S8ET6

I don't understand your point Gary. I neither stated nor implied that the flag itself was guilty of arson. What i said is that since the focus of the conversation changed from the shooting to the removal of the flag, there has been a series of church fires - and ironically all of the churches were affiliated with black ministries. Now, your post implied that ignorant racist people might be the cause of those churches being burned down, and if so then I might be inclined to agree. But then the question becomes "why now? What could have made them angry enough to act like this?" And I contend that the only event which has had any impact upon them recently is the conversation about removing the flag that they themselve chose to associate with their cause. So, rejecting the flag = rejecting the racist ignorant group(s) associated with it = rejecting hate

Guilty as charged - but the Peabody/Sherman reference was appropriate. By the way, you have a PM. Edit: 7 black churches burned to the ground since the conversation focused on taking down the flag - coincidence?

Gary, you'll never win... because he had a pet dog named Peabody when he was a kid. That explains every post on VS that he's EVER made. lol.

Ok. I'll take your word for it.... I just find it somewhat humorous that you were participating in political discourse in the 2nd grade while I was still drinking Tang and expecting my PF Flyers to make me run faster and jump higher. I guess that I wasted my youth. (I guess that explains why I'm such a dumbass)

Wait... in 2nd grade you gave your parents prudent fiscal advise???? lololololl

Me thinks that Pops Racer is already displeased at the rate Independence is decelerating which is why he posted his post In 40 years he may be insane from anger

He meant that he was old enough to see the PBS documentary on desegregation when it originally aired in the early 70s - not the lame re-runs that they show now during the pledge-a-thons That counts... doesn't it?

The US Census Bureau projects that the "White Majority" will cease to exist in 2043. Out of curiosity, to anyone who wants to answer, how do you foresee this event impacting your quality of life?

If I were you, I'd contact the company and see if you can get one at cost in return for your testimony. Based upon how they are marketing that hardware, it would seem like they would jump at the chance to state that it can support xxx hundred hp. Plus, with the amount of views that your thread receives, they are guaranteed an audience for their product/message. I'm just sayin.

Alain, if you and Nate Silver were on Jeopardy, who would win?

Looks like Rahm was shook afterall: Rahm talks to archrival Karen Lewis for first time since 2011 F-bomb episode (link to the definition of shook)

Introduced my daughter to "The Ghost and Mr. Chicken" Don Knotts was fucking comedic gold - he was Mr. Bean before there was a Mr. Bean.

:lol: I'd pay to see whose ignore list I'm on... And I'd pay double to get the ability to bypass their ignore list and piss them off even more. Chuck, make it happen.

Dateline: OHIO "Serial Pooper no laughing matter for police" http://www.nbcnews.com/watch/nbc-news-channel/serial-pooper-no-laughing-matter-for-ohio-police-412280899642 What the hell?

Thought about you guys as I was watching this on GMA this morning: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/hulk-the-pit-bull-amazes-with-size-29376364

I've had to remove footprints from a headliner once - but this isnt the R forum so I cant elaborate.

Rahm won once Karen Lewis got sick

Is your garage insulated? Mine isnt, and its about 30 degrees inside.

Mine actually couldn't care any less about valentines day, xmas, birthday or anniversary gifts

Pshhh... If you're a psych then I'm a monk

This. I had a female acquaintance call me in the middle of the night threatening to kill herself while in training.

Jon, I didn't give any thought to what you were trying to say. I only saw/read/heard what you actually said in response to my comments. Don't you guys see? Jon did the same thing that the police office in my story did - he made a snap decision, based upon little to no facts, and a whole lot of contextual information, that turned out to be wrong. In this case, there was no harm because Jon and I continue to discuss it. I will even agree with any of you if you were to conclude that there was little "harm" in my event since I was neither arrested or killed. But in alot of these cases, someone IS arrested or killed - unnecessarily, by POLICE! And these type of events have occurred often enough over the course of time that a pattern has been established. So , to you on that side of the argument: why does the officer automatically get the benefit of the doubt in each of your minds? And what is going to be your personal tipping point when each of you decide " wait a minute, enough is enough"? So yeah, it is unreasonable of me to expect an indictment each and every time the police shoots someone - but why should it be unreasonable for me to expect to be heard when I call "foul" on the play. I mean, damn... even football reviews fouls, and its just a game.

Correct me if I'm wrong Howard, but I thought the subject of discussion is illegal actions by the police and I thought that the events in Ferguson was just the latest example that we were using as fodder for discussion. True, the statement that I made had no relevance to the event in Ferguson, but understand, I didn't provide it as such. I was responding to Alain's statement as to my ability to provide 1st hand experience to the conversation. Being that it is MY 1st hand experience, I would hardly label it as "subjective". Alain, I'm calling Bullshit. I don't think that Jon was trying say that at all - because 1st of all, it doesn't take much effort to actually say/type those words if that's what he meant. Secondly, what type of traffic offense justifies illegal detainment and search of my person and car? Also, he makes an analogy about "all black" people as a counter to my statement that police are shifty. Sure, on some level this conversation is about race but I never said anything about being pulled over due to my race. Finally, consider this - assuming that you are correct, He's had ample amount of time to follow-up with the missing "yeah, that's what I meant" type of post. As for my experience, since you asked, here are the details: No. I was not speeding. Actually I was leaving my mother in law's subdivision. I had just arrived at her house after work to pick up my daughter. I saw the cop at the entrance of the subdivision when I turned in. Got to the house and she (MIL) asked me to go get some milk from the store because my daughter wanted a bowl of cereal. I said "sure" and immediately hoped back in the car to go get some milk. Got back to the entrance of the subdivision (cop was still there in plain site). Did complete stop. Signaled my intention to turn left. Turned left and was immediately pulled over. Cop (on loud speaker) instructs me to turn off the car and throw the keys out of the window. Then I'm order to get out and place my hands on the hood. He comes behind me, cuffs me, places me in the squad car and starts searching my car. minutes later a 2nd cop comes, picks up my keys and unlocks my trunk to search it. Never read me my rights. never said that I was under arrest. Over an hour later after searching my car, searching me, running my plates and my DL they released me and when I asked for an explanation they cited some crime statistics in that neighborhood and concluded with "we had probable cause".

Ok. Let's recap: - I give 1st hand testimony about my experience being unjustly profiled and unlawfully detained in 1989 - Survolvo (to my knowledge having never seen me nor having never met me (and thus having no valid insight into my appearance or character) automatically concludes that I did "something to draw their attention." - I challenge Survolvo's statement with a resounding "Huh? WTF?!?" and - Survolvo then justifies his position with " I arrive to that conclusion after reading this..." So... Marty McFly, you're stating that you justified you position by traveling into the future to determine the rebuttal that I was planning to make, and thought to yourself "this is the only logical conclusion that I can arrive at." It never occurred to you to ask for additional details? It never occurred to you to grant me the benefit of the doubt? It never occurred to you that illegal search and seizure is, well, illegal? It never occurred to you that I may not have a police record? It never occurred to you that I may currently have a role in the LEO community? The only logical conclusion that you could arrive at was that I was playing a "race card" and thus, minimize my experience. And then everyone wonders why people are protesting the events that happened in Ferguson.

Sigh... "Look, I'm not saying that I am unwilling to admit that Mike Brown robbed the store". = I am saying that I am willing to admit that Mike Brown robbed the store. semantics or algebra (two negatives equal a positive) - take your pick