European Union

Reason Morning Links: Bradley Manning Will Get His Day in Court, Rick Perry Would Declare Libya on Syria, Pregnant Woman Pepper-Sprayed at Occupy Seattle Has Miscarried

|

  • More than a year after he was arrested, Bradley Manning will get his day in court: "The Article 32 hearing for PFC Bradley Manning will begin on December 16, 2011 at Fort Meade, Maryland. The hearing is expected to last approximately five days. With the exception of those limited times where classified information is being discussed, the hearing will be open to the public."
  • Charles Krauthammer: "Would you do what we did in Libya, which is to institute a no-fly zone over Syria?  If you were president today, would you advocate that we do that in Syria?" Rick Perry: "Absolutely. Absolutely." 
  • "I was standing in the middle of the crowd when the police started moving in," she says. "I was screaming, 'I am pregnant, I am pregnant. Let me through. I am trying to get out.'" 
  • UC Berkeley faculty are going to hold a vote of no confidence for the school's leadership in response to the mistreatment of students by campus police. 
  • Champaign, Illinois, mayor "disappointed" to find video of police brutality posted online because "it is counteractive to anything the city is trying to achieve in terms of police-community relations." 
  • Credit Suisse Chief Global Strategist: "We seem to have entered the last days of the euro as we currently know it."

New at Reason.tv: "Why We Should Fear Bathtubs More Than Terrorists" 

Advertisement

NEXT: Keeping Newt Undercover

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

    1. Looks like being a Krony Koch pays-off.

      To: James W. Giddens, Trustee, SIPA Liquidation of MF Global, Inc. and Martin Glenn, United States Bankruptcy Judge

      From: Cathy Cuthbert

      RE: MF Global Heist

      I am a lucky, former MF Global client. Unfortunately, I’m not a multi-billionaire who got the memo. I had a modest account that was supplying me with a modest livelihood, when suddenly one Monday afternoon, my account was frozen, my livelihood was essentially gone and four years worth of trading profits vanished into cyber space….

      ________________
      Who could destroy the market (and the religioeconomic dogma of “free” markets) more than a Krony Koch who got the memo just before the heist!

      1. Corzine’s a Krony Koch?! Who knew?

      2. does she mean the memo that Greece’s private lenders were not going to get repaid 100 cents on the dollar?

        sure, Corzine mingled accounts and is a fraud and probably should neither pass go nor collect $200. but sounds like she did not understand her investment either.

      3. So this is WI’s new shtick?

  1. I’m sure the DA will be filing murder charges in the miscarriage case. Because he would if a civilian pepper sprayed a pregnant woman with the same result.

    1. Wingdings for sarcasm!

      1. How about Comic Sans?

        1. You’re being sarcastic, aren’t you?

          1. Sadly, it doesn’t work.

            1. P Brooks is full of shit. there is no provision under WA law for a DA to charge anybody with murder, whether or not they were a cop…

              Setting aside, the stupid, but oft-repeated “he’d be charged if he wasn’t a cop” canard

        2. Not even a fascist pig deserves Comic Sans!

    2. I hope she sues and wins. But they will probably have a problem with proximate cause. The doctor who saw her initially didn’t know what caused the miscarriage in spite of what he said (if he actually said what she said he did).

      1. Read the article. A homeless woman who went to a protest had a miscarriage a week later. So? You purist / pro-abortion libertarians should be elated – we avoided another burden on society.

        Miscarriages happen. That early in a pregnancy it is usually an internal problem.

        1. That shrapnel wound in your head acting up again, OS?

        2. she also went to harborview that evening (of the pepper spraying) and got an ultrasound which showed no abnormalities fwiw

      2. There’s no way in hell the doctor actually said that the miscarriage was caused by the pepper spray and being kicked in the abdomen. At the most, I would expect he said it was possible that it contributed.

        1. Yes, exactly that. My parenthetical there was just rhetorical.

        2. exactly. she’s full of shit. NO doctor would say that. a medical examiner MIGHT… after an autopsy and a full review of the case. a doctor at the time of the fetus’ death?

          no way

    3. The fetus was resisting.

    4. Once again, I find myself torn between disdain and disgust for both the police and the OWS dipshits.

      1. Sieg Heil, Herr Scruffy!

        1. Cute. But a pregnant woman that puts herself in a volatile situation like Occupy Seattle is endangering the life of her child as well as her own. That is no excuse for the behavior of the police which are not much more than government sanctioned mafia, but in this case they were not busting into her house with a no-knock warrant and shooting the family dog. She put herself there probably knowing full well that they intended to confront the cops.

          1. She put herself there probably knowing full well that they intended to confront the cops.

            STOP INSISTING!

            1. I am curious. She was in the middle of the crowd and so were the cops who she said caused her to miscarry (if I understand correctly). I’m trying to envision how the cops had room to maneuver but she didn’t.

              Who knows. I wasn’t there.

              1. I haven’t read the whole article, but on first look…it’s probably easier for a cop, decked out in riot gear, swinging a baton, and macing people, to move around in a crowd than a pregnant woman.

                1. a 3 months old pregnant woman.

                  iow, she probably could move around as well as a cop could in full riot gear.

            2. I get your point and I get that ultimately the police are responsible for their tactics. You won’t find me defending them for this crap. I just have a low tolerance for stupid.

              1. Oh, I’m not mocking you and agree with you completely. Assumption of risk and all that, but I’m shocked, Shocked! that a homeless woman miscarried.

                A pox on both houses, as far as I’m concerned.

          2. Stupid? Probably.

            Does it matter? No. You don’t lose your right to assemble because you have a condition that makes you especially vulnerable to being kicked in the abdomen.

            1. you don’t have the right to assemble in the middle of the street during rush hour.

              hth

              they were given multiple orders to disperse and didn’t

              the pepper spraying was lawful

          3. That is no excuse for the behavior of the police which are not much more than government sanctioned mafia, but in this case they were not busting into her house with a no-knock warrant and shooting the family dog.

            Only because she was “homeless” and probably couldn’t afford a dog.

          4. specifically, she put herself in the middle of an unlawful assembly, specifically one that was blocking downtown seattle traffic during rush hour and was given multiple orders to disperse.

            entirely different than, the UC davis pepper spraying which appears clearly unjustified (as i said from the beginning)

    5. Murder charges against thr woman for putting herself in the middle of a mob? She has the right to choose so it’s not a problem.

    6. Totally believable story. Impeccable sources. Utterly objective.

    7. as usual, you display your ignorance of the law (how entirely common)

      WA law does allow filing charges for killing an “unborn quick child” as Manslaughter in the first degree.

      not murder.

      as usual, wrong on the law.

      also, under WA law, the killing of the child MUST be INTENTIONAL

      ignorance. how does it work?

  2. Mitt Romney has publicly praised himself for never once using his own authority as Massachusetts governor to pardon anyone.

    The sad fact is, however, that Barack Obama is little better. He has been notably non-compassionate in his use of presidential pardoning power. President Obama did not issue his first pardon until December 2, 2010, a full 682 days into his presidency. This puts him in third place (behind only George Washington and George W. Bush) in his hesitancy to pardon.

    http://balkin.blogspot.com/

    1. A good site for pardon information and research is here.

      BTW, Obama just granted his actual first commutation of sentence, as opposed to pardon for time already served.

      In Maryland, Bob Ehrlich (R) was very good about pardoning people, and O’Malley (D) has refused to pardon people who were clearly innocent.

      But it’s not like anyone votes pro-pardon.

      1. One of Ehrlich’s many admirable stances and reasons I supported him.

        1. Good for you, but unfortunately, the bloc of voters who decide whom to vote for based on who is more pro-pardon is fairly small.

          There may be a larger group of voters who are anti-pardon. At the very least, politicians on both sides seem to think so. (Not just Dems refusing to pardon– there have been active attacks by Ds on Rs for too many pardons. Naturally attacks the other way, of course.)

          1. There aren’t any potentially damaging news stories on “not pardoning”.

      2. The worst part about the pardoning system is that DOJ has a policy that you must complete your time served before they will even consider a pardon request. So, if you get totally fucked, you must take the entire fucking before anyone will undo it.

        1. I’m pretty sure a president can change that policy at his discretion. Last I checked, executive department policies aren’t up for a vote.

        2. “you must complete your time served before they will even consider a pardon request.”

          Unless you’re Scooter Libby or Dick Nixon I guess.

          1. Politicians do take care of their own.

            Which can include big donors and fundraisers too, as Clinton demonstrated.

          2. Scooter Libby was not pardoned.

          3. Scooter Libby was commuted. And he should have been, along with Martha Stewart and every other person who has ever been convicted of the BS lying to investigators charge when there was no proof of the underlying crime.

            1. And every person who was ever convicted under RICO and the controlled substances act, and probably another thousand or so stupid federal laws.

          4. And unless you are Marc Rich.

            1. If your “ex” wife had a huge rack and spent the night at the Clinton White House, you could get pardons, too, John.

      3. He will pardon Bradley Manning.

        1. Also sarcasm, I’m assuming, to be talking about the President with more Espionage Act prosecutions than any other combined.

        2. Who? Santa Claus?

  3. Kenneth intensified into [TEH LATEST] eastern Pacific major hurricane [ON RECORD] early Tuesday.
    http://www.weather.com/weather…..11/Kenneth
    _

    how u like me now babiee !

    1. Weather isn’t climate, except for when we say it is!

    2. What, are you trying to say that there has never been a hurricane in the Eastern Pacific before? Or is it that this one is unusually severe? Or is it that they are having more?

      1. the weather service is saying this is a record-late season hurricane.

        1. derpity derp herp DERP!

        2. And there’s never been a late season hurricane, right?

          Except, of course, there has been, several, in fact.

          What’s particularly interesting is the fact, that the people who actually study hurricanes and know something about them are constantly having to contradict the bullshit from the IPCC and elsewhere that there has been a significant change in hurricane activity or that there will be in the future. The media pays no attention, though, since they find the IPCC’s disaster porn narrative so much more compelling.

          Why Hurricane Expert Dr Landsea Resigned In Disgust From The IPCC

          “It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an
          unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global
          warming.”

          1. Hurricane Expert, Dr. Landsea….

            C’mon, soooo obviously made-up. I can see the pixels.

  4. Good uppity Morning Links!

  5. “Charles Krauthammer: “Would you do what we did in Libya, which is to institute a no-fly zone over Syria? If you were president today, would you advocate that we do that in Syria?” Rick Perry: “Absolutely. Absolutely.”

    That’s the problem with dismissing Rick Perry just because he blows his lines during a debate…

    It distracts us from focusing on his abject metaphysically certain blatant stupidity.

    1. It makes more sense to do it in Syria than it did in Libya. Syria really is a threat to US interests.

      1. How is Syria a threat to the USA?

        1. They wear rags on their heads. Or something.

        2. They kill their own people. Duh.

        3. They are, after Iran, the biggest sponsor of terrorism in the world.

          1. War-drums-heyah-huyah-war-drums

            1. Last I looked there was a Russian fleet moving off of Syria and Obama and Clinton were warning them to stop. I think there is a good possibility the US will be bombing Syria at some point.

              Is Obama a war monger? And I thought the line yesterday was that I flipped by views just because I hate Obama. I think Obama is probably doing the right thing on Syria. I would love to see Assad go away at the hands of his own people. And if Obama can help that along, good for him.

              Now am I a war monger or a horrible partisan who takes any position Obama doesn’t take?

              And saying it makes more sense the Libya is not the same as saying it makes sense. But don’t let what I actually said stop you from being a complete jackass. Being an ignorant jackass is just how your roll after all.

              1. Dude stop with the warmonger talk! The Messiah won a Peace Prize!

              2. You’re lust for war has in this occasion overcome your Obama hate.

                Am I supposed to say “Good for you?”

                1. I objected to the Libya war from day one. I actually think about these things MNG. Not every war is worth fighting.

                  You are just so angry that I don’t fit your stereotypes. That I will actually give Obama credit when he deserves it, it drives you crazy.

                  All you can do is scream and insult because you can’t handle someone who doesn’t fit your prejudices. It is getting more and more sad every day on here.

                  1. I actually think about these things MNG. Not every war is worth fighting.

                    If your actual thinking leads you to support military involvement in Syria…well…I don’t know that it is fair to call it “actual” thinking.

                    1. No, John’s thinking about war with Syria NM. Salivating as well, of course, but actually thinking 😉

                      But what do you know, you’re “just as bad as MNG”

                    2. NM, he never said he supported military action in Syria. He said it would make more sense than the Libya KMA, which he didn’t support.

                    3. Tulpa|11.22.11 @ 12:52PM|#

                      NM, he never said he supported military action in Syria. He said it would make more sense than the Libya KMA, which he didn’t support.

                      I think there is a good possibility the US will be bombing Syria at some point.

                      Is Obama a war monger? And I thought the line yesterday was that I flipped by views just because I hate Obama. I think Obama is probably doing the right thing on Syria. I would love to see Assad go away at the hands of his own people. And if Obama can help that along, good for him.

                      Here we see John saying he thinks Obama WILL bomb Syria and that he thinks that is the right thing to do.

                      Now am I a war monger or a horrible partisan who takes any position Obama doesn’t take?

                      And saying it makes more sense the Libya is not the same as saying it makes sense.

                      This second section, while true ignores the fact that John just said he supported military action against Syria. His actual thinking about the issue leads him to conclude it is a good idea.

                      Result: Tulpa fails and then follows up with silly logic fail for good measure.

                    4. NM,

                      1 < 3
                      2 > 1

                      does not imply

                      2 > 3

              3. “It is getting more and more sad every day on here.”

                This line comes with the Jr. Hannity Keyboard Kommandoe Kit too. Look how many times John uses it just in this last fifty minutes:

                “I am sorry that life is hard for you now. But lashing out at everyone else is just going to hurt your state of mind in the long run.”

                “Yeah, you really need to take a step back and let things go for a while. You are becoming increasingly, angry, bitter and irrational.”

                “It is fun to bait you. But even that is getting kind of old because I am starting to worry about your mental health.”

                Kit says, “Try to make something stick through zealotic repetition!”

          2. They are, after Iran, the biggest sponsor of terrorism in the world.

            Citation please

            1. It turns out Damascus is actually only The Terrorism Capital of the World?.

          3. Depends on how you define terrorism.

            The #1 killer of foreign civilians isn’t in the eastern hemisphere.

        4. what john means by “US interests” is israel…and syria is a threat.

          1. What are you, an anti-Semite!

            1. JOOOS!!!11!!11

      2. “It makes more sense to do it in Syria than it did in Libya. Syria really is a threat to US interests.”

        By that logic, since Iran is an even bigger threat, I guess Iran makes more sense than Syria too?

        There’s this thing called a cost/benefit analysis. It should be applied to everything we do.

        The cost of doing Libya was change they found under the sofa cushions at the Pentagon.

        Syria wouldn’t be like that.

        In Libya, we had allies–in the Arab world–who were supporting us. We had the Libyan people behind us assisting them.

        We had troops from the Arab world on the ground leading the assaults…

        “Though little noted in the West, Qatar’s enthusiasm for the Libyan revolt had been on display from the outset. The emirate was instrumental in securing the support of the Arab League for the NATO intervention back in March, contributing its own military aircraft to the mission. It also gave $400 million to the rebels, helped them market Libyan oil out of Benghazi, and set up a TV station for them in Doha, the Qatari capital. Following the conquest of Bab al-Aziziya, however, it became clear that the Qataris were deeply involved on the ground as well. Not only did Qatar arm the rebels and set up training camps for them in Benghazi and in the Nafusa Mountains west of Tripoli; its own special forces?a hitherto unknown contingent?helped lead the August offensive on the capital.”

        —-Hugh Eakin for NYRB

        http://www.nybooks.com/article…..wer-qatar/

        Perry seems to think American airpower won Libya. That’s a common belief here in the U.S., but it’s completely false. We provided necessary assistance, but the United States didn’t win the Libyan Revolution any more than the French won the American Revolution.

        Perry’s got an over-simplistic view of the world. First the U.S. bombed, and then the Libyans won? So first we bomb Syrian, then the U.S. wins again…

        That’s not the way the world works. And Perry apparently thinking it does means he’s not smart enough to be president.

        1. So, there’s a short list to ask yourself before you sign on to Syria:

          1) Do the Syrian people want American involvement?

          2) Does the Arab League support American involvement?

          3) Does Arab league “support” mean they’re willing to do all the things they did for Libya?

          Because without all three of those things, there’s no reason to think Syria will go the way Libya did.

          Perry’s classic post hoc ergo propter hoc notwithstanding.

          1. All good points. I am not sure the answer to any of those. I suspect they are getting closer to Yes on all three. The Bush doctrine is alive and well in the Obama Administration. I would give it at least a 40% chance that we intervene in Syria.

            1. “I would give it at least a 40% chance that we intervene in Syria.”

              He says, in excited anticipation.

              1. So you have pretty much given up on having anything of substance to say on foreign policy MNG. I guess your response to Obama making a complete fool of you by pretty much following the Bush foreign policy is to just call people names.

                I increasingly feel sorry for you. I am not sure how I got under your skin so badly. But honestly, I kind of feel bad about it. Lots of nasty things are said on this board. It is part of the game of it. I have certainly said and had said to me plenty of over the top things. None of it really matters because I can go from having some vicious fight with someone over the war or atheism on one thread to agreeing with them or joking on another. That is why I like this board. But you really seem to hold a grudge about things. Every day you come on here a bit more angry and bitter. You need to step back and let it go.

                1. Good lord, back to the kit he goes!

                  1. ^^Garbage Talk. No Substance.^^

            2. I would give it at least a 40% chance that we intervene in Syria.

              The hard part for Obama is timing it just right, so that victory happens in late October 2012.

          2. Wrong.

            There is only relevant question:

            Would a post-Assad Syria be friendlier to the West and Israel, and less of a sponsor of terrorism?

            If yes – go for it.

          3. I don’t care if the Syrian people want US involvement, if they want a different government then they should do something about it

            I don’t care if the Arab League supports it since they are a bunch of dictators.

            Arab league support in Libya consisted of a few token fighters and illegally supply arms against a supposed UN arms embargo of Libya

            And I have yet to see any “success” in Libya since one group of unelected people have been kicked out of power and replaced with another group of unelected people and with no guarentee that they will be any better then the last group

            1. The questions I was posing were–in addition–to questions we should ask about whether it’s in the U.S.’ best interest to intervene.

              The questions I was posing were about whether Syria would go as well as Libya.

              If those three questions–at least–aren’t pointing in the same direction as they were in Libya?

              Then there’s no reason to think our intervention would turn out like Libya.

              There’s the question of whether the outcome would be the same…

              Whether we should intervene is another question entirely.

          4. In the USA the only thing that matters is if the legislature declares war. Or at least that is what some dusty ass history proffessor told me some weird old document said…crazy huh.

            1. That’s two different questions too.

              Whether it’s constitutional and whether it’s smart.

              If the president goes about declaring a stupid war in a perfectly constitutional manner–does that make the stupid war smart somehow?

              I prefer things being done constitutionally, but I can’t think of a time when the constitution ever stopped a president from engaging in a stupid war.

              So, I concentrate on pointing out the stupidity. I think that’s our best hope of avoiding stupid wars–recognizing that they’re stupid.

        2. The cost of doing Libya was change they found under the sofa cushions at the Pentagon.

          So far. If Al-Qaeda gains power in a nation with oil wealth, the decision to help the anti-Qaddafi forces may well bite the US in the ass.

          1. I’m against any Syria action other than sanctions at this time. To be honest, it is hard to imagine what changes would make me support it. The potential for blowback there would be enormous and there is this little thing where we are FUCKING BROKE and can’t afford another fucking war.

        3. “The cost of doing Libya was change they found under the sofa cushions at the Pentagon.

          Syria wouldn’t be like that.”

          Where the f*ck were you when I said that months ago and everyone called me an Obama lover for it? Hell, I wasn’t even defending the Libya action just acknowledging that there were reasons one could differentiate it from action in Syria or Iraq.

          1. He was spouting the same crap about “cost-benefit analysis” back then. Were you paying attention?

            I especially liked his argument that Libya was justified because it wasn’t as bad as Iraq. Sort of like cutting off your thumb is a good idea because at least you don’t lose your entire hand.

            1. regardless of whether libya was justified from cost-benefit, or whatever… it was ILLEGAL since he didn’t get congressional approval before or EVEN after (iirc a 60 day window? under war powers act?) and claimed it wasn’t “hostilities”

              last i checked, dropping bombs is hostilities

        4. the United States didn’t win the Libyan Revolution any more than the French won the American Revolution.

          Oh please. The French weren’t nearly as involved in the American Revolution as NATO was in the Libyan conflict. France was only involved in the Revolution for maneuvers at sea, while NATO was providing air support at every point of Libyan territory.

          1. Sure? There is a graveyard in Yorktown, VA full of French soldiers that disagree.

        5. The cost of doing Libya was change they found under the sofa cushions at the Pentagon.

          Libya isn’t “done” quite yet, and you’re Conveniently neglecting the civilian deaths in your “cost benefit analysis”.

          1. Libya’s done as far as American involvement is–as far as I’m concerned.

            Libya’s future is up to the Libyans now–as it always was. This is as it should be.

  6. Good thing Alabama passed the nation’s toughest immigration law: No longer can Mercedes-Benz executives drive around the state with impunity.

    A German manager for the automaker, which opened a factory in the Alabama in 1993, was hauled into jail last week after an officer pulled him over because his rental car didn’t have tags. He had his German identification card with him, but not his passport. The new law, passed in June, requires police to arrest anyone they suspect of being in the country illegally if the suspect can’t produce identification.

    He was released after one of his business associates retrieved his passport from his hotel, Tuscaloosa Police Chief Steven Anderson told The Associated Press.

    http://slatest.slate.com/posts…..n_law.html

    1. Haven’t you seen Die Hard?

      1. I mean, seriously, MNG. German guys take over buildings and blow them up All. The. Time.

        1. I can think of some German guys who did some really bad things.

          1. mee too !

            1. mee E=MC2

          2. Sure, but don’t forget the Russian guys, the French guys, the Italian guys, the American guys, the Japanese guys, the Chinese guys, the British guys…

            1. An Englishman, an Irishman and a Scotsman went to a
              night club, accompanied by a Welshman, a Gurkha,
              a Dane, a Latvian, a Turk, an Aussie, a Canadian,
              a Czech, a German, a Yank, an Egyptian, a Japanese,
              a Mexican, a Spaniard, a Russian, a Pole, a Lithuanian,
              a Swede, a Finn, an Israeli, a Romanian, a Bulgarian,
              a Serb, a Swiss, a Greek, a Singaporean, an Italian,
              a Norwegian, a Libyan, a Muslim, a Hindu, a Buddhist
              an Ethiopian, and an American.

              The bouncer said, “Sorry, I can’t let you in without a Thai.”

        2. Every Christmas.

    2. This is quite likely to happen to you in Germany under similar circumstances. BFD.

      1. Not really. You can generally drive around on just your American license. Additionally, they won’t throw you in jail if you don’t have your passport on you.

    3. I thought they were only supposed to arrest brown people.

      1. Not all germans are blond haired and blue eyed. 😉

    4. Just great. Pissing on foreign investors is sure to attract outside capital in the future.

      1. So being a foreign investor should exempt you from the law?

        He was in violation of federal statute as well as the state law, genius.

        1. A little consideration goes a long way. I’ve been in foreign countries where the local cops have been more accommodating, yet still enforcing the law. Perhaps they could take him to retrieve the passport? Was the arrest necessary?

    5. It’s a chauvanistic pig attitude that Clinton’s got that you’re gonna do somethin’ because you work at the Arsenal and you’ve got a f***ing Mercedes-Benz and you ain’t gotta walk every day, so you’re gonna get out there and strut that ass

    6. No longer can Mercedes-Benz executives drive around the state with impunity.

      …without the passport they’re supposed to be carrying by Federal law. I suppose you’d be equally miffed if Obama’s Border Patrol nabbed him instead of local cops?

      Though this story does help put the open borders crowd’s complaint that the law would be enforced in a racist manner to rest.

  7. Champaign, Illinois, mayor “disappointed” to find video of police brutality posted online because “it is counteractive to anything the city is trying to achieve in terms of police-community relations.”

    It is not the brutality that is counterproductive, just people finding out about it.

    1. Your honor, you have no control over the internet, but some control over your police department. You might want to direct your efforts toward the latter.

      1. I am sure his local police union says otherwise. Given the state of free speech in this country and the power of public employee unions, he might actually have more power over the internet.

        1. Yeah, it’s the police unions, not the law and order conservatives…

          1. Why can’t it be both?

          2. Why can’t it be both?

            1. Because he’s a partisan retard. It has to be the other team.

          3. False dichotomy

            1. I don’t think so.

              Police unions often support horrid police behavior, no doubt about it. In NYC they formed to resist LE reforms.

              But law and order conservative pols make the fucked up laws and nominate the conservative justices who interpret them to allow most of the horrid behavior to be shielded.

              1. So “democracy in action” is what you’re arguing, MNG?

                1. I’m not sure what you are getting at here CN. On the specific issue of police violence I have long advocated having civilian review boards in every jurisdiction, given real power to hear complaints and discipline police combined with more of those “liberal activist” judges like the Warren court putting some teeth into our 4th, 5th and 6th Amendment protections.

              2. But law and order conservative pols make the fucked up laws and nominate the conservative justices who interpret them to allow most of the horrid behavior to be shielded.

                Like the law and order conservatives that run UC Davis?

                1. i hate to defend MNG, but UC Davis has nothing to do with laws or justices

                  as far as i can tell , UC Davis cops VIOLATED the case law, and most likely UC Davis UOF policy.

              3. um, democrats, as much as republicans make the fucked up laws e.g. the war on drugs, etc.

    2. The young man’s attorney, Mark Lipton, said both he and his client didn’t want this video to surface. Lipton said they don’t know who made it public.

      Chuckle, snort…

  8. Cain speaks for nearly a half an hour and despite a couple fleeting “999” mentions, keeps his speech to topics of faith and his recent battle with cancer. He begins with a story about how he knew he would survive when he discovered that his physician was named “Dr. Lord,” that the hospital attendant’s name was “Grace” and that the incision made on his chest during the surgery would be in the shape of a “J.”
    “Come on, y’all. As in J-E-S-U-S! Yes! A doctor named Lord! A lady named Grace! And a J-cut for Jesus Almighty,” Cain boomed.
    He did have a slight worry at one point during the chemotherapy process when he discovered that one of the surgeon’s name was “Dr. Abdallah.”
    “I said to his physician assistant, I said, ‘That sounds foreign–not that I had anything against foreign doctors–but it sounded too foreign,” Cain tells the audience. “She said, ‘He’s from Lebanon.’ Oh, Lebanon! My mind immediately started thinking, wait a minute, maybe his religious persuasion is different than mine! She could see the look on my face and she said, ‘Don’t worry, Mr. Cain, he’s a Christian from Lebanon.'”
    “Hallelujah!” Cain says. “Thank God!”

    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ti…..21445.html

    1. Cain sure hates the Muslims.

    2. Forgot the next line

      The crowd laughs uneasily.

      He wasn’t being serious. Now maybe you think the joke was in poor taste. Perhaps it was. But to leave out the laugh line at the end is dishonest even for you.

      1. My foreign policy is just a joke!

        1. Because telling stories about your time with cancer is certainly foreign policy.

          1. When you are running for president, every comment you make, especially when directed at people with “foreign sounding names,” can be twisted into a foreign policy. Cain needs to understand that.

            Therefore, Cain is either a bigot or he is an undisciplined moron that is too stupid to be president. Take your pick, John.

            1. But MNG’s teh Dishonest!!!

              1. Yeah, and you’re a twat…what’s your point?

            2. Maybe some people are tired of all the PC bullshit where every little thing is blown out of proportion.

              1. Sure. Look, I just posted this bit, I didn’t say it should be the end of Cain’s candidacy or anything. It just struck me as funny when surfing. Conservatives are a paranoid fucking bunch always trying to discern evil hidden liberal agendas in everything.

                I actually LIKE Cain.

                1. Cain has many refreshing things to say. I defended him on the harrassment charges, pointing out that at that were at first the worst kind of hearsay and at best are he-said-she-said. I also defend him on the Libya “gotcha” moment. If you watch that tape the guy asks him a absurdly broad question and he simply wants to clarify wtf he is answering yes or no to.

                  But this struck me as funny, nothing more. John’s hyperventilating defense of it and backpeddal are hilarious…

      2. The uneasy laugh is the same one you give when your old uncle makes a racist joke and you want to get out of there. Herman Cain is a proud bigot.

        Good to see that you have no problem with bigoted jokes.

        1. Now maybe you think the joke was in poor taste. Perhaps it was.

          I wasn’t thinking the “perhaps it was” was so hard to read. But maybe it is. It was a poor taste joke. But if that was MNG’s complaint, then he should have made it. And I would have agreed with him. But he didn’t do that. He left the joke part off and implied he was being serious, which was not honest.

          1. John, paranoid hacks like you see “implications” everywhere. I provided the link.

            1. Nuh-uh. This is the argument I get into with liberals on Wikipedia all the time… they’ll quote the liberal take on a topic extensively, and then put in a line saying “Conservative commentators disagreed” with a couple of links to the conservatives. That’s NOT balance.

              The quoted material should not be grossly out of context even if the context is available at a given link, since most people won’t follow it.

          2. “Perhaps it was” is pretty clear to read. You want a way to either a) think it was ok, but not get called out on it or b) think it wasn’t ok, but want to puss out on calling Cain out on it. If you think it was wrong to make a bigoted joke, just say, “Herman Cain is racist based on his past comments.” It’s not that hard.

            1. Mo, John’s in full hackitude mode defending one of the few GOP frontrunners he hasn’t publicly sworn off. Don’t waste your time.

            2. No it is not that hard. My point was about MNG’s dishonesty, not about the joke. Therefore I said “perhaps it was” leaving that question open. Why? because my point wasn’t about the propriety of the joke. It was about the fact that it was a joke. Two different subjects.

              1. peddle, peddle

                1. or even pedal, pedal.

                  1. or even pedal, pedal.
                    I think MNG’s not buying what John’s selling.

                    1. Works both ways, but Lord Humongous got me.

                      I’ve always wondered about Lord Humongous, is he referencing the Road Warrior character of the wrestler with that name and gimmick that bedeviled Jerry Lawler?

                    2. meh – they both work for me, depending…

                    3. Both were badass, but total credit for obscurity if you were going for the latter.

      3. When the laughter at this wacko Christian theme park at which he spoke is “uneasy” that should speak volumes John.

        1. Again, if you think the joke was in bad taste, say so. Again, it probably was. But you didn’t do that. You left off the last part implying that he was serious.

          As things get worse and worse for liberals, you seem to get more and more dishonest and nasty.

          1. John, your two front runners are Newt and Mitt, how do you figure “things keep getting worse for liberals?”

            I just posted the crazy statement. People can draw their own conclusions, as many here have pointed out the fact that it was said in jest hardly makes it better.

            1. My two front runners? Really? I am sorry things are going so bad for liberals these days. I am sorry that life is hard for you now. But lashing out at everyone else is just going to hurt your state of mind in the long run.

          2. I don’t see how it’s any difference that he was telling a bigoted joke rather than a bigoted anecdote.

            1. Because itz teh dishonest!!! Or something.

              It’s one of John’s pet lines he got with his Jr. Hannity Keyboard Kommanda Kit.

              1. Yeah MNG. Just below you are accusing me of siding with the cops in the pepper spray incident even though yesterday morning I came out against the cops and you agreed with my comment.

                Yeah, you really need to take a step back and let things go for a while. You are becoming increasingly, angry, bitter and irrational.

                It is fun to bait you. But even that is getting kind of old because I am starting to worry about your mental health.

                1. You stepped in it again in your knee-jerk partisan defense John.

                  It’s OK, we all know you can’t help yourself.

                  1. I didn’t defend Cain at all. I just pointed out it was a joke. Since I am the only person on here that actually reads the articles you put up, I am quite sure you thought you could get away with implying it wasn’t a joke.

                    Again, if you think it was a bad joke, and it certainly appears that it was, say that Cain made a racist joke.

                    You are so dishonest, you can’t even make a good case when you have one. You have to take a good point and ruin it by lying about it.

                    1. I didn’t say anything, just posted the clip, along with the link to the entire story. You just knew it looked bad and tried to deflect attention, not realizing that joke or serious it was bad.

                      Keep peddling Lance.

          3. As things get worse and worse for liberals,

            Why, are Romney and Newt dropping in the polls?

            1. Last I looked neither one of them were particularly conservative. And liberals just got everything they wanted for two years and nothing worked. Meanwhile, Europe is going bankrupt and the entire third way socialism that liberals have committed their life to is dying under the threat of the repo man.

              Yeah things are bad for liberals. And they won’t get any better no matter who wins in 2012.

              1. Things should be bad for liberals, or at least much worse. Obama has failed on nearly every major project of his by his own criteria and has failed to deliver on so many key promises he made, he should be looking at no chance of re-election.

                But because of the insanity of movement conservatives like John pushing their rabid Obama hate so relentlessly he actually is polling well compared to the goofballs the GOP is putting up.

                Pundits talk about the “extremism” of the GOP in demanding smaller government putting off people, that is bullshit. People want smaller government. But many people are turned off by the over-the-top Obama hate. It’s making the guy sympathetic to many folks which should be demanding he be tossed out.

                1. Things are bad for liberals MNG because none of their solutions work and their ideology is intellectually bankrupt and dying. The Republicans have nothing to do with it. You only obsess about Republicans because it changes the subject from the awful truth you can’t face.

                  1. John, I don’t obsess about Republicans, you obsess about “liberals” and Democrats and especially Obama.

                    I can point out where Democrats and liberals and Obama suck without having to weasely say “but the GOP is worse” all the time. You cannot.

                    There are many areas where liberals/Dems tend to be worse than conservatives/GOPers: gun rights, balanced budget, affirmative action, health nannyism, sin taxes. Have you EVER acknowledged where Dems/liberals are better than your beloved GOP/conservatives?

                    I can name five GOPers that I think are great pols, can you name five Dems?

                    You’re a hack John.

                    1. Bob Ehrlich
                      Dick Lugar
                      Chris Christie
                      Ron Paul
                      Gary Johnson

                      Just off the top of my head…

                    2. The funny thing is the pols I loathe the most tend to be Dems. Political ambulance chaser Chuck Shumer. Our own Babs Mikulski. Pelosi. Maxine Waters, Clyburne, Max Baucus. Truly loathesome creatures.

                      I will say the pols I like the most of all tend to be Dems, Mark Warner, Jim Webb and Cuomo in NY. But honestly, up until their recent retirement GOPer John Warner and Chuck Hagel would have been in that list.

                    3. You know, I should mention Rand Paul too. His courageous stance on the Patriot Act alone earns him top respect.

                    4. I am open for suggestions MNG. I cannot think of a single thing where the Republicans are bad and the Democrats are not equally horrid.

                      The Democrats are just as bad on the war on drugs. The WOD never changes no matter who is in office. Despite their claims to the contrary, they have turned out to be just as bad on the surveillance state as Bush ever was.

                      You tell me, where are the Democrats better than the Republicans? I will give you one, gay rights. But even though the Dems are better on gay rights, they are horrible on things like sexual harassment law and such because of the feminists.

                      You tell me, where are they better?

                    5. “I cannot think of a single thing where the Republicans are bad and the Democrats are not equally horrid.”

                      Because John, you are a hack.

                    6. Then name them MNG. Educate me. I gave you a chance. Stop yelling hack and back up what you have to say. Where are the Democrats demonstrably better other than gay rights? Lets hear it.

                    7. If you are for immigration rights the Democrats are simply better. It is GOP led states that are passing these tough anti-immigrant laws, not Dem led states. You cannot dispute that. Anti and pro-immigrant groups actually widely agree that while neither is perfect the Dems are preferable to the latter and GOPers to the former. On issues like the immigration reform under Bush and the Dream act Dems have been more likely than GOPers to vote in ways most immigrants rights folks favor.

                      This is obvious to any but the most rank partisan, it’s obvious to all sides of the issue actually. And I say this as someone who actually prefers the GOP stance on this issue!

                    8. Have you EVER acknowledged where Dems/liberals are better than your beloved GOP/conservatives?

                      In actual implemented policies, rather than campaign rhetoric or the rants of powerless leftists, I’d struggle with that myself. Maybe you can give some suggestions?

                  2. Let us hope that Republican-style conservatism is also dying.

                    1. Like most partisans John applies different criteria to the two groups. So even though the GOP has not DONE anything substantially to hit affirmative action or balance the budget, he dismisses that and concentrates on the fact that they tend to vote and take stances on those issue that are better, therefore they are “better” than the Dems. But on the other hand, the fact that Dems tend to take votes and stances more favorable to immigrants for example means nothing to them because they were not able to get anything DONE. Repeat for many issues.

                    2. MNG, I judge people on their actions. The Dems are owned by the Unions. And the Unions have every reason to object to immigration. So, yeah I don’t buy it that the Dems are pro immigration. And the the CBP and ICE are more radical under Obama than they were under Bush. If Obama gave a shit about immigration, he would reign in CBP and ICE. But he hasn’t, so clearly he doesn’t care about the issue.

                      I don’t care about what smoke people blow up my ass or how good intentioned they are. Big fucking deal that the Republicans voted for a balanced budget amendment they knew was not going to pass and even if it did wouldn’t have been approved by the states. I will believe the Republicans are serious about the budget deficit when they actually do something about the budget deficit.

                      Now you may look at the world differently and think that if a politician tells you something it must be true even if their actions say otherwise. Well good luck with that. But I don’t. And since I hold both sides to the same standards, you can call me a lot of things, but you can’t call me a hack. You just do because you have nothing else to say anymore.

                    3. And those GOP led states I mentioned? They “did” something. Yet you continue to ignore that example.

                      I see your point, pols can vote in meaningless ways and appear to be on two sides of an issue. But if your view that a pol voting on a issue he knows won’t carry is true then someone like Ron Paul believes in nothing. And that is ludicrous imo. Paul’s votes give a good idea where he stands when called to stand, and the fact that more Dems than GOPers make that stand on a variety of issues means something. It means they are better than them on those issues, not perfect or even worth credit, but better…

                    4. But more importantly let’s note that your tired line accusing me of partisanship has been plainly demonstrated to be a big pile of horse crap. In fact, it seems to be you projecting since I can readily and frequently credit GOPers and conservatives both in general and specifically to be better than Dems and liberals and many issues and areas, while by your own admission you find “I cannot think of a single thing where the Republicans are bad and the Democrats are not equally horrid”

                      Dude, THAT is what a partisan, or ideologue, is!

                    5. For the third time MNG, tell me where the Democrats are better. I don’t see it. But I will admit it if you make your case.

                      The problem is that you can’t make a case for the Dems anymore because Obama is really that bad. If you disagree, then tell me why and name some specific things that got better when the Dems took over.

                      And do some Republicans believe in cutting the deficit? Sure. But not enough of them to matter. The majority of the elected ones don’t. That sucks but that is the truth.

                    6. Poor John, you are such a hopeless partisan that you cannot see the hilarity in your post defending yourself from partisanship devolving into another categorical hate on Obama…

                      Jesus.

                      Now, as you say FOR THE THIRD TIME, is it GOP or Dem led states which are bragging about passing the ‘toughest anti-immigrant laws” in the nation? Now, you can’t see how someone who cares about immigration rights can’t look at that fact and think the Dems are the lesser of the two evils there?

                      I mean, wtf John, are you that hopeless of a partisan? I mean, I notice you have today backed off your absurd contention just three days ago that the Dems are no better on gay rights than the GOP, so since you are walking back on nonsense you can at least take this one more step.

                    7. You know, I just realized I’m arguing with a guy who is defending himself against the charge of being a GOP partisan on the following grounds: “Yes, I find the GOP to be better on every single issue, but that’s only because they actually are so!”

                      I’m going back to work, I don’t think I could top that in making your partisanship more plain.

                    8. So Alabama Democrats are better than GOP Democrats on immigration? I guess I would care if I lived in Alabama.

                      We are talking about Washington here and specifically the Democrats in Congress and the administration. Now they ran things for two years. And I can’t think of a single issue that got better other than gay rights and they didn’t do that until the lame duck Congress.

                      Again, make your case. This is your big chance to show the world how smart you are. Now come on use that PHD you are always bragging about and explain to the whole board why the national Democratic Party is so much better than the Republicans.

                    9. Now, you can’t see how someone who cares about immigration rights can’t look at that fact and think the Dems are the lesser of the two evils there?

                      What the heck are “immigration rights”? There is no right to immigrate, and Alabama isn’t violating it if there was, unless they’re building a fence in Mobile Bay.

                      The claim that the law is racially motivated is actually blown to smithereens by your Mercedez-Benz story.

                      So, what is your problem with the law exactly?

        2. is that the park where they demonstrate the earth is really, really only 5000yrs old?…really not kidding.

      4. Herman Cain is a dumb nigger. There, I said it. Everyone, from the liberal media, to libertarians to Mitt Romney wants to say it, but won’t. But I just did, for everyone. That is all.

        1. except cain’s not from niger

    3. “My mind immediately started thinking, wait a minute, maybe his religious persuasion is different than mine!”

      I guess he won’t check into Beth-Israel anytime soon.

      1. Cain’s stupidity in this story reminds me of one of my favorite ER stories. (Substitute “Abdallah” for Isaac’s last name if you care for some irony.)

        One night when I was working an ER shift with my colleague, Dr. Isaac ____, a big, gentle black guy, in comes an ambulance with a guy who was gut-shot. The nurses checked him out and IV’d him up and he was stable. Isaac came in and said to him, “Hello, I’m Dr ___, how are…” The red-neck punk cut him off and said, “I ain’t lettin’ no nigger doctor touch me.” Isaac looked at him and stroked his chin and, knowing that the guy was stable and that the treatment process was proceeding apace, said, “Well son, this nigger doctor is the only kind of doctor here (pretending that I wasn’t watching unseen from a few feet away). Now you have a serious gunshot wound that could kill you pretty quickly but I’ll give you five minutes to decide if you want me to take care of it or not.” As Isaac stepped past the curtain, the now panicky punk reconsidered and shouted out, “OK doc, OK; you can take care of me.” Isaac slowly stuck his head back around the curtain, looked the guy in the eye and said, “I said five minutes” and walked on out.

      2. Neither will you.

  9. Free Joshua Fellows!

    1. He handled that pretty well. Better than any other candidate would have.

      Paul was also asked about his limited airtime, 89 seconds, during the last television debate.

      “What is my reaction? I wish it were different,” Paul said. “But sometime things work out for the best, because my 89 seconds now is much more famous than all the rest of what they said.”

      Nice.

    2. I guess there is a CNN debate tonight about national security. Ron Paul will be the only one with anything different or interesting to say. Which means he will get 22.6 seconds of air time.

    3. When they had finished a smiling Paul asked the protesters, “Do you feel better?”

      HAHAHAHA

  10. Flash mob knocks over 7-Eleven

    A small taste of things to come. 8-(

    Included for your amusement are 1) the answer to why no arrests were made and 2) the closing expression of the police spokesperson.

    1. Only in states where convenience store clerks don’t keep shotguns underneath the counter.

      1. I thought of that, but I still think most people wouldn’t shoot a HS student over a bag of pork rinds.

        1. You only have to shoot one of them. And if it is really a mob of people looting the store, that is a bit different than one kid stealing a bag of pork rinds. The cops can’t get there quickly enough to stop this. What do we do? Just say it is open season on 7-11s?

          1. It’s open season on everything.

          2. Lock the door?

            I’m just saying you would have to be pretty hardcore to use deadly force, and there would be serious consequences.

            Also, even if he was armed, the clerk is just an employee working for chain. He gets paid by hour regardless.

            1. I see what you mean. But at the same time, I could see where a hoard of teenagers descending on my store would make me feel real threatened. And it is too late to lock the door once they are in there.

              I guess a good solution would be calling the cops, locking the door so they can’t get out and then having the shotgun to discourage any of them from attacking the clerk in an attempt to get out.

              You are right, you probably shouldn’t shoot them. But we need some kind of solution to deter them from doing this kind of thing.

              1. The first deterrent would be enforcing existing law.

                1. To enforce the law, the cops have to be there. And they can’t get there quickly enough.

                  1. Apparently they got six of them, and there were cameras. That and a HS yearbook should catch even more. You don’t have to get all of them for it to be a deterrent.

                    1. Yes. And you have to hammer the shit out them when you catch them. This kind of shit cannot be tolerated.

                  2. um, the law CAN be enforced by people besides cops. store owners, in every state i am aware of have the right to use reasonable force to detain shoplifters.

                    not that he would the practical ability to do that, considering the vast outnumbering, but store owners, agents thereof have the right to enforce the law regarding acts against their store

      2. Fifty Forty-seven flashmobbers to clerk: “Are you talking to me?”

    2. Arrests should have been made.

    3. The DC to Philadelphia corridor is really going to hell in a handbasket

      1. Unchecked liberalism.

    4. Things to come? What the hell you talkin about? You obviously don’t read Drudge that often.

    5. At least it wasn’t another “beat whitey” one.

  11. “UC Berkeley faculty are going to hold a vote of no confidence for the school’s leadership in response to the mistreatment of students by campus police.”

    In related news, it looks like the UC Davis chancellor is still fighting to keep her job as well.

    The two cops, apparently, that pepper sprayed those peaceful protestors have been put on administrative leave, and now the school’s police chief is on administrative leave too.

    http://www.latimes.com/news/lo…..4102.story

    When other people are accused of battery, do prosecutors let civilians off the hook if somebody puts them on administrative leave?

    1. please provide evidence that being put on admin leave = “being let off the hook”

      whether or not there is a crime, is what the prosecutor has to determine

      excessive force is not necesasrily a crime

      sometimes it is – e.g paul schene. in that case he was tried twice. hung jury both times.

      i doubt this case will meet filing standards for battery.

  12. Too bad Manning wasn’t in the Marines or Navy. We could watch Catherine Bell defending or prosecuting him.

    1. Too bad Manning wasn’t Anna Chapman.

  13. GOP candidates at “Thanksgiving Family Forum”…Here are highlights of the candidates’ remarks…

    U.S. law should follow God’s law. As Rick Santorum put it:
    Unlike Islam, where the higher law and the civil law are the same, in our case, we have civil laws. But our civil laws have to comport with the higher law. ? As long as abortion is legal?at least according to the Supreme Court?legal in this country, we will never have rest, because that law does not comport with God’s law…It’s not just?laws cannot be neutral. There is no neutral, Ron. There is only moral and immoral. And the law has to reflect what is right and good and just for our society…Our country is based on a moral enterprise. Gay marriage is wrong. As Abraham Lincoln said, the states do not have the right to do wrong. ? As a president, I will get involved, because the states do not have the right to undermine the basic, fundamental values that hold this country together.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/…..lity_.html

    1. here was one voice of dissent among the candidates. Ron Paul, the libertarian congressman from Texas, argued that people should be allowed to make bad decisions, that freedom of choice in religious matters should extend to atheists, and that powers not reserved to the federal government should be left to the states. But in a field of candidates bent on legislating Christian morality and purging uncooperative judges, Paul stood alone.

    2. True story: by uber-Christian conservative mother-in-law just started following the debates. She was told by a friend that the pol that matched her position best was Santorum. So, she was excited to see and hear this guy whose values aligned so closely with her own. But midway through the debate, she turned to my wife and said” That’s him? That’s Santorum”? My wife said yes. Then the mil said “But he’s such an asshole”! The wife swears that’s the first time in her 36 years that she has heard a curse word uttered by the prim mother.

      1. Now run and tell her what Santorum is, then step back and watch the look on her face.

      2. I take it your MIL is not aware of the relationship between assholes and Santorum? Because that’s some funny unwitting pun-making, right there.

        1. “unwittting BUN-making”

          FIFY

      3. I wonder if she figured out the friend’s recommendation suggests that she too is an asshole. Who else would support Santorum?

        1. His wife and salty ham tear crying daughter?

        2. It’s my understanding that assholes don’t support santorum, which is why it leaks out.

  14. Police department personnel investigated the case, and Chief R.T. Finney issued a finding that the officer’s actions regarding ‘use of force’ were within police and training standards.

    You can’t take any chances with those jaywalking darkies.Wild, unruly motherfuckers, they are. If they’ll cross the street in the middle of the block, they’re liable to do anything.

  15. More than a year after he was arrested, Bradley Manning will get his day in court: “The Article 32 hearing for PFC Bradley Manning will begin on December 16, 2011 at Fort Meade, Maryland.

    And Malik Nadal Hasan was arrested more than two years ago for murdering 13 of his fellow soldiers at Fort Hood. When is his trial going to finally take place?

  16. Oh come on, the pregnant woman shouldn’t be complaining. The good officers were just trying to feed her

    1. I like some of the comments:

      Megyn Kelly on tear gas: “It’s like a sad story, essentially!”
      Megyn Kelly on flashbangs: “It’s like a surprise party, essentially!”
      Megyn Kelly on sleep deprivation: “It’s like a cup o’ Joe, essentially!”
      Megyn Kelly on stress positions: “It’s like yoga, essentially!”
      Megyn Kelly on mock executions: “It’s like make-believe, essentially!”

      1. I’d rather be pepper spayed than take a police club upside my head any day.

        1. so would i. i’ve been pepper sprayed several times.

          bfd.

          seattle? justified

          UC Davis? not justified

          1. I’m gonna get annoyed if you keep being this reasonable.

            1. we wouldn’t want that. maybe somebody can bring up michael bay or something…

  17. Woman Pepper-Sprayed at Occupy Seattle Has Miscarried

    What are folks’ guesses for the most popular take on this issue at Red State:

    (1) She was never pregnant in the first place!

    (2) Stupid hippie got what she deserved for going to a protest while pregnant!

    (3) Good riddance to the fetus because it was probably going to grow up to be a parasitic hippy!

    (4) The miscarriage was really an abortion done with the intent to frame our heroic men in blue!

    (5) Other – please specify.

    (6) Two or more of the above – please specify.

    1. Her miscarriage was the result of her smoking pot.

    2. John would say this dirty hippie should have just recognized the inevitable dynamics of this sort of thing.

      Or something.

      1. Only yesterday I said that film was one of the worst things I have ever seen

        John|11.21.11 @ 9:44AM|#

        That is one of the worst films I have ever seen. Pepper spray is nasty shit. Only a real sociopath could just walk down a line and spray it in people’s faces.
        Apple|11.21.11 @ 10:04AM|#

        Seriously. I couldn’t even believe it was real at first. I thought, “Why is he spray painting those kids?” I guess they just put him through the first aerobic exercise he’s had in 20 years and he’s plenty pissed about it.
        MNG|11.21.11 @ 10:04AM|#

        I agree here. That cop should be brought up on charges if the local DA had any decency.

        And you agreed with me. I guess you have gotten so angry and bitter it is affecting your short term memory.

        1. Over the weekend you were blaming the victims of police brutality all over the place. You even got equated with a 1960’s Southerner if you recall.

          1. No. Over the weekend I was talking about different cases where the protesters specifically went there to incite the cops hoping to create violence. Different situation than here where they were, at least in the video, they actually were peaceful demonstrators and were not trying to incite violence. And thus I think the cops should go to jail here. And said so yesterday. And you saw it and agreed with it. But still chose to lie about it this morning.

            Again, calm down. Stop being so nasty.

            1. Oh, so it was different police brutality you supported. Gotcha.

              1. Yeah. If I go and throw a rock at a cop and am part of an angry mob harassing passers by, I am a lot more culpable for what happens than I am if I am staging a sit in.

                It is called thinking MNG and making distinctions in each case rather than just thinking “protestors good cops bad” or vice versa.

                You are absolutely incapable of making an honest argument. Even when I agree with you, you still manage to twist it around to feed your persecution complex.

                1. This will not end till one of you is dead.

                  Tick…tick…tick…

                  1. in the old days, it would have been pistols at dawn.

                    1. in the old days, it would have been pistols at dawn

                      Now it’s death by boredom. This could take a while.

                    2. In the old days, we ALL would have fallen on them with blunt instruments and smote them both on the spot. Ah, those were the days……

                  2. Or until one of them finally ejaculates.

                    Longest…mental masturbation…EVAH!

                2. I try not to draw distinctions between “good” and “bad” police brutality.

                  1. That is because you are an idiot MNG and only see the world in cartoons. If you had the brains God gave a goat, you would understand that both sides often bare responsibility for violent situations especially the side that specifically goes out to create the situation.

                    But since you have such limited intelligence or emotional capacity to deal with reality (I am not sure which it is but it is probably the latter), you see the world in simple cartoons that make you feel better.

                    1. I try not to bare my responsibility in public.

                    2. I guess I’m the same then, John. Because I see the world in absolutes.

                      Over the weekend I was talking about different cases where the protesters specifically went there to incite the cops hoping to create violence.

                      They went there and exercised their rights (however misguided their goals). The violence was created when the cop’s swinging fist made contact with a protester and when the cop’s finger fully depressed the nozzle on the can of pepper spray.

                    3. I wasn’t talking about Oakland. I was talking about New York and other places where the protestors created a riot and were harassing people. Does that justify the police overreacting? No. But the overreaction doesn’t make the people who went there hoping to get the overreaction any less loathsome.

                    4. Does that justify the police overreacting? No.

                      FULL STOP!

                      But the overreaction doesn’t make the people who went there hoping to get the overreaction any less loathsome.

                      Let them be loathsome on their own merits, then. And yes, I think those idiots want to live in a nanny state and want to steal as much money from the productive members of society as they can.

                      Still, let’s not give the jackboot thugs a pass because they are “beating up the right people.”

                    5. I am not giving the thugs a pass. But lets not give the parasites a pass just because they managed to piss off enough cops to get beaten up.

    3. im gonna guess the fat ol farts at red state would prefer 2 & 3 since, u know, hipsters are really, really old hippies wearing depends ?!?

    4. how about correlation =/= causation

      she miscarried a week after

      she had an ultrasound the evening she was pepper sprayed. came back normal

      she was a homeless woman living at the occupy camp. it MAY have been related. or it may not have

      people DO have miscarriages even if they don’t get pepper sprayed

  18. I feel bad for the pregnant lady, but why is she taking such a pointless risk?

    It wouldn’t have been safe there for her even if the cops hadn’t done anything wrong.

    I find this much less sensible even then “Slut Walking”, which makes a certain rough kind of sense: Slut Walking would be perfectly safe if it weren’t for criminals. But going to a protest march pregnant isn’t safe, even in the absence of crime. Anything can happen. The crowd could panic and you could get trampled. The police could take legitimate action and you could get caught up in it. Etc.

    These “Look at me I’m hang-gliding pregnant, because being pregnant shouldn’t have to slow you down!” people annoy me.

    1. Have to say this was my first thought. Take some responsibility for the life you are carrying and direct your political activism through other channels.

      1. Take some responsibility for the life you are carrying

        I was going to name the baby Miracle.

      2. It wasn’t political activism. She was one of the homeless sponging off the occupy thing for free food. Just old-fashioned stupidity.

    2. Blame victim much?

      fluff’s right-wing careen continues…

      1. I mean, would you feel the same about a pregnant wealthy person who “flaunted” their wealth and got attacked by some envious cretin?

        I mean, we all know you shouldn’t walk down some streets displaying your wealth…

        1. Dude, come on.

          I addressed this very point in my original post.

          I think that the Slut Walkers are right: It would be perfectly safe to dress however you wanted (or walk down the street covered with $100 bills) if other people obeyed the law, or if the police force adequately enforced the laws. So blaming women for how they dress (or blaming wealthy people for wearing a suit made of $100 bills) is a misdirection, because it lets off the hook the person who breaks the law and the law enforcement establishment that fails to make the streets safe.

          In this case, as I pointed out, even if everyone obeyed the law, she still wouldn’t have been safe. That is why I think she took a pointless risk, above and beyond the misconduct of the police. The police are obviously at fault and need to be held accountable, but she took a pointless risk by even showing up.

          1. Pregnant women should feel free to go to a protest without having to fear having a cop kick them in the stomach and pepper spray them.

            1. Yes they “should”. Smart ones still won’t as protests can become riots.

            2. You may wish police brutality were a contradiction in terms, but in reality it is redundant.

              I don’t think anyone should get points for willful ignorance.

          2. The Slut Walkers are protesting something that doesn’t exist. No one blames rape victims for how they dress.

            http://www.zombietime.com/deconstructing_slutwalk/

            1. No one blames rape victims for how they dress.

              To quote Madame Speaker Pelosi, “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

              Where have you been?

              I’ll have to Google it, but I recall a case from Texas in which the judge ruled that the victim was, in effect, “asking for it,” based in part on how she was dressed. And that’s just one case.

              There are, in fact, people who blame rape victims for how they dress. Or who at least want to raise their attire as an issue in defence of the rapist.

          3. Eh, I think something that is a peaceful protest should not be considered risky. If she had put on a ski mask and started tossing bricks, okay, but just sitting is a far cry from expecting anything to happen.

            I’m more concerned with this quote:

            “It hurts. It’s upsetting. I was ready to have a kid, because my family was going to support me in taking care of the child. Her name was going to be Miracle.”

            1. Her name was going to be Miracle.

              LOL–yeah, sure it was.

          4. (or walk down the street covered with $100 bills)

            Is she punchable?

          5. how are the police obviously at fault?

    3. It shouldn’t be a risk. If she had gone to a riot, I would agree. But frankly there shouldn’t be any risk, other than going to jail, of conducting nonviolent civil disobedience. If all they were going to do was sit on the sidewalk and get arrested, there should have never been a risk of getting doused in pepper spray.

      So I really can’t blame her.

      1. She was also homeless and didn’t have the miscarriage until a week later – so blaming the police is a stretch too.

        1. Too bad for the cops. Don’t go around macing peaceful protestors and you won’t risk getting blamed for their miscarriages.

          1. It was probably less the mace and more the repeated blows to her stomach.

            1. how do you know? she was ultrasounded that evening

              came back normal

          2. I’ve stopped paying attention to either side. It’s like watching Hitler and Stalin go at it.

            1. My feelings exactly

        2. As we know, all miscarriages occur immediately after the trauma. And repeatedly getting hit in the gut doesn’t do anything bad to a fetus.

          1. If she sues the city, she may win since they will cave. Suing somebody who would fight it, maybe not. The week between the incident, the medical examine that showed a healthy fetus, and her lifestyle as a homeless woman would all have to be considered by a jury.

            1. The doctors seem to think the damage from the kick and the pepper spray killed the fetus. An ultrasound right after the incident will show superficial damage, but it won’t show more subtle damage that would lead to the death of a fetus. Pretty much any defendant would go down hard, no matter how hard they fought. It was only a week and it’s not like she wasn’t homeless before she got attacked.

              1. no. this is why the “assume” bigots are so ridiculous

                we don’t know that.

                we know she CLAIMED the doctor seemed to think so

                HUGE HUGE difference

                and generally speaking, it would be a little difficult to believe a doctor would make that statement in the case of a miscarriage without waiting for the medical examiner investigation etc. miscarriages are not at all uncommon, especially with homeless women, and it happened a week later, and she had an ultrasound AFTER the pepper spraying which was normal

                but you are willing to believe her CLAIM because it fits your metanarrative

                how entirely unshocking

      2. A marathon isn’t a riot, but entering one pregnant is a pointless risk. You could trip at the start line. The person in front of you could trip. You end up in a 20 person pileup.

        Pretty much any physical activity in a crowd that rises above the level of taking the subway or walking around a supermarket is a pointless risk for someone who is pregnant.

        Say the police didn’t pepper spray anyone, but merely started picking people up and carrying them to the Paddy wagon. Even that wouldn’t have been safe for her. A cop could accidentally drop her. The guy next to her could decide at the last second to try to get away. Etc.

        1. If the police had acted properly and she had had a miscarriage I would agree with you Fluffy that it was her fault. And maybe she was reckless for taking that risk. But the police changed the game by acting improperly. That created a risk she didn’t choose to take and relieved her of all responsibility for being there.

          Look at it this way, if she had run a marathon and instead of tripping and falling, she had been shot by a homicidal lunatic, I don’t think you would say “what was she doing there”. The act of the lunatic vitiates that concern.

          1. Wasn’t the crowd that she was a part of blocking traffic in Seattle?

            That sounds inherently dangerous to me.

            1. Yes, but she was pregnant. Didn’t you get the memo? She’s collecting pussy passes for two, now. She’s to be given the benefit of the doubt even if she was cage fighting.

          2. the police did, as far as we know, act properly

        2. This story stinks to high heaven. Too propagantastic to be true. Conveniently, the doctors cannot release her medical records. Her claims cannot be verified. Partisans will take their respective sides regardless and prove…nothing.

          1. It does. But again tough shit. If that women was homeless, she was probably a drug user and had appalling prenatal habits. But you take the plaintiff as you find them. Too bad for the cops. If you pepper spray and kick a pregnant woman in the stomach, you are responsible for the miscarriage no matter what her previous behavior.

            1. Too bad fetuses form in the uterus, not the stomach.

    4. Naturally, a miscarriage is a terrible thing.

      I’m a little curious as to how the diagnosis that the miscarriage was caused by the, erm, incident is supported. Homeless people aren’t known for getting prenatal care, etc. Unless this doc saw her before the protest, he probably can’t even begin to say what caused it.

      Her PR management is a little too good to be true. Naming the baby “Miracle”? Just an innocent bystanded at the protest? Color me skeptical. Which means she bears some responsibility for what happened. Not all of it, but some.

      1. Four words for you RC “Joint and Several Liability” Her previous behavior doesn’t matter. As I said above, we take the plaintiff as we find them. Her horrible pre natal habits don’t let he police off the hook.

        1. I was thinking more morally than legally.

  19. “…counterproductive to anything the city is trying to achieve…with regard to…community relations.” = “oh shit, you mean we don’t control the message anymore?”

    Seriously, how, if KKKorporashuns can command instant fealty through insidious advertising campaigns at will, can organizations with the resources, influence, and pull of governments fail to control the thoughts of the public? It’s almost like people tend to seek truth and maybe inly buy thinks they like or need.

  20. So, as promised yesterday to follow up Kristen’s kickoff of the unofficial H&R dating advice column, here’s mine. My friend (hereafter referred to in the first person singular, for ease of pronouning of course) has been dating this guy for over seven years. And he will not. fucking. marry me. What is up with that?

    I can’t tell you why not, because I don’t know, but maybe you have the secret sight into a man’s soul. When I ask about it (and the other day I got to the point of asking, “Arrested Development”-style, “Why don’t you want to lock this down?”) the only answer is “I don’t know”–other than, of course, “I don’t want to get married and I don’t think that’s going to change any time soon.”

    Needless to say, I am awesome, the sex is awesome (and still getting better seven years down the road), I love him a ridiculous amount, and we have a ton in common and want the same lifestyle/future/etc. But seven years is a long time and I feel like I deserve to be more than a “girlfriend”–we have already been through richer and poor, sickness and health, etc. etc., but I’m still the functional equivalent of someone he’s been banging for a couple weeks.

    I’ll add some questions for focus:

    I feel like I may not be communicating the important aspects (to me) of “getting married”–yes, we all want to be a princess for a day but that is not what this is about, and I don’t actually care about the dress and the party and all that biz, I just want a promise and the respect of being called “wife.” I tried to tell him a couple weeks ago that I thought “girlfriend” was sort of offensive because it included such meaningless relationships, it made me sound unimportant, and he was just like, “I don’t see that at all, ‘girlfriend’ covers everything.” Which I’m sure most people agree with (I realize that I have plenty of my own issues here), but I’m trying to get him to empathize with me.

    Isn’t there supposed to be some (male) figure in his life telling him this is fucked up? Why aren’t his friends (who are starting to get married) asking him why he doesn’t want to lock this down? Why isn’t his dad telling him to act like a man? We come from different class backgrounds (my parents, working class moving up to lower middle, got married at 19; his got married after law school) and I feel like I abandoned my own culture to some extent and lost out. If I had stayed back home and done what the average kid did out of HS/college, I would be married right now (though obviously to someone I would consider suboptimal). Plus, our current situations are reversed compared to our childhood ones: he works in retail and I make about 5x as much as him even though I have no interest in being “career girl”–it’s just that I can get ALL my shit together but this marriage thing.

    I typically get three reactions from people: “why are you together?” (love is a mysterious thing); “you need to cut him off [i.e., sex]” (which I think is wrong, and also sucky for both of us instead of just for him; and “you need to put a time limit on it.” I am getting closer and closer to the time limit option, but the whole point of wanting to get married is that I am super committed. If I put on a time limit, that negates everything I have expressed about how I feel and why I want to hitch ourselves together.

    So. Does the H&R commentariat agree that this is just my fault for putting out for seven years without a ring? And seriously?isn’t someone (other than me) supposed to be telling him this is not chill?

    1. There is nothing wrong with not being married, and there is nothing stopping you from asking him. Of course, you need to decide what you are going to do if he says “no”.

      1. Or get him to sign a cohab agreement first.

      2. I recognize that there’s nothing wrong with not being married, and that part of this is my own envy. We went out on Saturday with six other couples and we were the only unmarried ones, and when I asked him if he noticed that, he said no. Meanwhile, everytime I see another woman with a ring, I feel like a complete life failure.

        1. It sounds like he’s well aware of how important marriage is to you. Still, you may want to be straightforward about it and remove any doubts. If he’s still opposing the idea, you’ll have to make a decision about what’s more important to you.

          1. How did the Urkobold propose to you? Did he hypnotize you with his mind-rays until you joined his harem, or did he just club you over the head?

            1. Roofies and chloral hydrate.

        2. This is all he wants out the relationship. He’s given you your answer.

          Sorry that you put 7 years of your life in to this relationship, presuming it would end in marriage, but not all investments generate positive results.

          You aren’t happy with the answer, so now the decision is to whether to stay or go.

    2. move on

    3. go to mexico city and get a 2yr renewable marrage license. ez pleasy lemon squeezy

      1. thats wut i had to do after my mom cauhgt me fuckin her chuwawa

        1. spoof’s kinda funny

    4. Has he been married previously?
      If yes, I understand.
      If not, he’s fucked up.

      1. Nope, never married before, either of us.

      2. Changes in the law have made marriage a worse deal for men, and you don’t have to have gone through a divorce yourself to know that.

        1. boy u got that shit right. guys should NOT buy into (literally) a rigged game

        2. Except that she’s the one who brings home the bacon, so even that isn’t really a thing.

      3. Why is it fucked up to not want to be married? I can love a woman to death, but unless there’s children involved, screw that noise. The question from perspective is, what do I gain? If the answer is nothing (plus the possibility of alimony payments when it doesn’t work out) then he ain’t gonna marry.

    5. IMO the only reason to seek state sanction for a romantic relationship for me would be to secure legal rights in children and property. I have been with my wonderful girlfriend for nearly 15 years and we haven’t even talked seriously of marriage. When we decide to have children (soon, hopefully!), we’ll make it legal just so we have established the legal background for practical purposes but so far it hasn’t been an issue. My advice: if it is really the important to you, try understanding why it’s not to him. A good arvument may be the legal benefits of power of attorney and full rights in your offspring.

      1. Also, I don’t think I actually want state sanction, as such–one of our resident anarchists here. The problem is when your only fight is over commitment. And like I said, how to communicate that it’s about the promise, not the party (or the state).

        1. As far as commitment goes, maybe buying some property together, in order to commingle your financial interests, could provide a sense of trust and partnership. However, if you really make 5x what he earns, he may feel like you’re trying to establish too much dominance in the relationship. Perhaps he already feels bad due to his relatively lower financial contribution to the union. These are simply speculations, obviously, and the best way to a solution here would be to really talk o er why each of you feels the way you do.

          1. However, if you really make 5x what he earns, he may feel like you’re trying to establish too much dominance in the relationship. Perhaps he already feels bad due to his relatively lower financial contribution to the union.

            This is what I’ve tried to do as an alternative (for me) to marriage, and exactly why it hasn’t worked.

      2. I was unmarried, but hooked to the same girlfriend, for over 12 years before we got married. I was comfortable with the situation and would have kept it that way, but at age 30, she wanted to have kids. So…

      3. I have been with my wonderful girlfriend for nearly 15 years and we haven’t even talked seriously of marriage. When we decide to have children (soon, hopefully!), we’ll make it legal just so we have established the legal background for practical purposes but so far it hasn’t been an issue.

        Oh, great. Another couple that want to have a bunch of retard babies because they waited until they were 40-something to have kids. We already have the Palin’s, you know.

        /liberal sarc

        1. Haha. That is a fear of mine but I’m hoping to knock her up before she turns 36.

    6. Either accept that he refuses to marry you or leave him.

      1. Also, make this choice before noon today. The longer you fail to make the choice, the more of your life you will spend in the growing unhappiness of “why won’t he marry me”?

        1. I think Spoonman and John are most right so far, which sucks. And obviously I am way too much of a pussy to make this decision in the next three hours.

          1. No you’re not, you just want any excuse to avoid it. But waiting until tomorrow is just another 24 hours of unhappiness.

            1. Been seven years, no need to rush now.

              1. Sunk cost. And, it’s bothering her today, enough to ask random people on the internet about it.

                1. The principle of Sunk Cost cannot be stressed enough.

          2. I hear ya, sistah. John offered some damned sage advice yesterday, which was exactly what I was looking for. But damned if I’m not just a fucking wuss, too. Dating in DC is hard, man, and when you find a burly bald blue collar guy who likes board games and DragonCon, well, it ain’t easy contemplating a breakup.

            1. Seriously. And not to minimize your almost-year, but breaking up a seven-year relationship is pretty close to contemplating a divorce. This is like…a big percentage of my life.

              1. The longer you wait, the bigger percentage of your life you’ll have potentially wasted if he doesn’t come down on your side.

            2. Dating in DC is hard, man, and when you find a burly bald blue collar guy who likes board games and DragonCon, well, it ain’t easy contemplating a breakup.

              If you’re looking for burly, bald blue-collar guys in DC, I hear Barney Frank’s office is chock-full of them.

            3. I would think that finding an unattached guy who likes board games and DragonCon wouldn’t be too difficult. Whether they’re of any compatibility would be the real question.

    7. From my point of view, the only real reason to get married is to provide some legal protection to your future children, e.g. so he retains custody of them if you die. Maybe he has a similar point of view, or maybe he’s just lazy.

      1) Do you want to have kids?
      2) Does he?

      1. He has expressed at one point that this is the only real reason to get married. And I said, well then you better get on it, because I’m not having kids until I’ve been married for at least a few years–I’m not going straight from “girlfriend” to “mom,” I want to be a wife for a while first. I said, “I need time to enjoy it.” “Enjoy what?”

        1. How old you are affects this somewhat too. If you’re 30 you need to find the father of your children (assuming you want them) now, and if this guy isn’t willing to marry you he isn’t the one.

          1. Yeah, I am going to be 28 at the end of February, and that is at this point my potential limit-date. I feel like he is also refusing to see us as, like, not 18 anymore…and realize that there is at least some level of urgency to this, especially the longer it goes on.

            1. So essentially he’s a giant man-child that because you’ve so much more money than him has not had to face the realities of life and thus take you and the standard of living you bring to the relationship for granted and has not had to grow up emotionally?

              Leaving his is the best thing you could do for both of you.

              Let me bring you a piece of advice from the dating and economics world. Scarcity creates value. If you as easy to come across as a glass of water you have no value. Sorry but it’s true.

              1. Wow that’s full of typos.

              2. I think you may secretly be my boyfriend. I hope not.

        2. So a little of 1) and a lot of 2) it is.

          If you’re a libertarian, I’m assuming he is too. So there’s at least a 50% chance that he’s somewhere on the autistic spectrum (that’s only half a joke). So he probably has absolutely no understanding of how important this is to you, or why.

          Sit him down and make it clear to him that he has to marry you or you’ll leave him. And if he says no, then you need to be prepared to follow through and leave him. That’s the only way it’ll happen.

          1. Don’t listen to these men; it will fuck you up.

            He doesn’t want to marry you; he would have said so. In fact, he has told you it isn’t is thing, or you are not the one he wants to elevate out of your girlfriend status but the why doesn’t matter.

            You need to walk away from the situation, you may be surprised how you feel. You won’t get fulfillment in a title, and thinking so means you are not ready. Nothing wrong with taking your time 🙂

            It shouldn’t be about ultimatums, time apart is just figuring out what you really want

    8. And either way, if you want him to marry you, you’ll need to make him. Try an ultimatum. Or “accidentally” get knocked up; that’s the old-fashioned ultimatum.

      1. That’s what worked for my current wife.

    9. Life is about choices. This guy gives great sex and is fun to be around but will not give you the respect and commitment of marriage. If marriage is that important to you, and there is nothing wrong with it being so, you have to dump him. He is never going to give you what you really want. As nice as the other stuff is, it is not what is most important to you. So, you have to part ways.

      Now understand the guy who is really willing to give you the respect of marriage and commitment, may not give you as good as sex as this guy or be quite as cool. But that is a choice you should gladly make if marriage is that important to you.

      1. I guess part of the question is, I see marriage as about respect and commitment, but lots of other people don’t. My BFF (a female) thinks it’s really weird that I have respect-related hangups over this. Like, he seems to respect me, so why am I acting like he doesn’t? At least I think that if he did, he would want to get wed.

        1. Why do you care what other people think about what makes you feel happy and loved? Ignore your BFF, she’s not you and she doesn’t get to speak for you.

          1. This is like the best chat room ever.

          2. I have a kitten (Puffball) that’s really sick. I mean, one eye is hanging out of its socket and Puffball just lies there on the rug, sort of screaming, (in cat language) “Kill me! Oh dear God in heaven, kill me!”

            What should I do? Puffball is my only friend.

              1. There goes the neighborhood.
                Chat’s over, folks. Back to work.

        2. I think your BFF is wrong. Marriage is all about respect. If I don’t marry you, I am telling you that I am with you unless and until a better off comes along. Marrying you says that no I don’t think or don’t care if a better offer comes along, I want you. If that isn’t about respect what is?

          Regardless, marriage is important to you. And you see it that way. You can’t just decide not too one day. Since it is important, you have to act like it is.

          1. You are right on John. Thank you.

          2. I’m hours late but I thought I’d chime in in support of the pro-marriage crowd. Fact is I would be marrying my fiancee whether it was state sanctioned or not. It is not about the state benefits or anything holy but about a deeper commitment to each other. I understand if other people don’t feel they need to but if it is important to you it should be important to him. It doesn’t sound like he has expressed any committed ideological reason opposing marriage anyways.

            John is right you have to tell him and then folow through on it. Seven years is more then enought time for it to be an appropriate next step.

    10. Also, maybe you’re asking him the wrong question.

      Is he confident he wants to spend the rest of his life with you? If so, marrying you if that’s what you want shouldn’t be any harder a decision than taking out the trash when you ask him to. If it’s harder than that for him, then you know what to do.

      1. I’d cut to the chase. Ask him to marry you, and tell him its a one-time only offer. If he says “no”, ask him why not.

        If he turns you down, you can make an informed decision about what to do next – stick around as girlfriend “for life”, or leave him.

        He’s obviously happy with the way things are, so he’s never going to ask you. You have to advance the conversation yourself.

        For maximum rom-com effect, I’d ask him over Thanksgiving dinner.

        1. That would be even better rom-com than you think, since we are spending Thanksgiving as just the two of us plus his mom. Who, last Thanksgiving, made a comment about how nice his parents’ apartment would be as the site of a wedding reception.

      2. Marriage is exactly like taking out the trash.

    11. Here’s the thing:

      He admits to you that he sees no upside whatsoever to getting married.

      That means he has to see a downside to not getting married, or it’s not going to happen. But you don’t want to use the “downside” tool.

      Women often will say words to the effect of what you just wrote: …the whole point of wanting to get married is that I am super committed. If I put on a time limit, that negates everything I have expressed about how I feel and why I want to hitch ourselves together. But that means that the only way he’ll get married is if he suddenly sees an upside to it, which he’s already told you he doesn’t and won’t.

      You’re also admitting that it would be OK with you if he was guilted into marrying you, as long as you didn’t have to do the guilting yourself. You want some figure in his life to do that dirty work for you.

      I think you just have to get over these two feelings. You have to stop feeling like you can’t establish a downside for him here. I would say that a healthy plurality of men only get married because they see a downside to not doing so.

      I think you also have to get over feeling like you don’t want to impose the guilt trip here yourself. If it’s OK for someone else to try to make him feel guilty, it’s OK for you to do it. Guilt is guilt. It doesn’t matter where it comes from.

      And you shouldn’t feel bad about doing either of these things, because all you’re doing is establishing that you’re a person who has value that should be recognized. Communicate that you’re not going to do what he wants unless he does what you want. That’s fair. And communicate that he does “owe” you. If he doesn’t agree that he “owes” you, let him argue that.

      1. Isn’t this, though, the ultimate in uncool-girlfriendness? Isn’t this exactly why guys don’t want to get married to begin with, because girls are nagging pains in the ass?

        I mean, I agree with you that I’m a person who has a value that should be recognized, and that’s obviously the problem we’re having. But I feel like I have no idea how to navigate that when the guy holds all the marriage cards and all I’m trying to do is be as perfect as possible to get him to play them. (Yes, I know I am an ass.)

        1. I’m married. I love it. Wouldn’t have it any other way.

          But, I did have to overcome some resistance to the idea first. The ultimatum will do that for him, or it will set you free.

          BTW, 28 is young. Lot’s of people dumped or got dumped by their 28 year old “Mr. Right’s” and met a “Mr. Righter” at 30.

          You’ve put in seven years. Follow Spoonman’s advice.

    12. Have you tried proposing to him?

      You said your financial situations are “reversed”. Maybe he’s worried that now, with him not being the primary breadwinner, he won’t be able to support you and future mini-you/him. Maybe his friends who you think “should” be telling him to “lock you down” are telling him not to because getting married will completely change your relationship, and not necessairly to his benefit.

    13. Just tell him you want to get married. Make it clear that it’s important to you. If he doesn’t respect that or care, well, you need to figure out what to do about it. It doesn’t sound like he has any real powerful objection to voice other than simple, irrational apprehension about commitment.

    14. I’ve been married for 35 years. I have watched many couples get married and then get divorced. Most “write our own” wedding vows these days skip the whole “till death do us part” thing, because most people see the potential failure in marriage as well as the potential success.

      I’ve seen couples that lived together for a long time (upwards of 10 years) get married and then split up a year or so later. I think a lot of these couples sense that something is wrong in the relationship and expect the added committment of marriage to fix it. They are almost always wrong.

      Marriage is expensive, divorce can be worse. If you want to get married because you can’t stand the thought not being with this person the rest of you life, then get on with it. But if you sense the relationship is not quite right and you want marriage to fix it, then you’re going the wrong direction. Either enjoy the time you have together now or move on.

      1. Don’t listen to any of these crackpots, nicole.

        Nicole? Still here? Or laughing hysterically at your successful spoof?

    15. The wife & I were together for 7 years before we finally got married. There was nothing that she did nor could have done to get me to do it sooner.
      Some dudes, like myself, are just scared to get married. In my case, I’d seen every marriage in family except for my grandparents go through messy divorces. I didn’t want to ruin the good thing we had by getting married.
      What turned me around? I really can’t say. I just woke up one morning and said fuck it. “I’m gonna marry this woman.” By the end of the year we were in FL exchanging vows.
      I’m not gonna tell you to wait forever, because that’s just ridiculous, but don’t give ultimatums because that sort of shit makes men even more reluctant. Don’t think for a minute that you have to wait for him to ask, this is the 21st century – wymyns are empowered and junk. Ask him yourself.

      1. Thanks for this. This is where I sort of feel like we are. However, I don’t see much point in asking when I’ve made it super clear that I want to–I mean, I’m 99.9% sure that if I asked, he would say no. So. But who knows, maybe, before whatever time limit I set myself runs out…

        1. “Why aren’t we married yet?” is a good question to ask once (any more than that you’re pushing your luck). The wife did that to me once. I couldn’t answer and she got pissed, but it did stick with me and did get me to think about it seriously.

    16. My friend (hereafter referred to in the first person singular, for ease of pronouning of course) has been dating this guy for over seven years. And he will not. fucking. marry me. What is up with that?

      He’s waiting for something better to come along and is using you for sex until that happens. If it doesn’t happen, he MIGHT marry you out of resignation, but only because he’s finally determined that nothing better is coming along.

      So you can either wait until that happens–IF it happens–or you can move on and try to find someone who will appreciate you, while you still have your looks.

      1. I should also add that a lot of guys who refuse to get married aren’t necessarily afraid of the commitment, per se, they’re terrified they’re going to get cornholed if a divorce takes place. Deep in the heart of every man who won’t commit to marraige is a stark fear that they will end up like the Alan character on Two and a Half Men.

        1. Yeah, that would be retarded in this situation though since I almost completely support us. If he married me, he would get to have some actual control, instead of just giving me a nasty look when he sees me come home with a new Kate Spade bag to fill the wedding-ring-shaped hole in my heart.

          1. Look, Nicole, just go ahead with the ultimatum. I think it will probably work out OK.

          2. Not to make light of the situation, but I believe we have a great new term: Kate Spade-bagging the nutsack.

            1. It’s the least I can do in repayment for all the input.

              1. Taking advice from strangers on the internet.

    17. I am going to make an unromantic suggestion that I think will help you cut to the chase. You will be far more likely to find happiness if you take positive steps rather than hoping he will do something you want.

      1) Let go of the dream of him proposing to you and you accepting and having a fairy tale wedding and living happily ever after. That’s just not going to happen. Life isn’t Ivanhoe.

      2) Sit down and negotiate with him. I strongly recommend Covey’s suggestions for crafting a Win/Win agreement. Negotiate a marriage contract with him. Tell him you want to marry him. Tell him honestly why. What you hope to get out of it, and what you hope to give him in exchange. Ask him what he wants. Don’t rush him. Say you want to work something out in the next 6 months.

      a) As with any negotiation, you need to be prepared. Figure out what you want out of the relationship. figure out what you are willing to give, and what your best alternative to a negotiated agreement. Really figure out what you want.

      b) Think about hwat he wants too. You should have an idea as to what his dreams and hot buttons are by now.

      3) Listen to what he says. Actively.

      Marriage has a great deal of emotional baggage involved with it. Certainly, given the horrific divorce I am going through right now, I doubt I’ll ever be willing to risk it again. I see signs that my son will be very reluctant to get married because of what he sees happening.

      Until your boyfriend trusts you enough to share with you his thoughts, you won’t know why he is disinterested.

      DO NOT – UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES – TRY TO GET HIS MOM TO ASSIST YOU IN A PINCER ATTACK. It will blow up in your face when he hits his midlife crisis.

      1. tarran, this is my most natural response to the situation, and what I think is actually the best idea. Especially since I think actually negotiating a contract that is meaningful to us is…just more meaningful overall and in general. Glad someone else thinks it’s a good idea.

        Also, yeah, I would never do that with the mom. I actually blame her at least in part for the whole thing. She babies him.

    18. Don’t play games with him, i.e. cutting him off, giving him a time limit, etc. It’s just going to make him feel like he’s backed into a corner. You want him to WANT to marry you, not be coerced into doing it.

      Make sure you’re not being passive aggressive. If you have a serious discussion about marriage and it feels like there’s something being left unsaid…say it so there’s no miscommunication.

      Explain why you want to get married. Get him to explain exactly why he doesn’t. It sounds like he’s avoiding the discussion because he doesn’t want to make a decision yet. You need to understand WHY he doesn’t want to make the decision. If the reason is a good one, then at least you know why and you can cope with it better. If the reason is a bad one, then you might need to re-evaluate things a bit.

    19. There is no reason for a man to willing subject himself to a marriage contract. In practice, it’s a contract that’s about as one-sided as signing up for the draft.

  21. Hitler hears about the Euro implosion.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..re=feedlik

      1. It would be much better, however, if the guy with the right message wasn’t Hitler.

        Even in a parody, one shouldn’t be agreeing with Hitler.

    1. 90% of Hitler Downfall parodies are crap, including that one.

      But at least Sturgeon’s Law has been maintained.

    2. Sweet

  22. Since we know we can’t get radical leftist agenda pushed through in anything resembling and open society, our goal is to mount a dummy campaign that everyone would agree with, say one that goes something along the lines of “WE ARE THE 99%”, then we might have the opportunity to sneak our radical change agenda through the back door! Because we believe in democracy (in which we fully control the narrative and information on which people base their vote)!

    Strategically speaking, there is a very real danger that if we naively put our cards on the table and rally around the “overthrow of capitalism” or some equally outworn utopian slogan, then our Tahrir moment will quickly fizzle into another inconsequential ultra-lefty spectacle soon forgotten. But if we have the cunning to come up with a deceptively simple Trojan Horse demand ? something profound, yet so specific and doable that it is impossible for President Obama to ignore ? something that spotlights Wall Street’s financial capture of the US political system and confronts it with a pragmatic solution ? like the reinstatement of the Glass-Steagall Act ? or a 1% tax on financial transactions ? or an independent investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice into the corporate corruption of our representatives in Washington ? or another equally creative but downright practical demand that will emerge from the people’s assemblies held during the occupation ? and if we then put our asses on the line, screw up our courage and hang in there day after day, week after week, until a large swath of Americans start rooting for us and President Obama is forced to respond ? then we just might have a crack at creating a decisive moment of truth for America, a first concrete step towards achieving the radical changes we all dream about unencumbered by commitments to existing power structures.

    1. Like I said, most of the armchair asshats rooting for them have no idea how radical they are.

      1. and neither do you

        1. Fail more next time.

          1. oops – looks like u do know.

            1. “So, let’s learn the strategic lessons of Tahrir (nonviolence), Syntagma (tenacity), Puerta del Sol (people’s assemblies)”

              I get Tahrir square, but what are those other two things?

              And this message comes from “HQ” – what’s that, Adbusters headquarters?

    2. That whole manifesto reminds me of the commie (was it Kruschev?) who said that the American people would never accept communism, but they’d put pieces of it through a bit at a time under the name of “liberalism” and it would be accepted.

  23. They showed the video of that scumbag pig pepper spraying the seated protesters on Morning Joke. It completely blows the campus PD chief’s claim that they were “surrounded and felt threatened” out of the water.

    I would love to be the attorney who plays this for a jury and then asks, “Judging by this man’s body language, does this appear to be a man who feels in any way threatened by those people?”

    1. Looks like recently the police chief was suspended. A start, but only a start.

    2. Watched a TV interview with a tough guy cop and pepper-spray “expert” that watched the video and then said: “The cops absolutely made the right choice. If they had not used the spray, there was a good chance that the protesters would have been gravely injured in some way”. I am not kidding.

      1. Because insane amounts of pepper spray to the fact is not injurious I guess.

        Holy shit.

        1. Yes, that’s the ticket, that cop totally looked like he was trying to protect these people from injury.

    1. This was a reply to Nicole.

  24. Read the article. A homeless woman who went to a protest had a miscarriage a week later. So?

    I did read the link, you fucking retard.

    She is a completely unsympathetic character. And yet- she (despite the fact she posed no threat to them) was kicked in the midriff and pepper sprayed by the pigs, after which she miscarried.

    In a similar set of circumstances, if a civilian pleb had done this to her, a headline-grabbing DA would rush to the teevee cameras and file murder charges.

    Fuck off, bootlicker.

    1. Ah, the “no threat” meme again.

    2. oh, also… a DA wouldn’t file charges.

      under WA law, you know the law that ACTUALLY applies the killing of the fetus must be INTENTIONAL, and it wouldn’t be murder, it would be first degree manslaughter

      yet another law ignorant reasonoid bigot makes another false claim about what would happen if only it wasn’t the cops, who the bigots all claim get special protection, who ALLEGEDLY (and at this point without any evidence i have seen except her specious claims) caused a miscarriage

  25. Meanwhile, everytime I see another woman with a ring, I feel like a complete life failure.

    We all have our goals, and we all have our boundaries.

    Speaking as a man with a pathological aversion to marriage, I can only offer this: if you give him an ultimatum, don’t be surprised if you find yourself learning the ins-and-outs of Match.com in short order.

    Read up on “sunk costs”.

  26. German press irked by US, pushes WH on debt
    http://campaign2012.washington…..es-wh-debt

    In an apparent suggestion of United States hypocrisy on debt issues, a journalist in the German media challenged White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on the role of the United States in responding to the European debt crisis.

    “The U.S., as far as I know, has a worse debt-to-GDP ratio than the whole eurozone, and we are talking about the eurozone, not about the United States and that Congress can’t get its act together,” said a member of the German press during the briefing. “So from the European perspective, it seems that this country is in a bigger mess than Europe. We are not proud where we are. We know that it’s slow and not bold, and so on, but at least they are doing something; they are deciding something, they’re trying to pull that through. And here, nothing is happening ? third time this year,” he added, referring to the Supercommittee failure.

    1. Because we’re not yet in danger of default. We’re in bad shape, without question. But to compare us to the Eurozone is wishful thinking on the part of Europeans who can’t stand to see their utopia crumbling before their very eyes.

    2. If the Eurozone was a single country, he will have a point.

      But Greece != Mississippi.

      Greece is a separate country with weird economic and other ties to the EU.

  27. Murder charges against thr woman for putting herself in the middle of a mob? She has the right to choose so it’s not a problem.

    Yeah, right. I never thought of that.

    How many times has a DA filed murder charges against a pregnant woman involved in a car crash? She “voluntarily” put that fetus at risk by driving to the grocery store, didn’t she?

    Now- how many times has a DA filed murder charges against another driver who crashed into a car with a pregnant woman in it?

    1. yeah, but that’s only if they have one of those “Baby on Board” bumper stickers

  28. I’m still on vacation – only one more day before I head towards my northern compound – where I am free to gambol through the woods – well, except for the owner of 120+ acres to the south, who has suddenly taken to kicking out trespassers – even though we (and the other neighbors) have hiked through her land for 20+ years.

  29. I call bullshit on miscarriage by pepper spray/kick. That simply does not happen at 2 months. Or is it 3 months? The sources can’t seem to get there stories straight…

    1. The great thing about propaganda is that it doesn’t have to be true.

  30. Paterno Clashed With Penn State Official Over Punishment of Players

    The confrontations came to a head in 2007, according to one former school official, when six football players were charged by police for forcing their way into a campus apartment that April and beating up several students, one of them severely.

    This is why NCAA football needs to go. Football players who B&E to commit aggravated assault should go directly to jail, but instead, their punishment might be having to do a couple extra suicide sprints after practice. And that’s if the coach is a disciplinarian.

    1. I love NCAA football and can’t imagine a life with the boring fantasy degenerate NFL, but sadly you are right.

      And where the hell was the media? Maybe they should have stopped kissing JoPa’s ass and reported what a crap weasel he apparently is.

      1. College football is much more fun to watch than the NFL. But it’s way too evil to exist any longer in its current state.

        1. Bobby Bowden was on the radio this morning talking about this. He made a really smart statement, “if you want to test your character, go get some power sometime”. These coaches have way too much power and there is too much money involved. Tell a coach to win or be fired and give him a few million a year to do it, it is inevitable that he is going to abuse his power.

          1. I would think that a few million in the bank would be liberating and should only increase one’s likelihood of doing the “right thing.” But I understand that many feel differently.

            1. Maybe Penn State will hire Jim Tressel.

              1. That’s a fucking low blow.

                In some encouraging Buckeye news, looks like Urban Meyer is in low-key talks with tOSU. It’s all coming together.

    2. Tee real problem is the sheer amount of money in D-IA, and 90% are state schools. The government will look the other way to keep the millions rolling in.

      Basically the coaches and players are all government employees. Which makes them all unworthy of any of my time other than for scorn.

      1. This. Too many universities today have turned into a football program masquerading as an education institution.

        The University of Maryland is now cutting eight of their minor sports programs so that they can flush even more money down the toilet into their shitty, outrageously expensive football team in their futile quest to become a BCS power. It’s downright sickening.

  31. Joe Paterno is a old asshole that will die and go to hell. I would gladly piss on his grave.

  32. Pelosi Bashes Catholics: “They Have This Conscience Thing”

    Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is at it again, bashing Catholics for their pro-life position when she has promoted abortion in defiance of Catholic Church teaching at every turn.

    This time, Pelosi is upset that the nation’s Catholic bishops are protesting a potential Obama administration decision forcing insurance companies to cover birth control, contraception and drugs that could cause abortions. They say certain religious groups may not be exempt from providing the insurance, which would violate their moral and religious views.

    Pelosi says the position is akin to having hospitals “say to a woman, ‘I’m sorry you could die’ if you don’t get an abortion,” she told the Washington Post.

    “Those who dispute that characterization “may not like the language,” she said, “but the truth is what I said. I’m a devout Catholic and I honor my faith and love it .?.?. but they have this conscience thing” that the Post said Pelosi “insists put women at physical risk, although Catholic providers strongly disagree.”

    Pelosi also defended controversial remarks she made about a bill to prevent Obamacare from funding abortions, where she claimed Republicans “want women to die on the floor.”

    http://www.lifenews.com/2011/1…..nce-thing/

    1. So much crazy stupid there. She seems to think that she can “honor her faith and love it” provided she doesn’t have to mess with that whole “conscience thing” and actually act on the faith when she doesn’t like what it tells her or it is hard to do.

      Pelosi really is the picture of the self absorbed degenerate boomer.

      1. Why doesn’t she simply call herself an “ex-Catholic” or “recovering Catholic” who “left the Church because of its hatred of women,” blah blah?

        Do San Francisco voters insist on their representatives being in good standing the the Church? Not that she is, but why does she wish to keep up the pretense? Are her constituents that insistent?

        1. Because she is a boomer and expects to have things both ways. She wants to be able to call herself a Catholic and retain all of the benefits that go with it. But she also wants to be able to piss on everything the church stands for and completely ignore its teachings when it fits her needs.

          That quote is a great example of baby boomer narcissism. It is all about Nancy and her needs.

          1. What we have here…is a failure…to excommunicate.

            I mean, how much “dialogue” do the bishops need to have with her before realizing it’s fruitless?

            Why don’t they excommunicate this “devout Catholic?” It’s not like this will harm her political career – it would articulate her already-existing relationship with the Church.

            1. Then, like Leander Perez, she could clarify that she’s “a Catholic, but not an Archbishop’s Catholic.”

              http://bit.ly/sdOqXw

            2. Because the Bishops are probably as bad as she is.

              1. That’s saying quite a lot. They’re actually improving (with many new personnel) since the cover-ups of old. And some of them are at least *starting* to recover from their codependent relationship with the modern Democratic Party.

                As the Vatican II bishops start dropping off, replaced by new blood, the quality of the episcopacy can only improve.

                1. The Democrats and progressives are getting more and more hysterical as the Catholic leadership stops playing Tina to the Democrats’ Ike.

          2. Nancy Pelosi was born in 1940. The first boomers weren’t born until mid 1946.

            It’s bad enough having to live down the shit my generation was responsible for without being saddled with Pelosi.

        2. She’s getting to the age when people start to fear the approaching cold of their twilight years and take up religion as a hedge.

          1. If so, she sure isn’t revealing that fact to the media. Maybe she’s doing it privately, but her public comments make her look like a cafeteria-style cultural Catholic.

    2. This whole the government needs to pay for abortions or women will die in the streets thing is crazy stupid. Even ignoring places like Planned Parenthood, abortions are inexpensive.

      1. Well this is the card played with regard to all medical and academic research. If the government doesn’t pay for it, then it’s framed as some sort of ban, and it won’t happen and people will die.

        Remember the fetal stem cell research canard? Idiots ran around saying that BOOOOSH was trying to ban stem cell research, when the fact was that he didn’t want government to pay for it. He caved, of course, but the greater question is why is the government paying for any of this stuff?

    3. “They Have This Conscience Thing”

      Of course she hates this. When you’re like Pelosi and you don’t have a conscience, people who do have the “conscience thing” are a very annoying inconvenience.

  33. Does the H&R commentariat agree that this is just my fault for putting out for seven years without a ring?

    “We wear the chains we forged in life.”

    Seriously, if this is what you really think, you’re fucked up.

    1. It’s a fucking disease. Someone was lanceloting Kristen the other day, with “Maybe you shouldn’t be rewarding someone with sex just because he’s good at it.”

      This attidude is insane. Men already do most of the work during sex, anyway. If you feel that ain’t enough, go join a convent.

      The good news, though, is that neither Kristen nor Nicole feel that way, or they wouldn’t have the stories they do. They just think they should feel that way, since tons of idiots preach it as sage advice. Shit, it was one of the most annoying things about Heinlen.

      I honestly think more men feel that way than women, at least judging by the women I’ve known. I think it’s an outgrowth of the “I’d treat you better” attitude of the involuntary celibate.

  34. This is like the best chat room ever.

  35. Wisconsin state Sen. Lena Taylor denies voter fraud allegation

    Leading proponent of recalling Gov. Scott Walker has 36 voters registered on her property

    http://dailycaller.com/#ixzz1eS62jbSL

  36. Some good news for a change: the leftie anticapitalist fantasy of a global climate treaty is dead, a sad victim of ClimateGate, the weather, and global political and economic reality.

    Rest in peace Kyoto Protocal, I’m afraid we won’t miss you.

    1. If we could only tax attention whoring, the entire national debt would be paid off in a month.

      1. A narcissism tax would pay it in three minutes.

  37. http://www.spiegel.de/internat…..72,00.html
    Possibly the most rage-inducing interview of all time.

      1. Gates should donate to Hadassah or B’Nai Brith and invite the German businessmen to donate, too.

  38. MNG|11.22.11 @ 9:22AM|#
    John would say this dirty hippie should have just recognized the inevitable dynamics of this sort of thing.

    WTF is wrong with you?

    Or something.

    1. this case has nothing to do with her dirtiness or hippyness.

      it has to do with an entirely justified UOF (the pepper spraying).

      whether or not she was kicked intentionally (even she doesn’t say). she was kneeling, the crowd was running every which way, including the cops, etc. … we don’t know

      nor do we have ANY idea if anything the cops did was at all related to her miscarriage

      we know she went to harborview for an ultrasound the evening of the incident and they found nothing concerning

      until an autopsy is done, etc. we won’t know

      and we may never know

  39. For the last nine years I have been trying to expose corruption, Plz read my blog http://marinameadowsDOTwordpressDOTcom/, find out what is been done to our family, how the medicals records have been used to harm us, medications tampered, isolation, & manipulation of internet, mail & phones, how my 3 sons have been manipulated, the roll of the Police & Gov.Officials allowing this abuse mental, emotional & physical to go on for years, to cover all the wrong doing, No hesitation in destroying our whole family, adding that the father of my sons & his mother, both UK citizens passed away very sudden…??? Here we still suffering, almost collapsing without any one doing anything to help us; now after 3 months able to text a bit I come to understand how tainted & corrupted things are, manipulated by well-connected individuals, corporate executives & politically motivated Gov.Officials who simply buried the truth inside a shadow legal system inaccessible to everyday ordinary American citizens. So I give thanks to God for the strength given to us and for people that help make the truth come to light!!! By the way if any one out there with some humanity can do anything for us, we appreciate very much the help!!! We need a pro-bono Lawyer ASAP, my mother loosing her eye sight, and we all perishing………We exist !!! En los ultimos nueve anos he estado tratando de exponer la corruptcion en Miami, Florida, Por favor lean mi blog http://marinameadowsDOTwordpressDOTcom/, encuentren lo que nos han hecho, como es que han utilizado nuestros records medicos para hacernos dano, medicinas alteradas acabadas de comprar en las farmacias, como nos han isolado de amigos y familiares, manipulacion y bloqueo de la internet, el correo y los telefonos, como las vidas de mis tres hijos han sido manipuladas y ellos tambien manipulados, el papel que ha jugado la Policia y los Oficiales del Gobierno permitiendo que nos sigan abusando todos estos anos, abuso mental, emocional y por ende fisico, cubriendo las cosas mal hechas desde el principio, sin importarles la destruccion de nuestra familia, tambien quiero adicionar que el padre de mis hijos y su madre murieron repentinamente, los dos ciudadanos Ingleses. Nosotros nos encontramos sufriendo y casi collapsando sin que nadie nos ayude; ahora despues de tres meses que he podido estar escribiendo un poco en la internet me he podido dar cuenta de cuan corrompidas y manchadas son las cosas, manipuladas por individuos muy bien conectados, ejecutivos corporativos y Oficiales Gubernamentales motivados politicamente los cuales simplemente entierran la verdad dentro de uns sombra de sistema legal inaccesible a los ciudadanos ordinarios de cada dia. Asi que le doy gracias a Dios por la fuerza que nos da y por que existen personas que hoy en dia ya estan exponiendo la verdad tal y cual es!! Y a proposito si alguien por ahi con algo de humanidad, puede hacer algo por nosotros, lo apreciaremos muchisimo!! Necesitamos un abogado pro-bono ASAP, es Urgente pues mi madre esta sin medicinas y perdiendo la vision pues tampoco poder hecharse sus gotas de glaucoma, estamos pereciendo…..pero somos reales, existimos !!!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.