CincyInDC Posted March 21, 2015 Report Share Posted March 21, 2015 When you put people on ignore this place is a lot like Garfield minus Garfield. http://garfieldminusgarfield.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Elflocko| Posted March 21, 2015 Report Share Posted March 21, 2015 When you put people on ignore this place is a lot like Garfield minus Garfield. http://garfieldminusgarfield.net Where do you find this stuff? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelWeston Posted March 21, 2015 Report Share Posted March 21, 2015 Tell me more about waitressesThats not a cliche. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Dub Posted March 21, 2015 Report Share Posted March 21, 2015 Thats not a cliche. Only you know WTF that was Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelWeston Posted March 21, 2015 Report Share Posted March 21, 2015 Only you know WTF that wasIt was a logical teaching tool that you didn't seem to give much thought.The point is you can't trust someone's opinion if they always vote the same way. If you see racism every time an African American is shot by police. You are being unreasonable. Every dish on a menu can't be amazing. You have to be open to gray areas to have an actual conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Dub Posted March 21, 2015 Report Share Posted March 21, 2015 It was a logical teaching tool that you didn't seem to give much thought. The point is you can't trust someone's opinion if they always vote the same way. If you see racism every time an African American is shot by police. You are being unreasonable. Every dish on a menu can't be amazing. You have to be open to gray areas to have an actual conversation. I'm sure the staff there at Cracker Barrel are happy to see you and your strawman are enjoying your meals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Dub Posted March 21, 2015 Report Share Posted March 21, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelWeston Posted March 21, 2015 Report Share Posted March 21, 2015 I hate how the republicans hate every idea Obama puts out just because it's Obama. It's bad for the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Lucid| Posted March 22, 2015 Report Share Posted March 22, 2015 It was a logical teaching tool that you didn't seem to give much thought. The point is you can't trust someone's opinion if they always vote the same way. If you see racism every time an African American is shot by police. You are being unreasonable. Every dish on a menu can't be amazing. You have to be open to gray areas to have an actual conversation. You have been making this same argument this whole time.. In the meantime, the feds have come out and said there is indeed massive racism in regards to the Furguson police department and the way they operate as an organization ON THE WHOLE. I'm not sure why you seem think that gives your argument any more standing, but it sure seems to because here you are continuing to chant it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelWeston Posted March 22, 2015 Report Share Posted March 22, 2015 You have been making this same argument this whole time.. In the meantime, the feds have come out and said there is indeed massive racism in regards to the Furguson police department and the way they operate as an organization ON THE WHOLE. I'm not sure why you seem think that gives your argument any more standing, but it sure seems to because here you are continuing to chant it. The Feds also said the cop who shot mike brown wasn't in the wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted March 22, 2015 Report Share Posted March 22, 2015 You have been making this same argument this whole time.. In the meantime, the feds have come out and said there is indeed massive racism in regards to the Furguson police department and the way they operate as an organization ON THE WHOLE. I'm not sure why you seem think that gives your argument any more standing, but it sure seems to because here you are continuing to chant it. Foxnews completely ignored that report in favor of the other one only too. Its disingenuous, but for them nobody should be surprised by that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Lucid| Posted March 24, 2015 Report Share Posted March 24, 2015 The Feds also said the cop who shot mike brown wasn't in the wrong. You do understand the difference between saying there was not enough evidence to prosecute and saying that someone "did nothing wrong" don't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelWeston Posted March 25, 2015 Report Share Posted March 25, 2015 You do understand the difference between saying there was not enough evidence to prosecute and saying that someone "did nothing wrong" don't you? Do you understand the difference between reality and implicit bias. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Dub Posted March 26, 2015 Report Share Posted March 26, 2015 Oh, lord. Beware anyone claiming to have an exclusive on "reality". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|kennethmw| Posted March 26, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 26, 2015 Do you understand the difference between reality and implicit bias. The question is, do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelWeston Posted March 26, 2015 Report Share Posted March 26, 2015 The question is, do you?Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|kennethmw| Posted March 26, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 26, 2015 Yes. You sure? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelWeston Posted March 26, 2015 Report Share Posted March 26, 2015 You sure?Yep. Maybe you can try to win the discussion by having a nonsensical meltdown? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Lucid| Posted March 26, 2015 Report Share Posted March 26, 2015 Do you understand the difference between reality and implicit bias. Ok, so who has implicit bias? The guy that thinks that the cop from the police department that was just completely undressed as a thoroughly racist institution by the DOJ, who just shot an unarmed black guy, is completely innocent because there was not found to be enough evidence to press charges. Or is it the guy that thinks that where there is smoke there might just be a fire? Anyone who wants to cite being found "not guilty" as proof of innocence needs to reconcile themselves with the OJ verdict. This didn't even get that far. It's also not a big surprise when there is a lack of evidence when the PD on scene doesn't care to collect it, and the eye witnesses to the event are completely unreliable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|kennethmw| Posted March 26, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 26, 2015 Yep. Maybe you can try to win the discussion by having a nonsensical meltdown? Or maybe I can just watch you post and marvel at your rock headedness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Dub Posted March 26, 2015 Report Share Posted March 26, 2015 Yep. Maybe you can try to win the discussion by having a nonsensical meltdown? Like an obtuse rant about menu options, for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelWeston Posted March 26, 2015 Report Share Posted March 26, 2015 Ok, so who has implicit bias? The guy that thinks that the cop from the police department that was just completely undressed as a thoroughly racist institution by the DOJ, who just shot an unarmed black guy, is completely innocent because there was not found to be enough evidence to press charges. Or is it the guy that thinks that where there is smoke there might just be a fire? Anyone who wants to cite being found "not guilty" as proof of innocence needs to reconcile themselves with the OJ verdict. This didn't even get that far. It's also not a big surprise when there is a lack of evidence when the PD on scene doesn't care to collect it, and the eye witnesses to the event are completely unreliable. They did an investigation and found nothing. It's like you went to your parents closet searching for Christmas presents and they weren't there but you still believe they are there because in other years they have been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelWeston Posted March 26, 2015 Report Share Posted March 26, 2015 Like an obtuse rant about menu options, for example. If you find it obtuse that's fine. We already discussed it's merits. I can't make you understand it. It is a perfectly logical and relevant explanation of how you are looking at this issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Lucid| Posted March 26, 2015 Report Share Posted March 26, 2015 They did an investigation and found nothing. It's like you went to your parents closet searching for Christmas presents and they weren't there but you still believe they are there because in other years they have been. Because that's not condescending at all you prick. I think you don't understand the difference between "nothing" and "not enough to prosecute". Maybe you need to do a little more research into how prosecution in this country works. Again, it's never surprising that there is a lack of evidence when the police on the scene are not interested in collecting it. You do realize there is no way for the DOJ to go back in time to the actual scene and find evidence that was lost, never recovered or covered up? You've heard the term "first 48 hours" right? It's almost impossible for a second party to investigate a crime when the evidence was lost/not collected originally.The farther you get from the actual crime the more ethereal the evidence becomes and the more unreliable any eye witness testimony gets. If the original police department that investigated the crime ignored/lost/covered up evidence it goes from nearly impossible to ABSOLUTELY impossible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelWeston Posted March 26, 2015 Report Share Posted March 26, 2015 Because that's not condescending at all you prick. I think you don't understand the difference between "nothing" and "not enough to prosecute". Maybe you need to do a little more research into how prosecution in this country works. Again, it's never surprising that there is a lack of evidence when the police on the scene are not interested in collecting it. You do realize there is no way for the DOJ to go back in time to the actual scene and find evidence that was lost, never recovered or covered up? You've heard the term "first 48 hours" right? It's almost impossible for a second party to investigate a crime when the evidence was lost/not collected originally.The farther you get from the actual crime the more ethereal the evidence becomes and the more unreliable any eye witness testimony gets. If the original police department that investigated the crime ignored/lost/covered up evidence it goes from nearly impossible to ABSOLUTELY impossible. You know that the prosecutor essentially laid out all this evidence when he didn't have to when they first investigated this correct? Instead of looking at the facts that we do have and coming to a conclusion you are looking at the facts we don't have and assuming they would be there and coming to a conclusion. Both things are really illogical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.