Thanks for the intro. Let me know when you contribute some "intelligent banter". All I see is belligerent narcissistic bullshit from an insecure little boy. (if you don't watch television, how do you know what the McDonald's jingle is? Someone's fibbing again... you silly boy).

I wish there were a way to ask this without sounding belligerent, but what better foreign policy towards Pakistan and it's tribal areas would be recommended in absence of the current drone program?

Ya think if that had been Depp all shit-faced-'n belligerent she'd have had the same reaction?
That'd be a "NAY, sir!"..ARRRrrr!

(Methinks this lass has herself a piss-poor attitude and takes her fluff too seriously...like she's some, 'professional' or something- AND she has bitchy-resting face...ARRRRR!)

Only white people would name their child Madison....REAAAALY white people!

All right, so I just went back and read my earlier reply to this, and I think it got a bit too harsh at one point (it was very late, and I was very tired). Sorry about that.

And I'm really sorry about your mom. Seriously. It fucking sucks in so many ways, and nobody should have to go through what you, your mom, and probably many others around you went through due to one horrible sack of shit.

However, it's still only anecdotal. Just like you claimed that the issue shown in this video might individual rather than systemic, and that women as a whole shouldn't be blamed for the actions of one woman.

But that's exactly the kind of judgment you are passing on men.

I mean, conversely, I have my own shitty-ass stories of abuse ...except the villains in all of my stories just happened to be women (no male teacher ever abused me in any way). But I don't necessarily hold that against women as a gender. Sure, I think it might've been exacerbated by the fact that the school system is heavily dominated by women who, when they are pushed into a corner by the incredibly bad system they're stuck with, just have a harder time understanding and relating to young boys than they do young girls. But I don't go on masculinist rants claiming that I was somehow systematically oppressed by women as a group, because that is just crazy-talk (and no, I am not a masculinist, or even MRA (partisanship is for fucking CHUMPS, and I am no chump)).

However, the fact remains that you've brought nothing to this conversations except belligerently stated opinions which you refuse to back up when asked to do so. That's not fair to the people who are talking to you, and it certainly isn't fair to you yourself who is made to look like an idiot because hey; stupid is as stupid does.

If you engage me in a conversation and are able to back your shit up, I will gladly give you the time of day. I may not agree with you - in fact, it's possible that my disagreement will be downright vehement - but I'm going to review your statements and your sources seriously and respond to them (somewhat) seriously.

Unless they are TOO stupid, in which case it is possible that I will point at you and laugh.

If I think your arguments are sound, and believe me when I say that I am fair in this because I push myself hard to stay rational, I will actually tell you that your arguments are sound. And if you actually manage to prove me wrong, I will literally tell you that you proved me wrong. It has been known to happen (exceedingly rarely), and I always manage to stay upfront and honest because the only thing that really matters to me is the truth.

So please don't fucking bail on an argument like that again, because it drives me up the fucking walls.

NDAA 2007 basically overrode Posse Comitatus, even though it's overreach was repealed later. NDAA 2012 extended the definition of covered persons to include " any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities." A covered person is someone that is subject to martial law and exempt from Posse Comitatus. Of course, it's kinda hard to declare martial law on just one person which is why you saw martial law in full effect following the Boston bombing.

However, to answer your question, this was a military exercise, not US Armed Forces (with the exception for the National Guard and Coast Guard) enforcing domestic law. Of course, extrapolating from @chingalera 's tags, this exercise serves a more sinister purpose. I'll leave it up to him to expound on that.

It's not that he's wrong about anything, but do 12 year old console trolls really need to be taken down a peg? I'm not sure they have a peg to begin with. Yes, young gamers are prone to strangely belligerent brand loyalty, but kids say a lot of irritating crap if you listen to them.

@SDGundamX

I cannot agree with that definition. The problem I have with the concept of "Islamophobia" is as I've stated above: it conflates the individuals and the ideology, thus causing those who use the term to be guilty of the error they are often accusing their opponents of. And that conflation lets it be used - by Islamists as well as by self-righteous (or ill-placed-guilt-ridden) lefties - to silence criticism of Islam. This term has been particularly abused in this manner in Europe, where the ghost of the Holocaust weighs a lot heavier on politicians and the media than it does in the US.

"Muslimphobia" may not roll of the tongue quite as nicely, but it would at least be a more honest and acceptable term to denote the irrational fear/hatred of Muslim people. Mostly, what people refer to as "Islamophobia" is a combination of religious discrimination, xenophobia and racism, and we should not be afraid to use those meaningful terms in our criticism of such discriminatory behaviour. It may even help to break it down in that way, instead of trying to wrap it up in a simplistic and ambivalent term.

There is another big problem with "Islamophobia" which I have already discussed here: http://videosift.com/talk/Dare-we-criticize-Islam, (the difference to be made between what one is and what one believes).

As for Harris' unfortunate and highly irrational/illogical defense of racial profiling, the Cephalopod Prof says it better than I can (as he often does).

edit: ach, how can I be such a cad and forget to thank you for the kudos? I still have much to learn, but thank you for taking note of my reduced antagonisation, knee-jerk reactions and general verbal belligerance.

Did you just ignore the first sentence of my 2nd paragraph or what?

Do you advocate telling police to "fuck off?" Does that improve things or make things worse? How about calling them pigs? Help? or make it worse?

Corruption and Incompetence usually starts at the top...not the bottom. so please educate me on how being belligerent towards cops fixes corruption and incompetence?

Start demanding more from your elected officials. stop whining about the symptoms and start fixing the actual problem.

So you assume that all cops are corrupt and incompetent based almost entirely on anecdotal evidence. That's reasonable.

Laws only have meaning when they are actually enforced. If cops were not around, there would effectively be no law and nothing to deter people from doing whatever they want, regardless of the impact their actions have on others. There are certainly bad cops out there but the majority of cops do their jobs responsibly. Like them or not, society is better with cops around.

Being rude and belligerent to someone just because they're a cop is stupid. You shouldn't be rude and belligerent to anyone just because of their occupation. It accomplishes nothing aside from stroking your ego by "standing up to the man."

The way to handle the police is to be polite, respectful of their authority, but while firmly (but calmly) claiming and exercising your rights. Of course, this only works on the 75-odd% of police who are reasonable people. The other 25% are harder to deal with, but being argumentative, belligerent and disrespectful ("fuck you") won't get you anywhere.

If you've ever worked customer service, you probably know the drill: The more angry and unreasonable the customer gets, the more calm and reasonable you become (I think of it as my Jeeves-the-butler routine). Not always, of course, but usually it gets through to them eventually that they are the ones being dicks.

@Yogi

Ha. Once you're out of 2nd grade you'll realize that belligerents can throw knives much farther than 2 steps.

>> ^Velocity5:

A belligerent wielding a knife can cause serious injury, even if he doesn't have legs. (Stop discriminating against the disabled.)
Cops value their health more than we value their lives (approximately zero), so they're obligated to treat "appears to be a knife" as "a knife."
Try not to threaten cops with knife-like objects and you'll save yourself a lot of trouble.


How could someone who can't move down stairs be a threat with a knife you idiot. Take two steps back and you're in no danger.

A belligerent wielding a knife can cause serious injury, even if he doesn't have legs. (Stop discriminating against the disabled.)

Cops value their health more than we value their lives (approximately zero), so they're obligated to treat "appears to be a knife" as "a knife."

Try not to threaten cops with knife-like objects and you'll save yourself a lot of trouble.

Yeah, sorry, I have to disagree with that last part. You read that whole exchange, you can see for yourself how he tried to change the subject, shift the burden, and otherwise distract from the argument at hand.

The central argument is not whether or not freedom of religion is under fire. No one is disputing that Chik-Fil-A or the cake store owner is within their rights to refuse service. The misunderstanding is that they seem to believe that because it's their right, they're immune to criticism.

That's two different things.

I have every right to change my name to Foo Foo Farty Pants. That doesn't mean you can't give me crap about it.

They're trying to have their cake and eat it too. He wants to be free to express his opinion, but other people are apparently not free to voice their opinion that he's full of shit.

Others have already mentioned it but if a store refused service to christians, there would be massive amounts of outrage from the right and they'd be screaming at the top of their lungs about the "war on Christianity"

The right to refuse service swings both ways. I would argue that refusing service to ANY demographic is unnecessary and dumb and ultimately a poor business decision. That's not what the right to refuse service is supposed to be for. I'm pretty sure it's meant for dealing with unruly, disruptive, belligerent people, not to advance a religious/political agenda.

>> ^dag:

Good discussion. Be gentle with SB - he's the only one we've got - and an important perspective.

His indignant declaration of Canadian citizenship leads me to believe he looked the part.

edit: And also the way in which the cops treat him with kid glove in the face of his blatant belligerence and taunting.>> ^Bruti79:

>> ^longde:
I agree with legacy, this guy got his white privilege card revoked big time, whether or not he realized he was carrying one.
A minority would have never raised such a fuss, but may have been detained anyway. Isn't that ironic?

How do you know he was white?