People must be without morality to say let him go. Those same people, however, are the first to judge anyone WITH moral standards for THEIR every sin. If this were, say, an alternate universe, and it was Charlton Heston or Mel Gibson hiding from the law -- Would those people be defending them? Would Whoopi say, "Now I know Mel didn't RAPE rape that little girl?" F* no, she'd be calling for his castration.Comment Posted By DoorHold On 29.09.2009 @ 18:07
Holy crap! The Iranians lied? How on Earth were we to know THAT might happen? :/Comment Posted By DoorHold On 29.09.2009 @ 18:18
@RWNH: "If that’s the case, then we have reached a point in our political discourse where instilling fear and loathing using wildly exaggerated, over the top charges of conspiracy on the part of the opposition is the best path to power."
Cripes. Are you saying we have become Liberals? Wait ... that WORKED for them just recently ...
Yes and look where they are now - headed to disaster in 2010. You don't think the same thing won't happen to conservatives in 2012 if they take back power? What's the agenda? What do we intend to do with that power? The same tactics Beck, Limbaugh and the rest are using will simply be transposed and the left will pick up on it.
Is there a better way to gain power and keep it by dint of superior ideas? And why ape the absolute worst behavior of your opponents? That is insane.
ed.Comment Posted By DoorHold On 22.09.2009 @ 11:41
I don't agree that liberals are any more likely to read opposing views than conservatives. Maybe you're confused by their propensity to say things like, "Rush Limbaugh blah, blah, blah," or "Ann Coulter, blah, blah, blah." There IS the remote possibility that they have first-hand knowledge of strictly conservative viewpoints, but it's far more likely they heard from a liberal source about one thing or another that some goofy conservative said and, if they checked it out at all, it was solely to garner the relevant-but-out-of-context sound bite and no more. (Or am I projecting? Uh-hem.)
Regarding newspapers, why are they so sacrosanct? The newspaper as we know it today hasn't been around forever and if something replaces it, so what? I'm sure people missed that buggy-ride into town to pick up a month's supply of goods at the general store for a while but, time marches on.
I DO subscribe to a local paper, but it's physically shrinking at an alarming rate (while the price continues to go up). I can remember only one in-depth politically-charged report entirely researched by the paper's staff, and that was recent (and came as quite a surprise -- I didn't know they had any investigative journalists left).Comment Posted By DoorHold On 22.09.2009 @ 12:27
I am SO tired of discussions about important issues being derailed by all those tired, Internet-old arguments over whether or not the discussion meets certain criteria.
What's that meme about the first person to refer to Hitler or the Nazis ending the discussion? The same should apply to the first person to demand "LINK!" or "PROOF!" or any of a hundred other arguments, including those you highlight here, whose sole and true purpose is to destablize the discussion.Comment Posted By DoorHold On 8.09.2009 @ 09:55
@RWNH: "Barack Obama is not playing by the rules. Whether through ignorance, or more likely a lack of interest, he has proposed changes to government that are in direct conflict with the basic principles by which we have governed ourselves for 221 years."
I thought his knowledge of the Constitution and skills in interpreting it were impeccable, at least, that's what we've been told. So it can't be ignorance. I don't think it's a "lack" of interest. I think it's a fantastically distorted view of the Constitution compared to what it means to people who have not been brought up in his environment. For him, "Shall not infringe" means it's OK to take away that Right entirely. "Free speech" means only that speech which you agree with.
He's playing by the rules, but it's a very different interpretation of the rules than you or I can accept (or even understand).Comment Posted By DoorHold On 25.08.2009 @ 10:46
I think uncivil action is a NATURAL reaction to what's perceived as an uncivil government, whatever side of an issue you're on. If you think they're lieing to you, intentionally misleading you, forcing something down your throat, rushing too large a program too quickly, taking freedoms away from you, mortgaging your future, acting like arrogant fools by stating it's inevitable so just sit still and accept it, and you're angry about any of it, I say, let them know how you feel in no uncertain terms (within the bounds of the law of course). No, it's not the "civil" thing to do, but it has certainly been effective many times throughout history and this, this is certainly a big enough issue and has been handled in such a way that people SHOULD be hoppin' mad.Comment Posted By DoorHold On 4.08.2009 @ 12:17
This and several other blogs often challenge me intellectually, therefore I believe there should be a government Czar administering tests to determine which blogs one can or cannot read. Left to the population at large some people will get in way over their heads, may come to the wrong conclusions, or be "tricked" or actually FORCED into accepting something they might otherwise not accept. The alternative would be to "dumb-down" bloggers. Lot's of white space. Big fonts. Limit blogging to English majors who use simple to understand and inoffensive language. That would work too.
Oh, and don't use a hair dryer while in a tub full of water, or eat the content of those little packets shipped with some products. Ya bunch of dummies.Comment Posted By DoorHold On 4.08.2009 @ 12:30
The basic premise, that race determines your medical outcome and what the possible solutions for it might be reminds me of the "Women make XX for every XX men make" argument in that both emphasise some "solution" that ignores and therefore does not address the actual causes of the disparity. Totally random comparison: It's like washing your car when it needs an oil change. You did SOMETHING, but it's entirely the wrong thing.Comment Posted By DoorHold On 28.07.2009 @ 11:55
Apoligies if this repeats what someone else has said, but I haven't noticed one particular issue being raised. That is, the qualifications for what constitutes "disorderly conduct" depends on the witness. If a frail old lady is visibly upset over having witnessed a particular behavior, that could constitute disorderly conduct and might end with the arrest of the offender. If a POLICEMAN witnessess the same thing he may, because of his authority, experience and duties, be expected to deal with the situation in a manner that would not result in an arrest, if at all possible.
From what I've read I believe the officer was unable to deal with the offender in a manner that might defuse the situation and therefore HAD to arrest the offender to end the confrontation. Due to the officer's history of commendation and professionalism I tend to side with him on this (as has, as far as I know, every professional who's reviewed the case as presented).
The fact is you DON'T have the right to treat an officer investigating a possible crime as your own personal whipping boy for whatever issues you might have. Obviously many people don't know that, or are unwilling to accept it, or have were taught otherwise, or wind up getting overemotional "in the moment" and ignore it -- But it's still a fact.
Funny stuff: If you haven't seen Chris Rock's "How NOT to get your a** kicked by the police," search for it. He does imply there can be a racial component, but that's not the the jist of the clip.Comment Posted By DoorHold On 28.07.2009 @ 12:35