I'm talking about the $2500 per inappropriate accessing of her information (which they did over 200 times). Since it's against department rules/policy, they should make the officer that does the action pay the fine personally instead of the way it's set up where the department pays for the officer's crime(s).
It seems like she's somehow not allowed to sue the department or officers for harassment or the others crimes, at least she's not doing that. (often, both the department and officer are legally shielded from responsibility for illegal actions) As I understood, the entire $500000 is ONLY about the accessing her license, and nothing is being done about the officers harassing, stalking, prank calling, threatening, intimidating, or otherwise behaving badly...nothing at all was mentioned in the article about ANY other charges...or really any charges at all for the intimidation. The only repercussion was TO HER, being forcibly moved and taken off street duty (demoted?). WTF?!?
If I ran the department, all 88 of those cops would be fired AND personally sued. It's terribly disappointing that they all seem to get off scott free, and she's still in reasonable fear for her life from the thugs in blue. If that's how they treat their own, how do these officers treat the public, certainly worse.

Black people need to tell it to black people, as they are the biggest threat.

The reason black people get stuck in the inner-city cycle is because they are threatened by other black people. That's one reason they don't cooperate with police. White people aren't going to come in and hurt them, other black people are.

2500 people shot in Chicago last year.

More hyperbole from newtboy...because he sees one arrest, he assumes all cops act this way, all arrests end this way, etc.

In 2012 there were over 12,000,000 arrests in the US for misdemeanors and felonies. I've personally seen over 2500 arrests up close and personal and I've never seen a cell phone thrown to the ground.

So while this cop acted like an ass, it doesn't mean this is normal or usual or anything else. It's a single instance.

Thank you for proving my point. 17 killed by cops in chicago in 2014. The remainder of the 2500 shot were not by cops.

500 innocent Americans killed is total bullshit anyway. I want to see names, not just some strawman argument. 11 million people are arrested every year, and many of these 'American citizens' are mental cases, gang members, hardcore criminals, drug addicts etc.

The video states that 'the DOJ estimates that 500 innocent Americans are killed every year'. I would love to see where the DOJ determines their 'innocence'. I want to see the document on that one.

And if one example (Trayvon martin) doesn't invalidate their argument, how can a handful of other examples (as seen in the video) validate it?

If 'a black man is murdered every 28 hours', then ask yourself why so many black men are resisting arrest or engaging in conduct that leads to them getting killed.

You can listen to a police scanner in any major city and the majority of calls will involve police calls for assistance regarding a black man or men engaged in violent criminal behavior. Go ahead and listen, you might learn something. And these calls are generally coming from other black people who want to be protected from the criminals who live amongst them.

The video also states that police officers always get off scott free after killing people. Give me some names. The DOJ went after Darren Wilson with everything they had and eventually had to admit that he acted properly and within the law.

'This ain't a war zone!' the man cries. Did he search everyone in that crowd? How does he know they are unarmed?

The video also concerns an Australian police action. What does that have to do with American police, which is the subject of the video?

Furthermore, the police acting improperly on the video...what is the story behind each officer? Was he/she reprimanded, suspended, fired? There is no followup, it is just assumed that they all got away with improper behavior.

The whole system is racist, says the sign. Tell it to Eric Holder, the black attorney general! lol give me a fucking break

Where is the attention given to black on black crime? You don't hear about it. 2500 people shot in Chicago last year, look it up.

Charles Shaw, you are a fraud.

Lulz, I think the fight between Jeff Goldblum and the $2500 would be interesting.

Interesting video, but I don't think he's saying anything new here.

It really does take a long time to get good at something (10000 hours seems to be the most common figure). For me I've been working at my job (programmer) for about 15 years now. So 15 years * ~45 weeks a year * ~ 35 hours a week of actual work (not counting meetings, phone calls and other distractions) = 23000 hours. So after 7 years was when I consider I became really good at my job.

Contrast that with my primary leisure activity, Aikido. I've been training for about 10 years and I usually do around 250 hours a year (roughly 5 hours a week give or take) that's still only 2500 hours. So I figure I'll be REALLY good roughly when I hit 60

Tags for this video have been changed from 'slow mo guys, gav and dan, giant bubbles' to 'slow mo guys, gav and dan, giant bubbles, 2500 fps, soap, bubble' - edited by Eklek

There is a lot missing in this report. He was eating a limit of 2000 calories daily, he may have ate 2500 a day before Mac meal plan, plus he started exercising 45 mins a day what other outcome could be expected. Not much of a science teacher. Before the Mac diet plan he was on the Burger King plan, who knows.

@alcom

I hear you shinyblurry, but I feel that your argument meanders back to the original appeal to authority that most believers resort to when justifying their positions. I also find that the related video links provided by TheGenk provide a valid refutation of the idea that God is The One who put values of good and evil inside each of us.

There is always an appeal to authority, either to God or to men. There are either objective moral values which are imposed by God, or morality is relative and determined by men. If morality is relative then there is no good or evil, and what is considered good today may be evil tomorrow. If it isn't absolutely wrong to murder indiscriminately, for instance, then if enough people agreed that it was right, it would be. Yet, this does not cohere with reality because we all know that murdering indiscriminately is absolutely wrong. The true test of a worldview is its coherence to reality and atheism is incoherent with our experience, whereas Christian theism describes it perfectly.

If you feel the videos provide a valid refutation, could you articulate the argument that they are using so we can discuss them here?

In my mind, Zacharias' incoherence with the atheist's ability to love and live morally is influenced by his own understanding of the source of moral truth. Because he defines the origin of pure love as Jesus' sacrifice on behalf of mankind, it is unfathomable to him that love could be found as a result of human survival/selection based of traits of cooperation, peace and mutual benefits of our social structure. His logic is therefore coloured and his mind is closed to certain ideas and possibilities.

The idea of agape love is a Christian idea, and agape love is unconditional love. You do not get agape love out of natural selection because it is sacrificial and sacrificing your well being or your life has a very negative impact on your chance to survive and pass on your genes. However, Christ provided the perfect example of agape love by sacrificing His life not only for His friends and family, but for people who hate and despise Him. In the natural sense, since Jesus failed to pass on His genes His traits should be selected out of the gene pool. Christ demonstrated a higher love that transcends the worldly idea of love. Often when the world speaks of love, it is speaking of eros love, which is love based on physical attraction, or philial love, which is brotherly love. The world knows very little of agape love outside of Christ. Christ taught agape love as the universal duty of men towards God:

Luke 6:27 "But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,
Luke 6:28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you.
Luke 6:29 To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either.
Luke 6:30 Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods do not demand them back.
Luke 6:31 And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them.
Luke 6:32 "If you love those who love you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them.
Luke 6:33 And if you do good to those who do good to you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners do the same.
Luke 6:34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to get back the same amount.
Luke 6:35 But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil.
Luke 6:36 Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful.

Indeed, moral foundations can and must change with the times. As our understanding of empathy, personal freedoms and the greater good of mankind develops with our societal and cultural evolution, so too must our standards of morality. This is most evident when concepts such as slavery and revenge (an eye for an eye) are seen as commonplace and acceptable throughout old scripture where modern society has evolved a greater understanding of the need for equality and basic human rights and policing and corrections as a measure of deterrence and rehabilitation for those individuals that stray from the path of greatest utility.

This is why slavery is no more, why racism is in decline and why eventually gay rights and green thought will be universal and our struggle to stifle the rights of gays and exploit the planet's resources to the point of our own self-extinction simply will be seen by future historians as sheer ignorance. Leviticus still pops up when people try to brand gays as deviant, even though most it is itself incoherent by today's standards. Remember that "defecating within the camp was unacceptable lest God step in it while walking in the evening." Well, today we just call that sewage management.

Some people, like Richard Dawkins, see infanticide as being the greatest utility. Some believe that to save the planet around 70 percent of the population must be exterminated. Green thought is to value the health of the planet above individual lives; to basically say that human lives are expendable to preserve the collective. This is why abortion is not questionable to many who hold these ideals; because human life isn't that valuable to them. I see many who have green thoughts contrast human beings to cattle or cockroaches. Utility is an insufficient moral standard because it is in the eye of the beholder.

In regards to the Levitical laws, those were given to the Jews and not the world, and for that time and place. God made a covenant with the Jewish people which they agreed to follow. The covenant God made with the world through Christ is different than the Mosaic law, and it makes those older laws irrelevant. If you would like to understand why God would give laws regarding slavery, or homosexuality, I can elucidate further.

In regards to your paraphrasing of Deuteronomy 23:13-14, this is really a classic example of how the scripture can be made to look like it is saying one thing, when it is actually saying something completely different. Did you read this scripture? It does not say that:

Deuteronomy 23:13 And you shall have a trowel with your tools, and when you sit down outside, you shall dig a hole with it and turn back and cover up your excrement.

Deuteronomy 23:14 Because the LORD your God walks in the midst of your camp, to deliver you and to give up your enemies before you, therefore your camp must be holy, so that he may not see anything indecent among you and turn away from you.

Gods home on Earth was in the tabernacle, and because God dwelled with His people, He exorted them to keep the camp holy out of reverence for Him.

The rules that God gave for cleanliness were 2500 years ahead of their time:

"In the Bible greater stress was placed upon prevention of disease than was given to the treatment of bodily ailments, and in this no race of people, before or since, has left us such a wealth of LAWS RELATIVE TO HYGIENE AND SANITATION as the Hebrews. These important laws, coming down through the ages, are still used to a marked degree in every country in the world sufficiently enlightened to observe them. One has but to read the book of Leviticus carefully and thoughtfully to conclude that the admonitions of Moses contained therein are, in fact, the groundwork of most of today's sanitary laws. As one closes the book, he must, regardless of his spiritual leanings, feel that the wisdom therein expressed regarding the rules to protect health are superior to any which then existed in the world and that to this day they have been little improved upon" (Magic, Myth and Medicine, Atkinson, p. 20). Dr. D. T. Atkinson

What's interesting about that is that Moses was trained in the knowledge of the Egyptians, the most advanced civilization in the world at that time. Yet you will not find even a shred of it in the bible. Their understanding of medicine at that time led to them doing things like rubbing feces into wounds; ie, it was completely primitive in comparison to the commands that God gave to Moses about cleanliness. Moses didn't know about germs but God did.

Paedophilia will never emerge as acceptable because it violates our basic understanding of human rights and the acceptable age of sexual consent. I know this is a common warning about the "slippery slope of a Godless definition of morality," but it's really a red herring. Do you honestly think society would someday deem that it carries a benefit to society? I just can't see it happening.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_Ancient_Greece

If only you knew the slightest bit about philosophy. But no, you have an understanding of what your religion says, which is *THEOLOGY*, not philosophy.

Proof: You attempt to 'prove' that empiricism, a 'theory of knowledge' that was ancient when his religion was founded, and is still considered an important pillar in modern philosophy and theology, is "false" in a self-referential statement.

In the entirety of civilization, in EVERY SINGLE ERA of man, the greatest thinkers have been consumed with empiricism... but unfortunately they lacked SB's supreme insight... too bad SB wasn't born 2500 years ago... he could have ensured that Aristotle didn't waste his time.... OH, and he could have warned Jesus about that bastard Judas.

If only you knew the slightest bit about philosophy. But no, you have an understanding of what your religion says, which is *THEOLOGY*, not philosophy.

Proof: You attempt to 'prove' that empiricism, a 'theory of knowledge' that was ancient when his religion was founded, and is still considered an important pillar in modern philosophy and theology, is "false" in a self-referential statement.

In the entirety of civilization, in EVERY SINGLE ERA of man, the greatest thinkers have been consumed with empiricism... but unfortunately they lacked SB's supreme insight... too bad SB wasn't born 2500 years ago... he could have ensured that Aristotle didn't waste his time.... OH, and he could have warned Jesus about that bastard Judas.

Some Korean blokes sitting behind me were rather giddy when "wop" was mentioned, even before the translator came around to it.

Still, ~2500 nerds calmly saying "wop" on command... that's something.

Thank you QM for that thoughtful reply.

It just seems that the imbalance right now is in demand, not the availability of capitol to invest.


>> ^quantumushroom:

Your logic isn't flawed per se, just incomplete.
In an unstable environment like the one created by Obama and his ilk, no sane wealthy person is going to expand businesses or invest.
Lower tax rates mean more investing and more lending to entrepreneurs. It also means less "hoarding" by the wealthy, who in an electronic world can transfer monies rapidly and keep them parked elsewhere.
The idea is that even though the tax rate is lower, there is more economic activity, and thus greater revenue.
Taxation is only half of the equation, the other is spending. Government spending will certainly not stop under a Romney Administration; a continuing taxocrat-majority Congress means spending will barely slow down.

Outrage over the Ryan proposal is selective at best. His Earness has already screwed the middle-class. Here are the new taxes the middle class will be paying for Obamacare. The ink is already dry.
>> ^TheFreak:
Give me $2500 over a year and it will all be spent on household expenses in the bat of an eye, directly into the economy. Give $250,000 to a millionaire and what exactly is it going to do? How is that money going to stimulate the economy better than the millions they're already hoarding?
Someone give me a coherent argument for how an extra fraction of wealth is going to encourage these people to invest and grow anything. Show me the flaw in my logic.

Your logic isn't flawed per se, just incomplete.

In an unstable environment like the one created by Obama and his ilk, no sane wealthy person is going to expand businesses or invest.

Lower tax rates mean more investing and more lending to entrepreneurs. It also means less "hoarding" by the wealthy, who in an electronic world can transfer monies rapidly and keep them parked elsewhere.

The idea is that even though the tax rate is lower, there is more economic activity, and thus greater revenue.

Taxation is only half of the equation, the other is spending. Government spending will certainly not stop under a Romney Administration; a continuing taxocrat-majority Congress means spending will barely slow down.


Outrage over the Ryan proposal is selective at best. His Earness has already screwed the middle-class. Here are the new taxes the middle class will be paying for Obamacare. The ink is already dry.

>> ^TheFreak:

Give me $2500 over a year and it will all be spent on household expenses in the bat of an eye, directly into the economy. Give $250,000 to a millionaire and what exactly is it going to do? How is that money going to stimulate the economy better than the millions they're already hoarding?
Someone give me a coherent argument for how an extra fraction of wealth is going to encourage these people to invest and grow anything. Show me the flaw in my logic.