you will say he is wrong.
And for those of us who don’t have a church (Christian and non-Christian), what’s YOUR answer?
To All,
This is a blog where most of us come to discuss our opinions with others, to debate, to argue, or to do whatever it is some of you do…
That is what I do here too.
I DO NOT go around telling people they are going to hell if they don’t accept Christ.
The only time I do that here is when it is a direct question or somehow it is brought up.
I don’t go around on this blog telling people they are going to hell just to do it.
Do I believe that you must go through Jesus for your salvation?
Yes, I do.
What does that matter to you?
If you don’t believe in God, you don’t believe in Jesus, if you don’t believe what I do, why would it bother you so much what I believe?
Do you think that I care what a Muslim thinks of my Salvation?
I know what I believe and I am not bothered by what someone else thinks of my salvation.
Why are you offended about what I think about your salvation?
I think there is a big misconception here too.
You don’t have to believe someone is right to tolerate their beliefs.
I have friends from all different backgrounds in faith. We get along just fine. They know I don’t believe what they believe is true.
You don’t have to accept or believe what someone else does to tolerate what they believe.
There is a difference.
So why everytime I speak only the truth of what I do believe about Christ you guys get all riled up about how I don’t tolerate others beliefs is beyond me.
Contraditions, anyone?
Just answer the question, Nathan.
Did Moses get to heaven? Did Gandhi?
I answered your question. Now you get to answer mine.
BTW, it’s a “yes” or “no” question.
CapnAmerica,
“They teach me that people can go to heaven without believing in Jesus, if they believe in what Jesus stands for: goodness and love.”
What denomination are you in? I ask only because this is the first time I have seen this stance on salvation before.
I am curious.
CapnAmerica,
Yes Moses went to heaven, for all I know.
Do you know the difference between the Old Covenant and New Covenant?
Did Ghandai go to heaven?
I doubt it. I don’t think he ever accepted Christ as his Lord and Savior… so unless he did… then no I don’t think he is in heaven.
NATHAN, prove that you did not tell a lie, by posting a link to those “HUNDREDS of credible peer reviewed scientists”.
Remember all the BS about hippies spitting on vets.
That was the spin. Here’s the truth:
Posted by: CapnAmerica | September 18, 2007 at 02:40 PM
Heres the truth of your “BS” about hippies and vets
1973 San Diego International Airport, San Diego, Ca
A group of military personnel, vets and freshly graduated boots alike, we demonstrated against by a group just outside the terminal.The protesters yelled insults like Baby Killer, Pig, War criminal. Some ventured so far as to spit in the direction of those moving past. THe protesters were an eclectic mix of long haired “hippies”, crew cut “jocks” and grey haired men with pony tails.
Just 0ne instance. One I personally witnessed. It happened, and if your were an adult back there, you know it happened many times.
Cosmos,
Do you believe there is even 1 ( one ) credible peer reviewed scientist who doesn’t agree with the “concensus?”
Episcopalian.
And I’m surprised that you’re surprised.
Here’s what BILLY GRAHAM said to Newsweek:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14204483/
“When asked whether he believes heaven will be closed to good Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus or secular people, though, Graham says: “Those are decisions only the Lord will make. It would be foolish for me to speculate on who will be there and who won’t … I don’t want to speculate about all that. I believe the love of God is absolute. He said he gave his son for the whole world, and I think he loves everybody regardless of what label they have.”
Since all the right-wing fundamentalists attacked him for saying it, I’m surprised you weren’t aware of it.
Nathan:
I think a lot of you, as a Marine and as one who says what he thinks without concern of others’ reaction to it.
And I understand what you are saying, and agree in principle. One can, and many hundreds of millions do, believe that Christ is “the way, the truth, the life” without being intolerant of others who believe otherwise. It is, of course, folly at best for men to determine who is “going to heaven” and who is not; that is reserved for God. And I understand fully that while faith without works is dead, we are saved by grace, not by works.
You’ve more than made your point to any who are interested.
BUT you have long since passes the point of diminishing returns, my man. Your continued harping on the point turns away many. When we speak the truth, we should always speak it in love, and we want to do so effectively.
It’s time to put this issue to bed. Feel free to defend your faith of course, but the constant questioning of what others believe is counterproductive. You’re in danger of entering scrollover land; when you and Chad get into one of your patented exchanges, you ARE BOTH in scrollover territory.
And remember, many will never understand, nor make any attempt to do so. Christ told us we would be hated for our faith. So it is, from some. Accept it for what it is, and go on.
Let it go, man.
lj,
How do you know those protesters weren’t plants, there to stir up others?
Or were you one of them?
Okay, Nathan, thanks for answering the question.
Moses did. And Gandhi didn’t.
I’m not particularly interested in worshipping any God that wouldn’t take good people of any faith.
Sounds pretty petty to me.
Thank you, GMC.
Rox-
I guess i don;t know they weren’t plants. But I don;t look for conspiracies at every single turn. I knew too many college students who were on the bandwageon. And no, I wasn’t one of them. I was in the bunch being insulted. As a newly graduated recruit.
CapnAmerica,
I thought you said you were a Christian…
NATHAN, answer the question.
This is YOUR source.
“Not all of these researchers would describe themselves as global warming skeptics,” said Avery, “but the evidence in their studies is there for all to see.”
Posted by: Nathan | September 15, 2007 at 01:30 AM
So NATHAN, exactly how many of the scientists in Avery’s piece *_ do _* call themselves “global warming skeptics”, and “do not agree with the concensus”?
LJ–
Did they beat anybody up?
Nathan-
Please read GMC70’s post. It makes a lot of sense
GMC70,
Thank you. I take your opinion very seriously.
I will indeed drop badgering Chas with this issue.
Nathan–
BECAUSE I’m a Christian, I can’t believe that God punishes good people for all eternity simply because they didn’t have the background or the knowledge to accept Christ.
LJ–
Did they beat anybody up?
Posted by: CapnAmerica | September 18, 2007 at 03:18 PM
no, although at a later incident, somewhere in San Diego, near some amusement park, an el camino full of college age people drove by several times, throwing eggs at those of us in Uniform.
Well, egging troops was despicable. As someone who opposed the war then and now, I would have done anything I could have to have stopped that.
I condemn that, as I hope you condemn the pro-war protestors who beat up the dead soldier’s father.
Rox what was with the tasing of that student on the youtube link?
Nathan:
Not just Chas. This exchange with Capn is equally counterproductive.
There is a place to discuss differences in theology and doctrine. THIS blog, where so many have staked out their positions and feel they must “win” every discussion, where the ideological split is apparant and simultaneously bemoaned and exacerbated by both sides, is not the place to do it.
The place, of course, is face to face, calmly, with love. And remember, whether we are right or wrong is a matter of faith, not a fact that we can know in the usualway. Ultimately, we will all know that truth, and it will come from God, not from us.
Just some thoughts. Peace out, man.
I condemn that, as I hope you condemn the pro-war protestors who beat up the dead soldier’s father.
Posted by: CapnAmerica | September 18, 2007 at 03:24 PM
I don’t support violence against any protesters, or marchers, or whatever. Everyone has a right to speak, even if they say stupid things. Those who beat up the father of the slain soldier should be at the least tried for assault and battery. They did a disservice to not only the father, but the son.
There is no Global Warming consensus, cosmos and his fellow GORACLE arm flailing chimps like to think so, but it’s only in their mind.
Besides, The Southern Hemisphere is cooling! Oops! Southern Hemisphere is not included in the process?
Ergo, no anthropogenic Global Warming, just natural climate trends due to oscillations, increased axis deviations and the coming out of the Interglacial period.
Cosmos while we are cleaning up the blog how about you back off of Nathan? We can agree to disagree and choose to believe our own ‘experts’. There are somethings we will never change each others minds about but we can still have civilized discussions. I am still out on GW but do lots of reading trying to educate myself about the issues. You haven’t changed my mind but have made me more curious.
ksgrm, not pretending to answer for Rox, link below to a story about the incident.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/18/student.tasered.ap/index.html#cnnSTCText
In other words, Nathan, because you’re showing the intolerance of the religious right, GMC wants you to shut up.
Hehehe, beautiful.
Thanks VT, it was interesting. We have seen disturbances on so many campuses this year that it makes you wonder how this will be controlled in the future.
I thought that, from the article, Sen. Kerry was doing a good job to defuse the situation at the time the police became involved.
As I was on campus during the Viet Nam days, the reported incidents seem rather tame and mild to me. The fact that they are occurring, and to me, IMHO, being handled in a very heavy-handed manner, is disturbing.
It is equally disturbing to me when those who are in disagreement with a speaker, regardless of which “side” the speaker is on, try to shout the speaker down, etc., so s/he cannot be heard. Don’t like it, never did. While one has the right to disagree, any speaker has the right to speak.
No one asked you to be an ass, Capn. You’ve done that all by yourself.
And PLEASE look deeply in the mirror when YOU, of all people, speak of intolerance.
Nathan,
If there WERE any credible peer-reviewed scientists who opposed the human-caused global warming consensus, WHY would Avery use deceptions???
Dansgaard-Oeschger events are not global warming.http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/09/13/unstoppable-hot-air/
Past D-O events do not refute the warming now caused by humans.
Dr. Hans Oeschger is NOT a GW “skeptic”http://www.someareboojums.org/blog/?p=12
“The time lost now is crucial for attempts to limit the anthropogenic climatic change to a range with more absorbable negative consequences.”
And past solar and temperature correlations do not refute the warming now caused by humans.
Avery takes scientists who studied D-O events, and past solar, and then says:”Not all of these researchers would describe themselves as global warming skeptics,…”
That is not logical. Why doesn’t Avery give a number, and list their names?
Because the number is ZERO. If there WERE any credible scientists, Avery would list their names.
‘Avery and Singer: Unstoppable hot air’http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/avery-and-singer-unstoppable-hot-air/
Hey Tara!
(or anyone that knows Tara’s email)
When I try to email you I’m getting an error message. Please comfirm your email, I have:
tatato@hawaii.edu
Hank
Poo!
I have tarato@hawaii.edu
sorry
Hank
“Besides, The Southern Hemisphere is cooling! Oops! Southern Hemisphere is not included in the process?”
Posted by: Kansas | September 18, 2007 at 03:35 PM
NOT the entire SH, just around the Antarctic, mostly due to wind patterns causing less mixing with warm air.
And the temperature data for there is sparse, and short-term.
“Ergo, no anthropogenic Global Warming, …”
Science proves the troll Kansas is wrong.http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
‘Increase In Atmospheric Moisture Tied To Human Activities’http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070918090803.htm
Poo!
I have tarato@hawaii.edu
sorry
Hank
I don’t support violence against any protesters, or marchers, or whatever. Everyone has a right to speak, even if they say stupid things. Those who beat up the father of the slain soldier should be at the least tried for assault and battery. They did a disservice to not only the father, but the son.
Posted by: littlejohn | September 18, 2007 at 03:35 PM
Agree with one exception: There’s no place for protestors around funerals. Let the families bury their dead in peace.
Not advocating violence against protestors at funerals, just advocating handcuffs and a night stick if necessary.
Overpopulation
Phelps and company give horseshit a bad name. However, they have a constituionally protected right to speak. I prefer the patriots method. BLock them out and away. Emotionally, I’d like nothing better than to see them “removed” from the scene.
There was another tasing (or is that tasering?) a couple of months ago in a university library. It didn’t look good, either.
I thought the use of tasers was for when the officers felt bodily threatened. Anyone here know the “rules” on that?
I was listening to CNN’s broadcast this morning while waiting for my daughter’s flight from Galapagos. (Darwin, anyone?) Couldn’t see the screen, but most of the people interviewed about the tasing incident said the University police were way out of line. The city police are to investigate.
As I understand it, the nutball ran up on stage, grabbed the microphone and starting yelling. He deserved to be “tased” for acting like a nut case and an idiot.
Kansas, he didn’t seem to be yelling, BUT not all of the incident was on CNN’s video. I did read or hear that he approached the mic out of turn. But come on, tasing? I noticed one of the cops had a smirk on his face when the tasing was over. That, in itself, made me wonder.
Hi Hank,My correct email is taratc@hawaii.edu.
If you have any problems, let me know.
Nathan, thank you for your consideration of GMC’s posts. And I assure you, if Chas starts another petty fight I’ll get on his ass, as well. It would be nice to not come home to 100 posts of mudslinging :)Peace out
tara t c….man, that DOES look like an “o”
littlejohn,
I was playing devil’s advocate, more than anything. While it could be true that some incidents could have been instigated by outside or opposing groups, there were radical groups that were probably involved.
The problem is, once one or two do something in a crowd, no matter how abhorent to others, others often join in. Mass hysteria, of sorts.
Like the others here, I condemn those who can’t protest peacefully. Or settle their differences peacefully, either, for that matter.
Rox, what does a smirk indicate?
Lot of people smirk, but for different reasons. I think you’re reading too much into this situation.
Protesting is one thing, yelling, screaming, grabbing microphones, flailing your arms about and resisting arrest are quite another.
If the tasing was the one i seen this morning the all the kid did was ask John Kerry a question. If it was me I would be getting me a lawyer, look into to pessing crimnal charges against the secruity agents, filing lawsuits against both the school and the cops who are personally responsible, with any luck the kid will get a new home.
Kansas, he yelled when he was grabbed by the police, screamed when he was tased, and I didn’t see any arm flailing. Grabbing the mic? He stepped in out of turn. Perhaps you and I saw different footage?
TP is probably right. Given the odds, always fight like crazy whenever an officer attempts to restrain by force no matter what the cause. It could mean easy $.
Is asking why you’re grabbed by police officers considered resisting arrest?
Dunno Rox, I heard an audio interview of a witness that claims to have saw the incident.
Mrs. Clinton unveiled the details of her health care plan yesterday. But before we get to Mrs. Clinton’s plan, I have an interesting comment here from the director of the Health and Human Services Department, Mike Leavitt. Mike Leavitt, the secretary of Health and Human Services, said that the president is going to veto the SCHIP plan, the new additions to the children’s health care program, which is good, which is fine and dandy. He’s going to do that, but at the same time the president is going to urge Congress to join him in seeking coverage for all Americans. This is not how you do this. This is not how you preempt the Democrats. Leavitt said the president wants to leave office with a plan in place to cover every American insurance-wise. We go through the numbers here. They claim “47 million uninsured.” For these people proposing all these health care plans, I have a question, a serious question. Are they running to lead the country, or are they running to destroy it? We hear Ubama go on and on and on about how Wall Street’s gotta take care of the middle class. The middle class is dying out there. Robert B. Reichhhhhh-uh says “super capitalism” is unfair and it’s destroying freedom. It is the exact opposite.
We’ve got every Democrat presidential candidate proposing massive, universal health care programs. What are they trying to do, lead the country or destroy it? When I say destroy it, I mean destroy it as it exists and remake it as they would like it: with a top-heavy government that’s in charge of as much as they can get, in charge of in terms of individual liberties and freedoms and so forth. Now we’ve got the secretary of Health and Human Services out there saying the president wants Congress to join him in seeking coverage for all Americans. “Leavitt said that he’d like to see the larger debate begin; the very best opportunity we have may well be in the next 15 months.” Now, I don’t know if this is a campaign strategy to take the momentum away from the Democrats on this, but… I’m going to have to hear more about it. This is not the president speaking. This is the Health and Human Services director, and I want to wait ’til I actually hear the president say that, because that’s something that… Well, it’s just frightening.
Now, let’s take a look at some of the details of Mrs. Clinton’s plan. One of the Cato Institute scholars, their director of health and welfare studies at Cato (which is a Libertarian think tank), Michael D. Tanner, has examined her proposal in detail and finds the four of the worst features of her proposal.
The first one is an “individual mandate,” and this is sort of like the Breck Girl’s. “Senator Clinton would require every American to purchase health insurance or face penalties.” Now, you might be saying, “Well, they do that with auto insurance, Rush.” The states do that, folks. The states can do it. But you don’t have to buy insurance if you don’t drive on state roads. If you have a big estate or a big farm and you want to go out and buy a car and you only drive it on your property, you do not have to get it insured. But these are state laws, and that’s fine if the states want to mandate or require this. But the federal government doing this kind of thing is totally against the US Constitution. You can read the Constitution front-to-back, and you will find the power to do this nowhere. You will find nothing anywhere in the Constitution that empowers the federal government to impose this kind of mandate — and then penalties to boot! We just had the story out of Great Britain the other day. A guy has a broken ankle and they’re not going to fix it ’til he quits smoking. He says he’s tried and he can’t quit, and they’re not going to fix it. Hello? This is the kind of thing we’re headed for. All of liberalism is about dictating behavior and finding ways to make sure you have to comply.
So if they don’t want you smoking — which is absurd, because they’re using cigarette taxes to fund all these health care programs — somebody’s going to have to smoke! Somebody’s going to have to buy the cigarettes, and you had better damn well make sure there’s a place they can smoke them after they buy them or the whole thing is going to come crashing down. Of course it will crash down, and all of you people laughing and guffawing about the smokers’ taxes going up, going “Yeah! Yeah, make ‘em pay! Make ‘em pay! It’s a filthy, rotten, dirty habit.” Well, if you don’t let ‘em smoke ‘em anywhere, they’re not going to buy ‘em. If you tax ‘em so high that the price becomes more expensive than gasoline, they’re not going to buy ‘em, and then what are you going to do for your tax revenue? All you people out there laughing at the tax increase being shoveled onto who you think is just one small group of people, guess where the taxes are going to be levied? Because they’re not going to get rid of the program. They’re going to come right to the rest of us to pick up the revenue that the smokers are no longer providing, which I think is the plan anyway. This is how liberals do this.
A lot of politicians who are in favor of tax increases just pick a group of people that the rest of the population despises. Tax child abusers, tax sexual deviants, tax smokers, tax people that consume adult beverages. “Yeah, yeah, yeah! These are moral reprobates. Tax them.” Yeah, that’s how it works. They establish the notion of tax increase, and you’ll accept it, because you think it’s penalizing someone else. Well, your turn to be penalized is going to eventually come because with liberals everybody’s going to get penalized. Mark my words. So we’re going to have an individual mandate. Every American will be “required to purchase health insurance or face penalties.” Of course, do I need to spell out the problems with this for you? This will restrict individual choice. It will restrict liberty. It will require a massive new bureaucracy to enforce. How are they going to enforce this? You know, right now if you don’t have health insurance and you show up at the emergency room, federal law requires you get covered. You get treated. If, after this plan were to be enacted, and you are required to have insurance and don’t, and you show up at the emergency room, what happens? Well, there are going to be penalties! What’s going to happen? Are you not going to be treated? Are they going to leave you on the floor there while other people who have followed the government-run edicts get treated before you do? You want a mess? The regulatory mess that this is going to create will result in even more government control because the original set of regulations naturally won’t encompass everything. “Ooooh! Yep, we forgot. We gotta add this to that,” and so forth.
The second thing that Cato found among the worst features of Hillary’s proposal is employer mandates. “Sen. Clinton would impose a ‘play or pay’ mandate on American businesses, requiring them to provide workers with health insurance or pay an additional tax into a government insurance fund.” Hello, state of Maryland! They tried to do this, and a federal judge threw it out as unconstitutional. But it’s in Mrs. Clinton’s plan. “Such a mandate simply increases the cost of hiring workers, meaning employers will inevitably hire fewer workers. Some may even be forced to layoff current employees,” in order to meet this mandate of providing cradle-to-grave health insurance for the employee and his family and his barmaids and mistresses.
Also, expanding government programs: “Sen. Clinton would expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to provide benefits for middle-class families,” all the way up to incomes of $82,000 a year. “Children” are defined as 25 years or under in age. “Insurance regulation: Senator Clinton would require insurance companies to accept all applicants regardless of their health, and would impose ‘community rating’ on health insurance premiums. As a result, the young and healthy [would obviously] be forced to pay more in order to subsidize the older and sicker.” If you walk in and you don’t have insurance and you’re required to go get it and they’re required to sell it to you, and you’re a risk to kick the bucket any time soon, the premium is going to be sky high, because they’re going to have to pay off at some point all your care. Guess who’s going to be paying that? Everybody else! So Mrs. Clinton is trusting Big Government. Remember, she just had a big photo-op about a month ago where she spent a day with a nurse in a hospital. They asked her, “Why were you doing this?”
“Well, I wanted to find out what nurses go through.”
Wait a minute! I thought you were a health care expert? Well, I’m not wrong. It is government health care. Here’s a neat trick, too, that Mrs. Clinton is doing. Mrs. Clinton learned something. That last health care plan was 2100 pages, or 1200 pages, something like that. This is just going to be a “blueprint.” She’s going to let congressional committees fill in the details, which means — what wacko in the Senate runs that committee? I know in the House it’s John Dingell that would be in charge of it. Who runs the health committee in the Senate? That’s right, it’s Kennedy’s committee! So Teddy Kennedy would be plugging in the details. That’s what she says, and that’s to keep the heat off of her, when this happened. As I mentioned, folks, if you get out the Constitution and you look at it, you will not find where it outlines, or experiments, or specifies the federal government is granted the power to force citizens to buy anything, let alone a health insurance policy. Now, I can’t find it in my Constitution. There’s nothing in there that says it. In fact, the whole Constitution was written to limit the power of the federal government, and now we supposedly can find a way in there that the federal government can make you buy anything. Once you let them tell you that you have to buy health insurance, what the hell else are they going to then tell you you have to buy once the precedent is set?
If you look at the Constitution, you will find that the federal government can only take actions specifically authorized by the Constitution. All those other powers are reserved for the states, for the people. You know, there’s a guy who sued God the other day. Some Nebraska guy sued God to illustrate that lawsuits are out of control. Anybody can sue anybody. Maybe we can sue God over this, if it comes to it, but here’s the thing: What if we refuse, for example, to exercise? Let’s say that one of the mandates is we have to exercise and we have to be healthy out there. What if we refuse? I, for one, will say, “Screw it! The federal government cannot make me exercise. I’m not going to do it.” What’s the penalty to me? Take my health care away? By the way, I don’t even want to get into an insurance program. I don’t even want to do it. Do I have a chance not to? Can I buy my own health care coverage as I need it? Not coverage, but my treatment? Can I pay for it as I need it? What if I don’t want it? What’s my penalty here? If we don’t exercise, will Hillary send jackbooted thugs in to march us around for 30 minutes every day inside our backyards or homes, or better yet, have to go to a government-run gym to work out? She’s quoted today — I kid you not, Mrs. Clinton is quoted today — as being upset that men do not wash their hands. Well, if she’s upset that men don’t wash their hands, can you imagine how livid she’s going to be if we refuse to exercise? You add that on it. The ads that could destroy this, the TV ads, are just endless. They’re just waiting to be made, and one of the reasons why she’s not getting all that specific is to avoid the Harry and Louise-type ads that ran back in ‘93 and ‘94.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Here’s another thought, ladies and gentlemen, on Mrs. Clinton’s socialized medicine presentation. I just mentioned to you that one of the things her proposal features is that an insurance company cannot turn down anyone for an existing condition. Why, then, should anyone apply for insurance until they get sick? If they can’t turn you down, wait ’til you get sick because you’d have to be accepted, preexisting conditions. You’d spend a lot less money. Don’t have anybody get insurance ’til they’re about to die. Now, back to these penalties. What happens if they mandate the purchase of insurance out there. What happens if I don’t? I asked this question mere moments ago: “Will I go to jail? If I don’t buy it, will they buy it for me? Will I not get care in an emergency if I don’t buy insurance? And more importantly, will illegal immigrants be forced to buy health insurance as well?” I’m dead serious about that question. Will they be forced to buy health insurance? Well, the answer will be, “Of course not, Rush, because we really don’t know who they are, and we don’t know how to find them.” Well, then I assume they won’t be covered when they show up. “Oh, no, no, no,” as Hillary said to them — we got the audiotapes coming up — as Hillary said to them, “You are the face of America.” By the way, two or three years ago, she was totally against illegal immigration. Oh, yeah, we got the audio sound bites.
I want to go back to this number: 47 million uninsured. We have 12 to 20 million illegals. In fact, we’re not really sure. The Census Bureau wants all raids to stop in 2010 so that the illegals will show up and say, “I’m here,” because we want an accurate count. They’re estimating we got 12 to 20 million illegals. We’re told the latest number that everybody is bandying about here, 47 million without health care. Wait a minute. Maybe it’s 12 million without health care and 47 million illegals. How do we really know? If you’re a news junky, and many of you are, you know the numbers, 12 million and 47 million, you can probably fill in the blanks. Twelve million is the number of illegal aliens, you are told. Forty-seven million, oh, yeah, piece of cake, that’s number of people without health care, you are told. But, as you know, I’m from Missouri: Show me. All these numbers get bandied about, and nobody is ever required to prove ‘em. Remember good old Mitch Schneider, a homeless advocate from back in the eighties, said there were three million homeless. There were never three million homeless, but it became established as the number. I assume all 12 million illegals don’t have health care. What percentage of the 47 million are they? And what percentage of the 47 million don’t want health care because they’re young, can’t afford it, or don’t think they’re going to need it for a while?
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Another feature of Mrs. Clinton’s health care plan is this, and I want to read it to you from the Washington Post editorial on this today: “The most intriguing part of the Clinton plan would limit the tax-deductibility of employer-sponsored health insurance for those making more than $250,000 a year. At that income level, employees would have to pay tax on plans more generous than the standard federal employee health plan.” Now, what this means to me is that all of a sudden, if you make 250 grand or more, and the health care benefit that you get at work, if it’s better than the federal plan is, then you have to pay tax on that as income, it would be added to your income. All these benefits do not accrue as income, taxable income. I knew this was going to happen. It’s only a matter of time. It’s going to happen to everybody, not just people who make over 250 K. It will start there, but it will eventually dwindle down to everybody else because that’s where the real money is. You can go out there and tax all these people at 250 K up, but that’s not going to give them the money they need. This is frightening stuff, folks. This is really frightening stuff.
Then you go to the New York Times: “Senator Barack Obama chastised Wall Street executives yesterday as failing to protect middle-class interests and called for increased federal oversight of credit rating agencies, including a government investigation. In an appearance at Nasdaq offices in Midtown Manhattan, Mr. Obama, a Democratic presidential candidate, praised America’s free-market impulse but lamented what he characterized as its recent toll on the middle class.” Free market impulse, Senator Ubama, is what has made the middle class better than it has ever been. I cannot tell you how frustrating this is. Go out and create a message of doom and gloom each and every day. Do not report anything that is positive. Do not! It will harm the Democrats in this country if people are happy.
To go out there and tell people in the middle class that the very thing that’s raising their opportunity and their wealth, their overall net worth, is destroying them. Who appointed this guy? Here again, where does Mrs. Clinton come off as the health care expert of all the people in this country? Where does Obama come off as the chief lecturer on capitalism? “But, Rush, but, Rush, they’re a presidential candidate.” I know, and it’s up to people to figure out that they’re frauds. Anybody, Republican, Democrat alike, who comes along and says, “We know better how to run this,” and then the second part of that is, “the government will do it,” for crying out loud, what does the government do now on the domestic side that would recommend to anybody we let ‘em take over even more? It’s an amazing thing.—–
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJbh2MlNHug I see the campus police assaulting a student for asking about Skull & Bones. Didn’t know that was inciting a riot
Tara,
Sent it from home. Almost tried the ‘c’ at work, been pretty busy.
Hank
That’s me not the boy. Evidently he’s been on my computer here at home.
Hank
http://www.happinessonline.org/InfectiousGreed/p18.htm
“And the same guy who courted all the shady Asian donors in last decade’s Clinton campaigns is heading Hillary’s fundraising now. His name: Terry McAuliffe. Seems they’re up to their old tricks.”
Posted by: GMC70 | September 18, 2007 at 01:51 PM
An interesting fact for those not familliar with Terry McAuliffe. He is the person that shouted the loudest when the Enron scandle broke even though he himself took $18M out of a company called Global Crossing with only a $100,000 investment. How many poor smucks known as little investors lost their retirement savings so this guy could retire as a a multimillionaire?
Kansas writes, “I understand it, the nutball ran up on stage, grabbed the microphone and starting yelling.”
Yeah, that would be right except for the part about running up to the stage. And grabbing the microphone. Oh, and also the yelling part.
Don’t let your abject ignorance get in the way of expressing your opinion, Kansas.
He was a little bit confrontational during Q & A. Kerry was cool during the entire thing, but the police just went totally medieval on the kid’s ass.
Completely unnecessary.
Here’s a video of the event: http://www.ifilm.com/video/2895889/subchannel/viralvideo
TomPaine–
Your video is way better than my link. It clearly shows the police going ape for no reason except a college kid’s enthusiasm.
This ought to be required viewing for how not to handle a situation.
Not only that, we didn’t get to hear Kerry’s answers because of all the hub-bub.
He was a lot confrontational and he did have a microphone, he did flail his arms about and he did resist arrest.
Perhaps your ignorance of obeying the orders of Police Officers Capn is in the way of proper thinking.
You would have never gotten that from the CNN vid bite.
Kerry kept saying “It’s okay-I’ll answer his question.” And the kid kept volunteering to walk out of there, but those assholes had other ideas.
Instant lawsuit, and wholly merited.
Check out THIS video–it’s even MORE chilling:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJbh2MlNHug
No, he should have obeyed the police, Kansas. That’s what I would have done.
The problem is that he wasn’t doing anything to warrant getting grabbed and escorted out like you said he was–the shouting and arm flailing only started AFTER he was grabbed for no reason.
and not be screaming like a girl…
The old reliable — ad homenim.
Can’t argue against the photographic proof of police over-reaction.
Then impune the kid’s masculinity.
Typical winger.
Conservatives have two sets of rules…one for other people (society), and one for themselves. If someone else does a bad thing, they should be hung out to dry….but if THEY do a bad thing…when those fingers they’ve been pointing end up pointing in their own direction, they want understanding.
Liberals understand human nature a little better, and write policies according.
I have determined this from working with a bunch of conservatives….it’s fun to listen to how they talk about what others do…and to know them personally is a bonus, because you see just how screwed up they really are.
Did anyone else notice in the video, the police were already around him when he started to talk…as if they were expecting him to get out of hand?
Once he was asked to leave, and started to be escorted, then began fighting the police…I have no sympathy for the guy.
Why he was asked to leave is still in question.
Pmom you use a lot of generalizations. Alot like Kev. It loses something in the translation.
I know lots of liberals and conservatives. Heck 4 of my sisters are liberals and 3 are conservative. We get along great. No personality disorders on either side that I can see. Unless you count me. We have some spirited discussions but always spend at least 2 weeks together every year at Branson or some other such place. More fun than anyone should be allowed to have.
I heard on one news report that he had crowded to the head of the line and they were on they way to escort him back to where he came from. That is why he was talking so fast. He expected it.
“We can agree to disagree and choose to believe our own ‘experts’. ”
Posted by: ksgrm | September 18, 2007 at 03:36 PM
I suggest that you do research on your ‘experts’.
They’re probably not climate scientists.
And/or they’re inactive, retired, outside of their speciality, and don’t write peer-reviewed work published in credible science journals.
I didn’t impune anything Capn, he was screaming like a little girl.
Can’t change the facts.
I saw police hustling around him and escorting him out, then I saw girly-boy flailing about, resisting arrest.
I saw the video of the Tasing… The kid is nowhere near the stage… he is in the seats somewhere… quite a ways toward the back… Cops all over him… I cant figure out what it is he supposedly did to get so many cops on him…. I have seen the story on three different networks… The kid is really screaming!!
Oh, and it doesnt sound like any girl screaming I have ever heard…
Well, sympathy or not, mom, I agree with Rage.
This kid just got himself a free ride at the university. The college is really exposed on this, if not legally then in PR.
“Let’s all go to old Florida U, where the police beat you into submission for asking a question that’s too long . . .”
The difference Chas is that Libs like you, Capn and PMom view it from a Liberal sense and add your own spin including possible lawsuit.
I viewed it from an objective sense and call it like I see it.
No spin needed on someone resisting arrest.
A police officer is in charge when he takes you in custody. You are not to spit, hand wave, fight back, arm flail, kick, bite, scream or anything else. They all can be considered resisting arrest.
A police officer lays his hands on you and tells you to come with them, you better do what you are told or face the consequences.
Spoken like the true fascist he is . . .
Completely ignore the issue of whether the police were out of line or not.
They totally were, btw.
An arrest requires probable cause.
Probable cause of WHAT?
“Inciting a riot”??
Disorderly conduct, causing a nuisance…whatever you want to choose out of the law books.
Sieg Heil!! Click heels!! Mach in Lock Step with the Gestapo!! Cop best have good reason to manhandle somebody like those guys were handling this kid… Cops have no business arresting somebody if they ARENT BREAKING SOME LAW!!! You BET people fight back… Look what the gun owners on the Blog say they will do if there is ever a surrender Law passed…
i couldnt see on the tape where this kid broke any laws!!
This is the guy (Kansas) who didn’t even bother to find out if the kid “stormed the stage and grabbed the mic” before he accused him of it.
Caught in that lie, he now falls back on “the kid didn’t go willingly and he screamed like a girl.”
Hey, good point, Chas.
Who’s going to meekly hand over their fire arms when Hillary bans all guns?
i couldnt see on the tape where this kid broke any laws!!Posted by: Chas.
And if you did not see it, it did not happen, right.
Hud–
Right.
I believe my eyes. Not what the reich-wingers tell me to believe.
I’m quirky that way . . .
“Disorderly conduct, causing a nuisance…whatever you want to choose out of the law books.”
If that standard was met prior to them grabbing him, then anyone who’s being a bit rude and out-of-decorum could be hauled off.
Welcome to Bush’s America®.
They wont, CapN
Yep Hud… and just maybe the Sun will come up in the north tomorrow morning too — But I will bet on the East… But, if you WANT it to be in the north, then I guess thats your problem…
I couldnt see that the kid did anything wrong, except for objecting to being grabbed by the cops… reminded me of war protests back in the Nam years…
His biggest “disorderly” conduct was screaming when he was being Tased… I think ANY body would scream if you get Tased…
Even Kansas
Uh, Kansas….you might want to re-read what I said bonehead, I agreed with you.
I suppose somebody is going to say that this kid did something so heinous that he deserved the use of deadly force…
After all, a Taser is a lethal weapon…. on some people….
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/18/AR2007091800799.html?hpid=topnews
Howard J. Krongard, the State Department’s inspector general, has repeatedly thwarted investigations and censored reports that might prove politically embarrassing to the Bush administration, the chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform charged today in a 13-page letter.
The letter, signed by committee Chairman Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) and released by the committee today, said the allegations were based on the testimony of seven current and former officials on Krongard’s staff, including two former senior officials who allowed their names to be used, and private e-mail exchanges obtained by the committee. The letter said the allegations were not limited to a single unit or project, but concerned all three major divisions of Krongard’s office — investigations, audits and inspections.
Waxman accused Krongard of refusing to send investigators to Iraq and Afghanistan to investigate $3 billion worth of State Department contracts; preventing his investigators from cooperating with a Justice Department probe into waste and fraud in the construction of the U.S. Embassy in Iraq; using “highly irregular” procedures to personally exonerate the embassy’s prime contractor of labor abuses; interfering in the probe of a close friend of former White House adviser Karl Rove; censoring reports on embassies to prevent full disclosure to Congress; and refusing to publish critical audits of State’s financial statements.
Among the e-mails obtained by the committee are exchanges between staff members as they discuss Krongard’s decision not to cooperate with the Justice Department on the embassy probe. “Wow, as we all [k]now that is not the normal and proper procedure,” an investigator wrote to Assistant IG John A. DeDona. DeDona forwarded the e-mail to the Deputy IG, William E. Todd, saying, “I have always viewed myself as a loyal soldier but hopefully you sense my frustration in my voicemail yesterday.”
These are the same people who defend Ruby Ridge and Waco.
It works like this…if the cops come to arrest you, you better go…and not fight or you’re gonna get in trouble. If you were wrongly arrested, you have recourse, but you best wait till the time comes to fight it rather than trying to get away from the law.
You better check the local laws on the books for Wichita then Libs of what is described as causing a nuisance and disorderly conduct. I’m pretty sure they are similar where the girly-boy was arrested.
Or you can play the part of the whiny “Lib-violated my rights” string puppet and keep on whining.
PMom, surely you know that David Koresh had an entire Arsenal of heavy armaments in that compound, and that in fact, one of the Davidians killed one of the BATF men… shot him right off the roof… AFTER they had presented a Warrant…
This kid had no weapons… He was asking a question at a political type speech… made by a man who once ran for President… Kerry even said he would answer the question… But the cops beat him to it…
Police catch hell both ways.
If they aren’t tough enough and they let the crook get away and kill someone, they catch hell.
If they stun somebody with a phaser when it may not appear to be needed, they catch hell.
Had this kid got away from the cops, pulled a gun and shot Kerry most would cry for these cops to be fried.
In the scheme of things, the shock likely did the kid some good, and he will likely get some cash out of the deal as well.
At the point where he began resisting, is where he deserved to be tasered.
At the point of resisting, is the point where his behavior became criminal.
Had he gone quietly, he’d have had an interesting civil liberties debate and story. Had he just been arrested and not put up a fight, he could have had a lawsuit.
I don’t know why he was being led away, looks like he was truly trying to start trouble, and they had the right to ask him to leave. When he refused and the police got involved, he was dumb to not shut up and go.
And yes, I understand Waco, I defend BOTH administration’s actions for their involvement.
Good Grief… That has got to be the worst SPIN I have ever seen… even worse than Michael Savage, or Matt Drudge… Right, it did him some good… 50,000 Volts of Electricity did him some good… for doing NOTHING!!! Great way to teach a kid a lesson, eh??? Just hit em with 50,000 volts!!!
Wow, what a country!!
You said the kid had no weapons..but with the way he started fighting them, he could have easily gotten one of the officer’s guns..and who knows for sure he didn’t have weapons on him.
The police in a situation like that have to act quickly or they could lose a chance to defend a life.
What does Koresh have to do with this incident Chas?
That’s just pure bunk Lib thinking and whole tub of hogwash.
“These are the same people who defend Ruby Ridge and Waco.”– PMom — 8:17 pm
Did you post this?? and This >>>
“It works like this…if the cops come to arrest you, you better go…and not fight or you’re gonna get in trouble. If you were wrongly arrested, you have recourse, but you best wait till the time comes to fight it rather than trying to get away from the law.”
Pmom you are right on with this one. I heard a student who was there being interviewed. This kid ran to the front of the line and grabbed the mike from the next person in line. The cops were after him so it came as no surprise to him that he was in trouble. He put on quiet a show though didn’t he.
The student being interviewed was with the campus leaders group which was manning a table to register students to vote. He was right by the line of those waiting to ask questions. They were the sponsors of the event.
He didn’t know the guy but said he was acting out of control before all of this happened.
Chas I bet that one outcome will come out of this. This kid won’t look another tasor in the eye without stopping.
I was at a breakfast meeting with Norm Williams right after the girl at one of the highschools in town was tased. Someone asked him why it was necessary and what could have kept it from happening.
His answer is that when an officer tells you to do something, hands up, get on the ground, etc.. Do it. Ask questions later when things are not so hectic. Sounded like good advice to me.
Yes Chas, I wrote that.
“The cops were after him so it came as no surprise to him that he was in trouble.”
Source?
Rage it was something I heard on an interview. It wasn’t printed so I can’t source it. But I heard it from his lips to my ears. Sorry maybe tomorrow whomeone will use his quote in a column.
whomeone=someone
Doing two thing at once. Getting ready for vacation.
(CNN) — Two University of Florida police officers were placed on leave with pay after using an electronic stun gun to subdue a student who was questioning Sen. John Kerry at a campus forum, the school’s president said Tuesday.
Student Andrew Meyer is surrounded by university police in Gainesville, Florida, on Monday.
But the student’s behavior and past activities are prompting questions about whether the incident was part of a stunt.
The Florida Division of Law Enforcement will investigate Monday’s arrest of Andrew Meyer, said University of Florida President J. Bernard Ma
Pmom, when an arrest is unjustified, it doesn’t become a crime ex post facto just because the kid didn’t go along with it.
It’s not tparticularly smart or safe to appear uncooperative, of course, as cops predictably respond with their ‘unruly suspect’ training. I don’t blame them for cuffing him–incident to the unjustified arrest–but tasering him is another matter.
But when someone refuses to go along with an absurdity–however unwise that approach–I decline to condemn that.
As Hagbard Celine said in the classic novel “Illuminatus!, “Everyone is free. We are all free to say no, and take the consequences.”
ksgrm, the youtube video I posted suggested they were going to charge him with “inciting of riot.”
Seriously. That’s hilarous!
I have been to those kind of lecutre/rallies before with people like Kerry as speakers… The security is Extremely Tight!!
This kid couldnt not have gotten into that auditorium with any kind of weapon… Security had to know that… He didnt do anything violent, except to ask what he did wrong…
By the way, the female screaming on the video… actually is a get this a female!! Duh!!!
Rage the kid talking seemed to be pretty sure of his facts. He said that the guy likes to make outrageous films to put out on Youtube. Don’t know anything else. Inciting a riot seems like a far reach though.
If any of you think it’s ok to fight cops, then you’re not very smart. I don’t care WHAT they’re asking you to do, you better do it….and work it out in the end.
Prisons have tighter security chas, and ask anybody who works in a prison if they get weapons in there.
“Mary,
I see the Homeless Coalition is finally looking at the idea I have suggested about “housing first”. Are you planning on going to the meeting on Sept 23rd to see what they are proposing? If they require a dual disgnosis approach as they do in NYC, this could be a great benefit for the mentally challenged homeless population in Wichita!”I’d love to go Sam, but we have a wedding on Saturday and I plan to spend time with my out of town relatives all weekend.
Give us a report, OK?
“Chas I bet that one outcome will come out of this. This kid won’t look another tasor in the eye without stopping.”
Posted by ksgrm
The four cops had him pinned to the floor, on his stomach, and he was begging them not to Taze him, when they did it anyway.
I think he already knew it’d be very painful.
These are campus rent a cops not real cops. As such, I am sure that their training and standards are lacking.
“If any of you think it’s ok to fight cops, then you’re not very smart. I don’t care WHAT they’re asking you to do, you better do it….and work it out in the end.”
I’m glad you put that in question form, as it would be a straw-man accusation otherwise.
Sorry PMom, just didnt quite sound like you tonite!! :-)
Yes, and he was still fighting them too Cosmos.
I believe that you have to respect police officers, even when they’re in the wrong. You work it out later.
And I believe those were real cops, don’t you think real cops would be present for a Kerry thing?
No, they were Campus Police
(CNN) — Two University of Florida police officers were placed on leave with pay after using an electronic stun gun to subdue a student ………
Not all Campus Cops are rent-a-cops, especially at State funded Universities. The Campus Cops have all the authority and training as required by the state as any other cop. Department requirements may vary of course.
However, Florida is a large University, I’m confident their Campus Cops are fully qualified Law Enforcement officers.
I dont know of any State universities tht use rent-a-cops for anything other than traffic control at sporting events, etc.
WSU’s cops are state-sanctioned police with the usual authority within the campus and the perimeter.
I mean the salaried cops, of course, not the student patrols.
Actually, from what I saw, the kid was just trying to get the hell away from them. There was no hint of violence.
Not particularly wise, as if the initial charge sticks, it is indeed resisting arrest.
How much respect for someone is being shown when you arrest them for nothing? Ever seen a protest where people sit down, and get carried out? IMHO, that should have been his approach. By jumping around, he gave those lead-brained clowns a “reason” to use excessive force.
I of course understand and agree with what you’re saying, pmom, but there are times when civil disobedience is justifiable.
Whether this was such an instance may be an open question.
I don’t think he was tasared. He walked out, and was still coherant. If he was, it wasn’t much of a shock.
From what I saw on the video, I am not at all sure the cops wanted the student to be asking Kerry questions about why he didnt fight harder to win the Election in 2000… He quoted from the article that showed Kerry won Florida… the one published in NYT, buried behind all of the 9/11 news, and published on 9/12
They were already surrounding him as soon as he pointed to the magazine article and quoted from the author and asked Kerry his question… which Kerry said for them to leave him alone, so he could answer the question…
Rage, I am not sure if he wouldnt have been talking impeachment, if he would have been harrassed by the police…
Door King, he was already in CUFFS when they Tased him… Did you even watch the video???
And would YOU like to get hit with 50,000 volts??? Because you asked an Anti-Bush question???
Running away from a cop is resisting arrest and evading.
Kansas, the kid didnt RUN from anybody!! He couldnt!! They had him by both arms!! And they hauled him out of the auditorium… had about four guys on top of him… cuffed him… and Tased him…
Where in the hell do you get anything in that video about RUNNING from anything???
You had best go watch the video again…
I think the lesson is if you ask about Skull & Bones expect the police to beat the shit out of you
Ok, Tom… But I didnt hear him ask that question… I heard the news shows saying that he planned on asking if Kerry and Bush were both membes of Skull and Bones… But, I didnt hear that on the CNN video clip…
I know a lot of cops, and most of them are really good folks… But I dont know very darn many of them that could even get IN to Yale… let alone be invited to Skull and Bones… It just doesnt seem to be in the Police mentality to be in that kind of organization… let alone at Yale!
The Kid will probably get the school to at least pay for his tuition and school loans now, if it was me the firing of the responsible police would also be included in any settlement. And i would still sue the police responsible for the indictment maybe get a house or too out of deal. I might just get the justice dept. involved civil rights violation and all.
A column said that SIX officers were holding him down on the floor, on his stomach, and then a 7th officer Tasered him.
Was “girly-boy”, as Kansas calls him, so strong that SEVEN officers could not handcuff him without the Taser?
I guess we will find out the details, when the investigation is done.
Yeah the link i posted was off you tube and the skull/bones question was the last one he asked before being attacked.
The kid is White so there won\’t be any civil rights investigation.
There are like three different videos of that incident. One shows clearly he jerked his arm away from the cops and started running towards the stage with his arms up in the air.
It was planned most likely.
Chas, the kid was resisting when he was down on the ground. And he was running away from them at the first and flailing about trying to get away from them. This was not civil disobedience….that would be like if he sat down and refused to move.
I guess in neocon land asking critical/embarrassing question to a politician even a liberal one warrants police brutality. I guess having less government doesn’t include embarrassing politicians. And Kerry even said to let him be and he would answer them.
But I dont know very darn many of them that could even get IN to Yale… let alone be invited to Skull and Bones. Posted by: Chas. | September 18, 2007 at 10:17 PM
You do realize that some FBI agents are attorneys and I’m pretty sure those cops could get into Yale.
Thats most interesting Tom Paine, because on the CNN video, the last question he was trying to ask was why Kerry didnt fight the Election outcome in Florida, and he was waving the Palast(sp) article in his hand when the cops grabbed him…
This is most disconcerting…
There is no political issue involved in this incident and the Judge that views the case won’t put a political spin on it either unlike the Lib spinners on the blog.
Kansas — stay on point… ALL FBI Agents are required to have Law Degrees… I am talkling about Police officers and cops, if you will READ what I wrote, instead of trying to spin it in some different direction!!!
All I see on the CNN video is a few cops WAY over-reacting to a student asking a question at a Group Lecture… And it was the proper time for open mike questions too, from what I saw on MSNBC Hardball… This thing looked to be something much like the Landon Lectures held at K-State every year…
Kansas — stay on point… ALL FBI Agents are required to have Law Degrees… Posted by: Chas. | September 18, 2007 at 10:27 PM
Absolutely incorrect.
Keep spinning Chas and try to explain that to a Judge.
Kansas I am not spinning anything… It sounds like the YouTube video has a somewhat different ending than the CNN video… Anybody care to look and see??? I have the CNN video, but not the YouTube…
Kansas… ALL FBI Agents are required to have LAW DEGREES!!! That has been true for many years!!
And please note I said AGENTS, not support staff… LOL
IIRC, they are referred to as Special Agents….
From the FBI Website:
“In addition to the above minimum qualifications, Special Agent candidates must qualify under one or more of the following four entrance programs: Law, Accounting, Language, and Diversified.”
Wrong as usual Chas.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCBcOQkUNjI a different one than I posted above but even Tucker Carlson thinks the police were out of line
But Kansas, Accounting, Language, and Diversified are not out in the Field, as investigative officers… They sit in offices…
Well, Tom Paine, if we can convince the ever brick-walled Kansas of that, we might get somewhere….
They are all Special Agents Chas.
How about just admitting you’re wrong and be done with it.
Wrong as usual Chas.
Posted by: Kansas | September 18, 2007 at 10:39 PM
========================
Hardly, old man, I dont see any supporting LINK
Why would I admit I am wrong, when I know I am right?? Would YOU???
Oh so Chas’s excuse for not admitting he is wrong is his slovenly laziness to use Google to look up “FBI Special Agent requirements”
What a piece of work you are Chas. Not only lazy, but perpetually obtuse.
Actually, Kansas is right you dont have to have a law degree but they do require a bachelors degree i could link the FBI web site but you can look it up just as easy.
And Kansas strikes back with the usual, old, sick, tired brandishment of Ad Hominem attacks!! That gets so OLD you old coot!!!
You got a LINK… Post it… I got family who almost made it to FBI… Cousin of mine here in the city was recruited… back in the early years of BTK…
He only had an Assoc. Deg. in Police Science… FBI told him he would have to finish his undegrad… and then GET A LAW DEGREE to be an Agent… They said they would take him on as a Field Investigator, assigned to a Special Agent… But he HAD to get his LAW DEGREE…. He had plenty of years in WPD, so chose to stay put…
Now, you want to get that LINK???
http://www.fbijobs.gov/111.asp
Tom Paine, it wouldnt matter if we marched the FBI Director into the Blog, Kansas would manufacture a way to be right… because, after all, he is the self proclaimed Blog Expert on ALL THINGS…. Just ask him… and he will tell you…. Disagree with him, and he attacks you with Ad Hominem…
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070918/ap_on_fe_st/belgium_for_sale
BRUSSELS, Belgium – Hidden among the porcelain fox hounds and Burberry tablecloths on sale at eBay.be this week was an unusual item: “For Sale: Belgium, a Kingdom in three parts … free premium: the king and his court (costs not included).”
The odd ad was posted by one disgruntled Belgian in protest at his country’s political crisis which reached a 100-day landmark Tuesday with no end in sight to the squabbling between Flemish and Walloon politicians.
“I wanted to attract attention,” said Gerrit Six, the teacher and former journalist who posted the ad. “You almost have to throw rock through a window to get attention for Belgium.”
Six placed the advertisement on Saturday, offering free delivery, but pointing out that the country was coming secondhand and that potential buyers would have to take on over $300 billion (euro220 billion) in national debt.
Like many of Belgium’s 10 million citizens, Six is exasperated that the power struggle between the county’s French- or Dutch-speaking political parties has left Belgium in political limbo since June 10 elections.
Demands for more autonomy from the Dutch-speaking Flemish are resisted by the French-speaking Walloons, making it impossible to form a government coalition and triggering concern the kingdom is on the verge of a breakup.
Six decided to vent his frustration through the Internet ad.
“My proposal was to make it clear that Belgium was valuable, it’s a masterpiece and we have to keep it,” he told Associated Press Television News. “It’s my country and I’m taking care of it, and with me are millions of Belgians.”
Six’ idea got a mixed reaction on the streets of Brussels.
“Very funny, typical Belgian humor,” said Anne Graux. “It’s ridiculous,” snapped Nathalie Ginot, a Brussels resident who had her own pragmatic solution to Belgium’s woes. “We think it would be good to split Belgium into the three and make Brussels a tax-haven, a capital exempt from all taxes,” she said hopefully.
Six vaunted Belgium’s attractions to potential buyers from art nouveau architecture to the headquarters of NATO and the European Union and some great beers. But he also warned of the pitfalls of taking on the cacophonous mix of Flemish nationalists, Walloon Socialists and the mayors of all 19 Brussels’ boroughs.
EBay was happy to take Six’ advertisement.
“It was a really fun listing made by a Belgian,” Peter Burin, PR manager of eBay Belgium. “This person, in a very funny way, reminded the Belgians what a great country Belgium actually is and it would be a shame to sell it.”
However, the company decided to pull the add Tuesday after receiving a bid of euro10 million ($14 million)
“We decided to take it down, just to avoid confusion,” he told APTN.
I would have held out for a higher bid Belgium. :)
it wouldnt matter if we marched the FBI Director into the Blog, Kansas would manufacture a way to be right… because, after all, he is the self proclaimed Blog Expert on ALL THINGS…. Just ask him… and he will tell you…. Disagree with him, and he attacks you with Ad Hominem…
Posted by: Chas. | September 18, 2007 at 10:53 PM
Yeah Chas, I actually went to the FBI Website and found out for myself.
Of course Chas will say that the FBI must be putting out false information and make it into some sort of conspiracy.
Well, old boy, I know they never used to call 4 of those 5 areas of qualification Special Agents.. Only tthe ones with Law Degrees, Field investigators… Guys like Elliott Ness, and others… The rest of those USED to be called Support Staff… At least back when they were recruiting my cousin…
So all the Libs that are for more Government control think the cops were in the wrong here?
Just wait till we get even more Government control!
No Kansas… No conspiracy…
Not really Max… I just think the cops were WRONG because they were, well, just WRONG!!! Politics have very little to do with it…
I think the seminal issue is this: Why was he arrested in the first place?
Kerry, the good Liberal that he is, was on the stage telling the cops to leave the kid alone, so he could answer his questions!!
Guess Kerry didnt want the cops bothering the kid either…
Those yahoos who were shouting and yelling when Gen. Petraues was testifying at congress needed to be removed… They were only there to create a disturbance… And that is the Halls of Congress… This thing in Florida was designed to be an interactive event… I dont see how they could make some claim he was being disruptive, unless the Police werent clued in to what a Q & A Session means…
i remember in 2004, I went to see the John Edwards appearance in Sioux City, IA… There were some VERY ultra-conservative(dont know if I could even call them republicans) who were shouting down John Edwards during his speech… He came down off of the big platform, and talked to them… Nobody got arrested, and those ultra flaky folks were using words you cant say on TV…
But nobody got arrested… They were allowed to speak their piece… Eventually, they shut up, and Edwards finished his speech… But, he took the time, and the effort to TALK to them…
And there were FBI, Secret Service, Local Police, and County Police… and State Police… And not one of those loud mouthed, and foul mouthed too, were arrested, or even threatened with arrest…
At least not during the rally… I have no idea what might have happened after the rally….
Well, got an early day again tomorrow… Must be up and moving before 8 again… So,
Good Night; Good Luck; and God Bless, whatever you conceive God to be!!
Blessings all!!
Isaiah 446 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.
“Rox, what does a smirk indicate?”
I don’t know. Ask the Prez.
Just two thoughts, folks:
In Kansas, and I’m sure in other jurisdictions too, one may not resist an arrest, even an unlawful one. Doing so is itself a crime. Whether the arrest was justified or not, once it was done, the kid should have just left quietly.
Second, I’m surprised that anyone thinks Kerry’s still relevant. And just how does one stay awake while he talks? ;-)
That may well be the case, GMC. But what are the odds–in Kansas–of any prosecutor pursuing it, if the original charge was thrown out?
But like I said: You’re free to say no, and take the consequences.