jerseyhoya wrote:
Beyond that point, we have nuclear power plants in this country at the moment, which hasn't led to any real problems since Three Mile Island twenty nine years ago, which didn't even kill anyone.?

Not to nitpick, but I lived about a mile from TMI when the accident occurred and I have family all around the area. Some people are starting to say there's been a cancer spike in the area over the past few years. It's probably not true, but in any case, I don't think we can say at this point nobody died from the accident, especially since cancer rates often take years to rise. At the time, they said we wouldn't know if there was any long term effect in cancer rates for 20+ years. I'm actually curious to know if any research has been done -- I imagine someone's looked at it.

Monkeyboy wrote:

Bucky wrote:They were targeting that particular guy for some reason or another. As soon as both cops made him, they started toward him. I bet - almost guarantee- something happened up the road. Cops have radios, ya know.

Not saying it was right. Just that there's a lot more to this incident than is on the video.

Ask 1- you can make a video tell a certain story if you edit it just right.

I'm coming to this conversation late, but I tend to agree with this. I doubt the cop just randomly picked a guy to pummel.

I do have an issue with the cop's behavior, however. There are correct and incorrect ways to make an arrest or detain a subject. The cop made no effort to get the cyclist to stop with normal force. Nobody can tell me that he couldn't have gotten that guy off that bike without having to crush him like a receiver coming over the middle. So stopping the guy was most likely warrented (though there's no way to tell from the video), but the manner of the arrest was certainly not. Charge the cyclist for whatever he did, and then charge the cop for using excessive force. Way too often people seem to feel the need to pick sides when the truth is both parties are wrong.

I'm not sure there are much better ways to stop a bicyclist moving quickly when the officer is on foot. There was probably at least some verbal effort to tell the bicyclist to stop at some point. Without risking my own safety, I don't see another way to do it except to knock the guy off the bike, otherwise you risk getting hit by the bike itself.

mozartpc27 wrote:Suddenly, I want to learn more about Nathan Bedford Forrest.

Yes, this research has lead to one of those wasted Wikipedia days. I ended up reading more about the origins of the KKK, which lead me to read about Leo Frank's lynching, which lead me to read about this douche who is also honored with a giant statue in Atlanta on the capital lawn.

Seems like the south sucks at figuring out who deserves to be honored with statues.

jerseyhoya wrote:It does. You see those pyramids? They didn't build themselves.

I know you're kidding, but just as a matter of fact (and to help squash the myth), slaves didn't build the pyramids. The latest evidence shows they weren't slaves and were treated extremely well, even better than the average Egyptian, with access to good food, beer (something you should appreciate), and the best medical care if injured.

So not only is congressman Jr a bigot, he's also badly misinformed.

Simple question:

Would you support a law that said to win any elected office including President, you need over 50% over the vote?

(might require ranked voting and instant run-off)

That's why Napoleon blew off the Sphinx's nose.

Philly the Kid wrote:Simple question:

Would you support a law that said to win any elected office including President, you need over 50% over the vote?

(might require ranked voting and instant run-off)

No. Doubly so if they went a way other than instant run-off. Real runoffs are annoying as hell.

Philly the Kid wrote:Simple question:

Would you support a law that said to win any elected office including President, you need over 50% over the vote?

(might require ranked voting and instant run-off)

No, but I'd support such a law if it were limited only to presidential races.

lethal wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:

Bucky wrote:They were targeting that particular guy for some reason or another. As soon as both cops made him, they started toward him. I bet - almost guarantee- something happened up the road. Cops have radios, ya know.

Not saying it was right. Just that there's a lot more to this incident than is on the video.

Ask 1- you can make a video tell a certain story if you edit it just right.

I'm coming to this conversation late, but I tend to agree with this. I doubt the cop just randomly picked a guy to pummel.

I do have an issue with the cop's behavior, however. There are correct and incorrect ways to make an arrest or detain a subject. The cop made no effort to get the cyclist to stop with normal force. Nobody can tell me that he couldn't have gotten that guy off that bike without having to crush him like a receiver coming over the middle. So stopping the guy was most likely warrented (though there's no way to tell from the video), but the manner of the arrest was certainly not. Charge the cyclist for whatever he did, and then charge the cop for using excessive force. Way too often people seem to feel the need to pick sides when the truth is both parties are wrong.

I'm not sure there are much better ways to stop a bicyclist moving quickly when the officer is on foot. There was probably at least some verbal effort to tell the bicyclist to stop at some point. Without risking my own safety, I don't see another way to do it except to knock the guy off the bike, otherwise you risk getting hit by the bike itself.

A GIANT RUBBERBAND

lethal wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:

Bucky wrote:They were targeting that particular guy for some reason or another. As soon as both cops made him, they started toward him. I bet - almost guarantee- something happened up the road. Cops have radios, ya know.

Not saying it was right. Just that there's a lot more to this incident than is on the video.

Ask 1- you can make a video tell a certain story if you edit it just right.

I'm coming to this conversation late, but I tend to agree with this. I doubt the cop just randomly picked a guy to pummel.

I do have an issue with the cop's behavior, however. There are correct and incorrect ways to make an arrest or detain a subject. The cop made no effort to get the cyclist to stop with normal force. Nobody can tell me that he couldn't have gotten that guy off that bike without having to crush him like a receiver coming over the middle. So stopping the guy was most likely warrented (though there's no way to tell from the video), but the manner of the arrest was certainly not. Charge the cyclist for whatever he did, and then charge the cop for using excessive force. Way too often people seem to feel the need to pick sides when the truth is both parties are wrong.

I'm not sure there are much better ways to stop a bicyclist moving quickly when the officer is on foot. There was probably at least some verbal effort to tell the bicyclist to stop at some point. Without risking my own safety, I don't see another way to do it except to knock the guy off the bike, otherwise you risk getting hit by the bike itself.

Well I can't see how you can look at that video and not se the cop put plenty of extra energy into that hit. He did it with the explosiveness of a football hit. Even if you think you need to knock the guy off, there's no need to try to put the guy in the hospital. He could have grabbed the guy from the side (the same side he was able to get to with his hit) and taken him down and broken his fall. The hit was meant to inflict pain and I think that's pretty clear.

my god, nikki tinker is evil

I know I'm a minority here politically ... today there was a broadcast on radio of a recent speech first by Matt Gonzalez about 10minutes, and then Nader about 40. Gonzalez has some very poignant things to say about Obama, and the process and both speak about viability and purpose of 3rd parties. I'm not this articulate, and do a poor job of paraphrasing these views here -- but I encourage all of you, but especially those of you who are serious-minded about this, to take 10-30minutes of your life and take a listen and see what you think about some of the points made and their view of them running. Gonzalez is a measured thoughtful speaker, and his part comes first and isn't that long. Even if you have no patience for Nader.

click on the play button when you arrive at this page

Obama on the tire guage thing...


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vueHtYNh4w[/youtube]

Guns and butter!

Monkeyboy wrote:Well I can't see how you can look at that video and not se the cop put plenty of extra energy into that hit. He did it with the explosiveness of a football hit. Even if you think you need to knock the guy off, there's no need to try to put the guy in the hospital. He could have grabbed the guy from the side (the same side he was able to get to with his hit) and taken him down and broken his fall. The hit was meant to inflict pain and I think that's pretty clear.

So basically try to clothesline the guy and hope you catch him before he hits the ground. Alternately, grab at his arm and more or less pull it out of its socket as he rides past you at a rapid rate of speed so he falls off. And either way, hope you don't miss. Am I missing real alternatives here?

Philly the Kid wrote:I know I'm a minority here politically ... today there was a broadcast on radio of a recent speech first by Matt Gonzalez about 10minutes.

I listened to 13 minutes of Gonzalez's speech and was unimpressed. There's nothing in his criticism of Barack Obama that Republicans haven't pointed out for months. Say Obama has done what's politically expedient. Say he's lied. So? What's the point? Vote for Nader because Obama has changed positions? Does he get to the point where he says why that's bad? Or what Nader would do that's better for America? All he seems to do is appeal to people's fears of the bogeyman. What was I supposed to get out of this?

I know people like to blame Exxon Mobil for all of America's problems. Forget that their profit is only a small part of the price of gas. Forget that they have 83,000 employees who have worked hard to make more money for their families. Forget that 52% of Exxon Mobil is own by Mutual funds, index funds and pension funds, including union pension funds. Two million individual shareholders own almost all the rest. The pooh-bahs who run Exxon own less than 1% of the company.

Politicians positively are politically expedient and play politics to pander to the pablum-prone proletariat and pad their poll percentages with partisan pap.

Laexile wrote:

Philly the Kid wrote:I know I'm a minority here politically ... today there was a broadcast on radio of a recent speech first by Matt Gonzalez about 10minutes.

I listened to 13 minutes of Gonzalez's speech and was unimpressed. There's nothing in his criticism of Barack Obama that Republicans haven't pointed out for months. Say Obama has done what's politically expedient. Say he's lied. So? What's the point? Vote for Nader because Obama has changed positions? Does he get to the point where he says why that's bad? Or what Nader would do that's better for America? All he seems to do is appeal to people's fears of the bogeyman. What was I supposed to get out of this?

I know people like to blame Exxon Mobil for all of America's problems. Forget that their profit is only a small part of the price of gas. Forget that they have 83,000 employees who have worked hard to make more money for their families. Forget that 52% of Exxon Mobil is own by Mutual funds, index funds and pension funds, including union pension funds. Two million individual shareholders own almost all the rest. The pooh-bahs who run Exxon own less than 1% of the company.

I appreciate you taking a listen. I find Gonzalez a very bright and well spoken fellow. He would ahve been an excellent mayor here in SF and almost won.

To me, the real message is, that there's a system in place that is full of corruption and hypocrisy. The two parties don't want to change the system. They both vie for power and exchange turns having top seat. People like Nader and others are interested in a different, what I would call, more just and fair version of democracy that is not dominated by lobbyists, corporate insiders and other groups of wealthy decision makers. They also tend to be less religious and more secular. Nader at his best, talks about having an active, involved, educated and participating democracy and citizenry. Sounds pretty good to me. I'm not interested in our current system, and feel its ultimately whether soon or in the not too distant future -- a system that cannot sustain and does not breed a society that is founded on good health, and fairness and equality and respecting individual rights.

lethal wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:Well I can't see how you can look at that video and not se the cop put plenty of extra energy into that hit. He did it with the explosiveness of a football hit. Even if you think you need to knock the guy off, there's no need to try to put the guy in the hospital. He could have grabbed the guy from the side (the same side he was able to get to with his hit) and taken him down and broken his fall. The hit was meant to inflict pain and I think that's pretty clear.

So basically try to clothesline the guy and hope you catch him before he hits the ground. Alternately, grab at his arm and more or less pull it out of its socket as he rides past you at a rapid rate of speed so he falls off. And either way, hope you don't miss. Am I missing real alternatives here?

It was the extra hit he gave him. It was way harder than necessary, IMO. You obviously disagree. Either way, it's something a jury should decide after an investigation. I'm much smaller than that cop and I'm sure I could get someone off a bike without pulling their arm out of their socket or blasting them onto the pavement.

Why would you get different results just because you bring in a new party?