Funny - those calling conservatives "ignorant" are also referring to others as "elitist." Sounds hypocritical to me.

"There are people on both sides claiming they won't vote for the other already."

They are lying. They will fall into line like the sheep they are in about three months.

Still waiting for the reps to win the war they started.

Still waiting to be welcomed as liberators.

Still waiting for flowers and chocolates for the troops from the Iraqis.

Still waiting for Iraq oil to pay for the war.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2008-05-08 04:58 PM



Translation: Democrats are liars so I'll just deflect to Republican lies. It's easier than admitting that my own party is a complete failure.

Cock starvis, nothing you have ever said has ever cut close to home. I also don't drive so I don't give a shit about the price of gas one way or another. I know it's tough for you to be right about anything, so you might as well stop trying.

Chris, that's hilarious. My favorite part of the coloring book is the lawyer walking through the lunchroom talking to the administrative staff like he's "one of them." I've definitely seen that at both firms I've worked at.

Dethspud-

Did anything you listed even happen in the last 40 years? Most of the blacks voting lock-step with the democrats weren't even alive when those "revolutions" occurred. What have the democrats done for blacks RECENTLY? You sound like a sports fan who thinks his team is great because they won the championship 20 years ago.

Camry?

Chris, I didn't even know Corolla's went up to $25K, and I've always thought those to be the most reliable and fuel-efficient non-hybrid cars. I've never heard of anyone having the problems your neighbor is having, but I suppose it could happen. If I were to buy a car today that's definitely what I'd get. Also, Honda makes 4-door Civics and Accords that are known to be very reliable as well. Those two brands (Toyota and Honda) have been known for years to be the most reliable and well-made cars, and you can easily get one that is a couple years old for around $15K.

You might also want to look into Hyundai, their quality has really gone up in the last few years and they remain a cheaper alternative.

What is a "Secret Fun Baby?" It sounds like the name of an asian toy. Super time fun smile happy!

ShitsMe, the "fluff flag" thing was pretty funny, but you're lying about the rest, and you're still gay for saying "punkin." End of story.

ShitsMe is on the prowl today, getting excited about cock references. Is there anything more gay than using the term "punkin?"

ShitsMe likes WASP sperm. You know, the kind of WASPs who go yachting and play tennis.

Looking for a partner, ShitsMe?

Tax, I walked past a karate place the other day and the only thing I could think about was "my 8 week program" and "the other arm - my other arm."

Either cock starvis' post was a joke, in which case it wasn't funny, or he is a moron for misunderstanding sniper's post so badly. Either way, I'm sorry I read it.

I wonder if UC even realizes that there are blacks out there who are more racist than anyone. My guess is his need to feel like a victim precludes him from being able to notice.

In fact it has been for over a week now.

Chris-

Gas is $3.93 in Chicago right now. You are not the only one. I'm guessing it's even more in NYC.

Who cares if they are divided in the primary? As soon as Obama is chosen they will band together in a lovefest, with the common enemy being McCane. All this crap about division is just that - crap.

Plus, to bring up cloture refusals is to suggest that Pelosi and the Democrats brought some sort of "gas price relief," "FTC Crackdown on oil companies," or "rescind corporate welfare" bill up for debate in the first place. Did that even happen?

I'll agree with that, Monte. I'd say it's that along with the lack of a desirable alternative.

Cloture refusal doesn't kill a bill. It keeps it open for debate. Couldn't the record cloture refusals in "under half the time" be indicative of democrats attempting to bring debate to a close earlier than necessary?

Thanks EP.

Monte, I never said that Republicans have done much to earn the black vote - I'm saying that Democrats haven't in the first place. I think I've read that most blacks support Bush's education policies on paper but still aren't willing to support the GOP. I attribute this to all the talking democrats do about helping blacks but question why those voters don't look for results before believing the talk.

"Joe doesn't quite get why most black voters feel uncomfortable in the GOPher's "Big (White) Tent"?"

Your post is proof that you can't think of anything. Why post at all? I wonder that about you quite often.

Monte-

When I asked for Obama's stance on certain issues, I only asked it because I knew that most of his supporters probably don't even know what his plans are.

When I asked you what Democrats have done for blacks, it was a serious question. I can't think of anything other than lip-service and failed social programs that have done nothing to decrease crime and poverty in black communities. I have googled around and haven't found anything else. Since you made the assertion, I'd say it's your turn.

And yes, it is exam time - that's why I'm here, avoiding my books. Only two left.

"Blacks are perfectly "capable" (in 101's thinly veiled language) of voting for a party other than the Dem party, if that other party truly supported their causes"

What have leading democrats done in the last 20 years to advance "black" causes? Please be specific.

"Actually Joe, I would like the current resident of the White House to answer this little quiz."

This is the only answer I get? The best description of Obama's plans for America is a Bush deflection? What are you lefties going to do when Bush is gone? Who will be your "go-to guy" when you are at a loss to answer for how big of failures the Democrats are?

Now that it appears as though Obama has the nomination locked up, I'd like his supporters to participate in a brief quiz without checking any websites for the answer. This will be done on the honors system.

1. What is Obama's plan to solve the looming social security crisis?

2. What will be Obama's policy in the middle east?

3. What is Obama's plan to solve the looming medicare shortfalls?

4. What is Obama's policy on energy?

5. What will Obama do with our military?

6. What is Obama's stance on illegal immigration?

"I drove the same 4 cylinder un air-conditioned car for 24 years."

You also flew airplanes, which more than cancels out any fuel-efficient driving you might have done.

Johnson's post speaks to a larger cultural problem and he makes some valid points. None of them, however, excuse the act of a schoolteacher taking a kids mexican flag and putting it in a garbage can.

I chose my words carefully. Glad you picked up on it, rightisright. I wonder how many of the people on the retort who claim to care about the environment even use recycled paper towels.

Does anyone believe this?

No.

Most Americans who claim to give a shit about the environment are too lazy to change their own lifestyle and start making a difference.

"Libs love people who burn the American flag and call it free speech but somehow these same libs think it's wrong to throw a Mexican flag in the garbage, and teachers have no free speech."

That's stupid. When a teacher steals an American flag from a high school student and throws it in the trash, you might have a point.

"I don't need this much space," McHugh said of his SUV. "It just seems ridiculous."

Why didn't it seem ridiculous when he bought it? Have his needs for space changed?

"If the Mexicans love their flag so much then fly it -- back in Mexico."

I see italians and polish people all over Chicago displaying their home flags in one way or another. Do you think all those people should go back to Europe, or does this only apply to Mexicans?

"It's also interesting the location - Idaho. Not what you'd consider the hotbed of Hispanics."

It's also not surprising, as some areas of Idaho are filled with racists. I also think it's silly to focus on whether the ACLU should or should not be "involved" in this situation. The fact of the matter is that unless there is a school rule prohibiting flags, the teacher was wrong to take it away. If the rest of what the student describes is true, the teacher is also an asshole and should be fired for that reason alone.

"If the cops were all worked up bu the actions of the people in the car, it is easy to see why they didn't stop soon enough to suit you."

It is a cop's job to handle tough situations in a cool and calm manner, and not to let the stress get them "all worked up" to the point of beating someone after they have already been subdued. Yes, I have been "worked up" before. I'm not a cop.

Rob-

As I said in the beginning, the video doesn't provide a good enough view to say whether the guy was detained or not when they continued to beat him. All I have said is that if they did beat the guy after he was already under their control, then what they did was wrong. End of story.

"Yeah. He's a guy who ends sentences with "'K?" In light of that, my guess is Corky's hobbies include shopping and musical theatre."

Wait! You can't say that! That implies that being gay is "negative" in some sort of "funny" way! That's outrageous!

-Danforth the Theater Accountant

"You can't tell what they were doing when they were on the ground in the video."

Right Rob. A guy laying on the ground on his stomach surrounded by five cops really poses a threat. It's pathetic that you're willing to go to such illogical lengths to defend the actions of a bunch of emotional cops. All you have to do is admit that once the guy is subdued, he doesn't deserve to be beaten anymore. Whether or not he was subdued in the video will come out later. Just admit that cops shouldn't beat people after they have been detained and we can stop talking.

"Is it the job of the person being pulled over to give the cops a reason to get tough? What do you have to do to piss them off enough for there to be 12 poliece at your trafic stop?"

I don't know. What does any of that have to do with cops kicking and punching someone when they are already on the ground?

"How do you know? The people in this car were just involved in a shooting... Try to put yourself in the mindset of an officer in that situation."

I already have. Put your gun in his face and have your partners rip him out of the car as hard as they can and throw him on the ground. No further punching and kicking is necessary when the guy is laying on his stomach. What further damage is the guy going to do at that point?

"do you know what happened before the camera was turned on?"

No. What I do know is that they had the guy out of the car and on the ground, and continued to punch and kick him. He could have murdered 20 cops before the camera was turned on - cops beating him after he was subdued would still not be justified. I am not saying the person doesn't deserve to be beaten. I am saying it is not the cops' job to do it.

"Have you ever been pulled over by a cop? If so, did you do anything to piss him off?"

Yes, I've been pulled over, no, I don't do things to piss cops off. Precisely because I know that half of them get off on kicking the crap out of people. That doesn't mean that it's part of their job to do so.

I never said anything was happening because these people were black. I'm fully aware that the people were beat because they ran from the cops and supposedly shot another one. That doesn't mean they should be beaten by the cops when they are already on the ground and detained. They might deserve it, but it isn't the cops' job to dish it out.

Again Rob - detaining someone may require some force, but not the force shown here, which appeared to be more than that necessary to subdue the suspect. You are just happy to see a supposed cop-killer get his ass kicked. As am I. But I won't go far enough as to say that the cops were right to do it, or that it is part of their job description to beat people up.

"if those guys didn't want their asses kicked don't shoot at people"

1. You have no idea whether these people shot anyone.

2. Even if they have, it is not the cops' job to shoot them back, or punch them, or kick them. It is the cops' job to bring them into custody and detain them. That may involve a certain amount of beating, but not anything beyond that required to get the person into handcuffs.

It is not a cops' job to punish you, no matter how much you want to think that these cops had a right to punch anyone.

It is not a cop's job to deliver punishment. It is a cop's job to bring the suspect into custody and detain them. The only beating that would require would be the amount necessary to subdue the person. Any further punching and kicking is unnecessary venting of aggression.

"They should have just shot them."

There you go. Why have a trial or anything? Shoot anyone who you think has killed a cop. Why have courts at all? Just let the cops figure everything out.

"you expect them to knock on the window and say, "Hello fellow citizens, if you wouldn't mind stepping out of the vehicle we would greatly appreciate it, but before you do allow us to call your lawyers and the ACLU for you, and if you could do so without shooting us in the face we would very much appreciate it."

No, I don't expect that. I only think that suspects should be beaten if they are resisting arrest, and that the beating should stop once the person is subdued.

You are in favor of police venting their aggression on the suspects because of the nature of the crime they allegedly committed. I am not.

Sounds like an expensive way to "shine your fixtures" or treat your poison ivy. Rubbing alcohol works just as well at about 1/10th the price.

Rob seems to think that cops exist to deliver punishment. No matter how guilty someone is, no matter how much the scumbags might "deserve it," they should not be beaten by the police. Period. If you think they deserve it, then go beat them yourself and see what happens.

"Is there anything in Constitution about scrapping the whole system, and starting over from scratch?"

Yes. It's called voting.

Anyone who's been to Chicago knows that its' economy is booming, despite recent increases in violence in concentrated areas that have always been desolate shitholes. Any comparison to detroit is laughable.

"I wonder how the last three posts will feel if BushCo sends them to the to one of Haliburtons New Prisons accidently because they were put on a Terrorist Watch list, like Cat Stevens and Ted Kennedy. A simple name match is sufficient."

Given that those three posts dealt with the death penalty, I'd like to see one example of anyone being put to death simply for being on a terrorist watch list.

"we don't know what they did that lead to the chase and the ass kicking."

Like I said - as soon as the people were subdued, the beating should have stopped. Criminals are not there for cops to take out their frustration and aggression on, despite the fact that the cops have every right to be angry. It is not their job to let that anger out in a negative way no matter how natural it may be to do so.

"I'd rather see three hoodlums get their asses kicked then one cop shot..."

Just because you'd rather see one thing happen than another doesn't mean that it's right for the cops to do it.

"White folks often think they've made some incredible gesture by giving black folks what should have been theirs all along -- and so believe they deserve black approval/friendship."

I've never met a single white person who thinks they deserve anything from black people. What are you basing this information on?

Fine. Shoot him in the head just like all the innocent people he murdered. One less scumbag on this planet.

It's hard to tell from above whether the guys actually did anything to warrant being kicked and beaten like that. Either way, I'd say that once you have subdued the guy, the kicking and beating has to stop. I'm not saying the cops don't have a right to be angry, but it's not part of their job to take out their frustrations and emotions on criminals.

726, at most, your post proves that both Democrats and Republicans are liars and failures. Is that your only point?

Danni-

Politicians don't control the price of your home. If you elect Barack Obama, your house will not be worth more because of that. I can't believe any adult actually thinks the way that you do.

Herm forgets that some corporations target their holdings toward people who have a conscience, and thereby do "good" things to accomplish that end. As usual, there's no use in explaining anything economic to a liberal.

Oh, there's the sniping, off-topic troll, Null Set. Anything to say in particular or are you just here to nip at peoples' heels?

It's always great to see how lefties really view all american corporations. Thank you for your insight, herm. Corporations are run by human beings, whether you choose to delude yourself into thinking otherwise or not. Do you feel the same way about small corporations? If not, what is the cutoff?

But, how will they deflect to Bush if you tell them the real point of the article?

So you've essentially made it impossible for any corporation to engage in charitable acts because any time they do, you can say they are just trying to look good. I'm glad you know what's in the hearts and minds of the thousands of leaders of every American corporation, big or small. That also explains the thousands of pages of material created by the the Internal Revenue Service dedicated to outlining the tax consequences of charitable contributions made by corporations. If it's never really "charitable," perhaps you should notify the IRS - they could be bringing in billions in extra revenue every year.

As always, you live up to your name.

Bottom line - there are millions of Americans who struggle to pay for their prescriptions, and Wal-Mart is now offering them at a price that those low-income people can afford. If you can't appreciate that at face value, there's something wrong with you. The fact that liberals constantly complain about the price of healthcare in our country, but then feel as though they need to rip wal-mart for selling cheap prescriptions simply because they are wal-mart, is really pathetic.

So...

You admit that large corporations do charitable things (even if it's for PR's sake), yet there's no way wal-mart could be selling cheap drugs for charitable reasons because it's against their corporate charter. Thanks for the insight.

"Bullshit. All modern corporate charters require the maximization of shareholder value."

And many large corporations give millions of dollars to charity every year. That doesn't "maximize shareholder value," but they do it anyway. One would think even a moron like you would know that, but apparently you don't.

Bob's words are meaningless because they are based on a stupid and incorrect assumption. Just because someone doesn't like Democrats doesn't mean they voted for Bush. Bob can't get that through his thick skull, because his way of thinking doesn't go past the two-party mentality.

The point is that if Wal-Mart raised drug prices, all the lefties here would bash them for being greedy capitalist pigs. If Wal-Mart lowers their drug prices to $3 a month, they get the same shit from the same lefties. It's a lose-lose for them, no matter what they do. If they gave the drugs away for free, you'd probably be saying the same shit.

"The link demonstrates that one of your friends mentioned it."

Rode One is hardly my "friend."

"What makes you think that you "know" Wal-Mart is being benevolent?"

Given their recent progressive stances on multiple issues, I'd give the the benefit of the doubt. You don't know anything about their corporate charter. You are making assumptions. They spend money being green out of benevolence. What makes you think they don't want to sell prescription drugs at a cut rate for the same reason?

"If you wish to continue flinging feces like your brethren, I'm done."

Says the guy who brought up my personal life in his very first post.

I didn't vote for Bush. You should apologize for voting for either major party.

I don't care about Republicans because they never said they'd do anything about gas prices. Democrats took over Congress because they told voters they'd do something about gas prices. I'm citing to a direct quote from 2006. I'm just wondering what happened to that initiative, or if any Democrats care about the fact that they were lied to.

Why would you link to a thread I never posted in? I'm sure if whatever quote you're talking about was placed in context (or if you just thought about it for a minute), you'd realize I do more at the retort than "practice legal debate."

I don't have a problem with people knowing I'm a law student. I do have a problem with dumbshits like you bringing it up at every turn, as if I'm supposed to be conducting myself as a lawyer 100% of the time, even on an anonymous internet site.

Back on topic, what makes you think that you "know" Wal-Mart is only offering cheap prescriptions to undercut smaller retailers? Have you sat in on their board meetings? Do you have a link to any real information that would suggest that? Or are you just guessing? Wal-Mart has taken plenty of "progressive" initiatives over the last few years, including making their stores environmentally friendly.

What a great contributor you are to this site.

None of the people who claimed the Wright story was irrelevant should have anything to say here.

Let me guess: Republicans' fault.

"BTW, is "Fucking pathetic" a legal term? I think you should try it in front of a Judge and see how it goes."

What a douchebag. Do you say the same thing to Montecore when he comes to the site and talks about buttplugs and Chicken BallNuggets? Anyone who feels such a constant need to whine about someone's personal life isn't worth another second of my time.

"This is a perfect example of why the death penalty should have be done away with decades ago."

He didn't get the death penalty.

Only on this site could you find a bunch of lefties talking about how wal-mart offering $10 90-day supplies of prescription drugs is a bad thing.

The cost of healthcare is too high. But when Wal-Mart offers an affordable option, that's not good enough either. Fucking pathetic.