Just do what they say and you should be fine. DON'T ARGUE. DON'T RESIST.

Keep your hands in sight at all times, preferably away from your sides. If they start yelling, drop whatever is in your hands. Do NOT put your hands in your pockets to get your wallet. And for pity's sake, drop your cell phone if they start yelling. Let it break. It can be replaced.

Are you a person of color? You are more at risk, especially in the South and in certain high crime urban areas.

Tug your forelock. Swallow your pride. Get mad later not in front of the cop.

A friend of mine was stopped by the highway patrol late at night in rural Texas. He is white, middle class, driving a big fancy Buick. He made the conscious choice to keep his hands on the steering wheel at 10 and 2 so the cop could see them and not be nervous.

You don't want the cop to get nervous. That is when most bad things happen.

Practice saying "yes sir" and "yes ma'am". You'll be fine.


>> ^conan:

I'll be visiting the states soon and as strange as it sounds one of my major concerns is police. not being a native speaker i am afraid somewhat that if being stopped confusion might arise and there are various clips here that show us what confused US police officers like to do. ironically i'm not really afraid of street crime since i can choose where to go, but police officers? they are everywhere. maybe watching these clips while planning the trip is not a good idea.

>> ^quantumushroom:

What's the cutoff? Republicans are less than 18% of the population. Can we take away some of their rights?
I assume you support taxing people that make more money at a higher rate, punishing their success in the name of a "fair share" which is then distributed unfairly and wastefully, don't you? I assume you support preventing people in high crime areas from owning firearms, infringing on their right to self-defense with the best possible tools?

What it comes down to is gays and lesbians aren't hurting anyone by their nature.
Then do you support polygamy?


I wholeheartedly support consensual polygamy (i.e. outside of the context of cults that indoctrinate children and coerce behavior).

>> ^quantumushroom:
I assume you support taxing people that make more money at a higher rate, punishing their success in the name of a "fair share" which is then distributed unfairly and wastefully, don't you? I assume you support preventing people in high crime areas from owning firearms, infringing on their right to self-defense with the best possible tools?
[snip]
Then do you support polygamy?


[edited because I originally missed your first paragraph]

If you quote or @name me, you've got a better chance of me getting back to you. I only saw this by accident.

But to answer your questions, I like the idea of a flat income tax or none at all. I'd rather see gigantic sales tax, and other consumption taxes, than the convoluted mess that is the income tax system.

I've said on several occasions that, although I have no interest in owning a gun, I support gun ownership. I don't think the 2nd amendment guarantees the right to own firearms outside of organized militias, but I support that right either way. I'm not against a certain level of regulation, however.

And finally, yes, I support polygamy; and for the same reasons that I support gay marriage: because I don't believe the government has any place telling consenting adults what they can do with each other. Polygamy is illegal because it "leads to" spousal abuse, just like pot is illegal because it "leads to" gang violence.

You seem to still be under the insane notion that I'm a liberal. Is it because I call you out on your pseudo-conservative nonsense?

>> ^quantumushroom:

1) I don't give a crap that he's half-Black. I'm more concerned about his lack of qualifications for the Office, bowing to dictators, high unemployment, high gas prices, etc. Your Emperor wears no clothes.
2) Since I'm a Jew by blood, I'll have to get back to you on that.
3) Rapists should be put to death. Find me a liberal who will state the same. If you can.
>> ^Ryjkyj:

>> ^quantumushroom:
What's the cutoff? Republicans are less than 18% of the population. Can we take away some of their rights?
I assume you support taxing people that make more money at a higher rate, punishing their success in the name of a "fair share" which is then distributed unfairly and wastefully, don't you? I assume you support preventing people in high crime areas from owning firearms, infringing on their right to self-defense with the best possible tools?

What it comes down to is gays and lesbians aren't hurting anyone by their nature.
Then do you support polygamy?

I assume you are afraid of the president because he's black. And that you think Jews are the cause of society's problems.
Don't you in fact believe that rape victims were asking for it?



Hey QM,

Rapists SHOULD be put to death.

Now what?

Right after I started kissing yours, Goofus.


>> ^KnivesOut:

QM, when did you stop beating your wife?>> ^quantumushroom:
What's the cutoff? Republicans are less than 18% of the population. Can we take away some of their rights?
I assume you support taxing people that make more money at a higher rate, punishing their success in the name of a "fair share" which is then distributed unfairly and wastefully, don't you? I assume you support preventing people in high crime areas from owning firearms, infringing on their right to self-defense with the best possible tools?

What it comes down to is gays and lesbians aren't hurting anyone by their nature.
Then do you support polygamy?

1) I don't give a crap that he's half-Black. I'm more concerned about his lack of qualifications for the Office, bowing to dictators, high unemployment, high gas prices, etc. Your Emperor wears no clothes.

2) Since I'm a Jew by blood, I'll have to get back to you on that.

3) Rapists should be put to death. Find me a liberal who will state the same. If you can.

>> ^Ryjkyj:


>> ^quantumushroom:
What's the cutoff? Republicans are less than 18% of the population. Can we take away some of their rights?
I assume you support taxing people that make more money at a higher rate, punishing their success in the name of a "fair share" which is then distributed unfairly and wastefully, don't you? I assume you support preventing people in high crime areas from owning firearms, infringing on their right to self-defense with the best possible tools?

What it comes down to is gays and lesbians aren't hurting anyone by their nature.
Then do you support polygamy?

I assume you are afraid of the president because he's black. And that you think Jews are the cause of society's problems.
Don't you in fact believe that rape victims were asking for it?

>> ^KnivesOut:

QM, do you actually stop beating off while online?>> ^quantumushroom:
What's the cutoff? Republicans are less than 18% of the population. Can we take away some of their rights?
I assume you support taxing people that make more money at a higher rate, punishing their success in the name of a "fair share" which is then distributed unfairly and wastefully, don't you? I assume you support preventing people in high crime areas from owning firearms, infringing on their right to self-defense with the best possible tools?

What it comes down to is gays and lesbians aren't hurting anyone by their nature.
Then do you support polygamy?



Fixed it for ya!

QM, when did you stop beating your wife?>> ^quantumushroom:

What's the cutoff? Republicans are less than 18% of the population. Can we take away some of their rights?
I assume you support taxing people that make more money at a higher rate, punishing their success in the name of a "fair share" which is then distributed unfairly and wastefully, don't you? I assume you support preventing people in high crime areas from owning firearms, infringing on their right to self-defense with the best possible tools?

What it comes down to is gays and lesbians aren't hurting anyone by their nature.
Then do you support polygamy?

>> ^quantumushroom:

What's the cutoff? Republicans are less than 18% of the population. Can we take away some of their rights?
I assume you support taxing people that make more money at a higher rate, punishing their success in the name of a "fair share" which is then distributed unfairly and wastefully, don't you? I assume you support preventing people in high crime areas from owning firearms, infringing on their right to self-defense with the best possible tools?

What it comes down to is gays and lesbians aren't hurting anyone by their nature.
Then do you support polygamy?


I assume you are afraid of the president because he's black. And that you think Jews are the cause of society's problems.

Don't you in fact believe that rape victims were asking for it?

QM, he was making the point that just because someone is not part of a majority, it doesn't make their nature wrong. He wasn't slamming conservative political ideology with that remark. You can calm down your automatic conservative reflux condition coughing up the virtues of conservatism.

Pedophilia is not wrong because it's abnormal. It's wrong because it turns those who are not mature enough to handle sex into sexual objects and unwitting participants, which does cause a degradation in them as a person, it's been psychologically proven to be detrimental to minors, etc. There's nothing in that that is religious, or is justified because of any person or group's moral code.

If you can't make a reasoned argument against homosexuality that doesn't involve religion, then there shouldn't be a law against it. Homosexuality doesn't cause society any ill effects, nor does it cause the moral degradation of any of its participants in and of itself. It doesn't infringe upon anyone's basic inalienable rights. If you personally think it's immoral, fine, don't engage in homosexuality, speak up about how people shouldn't be gay in church, etc. But you should also support people's right to be gay if they choose, just as I support a racist's right to publish an essay favoring racism. I find their ideas reprehensible, but I would never fight to take away their right to free speech.

Discussions about if polygamy should be legal should be framed in the same regards. Polygamy shouldn't be illegal simply because you or even a majority of Americans thinks its wrong. A majority of Americans at one point thought blacks and whites drinking from the same water fountain was wrong, too.

>> ^quantumushroom:

What's the cutoff? Republicans are less than 18% of the population. Can we take away some of their rights?
I assume you support taxing people that make more money at a higher rate, punishing their success in the name of a "fair share" which is then distributed unfairly and wastefully, don't you? I assume you support preventing people in high crime areas from owning firearms, infringing on their right to self-defense with the best possible tools?

What it comes down to is gays and lesbians aren't hurting anyone by their nature.
Then do you support polygamy?

What's the cutoff? Republicans are less than 18% of the population. Can we take away some of their rights?

I assume you support taxing people that make more money at a higher rate, punishing their success in the name of a "fair share" which is then distributed unfairly and wastefully, don't you? I assume you support preventing people in high crime areas from owning firearms, infringing on their right to self-defense with the best possible tools?


What it comes down to is gays and lesbians aren't hurting anyone by their nature.

Then do you support polygamy?

Did that cop just say he's on a street called 'Stalker'? I guess that's a high crime area. Why not just name everything after crimes, "Yeah, I'm just crossing Murder Boulevard on Rapist Drive, headed towards the Armed Robbery district."

That's some gorgeous looking news reporting right there. Dateline NBC's got nothing on these guys.

Interesting problem. It makes it tougher to compare when you're talking about such an enormous area with such a small amount of people. That same thing seems to happen when people talk about Alaska and you want to say, "well of course you have a high crime rate when you have ten people policing 100,000 square miles with two or three roads."

Impeachable offense is a high crime or misdemeanor.

War Powers Act of 1973 allows the President to use US military power for up to 90 days without a declaration of war or mandate by Congress.

This is not an impeachable offense. It's perfectly legal as laws stand. Even if you argue the War Powers Act is unconstitutional, you can't impeach a President for doing what's legal now.

Disagreeing with his decision to intervene in Libya is fine. That's a part of a healthy democracy - to question and dissent. A lot of people however need to understand an offense is NOT impeachable just because they disagree with it. I thought getting involved in Iraq was a bad idea, but that's not an impeachable offense.

I thought Bill Clinton having an affair with an intern was pretty horrible, but it's also NOT an impeachable offense. His lying about it under oath, which I honestly didn't really care about, IS impeachable because it is perjury.

The Bush administration could have been impeached for outing a CIA operative, which is treason.

I did, but it seemed like you said the reason we shouldn't care about Libya is because of Iraq. And then turned around and said this isn't like Iraq, even though it is clearly like Iraq. In other words, you were mad because this is just like Iraq, and because it isn't like Iraq.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^Ryjkyj:
Give me a fucking break.
If anything we should be pissed that he continued the bullshit in Iraq and Afghanistan. Focusing on Libya is just distracting from MAJOR, LONG TERM problems.
The UN, including America, is in Libya to prevent civilians from being murdered for protesting their government. Maybe someday someone will show that we shouldn't have done it but this video is pathetic journalism that distracts from larger and more pressing issues.
It's fucking bullshit.
Upvote to illuminate ignorance.

You mean like Iraq? We didn't already learn that lesson? I don't see how the UN removes that previous lesson...to error in crowds don't make it any less an error. Are you saying that whenever a country kills its citizens, it should be bombed? If so, then you approve of Iraq.
Edit, as an addendum, I am not sure this is an impeachable offence.
""The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States" who may only be impeached and removed for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors"." Being that the context of the War Powers Act is vague and congress hasn't repealed it, I don't see any real justification for the charge of treason or high crimes, just playing by the rules of poorly formed laws.

Hey Geesuss,
Next time, when you're going to reply to one of my comments, try reading it first. Christ on a shitwagon, you even quoted me as saying that the Libya thing is just distracting from the major, long term problem in Iraq. Why am I even repeating myself?.