I know my enemies and my friends and allies. I also have become quite deft at disengaging a potentially hind-brained copper from his predictable, robotic license.

My general rule of thumb is polite, courteous, etc.-Keep the robot's heart-rate down, make them feel in control, cooperate.

Sometimes this does not work, especially the further out of the city you travel, constables and sheriffs necks tend to be redder...This is Texas, you must remember and while the pigs of Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama, Georgia, Carolinas (deep south) are much worse, you still have to factor in asshole-redneck-douchebag.

In the event I get no quarter from a cop who's simply human garbage, I let rip with my assessment, this after I already know I'm going to jail. Every time this has happened incidentally, was for unpaid parking tickets, and once for possession of an oz. of weed, which the prick searched my vehicle about 30 mins. for before he found it....A total piece of shit, this assessed after an attempt at a conversation with the asshole-The cunt risked my life with his driving as well, breaking all speed limits to get me downtown to county, probably because I would not stop verbally assaulting him from the backseat...He deserved all I had and more, the buzz-killing prick who was "JUST DOING HIS JOB."

Here's to all the people who scream "TROLL" whenever someone leaves one remark on a post without returning for a "discussion" (perhaps that's all that one felt needed said to make a simple point?)


@shatterdose "Who typically freaks out? People that are guilty or crazy"-That sounds like a willing herd animal using broad generalizations in favor of a police state.

@arekin-Agreed-I am not implying that I would have handled this scenario any differently-

@bmacs27-All relevant and valid observations-Our distrust, fear and derision of cops in the U.S. comes from conditioning-The so-called, "war on drugs" has been the bane of law enforcement since prohibition, that and CORRUPTION from top to bottom-

@moopysnooze THANK YOU!!?? How much more WILL the cattle take, eh??

I haven't seen this ad before. I have seen the coal miner ad. Where they were told to go to the Romney rally during a work day, unpaid. And that it was mandatory. Kinda leads me to believe they will be told to vote for him as well.

Some more about this boss guy here:

http://videosift.com/video/Miners-attendance-at-Rmoney-rally-mandatory-and-unpaid

>> ^hpqp:

>> ^Lendl:
>> ^KnivesOut:
Methinks someone doesn't know what "mandatory" means.>> ^Lendl:
"...attendance at the Romney event was mandatory, but no one was forced to attend."
wtf??


No kidding...
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

To be fair (something the "great boss" wasn't), it is not necessarily a contradiction in terms if by "mandatory" you mean "must attend" but by "no one was forced to attend" you mean "not dragged there / brought their at gunpoint". A clarifying example: "it is mandatory to attend primary school, but no one is forced."


I suppose his argument would be then, "Look I only threatened their jobs...I didn't shoot them and bring their bloody corpses to the rally, I'm reasonable!"

>> ^Lendl:

>> ^KnivesOut:
Methinks someone doesn't know what "mandatory" means.>> ^Lendl:
"...attendance at the Romney event was mandatory, but no one was forced to attend."
wtf??


No kidding...
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."


To be fair (something the "great boss" wasn't), it is not necessarily a contradiction in terms if by "mandatory" you mean "must attend" but by "no one was forced to attend" you mean "not dragged there / brought their at gunpoint". A clarifying example: "it is mandatory to attend primary school, but no one is forced."

>> ^KnivesOut:

Methinks someone doesn't know what "mandatory" means.>> ^Lendl:
"...attendance at the Romney event was mandatory, but no one was forced to attend."
wtf??



No kidding...

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Methinks someone doesn't know what "mandatory" means.>> ^Lendl:

"...attendance at the Romney event was mandatory, but no one was forced to attend."
wtf??

>> ^kymbos:

I was trying to think of a reason that it was different from the birth certificate thing. I mean, there are slight differences, but I can't see it as being much different.


Because the Birthers just gave Obama a giant Fuck You card to play at the moment of his choice, which he duly did:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9mzJhvC-8E&sns=em

Of course, if he had been Kenyan that would not have demonstrated a moral vacuum (unless you're on the hard right) but it would have shown dishonesty and knocked him out of the race.

So Romney BEING CAUGHT STEALING from his fellow citizens AND LYING ABOUT IT is similar in outcome -if true- but also on a pretty different moral scale IMHO.

Either he plays his Fuck You card or he's out.
Or more likely, the Republican voters will just have to take their world beating cognitive dissonance to an even more cosmic level so they can vote for EXACTLY the kind of royal vulture asshole they complain about ruining their country..

The choices today are bad and worse, although I think that Romney has proven experience leading, creating wealth, and governing, whereas Obama..well, we've seen what that looks like. It's clear this country needs to go in a new direction..I wish it wouldn't have to be Romney, but I don't think America can take another 4 years of Obama and survive.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^shinyblurry:
I don't see why Romney should release his tax records. The Obama campaign is simply fishing for more ammunition to paint Romney as a rich elitist, so in effect they are calling for Romney to produce a club so that they can beat him over the head with it. So I don't really see a compelling reason for Romney to do it.
Personally, I'm an independent. I would ask liberals though, if you could stop clamoring for the red meat the DNC is throwing to you for a second and look at the world objectively, how is it that you can come away with any other opinion than that the Obama presidency is a major disappointment? Why would you vote for him again? Can you articulate anything convincing? Obama campaigned in 2008 on hope and change, as a messianic figure who would fundamentally transform this country and fix everything. He said if he didn't it would be a one term proposition. Obviously none of that happened and the country is in even worse shape, and bitterly divided along political, class and racial lines. It has never been more divisive. Instead of hope and change we get slash and burn. Instead of a principled reformer we get a bitter partisan playing dirty politics; ie, a typical politician. Why in the world shouldn't it be a one term proposition? He isn't the man he said he was by any measure, and basically he has run this country into the ground. Don't you have a sense of self preservation?

Quite a number of "liberals" on the sift and elsewhere have stated openly that Obama is a disappointment.
But the real disappointment is that no matter how bad he is, he's still an order of magnitude better than any candidate the republicans put forward.

>> ^shinyblurry:

I don't see why Romney should release his tax records. The Obama campaign is simply fishing for more ammunition to paint Romney as a rich elitist, so in effect they are calling for Romney to produce a club so that they can beat him over the head with it. So I don't really see a compelling reason for Romney to do it.
Personally, I'm an independent. I would ask liberals though, if you could stop clamoring for the red meat the DNC is throwing to you for a second and look at the world objectively, how is it that you can come away with any other opinion than that the Obama presidency is a major disappointment? Why would you vote for him again? Can you articulate anything convincing? Obama campaigned in 2008 on hope and change, as a messianic figure who would fundamentally transform this country and fix everything. He said if he didn't it would be a one term proposition. Obviously none of that happened and the country is in even worse shape, and bitterly divided along political, class and racial lines. It has never been more divisive. Instead of hope and change we get slash and burn. Instead of a principled reformer we get a bitter partisan playing dirty politics; ie, a typical politician. Why in the world shouldn't it be a one term proposition? He isn't the man he said he was by any measure, and basically he has run this country into the ground. Don't you have a sense of self preservation?


Quite a number of "liberals" on the sift and elsewhere have stated openly that Obama is a disappointment.

But the real disappointment is that no matter how bad he is, he's still an order of magnitude better than any candidate the republicans put forward.

>> ^nock:

Interesting, but invalid point Mashiki. In the case of Reid, he may or may not beat his wife, hard to prove either way. But with Romney, there is an easy answer to prove how much tax he paid - release the returns.


Really? Because this is birther level material that he's "hinting" at. The fact that the left is harping over it in the same way is just as telling. And should be dismissed just as much. Either that, or various members of obama's cabinet should come clean first on all of their taxes. And Obama should come clean on all of his law review papers first.

>> ^nock:

It's a win-win for Reid. Either he goes on saying Mittens is dirty until it sticks or Romney releases his returns and gets made out to be a sleazy bastard anyways since he probably legally paid 15% or much less.


Obviously Reid has a serious Pederasty issue he needs to clear up. And it's up to him to prove it, I heard that it's true. And he still beats his wife, so when is he going to come clean and stop beating his wife?

I said "legally" can't not report it.

This amnesty program is about tax cheats about to be caught. Which isn't the olly olly oxen free deal. That was about corporations working solely on foreign soil.

Although there is an interesting point buried in here....

IF Rmoney in PRIOR YEARS hadn't reported his Swiss earnings, that would show up on prior years' tax returns. 2006-2009 no Swiss earnings, then, boom, amnesty for prior years and the Swiss earnings show up.

I doubt that he would do that, though. His presidential ambitions have been blatant for years. To lie on his tax returns with the possibility of getting caught.... I doubt he would do that.

Of course, Dem Charles Rangel didn't report the rental income from his Jamaican property. Maybe Rmoney would be that stupid.

I doubt it though....



>> ^ObsidianStorm:

Well, I don't claim to be an expert on the topic but from what I have read about the 2009 amnesty program, it appears to apply to individuals with Swiss bank accounts...

From the Oct 2009 LA Times,
"Some 3,000 U.S. residents have voluntarily disclosed their foreign bank accounts to the IRS this year, compared to fewer than 100 in 2008, said one U.S. government official who asked not to be identified.
Demand for the amnesty program exploded in August when Swiss bank UBS agreed to settle U.S. criminal charges that it had engaged in a "multibillion-dollar scheme" to help U.S. taxpayers hide assets from the IRS."

Admittedly this is just speculation and I have no proof that Romney ever did this. But to state the obvious, whatever is in his tax returns is political kryptonite or he would never put up with the beating he's taking (and will continue to take) for this...

>> ^PostalBlowfish:

Reid is really doing nothing that Fox News doesn't do constantly.


I think that's exactly what people are criticizing Reid for. "Don't do anything Fox News wouldn't constantly do" is a pretty low ethical standard.

Your video, Reid Hitting Romney Hard Over (Possibly) Unpaid Taxes, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.