TKE_440

I just moved out of San Antonio after 22 years. I always joke when telling people there are only two things to do in San Antonio; eat mexican food and go to the movies. Theaters are a bit of a competition in SA, and they have produced some pretty big ones. As far as the touristy thing to do... 1. Witte Museum http://www.wittemuseum.org/ 2. Botanical Gardens http://www.sabot.org/ 3. Japanese Tea Garden http://www.visitsanantonio.com/visitors/play/attraction-details/index.aspx?id=2668 4. Your SR-71 Blackbird (huge plane when up against it.) http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM3CCY_SR_71_Blackbird_Lackland_AFB_San_Antonio_Texas Have a great trip and I do recommend checking out the Alamo if you have never been!

My post was merely on the merit of the author alone. This article was nothing more than conjecture with absolutely nothing but imagination running amok. My stance remains that if he wanted to hit on the subject of police brutality, then using language how he did is, in the simplest form, wrong. Hard for me to take anything more he says seriously. The sad part is I am sure some are out there using what he writes as gospel, and even quoting him as a certainty. This is strictly opinion without even the closest shred of justification. However, to touch on the subject, police brutality is not a joke. Not quite sure how you could come to that inference with what I wrote - but, hey, whatever. I see the same videos you and the rest of the public see showing police brutality, and as always, it is wrong. If they are guilty, then they need to face the charges. In no way did I ever condone police brutality. You are right, it is no joke; and never did I say it was. Let me add to avoid anyone again misunderstanding. I DO NOT believe that police brutality exists only in the imagination of Paul Craig Roberts, but rather is a real concern that will always need to be dealt with. What I do believe is his exaggeration solely on facts that he did imagine to be true. Without any statistical analysis, saying "one might conclude" still has me laughing; even more so on how anyone could take him seriously.

Bahaha. Figures...

Are you serious with this link? Not only is this entire article wholly subjective, but rather more offensive that anyone can even tolerate this dribble without even the slightest smirk. Let me explain: I am a researcher, bio-medical to be exact. I actually do research, and get paid for it. Thus, we are obligated to follow certain rules for making any claims on facts. I understand this author quoted is not in the same realm, but this whole article seems grade school at best. "results may contain duplicates"; "probably only a small percentage of incidents"; "Considering the data, one might conclude..." This has to be the most funniest, inane article I read today, and I surely hope you posted this to be a joke!

Ummm... Okay. That explained a lot. Thank you!

Your rant in direct relation to the post put me at odds. It seems there is a complete ideology conundrum with what you say. It seems to me you have no problem having the same citizens spend money on other people's health care and social services, but when it comes time to require for the same people to spend the money on their own well-being, and everyone becomes "fucking-assholes" as you so eloquently put it. What is the problem with "...honest working people" to honestly take care of themselves?

Last one I did was the last time I jumped in nine months. Ten of us were doing a hop and pop at altitude during sunset. The sun just went below the horizon by the time the green light came on. Unfortunately, my p.c. instead of going backwards after I cleared, it went forward, between my legs, up behind my right shoulder back to front, and finally around my neck. Once I got it off my neck, I threw it back into air stream not realizing how it was routed. My bridle - not me- pulled my cutaway handle, leaving my RSL to fire my reserve. By the time I looked up, my reserve is out and starting inspecting on what the hell just happened; mostly concerned with two parachutes out. My brand new main w/only 20 jumps fell to the ground like a rock in the d-bag fully stowed. Because it was at sunset (right at the verge when the sun was going to bed) and at 14K feet, my mian wasn't found for 6months. It became a nice warm home for a family of field mice who decided to chew their new dwelling out.

I don't post much on here (very, very rare as a matter of fact,) but I sure do read of lot. I have downtime in my job that allows me to play around on the web, and find myself coming to dz only to read. I completely agree with you on your take on politicians, both sides of the aisle, but what escapes my mind is even the slightest acknowledgement of the op's initial point. This thread is not about who was at fault in 2008 or today, but rather that the current POTUS has shown to be hypocritical at times when dealing with any matter anyone can construe him at fault.

From Wikipedia: "On December 4, 2010, Showtime announced that Dexter would be renewed for a sixth season and stated that a seventh season was possible[12][13]. Season 6 is expected to premiere in September 2011." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_C._Hall I am glad to see at least another season! Definitely one of the better shows out there!

+1 I did the same thing.

This is Toggles (and I know how generic the name is) and Diesel. Diesel is a one year old miniature Aussi Shep/German Shepard, and Toggles is a 2 year old Jack Russell/Chihuahua. (He is more Jack than Chihuahua.)

Not hurt. Just having fun in SC.

"You need to think outside your own cultural box" Are you serious? I need to think outside my cultural box? What an asinine thing to say. Your right though. People did take for granted in MY country having Christmas off. I guess I owe you an apology that MY country was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs. However, as things "progress" in MY country, Christianity is falling away from governance. So instead of being free from religion, you would just be happy to replace it? The point being, if you expect freedom of religion from one group, then we should expect it from the other. BTW, this has absolutely nothing to do with my "cultural box," i.e. equal freedoms is equal freedoms. How did you get to the conclusion that I was Christian? Not once did I say I was. You assumed that. And you know what happens when you assume, right Andy?

You don't define them as the same, you only afford them the same. I am not Muslim, so I do not need to conform to the rules of Islam, regardless if they find it offensive or not. I think I mentioned it earlier, but again quickly, our society, thus our holidays (several of them anyways) were based on religious grounds. There has been a rise in person's opting out of the Christian faith, and feel it needs to be pulled away from the state; hence, Winter Break vs. Christmas Break. If Christians suddenly felt that they need to not speak or read for a week, would concessions be made for them? Absolutely not. We would recognize their right to to do so, allow them to practice, and everyone else would continue on with the agendas already laid out in the calender year. Why would we need to even discuss changing an entire curriculum over religious grounds in public schools?

We are pretty much saying the same thing, and I do agree with you. What I was just saying is whatever the topic and/or group, the ones who are louder usually come out ahead. That is democracy. You campaign, you get the votes, you get your way. When it comes to being PC about it though, it definitely shows that many side step and just agree to seem sensitive and tolerant. Example per your requirements... (1. Give that group the same. 2. Remove special treatment for all. ) Southpark: They make fun of all and treat no one group special. However, how much special treatment is given because some Muslims voiced out much more than any Christian group upset over Jesus Christ using his halo has a lethal boomerang. With the case in the link from the OP, everyone must conform due to the practice of Islam? If I have to start calling Christmas Break "Winter Break" to seem PC to all non Christians, than being Muslim will be awarded no special allowances over non Muslims. It will always remain that our country was founded with Christian beliefs, resulting in many holidays and concessions revolving around them. More often there are more cases of religious being separated from the state, which could be argued for good or bad. However, if this were in the US, then I say fine, allow Muslims the same concessions, but only the same. Let's not go out of our way to benefit one group over another only to show sensitivity...

What? What does right and wrong have to do with this? One argument, two sides. Both sides feel their position is the right one. To qualify right and wrong is inane. My point is there is a system in place. One group decides to "bitch" more than the other, then that system gets changed. It is done under then pretense of "sensitivity". What about the group that does not want anything to change? Because it would not be recognized as the PC thing to do, then it is "wrong" to feel that changing it is a little one sided? But yes, the group that bitches more and louder gets more change. That I am sure we can agree on. But tell me Bolas, what is wrong about not wanting to change an entire swimming schedule? What is wrong about not altering entire class tests?

Because the sqeeky wheel gets the oil... enough until it becomes PC, under the guise of sensitivity and tolerance.

On that... I really try and not to sound condescending. The girlfriend says she can never tell when I am playing or not, as well as the folks, friends, well... everybody. Guess the same comes out when I type. Wasn't really trying to upend ya on it... just playing around. Sorry to offend, Man!

Oh no, I caught that. But my reply was about the unjust haste that you immediately had for the agent that shot the young man. The same as our POTUS irresponsibly remarking the case about law enforcement, albeit I will agree that these two situations are miles apart in caliber. Just what came to my mind though. The confusing part was that you played the idea that you would run to your car and "hideout" and wait for these silly bandits to get bored and walk on home leaving everybody for a great dinner time story at the table. (BTW, you said this in the same sentence, but after you "amended" your remarks, still referring that this agent was out of line.) You then say if you had their training, which if it were you, you would have, then you would have acted differently. Leaving this statement confusing to me (again after you made your amendment.) Sidenote, I read everything before I posted the original reply, and it would seem to me a retraction for unjustly calling the guy an Idiot for protecting his own life is due because of Learning.

It's funny because you don't know more/less than anyone else but you are quick to judge all legal enforcement. "Beer Summit" comes to mind... see... you don't know. And this confused me. Guess what... the office in question did have the training. Because he had it, his reaction with his "resources" were different than your hypothetical reaction. But oh yeah, you just like to blindly judge. And don't play down that just because the kid was a fifteen your old that he was a child. While I agree that is way to young to die for anyone, fifteen year olds are just as capable as a twenty year old to take a life and/or injure others. Edited to add the reply was for Rhaig.

But calling an African American a derogatory name would mean something to their existence because of their relative's past? They are allowed to care, but because Kennedy is white, he is not. And don't confuse just saying any name against a minority is okay, but one's that were used during slavery, i.e. "Boy" Obviously it affects some, but again, only if you are a minority, right?

Why do people still say Clinton left with a surplus? Yes, Clinton dropped spending on military budgets, and one could argue for the good or bad, but his "surplus" was flawed. The national debt continued to grow with a deficit under Clinton, and never had a tru surplus. He borrowed between years, and by law, any surplus social security had had to be bought back into intra-governmental bonds. In Clinton's case, they just immediately turned around, spent the money, Clinton got applauded, maybe brought down the public debt a small amount, but the intra-governmental went much higher, exponentially, which added to the national debt. There never really was any surplus with Clinton! "Projected this, projected that..." Doesn't matter. The money he used to bring down the debt to make him look good has to be spent out by ~2017. He didn't prove anyone wrong who actually looks at more than the "Bush Adm. messed everything up" rhetoric.

I don't know much about the home market here in Fort Worth, but there are some pretty areas for apts while you continue the search for a house. I just moved here in July and very happy with where I am at - Off I30 and Camp Bowie area!

I don't know what that means? Are you telling me that all 40 million non insured Americans can't afford it? Every single one of theirs salvation is only through a national health care!?! Again, nothing down the middle with you, just left or right, up or down? a national health service would mean no-one was uninsured so all your distinctions between those uninsured who deserve to die and those who do not is irrelevant... Only if you agree with the National Health Care. It is still a debate, and my whole point to arguing with the OP was to negate part of the link he provided. I do think it is hilarious that you seem to portray what I am saying is these people "deserve to die and those who do not..." Is it YOUR contention that people need to die? No where did I say that, only observations to how any figures, ratios, and percentages can be skewed, and when applied to the National Health Care debate, you think those numbers are going to make me believe. The Bill Of Rights of I believe are ones that only limit the government from intruding into my life, whether it be for the better or worst (again speaking only for me,) not ones that regulate my life, and this includes a National Health Care.