Job Applicant "Rape, arson, murder, rape".
Hedley Lamarr "You said 'Rape' Twice".
Job Applicant "I like rape".

Arson you can vote for your own video, too!

*love *quality

very long detailed article in the New Yorker (i think... might have been NY Times) explains the entire history of this case and what happened. apparently the "experts" who worked in the texas town didn't have any science education, they basically took one class on arson to become an "expert."

and the proof that it was arson - black triangles on the walls, burned pools on the floor, spiderweb cracks in the glass, wood burnt under aluminum door frame - are all caused by normal accidental fires. there was NO actual evidence of arson.

the guy who is pretty much considered the world's leading expert on arson (craig beyler) did the last brief which went to the governor 88 mins before execution and he said it was DEFINITELY not arson.

so yeah, he murdered an innocent man.

The "fixer-upper" at 2:00 was torched- the owners somebody commited arson to get the tenants out and so they could apply for re-zoning. About 2 blocks from my apartment.

I added the EIA charge not only because he could've easily goten himself killed, but because he freakin' showed up in court for a bail hearing later that day, where police, not surprisingly, recognized and arrested him.

"A Toronto man was arrested in a downtown courthouse this morning, accused of lighting a TTC bus ablaze early yesterday morning.

Steven Edwards, 28, was at Old City Hall for a bail hearing on other charges when cops from 53 Division charged him with assault, common nuisance, assault, fail to comply with recognizance, mischief interfere with property, five counts of weapons dangerous and two counts of arson — one for damage to property and the other for disregard for human life."

Oklahoma statute of limitations for arson is currently being raised from 3 to 7 years which is also the limit for most felonies.

>> ^JiggaJonson:
doublepromote
and why is this man not in prison after admitted: arson, burning a cross with intent to intimidate, and phone harassment? Maybe the reverend never made a police report? But you cant get away with arson, im sure the fire marshal would complain on that one


yeesh, talk about missing the point

>> ^JiggaJonson:
doublepromote
why is this man not in prison after admitted: arson, burning a cross with intent to intimidate, and phone harassment? Maybe the reverend never made a police report? But you cant get away with arson, im sure the fire marshal would complain on that one.

Statute of limitations? None of those are likely more than misdemeanors (arson varies depending on the amount of damage done and whether or not there were deaths or injuries). He'd probably get no more than some jail time and probation.

*doublepromote
How long will people have to turn the other cheek? and why is this man not in prison after admitted: arson, burning a cross with intent to intimidate, and phone harassment? Maybe the reverend never made a police report? But you cant get away with arson, im sure the fire marshal would complain on that one.
See Also:
http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Nigga-Can-Never-Make-Himself-White-Hate-Mail-Congressm

Open letter to people who think American could succeed in an invasion and occupation of the Dominion of Canada.



Dear loser,

I'd love to see America, launch an attack on Canada, and hold our vast country, which is flipping really cold for most of the year. Canadian Soldiers are well trained modern day combat troops. They train for winter warfare / survival. American soldier huddling in -45 degrees below.

American Soldier: "Hey guys, the unarmored humvee won't start!"
Dude: "Do you have a block heater? It's fucking cold outside."
American Soldier: "What the fuck is a block heater?"
Other Dude: "The thing our military couldn't afford to equip all our vehicles with before they sent us to fight here!"
American Soldier: "Mutha fucking economy!"
Other American Soldier: "Who leaked our massive military renovation of all our vehicles to be able to function in combat situations in a winter weather environment that we couldn't complete in time before we had to sell this war to the idiot public on the prevailing social and political winds??"
First Dude: "Probably someone working on the project that has friends who ARE CANADIAN!"

You couldn't even put protective blast shielding on your vehicles before you ran off to fight in a country that you knew might dissolve into a massive underground campaign of anonymous and sudden violence in close urban combat settings.

By the time that you attempted and failed to route our forces, as you have failed to route men with AK's out of hills in Afghanistan, although you have a much larger force stationed there than we currently have offered to assist you for some idiotic reason and sacrifice our blood for your former political policy, as well as trying to occupy a land mass second only to Russia, with harsh, inhospitable terrain, and a populace utterly hostile, betrayed, and proud people who would, don't get me wrong, some would, but depending on the severity of your attack and occupation of civilian centers, would not help you in any way, as nobody would work, and you would have to pacify all the young men that I know would resist such a thing.

Your country would have lost the domestic, foreign, and political capital to continue to wage war on an obviously peaceful, well liked nation of the world community. Germans, Japanese people, Brits, French dudes, South Americans, North Americans, and people who play on XBox Live would fucking hate you from every corner of the globe. It would be seen as a monumental error in human history, where two well build and structured, peaceful, healthy, and productive nations on this fucked up rock collide and utterly destroy each other. Your nation rich, but divided left and right to the point of riot and civil war, and ours waiting for you to leave and realize that a move such as war would constitute the birth of a new fascist state in the US of A, where occupation and domination are acceptable means of preserving your standard of living.

You think that the left wing half of the country would ever support a war like this? It's unthinkable. You'd destroy and destabilize what is your main trading partner, and sow chaos on the North American continent. With your military withdrawing from Iraq, and losing in Afghanistan, and with your bleak economy, you would become overstretched, your economy may fail, and you lose the ability to defend the territory you destabilized from an advancing Russia, intent on claiming your abandoned natural resources that we deny you access to through arson, sabotage, destruction of oil producing facilities (we could always drill for more in Alberta after everyone leaves our country). You would be forced to patrol and defend disputed territory from Russia, who would, by attacking Canada, promise the local populations freedom in exchange for support, and then conquer Canada themselves. Naturally American acquisition of a short fly over the bearing sea, and a boon of natural resources by force of arms would be seen as a provocative attempt to gain enough oil and space for a staging are to launch and destroy Russian forces while not risking American cities as strategic targets for Russian counterattack.

To operate our facilities, you would need to import skilled labor from the US to fill those positions, unless you hold us at gunpoint and order us to work. You presumably believe that controlling us would be easy after you kill our families and at LEAST take from us our loved ones serving in the military. Outrage and dissent would be rampant for a freedom stolen is a rage born. Name one country that you maintain physical and dictatorial sway over on this globe, with American administrators, and American military personnel patrolling the streets? can you? Iraq, the country you are leaving? Afghanistan, another quagmire for the American empire?

Another thing, While you stay in our cities, please feel free to find yourselves at home with our McDonalds, 7-11's, Suburban Houses, and mounds of Americanized consumer junk that you shovel down our throats. I'm sure the treasure's gathered will be worth it. I'm sure gaining more retail space and warehouses, more empty houses, more mouths to feed and policing our cities, and all those good things that come along with occupation would be worth it. Might provide some jobs though, eh?

Blockade:

America puts a blockade on Canada. Canada withers economically without US assistance. Canada eventually caves.

a: False.

America withers as Canada denies access to drinking water and electricity to large portions of the US, leaving millions of people high and dry in the dark.


"Alliance":
America forms a "security" pact with "Canada", something of a new world order conspiracy theory.

a: Either Or

America is ripped apart internally by Left Wing, and dissent over such a blatant display of the highly unpopular One World Government idea. America could also pull it off, given the state that television has left the brains of all the citizens in both our countries.




Peace

>> ^Farhad2000:
The debate of freedom of speech and censorship is on going, am not parroting one line or the other. I believe in freedom of speech myself and have disagreed with the inane protests that occurred during the publishing cartoons, but the question has to be raised when you have a film that is negative of an entire religion while any similar criticism is labeled as anti-semetic when applied to the Jewish community. The hypocrisy is there.

Of course it's hypocritical. And I decry the suppression of Mein Kampf just as much as Fitna. That's my point. It's absurd to outlaw stupid or unpleasant ideas, because usually the arguments for them are so pathetic that they should be easy to dismiss. That they cause diviseness is an even worse reason for censorship. Imposed homogeneity is far worse - and terribly boring. When unpleasant ideas are not so easily dismissed, it is even more important to guard their right to be expressed. It was certainly more socially cohesive for the Vatican to outlaw the ideas of Copernicus and Galileo, but obviously very wrong for it to do so.


Furthermore society censors ideas because it finds them offensive and detrimental to social cohesion, I don't think you would find many defending the freedom of speech of people burning crosses, wearing KKKs masks and calling black people the n word, using Nazi symbols in German or denying the holocaust.

Cross burning is not an act of free speech - it is an act of violent intimidation (not to mention arson). Wearing KKK gear isn't outlawed in the U.S., and it may surprise you to learn that the ACLU itself has fought for the rights of even those loonies to be able to assemble or march in various towns. Saying nigger is clearly not illegal - ever listen to gangsta rap?

Obviously there are limits to free speech. Directly inciting violence/riots, causing dangerous panic ("Fire!" in a theater) and libelous speech are all outlawed, but not because the ideas contained in such speech are "bad". They are outlawed because they can directly cause damage to people and property. I agree that stuff like Fitna falls somewhere in that grey area in that it could cause people to commit violent acts, but it does not itself call for violence upon Muslims.

which one is Stab Master Arson again

Lol

In reply to this comment by illeto:
Ok, here is the Bio of the shirtless man:
FURIOUS

Usually not wearing a shirt, Furious stays true to his roots; the ghetto's of Harlem. Being the only black man in the show he is prone to be subject of racism, which leaves him little choice but to carry a piece.

Other than packing a .45 he is a peace-loving man who makes an honest living by selling ponies and standing up for his people. Despite this fact of life he has been falsely accused several times of slander, fraud, thefth, battery, carjacking, homejacking, illegal possession of firearms, pimping, assault, manslaughter, bribery, obstruction, perjury, burglary, provocation, arson and robbery.

The latest accusations also involve unfair competition in games such as Call of Duty 4 and CS:S, where he allegedly owned other players to the point of virtual rape and humiliation.

Ok, here is the Bio of the shirtless man:
FURIOUS

Usually not wearing a shirt, Furious stays true to his roots; the ghetto's of Harlem. Being the only black man in the show he is prone to be subject of racism, which leaves him little choice but to carry a piece.

Other than packing a .45 he is a peace-loving man who makes an honest living by selling ponies and standing up for his people. Despite this fact of life he has been falsely accused several times of slander, fraud, thefth, battery, carjacking, homejacking, illegal possession of firearms, pimping, assault, manslaughter, bribery, obstruction, perjury, burglary, provocation, arson and robbery.

The latest accusations also involve unfair competition in games such as Call of Duty 4 and CS:S, where he allegedly owned other players to the point of virtual rape and humiliation.

>> ^jwray:
Why not privatize the fire department while you're at it?

Garrison Keillor talks bout such a thing in the suburbs of St. Paul, Minnesota in his book, Homegrown Democrat. In it he talks about the response time for the private emergency services in the suburbs compared to that of the public ones within the city limits. The private companys sometimes take upwards of 20 minutes to respond, while the public ones are there within 4 minutes on average.

And the thing we have to remember, privatized services like security, fire, and emergency medical, provide the service prior to ever discussing pricing then charge you afterwards.

>> ^imstellar28:
1. the fire department functions in the same role as the police department: to protect against the destruction of private property and loss of life. you cannot compare the police force or fire department to a school. if i burn down your house, i am committing a criminal act. if i don't teach your son algebra, i am not doing anything wrong. it is an invalid comparison because one enforces law, while the other merely provides a service.

I think you've got your analogy mixed up there. Committing arson is quite a bit different than not teaching a child. Though, if we were to correct your analogy, and say that if you were to let someones house burn to the ground instead of doing your job as a firefighter to attempt to put it out, then you would be subject to the same punishment, that of being terminated from your job, as you would should you as a math teacher refuse to do your job.
>> ^imstellar28:
2. so if i find a cure to cancer, i'm guessing you are going to force me to sell it to you? by your logic, if i didn't sell it to you i would be using "coercion" if you were dying from cancer. inaction is not, and cannot be, a method of coercion unless you initially set into motion the cause of distress--at which point, it cannot be considered inaction.

How did you find your cure for cancer? Do you work for a medical research company Did you fund all your research privately or receive government subsidies? Did you alone do all the research, or did you base your research on the work of others? Did they receive and government funding? Do you have a degree? Was your education paid for with loans? Are you simply a greedy asshole? All questions that would need to answered in order to determine the ownership of your cure. Some people finding such a cure would be content to give it to the world.
>> ^imstellar28:
3. healthcare is a service. healthcare providers have to go to school to develop their skills. you don't have a right to healthcare if nobody is willing to sell it to you. it is a man-made product which means a man has to choose to share it. you don't walk into a supermarket and demand that you have a right to free (or cheap) food because you need it to survive, so why do you think its okay to walk into a clinic and demand free (or cheap) healthcare?

Do you know that the vast majority of doctors get their degrees through the used of federally funded loans, scholarships, and grants? Which is then reimbursed by the money they receive from their patients. Now if they are able to have their education paid for by tax payers and their patients, why isn't it fair to expect them to work as a service to their community? No one is saying they shouldn't receive compensation, but rather that their compensation far outweighs their investment.
>> ^imstellar28:
4. if a firefighter (legally contracted by the government or otherwise) fails to put out your house fire, that is a breech of contract (fraud) not coercion. if in uncontracted firefighter walks by, he has every right to charge you a million dollars or let your house burn to the ground. if you could force others to work for you, you would be a slaveowner.

Again, like your "cancer cure" argument, you're assuming that a person would only do something for monetary gain, firefighters don't eat smoke because they get paid well, many small communities only have volunteer fire departments, a firefighter walking by would do what they could to help, regardless of their reward. Now let's look at your "slaveowner" statement, if I own a business and employ a dozen people, in a job market where if any one of them were to lose their job it could be months before they are rehired, and I know that none of them can afford to live without the income they receive from me. I as their employer can insist they do what ever I choose, be it mow my lawn, wash my car, or empty my septic tank, certain in knowing that although they have the option to tell me to fuck off, they won't because they can't risk losing their job. I, in essence, am then able to force them to do my bidding, yet I am not technically a slave owner. We are all slaves so long as we cannot change jobs at will.

>> ^imstellar28:
5. free markets don't reward "cranks, liars, or frauds" they punish them with bankruptcy. that is, unless you attempt to intervene with a "bailout" or other regulation which keeps them in business. consumers don't lobby for regulation, corporations do because competition is not good for business, pure and simple. people don't buy products which aren't useful, and people are free to buy whatever products they chose, as are they free to seek legal compensation for fraudulent claims.

I beg to differ, free markets do what they can to discourage educated consumption, thereby rewarding those who can make sales through any and all means, including lies, and fraud. More over, a depressed economy encourages this behavior, advertising get rich quick scams, that only make the person selling the scam rich. Regulation is designed to prevent unfair business practices, such as oil speculation by people who own oil commodities that results in unrealistically inflated prices, or mortgage lenders offering mortgages at an affordable rate then jacking the interest up in order to force unreasonable payments or foreclosures. When you have massive corporate juggernauts like we have now, with a constant influx of advertising, and a culture based on ignorant consumerism, competition is an illusion, and the free market is a myth.

>> ^imstellar28:
6. central government is inherently more inefficient than local organization. the more hands you have to pass information through, the more confusing and costly it becomes. there is no escaping that. a third party who has never met you will never better understand your needs, especially when they are not compensated based on how well they serve you. a government official does not know what is best for your family, nor do they know the best way to achieve it--only you do.

Bureaucracy is present no matter if it be governmental or corporate. It's going to be inefficient regardless, nothing is dealt with on a local level. If you have surgery, your claim will go over the desk of a dozen people at your insurance company just as it would a federal agency. The difference, the insurance company is working for profit, they will do everything they can to deny your claim/service, where as the most a government agency might do would be delay your service.

Too many people in this country have been led to believe that centralized government is bad, that socialized services are bad, that the free market can solve everything. Well take a good look around, millions out of work, millions without health care, millions of families losing their homes due to predatory lenders, and an economy on the verge of becoming the next great depression.

And what do we have to thank for this? A history of corporate greed, government collusion, and a populace too stupid to realize they've been used.