What 'why'? The sounds for yes and no are among the most elided and simplified in any language - they're replaced by all kinds of noises ('mm', 'yup', 'uh-huh', 'uh', 'yeah,' etc - not to mention nods, headshakes, or shrugs) and they still make perfect sense. They're some of the most basic and common grunts we want to make daily, and when we're not being formal we shorten them as much as possible.

@enoch
@newtboy
@Stormsinger
@speechless


31,487 American scientists say you and your belief in man made global warming via CO2 is Bullshit.

9,029 PhD;
7,157 MS;
2,586 MD and DVM; and
12,715 BS or equivalent academic degrees.
Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.

All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.

http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php

PS suck my dick.

Sorry for the delay. I don't really remember who did it, but at least two or three people made a concerted effort to downvote everything I sifted or had sifted..I have 20 discarded videos. After all of that, and even my comments getting consistently downvoted, I pretty much gave up trying to sift videos or really participate in the community. I mentioned it to a few people but I don't think I ever filed a formal complaint.

I'm not really complaining though. I understand that this site is bent primarily towards secular thought and is intolerant of anything else. It is simply a reality that talking about the Lord Jesus Christ in such an environment brings a lot of flak in my direction. That's okay. You're free to have your opinion and I'm free to have mine, and if anyone wants to hate me for that, that's fine too. I'll love them anyway.

My money is on that this is an episode of PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder). Usually by soldiers formally on the front lines.

If that's honestly the extent of your use of force, and they all were proper arrests on people who were also resisting (you only said one of them was resisting), and those you brandished at were armed and violently resisting, that sounds acceptable, but totally abnormal. I would guess that not all those you brandished at were armed threats.
EDIT:A good question....was every suspect you used force against convicted? If not, it seems you made a mistake and were a violent assailant to an 'innocent citizen' yourself, no? If there's no repercussion for those kinds of 'bad acts', how do you know it's wrong? (I'll answer, it seems you don't.)
My experience has been that cops brandish their weapons at anyone they think may be criminal, including those only guilty of 'contempt of cop', like me when a cop read my license plate wrong and assumed the car was stolen, so he violently threw me to the ground at gunpoint and violently handcuffed me (as tight as he could make them go) and acted like a douchebag bully until he realized his mistake. (I followed all his directions to the T without pause but was still treated like I was resisting.) Then there's no apology, in fact he said something more like 'You know why I did that, now go on your way or I'll find something else to arrest you for, and don't think about making a complaint, I know where you live now.' That's only one instance in my life out of many where cops did not act properly, due to no fault of my own. (I was not intimidated by his threat and did make a formal complaint anyway.)

That's 3 shootings (maybe 2 were the same cop?). It sounds like one may have been improper, shooting someone in the back is usually not acceptable, unless he had just been shooting at the cop and turned to run just before being shot, or was running at someone else that needed protecting. If he was not an immediate threat to someone, there was no reason to shoot him in the back rather than track him until he could be safely arrested.
It seems you have a problem understanding our position. We understand that 95% of interactions with cops are done properly and often respectfully. That does not excuse the other 5% by any means, just as it does not excuse someone from committing murder if they were a fine, upstanding citizen otherwise. Get it? It only takes one bad act to erase all your good acts. That's the way of the world. You can't say 'Yeah, I raped that 6 year old, but come on guys, I take good care of little old ladies the rest of the time, so it's fine.'. That doesn't play, neither does 'Most of the time we're good cops, so we should get a pass for those 'rare' times when we are terrible thugs and violent criminals.'
EDIT: It's not only deadly force that is inappropriately applied. You don't have to end up murdering the citizen to have acted inappropriately violent. I hope I'm not telling you something you don't know, only pointing out something you ignored.
The fact that you don't seem to think mandatory counseling is appropriate for those in 'authority' that have failed in their job (to protect citizens) and resorted to using force against citizens (yes, I consider that a fail, there's nearly always another option) is bothering. As I explained, it leaves you feeling it's 'us VS them' (which has been shown to be your mindset from your past comments) and that's terrible for someone in authority to think. I think you need counseling to fix that mindset, and find it troubling that you might disagree (yet are still in a position of power).

Maybe it's just my own naivete, but I would love to imagine that there was a time when being arrested was a little more formal than just having some cop blindside you like they did Eric Garner. Like maybe the cop actually told you you were under arrest, and gave you a chance to submit to the authority that he represented (NOT embodied) and maybe even mentioned what putative offense you might be arrested for, and had some rationale for it that the supreme court might recognize.

Even if that time never existed, it might arrive some day if enough cops exercising their fascistic discretion have their feet held to the fire of public scrutiny.

Godspeed, Chris Lollie.

If it "bothers" you so much, @newtboy, here, "make a difference" on this.

EDIT: I can send you a dozen+ more (like this one) on a weekly basis if you want to make more "formal complaints."

Can we have a name and badge number so we can make thousands of complaints on this officers employment record and get him removed....please? It looks like Richard Recine in Helmetta, NJ
This is what you get when idiots listen to the talking heads on Faux and believe them.
EDIT: I put in a request to his supervisor (r.manney@helmettaboro.com) for the forms to make a formal complaint against Richard Recine....if this kind of thing bothers you, do the same. Together maybe we can make a difference.

They bombed a UN school that they had the coordinates for and were formally notified about, for fuck's sake. But please continue to keep your head in the sand.

The AFI, which was formally announced in June 2012 by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), consists of "a single platform for research, analysis, and visualization of large amounts of data from disparate sources and maintaining the final analysis or products in a single, searchable location for later use as well as appropriate dissemination."

The logical discourse project of evil

exactly sir. I have checked all those.. thrice !

I shall write a novel about this adventure.

Edited _ OOOOps.. I mean Ma'am or mam or Muh lady, whatever your fancy of formal may be.

Would not agree or disagree with your statement Lann however, one's definition of 'artistic' and 'ability' as well as 'gift' can be both subjective and objective in the realm of 'art', that realm being also a subject for debate and discussion with a view to perception. Formal training and perseverance does not necessarily produce a universal guarantee of quality output. Art unfolds out of an experience and richness of life lived as well...

A proliferate and evolving continuum of interpretive output plays a larger part for myself than mere study...

....and Stormsinger, that word crazy???....Fundamentally subjective based on a society's imposed or implied rules of perception.

So, you want your money back or a formal apology?

"Your description of events ignores the fact that 100% of the territory was part of the union"

That's why it's called secession. It was all one 'union' and then the Confederacy decided otherwise, they seceded, or attempted to.

"When you write pages of text about my digressions, it indicates the opposite. I hope you understand that. If you really aren't interested, just ignore me.""

You do have a point about this. Anyway, we may even agree more than disagree, except about some definitions that, while not as precise as could be, keep in mind the medium this discussion is occurring in, not the ideal for formal debating, more like informal statements and comments of what comes to mind, not dissertations.

In addition to the "sarcasm" box, we should probably get a "jus' sayin'" box as well.

I'm simply arguing that the drone strikes be labelled what they are, acts of war against an enemy one is at war with. It should be obvious that is anything but a blanket endorsement of their use. All it does is move the goal posts from formal civilian style courts and police to justification of prosecuting a war against an enemy. Is that really such an absurd or unpalatable position?