Close.
I believe they are nearly all liars because they themselves have clearly said that all police officers are liars. They will and have admitted publicly and repeatedly that this is the case, they are trained that lying is acceptable to gain information or compliance. I also believe that they are incapable of finding it acceptable to lie in some circumstances with impunity but at the same time NOT lying about their own bad actions...and time and time again that has proven to be correct. (once a liar, always a liar) It's not >50% that are liars, it's closer to >98%.
That said, I don't think a large percentage of them are actually intentional murderers, likely <1%, but I do think that >98% will support, lie for, falsify evidence for, threaten retaliation for, and actually retaliate for that <1%. That's also been proven by their actions repeatedly. That makes them all (>98%) accessories after the fact...so maybe not murderers, but murderer adjacent.

This admitted bias is borne from decades of repeated and consistent confirmation that it's correct, both from media and personal experience. Yes, it's unfair for that <2% of 'honest cops', but not as unfair as the >98% of dishonest cops are to them by far.

I think it's a sad state of affairs when my position, that those charged with and paid to protect and serve should maybe TRY to protect, is considered prejudice. Any officer that didn't TRY would be guilty with me on the jury. (of course, lucky for them, I am honest and admit I have a bias against police and think they are all liars and completely untrustworthy, so I never serve on a jury)

EDIT: I find it hypocritical that officers demand better pay and legal leeway because they have a 'dangerous job', but when presented with MINOR danger (like water) they cry and whine that 'they shouldn't have to put themselves in danger just to save citizen's lives'. I'm sure glad we had a completely different class of officer in 2001 or hundreds more would have died in the twin towers...but it makes one question, what would they do today in the same circumstance?

"Saudi Arabia has told the Obama administration and members of Congress that it will sell off hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of American assets held by the kingdom if Congress passes a bill that would allow the Saudi government to be held responsible in American courts for any role in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks."

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/16/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-warns-ofeconomic-fallout-if-congress-passes-9-11-bill.html

That's an interesting threat, if true. US treasury securities are the safest asset there is, and given the ginormous shortage of AAA assets worldwide, those would be vacuumed up in a split-second. Hell of a threat, really.

Really amazes me how far before it's time 2001 was. The winners for the next 10 years or so were, honestly, crap in comparison.

I started re-reading Druuna recently. I hadn't even encountered it/heard about it since I was a kid. Such amazing art, I don't know if they could capture that in a film but I'd be willing to see it. They made a game in 2001 but I didn't play it (looked terrible).

Christ....

Odd how Republicans always scream about "redistribution of wealth", but are fine with the fact that most employers no longer pay living wages the way they used to. They are fine if it's some rich guy taking his wealth generated by his employees' hard work for himself, but god forbid that the government take anything to help those that rich guy is leaving behind. Over half the people who work for Walmart qualify food stamps (only about 30% actually take it), despite the fact Walmart's profits are so high it could pay them all living wages, give them benefits, higher more, give more hours, and still make a huge profit while not raising prices... but it's the people needing food stamps that are bad, not the people who own and operate the company and take so much from their workers.

The one true small government candidate that the Republicans had was Rand Paul, and they rejected him for big government, tough talk, candidates that capitalize on their fears... most of which are fairly unjustified. Americans aren't lining up on the streets to get the sort of jobs that they accuse Mexican's of coming here to take. Our own actions of telling Muslims how to live is the reason they want to kill us, leave them alone and govern themselves... stop preemptively attacking... you know be more Christ like who wouldn't support such things...

And as @oritteropo basically noted, Reagan was far to the left what today's Republican party is. Reagan wouldn't even get through the Primary process. Fox News, Rush and all of them would be ripping him a new asshole for not being "conservative enough". Obama is far closer to Reagan style politics and economics than most today's primary candidates. McCain once upon a time was close to Reagan, but he swung to the right to appeal to the extreme right base, and then added an idiot running mate. Had he ran down the center as he used to be, and got a centralist running mate, he would have had a chance of winning... though Obama sort of captured a hope for progressive change that never came, he turned out to be a Democrat in Name Only and was closer to a Reagan Republican than a true progressive.

Let's also not forget that Congress controls the purse strings and the US economic outlook (at least to what degree the government can, since the rest is in the hands of investors and business owners). Congress has been obstructionist for the last 6 years, and haven't allowed ANY of Obama's policies through, any of his attempts to help fix the economy. Want to blame somebody in the government for the mess, blame Congress, not Obama... if they attempted his stuff, then yes it would be his fault, but they haven't tried a single one of them. You can't say no to trying something, then when what you did instead doesn't work blame the person you said no to.

For the price of the F35 program so far, a plane that only barely passed some of it's flight tests, the rest still failing, we could have bought every homeless person a $600,000 home.... in this area a $150,000 home is very nice (good 3 bedroom home, nice safe neighborhood with good schools), let alone what $600,000 would get you... for the price of it this year, we could fund the school lunch program for 24 years. Now to be fair, I haven't fully vetted those two "facts" myself, but what I have vetted, is for the price of the war in Iraq from 2001 to 2011, we paid more than NASA's entire history, even after adjusting for inflation. It's all a question of priorities. Republican's don't care how much the military costs the taxpayer, but suggestions to help the people being left behind as the rich take more and more for themselves (redistributing the wealth generated by their workers to themselves, rather than their workers) and suddenly they start screaming bloody murder.

Every time a Republican opens their mouth and spouts such things like this video I hate their gullibility... and all too often they talk about their faith and Christ... and I've already covered how the Republican views are 100% opposed to the teachings of Christ and it's why I first lost faith in God as he'd be screaming at them and trying to convict them that their views are wrong were he real. Don't just trust the first few Google results you see, as they filter their results to appeal to you and your views. Don't listen to the echo chamber. Learn to truly vet sources and understand what is actually going on. Don't parrot claims about a "liberal media" or whatever, when over 95% of the news sources out there are controlled by the same 5 companies, none of which have an incentive on letting people know just how bad they are being fucked by the business interests in this country... supporting gay marriage, supporting a minimum level of help isn't liberal, it's being a decent person... being against equal rights under the law because somebody sins differently than you, or not wanting to help somebody because they aren't working 80-100 hours a week is being a heartless asshole. But feel free to keep living in your echo chamber of stupidity, "You are a sad, strange little man, and you have my pity."

With the glaring exception of 2001

Was the Washington Post in an article on September 18, 2001 when it wrote the following?

In Jersey City, within hours of two jetliners’ plowing into the World Trade Center, law enforcement authorities detained and questioned a number of people who were allegedly seen celebrating the attacks and holding tailgate-style parties on rooftops while they watched the devastation on the other side of the river.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2001/09/18/northern-new-jersey-draws-probers-eyes/40f82ea4-e015-4d6e-a87e-93aa433fafdc/?postshare=7281
448290025183&tid=ss_fb



Colbert's Leftist Comedy Puts CBS in Ratings Rut now in 3rd place. Guess not what real Americans want.

I saw them in Sin City's Luxor place in January 2001 with my folks. It was fun. I saw them again in Honda Center with my friends in the mid 2000s or so with the MegaStar tour.

I'll cover IUD's first. While there is some evidence that the older style copper ParaGard might have a slightly increase in preventing a fertilized egg from implanting, the evidence for the Mirena. Here are two medical journals documenting as such:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4018277
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/13625180903519885
If those are too much reading, they are summarized in http://videosift.com/video/Myths-About-IUDs

Remember Google gives personalized search results. No two people get the same results, even when signed out of Google... More details at http://videosift.com/video/There-are-no-regular-results-on-Google-anymore

I'd also agree that there are many things America gets right. Overall it's a good country.

And I think I started out by pointing out it isn't about guns, or just about guns.

Now I'm not sure what you mean assigning attributes to the right. I was pointing out policies that are consistent with the conservative right, Republican platform positions that are not pro-life.

The Death Penalty. This is a typically Republican strong stance position. And has been at various times part of the party's official platform. The Democrat party official position supports the death penalty too, after a DNA testing and post-conviction review. The point isn't wither or not the Death Penalty is right or wrong, I'd personally argue it's wrong, it's the claim of being pro-life while supporting the death penalty. There can be no way to reconcile those two positions.

One needs only to look at how Bush and the present day regime of Republicans in Washington think of handling issues in the Middle East to see what that they support a strong military and an interventionist doctrine (http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Republican_Party_War_+_Peace.htm). One of the key factors of the Bush Doctrine is preemptive strikes. While one normally wouldn't cite Wikipedia, I'll let their page on the Bush Doctrine and their references clear things up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine. Heck Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize largely just because he wasn't Bush... sadly he did little to lower US involvement in the Middle East, a situation we should have left alone ages ago. Again the Democrats aren't as peace loving as they should be, and generally the most peace loving people in Congress tend to be Libertarians (who object more to the expense of war than war itself, and love pointing out how the war in Iraq from 2001 to 2011 cost more than NASA's entire history to that point, even after adjusting for inflation (https://www.nationalpriorities.org/cost-of/ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA)) and Libertarian leaning Republicans like Ron Paul, and the Congressional Progressive Caucus (http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/). Again, war isn't pro-life, it is perhaps one of the most anti-life things one can support short of supporting murder itself.

It's also Republicans, aka the right, that are trying to undo the Affordable Health Care Act, a program that ironically enough is modeled after the ones they tried to pass twice under Bush Sr and once under Clinton as to oppose Democrat plans to push for a Single Payer system. Prior to the passing of Obamacare, the US was spending nearly twice as much on healthcare as a percentage of it's GDP than the next nation, and getting only the 37th best results . Just listen to the crowd at the September 12 2008 Republican debate that chant over and over "let him die" as a solution to a guy who needs medical care but elected not to buy private insurance. These same people are the one's who claim to be pro-life. Affordable health care should be a right, as it is in every civilized nation but the US. Obamacare is far from ideal, but much better than the previous policy of only those with good jobs could afford health care everyone else, die or go bankrupt, driving the costs of healthcare up more. One can't say they are pro-life and oppose affordable healthcare, including for services you don't support such as IUDs (it doesn't matter that I object to our overly huge military budget that is much bigger than the next several nations combined, so it shouldn't matter if some medical services such as IUDs are supported), as quality of life matters as much as being alive.

Related to guns however is the Republican stance on stand your ground. Watch Fox News and how they defend the use of guns, or how mass shootings would be avoided if people were carrying concealed weapons and could stop the shooters... again escalating things to a death penalty. Now in the case of a mass shooter, ideally you want to take them down alive, but if death is the only option, then I personally don't object. However stand your ground typically expands to home invasion, where criminals typically aren't looking kill, just rob the place. Here they defend the homeowner's right to shoot to kill (I've been in firearm safety classes, generally the aim is to aim for the center of mass, which will likely result in death, but the odds of making a shot at the legs to impede the crooks is very low, so if you shoot you have to assume it is to kill). This position is contrary to the pro-life stance. All life is equal... which could get into a whole other argument about how they don't value immigrants, especially illegal immigrants, people who just want to improve their lives by moving to what they hope is a better country that will allow for a better opportunity for them and their families, but the Republicans are fighting hard to stop them from improving their lives here just because an accident of birth made them born in another country than the US... heck just look at the way Republicans lined the buses of refugee children fleeing war and gang torn areas of Latin America and they shouted at the children.... children... to go home that nobody wanted them. That isn't a pro-life statement, to tell a child that nobody wants them. The pro-life position would be to want to nurture and protect the children fleeing a dangerous area... We should be moving to a world without borders, as that is the pro-life position, to realize we are all humans, and that we all must share this world, and that we should do all we can to protect one another and this world and all that inhabits it (except mosquitoes, roaches, most parasites, etc... lol)

As to high poverty rates, the Republican policy of trickle down economics helps drive that. Helps spread the ever growing income and wealth gaps in the US. The Walmart heirs alone have more wealth than the bottom 40% of the US population (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/31/bernie-s/sanders-says-walmart-heirs-own-more-wealth-bottom-/). Now true, some could argue it isn't trickle down economic that is causing the growing wealth and income gaps, but the correlation is very strong, and one is hard pressed to find any other causative points beyond the rich paying less and less to their workers while taking more and more for themselves while the government eases the tax burden on the rich more and more.

Overall I think it's clear that the people who vote Republican because they are "pro-life" are hypocrites given the party's positions in key issues that aren't pro-life. I'm sure many, especially those on the right would disagree. They'd argue the death penalty is needed to discourage others from killing and therefore protects life, and that preemptive strikes ala the Bush Doctrine keep another 9/11 from happening (although the counter to that is fairly easily that we make more extremist the more we use those strikes). So one's mileage may very. For me, I think they are hypocritical saying they are pro-life if they don't value that life as much as their own after they are born.

Yeah, you could say he's been keeping busy.

2016 Alice Through the Looking Glass (post-production)
2016 Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children (post-production)
2015 Goosebumps (completed)
2015 Before I Wake (completed)
2015 Tulip Fever (completed)
2015 Avengers: Age of Ultron
2015 Fifty Shades of Grey
2015 The End of the Tour
2014 Tales from the Crypt (Short)
2014/I Big Eyes
2014 Mr. Peabody & Sherman (music by)
2013 American Hustle
2013 The Unknown Known (Documentary)
2013 Epic
2013 Oz the Great and Powerful
2013 Captain Sparky vs. The Flying Saucers (Short)
2012 Promised Land
2012 Hitchcock
2012 Frankenweenie
2012 Silver Linings Playbook
2012 Gun Test (Short)
2012 Men in Black 3
2012 Dark Shadows
2011 Real Steel
2011 A Conversation with Danny Elfman and Tim Burton (Documentary)
2011/I Restless
2010/III Do Not Disturb (music by)
2010 The Fight for the Last Cookie (Short)
2010 The Next Three Days
2010/I Alice in Wonderland
2010 Ooozetoons! (TV Movie)
2010 The Wolfman
2009 The Dollar (Short)
2009 Taking Woodstock
2009 Terminator Salvation
2009 Notorious
2008/I Milk
2008 Hellboy II: The Golden Army
2008 Wanted
2008 Standard Operating Procedure (Documentary)
2007 The Kingdom
2007 Meet the Robinsons
2007 Arkham Asylum Fan Film (Short) (score music)
2006 Charlotte's Web
2006 Nacho Libre
2006 Deep Sea (Documentary short)
2005 Shadows of the Bat: The Cinematic Saga of the Dark Knight - Dark Side of the Knight (Video documentary short)
2005 Corpse Bride
2005 Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (music by)
2005 No Experience Needed (Short)
2004 Spider-Man 2 (music by)
2003 Big Fish
2003 Hulk (music by)
2002 Red Dragon
2002 Men in Black II (music by)
2002 Spider-Man (music by)
2001 Planet of the Apes
2001 Mazer World (Short)
2001 Spy Kids
2000 The Family Man
2000 Proof of Life
1999 Sleepy Hollow
1999 Anywhere But Here
1999 Instinct
1998 A Civil Action
1998 A Simple Plan
1997 Good Will Hunting
1997 Flubber
1997 Men in Black (music by)
1996 Mars Attacks!
1996 Extreme Measures
1996 The Frighteners
1996 Mission: Impossible (music by)
1996 Freeway
1995 Dead Presidents
1995 To Die For
1995 Dolores Claiborne
1994 Black Beauty
1993 The Nightmare Before Christmas (original score by)
1993 Sommersby
1992 Batman Returns
1992 Article 99
1990 Edward Scissorhands
1990 Darkman
1990 Dick Tracy
1990 Nightbreed
1989 Batman
1988 Scrooged (music score by)
1988 Face Like a Frog (Short)
1988 Hot to Trot
1988 Big Top Pee-wee
1988 Midnight Run
1988 Beetlejuice
1986-1987 Pee-wee's Playhouse (TV Series) (4 episodes)
1987 Summer School
1985-1987 Amazing Stories (TV Series) (2 episodes) )
1986 Wisdom
1986 Back to School
1986 Alfred Hitchcock Presents (TV Series) (1 episode)
1985 Pee-wee's Big Adventure
1980 Forbidden Zone

Seth MacFarlane was supposed to be on American Airlines flight 11 on 9/11/2001. He missed the flight by 10 minutes because he was hung over and had the wrong flight time.

Good eye you got, I must of seen what I wanted to.

http://a248.e.akamai.net/pix.crutchfield.com/ImageHandler/trim/1400/900/products/2001/575/x575800A2.jpeg

- is the amp's I was thinking of, I recall you could take the end caps off and joint amp's together for a cosmetic appeal. Although, I might be wrong on that as well ( without reading about it ) because all the wires and setting controls are on the sides.

Thank's for bringing that up, it must be some sort of grill off of a vehicle or so.

watched it again, it is totally the front end of a vehicle, from the side shot you can see it clear as day, not to mention the head light area. Glad I have that figured out now thanks !

*dead since http://movieclips.com/watch/embed/mulholland-dr-2001/bettys-audition/ is gone.

@bareboards2
@newtboy



Answer this Why is Baltimore such a shit hole in treating inner city poor folks like dogs?


Like many failed cities, Detroit comes to mind, and every city besieged recently by rioting, Democrats and their union pals have had carte blanche to inflict their ideas and policies on Baltimore since 1967, the last time there was a Republican Mayor. In 2012, after four years of his own failed policies, President Obama won a whopping 87.4% of the Baltimore city vote. Democrats run the city of Baltimore, the unions, the schools, and, yes, the police force. Since 1969, there have only been only been two Republican governors of the State of Maryland. Elijah Cummings has represented Baltimore in the U.S. Congress for more than thirty years.”
..."the Democrat-infested mainstream media is treating the Democrat like a local folk hero, not the obvious and glaring failure he really is. Every single member of the Baltimore city council is a Democrat. Liberalism and all the toxic government dependence and cronyism and union corruption and failed schools that comes along with it, has run amok in Baltimore for a half-century, and that is Baltimore’s problem. It is the free people of Baltimore who elect and then re-elect those who institute policies that have so spectacularly failed that once-great city. It is the free people of Baltimore who elected Mayor “Space-to-Destroy”. From a recent Allen West post

http://allenbwest.com/2015/04/the-dirty-little-secret-no-one-wants-to-admit-about-baltimore/

Not to mention the $1.5Million /year federal dollars for education. Total 18.3 Million from 2001 and today..

plus the 1.8 Billion from Obama's Stimulus.

Peace/ love sharing and caring. Yep a Democrat Utopia.

I should go back to Paradise this summer since I haven't been there since January 2001. Hmm!