Kind of tired of this bullshit, people putting words in mouths, behind their own ass...
Didn't call Gifford's a retard, sir. I used the same method as the televised segment, the formula of the media's, bombardment-of-reason campaign for the mind, this same usage of words twisted that you are using now in order to misrepresent me.

Referred to this abject insult to my sensibilities and intelligence called, a fucking senate subcommittee retarded, because they parade children and survivors like Giffords here in front of cameras to push agendas by pushing your emotional triggers.

Then, shall we break down the rest of your squeaking expectorate? Trigger words when reason won't break through the haze in your paradigm fired like bullets.."stupid" "NWO", back to your assumption of me having bullied the woman with derogatory, inflammatory insults-Next, close with a fucking insult, based on what?? Your own bullshit.

Break down your own trip, turn off the fucking television and read some Science Fiction. Sharpen your tool while yer at it?

"Overall, Oakland police recorded 18 calls and incidents related to sideshow activity Saturday separate from the I-880 incident, Sgt. Chris Bolton wrote in an email. The calls came from both West and East Oakland and included one report of 50 to 60 cars parading down city streets.

"We simply lacked the staff to effectively deal with the activity," Bolton wrote.

In one incident, police witnessed a sideshow participant crash his car and flee the scene of the accident, wrote Bolton, who did not say where the crash occurred. The driver has been identified, and police will seek a warrant for his arrest."
- http://www.insidebayarea.com/breaking-news/ci_22465283/oakland-chp-investigates-weekend-sideshow-busy-i-880

I've never been one of the "ideals" of women, especially those presented here. Growing up, it hurt. Still hurts, sometimes. I'm five feet tall, I've always been muscular and squat. I was athletic in my teens which only compounded that musculature. I had a child with the predictable changes to my body. I never felt beautiful, how could I? Beauty is harshly defined for me, in almost every advert. If I don't look like what's being shown, I'm not worthy of wearing lingerie, being considered sexy or parading in front of a screen where others can see me.

I'm tired of seeing perfect, airbrushed specimens. I want to see someone I can relate to.

While waiting for an inaugural party(Clinton's 2nd) to wind down so we could replace the removed office cubicles at a Bank of America branch just off the parade route. I was chilling outside observing all the Secret Service peeps on all the rooftops along with checking out the high class hookers being picked up by their Johns. All of a sudden I saw a familiar woman walking down the sifewalk. I looked real well and noticed her and said "Hello there" with a smile and she smiled back and said "Hi". My coworker said "Who are you talking to Joe?" I told him it was Maria Shriver. He along with the rest of the crew had no idea who she was. So I said Arnold Schwarzenegger's wife. I did work with some dumbass meatbags back then.

I get where you are coming from Boise, but we need to go back to the fact of the matter that you cannot judge a person on how they look, even if they are a smirking bastard. Being a smirking bastard does not make him guilty of a bigger crime than being a smirking bastard.

The problem is that if we let our justice system totally collapse and start putting people in jail because of what the Young Turks chooses to comment on partial information, it won't be the guys like this that will suffer, but rather so many others who are judged by their looks.

I was on a jury a few years ago where a tattooed asian guy with a shaved head was being accused of some pretty severe drug charges. There was literally no evidence against him other than he was present when the people with the drugs were arrested. He had no money, no drugs, no cellphone and the prosecution provided no context other than guilty by association. During the deliberations, one of the jurors said, "well, just look at him, he clearly looks guilty." It was one of the most frustrating moments of my life.

Anyway, that aside and back to this: again, you are all worked up because you only have heard what one side has to say. The problem is that because of the way the legal system works, it may not be possible to see the other side at this time. You said if your comment that this won't see trial. Where did you get that from? The criminal case was dropped, but the cabby can definitely do a civil case, which is why in the second video they refuse to give any information. They need to play their cards close to their chest because it is obvious that the cabby is going to bring it back in a civil suit.

Now don't get me wrong. I want to see the other side just as much as anyone and if it turns out to be bunk, then hell, this guy should get stiff sentencing and there should be an investigation into the circumstances as to why the prosecution dropped it. The thing is, it has to be done legally. You can't resort to the mob mentality or you will end up with innocent people being railroaded as has happened to so many people who may not be likable, but are not guilty.

The bottom line is: yes, he's not likable, but that doesn't mean that we know all that happened then.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^ponceleon:
I hate to rain on the outrage parade, but we need more information in this case. All you have is the facts according to the stabbing victim. Everything they are quoting is from his perspective. I know this will probably come across as an amazingly unpopular comment, but this reminds me of the initial reaction to the Treyvon case:
When it was first blown big it was very much like this: it was painted as a white guy shooting an unarmed black teen without provocation. Regardless of the outcome of the Treyvon case, I feel you would have to be pretty dense not to realize that it was actually a very complicated situation that ended very tragically. I'm not saying that I stand on either side on that one, but I feel like the YTs have jumped to a lot of conclusions without knowing the actual circumstances of why it was dropped.
Don't get me wrong, I think the details should come out, I personally want to know if this was a case of a separate justice system and I definitely know that white criminals are treated differently than those of other ethnicities. The thing is, while that may be statistically true, it is impossible for us to do a fair judgement of this case without seeing ALL of the evidence. Otherwise, you are doing just as much a disservice. You cannot penalize the banker because of his wealth, race, or even his smirk in that other video.
Again, I definitely agree that the justice system is messed up when it comes to the statistics surrounding prosecution and sentencing of non-white criminals. The issue is that two wrongs don't make a right. You can't just assume this guy was guilty because the other party said so... Anyway I'll gladly say he's a douchebag when more information surfaces about why charges were dropped.

I take exactly the same stand on this case as I did on the Treyvon Martin shooting.
I'm outraged because we will not see a trial.
You say the details should come out--as it stands now they will not.
You say we won't know what really happened until ALL the evidence is placed before us. I agree--as it stands now we will never get that chance.
Without media attention to this case it is being swept under the "good ole boy" rug. This must be "blown big" in order to hold the prosecutor responsible and have the evidence released--or brought out in trial.
Sure it's possible the prosecutor dropped this case because of lack of evidence, or contrary evidence, but because of the "...statistics surrounding prosecution and sentencing of non-white criminals" just allowing this to be dropped is wrong.
I called him a smirking bastard not because I'm absolutely convinced that he did it--it's because, in my opinion, he is a smirking bastard.

>> ^ponceleon:

I hate to rain on the outrage parade, but we need more information in this case. All you have is the facts according to the stabbing victim. Everything they are quoting is from his perspective. I know this will probably come across as an amazingly unpopular comment, but this reminds me of the initial reaction to the Treyvon case:
When it was first blown big it was very much like this: it was painted as a white guy shooting an unarmed black teen without provocation. Regardless of the outcome of the Treyvon case, I feel you would have to be pretty dense not to realize that it was actually a very complicated situation that ended very tragically. I'm not saying that I stand on either side on that one, but I feel like the YTs have jumped to a lot of conclusions without knowing the actual circumstances of why it was dropped.
Don't get me wrong, I think the details should come out, I personally want to know if this was a case of a separate justice system and I definitely know that white criminals are treated differently than those of other ethnicities. The thing is, while that may be statistically true, it is impossible for us to do a fair judgement of this case without seeing ALL of the evidence. Otherwise, you are doing just as much a disservice. You cannot penalize the banker because of his wealth, race, or even his smirk in that other video.
Again, I definitely agree that the justice system is messed up when it comes to the statistics surrounding prosecution and sentencing of non-white criminals. The issue is that two wrongs don't make a right. You can't just assume this guy was guilty because the other party said so... Anyway I'll gladly say he's a douchebag when more information surfaces about why charges were dropped.


I take exactly the same stand on this case as I did on the Treyvon Martin shooting.
I'm outraged because we will not see a trial.

You say the details should come out--as it stands now they will not.
You say we won't know what really happened until ALL the evidence is placed before us. I agree--as it stands now we will never get that chance.

Without media attention to this case it is being swept under the "good ole boy" rug. This must be "blown big" in order to hold the prosecutor responsible and have the evidence released--or brought out in trial.

Sure it's possible the prosecutor dropped this case because of lack of evidence, or contrary evidence, but because of the "...statistics surrounding prosecution and sentencing of non-white criminals" just allowing this to be dropped is wrong.

I called him a smirking bastard not because I'm absolutely convinced that he did it--it's because, in my opinion, he is a smirking bastard.

I hate to rain on the outrage parade, but we need more information in this case. All you have is the facts according to the stabbing victim. Everything they are quoting is from his perspective. I know this will probably come across as an amazingly unpopular comment, but this reminds me of the initial reaction to the Treyvon case:

When it was first blown big it was very much like this: it was painted as a white guy shooting an unarmed black teen without provocation. Regardless of the outcome of the Treyvon case, I feel you would have to be pretty dense not to realize that it was actually a very complicated situation that ended very tragically. I'm not saying that I stand on either side on that one, but I feel like the YTs have jumped to a lot of conclusions without knowing the actual circumstances of why it was dropped.

Don't get me wrong, I think the details should come out, I personally want to know if this was a case of a separate justice system and I definitely know that white criminals are treated differently than those of other ethnicities. The thing is, while that may be statistically true, it is impossible for us to do a fair judgement of this case without seeing ALL of the evidence. Otherwise, you are doing just as much a disservice. You cannot penalize the banker because of his wealth, race, or even his smirk in that other video.

Again, I definitely agree that the justice system is messed up when it comes to the statistics surrounding prosecution and sentencing of non-white criminals. The issue is that two wrongs don't make a right. You can't just assume this guy was guilty because the other party said so... Anyway I'll gladly say he's a douchebag when more information surfaces about why charges were dropped.

I sold giant helium penis and balls balloons one year at the FSF and the Pride Parade...Lived on Market at 6th-SOld out and made bank!

The Philadelphia police officer who was captured on video punching a woman in the face will be fired.

Police Commmissioner Charles H. Ramsey said today that he had issued a direct-action dismissal, an immediate step that commissioners can take if they have evidence that an officer has violated departmental policies or the law.

Lt. Jonathan Josey, 39, is a decorated 19-year veteran of the department who has been praised by some colleagues even after the video emerged. He declined to comment. As of Thursday, he is suspended for a month with the intent to dismiss.

Ramsey had previously said he was "deeply troubled" by the now-notorious video.

"From what I saw, it's difficult to justify the actions that took place," Ramsey said Tuesday.

Josey's punch to the woman's head, which knocked her to the ground and bloodied her face, appeared to be a case of excessive force being used to make an arrest, Ramsey said.

The woman, Aida Guzman of Chester, was arrested Sunday for disorderly conduct at a celebration in North Philadelphia following the city's Puerto Rican Day parade. Police said they thought she was throwing liquid at a group of officers, which led Josey to target her.

District Attorney Seth Williams said today that charges against Guzman have been dropped.

Ramsey said police still have not been able to interview Guzman, despite several attempts. He made a public request that she speak to police in order to help move the investigation forward.



Philly officer who sucker-punched woman will be fired

Sunday's incident took place on North 5th Street, near Lehigh Avenue, during what police described as a street party that takes place after the annual parade.

The department had no immediate comment on the video, which depicts a police officer hitting the woman while she is walking away from a group of officers. The officer apparently thought the woman threw beer at police.

City Councilwoman Maria Quinones Sanchez, a central organizer of the parade, said she spoke with Police Commissioner Charles H. Ramsey this morning, and that Ramsey was particularly upset because the incident involved a commanding officer.

"He was very concerned," Sanchez said. She noted that this year's parade theme was "The Puerto Rican Woman."

The lieutenant will be assigned to desk duty while the incident is investigated, police said.

Sanchez said she had met with police commanders before the parade in the hope of avoiding conflicts between police and paradegoers.

"It's unfortunate that this happened because we just talked about it before the parade," said Sanchez.

The woman, who is not identified, is shown falling to the ground, her face bloodied. In the seconds before the punch, the woman had been walking around a group of people and police officers. Someone near her in the crowd can be seen throwing some liquid into the air, toward the officers.

It appears in the video that she had sprayed silly string from a can.

The woman was taken into custody and issued a citation for disorderly conduct, police said, then released.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20121001_Video_shows_Philadelphia_cop_punching_woman_at_parade.html

Youtube: "It was not a protest (you moron) it was a Puerto Rican Day parade."

If this was an fun outside event - why such a strong reaction?

Yes,he's a dead man walking. Martyrdom for freedom of the press will be his fate,and he knows it.

If that were me...I'd release EVERYTHING onto the net. Every dirty secret,every stain of guilt they have on our government and the Banks and Corporations that rule us. If you have only one weapon,use it over and over.The greater majority won't know nor care,being hypnotized by the parade of nonsense that our Media forcefeeds us,but pockets of people will harvest it,keep it safe,and use it even when that drone comes saling into his window.

I pity him,but I thank him.

I'm not afraid of the black man running
He's got it right he's got a better life coming
I don't care what the captain said
I fold it right at the top of my head
I lost my sight and the state packs in
I follow my heart and it leads me right to Jackson

Oh Keller oh oh oh
She gave us a medal she gave us a map
Oh Canner Row, oh oh oh
If seeing is right, then look where you're at

I'm not afraid of Nichol's Park
I ride the train and I ride it after dark
I'm not afraid to get it right
I turn around and I give it one more try
I said things that I meant to say
The bandstand chairs and the Dewey Day parade
I go out to the golden age
The spirit is right and the spirit doesn't change

Oh Keller oh oh oh
She gave us mirror she gave us a map
Oh Canner Row, oh oh oh
If seeing is right then look where you're at

Andrew Jackson, all I'm asking
Show us the wheel and give us the wine
Woohoo! Woohoo!
Raise the banner, Jackson hammer
Everyone goes to the capitol line
Woohoo! woohoo!
Colored preacher, nice to meet you!
The spirit is here and the spirit is fine!
Woohoo! Woohoo!
Education, ask the nation
You gave us our sight and the hearing is fine
Woohoo! woohoo!
Andrew Jackson all I'm asking
Give us the wheel and give us the wine

>> ^lantern53:

Most people don't like gay people and you can blame gay people. If gay people acted like everyone else, in that they kept their private affairs private, most would have no trouble with them. It's when they parade down the street with red codpieces, or french kiss in front of children, or wear dogcollars with little metal studs, or fling semen from 2nd story windows...
that is the kind of thing that pisses people off. You don't see Neil Patrick Harris doing that, which is why he's so adorable.


You are a troll, yes?

Unless you live in a very rare kind of area (perhaps you moved into your city's gay especially felonious gay district without realizing it?), I have serious doubts that you've witnessed those kinds of actions when you haven't seen them among straight people. I've seen plenty of apparently straight people french-kissing in public in front of children and wearing studded collars. (I have yet to see anyone with a red codpiece outside of a Renaissance Festival or a play.)

Or perhaps your objection is that they "don't keep it in private," that they don't hide that they're gay. That they kiss their girl/boyfriend in public where you can see it, or hold hands in public, just the way that straight couples do.

People can dislike it all they want, but gay people, bisexuals exhibiting their same-sex attraction, and transmen and transwomen enacting their gender have as much right to the public space as you do.

So suck it.


<==== pissed off (and slightly drunk) bisexual

Good job!

In reply to this comment by ReverendTed:
Actually, I just got my Bronze back earlier this week, so I've been taking advantage of my ability to add thumbnails and lengths, declare death, and resurrect. My comment stream since then has been a nearly-uninterrupted stream of those invocations and my Profile has been a parade of Badge notifications.
In reply to this comment by ant:
Thanks and same to you for finding these problems. I assume you loved Bruce Lee game?