I dont think he likes W too much

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

You do know the difference between arrest and conviction, don't you? No, maybe you don't.

Oh, I know that one.....if they are arrested and look different or I don't agree with them politically, then they are guilty.

If they are arrested and don't look different or I agree with them politically, well then they are innocent, they may even be innocent after being convicted. depends on how alike they are or how much I agree with them.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Following that scenario. here's your example:

The criminal is caught and is sitting in court.

Incorrect! The criminal was giving a press conference.

As sentenced by Judge Kallend and his kangaroo court of public opinion.

Could this be a post from the same Judge Neal that wrote so much about the guilt of Ayers and Acorn?

Ayers and ACORN people were arrested for crimes - Bush was not.

You need some new red herrings - those same old ones are starting to really smell bad.

You do know the difference between arrest and conviction, don't you? No, maybe you don't.

Evidently more than you, since you're already calling someone a criminal sans trial.

Oh, wait, I forgot - that whole kangaroo court thing - my apologies, your honor.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Following that scenario. here's your example:

The criminal is caught and is sitting in court.

Incorrect! The criminal was giving a press conference.

As sentenced by Judge Kallend and his kangaroo court of public opinion.

Could this be a post from the same Judge Neal that wrote so much about the guilt of Ayers and Acorn?

Ayers and ACORN people were arrested for crimes - Bush was not.

You need some new red herrings - those same old ones are starting to really smell bad.

You do know the difference between arrest and conviction, don't you? No, maybe you don't.

Yes, I do, and I stand by my earlier statement.

That people you don't like are guilty regardless of conviction, and people you like can't possibly be criminals.

Yes, we understand.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

That people you don't like are guilty regardless of conviction, and people you like can't possibly be criminals.

Yes, we understand.

Like your 'criminal giving a press conference', perhaps?

You have so little room to talk in THAT regard that you may very well be at absolute zero temperature.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[DanG 1]

You two sound like an old married couple. Have you heard of this new technology called the Private Message? It's awesome, you can continue to ignore any semblance of the issues at hand while still hearing yourself type. And here's the best part: the rest of us don't have to wade through page after page of your posts to find any meat!

I know, PA, not on topic. Sorry. If these two haven't been warned for continuous PA's against each other and rarely posting anything about the thread topic I figured I could get away with one, too.

- Dan G

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

.blah,,,blah,,,,blah,,,,blah.......... Throwing a shoe at him was, in my opinion, not a morally right way of expressing that anger, but it was also wholly justifiable.

So, are you just reiterating my point then?


Other than, as I've noted also, most people can't differentiate between "justibiable" and "understandable".

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[livendive 8]

Quote

I would think of this as a violent act no matter who the target was.

What if it had been a snowball or a water-balloon...would that also be a "violent act"?

I think violence includes an intent to harm. In this case, I think he intended to insult Bush, not harm him.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

That people you don't like are guilty regardless of conviction, and people you like can't possibly be criminals.

Yes, we understand.

Like your 'criminal giving a press conference', perhaps?

You have so little room to talk in THAT regard that you may very well be at absolute zero temperature.

Yes, the criminal did indeed give a press conference. Glad you agree.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

Discussions of right or wrong on lost on lefties. They only discuss subjectivities and relativeness. Especially if there is any opportunity for partisanship.

Really? You think/perceive/see it that black & white?

not really, I'm just poking at bad stereotypes to get it going again

edit: It seemed to work.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Ron 10]

Quote

Since you're on the topic of fabrications, who wrote this:

"And following Kallend-logic, Auschwitz-Birkenau would have been fine if it was filled with Republicans or anyone else he disagrees with."

I did AFTER *YOU* wrote this:

Quote

Following Ronlogic, there's no discernable difference between Guantanamo and Auschwitz-Birkenau.

So care to back up that claim? Or at least admit YOU made it up?

Quote

You do know the difference between arrest and conviction, don't you? No, maybe you don't.

You know the difference between accused and convicted, don't you? No, maybe you don't.

Quote

So an object weighing about 24 oz., being thrown at about 60mph, directly at someone's head, is a mild form of protest?
Something tells me if one of your students decided to do the same, toward you, your reaction wouldn't be the same.

Quote

Its' a whole lot milder than a cluster bomb, which is among the things Bush lobbed at Iraqis.

Stop avoiding the question...What would YOU do if a student threw a shoe at you. What would your school do?

Simple question, try to give a simple answer that actually answers it.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

Quote

What if it had been a snowball or a water-balloon...would that also be a "violent act"?

If the intent was to harm, yes. How is that difficult to grasp? If the intent was to play, then no.

Quote

http://www.westlinntidings.com/news/story.php?story_id=122971181798786700

West Linn police arrested a Beaverton man early today along I-5 near Bridgeport Village for throwing snow balls at oncoming traffic

Quote

I think violence includes an intent to harm. In this case, I think he intended to insult Bush, not harm him.

You don't think he intended to harm him? If he didn't want to harm him he could have written a strongly worded letter.

Throwing things at people *is* a violent act. You make think it is OK, you may rationalize or attempt to justify it...But none of that changes the simple fact that it is a violent act.

I am amazed you approve of it...Would you approve of it if the target were Obama over say gun rights?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

What would YOU do if a student threw a shoe at you. What would your school do?

Quote

What would YOU do if a student threw a shoe at you.

I think a question would be - "What would a good fully indoctrination-goal oriented teacher do if a student threw a shoe?"

1 - at the teacher

a - preschool - hide the incident, demand more money from the parents.

b - grade school - expell the student, require student counseling and medication for until graduation, have the student removed from his parent by a good democrat social worker

c - high school - expell the student, require student counseling and medication for until graduation, have the student removed from his parent by a good democrat social worker

d - gym class - whine about having to use shoes in gym class - issue a funding proposal in off year election cycle to bloat the school budget

2 - at someone else, that person has same politics as the teacher -

a - preschool - hide the incident, demand more money from the parents.

b - grade school - expell the student, require student counseling and medication for until graduation, have the student removed from his parent by a good democrat social worker

c - high school - expell the student, require student counseling and medication for until graduation, have the student removed from his parent by a good democrat social worker

d - gym class - whine about having to use shoes in gym class - issue a funding proposal in off year election cycle to bloat the school budget

in all cases, make the student an example

3 - at someone else, that person has different politics as the teacher

a - preschool - praise the fine young tot, make note in file that child is prime for further indoctrination

b - grade school - praise the child, give them award for 'free thinking and expressions, make note in file that child is prime candidate for class speaker, hold classes and lectures on the value of non-verbal expressions speech

c - high school - praise the child, arrange for scholarships to fine liberal arts schools, contact DFL for possible grooming for political career

d - gym class - whine about having to use shoes in gym class - issue a funding proposal in off year election cycle to bloat the school budget

e - college - no biggie, everyone is doing it and calling it 'art'


edit: I think the key thing to note, is that the response is subjective to politics right up to the point where the teacher is the target, then, it's personal. Vindictiveness in politics is only trumped by the personal. Thus we get two motives for 'zero tolerance' policies

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Stop avoiding the question...What would YOU do if a student threw a shoe at you. What would your school do?

Simple question, try to give a simple answer that actually answers it.

If I'd killed the student's family and trashed his home, I'd expect the student to throw shoes (or worse). The school would probably turn me in to the cops, too.

If YOU had an encounter with someone who trashed your home and killed your family members, what would YOU do? Send a strongly worded letter? Shake his hand and tell him he was naughty?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[DanG 1]

Quote

So, are you just reiterating my point then?


Other than, as I've noted also, most people can't differentiate between "justibiable" and "understandable".

If your point was that actions must be viewed through a contextual lens, then yes, I guess I was reiterating your point.

I suspect that your point was more along the lines of, "Whiny liberals are not Platonic moral absolutists like us tough, manly conservatives." Although that point is absolute bullshit you are certainly free to make it.

My point was a little larger. I was attempting to explain that everyone is a moral relatavist and that there is nothing wrong with that. I submit that a moral absolutist would quickly find himself lost in any society of real people.

And to the rest of you, he was not trying to hurt Bush. Give us a fucking break with that. He was making a point using his culture's version of flaming dog shit. If he had thrown a handful of shit at Bush his point would have been the same, but maybe more accessible to a Western audience.

- Dan G

[livendive 8]

Quote

You don't think he intended to harm him? If he didn't want to harm him he could have written a strongly worded letter.

Throwing things at people *is* a violent act. You make think it is OK, you may rationalize or attempt to justify it...But none of that changes the simple fact that it is a violent act.

I am amazed you approve of it...Would you approve of it if the target were Obama over say gun rights?

I've said previously that I wouldn't mind Obama being similarly insulted if he's similarly stupid.

How in the world can people who approve of the war in Iraq deplore the throwing of a shoe at Bush? We've *killed* lots of people who were FAR more innocent than Bush. Yet somehow that deaths are "unfortunate collateral damage", while the shoe-throwing is "inexcusable". There are some seriously whacked-out people in this world.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[Ron 10]

I asked:

Quote

What would YOU do if a student threw a shoe at you. What would your school do?

Simple question, try to give a simple answer that actually answers it.

You answered:

Quote

If I'd killed the student's family and trashed his home, I'd expect the student to throw shoes (or worse). The school would probably turn me in to the cops, too.

You failed to answer the question. Care to ACTUALLY ANSWER THE QUESTION ASKED?

Quote

If YOU had an encounter with someone who trashed your home and killed your family members, what would YOU do?

I am going to answer like you do:
Well if my family members were part of a terrorist drug cartel and running a kiddy porn slave trade while building a nuke in the pantry, and the "someone" was from the ATF, FBI, CIA, and local LEO's....I guess I'd applaud them.

You know...Just answering anyway you want and ignoring the question is kinda fun! But I bet you would fail a student that did that in your class.

So I give you an "F". Care to try and actually answer the question asked?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

I asked:

Quote

What would YOU do if a student threw a shoe at you. What would your school do?

Simple question, try to give a simple answer that actually answers it.

You answered:

Quote

If I'd killed the student's family and trashed his home, I'd expect the student to throw shoes (or worse). The school would probably turn me in to the cops, too.

You failed to answer the question. Care to ACTUALLY ANSWER THE QUESTION ASKED?

Oh I did. I also put it in the correct CONTEXT.

Quote

Quote

If YOU had an encounter with someone who trashed your home and killed your family members, what would YOU do?

I am going to answer like you do:
Well if my family members were part of a terrorist drug cartel and running a kiddy porn slave trade while building a nuke in the pantry, and the "someone" was from the ATF, FBI, CIA, and local LEO's....I guess I'd applaud them.

You know...Just answering anyway you want and ignoring the question is kinda fun! But I bet you would fail a student that did that in your class.

So I give you an "F". Care to try and actually answer the question asked?

Of course, my answer WAS in the context of the situation in the OP, while your answer is in the exact reverse context.

Try answering MY question this time. Someone killed you family - how would YOU greet them.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Ron 10]

Quote

while the shoe-throwing is "inexcusable". There are some seriously whacked-out people in this world.

Find one instance where I said it was "inexcusable" Go ahead..find one.

I am amazed people like you who opposed the war against SH, who was a violent dictator that gassed his own people, are supporting another violent act.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

Quote

Of course my answer was in the context of the situation in the OP, while your answer is in the exact reverse context.

Try answering in the context of the OP.

Try answering the simple question asked of you without changing the context.

Again you FAIL

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[DanG 1]

Quote

I am amazed people like you who opposed the war against SH, who was a violent dictator that gassed his own people, are supporting another violent act.

I am amazed that people like you who opposed the violent acts of Saddam Hussein against his people, supported another violent act, namely the invasion of Iraq by the US.

Can you not see where this is going. "All violence is wrong" is really not a tenable position for someone who supports war.

Try this one instead, "Some violence is justifiable given the context."

- Dan G

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

while the shoe-throwing is "inexcusable". There are some seriously whacked-out people in this world.

Find one instance where I said it was "inexcusable" Go ahead..find one.

I am amazed people like you who opposed the war against SH, who was a violent dictator that gassed his own people, are supporting another violent act.

Find one instance where I attributed the word "inexcusable" to you. Go ahead...find one.

Your argument about deposing Hussein for gassing his own people would carry a bit more weight if we'd done so back in the 80's, you know, when he gassed his own people. We took an alternate approach, and it was working just fine. But then Bush decided more people (US and Iraqi) needed to die . . . and he got a shoe thrown at him in response. Oh, the humanity!

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

while the shoe-throwing is "inexcusable". There are some seriously whacked-out people in this world.

Find one instance where I said it was "inexcusable" Go ahead..find one.

I am amazed people like you who opposed the war against SH, who was a violent dictator that gassed his own people, are supporting another violent act.

With a LOT of US help, thanks to R. Reagan:

Alcolac International, a Baltimore chemical manufacturer, shipped large quantities of thiodiglycol (used to make mustard gas) as well as other chemical and biological ingredients, according to a 1989 story in The New York Times.

Nu Kraft Mercantile Corp. of Brooklyn (affiliated with the United Steel and Strip Corporation) also supplied Iraq with huge amounts of thiodiglycol, the Times reported.

In October 1992, the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, which has Senate oversight responsibility for the Export Administration Act (EAA), held an inquiry into the U.S. export policy to Iraq prior to the Persian Gulf War. During that hearing it was learned that U.N. inspectors identified many U.S. - manufactured items exported pursuant to licenses issued by the U.S. Department of Commerce that were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and missile delivery system development programs."

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Of course my answer was in the context of the situation in the OP, while your answer is in the exact reverse context.

Try answering in the context of the OP.

Try answering the simple question asked of you without changing the context.

Again you FAIL

The only context change was yours. the CONTEXT of the OP is a shoe thrown at an invader by someone protesting the death and destruction caused by said invasion.

My answer is in that context. Yours reversed the context.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Try answering the simple question asked of you without changing the context.

The question is pointless without teh right context

You of all people should understand that. legal shootings are all based on context. If the questions simply was: Did you shoot and kill him, many more people would be in jail for murder.

You demanding an answer out of context is intellectually dishonest. (And the funny thing is, that is exactly what you accuse Kallend of doing)

[Amazon 7]

Quote

But hey, they could be dangerous, laced with poison so you need to tread carefully......

I think the ones with dog shit on them are more than appropriate..hence the smacking Sadaams statue with the soles of the shoes ...tossing them at the Shrub.....is a similar insult... to men who did great harm to the Iraqi people.