These people are the worst. There's a couple from my old gym, both of whom were doctors (Chiropractors - so take that however you want. Still have to complete medical school to get a license.) and they decided that they didn't want to vaccinate their child because of whatever made up reason they thought would suit their mindset. Just goes to show you that even when someone is supposedly a subject matter expert, take their "expertise" with a grain of salt.
I agree with exactly what you are saying. I think at some level when these things start, they start with good intentions....get the bad guys or stop the bad thing. Soon though, to support these programs people realize how much money is involved....Lockheed realizes they can sell drones to County Sheriffs, Colt realizes they can sell ARs to every police department around the nation, it goes on and on for both the War of Drugs and War on Terror. These companies lobby politicians to keep and expand the programs, that means more jobs, both public and private sector. I guess what I'm saying and what I have eluded to in the past is that if you strip down all of the other bullshit, the War on Drugs and the War on Terror are jobs programs. What if Congress voted tomorrow to defund Homeland Security, TSA, BATFE, shrink the FBI and shrink the armed services; claiming the end to both wars. How many people would be out of jobs? What would happen to the national economy? Seriously, what is a reasonable guesstimate for numbers of people employed at these agencies directly, contractors who support it, vendors who support the programs who would shut down, etc? We are talking millions of people here, how do we even unwind this current position we are in as a nation? Let's face it: Our industry is War, our major export is War. Think about that, if you take a snapshot of America for the last 15 years, this is who we are.
You say "jobs programs", and the cynic in me says "government contract programs", with the jobs as an outcome. Somewhere, a friend of a powerful person in the government was in line to spin up a new enterprise to feed this new "problem" and benefit hugely from it. It's all about manipulating the people with fear to better justify a huge payday for all involved, with zero accountability until well after that matters.
Would you care to highlight some examples of terrorism that don't fit that definition, and explain how the motivations and outcomes of most murders fit within the definition of terrorism? We're arguing a lot of semantics, but I don't think defining terrorism is the problem, it's establishing our enemy. We're supposed to be fighting an idea, but how do you narrow down war on an idea into tangible goal? You make a good point, and I've long since lost count on how many different radical groups in how many different regions we're fighting. I will criticize Bush. I disagree with Nett, and while he he had ties regarding funds with weapon developers I think it was really about establishing his legacy. He wanted a grand accomplishment and he dragged congress along with him into believing that American values were so profound that winning over the local populace was assured. He fucking failed, big time. Even his claims for why the war was necessary have been exposed as a catastrophic mishandling of intelligence. But I have no love in my heart for the people we are fighting. You're right that we can't narrow them down, or establish a goal, but they're real, and they're despicable human beings. My opinion is that we should pull out, and lend support to the people in the region we find more civilized. Let the middle east nations focus on fighting each other. If Turkey and Saudi Arabia really want to see ISIS gone let them handle it. I don't want to lead the initiative, taking most of the cost and all of the blame. Winning at this point is finding ways to limit our involvement.
I'd say "Life" is going to be about 2 1/2 weeks if he's in GP. Daniel Holtzclaw, Former Oklahoma Cop, Gets 263 Years For Rape, Sex Assault http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...-rape-sex-assault_us_56a1188ce4b0404eb8f0869e
That's just awesome... From your article it also says "The Associated Press last year highlighted Holtzclaw's case in after an investigation revealed about 1,000 law officers were decertified in a six-year period because of sexual misconduct on the job." So instead of criminal prosecution for sexual misconduct on the job, roughly 1000 law officers were decertified? What does that even mean? Locally we had an incident in NYC where a female officer was accused of doing unlawful strip searches, and may have been doing so for 7 years - http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/09/n...ch-by-police-officer-under-scrutiny.html?_r=0 “The respondent has been violating the women of the City of New York for seven years,” a board prosecutor, Heather Cook, said in her closing statement. She asked that Officer White lose 30 vacation days as punishment." If you've been subjecting people to unlawful strip searches for years, I don't feel like taking away vacation days is comparable punishment.
He'll probably be in isolation until the day he dies. Even if he wasn't a cop he's still high-profile and that usually fast-tracks you into protective custody whether you want it or not. However, like Jeffrey Dahmer there will be plenty of convicts in the Rat Cage who will want to kill him anyway.
Greg Elliot was just found not guilty. Free speech online prevails, this poor man gets his life back and SJWs can all sit around the table and eat a giant shit sandwich. Happy Friday.
And here we go again... http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ound-needed-to-defeat-isis.html?intcmp=hplnws We really need to just keep the hell out of that whole region of the world, let them do what they're going to do, and if a clear victor emerges that hates us, just nuke 'em and be done with it.
That professor in Missouri that shoved students during a protest has been charged with third-degree assault. In other news, Bloomberg might jump into the race. Between that and Bernie Sanders rising quickly in the polls, the democrats must really want Trump to be president.
If my options are Bloomberg, Trump, Cruz, Hillary, or Bernie, I'm definitely in favor of Bloomberg. Socially liberal and fiscally conservative, sounds great. But both of those are enough to alienate both sides. But with Sanders against Cruz/Trump, there may just be enough people resistant to either extreme to make it work. Not to mention he's worth $40B, so throwing a couple billion at it won't hurt.
Can someone who knows about Canadian law answer this: how do you get found guilty of attempted murder, but cleared of murder, if the guy died? I believe the cop was right to shoot a knife-wielding nut, but I don't understand this verdict.
The shooting was actually considered 2 separate shootings. There was the first part where he was justified in shooting him, and those were the wounds that were found to have killed him. The second shooting, the guy was alive, but the wounds he received were not the ones that killed him. Therefore, even though he was wrong and not justified in the second shooting, and he was trying to kill him then, and the guy was still alive during that time, it was the first, justified shooting that killed him, so he could only be guilty of attempted murder.
He had him cornered in a street car and emptied his gun into him after he was helpless on the floor. Knife or not (a small knife at that), that cop was a fucking coward who had a history of pulling his gun on people. All he had to do was wait it out. Yatim was NO threat at that point. Tell me how this wasn't a cowardly murder:
The people on the bus testified that he tried to kill them, after taking out his cock and showing it off. Let's go back to 2007 when Vince Li attacked a sleeping man on a bus and cut off his head, then ate part of him in front of the passengers and police. He was NOT shot, and instead lives in a halfway house in Selkirk where he has the option of day passes to Winnipeg and - if he takes his meds! - is complient. Thanks, but I'd rather they're shot dead at the scene.
Dcc, you know I'm your friend, but that was a shitty move on the cop's part. If the guy is "subdued," (lying on the floor, motionless, with bullets in him), then there is no reason for additional shots. The death sentence is not supposed to be up to a cop, it's (unfortunately) up to a judge. (I've got issues with judges, too.)
We don't have death sentences here. That guy likely would have served no time, or served a few months in a psyche ward. Two passengers who were there stressed to the jury that they feared for their lives.
So by this logic the police should have the right to execute anyone who may have threatened someones life at some point. No one was in any danger when he was shot. The guy was on a bus by himself when the cop decided to execute him.
Eh. I'm not suggesting it be used as a template going forward. I'm just saying, given the history of our judicial system and the state of our mental health services, as a citizen I don't think the cop should be punished for shooting a guy who tried to kill strangers on a bus with a knife after exposing himself.