http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyivZI2skEI&feature=player_embedded
Unreal.
Repost. Just saying.
My bad.
So we should change this to a St. Louis sucks ass more than..... thread :lulz: K?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 06, 2010, 08:20:00 PM
Quote from: Henny Youngman on October 06, 2010, 08:15:34 PM
My bad.
Happens to the best of us.
YES
but this was posted by the better version than the previous
AND
so much hilarious stuff in this newsreel! police, monitored how many people he fed and took samples? is Obama in on this?
QuoteDo You support Orlando's homeless meal ordinances?
The fact we even have to ask that question means humanity sucks
That and unless this is an isolated incident I never wanna hear anything about America being a "Christian nation" ever again
Giving away food is unlawful in sin city too not sure where else
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on October 07, 2010, 12:56:06 PM
QuoteDo You support Orlando's homeless meal ordinances?
The fact we even have to ask that question means humanity sucks
I THINK
it's further proof that america is now a zoo
I understand why laws like this are in place. It's a matter of public safety. You don't want some idiot going around handing out tainted beef stew. However, the police are assholes for doing the undercover surveillance and arresting him for feeding 5 people over the limit. They should have used some discretion here. This dude isn't part of the problem.
isn't it entrapment if officers are the ones that made up the five extra people?
Quote from: Pēleus on October 08, 2010, 05:55:25 PM
isn't it entrapment if officers are the ones that made up the five extra people?
nope. He intended to violate the ordinance.
QuoteA person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case.
However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the Government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime. For example, it is not entrapment for a Government agent to pretend to be someone else and to offer, either directly or through an informer or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person. So, a person would not be a victim of entrapment if the person was ready, willing and able to commit the crime charged in the indictment whenever opportunity was afforded, and that Government officers or their agents did no more than offer an opportunity.
On the other hand, if the evidence leaves a reasonable doubt whether the person had any intent to commit the crime except for inducement or persuasion on the part of some Government officer or agent, then the person is not guilty.
In slightly different words: Even though someone may have [sold drugs], as charged by the government, if it was the result of entrapment then he is not guilty. Government agents entrapped him if three things occurred:
- First, the idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.
- Second, the government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving him the opportunity to commit the crime is not the same as persuading him to commit the crime.
- And third, the person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before the government agents spoke with him.
On the issue of entrapment the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entrapped by government agents.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 08, 2010, 06:06:16 PM
Quote from: Pēleus on October 08, 2010, 05:55:25 PM
isn't it entrapment if officers are the ones that made up the five extra people?
nope. He intended to violate the ordinance.
Prove it.
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 08, 2010, 06:11:44 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 08, 2010, 06:06:16 PM
Quote from: Pēleus on October 08, 2010, 05:55:25 PM
isn't it entrapment if officers are the ones that made up the five extra people?
nope. He intended to violate the ordinance.
Prove it.
his statement after his arrest that he'd be out there doing it again is very revealing. He's doing it as a protest. I can't talk to the guy and ask him myself but I'd be willing to bet he knew there was an ordinance before he set out to do this.
On that note, is ignorance a valid defense? "I didn't know it was illegal to offer a woman money for sex, officer. Next time, I'll take her out to dinner and buy her a diamond necklace."
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 08, 2010, 06:21:19 PM
On that note, is ignorance a valid defense? "I didn't know it was illegal to offer a woman money for sex, officer. Next time, I'll take her out to dinner and buy her a diamond necklace."
ignorance of the law is never a valid defense. I dont recall at what age I first learned that, or where, but I was pretty young.
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 08, 2010, 06:21:19 PM
On that note, is ignorance a valid defense? "I didn't know it was illegal to offer a woman money for sex, officer. Next time, I'll take her out to dinner and buy her a diamond give her a pearl necklace."
Fix'd
Don't think that joke hadn't crossed my mind.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 08, 2010, 06:18:22 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 08, 2010, 06:11:44 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 08, 2010, 06:06:16 PM
Quote from: Pēleus on October 08, 2010, 05:55:25 PM
isn't it entrapment if officers are the ones that made up the five extra people?
nope. He intended to violate the ordinance.
Prove it.
his statement after his arrest that he'd be out there doing it again is very revealing. He's doing it as a protest. I can't talk to the guy and ask him myself but I'd be willing to bet he knew there was an ordinance before he set out to do this.
So you can't prove it. Check.
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 08, 2010, 06:38:06 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 08, 2010, 06:18:22 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 08, 2010, 06:11:44 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 08, 2010, 06:06:16 PM
Quote from: Pēleus on October 08, 2010, 05:55:25 PM
isn't it entrapment if officers are the ones that made up the five extra people?
nope. He intended to violate the ordinance.
Prove it.
his statement after his arrest that he'd be out there doing it again is very revealing. He's doing it as a protest. I can't talk to the guy and ask him myself but I'd be willing to bet he knew there was an ordinance before he set out to do this.
So you can't prove it. Check.
I think the guy's own words count.
But what of it? It's a bad law, and shouldn't be obeyed.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 08, 2010, 06:40:13 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 08, 2010, 06:38:06 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 08, 2010, 06:18:22 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 08, 2010, 06:11:44 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 08, 2010, 06:06:16 PM
Quote from: Pēleus on October 08, 2010, 05:55:25 PM
isn't it entrapment if officers are the ones that made up the five extra people?
nope. He intended to violate the ordinance.
Prove it.
his statement after his arrest that he'd be out there doing it again is very revealing. He's doing it as a protest. I can't talk to the guy and ask him myself but I'd be willing to bet he knew there was an ordinance before he set out to do this.
So you can't prove it. Check.
I think the guy's own words count.
But what of it? It's a bad law, and shouldn't be obeyed.
I won't argue semantics.
Are you proposing civil disobedience? You? :lol:
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 08, 2010, 06:42:04 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 08, 2010, 06:40:13 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 08, 2010, 06:38:06 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 08, 2010, 06:18:22 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 08, 2010, 06:11:44 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 08, 2010, 06:06:16 PM
Quote from: Pēleus on October 08, 2010, 05:55:25 PM
isn't it entrapment if officers are the ones that made up the five extra people?
nope. He intended to violate the ordinance.
Prove it.
his statement after his arrest that he'd be out there doing it again is very revealing. He's doing it as a protest. I can't talk to the guy and ask him myself but I'd be willing to bet he knew there was an ordinance before he set out to do this.
So you can't prove it. Check.
I think the guy's own words count.
But what of it? It's a bad law, and shouldn't be obeyed.
I won't argue semantics.
Are you proposing civil disobedience? You? :lol:
Is that somehow surprising?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 08, 2010, 06:40:13 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 08, 2010, 06:38:06 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 08, 2010, 06:18:22 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 08, 2010, 06:11:44 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 08, 2010, 06:06:16 PM
Quote from: Pēleus on October 08, 2010, 05:55:25 PM
isn't it entrapment if officers are the ones that made up the five extra people?
nope. He intended to violate the ordinance.
Prove it.
his statement after his arrest that he'd be out there doing it again is very revealing. He's doing it as a protest. I can't talk to the guy and ask him myself but I'd be willing to bet he knew there was an ordinance before he set out to do this.
So you can't prove it. Check.
I think the guy's own words count.
But what of it? It's a bad law, and shouldn't be obeyed.
troof
Until someone feeds fifty random people salmonella-laced chicken salad with a side of botulism.
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 08, 2010, 06:44:24 PM
Until someone feeds fifty random people salmonella-laced chicken salad with a side of botulism.
That could happen just as easily with 20 people. Or 15.
Starve for sure, or take a chance on botulism? Decide.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 08, 2010, 06:40:13 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 08, 2010, 06:38:06 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 08, 2010, 06:18:22 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 08, 2010, 06:11:44 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 08, 2010, 06:06:16 PM
Quote from: Pēleus on October 08, 2010, 05:55:25 PM
isn't it entrapment if officers are the ones that made up the five extra people?
nope. He intended to violate the ordinance.
Prove it.
his statement after his arrest that he'd be out there doing it again is very revealing. He's doing it as a protest. I can't talk to the guy and ask him myself but I'd be willing to bet he knew there was an ordinance before he set out to do this.
So you can't prove it. Check.
I think the guy's own words count.
But what of it? It's a bad law, and shouldn't be obeyed.
This, and as long as he abides by any legal punishment he's given, he's following in a long line of great people like Martin Luther King, Jr. who used civil disobedience. And he gets all kinds of brownie points with some jackasses if he points that out.
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 08, 2010, 06:44:24 PM
Until someone feeds fifty random people salmonella-laced chicken salad with a side of botulism.
How many got a chance to not eat out of a dumpster that day?
Quote from: Phox on October 08, 2010, 06:46:12 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 08, 2010, 06:40:13 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 08, 2010, 06:38:06 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 08, 2010, 06:18:22 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 08, 2010, 06:11:44 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 08, 2010, 06:06:16 PM
Quote from: Pēleus on October 08, 2010, 05:55:25 PM
isn't it entrapment if officers are the ones that made up the five extra people?
nope. He intended to violate the ordinance.
Prove it.
his statement after his arrest that he'd be out there doing it again is very revealing. He's doing it as a protest. I can't talk to the guy and ask him myself but I'd be willing to bet he knew there was an ordinance before he set out to do this.
So you can't prove it. Check.
I think the guy's own words count.
But what of it? It's a bad law, and shouldn't be obeyed.
This, and as long as he abides by any legal punishment he's given, he's following in a long line of great people like Martin Luther King, Jr. who used civil disobedience. And he gets all kinds of brownie points with some jackasses if he points that out.
How would admiring someone who emulates MLK make you a jackass?
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 08, 2010, 06:46:48 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 08, 2010, 06:44:24 PM
Until someone feeds fifty random people salmonella-laced chicken salad with a side of botulism.
How many got a chance to not eat out of a dumpster that day?
There are no bacteria in dumpsters. :lulz:
Sorry, I guess I was a bit unclear. I wasn't advocating that position for myself. I agree that it's a stupid law.
However, if someone did make a whole bunch of people sick, "They" would want someone to blame for the medical attention needed to help the sick.
And somewhere along the line of the sausage-making legislative part, they drew the line at 20 people (or whatever it was).
I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying it appears as if it would work this way in normal circumstances.
I still want to know why Phox thinks admiring someone who emulates MLK makes someone a jackass. :?
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 08, 2010, 06:52:10 PM
Sorry, I guess I was a bit unclear. I wasn't advocating that position for myself. I agree that it's a stupid law.
However, if someone did make a whole bunch of people sick, "They" would want someone to blame for the medical attention needed to help the sick.
And somewhere along the line of the sausage-making legislative part, they drew the line at 20 people (or whatever it was).
I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying it appears as if it would work this way in normal circumstances.
Actually, I think it's to keep vendors from serving food without a license & a health card...Or at least that would have been the original intent.
However, it IS Florida, so maybe they just like to watch homeless people starve to death.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 08, 2010, 06:54:02 PM
I still want to know why Phox thinks admiring someone who emulates MLK makes someone a jackass. :?
I'm betting (hoping like a motherfucker) that wasn't her intent, but she will have to speak for herself.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 08, 2010, 06:54:02 PM
I still want to know why Phox thinks admiring someone who emulates MLK makes someone a jackass. :?
Because she envisions herself as the one holding the truncheon?
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 08, 2010, 06:55:43 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 08, 2010, 06:54:02 PM
I still want to know why Phox thinks admiring someone who emulates MLK makes someone a jackass. :?
I'm betting (hoping like a motherfucker) that wasn't her intent, but she will have to speak for herself.
MLK IS LIKE
SOOO 1967!
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 08, 2010, 06:54:02 PM
I still want to know why Phox thinks admiring someone who emulates MLK makes someone a jackass. :?
because Glenn Beck will hold a rally on your birthday.
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 08, 2010, 06:56:06 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 08, 2010, 06:54:02 PM
I still want to know why Phox thinks admiring someone who emulates MLK makes someone a jackass. :?
Because she envisions herself as the one holding the truncheon?
Or perhaps "it's been done", so nobody can ever do it ever again, or they're copying.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 08, 2010, 06:56:37 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 08, 2010, 06:54:02 PM
I still want to know why Phox thinks admiring someone who emulates MLK makes someone a jackass. :?
because Glenn Beck will hold a rally on your birthday.
Wasn't that on the anniversary of his speech?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 08, 2010, 06:47:13 PM
Quote from: Phox on October 08, 2010, 06:46:12 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 08, 2010, 06:40:13 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 08, 2010, 06:38:06 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 08, 2010, 06:18:22 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 08, 2010, 06:11:44 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 08, 2010, 06:06:16 PM
Quote from: Pēleus on October 08, 2010, 05:55:25 PM
isn't it entrapment if officers are the ones that made up the five extra people?
nope. He intended to violate the ordinance.
Prove it.
his statement after his arrest that he'd be out there doing it again is very revealing. He's doing it as a protest. I can't talk to the guy and ask him myself but I'd be willing to bet he knew there was an ordinance before he set out to do this.
So you can't prove it. Check.
I think the guy's own words count.
But what of it? It's a bad law, and shouldn't be obeyed.
This, and as long as he abides by any legal punishment he's given, he's following in a long line of great people like Martin Luther King, Jr. who used civil disobedience. And he gets all kinds of brownie points with some jackasses if he points that out.
How would admiring someone who emulates MLK make you a jackass?
I was referring to members of the media, not him.The media is full of jackasses, though not everyone is. Most of the people in the media would fawn over him if he pointed this fact out to them, including some of the jackasses that would condemn him otherwise. Sorry for the confusion there.
ETA: Jesus fucking Christ, guys, give me a chance. :lulz:
I think Phox meant that if you styled it as MLK style civil disobedience, a lot of people who would otherwise try and punish you for it would suddenly cease their attacks, knowing the reputation that MLK has and how opposing that reputation makes you look (outside of a Rand Paul rally, at least).
Maybe.
But it's hard to parse, no doubt.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 08, 2010, 06:57:22 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 08, 2010, 06:56:37 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 08, 2010, 06:54:02 PM
I still want to know why Phox thinks admiring someone who emulates MLK makes someone a jackass. :?
because Glenn Beck will hold a rally on your birthday.
Wasn't that on the anniversary of his speech?
damn, yeah. got em confused for a min.
Quote from: Phox on October 08, 2010, 06:57:39 PM
I was referring to members of the media, not him.
How would
admiring someone who emulates MLK make you a jackass?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 08, 2010, 06:59:04 PM
Quote from: Phox on October 08, 2010, 06:57:39 PM
I was referring to members of the media, not him.
How would admiring someone who emulates MLK make you a jackass?
maybe this:
members of media=jackasses
being admired by members of media=being admired by jackasses
I think that's what she meant.
Oh, I got it.
"Some of the Media are jackasses, but if you compared yourself to MLK, they'd change their minds and praise you, instead."
Quote from: Phox on October 08, 2010, 06:57:39 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 08, 2010, 06:47:13 PM
Quote from: Phox on October 08, 2010, 06:46:12 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 08, 2010, 06:40:13 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 08, 2010, 06:38:06 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 08, 2010, 06:18:22 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 08, 2010, 06:11:44 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 08, 2010, 06:06:16 PM
Quote from: Pēleus on October 08, 2010, 05:55:25 PM
isn't it entrapment if officers are the ones that made up the five extra people?
nope. He intended to violate the ordinance.
Prove it.
his statement after his arrest that he'd be out there doing it again is very revealing. He's doing it as a protest. I can't talk to the guy and ask him myself but I'd be willing to bet he knew there was an ordinance before he set out to do this.
So you can't prove it. Check.
I think the guy's own words count.
But what of it? It's a bad law, and shouldn't be obeyed.
This, and as long as he abides by any legal punishment he's given, he's following in a long line of great people like Martin Luther King, Jr. who used civil disobedience. And he gets all kinds of brownie points with some jackasses if he points that out.
How would admiring someone who emulates MLK make you a jackass?
I was referring to members of the media, not him.The media is full of jackasses, though not everyone is. Most of the people in the media would fawn over him if he pointed this fact out to them, including some of the jackasses that would condemn him otherwise. Sorry for the confusion there.
ETA: Jesus fucking Christ, guys, give me a chance. :lulz:
Here at PD, if you put your tongue on the sidewalk somebody is either going to step on it, piss on it, or shit on it. :lulz:
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 08, 2010, 07:00:33 PM
Oh, I got it.
"Some of the Media are jackasses, but if you compared yourself to MLK, they'd change their minds and praise you, instead."
People in the media who admire MLK are jackasses.
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 08, 2010, 07:02:23 PM
Quote from: Phox on October 08, 2010, 06:57:39 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 08, 2010, 06:47:13 PM
Quote from: Phox on October 08, 2010, 06:46:12 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 08, 2010, 06:40:13 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 08, 2010, 06:38:06 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 08, 2010, 06:18:22 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 08, 2010, 06:11:44 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 08, 2010, 06:06:16 PM
Quote from: Pēleus on October 08, 2010, 05:55:25 PM
isn't it entrapment if officers are the ones that made up the five extra people?
nope. He intended to violate the ordinance.
Prove it.
his statement after his arrest that he'd be out there doing it again is very revealing. He's doing it as a protest. I can't talk to the guy and ask him myself but I'd be willing to bet he knew there was an ordinance before he set out to do this.
So you can't prove it. Check.
I think the guy's own words count.
But what of it? It's a bad law, and shouldn't be obeyed.
This, and as long as he abides by any legal punishment he's given, he's following in a long line of great people like Martin Luther King, Jr. who used civil disobedience. And he gets all kinds of brownie points with some jackasses if he points that out.
How would admiring someone who emulates MLK make you a jackass?
I was referring to members of the media, not him.The media is full of jackasses, though not everyone is. Most of the people in the media would fawn over him if he pointed this fact out to them, including some of the jackasses that would condemn him otherwise. Sorry for the confusion there.
ETA: Jesus fucking Christ, guys, give me a chance. :lulz:
Here at PD, if you put your tongue on the sidewalk somebody is either going to step on it, piss on it, or shit on it. :lulz:
OR NAIL IT TO THE GROUND AND SING THE MACARENA!
Quote from: Cain on October 08, 2010, 06:57:57 PM
I think Phox meant that if you styled it as MLK style civil disobedience, a lot of people who would otherwise try and punish you for it would suddenly cease their attacks, knowing the reputation that MLK has and how opposing that reputation makes you look (outside of a Rand Paul rally, at least).
Maybe.
But it's hard to parse, no doubt.
That's exactly what I meant, Cain, but with a slightly narrower scope. Though, you are correct, it applies to other people and not just the media. Thanks.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 08, 2010, 07:00:19 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 08, 2010, 06:59:04 PM
Quote from: Phox on October 08, 2010, 06:57:39 PM
I was referring to members of the media, not him.
How would admiring someone who emulates MLK make you a jackass?
maybe this:
members of media=jackasses
being admired by members of media=being admired by jackasses
I think that's what she meant.
Yes, this too. Thanks for the help, Pickles. I'm having a harder time than usual articulating my thoughts to day it seems.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 08, 2010, 07:02:31 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 08, 2010, 07:00:33 PM
Oh, I got it.
"Some of the Media are jackasses, but if you compared yourself to MLK, they'd change their minds and praise you, instead."
People in the media who admire MLK are jackasses.
No, Dok, not everyone who admires him for being like MLK is a jackass. Some jackasses might admire (or at least purport to admire) him if he points out the similarities. They aren't jackasses because they admire MLK, they are jackasses because they wouldn't make the connection on their own and they say other jackass things when reporting on other stories.
Quote from: Phox on October 08, 2010, 07:07:08 PM
No, Dok, not everyone who admires him for being like MLK is a jackass. Some jackasses might admire (or at least purport to admire) him if he points out the similarities. They aren't jackasses because they admire MLK, they are jackasses because they wouldn't make the connection on their own and they say other jackass things when reporting on other stories.
Well, let's see. Glenn Beck pissed all over MLK's memory while giggling and jabbering utter nonsense. Then he spent the day before yesterday laughing at the guy whose house burned down while the fire department watched.
Jackass?
Walter Cronkite often expressed his admiration for MLK's personal and moral courage, without ever trying to associate himself with MLK.
Jackass?
Ex-Arizona Governor Meacham wouldn't allow MLK day to be a day off for state employees, stating "We've gone this long without a nigger day, we can go a little longer." (or something very similar). He was overheard (and recorded) by a reporter who lost his shit and wrote it up, bringing down Arizona's most crooked governor ever.
Jackass (the reporter)?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 08, 2010, 07:11:49 PM
Well, let's see. Glenn Beck pissed all over MLK's memory while giggling and jabbering utter nonsense. Then he spent the day before yesterday laughing at the guy whose house burned down while the fire department watched.
Jackass?
Yes, for all of those things.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 08, 2010, 07:11:49 PM
Walter Cronkite often expressed his admiration for MLK's personal and moral courage, without ever trying to associate himself with MLK.
Jackass?
No. Though, I would argue that Cronkite was around since before the media lost most of its integrity, so I'm not sure if I would include guys like him in what I referred to as the media.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 08, 2010, 07:11:49 PM
Ex-Arizona Governor Meacham wouldn't allow MLK day to be a day off for state employees, stating "We've gone this long without a nigger day, we can go a little longer." (or something very similar). He was overheard (and recorded) by a reporter who lost his shit and wrote it up, bringing down Arizona's most crooked governor ever.
Jackass (the reporter)?
Not for this incidence, at least. may or may not be one on the whole, but probably not.
Point taken, Dok. I'm being a bit too broad in my assertions. Let me try to rephrase. "Certain people in the media (and in the world at large) are jackasses. If left to their own way of thinking, they will completely ignore the parallels between this person feeding the homeless and MLK's civil disobedience. If he points out these parallels, some of these people will undoubtedly deny his claims, while others will publicly go over to his side. Whether they truly admire him, or are only saying so to save face is not important. So, to sum up what I originally meant, the guy should point out that he is taking a page out of MLK's book, because it would get some of the media monkeys off his back."
ETA: Quote fail.
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 08, 2010, 06:44:24 PM
Until someone feeds fifty random people salmonella-laced chicken salad with a side of botulism.
So make family reunions and company picnics illegal, too, while you're at it.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 08, 2010, 06:47:30 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 08, 2010, 06:46:48 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 08, 2010, 06:44:24 PM
Until someone feeds fifty random people salmonella-laced chicken salad with a side of botulism.
How many got a chance to not eat out of a dumpster that day?
There are no bacteria in dumpsters. :lulz:
None at all... no, it's MUCH more risky to accept food from a do-gooder.
I don't know about this particular case, but Food Not Bombs has been known to dumpster dive for produce.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on October 09, 2010, 01:58:29 AM
I don't know about this particular case, but Food Not Bombs has been known to dumpster dive for produce.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
:cn:
ACTIVISTS
of any kind
ARE TERRORISTS
end of discussion.(!)
Quote from: E.O.T. on October 09, 2010, 04:09:04 AM
ACTIVISTS
of any kind
ARE TERRORISTS
end of discussion.(!)
I do not agree.
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 09, 2010, 03:33:12 AM
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on October 09, 2010, 01:58:29 AM
I don't know about this particular case, but Food Not Bombs has been known to dumpster dive for produce.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
:cn:
The most reliable source is probably their own website, which mentions dumpster diving, never pnce condemning it:
http://www.google.com/search?q=dumpster+site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.foodnotbombs.net%2F&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=f5k&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&num=10&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=off
They are also mentioned near the bottom of the Wikipedia entry for "Dumpster Diving".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumpster_diving
and dumpster diving is mentioned near the top of the page for "Food Not Bombs".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_Not_Bombs
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on October 09, 2010, 04:20:39 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 09, 2010, 03:33:12 AM
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on October 09, 2010, 01:58:29 AM
I don't know about this particular case, but Food Not Bombs has been known to dumpster dive for produce.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
:cn:
The most reliable source is probably their own website, which mentions dumpster diving, never once condemning it:
http://www.google.com/search?q=dumpster+site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.foodnotbombs.net%2F&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=f5k&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&num=10&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=off
They are also mentioned near the bottom of the Wikipedia entry for "Dumpster Diving".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumpster_diving
and dumpster diving is mentioned near the top of the page for "Food Not Bombs".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_Not_Bombs
Odly I saw no evidence. Of course I am heavily medicated.
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 09, 2010, 04:11:49 AM
Quote from: E.O.T. on October 09, 2010, 04:09:04 AM
ACTIVISTS
of any kind
ARE TERRORISTS
end of discussion.(!)
I do not agree.
just wait it out a little.
HUMAN RESPONSE
is our next 9/11
Quote from: E.O.T. on October 09, 2010, 04:31:56 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 09, 2010, 04:11:49 AM
Quote from: E.O.T. on October 09, 2010, 04:09:04 AM
ACTIVISTS
of any kind
ARE TERRORISTS
end of discussion.(!)
I do not agree.
just wait it out a little.
HUMAN RESPONSE
is our next 9/11
According to your logic our founding fathers were terrorists.
Quote from: Sir Coyote on October 09, 2010, 04:48:34 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 09, 2010, 04:33:00 AM
Quote from: E.O.T. on October 09, 2010, 04:31:56 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 09, 2010, 04:11:49 AM
Quote from: E.O.T. on October 09, 2010, 04:09:04 AM
ACTIVISTS
of any kind
ARE TERRORISTS
end of discussion.(!)
I do not agree.
just wait it out a little.
HUMAN RESPONSE
is our next 9/11
According to your logic our founding fathers were terrorists.
Maybe.
Maybe? Maybe by what logic?
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 09, 2010, 04:33:00 AM
Quote from: E.O.T. on October 09, 2010, 04:31:56 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 09, 2010, 04:11:49 AM
Quote from: E.O.T. on October 09, 2010, 04:09:04 AM
ACTIVISTS
of any kind
ARE TERRORISTS
end of discussion.(!)
I do not agree.
just wait it out a little.
HUMAN RESPONSE
is our next 9/11
According to your logic our founding fathers were terrorists.
EXACTLY
- CHARLEY, i'm kidding. er, sort of. "activists=terrorists" is a portland media thing. it's soon to consume the states(and the world) as our "administration" seeks absolute "transparency" to filter not ONLY other countries top secret info, but all internet activity. because Obama thinks you're a potential 'terrorist' if you disagree with his objectives. americans will agree.
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 09, 2010, 04:50:11 AM
Quote from: Sir Coyote on October 09, 2010, 04:48:34 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 09, 2010, 04:33:00 AM
Quote from: E.O.T. on October 09, 2010, 04:31:56 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 09, 2010, 04:11:49 AM
Quote from: E.O.T. on October 09, 2010, 04:09:04 AM
ACTIVISTS
of any kind
ARE TERRORISTS
end of discussion.(!)
I do not agree.
just wait it out a little.
HUMAN RESPONSE
is our next 9/11
According to your logic our founding fathers were terrorists.
Maybe.
Maybe? Maybe by what logic?
They refused to line up in nice straight lines to shoot at each other like in a proper war.
TERRORISTS!
Quote from: E.O.T. on October 09, 2010, 04:51:04 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 09, 2010, 04:33:00 AM
Quote from: E.O.T. on October 09, 2010, 04:31:56 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 09, 2010, 04:11:49 AM
Quote from: E.O.T. on October 09, 2010, 04:09:04 AM
ACTIVISTS
of any kind
ARE TERRORISTS
end of discussion.(!)
I do not agree.
just wait it out a little.
HUMAN RESPONSE
is our next 9/11
According to your logic our founding fathers were terrorists.
EXACTLY
- CHARLEY, i'm kidding. er, sort of. "activists=terrorists" is a portland media thing. it's soon to consume the states(and the world) as our "administration" seeks absolute "transparency" to filter not ONLY other countries top secret info, but all internet activity. because Obama thinks you're a potential 'terrorist' if you disagree with his objectives. americans will agree.
This I can agree with.
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 09, 2010, 04:52:50 AM
Quote from: E.O.T. on October 09, 2010, 04:51:04 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 09, 2010, 04:33:00 AM
Quote from: E.O.T. on October 09, 2010, 04:31:56 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 09, 2010, 04:11:49 AM
Quote from: E.O.T. on October 09, 2010, 04:09:04 AM
ACTIVISTS
of any kind
ARE TERRORISTS
end of discussion.(!)
I do not agree.
just wait it out a little.
HUMAN RESPONSE
is our next 9/11
According to your logic our founding fathers were terrorists.
EXACTLY
- CHARLEY, i'm kidding. er, sort of. "activists=terrorists" is a portland media thing. it's soon to consume the states(and the world) as our "administration" seeks absolute "transparency" to filter not ONLY other countries top secret info, but all internet activity. because Obama thinks you're a potential 'terrorist' if you disagree with his objectives. americans will agree.
This I can agree with.
PINKO!
Quote from: E.O.T. on October 09, 2010, 04:57:36 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 09, 2010, 04:52:50 AM
Quote from: E.O.T. on October 09, 2010, 04:51:04 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 09, 2010, 04:33:00 AM
Quote from: E.O.T. on October 09, 2010, 04:31:56 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 09, 2010, 04:11:49 AM
Quote from: E.O.T. on October 09, 2010, 04:09:04 AM
ACTIVISTS
of any kind
ARE TERRORISTS
end of discussion.(!)
I do not agree.
just wait it out a little.
HUMAN RESPONSE
is our next 9/11
According to your logic our founding fathers were terrorists.
EXACTLY
- CHARLEY, i'm kidding. er, sort of. "activists=terrorists" is a portland media thing. it's soon to consume the states(and the world) as our "administration" seeks absolute "transparency" to filter not ONLY other countries top secret info, but all internet activity. because Obama thinks you're a potential 'terrorist' if you disagree with his objectives. americans will agree.
This I can agree with.
PINKO!
Quite possibly. When you are in the camps I will be the one running the camp. It's a matter of positioning.
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 09, 2010, 04:59:30 AM
Quote from: E.O.T. on October 09, 2010, 04:57:36 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 09, 2010, 04:52:50 AM
Quote from: E.O.T. on October 09, 2010, 04:51:04 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 09, 2010, 04:33:00 AM
Quote from: E.O.T. on October 09, 2010, 04:31:56 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 09, 2010, 04:11:49 AM
Quote from: E.O.T. on October 09, 2010, 04:09:04 AM
ACTIVISTS
of any kind
ARE TERRORISTS
end of discussion.(!)
I do not agree.
just wait it out a little.
HUMAN RESPONSE
is our next 9/11
According to your logic our founding fathers were terrorists.
EXACTLY
- CHARLEY, i'm kidding. er, sort of. "activists=terrorists" is a portland media thing. it's soon to consume the states(and the world) as our "administration" seeks absolute "transparency" to filter not ONLY other countries top secret info, but all internet activity. because Obama thinks you're a potential 'terrorist' if you disagree with his objectives. americans will agree.
This I can agree with.
PINKO!
Quite possibly. When you are in the camps I will be the one running the camp. It's a matter of positioning.
TOO MISUNDERSTOOD
and so true!
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on October 09, 2010, 04:52:07 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 09, 2010, 04:50:11 AM
Quote from: Sir Coyote on October 09, 2010, 04:48:34 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 09, 2010, 04:33:00 AM
Quote from: E.O.T. on October 09, 2010, 04:31:56 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 09, 2010, 04:11:49 AM
Quote from: E.O.T. on October 09, 2010, 04:09:04 AM
ACTIVISTS
of any kind
ARE TERRORISTS
end of discussion.(!)
I do not agree.
just wait it out a little.
HUMAN RESPONSE
is our next 9/11
According to your logic our founding fathers were terrorists.
Maybe.
Maybe? Maybe by what logic?
They refused to line up in nice straight lines to shoot at each other like in a proper war.
TERRORISTS!
IIRC the Continental Army actually waged war very similarly to the Brits, they lined up and marched firing off volleys of musket fire.
Quote from: Sir Coyote on October 09, 2010, 05:43:32 AM
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on October 09, 2010, 04:52:07 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 09, 2010, 04:50:11 AM
Quote from: Sir Coyote on October 09, 2010, 04:48:34 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 09, 2010, 04:33:00 AM
Quote from: E.O.T. on October 09, 2010, 04:31:56 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 09, 2010, 04:11:49 AM
Quote from: E.O.T. on October 09, 2010, 04:09:04 AM
ACTIVISTS
of any kind
ARE TERRORISTS
end of discussion.(!)
I do not agree.
just wait it out a little.
HUMAN RESPONSE
is our next 9/11
According to your logic our founding fathers were terrorists.
Maybe.
Maybe? Maybe by what logic?
They refused to line up in nice straight lines to shoot at each other like in a proper war.
TERRORISTS!
IIRC the Continental Army actually waged war very similarly to the Brits, they lined up and marched firing off volleys of musket fire.
Oh. Maybe it was them injuns what was the terrorists, then.
It was the militias that did the horrible sneaky shit like hiding behind trees and shooting from rooftops if my understanding is correct.
Goddamn Militias!
Go back to Militi!!! :crankey:
Quote from: Requia ☣ on October 09, 2010, 08:05:18 AM
It was the militias that did the horrible sneaky shit like hiding behind trees and shooting from rooftops if my understanding is correct.
'MILITIAS' -
yesterday's 'terrorists'
*apologies if Ive dug this up for little reason but i have something to contribute*
This reminds me of a story of in which a deathrow prisoner (lol did autocorrect say parishoner?) in America as a final act, gave up his last meal, giving the request to feed the homeless salad or something similar (I heard this a while ago) needless to say that they denied the request and fried him in quicker time than usual.
Funnily enough, once he was "brown bread" vegetarian pizza's were dished out across multiple states to the homeless coincidentially whether it was the state listening to the prisioners wishes or just a do-gooder who caught wind of this and carried out his final wish nobody knows.