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??

Tags for this video have been changed from 'walmart, greeter, mr willie, bam, arkansas, maumelle' to 'walmart, greeter, mr willie, bam, arkansas, maumelle, fist bump' - edited by xxovercastxx

These are pretty mild, really.

See http://www.dumblaws.com/

In NY it's legal for women to go topless but illegal to wear form-fitting clothing.

In NY it's illegal to walk around with an ice cream cone in your pocket on Sunday.

In AL it's illegal to have an ice cream cone in your back pocket.

In GA it's illegal to carry an ice cream cone in your back pocket on Sunday.

(WTF was this ice cream cone fetish people had back in the day?)

In AZ, it's illegal to have more than 2 dildos in a house. (Presumably you can keep the rest in the shed.)

In AK it's illegal to mispronounce Arkansas.

In FL it's illegal to have sex in any position but missionary and never with a porcupine.

In MA, goatees are illegal unless you've paid the fee for a license.

And there are so many more...

Arkansas representing.

it all started to change when Americans rebelled against biblical morality in the 60's and 70's. Before that, we had Christian values and a Christian culture


The 50s were an aberration, not the norm for all time before the horrible 60s. This is a ridiculous untruth propagated by people who grew up in the 50s and who, in the US, are bitter about losing a cultural war. Much of the reason the 50s were so explicitly religious was because of government intervention - explicit religion was seen as a counter to communism. Other than that, it was a generational effect, you can see the cycle through history. In terms of overall morality, I'll take now - a time without slavery, less crime, and much more protection for the bullied in general - over pretty much any point in history.

I mean, there were certainly positives to the 1950s if you were a middle-to-upper-class white male but it really sucked for most other people.

As to now, the biggest immoral behavior I see the US doing right now is slaughtering people overseas. I'm waiting for the time when warmongering candidates can't get support in Tennessee because of all the Christians. Oh wait, it's not warmongering they hate, it's "differing slightly on religious views".

who do you think is running all of those food banks and homeless shelters?


And who is fighting hardest against universal healthcare, foodstamps, and progressive taxation? Most people (of any kind) are good and want to help the underprivileged; mostly they just differ on how to administer that aid.

For instance, arkansas is one of the most charitible states, whose citizens give around 3.9 percent of their income


According to this - http://www.forbes.com/2005/11/23/most-charitable-states-cx_lh_1125home_ls.html - the #1 state is Utah. Hmmm... I wonder why? Maybe it's because they're browbeaten by their church into donating? Too bad they're not Christians, eh Shiny, or you could take credit for them. On the whole, I think it's ridiculous to count donations to a Church as wholly charitable for this purpose. A donation to a church is partially going to support charitable stuff, but largely is going to support building a church, heating it, maintaining it, advertising it, supplying it, and paying people who work there (the same as a donation to Applebee's).

It's simply another anti-christian vehicle that atheists will all nod their head and agree with without any thoughtful analysis.


Speaking for myself, I made it about 10 seconds in before it annoyed me too much to keep watching. Annoying voice, cliche, stupid non-jokes.

80 percent of the country may claim to be Christian, but the real question is, how many of those are born again? I would be surprised if the number was even half of that. This pseudo-christ may have some points, but it's based on a faulty premise; that America is still a Christian nation. It was at one time, but no longer; it all started to change when Americans rebelled against biblical morality in the 60's and 70's. Before that, we had Christian values and a Christian culture. It wasn't perfect by any means; there were many problems. But on the main Americans were a moral people, and this was a wonderful country to grow up in. Now, after decades of secular indoctrination, the foundations have been ripped away and replaced with secular values and secular culture, and we see the fruit of that, in all areas of American life.

As far as helping people is concerned, Christians are by far the most charitible people in the country..who do you think is running all of those food banks and homeless shelters? Those making 49,000 or less gave 3 1/2 times more than secular citizens with the same income, donated twice as much of their time, were 57 percent more likely to help a homeless person and two thirds more likely to donate blood. Another interesting fact is if you compare two secular people..one raised in a religious household and one who is not, the one with a religious upbringing is twice as likely to donate money to charity.

Because religious and secular citizens tend to cluster together, you also have different parts of the country that are more charitible than others. For instance, arkansas is one of the most charitible states, whose citizens give around 3.9 percent of their income, versus the citizens of Massachusetts, who only give 1.8 percent of their income, which is one of the least charitible. Or that the citizens of South Dakota give away 75 percent more of their income than the citizens of San Francisco.

That still isn't really that significant for what we are commanded to do. Christ called us to a higher standard, one that is separated from the gross materialism of this age. I can agree with the criticism in that manner, but God intends to have Christians reach people in different ways. He gives all of us different gifts, but He intends for us to use those gifts for His purposes. It is okay for a Christian to have wealth, if He is using that wealth to do Gods will.

In any case, the church in general will certainly have a lot to answer for when Christ returns, but this commentary is not an accurate reflection of that. It's simply another anti-christian vehicle that atheists will all nod their head and agree with without any thoughtful analysis.

From a cotton farm in Turkey Scratch Arkansas to the very pinnacle of the music world. 71 year old Levon Helm will soon be gone. Thought I'd post this tribute song written by Elton John from his 1971 album "Madman Across the Water".

Story here. http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Entertainment/Music/6474166/story.html

From the above story "Born May 26, 1940, in Turkey Scratch, Arkansas, the son of cotton farmers, he learned to play guitar and drums as a child. By 17 he was appearing in honky tonks in and around nearby Helena and taking in performance by such southern legends as Conway Twitty, Elvis Presley, Bo Diddley, and Ronnie Hawkins.

He joined Hawkins’ rockabilly band The Hawks just before they moved to Canada in the late 1950s.

In the early 1960s, Helm and Hawkins recruited Canadians Robbie Robertson (guitar), Rick Danko (bass) and pianist Richard Manuel and organist Garth Hudson. They left Hawkins and toured as Levon and the Hawks before backing Bob Dylan in the mid-60s. Fans weren’t initially receptive to Dylan’s switch from acoustic folky to electric folk-rocker, and Helm headed back south, working on offshore oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico for a couple of years until bassist Rick Danko asked him to rejoin the group that would become known around the world as, simply, The Band"

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/health/Levon+Helm+near+death+wife+daughter+with+videos/6474166/story.html#ixzz1sLwHMdvM

>> ^longde:

@Gallowflak, so where do you place sport hunting/sport fishing? Where the utility in that?


Its actual utility is questionable, but I still think there's a clear gulf between that and, to put it one way, inflicting suffering pointlessly.

It really depends on the intentions of the person. I don't think that most hunters are out to cause suffering; they're out to indulge themselves in their activity. Inflicting cruelty isn't the objective, then, and it's a very different psychological process.

The question is: what are the origins of this behaviour? What does it mean? How does it reflect on the person acting in that way?

And my argument is that those who act to cause pain and suffering (esp. on a sentient entity) and are capable of doing this without remorse, and without empathy, are dangerous, disgusting and obscene.

>> ^longde:

I'll only accept that argument from vegans. The rest of us humans inflict horrible suffering on animals (or directly benefit from it) all the time. I think what the data referenced above shows is that many or most people who are sadistic fiends have once hurt animals, not the opposite, that most people who hurt animals will turn into sadistic fiends (unproven, but could be true).
What separates a cat from a cockroach? Both are animals, right? I have horribly murdered so many cockroaches and flies it's ridiculous. I knew kids who used to kick over or flood ant mounds. Lemme check facebook...yep, all psychopaths.
The reason doesn't matter if the concern is for the suffering of sentient beings, right? So, what about sport hunters? Butchers? Livestock Farmers? Chefs? You get the point. All these people inflict great pain on animals. I guess my whole extended family are closet ax murderers, since it contains sport hunters, sport fishermen, people who raise and slaughter hogs, etc.....and people who used to go to Red Lobster on weekends.
I myself don't think cats are any more entitled than hogs, deer, chickens, lobsters and cows...or flies and cockroaches. And certainly not on the same level as humans (which too many people believe). So, while I recognize that cats et al suffer, feel empathy and would never hurt any animal (I don't even like killing spiders now; even at the behest of my wife) ; I can't get as worked up over this as some of you are.

(BTW, this conversation reminds me of the Lawrence Block story "How would you like it?")
edit: except mosquitoes. >> ^Gallowflak:
>> ^longde:
I think its inhumane, but cat's aren't people. Doing this to a cat does not necessarily mean they could do it to a person, IMO.
>> ^Jinx:
Psychopath. Honestly, if you can be that cruel to an animal I don't really believe they won't do it to a human. Just a complete lack of empathy.


What does it show? That they're able to inflict horrible suffering on a creature without being halted by such measly things as compassion or empathy. An act like this is a huge warning sign that we're dealing with a morally bankrupt piece of shit, at the least, or psychopath, at the worst.
A human being without empathy who acts immorally is someone who, if rehabilitation isn't possible, the community needs to get rid of.



Yes, we all benefit from the suffering of animals, that's true, but there's not an equivalence between that and inflicting it oneself.

There's a vast difference between animals suffering as a consequence of an action that has utility and inflicting suffering for its own sake.

I hate animal abuse, and suspect more people would readily shoot a human in the act of beating a dog or cat than beating another human.

If it had been a story about a conservative's cat killed by a seemingly liberal fiend,

1) You wouldn't have seen it. Ever. Perhaps on Fox.

2) Of if you did see it on CNN or in the NYT the slant would be, 'Mean rich conservative kept cat outdoors and vulnerable.'

Don't deny this.

And enough downvoting of longde's comments, already. His argument may not be popular, but it's logical.

The slaughter of animals for human consumption and products is tragic 'from a certain point of view', but in many of those processes the animals are killed as humanely as possible.

A random a-hole assaulting living creatures without purpose should appreciate the karmic receipt for such violence, especially from club-wielding bystanders.


>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

That's not fair. I would be surprised if he wasn't as disgusted by this as the rest of us.
(Please don't surprise me, qm) >> ^ChaosEngine:
>> Quantummushroom said: What the liberal cat-owning taxocrats fail to realise is that leftists have a long history of cat mutilation, as shown by their cat-hater-in-chief, Odumba.
Just saving him the trouble.

The Boston Bruins goalie. The Bruins met with Obama that day so he could congratulate them on winning the Stanley Cup, but Thomas refused to go citing 'political differences' with the president. Now we know how he spent his time.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Who is that? >> ^Drachen_Jager:
It was probably Tim Thomas on his day off.

I'll only accept that argument from vegans. The rest of us humans inflict horrible suffering on animals (or directly benefit from it) all the time. I think what the data referenced above shows is that many or most people who are sadistic fiends have once hurt animals, not the opposite, that most people who hurt animals will turn into sadistic fiends (unproven, but could be true).

What separates a cat from a cockroach? Both are animals, right? I have horribly murdered so many cockroaches and flies it's ridiculous. I knew kids who used to kick over or flood ant mounds. Lemme check facebook...yep, all psychopaths.

The reason doesn't matter if the concern is for the suffering of sentient beings, right? So, what about sport hunters? Butchers? Livestock Farmers? Chefs? You get the point. All these people inflict great pain on animals. I guess my whole extended family are closet ax murderers, since it contains sport hunters, sport fishermen, people who raise and slaughter hogs, etc.....and people who used to go to Red Lobster on weekends.

I myself don't think cats are any more entitled than hogs, deer, chickens, lobsters and cows...or flies and cockroaches. And certainly not on the same level as humans (which too many people believe). So, while I recognize that cats et al suffer, feel empathy and would never hurt any animal (I don't even like killing spiders now; even at the behest of my wife)*; I can't get as worked up over this as some of you are.


(BTW, this conversation reminds me of the Lawrence Block story "How would you like it?")

*edit: except mosquitoes. >> ^Gallowflak:

>> ^longde:
I think its inhumane, but cat's aren't people. Doing this to a cat does not necessarily mean they could do it to a person, IMO.
>> ^Jinx:
Psychopath. Honestly, if you can be that cruel to an animal I don't really believe they won't do it to a human. Just a complete lack of empathy.


What does it show? That they're able to inflict horrible suffering on a creature without being halted by such measly things as compassion or empathy. An act like this is a huge warning sign that we're dealing with a morally bankrupt piece of shit, at the least, or psychopath, at the worst.
A human being without empathy who acts immorally is someone who, if rehabilitation isn't possible, the community needs to get rid of.

>> ^longde:

I think its inhumane, but cat's aren't people. Doing this to a cat does not necessarily mean they could do it to a person, IMO.
>> ^Jinx:
Psychopath. Honestly, if you can be that cruel to an animal I don't really believe they won't do it to a human. Just a complete lack of empathy.



What does it show? That they're able to inflict horrible suffering on a creature without being halted by such measly things as compassion or empathy. An act like this is a huge warning sign that we're dealing with a morally bankrupt piece of shit, at the least, or psychopath, at the worst.

A human being without empathy who acts immorally is someone who, if rehabilitation isn't possible, the community needs to get rid of.

Who is that? >> ^Drachen_Jager:

It was probably Tim Thomas on his day off.

That's not fair. I would be surprised if he wasn't as disgusted by this as the rest of us.

(Please don't surprise me, qm) >> ^ChaosEngine:

>> Quantummushroom said: What the liberal cat-owning taxocrats fail to realise is that leftists have a long history of cat mutilation, as shown by their cat-hater-in-chief, Odumba.
Just saving him the trouble.