Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Lloyd Perna

Pages: [1]
1
You can listen to the whole debate on Jordan Petersen's podcast.

From a quick look at an article, Fry complains about:

Statue removal. This is a big one for a lot of people, and they often equate it with "erasing history", when nobody on the PC side is advocating removing anyone from the history books, they just want to remove these people from a place of honor and admiration.

Trigger words. The idea that literature must be avoided because it contains ideas of racism and other items.

I'm curious about the source of the article.  A transcript is available with a mumbership to Munk Debates that requires an email address.  A bit of Fry, sans Laurie:

Quote
Now, in agreeing to participate in this debate and stand on this side of the argument, I'm fully aware that many people who choose —incorrectly, in my view — to see this issue in terms of left and right, devalued and exploded terms as I think they are, will believe that I am betraying myself in such causes and values that I’ve espoused over the years. I’ve been given huge grief already, simply because I'm standing here next to Professor Peterson, which is the very reason that I'm standing here in the first place. I'm standing next to someone with whom I have, you know, differences, shall we say, in term of politics and all kinds of other things, precisely because I think all this has got to stop — this rage, resentment, hostility, intolerance; above all, this with-us-or-against us certainty.
A Grand Canyon has opened up in our world. The fissure, the crack, grows wider every day. Neither side can hear a word that the other shrieks; nor do they want to. While these armies and propagandists in the culture wars clash, down below in the enormous space between the two sides, the people of the world try to get on with their lives, alternately baffled, bored, and betrayed by the horrible noises and explosions that echo all around. I think it’s time for this toxic, binary, zerosum madness to stop before we destroy ourselves. I’d better nail my colours to the mast before I go any further than this; it’s only polite to give you a sense of where I come from. All my adult life I have been what you might call a leftie, a soft leftie, a liberal of the most hand-wringing, milksop, milk-toast variety. Not a burning man-the-barricades socialist; not even really a progressive worth the name. I've been on marches, but I’ve never quite dared wave placards or banners.
Am I a loathed member of that band, an SJW — a social justice warrior? I don’t think highly of social injustice, I have to say, but I character myself mostly as a social justice worrier. My intellectual heroes, growing up, were Bertrand Russell and G. E. Moore, liberal thinkers, people like that, writers like E. M. Forster. I believed, and I think I still do believe, in the sanctity of human
relations, the primacy of the heart, and friendship and love and common interest. These are more personal interior beliefs than they are political exterior convictions, more a humanistic version of a religious impulse, I suppose. I trust in humanity, I believe in humanity — I think I do, despite all that has happened in the forty years of my adulthood. I am soft, and I can easily be swept away by harder hearts and harder intellects. I'm sometimes surprised to be described as an activist, but over time I have energetically involved myself with what you might call causes. I grew up knowing that I was gay — well, in fact, from the very first I knew I was gay. I remember when I was born, looking up and saying, “That’s the last time I'm going out one of those!”
I'm Jewish, so I have a natural, obvious horror of racism. Naturally I want racism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, bullying, bigotry, intolerance of all human kinds to end. That’s
surely a given amongst all of us.
The question is how such a golden aim is to be achieved. My ultimate objection to political correctness is not that it combines so much of what I have spent a lifetime loathing and opposing: preachiness (with great respect), piety, self-righteousness, heresyhunting, denunciation, shaming, assertion without evidence, accusation, inquisition, censoring. That’s not why I'm incurring the
wrath of my fellow liberals by standing on this side of the house.

My real objection is that I don’t think political correctness works. I want to achieve, I want to get to the golden hill, but I don’t think that’s the way to get there. I believe one of the greatest human failings is to prefer to be right than to be effective. And political correctness is always obsessed with how right it is, without thinking of how effective it might be. I wouldn’t class myself as a classical libertarian, but I do relish transgression, and I deeply and instinctively distrust conformity and orthodoxy. Progress is not achieved by preachers and guardians of morality but, to paraphrase Yevgeny Zamyatin, by madmen, hermits, heretics, dreamers, rebels, and skeptics. I may be wrong — I hope to learn this evening. I really do think I may be wrong. I'm prepared to entertain the possibility that political correctness will bring us more tolerance and a better world. But I'm not sure, and I would like this quotation from my hero, Bertrand Russell, to hover over the evening: “One of the painful things about our time, is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision.” Let doubt prevail.

2
General Comments / Re: Corey Booker and Kavanaugh Hearing
« on: October 03, 2018, 06:10:24 PM »
Quote
It's hard to imagine TheDrake that you could have a legitimate basis to claim he perjured himself in saying he never blacked out.  You'd have to have proof of an event occurring that he doesn't remember (which if he denies the event is impossible to determine if he's lying).  In this case, we DON'T have proof the event occurred and the accusation is uncorroborated and not terribly credible.

Anyone who runs around boofing with his DKE pals is going to get blackout drunk. No, I can't point to a specific detail or a person making the claim that they talked to him the morning after a party and he didn't remember a large chunk of time. It strains plausibility to the breaking point.

As for the credibility of an anonymous ex-boyfriend recounting his experiences with her 20-25 years ago... and one whose own statement describes that she cheated on him and used his credit card after they broke up? That doesn't really prove perjury either.

Well, its not anonymous.  The man in question is Brian Merrick.  I do find it somewhat humorous that many people are completely willing to take Ford's uncorroborated testimony as unassailable truth but very quickly discount this man's testimony because it is uncorroborated

3
General Comments / Re: Corey Booker and Kavanaugh Hearing
« on: September 19, 2018, 06:52:58 PM »
So, What I'm hearing is that any accusation of wrongdoing now disqualifies anyone from public office?  Are we going to hold everybody to that standard?

4
I served with General Mattis.  If he wanted to say this, he would not do it anonymously.

5
General Comments / Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
« on: September 05, 2018, 12:54:35 PM »
I googled "trump voter fraud new hampshire" and the first result found this article from May this year.

https://www.concordmonitor.com/Database-flags-142-possible-voter-fraud-cases-17835841

Quote
After the 2016 general election, the system flagged 94,610 New Hampshire voters whose first and last names and dates of birth matched those in other states. That amounts to about 1 in 9 voters, but officials eliminated all but 142 of the matches after taking a closer look at middle names and other information, including the marked checklists maintained by poll workers. Of the 142, officials have sent 51 to the attorney general’s office for investigation and are waiting for information from other states on the rest, Secretary of State Bill Gardner told the Ballot Law Commission.

I'm willing to give this one to Trump since at the time of the tweet I would have considered this a problem as well.  I'm glad that after a year investigating that we can say that there were probably only somewhere between 51 and 142 actual cases of voter fraud.


6
General Comments / Re: Trump verses Google Search
« on: August 30, 2018, 03:22:05 PM »
Personally, I don't believe that google is really cooking the results to disfavor Trump specifically. Though, it wouldn't surprise me if some sites were penalized (or favored) by the algorithm based on their content (keywords)

I think the underlying issue is that Google's algorithm (and all the other search engines I believe) is not transparent.  If Google was more forthcoming with how the algorithm works, it doesn't need to be specific, and the search results displayed some information on each result that correlates to that explanation, then I think most of these claims could easily be dismissed.  Unfortunately, that would probably result in search results being worse overall due to SEO optimizers gaming the algorithm even more than they do already.

7
Ok, let's break it down.

Quote
"In the eyes of the law, yes. But in the eyes of good and evil, here’s the argument: If you’re a punk who comes to start trouble in a mask and hurt people, you’re not about any virtuous cause," he continued. "You’re just somebody that’s going to be held to the standard of doing something wrong."
Here he says if your just here to start trouble you're in the wrong.  I agree.

Quote
"But when someone comes to call out bigots and it gets hot, even physical, are they equally wrong as the bigot they’re fighting? I argue no."
But here, he says that as long as you are here to call out the bigots then sure, if they make you mad mess them up, they deserve it.

Quote
Fighting matters, too, there’s no question about that. But drawing a moral equivalency between those espousing hate and those fighting it, because they both resort to violence emboldens hate, legitimizes hateful belief and elevates what should be stamped out.
Now he waffles a bit, maybe its not totally ok to fight but don't worry, our cause is just

Quote
Antifa or whomever ... or malcontent or misguided, they are also wrong to hit, but fighting hate is right, And in a clash between hate and those who oppose it, those who oppose it are on the side of right.”
More talking out of both sides of his mouth.  Its wrong to commit violence.  but not so much if its against these bad people.

"And in a clash between hate and those who oppose it, those who oppose it are on the side of right.”

8
Tale a look this list of recent acts of violence or harassment of Trump supporters and then explain to me how this is not a problem.

https://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2018/07/05/rap-sheet-acts-of-media-approved-violence-and-harassment-against-trump-supporters/

9
The full context of the article you cited:

Quote
"In the eyes of the law, yes. But in the eyes of good and evil, here’s the argument: If you’re a punk who comes to start trouble in a mask and hurt people, you’re not about any virtuous cause," he continued. "You’re just somebody that’s going to be held to the standard of doing something wrong."

"But when someone comes to call out bigots and it gets hot, even physical, are they equally wrong as the bigot they’re fighting? I argue no. ... Fighting matters, too, there’s no question about that. But drawing a moral equivalency between those espousing hate and those fighting it, because they both resort to violence emboldens hate, legitimizes hateful belief and elevates what should be stamped out."

"Antifa or whomever ... or malcontent or misguided, they are also wrong to hit, but fighting hate is right," Cuomo said later. "And in a clash between hate and those who oppose it, those who oppose it are on the side of right.”

That's a far stretch from condoning, encouraging, or excusing in any fair reading, especially in the first paragraph.

What he is saying is that there are levels of violence, and it certainly isn't limited to the left to draw such distinctions. Trump has talked before about how people on the left making statements deserve physical violence. The guy he'd like to punch in the face. The offer to pay the legal bills for someone who chooses to do so.

In a peaceful conversation or event or demonstration.  The first one to swing loses all moral authority. 

10
Do you think this type of agressive action is just random?   Leftist politicians and Media personalities such as Maxine Waters and Chris Cuomo as well as the Neo-marxist humanities faculty at our universities have been justifying if not encouraging this type of behavior for some time now.

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/401699-cnns-cuomo-defends-antifa-those-who-oppose-hate-are-on-the-side-of-right

Quote
But when someone comes to call out bigots and it gets hot, even physical, are they equally wrong as the bigot they’re fighting? I argue no. ... Fighting matters, too, there’s no question about that. But drawing a moral equivalency between those espousing hate and those fighting it, because they both resort to violence emboldens hate, legitimizes hateful belief and elevates what should be stamped out.

And when they say bigots they mean anybody who doesn't completely support their agenda.


11
This was not just "some teen" taking somebody's hat.  This was a political statement that ended up in violence.

Quote
“That’s a racist and hateful symbol,” Butler said.

Quote
“Maybe just wake people up in some type of way, because it’s not cool the environment our classroom is in,” Butler said.

13
General Comments / Re: The Manafort Question
« on: August 22, 2018, 01:52:39 PM »
Quote
That was, for all intents and purposes, a personal matter that involved Trump's private life, and although paying them off was surely estimated to be useful for the campaign, I do not personally believe that literally every action taken by a candidate who's running should be equated with campaigning. He might well have paid them off had they made a stink about it a couple of years prior and there would have been nothing untoward about that.

Just remember, Fenring, the crime was not paying off these women to be silent, but rather not reporting this payoff as a campaign contribution.  Illegally hiding a donation to the campaign.

You can also give money to a person before he is running for office.  But if you give him money for his campaign, it has to be reported.  Same difference here.


If I recall, John Edwards was accused of this same campaign finance violation in 2012.  The only difference being that the money was donated to him by some 3rd party.  In that case the FEC ruled that he committed no violation and he was charged anyway and subsequently found innocent.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/02/nation/la-na-edwards-analysis-20120602

14
General Comments / Re: Deplatforming
« on: August 17, 2018, 02:11:31 PM »
Yeah, its kinda hard to find the specific content they based these bans on because its not there anymore.  These days, whenever I hear anybody talk about hate speech, what I hear is them talking about speech they hate.

15
General Comments / Re: Deplatforming
« on: August 17, 2018, 01:22:05 PM »
So Facebook gave this reason for their ban.  "glorifying violence, which violates our graphic violence policy, and using dehumanizing language to describe people who are transgender, Muslims and immigrants, which violates our hate speech policies."  I can't find anything specific about the reasons the other platforms gave. other than the generic TOS violations answer. 

I suspect if they applied these rules evenly these platforms would have a lot less users.

16
General Comments / Re: Deplatforming
« on: August 17, 2018, 10:03:37 AM »
Quote
When you look at Alex Jones, this is all out there. His statements can't really be construed as anything other than a call for violence. I know people will disagree, but cmon. "Now is the time to act on the enemy before they do a false flag"?

This guy should replace the example of, "yelling fire in a crowded theater".  He's not just expressing political views.  While I'm typically on the side of, "leave it alone, this is a slippery slope", ANY line one draws would have Jones on the wrong side of it.

The furor over Alex Jones has been all over my facebook feed, reddit and my other news sources but I must admit that I have never actually listened to anything he had to say.  Maybe I should see for myself what he is saying that is so horrible and check out one or two of his YouTube videos.  Oh wait...

Seriously though,  What has he done that is so bad that he needs to be wiped off the public internet?

18
General Comments / Re: Racism or rational response to trespassing
« on: July 24, 2018, 03:35:33 PM »
Yes, those parts of the law work together.  No question about it. 

The important part in the section you quoted is "he or she reasonably believes"

http://www.husseinandwebber.com/case-work/criminal-defense-articles/floridas-stand-ground-law/

This article gives a good history of the Florida Law.  Specifically the 2017 change which, once the shooter claims self-defense shifts the burden of proof to the prosecution.

Quote
PROSECUTORIAL IMMUNITY: CURRENT LAW
In 2017, the Florida legislature amended the ‘Stand Your Ground’ statute to significantly alter the burdens and standards of proof applicable in immunity proceedings.

Instead of placing the entire burden on the defendant, the law now requires a defendant to establish only a prima facie case of self-defense immunity.  At that point, the burden shifts to the prosecution to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant does not qualify for immunity.

§ 776.032(4) provides as follows:

In a criminal prosecution, once a prima facie claim of self-defense immunity from criminal prosecution has been raised by the defendant at a pretrial immunity hearing, the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence is on the party seeking to overcome the immunity from criminal prosecution provided in subsection (1).

Not only does this provision shift the burden of proof to the prosecution, it also raises the standard of proof from “preponderance of the evidence” to “clear and convincing evidence.”


19
General Comments / Re: Racism or rational response to trespassing
« on: July 24, 2018, 01:09:21 PM »
Here is the florida statute.
Quote
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use or threatened use of force.—
  • (1) A person who uses or threatens to use force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in such conduct and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use or threatened use of such force by the person, personal representative, or heirs of the person against whom the force was used or threatened, unless the person against whom force was used or threatened is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using or threatening to use force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
  • (2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use or threatened use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using or threatening to use force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used or threatened was unlawful.
  • (3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).
  • (4) In a criminal prosecution, once a prima facie claim of self-defense immunity from criminal prosecution has been raised by the defendant at a pretrial immunity hearing, the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence is on the party seeking to overcome the immunity from criminal prosecution provided in subsection (1).
History.—s. 4, ch. 2005-27; s. 6, ch. 2014-195; s. 1, ch. 2017-72.

20
General Comments / Re: Trump Putin Summit
« on: July 22, 2018, 10:08:29 PM »
You assert your opinions about his preparation as fact and use that to justify your argument about the national security. Then you speculate about what was discussed and project your anti-trump bias into your hysterical fears about what might have happened. None of the things you speculate may have happened are any more likely than the far less objectionably things they could have discussed.  I think the president of the united states is in a much better position to decide what is appropriate to discuss than you are.

So if we eliminate your biased opinions about his preparation and knowledge, your only objection is that there was no record of the conversation.  And I assume you find that objectionable because once again, your bias tells you that he can't be up to anything good.  I really doubt that if Obama or Hillary did the same thing you would even bat an eye.

Of course I don't deny that President of the United states met with the leader of a foreign government in private to discuss the future of the relationship between our countries. 

21
General Comments / Re: Trump Putin Summit
« on: July 22, 2018, 06:53:34 PM »
So you are arguing that the executive should not be able conduct international diplomacy in private?  Or are you just saying that only applies to Trump? I think your bias has crossed the line into hysteria.

22
General Comments / Re: Trump Putin Summit
« on: July 22, 2018, 07:35:25 AM »
This is detrimental to the security of our country.

In what way is this detrimental to our national security?  Please be specific.

23
General Comments / Re: My conflicted NATO
« on: July 13, 2018, 10:51:11 AM »
The people that kill them, obviously.

25
Greg, I suppose parents should be criminally liable if their adult children commit crimes then?

26
General Comments / Re: Release the memo
« on: January 29, 2018, 03:29:49 PM »
They showed the Memo to Wray yesterday.  This Morning McCabe resigned.

27
General Comments / Re: Net Neutrality 2.0
« on: December 14, 2017, 11:30:03 AM »
Here's a pretty good article from WSJ with some arguments from both sides of the debate.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/net-neutrality-for-and-against-1513195805


28
General Comments / Re: Russia and US politics
« on: October 18, 2017, 12:58:05 PM »
I don't think this is what the media typically refers to as an anonymous source.

29
General Comments / Re: Russia and US politics
« on: October 18, 2017, 12:44:07 PM »
Apparently an FBI informant has come forward saying he was blocked from informing congress about what he witnessed by the Obama DOJ .

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/355937-fbi-informant-blocked-from-telling-congress-about-russia-nuclear

30
General Comments / Re: Charlottsville
« on: August 17, 2017, 10:21:59 AM »
The idea that the car being driven into the crowd somehow makes everything that led up to it invalid is what is ludicrous.  This was not some isolated event, it was the culmination of a day full of violent conflict. Everyone involved should be doing some soul searching about how it got to that point.

31
General Comments / Re: Charlottsville
« on: August 17, 2017, 09:47:31 AM »
Quote
Trump was completely justified in condemning both sides.

The problem with this statement is that the general confrontations were not the primary story.  Trump had no problem calling out Islamic terrorists and attacking London's mayor in June when a truck plowed into pedestrians.  We wouldn't even be talking about C'Ville still if not for Heather's death and the other 19 injured by Fields.

No one is asking him to condone the violence between protesters but there is a significant difference between a few street brawls and the crimes committed by Fields.

Virtually everyone is asking him to Ignore any antifa violence while simultaneously insisting that any politician that does not come out and explicitly denounce Trump (since many are currently ignoring all the outrage about this) and if they don't they are defacto condoning what he said.

32
General Comments / Re: Military Ban on Transgender
« on: July 26, 2017, 02:26:06 PM »
Veteran here,  The list of medical conditions that will keep you out of the Military is longer than your arm.  Wet the bed anytime since you turned 13?  Take daily medication (for any reason)?  Ever been treated with medication for depression?  Have asthma? ADHD? Have braces?  Are you less than 5ft tall? Have Allergies?

I think you get my point.  The side effects of the hormone treatments should be enough to disqualify anyone on them.

33
General Comments / Re: Unsung inventions
« on: July 10, 2017, 02:20:30 PM »
Newspaper is the best for washing your windows without leaving streaks.

34
General Comments / Re: An innovative proposal
« on: May 11, 2017, 02:18:49 PM »
Now that women are allowed to serve in combat roles there is no reason they should not be mandated to register for the draft.  Anything else would be discriminatory.

35
D.W. said:

When Hillary talked about Trump's "basket of deplorables," she was not referring to all Trump supporters, either.  But it was taken that way by many, if not most, of them. 


You're right, she was only referring to half of them.   

36
General Comments / Re: Reality sets in
« on: July 18, 2016, 02:27:00 PM »
What's your source?  The only comments on the police union request from the trump campaign I can find are in support of the 2nd Amendment.

37

Quote
A new study confirms that black men and women are treated differently in the hands of law enforcement. They are more likely to be touched, handcuffed, pushed to the ground or pepper-sprayed by a police officer, even after accounting for how, where and when they encounter the police.

But when it comes to the most lethal form of force — police shootings — the study finds no racial bias.
I read another article about a comment by Huckabee that more white men than black men are shot by the police.  That's nominally true, but ignores that you are more likely to be shot if you are black because of the disparity in the white/black populations.

What does a comment by a politician have to do with the scientific study discussed in the NY Times article?  Are you trying to imply that the study makes the same mistake?

38
So we now have some data to evaluate the notion that black people are more likely to be shot by cops than white people are.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/upshot/surprising-new-evidence-shows-bias-in-police-use-of-force-but-not-in-shootings.html

Quote
Surprising New Evidence Shows Bias in Police Use of Force but Not in Shootings

Quote
A new study confirms that black men and women are treated differently in the hands of law enforcement. They are more likely to be touched, handcuffed, pushed to the ground or pepper-sprayed by a police officer, even after accounting for how, where and when they encounter the police.

But when it comes to the most lethal form of force — police shootings — the study finds no racial bias.

“It is the most surprising result of my career,” said Roland G. Fryer Jr., the author of the study and a professor of economics at Harvard. The study examined more than a thousand shootings in 10 major police departments, in Texas, Florida and California.

The result contradicts the mental image of police shootings that many Americans hold in the wake of the killings (some captured on video) of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo.; Laquan McDonald in Chicago; Tamir Rice in Cleveland; Walter Scott in South Carolina; Samuel DuBose in Cincinnati; Alton Sterling in Baton Rouge, La.; and Philando Castile in Minnesota.

Quote
In officer-involved shootings in these cities, officers were more likely to fire their weapons without having first been attacked when the suspects were white. Black and white civilians involved in police shootings were equally likely to have been carrying a weapon. Both of these results undercut the idea that the police wield lethal force with racial bias.

I think this somewhat hurt's Pete's "Suicide by Cop" theory.

My whole take on these two particular shootings is that if you are Interacting with the police while carrying a weapon, legally or not, you are at much greater risk of being shot. It's your responsibility to make sure the Police Officer has no reason to believe you are a threat to him or anyone nearby.

39
Quote
Not to be silly, but don't you think the complexity actually makes it easier for the computer to beat the human?
No, because the exponential explosion of complexity completely frustrates traditional methods of computer intelligence. A computer can always win or force the result to a draw for tic tac toe, because it can easily search all possible outcomes and pick the best. Deep Blue eventually won chess because memory capacity finally increased to the point that it could process every possible chessboard configuration in reasonable time.

The possible board configurations for Go vastly exceed the capacity of computer memory and reasonable search time. That means that computers that try to play it must operate in a more human mode- using evaluation heuristics and something approximating intuition about how the game will go, rather than brute force computation to force the game to stay on paths that ensure the computer wins. That's something that has not yet managed to be well simulated on such a scale until now.

In fact, even deep blue did not evaluate every possible move. There are just too many of them.  Chess playing software pretty much universally uses a algorithm called a minimax search with alpha-beta pruning.  Essentially they use a heuristic to evaluate each position in the search tree and give it a score.  They then use these scores to minimize the number of lines that need to be evaluated.  For Chess we are able to create very useful scoring heuristics.  The problem with Go has been the difficulty in doing this positional analysis.  Even the strongest human players have trouble explaining why any given move/position is superior to another.  The revolutionary thing about this AlphaGo program is that it's using machine learning to do this position evaluation.

40
General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« on: January 27, 2016, 03:57:53 PM »
http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/01/bundys_in_custody_one_militant.html#incart_big-photo

Quote
Fiore, a vocal supporter of the Bundy family, said that Ammon Bundy told his wife that Finicum was cooperating with police when he was shot.

But sources told The Oregonian/OregonLive that Finicum and Ryan Bundy disobeyed orders to surrender and resisted arrest. No other details were available.


Hands up, Don't shoot, right?
I bet they weren't even armed.

41
General Comments / Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« on: January 22, 2016, 12:24:01 PM »
A Former Attorney General explains why she should be charged.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/clintons-emails-a-criminal-charge-is-justified-1453419158

42
General Comments / Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« on: January 21, 2016, 05:03:07 PM »
She didn't have to write the emails to be breaking the law.

43
General Comments / Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« on: January 21, 2016, 04:57:29 PM »
Al argues that Seriati's sources are invalid because they are biased and then produces a biased source of his own.

Here Al.  I spent 30 seconds and found an article from CBS.  Happy now?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-had-emails-on-server-more-classified-than-top-secret/

44
General Comments / Re: So about this moon shot...
« on: January 15, 2016, 11:04:31 AM »

45
World Watch / Re: Where is this?
« on: December 22, 2015, 10:05:06 AM »
Definitely Salem, MA.  It's the Essex County Probate Court to be exact.

Street View URL:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5230007,-70.8967802,3a,75y,265.86h,78.25t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDvPyEB3XQMK9rmX41cXZNQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656


Pages: [1]