>> ^NetRunner:

That's my position too. Why you're putting that at the head of a reply to me, I don't know.

Because you were the one who said, "The left's position isn't 'off with Zimmerman's head!' it's 'we demand a real criminal investigation!'" and "Why is the right fighting that...at all? Why has this turned into another partisan political spat?", apparently unaware of the irony of complaining about how it's become a partisan political spat even as you perpetuate it.

But, to be clear, my comment was not aimed squarely at you even though I quoted you. Your statement was just a good example for me to cite.

>> ^NetRunner:
Except there isn't an investigation under way. That's what people are mad about. That's why I don't get how this spilled into a right vs. left thing.
I have a theory, but rather than jumping to conclusions, I would like to hear someone make their case for why they're mad at people who are demanding Treyvon Martin's death be investigated by police.
So far it seems to be that the people pushing back are misinformed, either about whether the police are investigating (they aren't) or about what the people making noise about this are actually saying (apparently when people say "we want an arrest and investigation" these people hear "we want our pound of flesh").
As you said in the middle of your comment, there are people on "both sides" whose behavior has been reprehensible, but focusing on that kind of stuff is always a form of ad hominem. If Spike Lee does something bad because he's mad about this, it doesn't mean he was wrong to be mad in the first place.
I want to focus on the central dispute over the case, rather than try to litigate which "side's" advocates have acted most shamefully.

Last I knew there were two investigations underway: Federal and State of Florida. If you're trying to say there needs to be a new local investigation (technically there was one at the time of the incident, it just sucked ass), then I agree and I'm not mad at anyone for demanding one.

If I had to guess why some of the Right is touchy about this, I'd say it's because they fear its potential affects on gun rights (of which "Stand Your Ground" is a derivative, IMO).

What bothers me, personally, about the whole situation is all these self-appointed jurors who have already reached a verdict. They come in both pro-Trayvon and pro-Zimmerman flavors and they're all a bit light in the skull. There hasn't been a complete investigation yet, let alone a trial where all the evidence is presented, and we've already got millions of judge/jury/executioner types spouting off.

When it comes time for this to go to trial for real, where will we even find impartial jurors? It's getting hard to imagine any result but declaration of mistrial, Zimmerman free to go.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

I think it's embarrassing that there is a "left" and "right" in a potential murder trial and it reinforces my feeling that, in the 21st century, people still can't break away from their primitive tribal mindset.

That's my position too. Why you're putting that at the head of a reply to me, I don't know.
>> ^xxovercastxx:
The investigation is under way. Everyone needs to shut up and wait for the outcome. There will be riots no matter which way it goes if the public outrage machine keeps going like this.


Except there isn't an investigation under way. That's what people are mad about. That's why I don't get how this spilled into a right vs. left thing.

I have a theory, but rather than jumping to conclusions, I would like to hear someone make their case for why they're mad at people who are demanding Treyvon Martin's death be investigated by police.

So far it seems to be that the people pushing back are misinformed, either about whether the police are investigating (they aren't) or about what the people making noise about this are actually saying (apparently when people say "we want an arrest and investigation" these people hear "we want our pound of flesh").

As you said in the middle of your comment, there are people on "both sides" whose behavior has been reprehensible, but focusing on that kind of stuff is always a form of ad hominem. If Spike Lee does something bad because he's mad about this, it doesn't mean he was wrong to be mad in the first place.

I want to focus on the central dispute over the case, rather than try to litigate which "side's" advocates have acted most shamefully.

You've set up the problem wrong:

People don't choose between having sex outside or inside a marriage on a given day. They only have the choice to have sex or not have sex, period. And to that point, not having sex, outside of marriage or in, causes more problems than having sex because sex is awesome for relationships.

If your sex is destroying your relationships, then you're doing it wrong.>> ^lantern53:

Some of you people must get a lot of exercise jumping to conclusions.
Anyway...Santorum will not be 'legislating', as this is what the legislature does.
Also, I did not say sex outside marriage was wrong or evil, did I? You made that assumption.
My point was that sex outside of marriage causes a lot of problems, more than sex within marriage.
You can go on believing whatever you want (see, I'm not forcing my beliefs on you, am I?) but the end result will teach you what you need to know.
I'm a big believer in experience, myself.

>> ^lantern53:

Some of you people must get a lot of exercise jumping to conclusions.
Anyway...Santorum will not be 'legislating', as this is what the legislature does.
Also, I did not say sex outside marriage was wrong or evil, did I? You made that assumption.
My point was that sex outside of marriage causes a lot of problems, more than sex within marriage.
You can go on believing whatever you want (see, I'm not forcing my beliefs on you, am I?) but the end result will teach you what you need to know.
I'm a big believer in experience, myself.


lantern53, we've had some good times, but this will have to be my last post on the subject. Unless you make a worthwhile argument.

Point by point:

"Some of you people must get a lot of exercise jumping to conclusions."

Bad joke, not factually off base, but minus one for style.

"Anyway...Santorum will not be 'legislating', as this is what the legislature does."

The definition of legislate: 'to perform the function of legislation; specifically: to make or enact laws' or 'to mandate, establish or regulate by or as if by legislation'

So, are you suggesting that the president only executes? The Supreme court only judges? I'm not calling you stupid, but your attempt to use language to cover your argument is. I think it's completely valid to use the word "legislate" to describe some of what the president does, as he has an effect on laws being made, even outside utilizing the veto. Besides, presidential contenders are often asked about legislation they would support. I wouldn’t think using this word would confuse anyone, unless they hadn't yet taken eighth grade American history.

"Also, I did not say sex outside marriage was wrong or evil, did I? You made that assumption."

Yeah, we're responding to what you wrote. See, when adults write things, we can tell things due to context and implication. It's not really an unfounded assumption on my part to infer that you were preaching the evils of premarital sex. This discussion is about a video concerning Santorum's views. You defended him. So, we'll assume you think he has valid ideas.

"My point was that sex outside of marriage causes a lot of problems, more than sex within marriage."

Okay, fine. Let's just ignore everything else. Here's your point. Same as last time, you are wrong. We can't define social problems like this and rate them from better to worse. Have you seen "Dead Poet's Society"? Remember when Robin Williams rips the intro out of their Literature textbook? He does that because the text was attempting to rate something as subjective as art. Here you're doing the same thing as that chart attempted in that movie, saying one subjective human experience is better than another. I bet you could come up with a handy chart too. Instead of a Literature text book, you're invoking religion or tradition as the authority when making such a claim. Either way, its BS.

"You can go on believing whatever you want (see, I'm not forcing my beliefs on you, am I?) but the end result will teach you what you need to know."

Thank you, I will. Notice, I made this same point in my last post. I interpret the 'but in the end' bit as you saying: Just sleep around outside of marriage and you'll suffer, just wait.

"I'm a big believer in experience, myself."

Really? You don't seem to value experience if you think never having sex outside of marriage is the ideal path for all Americans. Some people would consider that inexperience. I consider it sad.

@lantern53

So what is your point. Just because one of two behavioral options may have more potential problems associated with it is no reason by itself why I should avoid that option. It's just a factor to consider when making a decision. And remember, if one person jumps to a conclusion about your meaning they may have a comprehension problem but if everyone jumps to conclusions then you have an expression problem.

Some of you people must get a lot of exercise jumping to conclusions.

Anyway...Santorum will not be 'legislating', as this is what the legislature does.

Also, I did not say sex outside marriage was wrong or evil, did I? You made that assumption.

My point was that sex outside of marriage causes a lot of problems, more than sex within marriage.

You can go on believing whatever you want (see, I'm not forcing my beliefs on you, am I?) but the end result will teach you what you need to know.

I'm a big believer in experience, myself.

let's not jump to conclusions... i mean, there is a big difference between a protester, and someone who marches into an office building with armed thugs and bombs the place.

There was no comparison between the two.

@xxovercastxx

I don't know where you come up with "rather high accuracy". There's so many factors you wouldn't know. You could estimate where they were, but you still wouldn't know. And like I previously said, you wouldn't know if other radar systems were patched in to cover probable gap areas. If a particular radar has a listed range, you still wouldn't know how far beyond the range you could still get a response or the quality of response, or at what altitude you would be flying "under the radar".
The ONLY way to know where the radar gaps were would be to analyze computer tracking data of hundreds if not thousands of flights in that area. I guess air traffic controllers could have done this, but it serves them no real purpose unless they were tasked with doing it. So for the hijackers to know the gaps, they would have had to had access to that data and someone to interpret it.

Sure, it's all coincidence. Actually all the planes had their transponders either turned off or changed. Flights 11, 77, and 93 did so in dead zones. Flight 175 changed it's code (identity) a minute after flight 11 crashed into WTC1. A few minutes later turns and changes it's identity again. 10 minutes later it crashes into WTC2. This is the flight where (to my knowledge) no radio communication has been released, but has the most video evidence of crashing into WTC2. However for the first few hours it was reported flight 77 was the one that crashed into WTC2. United thought 175 was still in the air somewhere and didn't confirm it had crashed until after all aircraft had been grounded and 175 wasn't found anywhere. It didn't use this protocol for flight 93 which it confirmed had crashed almost immediately after it was reported. But we also know that the flight that hit the south tower couldn't have been flight 175 because the engine that was found doesn't match that of United's Boeing 767 (@3:03 here). FAA and NORAD lost 77 on radar and thought it was the second flight that crashed. After they later "found" 77, some were identifying it as flight 11 on radio. Also false blips were on the radar screens from active war game exercises. These were on the for most of the attacks, until at least after the Pentagon attack.

The point is the only reason to be messing with the transponder codes is to confuse ATC. Which wouldn't work if they weren't able to switch the codes under poor quality radar coverage. The planes would still show on radar if the transponders were turned off. So without war game false blips to blend in with, that would also be pointless.

Somehow these hijackers knew where the radar gaps were, knew how to read the jet's instrument panel, and knew when the jet was entering the gaps. They also knew how to maneuver and fly Boeing jets at 500 mph. These are the same schmucks that couldn't pass basic flying school with a single engine Cessna. These are the same schmucks that were recorded on radio to ATC, thinking they were talking over the intercom to the passengers. Let's also not forget that none of the pilots squawked an emergency or hijack code, or announced one over the radio. 0 for 4: more highly improbable coincidence.

I'm sorry you feel that way about the "truther movement", but it's not about treating "all explanations that can be imagined" equally. It's about treating all hypothesis equally and searching for evidence and reason to support it. It's about letting the evidence lead the way to truth wherever that may be and NOT jumping to conclusions or "explanations" from authorities without evidence like the official story ie the official "theory" has done. There's probably all kinds of crazy theories that can be easily debunked with physical evidence. But for some reason the authorities didn't want to do an honest investigation. It took over a year of pressure from victim's families for the government to agree to do their job. And even then the 9/11 commission members admit their report is basically a cover-up. Government bodies concluding the original half-baked government story, ignoring or covering up any evidence to the contrary. That's not how a real investigation is done.

What do you get out of it? Well..., maybe you wake up. Let's go back to my original question: Do you disagree with the documentary or are you instinctively hostile to 9/11 truth efforts?

Well so far, you've only managed to bring up one thing you disagree with and like I've explained, your conclusions on that issue are erroneous. And it's not about "getting my ideas heard", it's about finding the truth and spreading that message to other people. So why are you hostile toward that message? Why do you hold a bias against that?

Of course, the age old debate of Nature vs. Nurture should preclude any jumping to conclusive explanations on our understanding of political persuasion.

Nevertheless, it makes you wonder.

Another interesting (related) point is the whole notion of trust in a society, and it's relevance to social capital. In my opinion, the more we fear each other, the less human we become.

>> ^Thallium:

Secondary explosions != coverup. Stop jumping to conclusions.


I'm sorry, did the 9/11 commission admit there were secondary explosions? Stop ignoring the obvious.

>> ^ghark:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^ghark:
@bcglorf
You're jumping to conclusions my friend. I never said I supported Gaddafi, the people deserve their revolution, however the revolution has not been delivered by the people or for the people. Marbles has already covered that though, so all I will suggest is that it may do you some good to keep an open mind on issues, all that matters is the truth, and you don't always get that from the regular sources.

Don't be stupid.
You either support Gaddafi, or the Libyans fighting against him. Make your choice. You seem to think Gaddafi's defeat is actually somehow tragic. Do honestly believe that given the choice between Gaddafi and the Nato(and Arab league) backed opposition that Libyans will be worse for Gaddafi's defeat?
What is wrong with you people? Gaddafi has been defeated. Tell me, is that good or bad for the civilians in Libya?

I don't support either, did I not make that clear?
Would you mind if your country got bombed by Libya so that a few of their elite could make money of your natural resources? America's elite have done far far worse to the world than Gaddafi ever has, in fact they are the reason many countries dictatorships even exist, so by your logic you should be bombing yourselves.
On top of that, you are presuming that "yay, democracy won!!11" means the end of Libya's conflicts, checked out Iraq lately much?


So, I ask:
Gaddafi's defeat is good for the Libyan people. Do you agree with that or not?

And your answer is....

Neither?

Are the semantics giving your troubles, or the language in general?

If I were living under a dictator like Gaddafi, I would be optimistic about an outside nation providing air support and cover to local rebels trying to overthrow him. His defeat would be better for me than his continued rule, so a good thing. It doesn't mean Libyan's will be living the good life now. It means a less worse life. Thins might deteriorate once again, but there was zero chance for them to get better so long as Gaddafi remained.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^ghark:
@bcglorf
You're jumping to conclusions my friend. I never said I supported Gaddafi, the people deserve their revolution, however the revolution has not been delivered by the people or for the people. Marbles has already covered that though, so all I will suggest is that it may do you some good to keep an open mind on issues, all that matters is the truth, and you don't always get that from the regular sources.

Don't be stupid.
You either support Gaddafi, or the Libyans fighting against him. Make your choice. You seem to think Gaddafi's defeat is actually somehow tragic. Do honestly believe that given the choice between Gaddafi and the Nato(and Arab league) backed opposition that Libyans will be worse for Gaddafi's defeat?
What is wrong with you people? Gaddafi has been defeated. Tell me, is that good or bad for the civilians in Libya?


I don't support either, did I not make that clear?

Would you mind if your country got bombed by Libya so that a few of their elite could make money of your natural resources? America's elite have done far far worse to the world than Gaddafi ever has, in fact they are the reason many countries dictatorships even exist, so by your logic you should be bombing yourselves.

On top of that, you are presuming that "yay, democracy won!!11" means the end of Libya's conflicts, checked out Iraq lately much?

>> ^ghark:

@bcglorf
You're jumping to conclusions my friend. I never said I supported Gaddafi, the people deserve their revolution, however the revolution has not been delivered by the people or for the people. Marbles has already covered that though, so all I will suggest is that it may do you some good to keep an open mind on issues, all that matters is the truth, and you don't always get that from the regular sources.


Don't be stupid.

You either support Gaddafi, or the Libyans fighting against him. Make your choice. You seem to think Gaddafi's defeat is actually somehow tragic. Do honestly believe that given the choice between Gaddafi and the Nato(and Arab league) backed opposition that Libyans will be worse for Gaddafi's defeat?

What is wrong with you people? Gaddafi has been defeated. Tell me, is that good or bad for the civilians in Libya?

@bcglorf

You're jumping to conclusions my friend. I never said I supported Gaddafi, the people deserve their revolution, however the revolution has not been delivered by the people or for the people. Marbles has already covered that though, so all I will suggest is that it may do you some good to keep an open mind on issues, all that matters is the truth, and you don't always get that from the regular sources.

Secondary explosions != coverup. Stop jumping to conclusions.