How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Protesting.....Lefty-style.   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  ]
 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Protesting.....Lefty-style.

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


125 posted 05-07-2010 09:27 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

In fact, the police I've known and spoken with about internal affairs and enforcement of policy matters inside various forces have universally expressed dislike for those who police them.  

True enough but isn't that natural? No one likes to be called on the carpet to defend their actions. Students don't like to be called into the principal's office. Workers don't like to be called in to the boss's office. A surgeon doen't like to be called in to defend his work. When you are called into Internal Affairs, it is either under the assumption or possibility you did something wrong. Those who actually did something wrong won't like it for obvious reasons. Those who didn't don't like to have to justify their actions to someone who thinks they did. What is there to like about either situation? Do you like to have to justify your actions when you know you've done nothing wrong. It naturally brings out defensiveness. The fact that there IS an Internal Affairs section is proof that the police actually are concerned about policing their own, which says something for them.

Nor have I seen you be critical of police powers or behavior at all.  

Bob, I wish there were no bad police but there are. I've seen them. I've had occasions where I wanted to rip their badges off and tell them they were not fit to wear the uniform. Why are they still on the beat? Thank the police unions. Ousting a cop is like ousting a postal employee. When I left, they told me I was crazy, that no one leaves such a job with the benefits, job security and perks that go along with it. They didn't realize I wasn't a perky kind of guy. Fortunately, the number of bad ones is microscopic and  well outnumbered by the good ones who believe in their job. I'm not going to condemn the barrel for one bad apple.

You know the hardest part about being a cop, Bob? It's maintaining objectivity. You don't see the same world they do. You see a park filled with happy children. They see drug dealers at night using the park for drop-offs. You live on the sunny side of life. They live on the seamy side, which has to be dealt with so that you can enjoy your sunny side. Ever slow down or get a little more careful when a cruiser happens to be behind you? Ever feel a little scowl cross your lips or you stiffen up a little when a cop is walking towards you? Those are the vibes cops deal with every day. Ok, big deal, I know. That's what they signed up for but it counts towards attitude. Go to a bar to have a drink and meet a dentist. I can assure you that, at some point in the conversation, he will be checking your teeth. A chiropractor will be checking your posture. A dermatologist will be checking your skin. It's natural. That's their profession and that's what they are used to doing. A cop? He will be checking your manner, your actions, looking for signs into your personality. It's natural. That's where his training is and that's what he does. You live in a world of family, friends, employees and rainbows. Cops live in a world of wife-beaters, addicts, pushers, murderers and rapists. It's not always easy to keep one's objectivity in that world...but, for the most part, they still do and should be commended for it. A garbage man who picks up the trash from wealthy homes has a different view of life than the wealthy people who throw it away. In a way, police are those garbage men. They deal with the trash normal people don''t even think about....until it stinks. Then they appreciate the garbage men.

Do you think cops like to harrass people? From my experience, they don't. Unless one is a power-hungry, piushy, agressive meathead who lives for intimidation, most cops would simply like to be respected for the work they do and treat decent people decently. They don't live for arresting people, filling out reams of paperwork and testifying in court against people who swear the police are just picking on them for no reason. They don't go to work and say let's see how many people we can tick off today and go out and make stops for no reason, hassle people on any excuse they can come up with. Why should they? Contrary to popular belief among those stopped, there are no "quotas" they have to fill, unless you live in a small town in Alabama, for example. I've been stopped over the years for taillights, expired registration, and a few other little things and have never gotten a ticket - and not because I had been a previous man in blue. In every case, the officer simly said, "Take care of it as soon as you can" and drove off. Why? Because I spoke decently to him, showed him ID when he asked and didn't try to be a wisenheimer.

Put yourself in their shoes, Bob. Now, instead of simply asking for id on a traffic stop, they are going to be bombarded by yells of Racism! and Prejudice and Police Brutality, regardless of the circumstances. That is Obama's and the press's gift to the police of Arizona. Every time a latin or person of color is questioned for anything, there is going to be a challenge, like Al Pacino in Dog Day Afterrnoon screaming out Attica!!!! It will be as non-sensical but it will be effective.

I would really appreciate it if you would view this video, Bob, for a little insight of what I'm talking about here. Thank you.....
http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=v7cbfaRRqn0
    
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


126 posted 05-07-2010 07:18 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Mike, I've had to deal with my share of intoxicated, high and off their medication people in my life.  I was injured by a couple of them and laid up on a couple of occasions for substantial periods of time.  As I've said, I know some police, and have treated some police, and I really don't dislike any of them.  In fact I like and sympathize with most of them and understand where most of them are coming from.

     You seem to have a problem, though, with believing me about this and still believing that I can disagree with you about some of the civil rights issues involved.  I do agree with you about most of what you say about police officers.  Police have let me walk on occasion, and they have ticketed me on occasion and have treated me badly on occasion.  Part of this had to do with how I was dressed, part with my age, part with my age and grooming and poart with the mutual level of fear involved.  I'm not trying to call cops names unless the occasional thug makes an appearance.  I think you'd think of them as thugs as well, and most cops would try to get between them and the public whenever they could.  Both of us have seen that happen.  I know I have.

     The Arizona Law, however, is what has people galvanized here, Mike, and not the Cops, who are probably victims of the law as much as the Hispanics who are the target of the law.  The gentleman on the tape that Denise presented with the kerchief and the tattoos may have identified himself as doing well, but you have promoted him to the status of community leader, which I did not hear him claim, and you also promote him to a status that souned to me like community spokesman, which he may or may not be.  What he was clearly was somebody who agreed with you and who dressed like the bikers I knew back in Massachusetts.  Maybe he's a well-off leather entrepreneur, but for a man who says that a cop can't help but make cop-type judgements, you're remarkably restrained.

     I do appreciate the kind and well spoken tone of your reply, and I want to thank you for it.

     Have you looked into the folks who more or less drafted the Arizona law, the people from FAIR and their background?  They and their Arizona State Senate sponsor have a background that is not encouraging and which they go to some lengths to conceal and deny.  Odd folks can come up with decent ideas, it must be acknowledged, but these ideas are very close to their old ideas.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


127 posted 05-07-2010 08:31 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

The gentleman on the tape that Denise presented with the kerchief and the tattoos
who dressed like the bikers I knew back in Massachusetts.  
Maybe he's a well-off leather entrepreneur,


Bob, it sounds to me like you are making a judgment based on how someone looks or dresses. I find that strange based on other comments of yours.

The Arizona Law, however, is what has people galvanized here, Mike,

We will continue to disagree on that point, Bob. For my money, it's not the law - it's the irrational comments of Obama galvanizing a media to stir things up and make it almost impossible for the police to do their jobs. Had it been a Democratic governor signing that same bill, I doubt it would have even gotten a mention. ATTICA!!!!!!!, Bob.

Too bad the media couldn't have given 1/10th of the time they have spent on this story and given it to Nashville.....but where's the fun in that?

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


128 posted 05-08-2010 01:23 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


     I take the following from LR's (#122) quotation of your remarks.  You said:

quote:

Predictably, groups that favor relaxed enforcement of immigration laws, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, insist the law is unconstitutional. Less predictably, President Obama declared it “misguided” and said the Justice Department would take a look.



     In your most recent comments, you say,

quote:

it's the irrational comments of Obama galvanizing a media to stir things up and make it almost impossible for the police to do their jobs.



     Now it certainly may be possible that you're speaking of some other comments made by the President, though if you are, I don't know what they are, but these two statements of yours might be considered somewhat at odds with each other.

     In your first statement, you let us know that The President is not even one of those folks who feel sure that the Arizona law is unconstitutional.  You let us know that instead of pushing for legal action against this law, he's asking for opinions on it from the Justice Department.  He has gone so far as to say, according to you, that he thinks it's "misguided."  The irrationality of any of these statements is not obvious to me.  You've certainly suggested that I'm more than "misguided," without it entering into the realm of the irrational.  Even you must have been called "misguided" from time to time without characterizing it as an irrational statement.   I would venture that "Misguided" in most circles seems a fairly moderate way of phrasing disagreement.

     Calling a law "misguided" would hardly galvanize the media into a frenzy of anything.  Though I certainly do get a certain amount of entertainment from the thought of the media going into a foam at the mouth frenzy over the use of language like that when the ACLU and other organizations, not to mention individuals of fairly clearly calling the law "unconstitutional."  Which would you say is the headline grabber?

     I would suggest the definitive comment on your suggestion should be left to John Irving:  "Garp!"

     The thing that I think makes it difficult for the police here is being presented with a polarizing law that puts them smack in the middle of a political struggle between Left and Right.  I know that any law has some political aspect to it, but the less of a political basis it has, the better, I think, it is for the police.  Nobody likes to be in the position of having to enforce bad laws or bad regulations.  The police may have had to enforce the prohibition laws during Prohibition, but they couldn't do it well and mostly they had trouble doing it with a clear conscience because they knew that the law was being broken almost as a matter of course.  Laws about some drugs these days put police in the same situation.  These are laws that politicians pass for popularity, and which police have to enforce at their own personal peril.

     This Arizona law is an example of that sort of law; it’s cheap for the politicians and expensive for the police and the less powerful members of the public.

     It makes the police unpopular, no matter what they do, enforce it or not.

     The State loses money if it's sued for over-zealous enforcement or for less that zealous enforcement.  The state get put in a financial vice no matter what it does.  Arizona gets treated like a state full of bigots and is forced to pay for the lawsuits of folks who feel that their notion of full enforcement isn't being carried out.  Whether or not the law is bigoted, the state is at the mercy of those who are bigoted.

     The lawyers make a killing.

     And of you, Mike, want to find a way to blame the President.

     I wish he'd have called the law racist, because I for one happen to think it is, and I always want the big guns on my side.  I'm foolish about that.  The big guns are wrong as often as not.  Sadly, he's done no such thing.  He's probably about the most moderate voice out there.  Certainly more moderate than either of us.


Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


129 posted 05-08-2010 03:16 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



quote:

One of the videos Denise posted here is about Mexican community leaders in Arizona welcoming the new law, behind it completely.



quote:


Bob, it sounds to me like you are making a judgment based on how someone looks or dresses. I find that strange based on other comments of yours.



quote:


Go to a bar to have a drink and meet a dentist. I can assure you that, at some point in the conversation, he will be checking your teeth. A chiropractor will be checking your posture. A dermatologist will be checking your skin. It's natural. That's their profession and that's what they are used to doing. A cop? He will be checking your manner, your actions, looking for signs into your personality. It's natural. That's where his training is and that's what he does. You live in a world of family, friends, employees and rainbows. Cops live in a world of wife-beaters, addicts, pushers, murderers and rapists. It's not always easy to keep one's objectivity in that world...but, for the most part, they still do and should be commended for it.




     Well, Mike, you have a point and you don't have a point, to coin a phrase.

     A police person has a different set of obligations than I do.  A police person chooses a difficult place to work and live that requires him or her to be very much in tune with all the cues that they get, but which only allows them to act on some of them.  Their actions must pass legal muster and must be within constitutional bounds when they are acting in legally defined situations.  That makes their lives very tough.  A lot of people go into police work without a clear understanding of this, and they get very bitter and very angry very quickly because they didn't understand the job from the beginning.  They want to have greater power and less responsibility than they in fact have, and that's a bad combination.  The constraints of the constitution are very difficult for them.

     They can make whatever judgements they want to make about a person based on ethnicity, gender, religion, race or whatever; but they are only allowed to act on very specific types of judgements.  They are forced to disregard  a lot of conclusions they may have come to because the constitution says that we do not allow our citizens to be treated based on ethnicity, gender, religion, race and so on.  A cop has to be very clear about what sort of judgements they are allowed to make.  Failure to be clear and to act clearly can get a case thrown out of court.

     For the rest of us there are obligations as well.

     We are obliged by law about some things.

     About other things, we make prejudiced decisions or intuitive decisions that may be right or wrong depending on what the basis may be for our intuitions.

     About the guy in the video, there were things that were very clear about him.  1) He was only a single person.  That means that he was not "Mexican Community Leaders in Arizona welcoming the new law, behind it completely.."  He made a point of saying that he was "American" and not "Hispanic."  He certainly did not claim to be "Mexican," nor a "Mexican Community Leader..."  He did claim to be successful.  2) While there was applause in the background, we have no idea who was applauding.  It may have been a conclave of the most respected "Mexican Community Leaders" in Arizona or it may have been a group of drunks on a street corner.  Whoever it was, the conclusion that it was a bunch of "Mexican Community leaders" who were completely behind the new law is not supported by any evidence that I saw in the clip.  Perhaps you might care to point some out to me that I missed.  3) We have only his estimation that he was "successful," and not even further self-estimation of his success in any particular field.  Was he successful at being "A respected Mexican Community Leader?"  Was he successful at being famous?  Was he filthy rich?  Was he a successful leather entrepreneur?  Was he a successful Whatever?

     He might have been a successful career Criminal.  We don't know, he hasn't told us, and you are building a background for him that you have no evidence for building.

     What basis do I have for making any other judgement on the guy?

     I point you back to the third quotation I have lifted from your comments.  I am not a Dentist.  I am not a Doctor.  I am not a cop.  I am not a military man, who examines each piece of ground with an eye to where to set up appropriate overlapping lanes of fire for a defense, and where I might try flanking maneuvers to bring enfilading fire to bear for attack.  

     I do have some competencies that may relate.  

     As part of my over-education, I am trained in counseling & consulting psychology and in social work.   Specifically, I am fairly good at The Mental Status Exam, which assesses a whole bunch of factors, including the way somebody looks and talks and thinks out loud and uses language to come up with a fast evaluation.  It's second nature.  I've used it for more than 30 years.  It's one of the lenses I see the world through, for better and for worse.

     So yeah, I did actually make a quick judgement about the guy by the way he looks and sounds.  It was a diagnostic judgement.  It was interesting, and it wasn't useful to anybody but me.  I certainly didn't have all the information I needed to do a complete Mental Status.  I certainly got an interesting impression that's private because it's as likely to be wrong as not, and it's nobody's business anyway.

quote:

The gentleman on the tape that Denise presented with the kerchief and the tattoos may have identified himself as doing well, but you have promoted him to the status of community leader, which I did not hear him claim, and you also promote him to a status that sounded to me like community spokesman, which he may or may not be.  What he was clearly was somebody who agreed with you and who dressed like the bikers I knew back in Massachusetts.  Maybe he's a well-off leather entrepreneur, but for a man who says that a cop can't help but make cop-type judgements, you're remarkably restrained.



     In looking at my comments, above, I notice that my comments are not about the biker, other than to note specific details of how he was dressed, and to comment that people I had seen dressed in the same style previously in another state had been bikers.  I have no idea if this guy was a biker or not.  Malcolm Forbes loved bikes, you know, and he did happen to be a community leader, though as far as I know he wasn't in the habit of giving tv interviews dressed this way.  

     About this man,  joked he might have been a leather entrepreneur.   Then I noted that it was funny the way that you had reacted to him.

     With the comments you've made in the past about not being able to restrain a professional judgement — and I quoted you above on the subject — I thought it funny that you would leap to the assumption that here was a community leader, and that he was Mexican, and that the Mexican community was with him.

     The man would hardly allow himself to be thought of as hispanic, let alone categorized as Mexican; or Cubano, or from Guatemala or whatever, for that matter.  He did look like some of the leather guys I used to know back in Boston and Ohio and Iowa.  Of course back then, everybody I remember who dressed like that was a hippie and was just as likely to give you a hug as not.  That was nicer, I think.  I miss that these days.

    
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


130 posted 05-08-2010 06:14 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Bob, you are mistaken. I made no such statement of the first quote you posted, concerning #122. I simply reprinted a post by Kris W. Kobach, a law professor at the University of Missouri at Kansas City.

Now it certainly may be possible that you're speaking of some other comments made by the President, though if you are, I don't know what they are

Let me refresh your memory, Bob, although I have touched on it numerous times.

"Now suddenly if you don't have your papers, and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you're going to get harassed — that's something that could potentially happen," Obama said of the Arizona measure. "That's not the right way to go."

Is that an appropriate comment, Bob? Do you share the validity of that statement? A comment like that is meant to incite and enflame...and the press took it and ran with it. The fact is he cannot call it either illegal, unconstitutional or racist so he has to resort to "misguided" and describe worst case scenarios to speak of it.

As far as the fellow in the video..He made a point of saying that he was "American" and not "Hispanic."   Now isn't that refreshing? Wouldn't it be nice if more foreign-born citizens referred to themselves as Americans?
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


131 posted 05-08-2010 07:14 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


quote:

Bob, you are mistaken. I made no such statement of the first quote you posted, concerning #122. I simply reprinted a post by Kris W. Kobach, a law professor at the University of Missouri at Kansas City.



     Then it was my mistake, and I'm sorry.  

quote:

Now it certainly may be possible that you're speaking of some other comments made by the President, though if you are, I don't know what they are

Let me refresh your memory, Bob, although I have touched on it numerous times.

"Now suddenly if you don't have your papers, and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you're going to get harassed — that's something that could potentially happen," Obama said of the Arizona measure. "That's not the right way to go."

Is that an appropriate comment, Bob? Do you share the validity of that statement?



     Yes, I do agree with it.  I would say that a fairly large number of other people agree with it as well, judging from the reaction to the law, even folks like me who weren't aware of the source of the statement you were talking about and didn't feel it inflammatory, but more or less descriptive of the way the law was written.

quote:

A comment like that is meant to incite and enflame...and the press took it and ran with it. The fact is he cannot call it either illegal, unconstitutional or racist so he has to resort to "misguided" and describe worst case scenarios to speak of it.



     Your ascription of intent is mind-reading, Mike.  You do not know what his intention was any more than I do. may or may not be true.  

     I am familiar with the story only from your use of it here.  Perhaps if you gave me some reference of its over-use in the mainstream media, that would provide evidence that what you say is true.  Use of conversation about The Tea Party may well be overdone.  There has indeed been an enormous over-focus on that story over a very long time, but the papers get to choose and I don't.  Perhaps you might supply me with some MSM data, so we could talk on more than the level of what the story feels like to you and what it feels like to me.

quote:

As far as the fellow in the video..He made a point of saying that he was "American" and not "Hispanic."   Now isn't that refreshing? Wouldn't it be nice if more foreign-born citizens referred to themselves as Americans?



     Yup!

     Sadly, that wasn't your point.  You promoted the man as a spokesperson for solid and productive Mexican-Americans who were solidly behind the wonderful bill, at least more or less.  That proved to be misstated.  Even in your reply here, your implication is that "Wouldn't it be nice if more foreign-born citizens referred to themselves as Americans?" and that the video in question might indeed be an example of such a thing.

     The man made a point of saying that he was a second or third generation American.  Hence your notion of him perhaps being foreign born is not applicable here.  He might, in fact, be one of the people stopped simply because of the way he looks because it is possible some passerby might believe him to be illegal and wish to make trouble.  A cop could end up in court as a result, simply because some ignorant bozo could make a simple mistake and feel self-righteous about it.

     If you could mistake the guy for a naturalized citizen ("Wouldn't it be nice if more foreign-born citizens referred to themselves as Americans?", what about some fringe xenophobic yahoo, encouraged to sue cops at the drop of a hat for not acting xenophobic enough to meet a xenophobe's needs?  The law encourages this sort of thing.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


132 posted 05-08-2010 07:34 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

The law does not call for people being stopped for the way they look, Bob. It simply does not. That is the misrepresentation that Obama and others have put out there.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


133 posted 05-08-2010 10:22 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Perhaps if you gave me some reference of its over-use in the mainstream media, that would provide evidence that what you say is true.

No, it wouldn't, Bob, not to you. You have shown that clearly here and in other situations. If you believe that, by that law, no one on the streets would be safe from harrassment, not even fathers taking their children out for ice cream, then you are not going to accept anything. You will simply talk your way around it with some such comments as the ones you just made here. There's no need to pretend otherwise. It is what it is.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


134 posted 05-09-2010 04:07 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     In other words, you can't prove your case, Mike.  Why didn't you just say so?
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


135 posted 05-09-2010 04:12 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     In other words, you can't prove your case.  Why didn't you just say so?  It's not like you haven't seen me admit errors or apologize when I think I'm wrong, and recently, too.  Gee Whiz, Green Lantern, clear your head.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


136 posted 05-09-2010 08:51 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

You want to talk about proving cases, Bob? Ok, you agree with Obama's statement about the ice cream seekers getting harrassed. Prove it. Give me evidence that will happen. You want to scream racial prejudice while the biggest racist sits in the Oval Office? Prove it. You declare the law is unconstitutional? Prove it.

You demand facts and proof of any statement you disagree with? Back up your own with facts. Holy balderdash, Batman! You're supposed to capture Two-Face, not imitate him!!!
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


137 posted 05-09-2010 08:54 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Mike.... what does "ANY" mean?
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


138 posted 05-09-2010 10:49 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
Ok, you agree with Obama's statement about the ice cream seekers getting harrassed. Prove it.


Here you go Mike.
http://icecreamjournal.turkeyhill.com/index.php/2008/11/24/second-scoop-strange-ice-cream-law-in-new-jersey/

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


139 posted 05-09-2010 02:49 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

grinch...cute article, for sure...absolutely nothing to do with this topic, as you know, but cute.

LR, you mean like "It all depends what "is" is?
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


140 posted 05-09-2010 11:18 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K




quote:

"Now suddenly if you don't have your papers, and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you're going to get harassed — that's something that could potentially happen," Obama said of the Arizona measure. "That's not the right way to go."



     Sorry, Mike, but I don't have to.  You've asked me to prove something that might potentially happen, and this certainly falls in that domain.  It already is something that might potentially happen, and suggesting otherwise is simply outside the realm of probability.  I don't have to prove that.  You're in the unfortunate position of having to prove something isn't possible.  That is why the President phrased the statement that way and not in some other form.  He didn't say would be, had to be, or might likely be; he said, "that's something that could potentially happen[....]"

     A giant finger tip could potentially appear from the middle of the moon tomorrow and stick itself in my ear, Mike.  The President chose about the single most inoffensive way a person could possibly have picked to suggest the remotest possibility of distress to somebody who had the most malign intention toward him in the whole world with the least reason in the whole world, and that, Mike, is what you chose to get upset about.  Congratulations!

     I still agree with him.  It's not the way to go.  It takes 30% of the State of Arizona and at least potentially, it makes them feel very nervous to be walking about on the streets of their state.  That's not well thought through in my opinion.  In a state which depends on Tourism for a large part of its income, it's not a well thought out move because it alienates at least the players of many of the baseball teams, and potentially, by sympathy, members of the football and basketball players teams.  They may have a much reduced interest in training in or playing in a state with laws like this one, because for some strange reason they too may thing this particular law is racist and at a minimum discriminatory against minorities.  Many of these folks, being minorities themselves might actually disagree with your opinion about this law.  

     Having been on the butt end of laws like this for many years, they may have ideas that are at variance from yours that may for some reason be firmly held.  You can always blame it on the conveniently Black President whom you call Racist.  Smooth play Shakespeare.  You can really win over all those minorities by accusing them of racism.  Not only that, but the logic of your opinions will be as  immediately evident to them as it seems to me.  All they will need to do is look at the folks who wrote this bill, the friendly folks at FAIR, and they will fall into place.

     Not.

     I particularly like how you've asked me to prove something which, in order to be false, would have to be less likely than your own birth, and managed to wax indignant about it at the same time.
Is that an appropriate comment, Bob? Do you share the validity of that statement?
     The President turned it over to the Justice Department for an Opinion, Mike.  He didn't try to substitute his judgement for legal opinion the way you seem to be doing and the way you would seem to like me to try to do.  He offered an opinion, which I agree with.  I'm not stating my opinions are facts.  I'm saying that I think it's unconstitutional.

     "That's something that could potentially happen."

     An iceberg could appear in the middle of the desert outside Phoenix tomorrow morning.  It may not be very likely, but "IT COULD POTENTIALLY HAPPEN."

     I do actually find your assertion that the Main Stream Media has puffed this story up to be somewhat odd.  I said why earlier.  You've asked me for references for some of my assertions from time to time, and I don't think it inappropriate that I should so the same from time to time.  Your outrage suggests that your assertion can't be backed up with enough references to satisfy either me or, more importantly, anybody else who's reading along for entertainment value.  Perhaps you have simply hundreds of references for my elucidation and are waiting for a chance to lay them out before me and the rest of the folks here.  But to me it seemed like an ill-constructed swipe at the President, and I've gotten a bit tired of those.  My preference is for criticisms of the President to be accurate and accountable.  My experience is that inappropriate criticisms have something in common with counterfeit money.  The bad drives out the good.  Too many false or inflated criticisms mean that well taken criticisms will tend to get overlooked.

     While I tend to be fond of the President overall, I don't think he is beyond criticism.  I simply think the criticism ought to be well founded.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


141 posted 05-09-2010 11:36 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Sorry, Mike, but I don't have to.

You could have stopped right there, Bob. The rest of it was just an attempt at justification why you don't have to...which is common for you.

Here's a pic of your anti-amendment Arizona protesters in action..




...and you talk about tea-partiers?
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


142 posted 05-10-2010 12:19 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



    When you stick your fingers in your ears and go "La, La, La La!" really loudly you get all red and funny in the face, Mike.  I do like the picture, but nothing says authentic like the actual name of the source on what appears to be copy-written material when you publish it in another place.  The owners of the copyright also tend to appreciate it and not just those who don't know that the picture is not that of Teabag Party Members at a demonstration.  This isn't simply a paraphrase, Mike.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


143 posted 05-10-2010 12:22 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



quote:

The rest of it was just an attempt at justification why you don't have to...which is common for you.



     If you are smearing me, be specific and give places, times and examples.  Otherwise, an apology is in order.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


144 posted 05-10-2010 01:49 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

quote:
Here's a pic of your anti-amendment Arizona protesters in action.


Did you add the text to the image Mike? If so you did a very amateurish job if you don’t mind me saying. When you zoom into the image you can clearly see the rate of interpolation is different around the lettering than the rest of the image. Then there’s the lack of any edge between what looks like two pieces of paper – where it should be there are telltale smudges that scream PHOTOSHOP.

Are you so desperate to make a point that you have to use forged images to do it? I’m disappointed Mike.



Free Bobs - No Taxis - Cobblers of America UNITE!



[This message has been edited by Grinch (05-10-2010 05:01 PM).]

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


145 posted 05-10-2010 06:27 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

No Mike -- I mean... what does 'ANY' mean?

It's a simple question...

Here -- let's use it in a phrase if that helps:

'in the enforcement of ANY code...'

What does ANY mean there Mike?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


146 posted 05-10-2010 07:05 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Grinch, I wouldn't know how to write my name with photoshop. I've never used it and don't know the first thing about it. To think that I would try to create a ficticious picture to post here for the sake of fooling anyone is what is really disappointing. We have had differences in the past but I wouldn't think you would think that low of me. Interesting to see that you do.

If it is not authentic then I am as much of a victim of it as anyone else. Believe it or not...I don't really care.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


147 posted 05-10-2010 07:31 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Bob, if you think I'm going back to the archives to satisfy your demand, it ain't gonna happen, although I have pointed that fact out before in previous threads.

In this case, Obama is simply being sleazy in his tactics. No, he can't say that harassment will happen or he can't say that the law is unconstitutional so he just paints the scenario of it happening and throws in a "could" or "might" to cover himself in case he is wrong. The thing is that he does paint the scenario, even with the disclaimer. Why? Obviously because he wants that thought in people's minds, whether it is valid or not. You agree with this tactic. Nice....
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


148 posted 05-10-2010 07:37 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


     Actually, Mike, I don't.

      I don't think you'd do something like that on purpose.

     I do think that you could get taken in because anybody can.  That's why I wanted the source.

     Don't sulk, check out the source and keep in mind that everybody isn't as high-minded as you are.  You're probably as amazed at what the photoshopping could do as I was.

     Snap out of it man, you're among friends.

     And about # 147, No, Mike, you haven't pointed out the "fact."  You've asserted something that I've allowed to go by without calling you on it because I've been trying to be polite.  Simply because I've let it go, doesn't mean that I've felt chipper about the comments, and it certainly doesn't mean that I agree with them.  It's easy for somebody to assume that I'm being compliant with such accusations when I don't confront them, and it's simply not healthy for me to allow them to go by without asking you to prove them if you think them true.

     If they are true, it's my job to learn and benefit from them, and to acknowledge the truth behind them.

    If I don't believe they are, then it's my job to ask for you to put your proof where your allegations are or face the embarrassment of not being able to do so.  If that doesn't bother you, it won't be much of a problem for you at all.  I think you're a guy who is affected by that sort of thing, and that this is as much as I'll need to say.  It's an expression of trust in you, actually; and I hope you take it that way.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


149 posted 05-10-2010 07:43 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
We have had differences in the past but I wouldn't think you would think that low of me.


I didn’t Mike. I was just having a little fun and making the point that images are easily manipulated – so easy in fact that even doddering old relics like you and me can do it. Sorry if I took it too far.

BTW I still think free Bobs and no taxis are a good idea.


 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Protesting.....Lefty-style.   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors