Actually, I do have a point and I am not arguing. Its called debating a difference of opinion. Other instances are not just other instances. They groom the way we act and react to situations based on past examples of previous encounters and behaviors. This guy tried to 1: Evade police in his car, 2: endangered the public in doing so, 3: refused to obey the officers requests to stay back, 4: verbally provoked the officer, 5: acted erratically once out of the car. This all attributed to a hostile situation. I'm sorry you decide to "argue" irrational points of golden firearms and laser beams. It seems you're the one with no point. You say that nobody knows another persons intentions. By that same fact, how do you know this guy was going to be non-violent after disregarding the officers simple command to stay back and advanced towards the officer. The suspects actions contributed to the outcome of the situation as much as the way the officers did.

"Good Bye."

You don't know what the suspects intentions were. Why was he ignoring the officers commands? Why was he verbally provoking the officer? You seem to miss the fact that the suspect first was trying to evade capture. Is he capable of trying something more drastic? It only takes 2 second for the situation to go another direction.

This guy looks friendly enough, coming out to meet the officer. He's just shuffling back to his truck to get his information right? Wrong.
https://youtu.be/eSxuhZ3HdQo

Not only did the german ship seem dangerously close to the bank to begin with, they seem to have overcorrected a massive amount when they had plenty of time to reverse thrust.
At the same time, it didn't seem like the Singapore ship even tried to evade an obvious vector of collision. Crazy.

However in the United States, the exact opposite is true, because, as I said above, the effect of a law is defined by the reaction of those who are subject to it. Not all people respond the same to laws everywhere around the world and, as we see, time and time and time again, in the United States, legislation does effect the amount of guns in circulation nor does it effect people's use of them.

Comparing gun control in other countries to gun control in the United States is about as fruitful as comparing comparing drug policies in Colombia with drug policies in the U.S.

But alas, this common sense notion continues to evade most people. Which is why this and every other debate on the subject has had and will continue to have exactly zero effect on gun control policies in the United States.

But, you can waste your time... nobody's trying to pass a law to stop you from doing that (yet)!

I do this with my dogs as well, but not this EPIC! As for the stop signs, when you skate for many, many years it's easy to stop, go, dodge, evade, etc. It's mostly cringe worthy for others who don't understand the tempo and law of the board.

You evaded his question.

The question isn't whose terrorists are "badder." Nevermind the fact I find it hard to swallow your argument that Ireland's terrorists are "less bad" than Afghanistan's/Pakistan's because they were willing to use political means in addition to their violence against civilians to achieve their aims. I think it is pretty safe to assume if Britain had had access to the drone technology during The Troubles it would have used it. British forces didn't seem to have any trouble with shooting civilians during the conflict, nor unlawfully (and often indefinitely) detaining them.

The question is, if Americans are in support of remote assassinations that are carried out by executive decision without scrutiny from courts or any sort of due process, how can they possibly decry the use of such strikes by foreign powers against American citizens?

And there is only one plausible answer to that question--they can't.

@ChaosEngine is saying that these drone strikes, if internationally sanctioned, will open Pandora's box. What say you to that?

@A10anis

They probably didn't let the lions hunt it because there would be a chance of the lions being injured during an actual hunt (for example, if the giraffe fell over on top of one of the lions).

Also, there is probably not enough room in the zoo for an open hunt. And it seems even crueler than killing the giraffe outright. The animal will run for its life in terror and might even evade the lions for a while but since the hunt must take place in an enclosed area there's no hope of escape for it.

And as others have mentioned, the death itself would be a lot more painful.

yeah I'm necroposting, wanna fight about it?

It's not that they're dumb. pointing a finger at a creationist and saying they're stupid is a cop out. It's a little more complex than that.

They're evading responsibility. The god delusion is their scapegoat, whenever something bad happens, They evade and just say god did it. It's not a failure of ethics or a teachable moment, nah, god did it. Acknowledging that god doesn't exist is admitting that we're responsible for all of our past, present, and future misdeeds and failures and you can always count on us humans to avoid responsibility whenever possible.

we've already surpassed far beyond biblical morality by acknowledging that slavery is unacceptable and stoning people is unacceptable, but we still have many more moral struggles to overcome. These struggles are hard, but instead of dealing with harsh reality and answering tough questions, again, they cop out and blame it all on god instead of accepting responsibility for their own actions and failures.

Acknowledging that it's on us to create a just and ethical society that works for everyone and not just the privileged few is too much for some people...just blame it on god and go back to watching the tube. Screw this pesky critical thinking gig.

awwww..did the big bad man on the internet hurt your feelings? How can you have possibly survived the internet for this long with such thin skin. Your "hurt" feelings are just another attempt at distraction and use of emotional manipulation.

No one cares about this argument eh? hrm, that's funny, *you* cared enough to reply to perpetuate it. Again...and again....and again. So, another failed argument. You have a decision to make. I hope you make the correct one.

Lets summarize shall we? You haven't demonstrated how more gun control makes anyone less free, you haven't defined what freedom is or how you even measure it. You keep attempting to evade these questions and tug at heart strings by using words like freedom, and coercion to attempt to manipulate the argument. You make repeated false equivalencies. And you have made no attempt to justify why the right to bear arms is exempt from requirements and other controls the same way other rights and freedoms have requirements and controls.

I answered your question yet you continue to pretend otherwise. I showed you numerous examples of requirements before freedoms and rights are granted and no one is claiming they are less free because of them. You make the claim that people are less free because of gun control but you REPEATEDLY fail to demonstrate how other than to suggest we should be an anarchy. Who cares how many people suffer, they'll learn their lesson eventually right?? right?? Sorry, we tried anarchy, didn't work..we moved on. Just because you wrapped your claim in the form of a question doesn't mean shit other than you're really to play Jeopardy with Alex Trebek. You're still making a claim that people will be less responsible with less freedom. Its your claim, you need to prove it. I've said this before and you still haven't done it.

Debate??!! Who said this was a debate? This is an internet forum. This is merely someone calling another person out on their BS I guess we can add strawman to the list of your logical fallacies now. That and you're making another attempt at distraction. There are actual rules in debate. Oh wait, you think rules take away freedom so I guess you won't be participating.

Don't cry foul, don't whine about name calling...be an adult and own up to your role in this. Suck it up. You chose to step into this and I called out your faulty logic. You made your bed, now lie in it. You claim it's pointless...yet you keep responding and asking for more. You can continue going in circles and bending and twisting your rationalizations as you go, or you can make an alternative choice. Put up or shut up.

Take your own advice. You have freedom and it appears that you have made a mistake. I am awaiting you to learn your lesson.

It's up to you amigo.

To pick nits ... the bill of rights was the first set of amendments to the original constitution. A very good addition through amendments, but it is still somewhat sad that it required amending to get those freedoms spelled out and nailed down as opposed to being in the original document. I guess hindsight is 20/20 and all that.

Shit like the patriot act, citizens united, etc. aren't amendments -- they are legislation passed into federal laws. I'd fully agree with any argument that they are "breaking the actual constitution"; such an argument seems quite clear cut to me. Unfortunately the judicial branch is the entity designated as having the checks and balances on the legislative branch, and they have failed to strike down such nonsense as unconstitutional when given the opportunity.

This is why I am feeling rather betrayed by the whole goddamn system. Bush the younger (executive) fed the patriot act to congress (legislative) who made it law, and the law was help up by the supreme court (judicial) with minor challenges. Later congresses (legislative) voted to renew expiring parts of the act. Obama (executive) could have vetoed that OR eliminated, cut back/pared down, or instructed the offices that actually implement the patriot act busywork (Dept. of Homeland Security, NSA, CIA, FBI, etc.) to kill or reduce the scope of the program.

At any single stage of that, any one of those governmental branches could have grown a pair and said enough was enough. But that didn't happen, and here we are. I have absolutely no faith in any branch or office of my federal government anymore. I hope Snowden evades capture and gets somewhere that won't bend to extradition pressure (which there will be a shitload of).

A few questions...
ANYBODY who doesn't give 110% to their career will not reach the highest levels of that career?
Are you saying that Georgew W. gave 110% to become President? Well, if that what he delivered is what it takes to get the job, it's a shame I can't run for office. I wouldn't even have to put on pants to come across as less idiotic as he did.
Are you really buying into this "Just give everything and you'll get there" myth? 'Cause that's not how the real world works for everyone. Have you ever been denied a deserved promotion? That is not that uncommon, especially for women. Look, giving your best is usually necessary but not always required. Luck, a lack of scruple, intolerance of others, manipulative skills and connections can really propel your career even if you don't work hard enough to deserve it. Just think of the cliché of the woman who sleeps her way on top. She doesn't even have to give 110% there, men are easy to please.

And regarding you biological theories, yes, men are stronger but how strong do you have to be to sit in an office? How much strength does it take to type on a keyboard? I'd say the jobs these female breadwinners we're talking about have are usually not involving tasks of great physical strength.
And why is it automatically the women job to take care of the children?
I mean, we're talking 2 parent families here since single women have no other choice than going to work unless you want to suggest poverty or child labour as viable alternatives.
In todays first world society it shouldn't be such a stretch to consider men as caregivers of the family's offspring. What makes the stronger sex so unsuitable to play that part? Because we're emotional cripples, unable to bond with the little ones like people with real breasts? Because society could point at us and laugh about our mangina? What is it a woman does a man can't do?
Oh I get it, that's just how biology wants it, right? We have to listen to mother nature, it's the smart thing to do. Well, that's at least what I told the cops after I left my house naked. You know, pants don't grow on trees and shirts don't run through the woods, evading capture by predators. It's not natural, not what mother wants. Let's not do this. Right?
We decided to shape the world as we see fit a long time ago. We can't change all behavioural routines in our heads but we are not powerless either. Why stick to role models that are ancient when we can make new ones with more benefits? Humans can't fly; didn't stop them from building planes. This is a question of nurture not nature.

What troubles me the the most, though, is your apparent belief that households with both parents working do it by choice. That is certainly not always the case, especially not in lower income families in America. To avoid that both parents would be forced to work, you need to have minimum incomes that are high enough to feed an entire family. How much is the minimum wage in america and how well can one person provide for a family with it? Would you like to raise 2 kids with only that much money?

Another thing is your idea that "women should gravitate to careers that will give the maximum flexibility so that they can spend all the needed time with their children". What kind of career is that? What jobs allow you to have "maximum flexibility" in terms or worktime? Drug dealing? E-Mail spamming? Porn?
I'm sure such jobs exist but I'd say they're very, very rare. Not a viable solution.

You call it "guidelines not rules" but maybe these guidelines are as antiquitated as ducking under the table when the bomb drops. We live in a brave new world, we need to do better than this. We shouldn't leave potential untapped because grampa doesn't like it. This is the 21st century, let's act like it.

There is nothing that makes women less qualified to bring home the bucks. "Think of the children" is simply a lazy argument against it and only shows the real problems of this debate: sexism and a lack of social security.

Let's just disagree to agree.

(But I will say it's not every day that someone who blows up people and tosses bombs at police evades capture into a neighborhood after car jackings and shootouts with the proven desire to massacre innocent people without provocation, and all with a big smile.)

I don't know how I'd feel sitting in one of those small immersibles face-to-face with a creature big and strong enough to take on most of the fish in the sea and has the intelligence to evade and outsmart man so well.

There is only one creture that can best this Squid - the Sperm Whale. (occationaly teams of sharks)

Perhaps if your beloved so called "job creators" paid people a living wage rather than horde more and more of their profits for themselves there wouldn't be a war on poverty.


>>> You are your own boss, whether you work for someone else or not. You create the value and sell your time and labor to others, and can increase the value of both in many ways: providing solutions for others, inventing new products or boosting your own knowledge base. Yep, there are socialist countries that will pay you a living wage to push a broom, and those economies can't hope to compete with non-socialist economies.


I will go out on a limb and assume that you would shop exclusively at a Wal-mart-type store that paid their employees a living wage as opposed to the real Wal-mart? There aren't enough such "conscious consumers" to sustain such a business.


The problem with your narrative is you believe that the wealthy all won some type of lottery, that they did not provide any service or create an invention that yielded deserved financial rewards. This is a common sickness surrounding socialism: the game is rigged and those at the top are there by pure chance. This is what Obama was raised to believe.


The rich pay the lion's share of taxes in America, while the bottom half pay NOTHING in income tax yet get plenty of benefits. This model is nothing new, the ancient Athenians taxed the wealthy at a much higher rate than the poor. The difference is they didn't endlessly spend and create money out of thin air. I'm not against the social safety net, but what we have now is unsustainable and beyond ridiculous.


I agree that many of these CEOs are overcompensated turds, but they are a small part of the problem. In order for them to be paid, stockholders have to be happy, and for stockholders to be happy, a business has to be successful. Only in the fantasy world of government is anything too big to fail.


You're somewhat awakened in that you see that the ole government's robbing peter to pay paul routine doesn't work. Wonder where the trillions went? First and foremost, to con artists and bureaucrats, who gobble up so much of every dollar seized by government very little reaches the intended recipients, and that will NEVER change. "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else."


If you want to attack "greed", start with these Obama worshipers who nonetheless sheltered their own wealth when it came time to pay up.


http://michellemalkin.com/2013/01/01/obamas-tax-evaders-of-the-year/

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I think he's turned himself in. He might have gone walkabout to evade capture.