Who IS this guy?!

'Niceguy' Eddie

Political Talk Show Host and Internet Radio Personality. My show, In My Humble Opinion, aired on RainbowRadio from 2015-2017.

Feel free to contact me at niceguy9418@usa.com. You can also friend me on Facebook, follow me on Twitter, and Tumblr, and support my Patreon. Also, if you don't mind the stench, you can find my unofficial "fan club" over HERE. ;)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tuesday, January 27, 2015

Race and Relevance



How many jobs are MORE DANGEROUS that Law Enforcement?






























And in truth, John Stewart said it best:


116 comments:

  1. Like most concepts, the idea that one must either be pro-law enforcement or pro-human rights is pervasive in this nation. Reading comments here and other places on the Web, one would get the idea this nation was easily polarized :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ya think? LOL. ;)
      And welcome, BTW, to my little corner of the internet.
      Nice to hear from you.

      Delete
  2. I don't think it is "easily polarized" as opposed to having experience with either. I don't mean that you work in one job or the other, but rather if you have a negative experience with law enforcement, then you will (probably) have a negative opinion of them and the same for human rights. If more people looked at both from outside the box then it would be easier to understand the difficulties of each. There are difficulties involved with each aspect that are harder to understand when you only have one or two experiences with each to give you your base for the opinion you might hold for either.
    Personally, I've had bad and good experiences with cops. But, I understand the job they hold is incredibly dangerous in nature (similar to the jobs that are mentioned in this article. I also think that every job listed earns more than cops do, in general). I also understand that some (cops) abuse the power they hold. So, to blame cops (in general) for actions of a few just doesn't seem right. And, that is what (I think) is happening now. I mean, who wants to have the job of protecting people from the dangers of society and then get accused of murder if a situation arises that (in their mind) could possibly cost them their own life? That could lead to a very dangerous end result of having fewer and fewer people willing to do what is a necessary position in an organized society. That is MHO.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jesus Tap-dancing Christ, William! Tamir Rice and John Crawford didn't have a "negetive experience with law enforcement." THEY WERE FUCKING ***MURDERED***. And as far as I am concerned, so was Michael Brown, and so have countless others been. Your opinion has less to do with your own experience and EVERYTHING to do with your being brainwashed by ideology. And every effort you make to give the cops the benefit of the doubt, every time you use racial stereotype to try and show that racism doesn't play a factor, every time you try to justify this bullshit, you just further prove how fucking lost you and your like-minded Right-Wingers truly are. What will it take for you to see the light here? Do you have to get shot by the cops for no fucking reason reason yourself in order top get it? If that is truly the case, then I hope you do someday. I can not have sympathy for a person so devoid of empathy as you have shown yourself to be in the context of these discussions. It truly *disgusts* me.

      Delete
    2. And how many people do you think get murdered EVERY FUCKING DAY BY NON-POLICE for NO FUCKING REASON? Where's your pathetic liberalized concern for them? How many times will you walk the streets of Detroit when your police-less envisionment of this nation occurs? You are such a whiner, get out of the basement a couple hours each day. Perhaps you'll see some GOOD in the world instead of all the hatred and bullshit you spew. God I'm glad I'm not a liberal, you people are so full of negativity and anger.

      Delete
    3. Again, not a single relevant point in your entire rant. Where's my concern for *other* people who are murdered? WTF is that supposed to mean? I'd see their killers arrested, charged, tried, convicted and sentenced. WTF is wrong with you?! We've got a whole system dedicated to doing JUST THAT! (And yet, one that is not above criticism.) But where so I say we should live in an anarchist state?! I though you were so concerned about us liberal and our BIG GOV'T. When did we start becoming the party of NO Gov't? That's YOU'RE extremists: Cliven Bundy and co. Not ours.

      Also? Why should the parents of Tamir Rice and the Wife and Children of John Crawford not want the same justice for them as the victims of ALL murders get? Why should THEY not be out for blood, just as everyone else who's lost a loved one this way? Why do they deserve less?! HUH?! You watch those two videos I posted, and tell me why those two human beings, those two AMERICANS had to die, and their killers had to walk free. Until you do THAT, you're just another RW blowhard who's letting his ideology do his thinking for them, You have nothing OF RELEVANCE to add here. YOU, like every out RW sCumbag out there, have NOTHING. You don't care. You talk all day long about the sanctity of life, and about the importance of the death penalty, until a cop shoots a black person FOR NO FUCKING REASON and then you couldn't care less. Fuck you. Until you can defend what happened there, FUCK. YOU. Justice from Rice and Crawford and BROWN is not mutually exclusive with justice for everyone else. Yeah, "Small Gov't" my ass. Your racism and ideology blind you to the REAL threat to your freedom.

      Delete
    4. "Also? Why should the parents of Tamir Rice and the Wife and Children of John Crawford not want the same justice for them as the victims of ALL murders get? "

      Well, the system that you're so please with (concerning all the other murders) is the same system that worked their cases. So, lying doesn't support you stance one little bit.

      "You have nothing OF RELEVANCE to add here. YOU, like every out RW sCumbag out there, have NOTHING. You don't care"

      Are you crying? Wow, you're just like barbie, he constantly cries like that too.

      Delete
    5. William, then: "Michael Savage may be more right about liberals (than you are willing to accept) when he said: "Liberalism is a mental disorder". Because it seems that liberals are behind most of what you say is accurate when you said: "99% of everything that is wrong with the world is beautifully exemplified in these two articles"."

      William, now: "So, to blame cops (in general) for actions of a few just doesn't seem right. And, that is what (I think) is happening now."

      Apparently, hasty generalizations only work when they conform to William's favored prejudices. Anything else "just doesn't seem right", somehow.

      Delete
    6. Are you crying again? Because I just don't see anything that you write that isn't considered crying.

      Are you related to Eddie?

      Delete
    7. You don't see anything that I write that you don't consider crying, you mean. It's merely your hollow opinion. Which is convenient, since you can never address your blatant hypocrisy with anything more substantial.

      William: "So, to blame cops (in general) for actions of a few just doesn't seem right. And, that is what (I think) is happening now."

      William: "God I'm glad I'm not a liberal, you people are so full of negativity and anger."

      That's "a few" cops, but "you people" somehow are responsible for "negativity and anger" when you start talking to one liberal. Just to cement the point that you didn't address at all, you know.

      Also: "And how many people do you think get murdered EVERY FUCKING DAY BY NON-POLICE for NO FUCKING REASON? Where's your pathetic liberalized concern for them?"

      I like how that's not "considered crying", somehow. You seem to be pretending to hold Eddie accountable for something, but when your words are thrown back at you, that's supposedly a behavioral problem on my part. It doesn't seem likely that inconsistency will ever be fully explained by you, at this point. Or even partly, really.

      Try again? Or are you going to spare yourself the humiliation for once in your life?

      Delete
    8. "You seem to be pretending to hold Eddie accountable for something, but when your words are thrown back at you, that's supposedly a behavioral problem on my part."

      You bring statements that are irrelevant and unrelated then whine about hypocrisy. Yes, that crying is ALL on you.

      BTW, still haven't figured out how to discuss on-topic? You know that Eddie is crying about justice for the families of those killed by cops by using a comparison of the justice system used to prosecute those not killed by police and those killed by police, yet he ignores that the very SAME system is responsible for prosecuting both and he cried about the system being unfair when it is the same system for each. Now you come in and cry about hypocrisy using 2 unrelated and irrelevant comments. You 2 must be related.

      Delete
    9. "You bring statements that are irrelevant and unrelated then whine about hypocrisy."

      Demonstrate "irrelevant and unrelated". You make sweeping generalizations, but then want people to avoid generalizing about police officers. The same principle that you espouse would apply to your own generalizations, obviously.

      "You know that Eddie is crying about justice for the families of those killed by cops by using a comparison of the justice system used to prosecute those not killed by police and those killed by police, yet he ignores that the very SAME system is responsible for prosecuting both and he cried about the system being unfair when it is the same system for each."

      You should probably try to break that mess down into coherent pieces. What's the supposed problem there? Are people not supposed to expect police to be responsible for their behavior because the system usually works? Is the acceptance of the system as a general concept supposed to prevent people from pointing out violations of the principles that make the system work?

      The problem is that there are too many cases of excessive force, and race seems to be a common factor. The word "excessive" has meaning; there's no way to argue that four cops talking to an unarmed man about supposedly selling loose cigarettes should result in the suspect being choked to death, for one example. If you have a good reason why people shouldn't discuss that sort of thing, let's hear it. Otherwise, you're just crying for no discernible reason whatsoever.

      I'm glad to embarrass you on that topic as well. You talking about people making generalizations is hypocrisy that has to be pointed out, though; if you think you can hold people accountable for what they say, then you're accountable as well. You can't escape that.

      Delete
    10. "You should probably try to break that mess down into coherent pieces."

      Reading Comp 101. You should try to take a class. Get the government to pay for it for you. That's the liberal way, right? Get others to supply things for you.

      Delete
    11. "The problem is that there are too many cases of excessive force, and race seems to be a common factor."

      Is that an assumption of yours or can you prove that? After doing a little research on your claim (of fact) I find that most killings are the result of bad information being given to cops or they raid the wrong place. I don't see either of those are related to "race". Bring your proof of the claim you make.

      Delete
    12. "Reading Comp 101. You should try to take a class. Get the government to pay for it for you. That's the liberal way, right? Get others to supply things for you."

      The same sort of comment would apply to you every time you say something doesn't make sense. Your inability to explain yourself only suggests that you know that your argument is invalid.

      And that's especially funny after you try to challenge me on the "topic".

      By the way, veterans do get free education. I didn't know that supporting veterans was a "liberal" thing, but you can't very well get into that without changing the topic.

      Delete
    13. "By the way, veterans do get free education."

      Really? When I joined I could donate part of my pay and the government would match that amount. Or they would offer you a certain amount to help cover costs, but veterans didn't get it "free".

      Delete
    14. "Is that an assumption of yours or can you prove that? After doing a little research on your claim (of fact) I find that most killings are the result of bad information being given to cops or they raid the wrong place."

      Can you prove that I live in the Jersey area? No, yet you stand by it, so you really can't question anything I say. Meanwhile, have you not seen any of the high-profile cases involving excessive force against African-Americans? How would "bad information" be relevant to anything?

      Further, what's the proportion of race for these victims of "bad information"? Because if the majority of such instances involve minorities, then it prompts the question of why the police are slower to pull the trigger on white people, obviously. It doesn't even make sense to point out that the circumstances don't inherently involve race. What circumstances would? All of the cases you cited could involve cops saying "I saw a black guy, and I know black guys are criminals", but saying "bad information being given to cops" would still not speak to race all by itself.

      Why don't you share your "little research"?

      Then, you can explain what you're whining about. What does the "SAME system" have to do with anything?

      Delete
    15. "Really? When I joined I could donate part of my pay and the government would match that amount. Or they would offer you a certain amount to help cover costs, but veterans didn't get it "free"."

      Yes, really. There's a fee to start, but I was compensated for it. Look up "post-9/11 GI bill", if you need to.

      Delete
    16. " Look up "post-9/11 GI bill", if you need to."

      So you just mean it is free to some veterans and not all? Perhaps you should have said so to begin with and I wouldn't have needed to comment on that.

      "Further, what's the proportion of race for these victims of "bad information"?"

      I don't know. That is for you to bring to prove your statement of fact.

      "Meanwhile, have you not seen any of the high-profile cases involving excessive force against African-Americans? How would "bad information" be relevant to anything?"

      And now you only mean "high profile cases"? Hmm ... changing the parameters after you make a claim sure is convienient for you isn't it?

      "Why don't you share your "little research"?"

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States

      Anything else? Or you gonna continue to skirt the issue?

      Delete
    17. "So you just mean it is free to some veterans and not all?"

      Before that bill, the Montgomery GI bill was in effect. Besides that, how far back do you expect "veterans" to apply? I'm not talking about the Vietnam era.

      "I don't know."

      Then you shouldn't have claimed that your "little research" was relevant.

      "And now you only mean "high profile cases"? Hmm ... changing the parameters after you make a claim sure is convienient for you isn't it?"

      I referenced the Garner case, so I had already been talking about high-profile cases.

      "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States"

      This doesn't seem to list race at all, so it doesn't support your point. What were you looking at that suggested anything about bad information or police entering the wrong residence?

      "Or you gonna continue to skirt the issue?"

      It's pretty difficult to claim that I'm avoiding anything when I asked you for your research. You didn't think about that at all, obviously.

      Again: "What does the "SAME system" have to do with anything?" That's the basis of your complaint about Eddie, but you don't seem to be able to justify it. Maybe you should consider retracting your accusations when you can't substantiate them.

      Delete
    18. "I referenced the Garner case, so I had already been talking about high-profile cases."

      Where? I don't see any reference to that one case. So, not only can you not back (with facts) what you claim, you also lie about what you're talking about.

      " Besides that, how far back do you expect "veterans" to apply? I'm not talking about the Vietnam era."

      You said "veterans". Not just some or even one particular group. There ARE still many veterans alive from the WWII era. If you're only talking about a select group who get "free" education, you should say so.

      "This doesn't seem to list race at all, so it doesn't support your point."

      Read each year ... month by month. Do SOME work. Or are you saying you need someone else to do your work for you? If so, that would be a little 'liberal-like', if you ask me.

      Delete
    19. "Where? I don't see any reference to that one case. So, not only can you not back (with facts) what you claim, you also lie about what you're talking about."

      Me: "The word "excessive" has meaning; there's no way to argue that four cops talking to an unarmed man about supposedly selling loose cigarettes should result in the suspect being choked to death, for one example."

      I accept your apology in advance.

      "You said "veterans". Not just some or even one particular group."

      I didn't say "all". If current veterans get free education, then my comment was undeniably true. Are you just embarrassed because you admitted that you don't think veterans deserve benefits, or what?

      "Read each year ... month by month. Do SOME work."

      No, if you have specific data that you're referring to, then you cite it. I'm not going on a treasure hunt based on your assertions.

      Delete
    20. "I accept your apology in advance."

      Apology for what? You didn't mention his name. Circumstances aren't one specific case. They could happen anywhere. No apology given or expected.

      "No, if you have specific data that you're referring to, then you cite it. I'm not going on a treasure hunt based on your assertions."

      I DID provide that data. If you aren't smart enough to read it don't blame me.

      Delete
    21. "Apology for what? You didn't mention his name."

      What did you think "for one example" meant? And those circumstances didn't remind you of the Garner case, somehow? You must not have been familiar with it.

      "No apology given or expected."

      You called me a liar without cause. Your ignorance and lack of reading comprehension isn't an excuse for poor behavior.

      Let's also review what you said: "I don't see any reference to that one case." Citing the circumstances is a reference to that one case. Is your claim that the circumstances that I mentioned coincidentally match up with a high-profile case?

      "I DID provide that data."

      No, you didn't. It doesn't address race. If you were looking at some specific year and month that does talk about race, then cite it. Considering that the list itself isn't exclusive to excessive force, there's no reason for me to spend any significant amount of time exploring it looking for evidence which you can't explain. Do better.

      It seems you've abandoned your "SAME system" argument against Eddie. You probably lack the moral fortitude to apologize to him, as well.

      Delete
    22. " Your ignorance and lack of reading comprehension isn't an excuse for poor behavior."

      It works for you.

      "No, you didn't. It doesn't address race."

      It references what I was talking about: mostly bad information. Prove me wrong, if you think you can. I think you can't (or won't) because you'll expect others to do the work for you. I've brought evidence to prove what I have said. you have brought nothing to prove that race is the prevailing reason for police killings of innocent people. Do better.

      "It seems you've abandoned your "SAME system" argument against Eddie."

      I haven't "abandoned" it, What I said stands on it's own merit and is accurate. The same judicial system that oversees other police killings is the same system that oversaw your "high profile" ones. Eddie is pleased as punch about the system when it covers the thousands of other police killings, but mad as hell when it covers the few that he whines about. I think he is the one who owes that apology, not me.

      Delete
    23. "It works for you."

      Empty assertion; you have no examples to support that. Besides that, two wrongs wouldn't make a right; you're still responsible for your behavior, even if what you said had any merit.

      "It references what I was talking about: mostly bad information."

      Which is meaningless, because "bad information" doesn't preclude excessive force based on race.

      "I've brought evidence to prove what I have said. you have brought nothing to prove that race is the prevailing reason for police killings of innocent people."

      So you believe that "bad information" is a "prevailing reason" for the deaths of innocent people? As if "good information" would lead police to shoot guilty people, or something? Typically, police arrest suspects instead of killing them whenever possible. The information would be a factor in the incident, not a cause.

      On that note, let's look at one of your examples: "After wounding 2 federal officers Jackson was shot and killed." That isn't excessive force, obviously. Your list doesn't even imply "innocent people", which is a major factor in the worthlessness of your "evidence".

      "I haven't "abandoned" it, What I said stands on it's own merit and is accurate."

      What I say stands on its own merit as well, then, so you can't ask for me to back up anything. See how that works?

      "Eddie is pleased as punch about the system when it covers the thousands of other police killings, but mad as hell when it covers the few that he whines about."

      There's no evidence that he accepts any excessive force. Your list isn't relevant to the concept, because not all police killings qualify. Even beyond that, your standard would seem to be that Eddie is supposed to mention every single police killing in order to oppose them, which is clearly absurd; cases which don't receive public attention can't be expected to be cited for any reason.

      To make this even more clear to you, I'm aware of a case which has received local attention which involves a clear homicide covered up as a suicide by the city's police department. Whether there are other similar cases that have come to light or not, I still have the right, if not the moral obligation, to speak out about it. If there's some reason that any other case warrants similar outrage, then I'd be glad to hear about it. In the meantime, that doesn't affect the validity of my objection to the police behavior in that specific case.

      Similarly, expecting police accountability for excessive force stands on its own merits, regardless of any potential cases hidden away in your "evidence".

      Delete
    24. "Which is meaningless, because "bad information" doesn't preclude excessive force based on race."

      You are accusing the police of being racists. You have brought ONE case to prove that and even that ONE case you can't show that race was the reason for the killing. Your assumptions are not proof. I have brought thousands of cases that show "bad information" was the reason for the killings and you refuse to accept that. Very irrational of you. Do better.

      "There's no evidence that he accepts any excessive force."

      I didn't say he "accepts" any excessive force. I said he is pleased as punch that the system works for the majority of the cases, yet mad as hell when the same system covers the few he (and you) cry about. Right here: "Where's my concern for *other* people who are murdered? WTF is that supposed to mean? I'd see their killers arrested, charged, tried, convicted and sentenced. WTF is wrong with you?! We've got a whole system dedicated to doing JUST THAT!".

      Delete
    25. " If there's some reason that any other case warrants similar outrage, then I'd be glad to hear about it."

      You'd be "glad" to hear about police killings? Wow, your moral standards are quite tweaked if you'd be "glad" to hear about other killings.

      Delete
    26. "So you believe that "bad information" is a "prevailing reason" for the deaths of innocent people? "

      Yes I do. And, I have brought proof that it is "a" prevailing reason. You have brought NO proof that "race" is a prevailing reason. You can only show that cops of different races are involved in the incidences. Not that race is the prevailing "reason". Bring that proof, if you can.

      Delete
    27. "You are accusing the police of being racists."

      No, I'm not the one who makes hasty generalizations here: "God I'm glad I'm not a liberal, you people are so full of negativity and anger." The cases in question present a problem, but that's not saying that "the police" are racist in general.

      "You have brought ONE case to prove that and even that ONE case you can't show that race was the reason for the killing."

      No, I brought up a case in addition to Eddie's post and comments. What would "show that race was the reason for the killing" besides an explicit admission? If there's no valid reason for the force, then why did it happen? Try the Garner case, since you're now aware of it. What's your theory, that the four officers on the scene just took the possible sale of loose cigarettes very seriously? As if to say "they would have choked a white guy to death for the same thing"?

      "Your assumptions are not proof."

      A trend qualifies as evidence of an issue. On the other hand, you assume that all of the police killings in your list were unwarranted, and your assumptions aren't proof.

      "I have brought thousands of cases that show "bad information" was the reason for the killings and you refuse to accept that."

      You haven't demonstrated anything about "bad information". On top of that, you haven't demonstrated that "bad information" would support your argument. I'm not convinced that you even read your own link.

      "I didn't say he "accepts" any excessive force. I said he is pleased as punch that the system works for the majority of the cases, yet mad as hell when the same system covers the few he (and you) cry about."

      You: "Eddie is pleased as punch about the system when it covers the thousands of other police killings, but mad as hell when it covers the few that he whines about."

      If "the thousands of other police killings" are justified uses of force, then you have even less of an argument. Essentially, you're whining because Eddie respects the system when it works and then objects to cases of injustice. You can't even pretend that's hypocritical of him.

      If that's really how your excuse for a brain works, then I'm imagining this conversation in your workplace.

      Customer: "I love this car when it works, but it's irritating when it breaks down."
      William: "You're a hypocrite!"

      More seriously, how do you justify that complaint? Do you want him to criticize the system when it works? Or do you expect people to never criticize people for wrongdoing simply because the system usually works?

      Delete
    28. "You'd be "glad" to hear about police killings? Wow, your moral standards are quite tweaked if you'd be "glad" to hear about other killings."

      Wait, so you bring a list of police killings as if to educate people, but knowledge is supposed to be morally reprehensible? Fascinating.

      "Yes I do. And, I have brought proof that it is "a" prevailing reason."

      You didn't bring anything about "bad information". Also notice that you didn't explain what result "good information" would have had. Would those have also not resulted in killings? Why not? If it's good information, there's an arrest, but if it's bad information, then apparently the police suddenly decide to shoot up the place. Your argument makes no sense, and you're awfully shy about demonstrating otherwise.

      Delete
    29. " The cases in question present a problem, but that's not saying that "the police" are racist in general."

      What kind of problem? You seem to think (and say) it is based on race. That means you think cops base who they're going to kill based on the color of their skin (racism). You have NEVER said 'some cops' do that, you have consistently blamed cops in general. Even in the cases you think are more important than others you say it is the race of the other person that makes the cop kill them. And yet, you have never brought any kind of proof that shows they killed those people based on the color of their skin.

      " What would "show that race was the reason for the killing" besides an explicit admission?"

      Well, you're the one saying it is that way, so you need to find a way to prove what you say is fact.

      "A trend qualifies as evidence of an issue."

      You haven't brought any evidence of a "trend". I have brought evidence of "bad information" as a "prevailing reason". You think there is a racial problem? Bring evidence that the killings are done based on race.

      " I'm not convinced that you even read your own link."

      I am positive you haven't, while I have gone through many of the links that site provided that DO show exactly what I am saying.

      " Essentially, you're whining because Eddie respects the system when it works and then objects to cases of injustice."

      There are plenty of cases that are in Jan of 2014 (from the link I provided) that show injustice, but the victim wasn't black so I see no protests. Have you protested any of those deaths? Have you even looked at the links that show who was killed and why? I didn't think so. So you're making your arguments based on ignorance. Blind bigoted ignorance at that.

      "Customer: "I love this car when it works, but it's irritating when it breaks down."
      William: "You're a hypocrite!" "

      Factually, I said: "you're at 163,000 and your car is broken because you ignored the general maintenance". Nothing about hypocrisy.

      "You didn't bring anything about "bad information"."

      Sure I did. Can't you read or follow simple precise links? :

      "Wait, so you bring a list of police killings as if to educate people, but knowledge is supposed to be morally reprehensible?"

      No, the fact that you say you are "glad" to hear about them is.


      Delete
    30. "That means you think cops base who they're going to kill based on the color of their skin (racism). You have NEVER said 'some cops' do that, you have consistently blamed cops in general."

      Where did I "consistently" do any such thing? You already said that I was talking about high-profile cases, so your own words prove that you don't believe that there's any generalization.

      "Even in the cases you think are more important than others you say it is the race of the other person that makes the cop kill them."

      Where did I "say" that, exactly? And the "more important" cases are the ones where there is obvious injustice. What are you comparing them to?

      "And yet, you have never brought any kind of proof that shows they killed those people based on the color of their skin."

      What sort of evidence could possibly exist that you would accept?

      "Well, you're the one saying it is that way, so you need to find a way to prove what you say is fact."

      No, actually, I don't. You can address problems when they obviously exist, even if there isn't some unstated standard of proof that you demand to see.

      "I have brought evidence of "bad information" as a "prevailing reason"."

      No, you have not. What are you looking at, specifically, that suggests anything about "bad information", and how would that have a different result from "good information"?

      "I am positive you haven't, while I have gone through many of the links that site provided that DO show exactly what I am saying."

      You claim that they show what you're saying, yet you can't provide any examples to help you. Why is that? Also notice that I cited one of the examples from your link, so claiming that I haven't read your link isn't a smart move.

      "There are plenty of cases that are in Jan of 2014 (from the link I provided) that show injustice, but the victim wasn't black so I see no protests."

      Which ones show injustice? How do you know the race of anyone involved?

      "Have you even looked at the links that show who was killed and why?"

      What specific cases did you research?

      "So you're making your arguments based on ignorance."

      No, you're making an argument based on an absurd standard, as if people need to prove to you that they've investigated every police killing in the country in order to expect accountability from the police in a trend of high-profile cases involving race. You can't justify that.

      "Factually, I said: "you're at 163,000 and your car is broken because you ignored the general maintenance"."

      Why didn't you call them a hypocrite for only complaining about their car when it's broken? That's the nature of your argument against Eddie.

      "Sure I did."

      No, you did not. It wouldn't even help you if you did.

      "No, the fact that you say you are "glad" to hear about them is."

      Why would you not want to know about injustice? Try fleshing out whatever accusation you think you're making here, as if it was relevant anyway.

      Again: "Essentially, you're whining because Eddie respects the system when it works and then objects to cases of injustice."

      If you can't justify your criticism, then you should withdraw it. What possible reason could you have to maintain it?

      Delete
    31. "What sort of evidence could possibly exist that you would accept?"

      What does it matter whether I "accept" it or not. Just bring your evidence and let it stand on it's own merit. Are you too afraid to do that?

      "What are you looking at, specifically, that suggests anything about "bad information", and how would that have a different result from "good information"?"

      Are you stupid or what? How can you NOT know the difference between good information and bad information? What kind of moron wouldn't know that difference?

      "How do you know the race of anyone involved?"

      Ahh, so you are admitting that race DOES matter in your whines against police injustice? Now it's you obligation to prove that or admit you're being dishonest while your making your argument.

      "Why didn't you call them a hypocrite for only complaining about their car when it's broken? That's the nature of your argument against Eddie."

      It's not the nature of my argument against Eddie. And I didn't call them a hypocrite because they aren't being hypocritical. You don't really seem to have a full grasp of what you're talking about.

      "What possible reason could you have to maintain it?"

      Because your complaint is that these cases are based on racial injustice and neither of you have been able to show how race was the deciding factor of the injustice by the police. Your assumptions are not relevant in an honest discussion.

      Delete
    32. "What does it matter whether I "accept" it or not."

      If there's no evidence that you will accept, then there's no valid purpose for your request. You're just going to deny, no matter what.

      "How can you NOT know the difference between good information and bad information?"

      What, specifically, are you looking at that suggests "bad information"?

      "Ahh, so you are admitting that race DOES matter in your whines against police injustice?"

      The whole thread is about race. Did you forget that?

      "Now it's you obligation to prove that or admit you're being dishonest while your making your argument."

      Prove what? It's your link.

      "It's not the nature of my argument against Eddie."

      You: "I didn't say he "accepts" any excessive force. I said he is pleased as punch that the system works for the majority of the cases, yet mad as hell when the same system covers the few he (and you) cry about."

      What's the problem with accepted the system when it works, and objecting when there's injustice? Be specific.

      "Because your complaint is that these cases are based on racial injustice and neither of you have been able to show how race was the deciding factor of the injustice by the police."

      What do you think might motivate excessive force, outside of race?

      What examples of "injustice" are you citing from your link? You pretend that your list proves something, but you haven't even tried to substantiate your claims.

      Delete
    33. "The whole thread is about race. Did you forget that?"

      I have not forgotten that. I am asking you to show the relevance of race in these case (that you highlite). Bring some proof that race was relevant in each of those cases. Remember, your assumptions are irrelevant.

      "What's the problem with accepted the system when it works, and objecting when there's injustice? "

      The justice system went through it's process, he didn't like the result (not the process). It's up to you to show there was "injustice". Be specific.

      "What do you think might motivate excessive force, outside of race?"

      What I think is irrelevant for a question that I am asking YOU.

      "You pretend that your list proves something, but you haven't even tried to substantiate your claims."

      It absolutely DOES prove something. But, I'm not required to do your work for you in order for your small simplistic mind to grasp what is being discussed.

      Delete
    34. "Bring some proof that race was relevant in each of those cases."

      Nobody's admitted that they were based on race, so there's no evidence that you would accept. I asked you how you know the race of the people from your link. Obviously, you're the one making assumptions, if you're asserting their race without evidence of it.

      "The justice system went through it's process, he didn't like the result (not the process)."

      Are you claiming that the "process" creates perfect justice?

      "It's up to you to show there was "injustice". Be specific."

      No, the point is that you don't want anyone to complain about injustice, not that you aren't seeing enough evidence of it: "I said he is pleased as punch that the system works for the majority of the cases, yet mad as hell when the same system covers the few he (and you) cry about." Note how "works for the majority" implies that it does not work for the cases that Eddie is talking about.

      Also: "There are plenty of cases that are in Jan of 2014 (from the link I provided) that show injustice, but the victim wasn't black so I see no protests." How do you assert "injustice" with no evidence, yet now you think it's about establishing "injustice" in these cases?

      "What I think is irrelevant for a question that I am asking YOU."

      Explain how. If you saw statistics of a company that paid women 75% of what it paid men for the same jobs, would you not conclude that to be unfair? Would you assume that all of those women are simply inferior employees, conveniently? If you really feel a need to cling to some unlikely and innocuous explanation, that prompts the question of why you are uncomfortable with the obvious conclusion. What harm does it do to you if racism manifests itself in police enforcement?

      "It absolutely DOES prove something. But, I'm not required to do your work for you in order for your small simplistic mind to grasp what is being discussed."

      You are required to explain your evidence. Just posting a link and claiming that it says something isn't sufficient. Where does it suggest "bad information"? Be specific. Then, you'll have to explain why you think "good information" would not also result in police killings. Baby steps, though.

      Delete
    35. "Nobody's admitted that they were based on race, so there's no evidence that you would accept."

      So you admit you have nothing to base your claim that it is based on race that those people were killed? Nice to know you aren't using facts to base your judgements on.

      " I asked you how you know the race of the people from your link."

      I've never claimed race was an issue (you have though) so why would I need to point out race to show bad information? Try harder.

      " Note how "works for the majority" implies that it does not work for the cases that Eddie is talking about."

      What evidence has been brought (by you, Eddie or anyone else) that the system didn't work? IMHO you're all basing your judgements on uninformed prejudices. Making you all bigots and racists.

      "If you saw statistics of a company that paid women 75% of what it paid men for the same jobs, would you not conclude that to be unfair?"

      What does a company pay for women have to do with what I asked you? Just answer the question and move on.

      " Just posting a link and claiming that it says something isn't sufficient."

      Yes it is. The link has access to all the information that I am claiming. If you aren't intelligent enough to filter through it, that is NOT my problem ... it is yours.

      Delete
    36. "So you admit you have nothing to base your claim that it is based on race that those people were killed?"

      First, you say that as if it's the only factor. There are other circumstances involved. Secondly, by your logic, nobody can discuss this sort of issue at all unless someone admits to wrongdoing, which is clearly absurd.

      "I've never claimed race was an issue (you have though) so why would I need to point out race to show bad information?"

      I didn't say you "claimed race was an issue. However...
      You: "There are plenty of cases that are in Jan of 2014 (from the link I provided) that show injustice, but the victim wasn't black so I see no protests."
      Obviously, you do think race is some sort of issue, since you're linking it to the lack of protests. Also note that you asserted the race of the "victim", yet you can't explain how you know what race the "victim" was.

      "What evidence has been brought (by you, Eddie or anyone else) that the system didn't work?"

      Explain to me why four police officers should need to choke an unarmed suspect of a minor crime to death. If you can't do that, then shouldn't there be repercussions for those who used excessive force?
      Remember, this was your response to Eddie: "And how many people do you think get murdered EVERY FUCKING DAY BY NON-POLICE for NO FUCKING REASON?" That would clearly seem to admit that there's no reason for the police killings in question, and you simply wanted to claim hypocrisy on Eddie's part because he supposedly wasn't concerned about other murders.

      "What does a company pay for women have to do with what I asked you?"

      It has to do with standards of evidence. Do you need someone to say "yes, we pay women less because we think they're inferior" in order to discuss pay inequality? Would you ever really expect someone to say something like that, even if they believed it?

      "The link has access to all the information that I am claiming."

      Then cite it. Here, this link refutes your link: http://www.bassresource.com/. If you aren't intelligent enough to figure out why, that's your problem. See how that works?

      Delete
    37. "First, you say that as if it's the only factor. There are other circumstances involved."

      What are those factors? You have only talked about race being a factor, so far. You're more than welcome to shift your concern if it makes it easier for you to prove what you say as fact.

      "Obviously, you do think race is some sort of issue, since you're linking it to the lack of protests."

      I don't think it's an issue, That statement is directed those of you who do feel only certain races are victims of injustice.

      "Explain to me why four police officers should need to choke an unarmed suspect of a minor crime to death."

      Explain to me why that proves all those officers are racists and did that action because the criminal was black.

      "It has to do with standards of evidence."

      What do YOU care about "standards of evidence" when you never bring any?

      "Then cite it."

      I have. You have not done your citing of evidence to prove your claims of racism, though.

      Delete
    38. "What are those factors?"

      Circumstances, obviously. Your phrasing makes it sound as if police officers are out looking to murder people.

      "I don't think it's an issue, That statement is directed those of you who do feel only certain races are victims of injustice."

      Who said "only certain races"? It's about proportion, not absolutes.

      "Explain to me why that proves all those officers are racists and did that action because the criminal was black."

      What's the alternate theory? Again, there would be no way of ever discussing this sort of thing if you demand nothing short of an admission of racism beforehand. Why are there these cases of excessive force against black people, and why are the police not held accountable? That screams of a systemic issue, so you can't reasonably tell people to ignore that.

      "What do YOU care about "standards of evidence" when you never bring any?"

      Again, even if you had a point, two wrongs don't make a right. I'll take your dodge as an admission that your standards are conveniently impossible to attain.

      "I have."

      Then my link refuted your argument. See how that works?

      Delete
    39. " Your phrasing makes it sound as if police officers are out looking to murder people."

      Your phrasing makes it sound as if the police officers are out looking to murder black people.

      "Who said "only certain races"? It's about proportion, not absolutes."

      Well, then. Bring evidence of that "proportion". Please bring SOMETHING to support your claim of racism.

      "What's the alternate theory?"

      So you admit calling the police racists? That's quite an admission.

      "Why are there these cases of excessive force against black people, and why are the police not held accountable?"

      You've only brought a couple examples out of thousands of possibilities. That doesn't bode well for your claim of "proportion".

      "Then my link refuted your argument."

      Fully explain how.

      Delete
    40. "Your phrasing makes it sound as if the police officers are out looking to murder black people."

      No, I made the point that other circumstances were involved. Try again?

      "Well, then. Bring evidence of that "proportion"."

      We're already talking about all the high-profile cases involving excessive force against African-Americans. Welcome to the thread.

      "So you admit calling the police racists?"

      It's an obvious concern, unless you just don't care about black suspects being killed and police officers not being held accountable. Why don't you care about that sort of thing, William?

      "You've only brought a couple examples out of thousands of possibilities."

      What "thousands of possibilities"? How many cases do you expect to hear covered in the mainstream media?

      "Fully explain how."

      If you can't figure it out, that's your problem. See how that works?

      Delete
    41. "We're already talking about all the high-profile cases involving excessive force against African-Americans. Welcome to the thread."

      All 4 of them? Wow, that's quite a proportion.

      "Why don't you care about that sort of thing, William?"

      I do care if it's proven and not just an assumption by uninformed people.

      "If you can't figure it out, that's your problem. See how that works?"

      That's what I thought you'd say.

      Delete
    42. "All 4 of them?"

      As opposed to what high-profile cases where white people are killed by police and the police are not held accountable?

      "I do care if it's proven and not just an assumption by uninformed people."

      Your standard for "assumption" would seem to be anything short of having a confession of racism from the police. If you cared, you wouldn't be clinging to such an absurd standard.

      "That's what I thought you'd say."

      And you can't say a damn word about it. You reap what you sow.

      Delete
    43. "As opposed to what high-profile cases where white people are killed by police and the police are not held accountable?"

      You tell me. You're the one who has a fixation on race inequality. When you bring proof of race being a factor in those other cases you can bring some proof of race being involved in the cases you are now showing faux concern over.

      "Your standard for "assumption" would seem to be anything short of having a confession of racism from the police. If you cared, you wouldn't be clinging to such an absurd standard."

      So by not being willing to accept assumptions then my standards are absurd? Ok, that makes sense.

      Delete
    44. "You tell me."

      No, you must be aware of some, if you don't think that these cases seem out-of-balance at all.

      "So by not being willing to accept assumptions then my standards are absurd?"

      No, by refusing to accept reasoned conclusions, your standards are absurd. You don't always have confessions to go by, and yet problems still exist and require attention nonetheless. You surely know that, which is why you couldn't address the pay inequality analogy presented to you.

      Delete
    45. "No, by refusing to accept reasoned conclusions, your standards are absurd."

      Your "reasoned conclusion" is that the police are racist because they killed a black man? That is absurd. Bring your evidence to show that racism.

      Delete
    46. "Your "reasoned conclusion" is that the police are racist because they killed a black man?"

      Again: "It's an obvious concern, unless you just don't care about black suspects being killed and police officers not being held accountable. Why don't you care about that sort of thing, William?"

      If you make some effort to move past your simplistic framework, you might find that there's an issue to be examined here. If there's some other explanation for this sort of injustice, let's hear it. Otherwise, it's pretty clearly a result of systemic racism. And that requires discussion, since anyone with any sense of morality should find it utterly unacceptable. So, stop pretending that you need some unreachable level of proof, because people who actually care about other human beings are trying to get things done here. Thanks in advance for your cooperation.

      Delete
    47. "If you make some effort to move past your simplistic framework, you might find that there's an issue to be examined here."

      Yeah, it's your racism and hatred of cops since you'd be "glad" to hear of more cases of police killings and only use racism as the reason for police killing black people. Sorry, you just make it to simple for me not to come to that conclusion.

      Delete
    48. "Yeah, it's your racism and hatred of cops since you'd be "glad" to hear of more cases of police killings and only use racism as the reason for police killing black people."

      Me: "If there's some reason that any other case warrants similar outrage, then I'd be glad to hear about it."
      That assumes that there's already a case in existence that genuinely deserves attention. Again, why would you not want to know about injustice?

      Do you have anything to offer, besides shameless lies about what I've said? It seems unlikely, at this point.

      Delete
    49. "That assumes that there's already a case in existence that genuinely deserves attention. Again, why would you not want to know about injustice?"

      Yeah, you're very ... very good at assuming.

      Show me ONE lie about what you said? Shameless or otherwise.

      Delete
    50. "Yeah, you're very ... very good at assuming."

      The statement is conditional, William. I didn't make any assumption. If there are cases of injustice, I'd be glad to know about them. That statement assumes those circumstances, because it's conditional. The word "if" is generally a good clue as to when a statement is conditional, for your future reference.

      So, the "glad" comment wasn't hoping for police killings, as you seem to be dishonestly presenting it. I accept your apology in advance.

      Delete
    51. " I didn't make any assumption."

      That's all you make since you bring no evidence to back up what you say.

      " If there are cases of injustice, I'd be glad to know about them."

      That's right, you'd be glad to know that more injustice is happening. Well, as long as it involves cops and black people. You don't seem to care about any of the other injustices. Like the ones that are listed in the link I provided. You haven't shown any concern over those.

      "So, the "glad" comment wasn't hoping for police killings, as you seem to be dishonestly presenting it."

      Cry as much as you want, but the way you presented it shows otherwise.

      Delete
    52. "That's all you make since you bring no evidence to back up what you say."

      You, regarding your cited statistics: "Do you know? Bring the information for all to enjoy."
      The point stands that I didn't make any assumption, while you assumed "about 99.9" percent.

      "That's right, you'd be glad to know that more injustice is happening."

      Wrong, I said if there were any cases that deserved outrage, which would mean that they were already in existence.

      "You don't seem to care about any of the other injustices. Like the ones that are listed in the link I provided."

      You mean like the injustice of someone getting shot because they fired at police officers? Are you protesting that person's death?

      "Cry as much as you want, but the way you presented it shows otherwise."

      No, you're just lying, as you always do when you can't make an argument for yourself. Feel free to analyze my statement to dispute my explanation, but we both know that you can't do it.

      Delete
    53. "I said if there were any cases that deserved outrage, which would mean that they were already in existence."

      Ok, so you'd be glad that those cases existed. Are you sure you want to keep digging that hole?

      "You mean like the injustice of someone getting shot because they fired at police officers?"

      No, I mean like the one where the pastor was shot because he thought undercover police officers were thugs trying to rob him and he ran away then got shot in the back. Or the one where the woman was shot in her home after the police were given the wrong information about what address to go to for their "no knock" raid. Or the one where the wrong information was given to police and they raided the wrong apartment and killed the person inside. How many more do you want me to give you?

      "No, you're just lying, as you always do when you can't make an argument for yourself."

      I'm not lying. In fact you've even update your feelings by saying you'd be "glad" if they were in existence. So not only are you glad to hear about them, you'd be glad that they exist. Hey, you keep saying it, not me. Keep diggin

      Delete
    54. "Ok, so you'd be glad that those cases existed."

      I said that I'd be glad to hear about them, not that they existed. If there's injustice, I'd like to know about it. Why wouldn't you?

      "No, I mean like the one where the pastor was shot because he thought undercover police officers were thugs trying to rob him and he ran away then got shot in the back."

      You never cited that, for some unexplained reason.

      "Or the one where the woman was shot in her home after the police were given the wrong information about what address to go to for their "no knock" raid."

      As above. Where was that, specifically?

      "How many more do you want me to give you?"

      It doesn't really matter, if you can't prove that they're part of your link.

      "In fact you've even update your feelings by saying you'd be "glad" if they were in existence."

      Another lie. I said I'd be glad to know about them if they happened, not that I'd be glad if they were in existence.

      "Hey, you keep saying it, not me."

      My actual words don't support your interpretation. Keep digging.

      Delete
    55. "It doesn't really matter, if you can't prove that they're part of your link."

      That's where I confirmed their validity. I saw them on another cite and searched for proof (unlike you, who does no research before spouting off your assumed facts).

      " I said I'd be glad to know about them if they happened, not that I'd be glad if they were in existence."

      The difference being what? If they weren't in existence then you couldn't be glad to know they happened. So, you're glad to know they happened.

      Delete
    56. "That's where I confirmed their validity."

      So you say, yet you can't specify the month and year that you're referring to. If there were really that many cases of "bad information", then you would surely have more than a handful of examples.

      "If they weren't in existence then you couldn't be glad to know they happened. So, you're glad to know they happened."

      Was that supposed to make sense? I said if there were cases that deserved outrage, so the conditional already exists. The whole idea of pointing out injustice is so that people are aware of it, so obviously if it already exists, I'd be glad to hear about it. That doesn't carry over to hoping for injustice.

      If you said "if you can't pay your bill, then I'd like to hear why", that doesn't mean that you don't want someone to pay their bill. By your hilarious attempt at logic, though, "if they paid their bill, then you couldn't like to hear why they can't. So, you're glad if they can't pay their bill." The word "if" only speaks to what would happen under those conditions, and doesn't imply any desire for those conditions.

      Try again?

      Delete
    57. " If there were really that many cases of "bad information", then you would surely have more than a handful of examples."

      I do, and I brought the link that access's each one. Go look.

      Delete
    58. "I do, and I brought the link that access's each one."

      No, bring specific information, if it exists. It's your job to make an argument, not my job to dig through some garbage heap looking for bits and pieces of it.

      Anything else?

      Delete
    59. I've made my argument. You either accept it or not. I don't do what you tell me to do just because you aren't smart enough to travail the internet with links that are provided to you.

      Delete
    60. "I've made my argument. You either accept it or not."

      Then I won't, because you're too lazy to substantiate it. You lose.

      Delete
    61. "Then I won't, because you're too lazy to substantiate it. You lose."

      Me: Well, you're the one saying it is that way, so you need to find a way to prove what you say is fact.
      You: No, actually, I don't.

      And you call ME lazy! I think you lost.

      Anything Else?

      Delete
    62. "And you call ME lazy!"

      Refusing to adhere to your absurd demands doesn't make me lazy. You failing to support your claim of fact does make you lazy.

      Anything else?

      Delete
    63. "Refusing to adhere to your absurd demands doesn't make me lazy. You failing to support your claim of fact does make you lazy."

      I can't believe you said that after the quotes I just brought. Do you even think about what you're writing or just spew it? How does refusing to adhere to YOUR absurd demands make me lazy, but not you?

      Delete
    64. "How does refusing to adhere to YOUR absurd demands make me lazy, but not you?"

      You claimed that your link said something. It is then your responsibility to prove that and to show how that helps your argument. On the other hand, you haven't shown any "absurd demands" on my part.

      Anything else?

      Delete
    65. "On the other hand, you haven't shown any "absurd demands" on my part."

      I was wrong, you don't live in New Jersey, you must be from Africa because it's obvious you live in denial.

      ROTFLMAO@U

      Run along, now.

      Delete
    66. "I was wrong, you don't live in New Jersey"

      Thanks for admitting it. And you really can't complain, because I can just say "There is nothing that would change the meaning of what you said by using different context".

      Delete
    67. Ah, so you admit that you live in denial?

      Delete
    68. No, you admitted that I don't live in New Jersey. Again, thanks.

      Delete
    69. Well, if you're going to do your usual and take my statements out of context and misquote them, then you are admitting you live in denial.

      Delete
    70. "Well, if you're going to do your usual and take my statements out of context and misquote them, then you are admitting you live in denial."

      No, that doesn't logically follow. One thing has nothing to do with the other. Regarding "out of context", all I need to say about the words that I quoted: "Are you denying you said them? What do you want to change your meaning to?"

      You quite clearly said that I don't live in New Jersey. Are you trying to backtrack now?

      Delete
    71. I also clearly said you live in Africa at denial. So you must agree with that part of the statement that you dishonestly left out.

      Delete
    72. "I also clearly said you live in Africa at denial. So you must agree with that part of the statement that you dishonestly left out."

      There is no place in Africa called "denial". And I don't have to agree with one part of your statement in order to accept another part of it. As to "dishonestly", I can say: "In what way is it a lie to use your words that you said?"

      Is it really dishonest to leave out part of a quote? Is that what you're saying?

      Delete
    73. "Is it really dishonest to leave out part of a quote?"

      Using your standards then it is only if other people do it.

      Delete
    74. "Using your standards then it is only if other people do it."

      It's only dishonest if other people do it? Are you admitting to cropping quotes?

      Delete
    75. No, I'm admitting that's your standard: if you crop quotes-it's ok, if others crop quotes-it is dishonest.

      Delete
    76. "No, I'm admitting that's your standard: if you crop quotes-it's ok, if others crop quotes-it is dishonest."

      What other people would I be applying that to, outside of you? Besides that, didn't you notice that I already pointed out that you can't complain about the quote? So what are you whining about?

      Delete
    77. "What other people would I be applying that to, outside of you?"

      Thanks for admitting you do it. Nothing hypocritical about that, huh?

      Delete
    78. "Thanks for admitting you do it."

      I admitted no such thing. I asked who would I be accusing of cropping, outside of you?

      Delete
    79. "I admitted no such thing. I asked who would I be accusing of cropping, outside of you?"

      That means you admit to doing it. Is it honest when you crop quotes? Is it honest when others crop quotes?

      Delete
    80. "That means you admit to doing it."

      No, it doesn't. You made an assertion of my "standard", and I asked you about what you said.

      "Is it honest when you crop quotes?"

      You: "In what way is it a lie to use your words that you said?"

      "Is it honest when others crop quotes?"

      Who would that be?

      Delete
    81. Hey, I have no control over your standards. If you want to crop quotes and call it honest while calling it dishonest when others crop quotes you go right ahead and do that. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy involved.

      Delete
    82. "Hey, I have no control over your standards. If you want to crop quotes and call it honest while calling it dishonest when others crop quotes you go right ahead and do that."

      What "others" crop quotes? That would seem to be an admission on your part, otherwise it doesn't make any sense.

      I was mocking you, in case you aren't bright enough to figure it out. That's why I included your own words at the time, since that is a reflection of your standard regarding the cropping of quotes. I was ensuring that if you tried to complain about it, then you would expose your own hypocrisy. And you fell right into it, predictably.

      Would you like to see a short list of examples of you cropping my quotes? Or are you starting to figure out that you are at a severe disadvantage in this conversation?

      Delete
    83. I just remembered this gem as well:
      You: "Yes, because you never brought the link that backed up what you said. You left a generic search link as your defense. The minimum you should have done (honestly) is brought a link to the quotes you are using to defend your position. That's the way things are done, if you can't do it that way, don't blame me for accusing you of not being able to back up what you claim is fact."
      Note that it was a loaded search that you were whining about, which contained links to a SCOTUS decision.
      You, now: "I've made my argument. You either accept it or not. I don't do what you tell me to do just because you aren't smart enough to travail the internet with links that are provided to you."

      In other words, you bitched and moaned about having to copy and paste a link and then click on one of the results, yet you expected me to read through however many months of police killings in order to find examples that you claimed supported your argument.

      I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy involved, you know.

      Delete
    84. "Would you like to see a short list of examples of you cropping my quotes? Or are you starting to figure out that you are at a severe disadvantage in this conversation?"

      Examples? Nah, I'm just having fun pointing out more hypocrisy by liberals.

      Delete
    85. "Examples? Nah, I'm just having fun pointing out more hypocrisy by liberals."

      But somehow, it's not hypocrisy for you to whine about cropping quotes when you have a history of doing exactly that. It's only "hypocrisy by liberals" when I mock your behavior and use your own justification against you.

      That only works for you in your imagination.

      Delete
    86. I'm not making an argument that I haven't cropped, I'm making the argument that you do crop and aren't denying it. So ...the funny thing is that I'm constantly being called a hypocrite. You constantly deny being one, yet ...

      Delete
    87. "I'm not making an argument that I haven't cropped, I'm making the argument that you do crop and aren't denying it."

      I mocked your habit of cropping quotes. That's obvious, because I used your own justification for the behavior at the time.

      So, thanks for admitting that you crop quotes, then tried to criticize me for mocking that very behavior.

      You got played.

      Delete
    88. If that's what you want to call it. I've never met a liberal who didn't have an excuse of one kind or another.

      Delete
    89. "I've never met a liberal who didn't have an excuse of one kind or another."

      It's not an "excuse". You can't even deny what I'm saying with anything substantial.

      Anything else?

      Delete
    90. "It's not an "excuse"."

      You: "No, it doesn't. You made an assertion of my "standard", and I asked you about what you said."

      After that ... what more could there be?

      Wait .... Are you crying now? Wahhh ...he called me a hypocrite ... wahhh

      ROTFLMAO@U

      Delete
    91. "After that ... what more could there be?"

      You'll have to connect those two quotes in order to explain what you think you're demonstrating.

      "Wait .... Are you crying now?"

      You: "So you must agree with that part of the statement that you dishonestly left out."

      Was that you "crying"?

      I don't care about you calling me a hypocrite, because you never have any evidence. You, however, admitted to cropping quotes while criticizing me for mocking that behavior. That does, undeniably, prove that you are a hypocrite.

      Anything else?

      Delete
    92. Yeah, keep referring to this article every time you try to make that claim.
      That would be funny
      (hypothetical:
      You; hey, you're a hypocrite because you admitted you crop,
      Me: but you just cropped.
      You: That doesn't count because I've got an excuse. In fact I've got an excuse for each and every time I do it.
      Me: Ok, whatever
      You: Anything else?

      Delete
    93. "In fact I've got an excuse for each and every time I do it."

      That is funny, considering the number of times that you've claimed to have "played" me. Now you're admitting that those were just excuses on your part.

      The fact is that you don't have a single legitimate complaint about me cropping quotes. I mocked you, and you just weren't smart enough to keep your mouth shut.

      Anything else?

      Delete
    94. "The fact is that you don't have a single legitimate complaint about me cropping quotes."

      The same can be said of you ... you don't have a single "legitimate" complaint of my cropping.

      Delete
    95. You already admitted to cropping, but here are just a few examples to embarrass you further.
      "I have no allegiance "
      "No, moron. I simply created a hypothetical scenario ..."
      "If there's no difference ..."
      Me: "What a stupid question. Yes, he could." (that's you cropping your own quote to change its meaning)
      "Note the word "some","
      "It wouldn’t,"
      http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2013/07/another-old-friend.html

      I can show how every one of those changed the original meaning to the convenience of your argument. And to preempt your complaint about that link not being specific enough for you:"I don't do what you tell me to do just because you aren't smart enough to travail the internet with links that are provided to you."

      Would you like to continue?

      Delete
    96. "I can show how every one of those changed the original meaning to the convenience of your argument."

      I thought you said "legitimate". Make your case that shows that.

      Delete
    97. "I thought you said "legitimate". Make your case that shows that."

      I asked if you wanted to continue, and that I could show your misrepresentation if you really wanted to do so. So, all you had to do was to say that you wanted to continue.

      Since you do;
      My comment:"From the Code of Hammurabi? Of course I pick and choose, because I have no allegiance to it."
      Your misrepresentation:"I have no allegiance"
      Your response to your cropped quote:"Amen to that, brother."
      http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2013/07/another-old-friend.html?showComment=1379079682298#c8103864375159371777

      You cropped a comment about a specific code of law and made it sound as if I was making a general comment. That changed the meaning, making my complaint legitimate.

      If you think you can counter that, do so. Otherwise, thanks for playing.

      Delete
    98. "You cropped a comment about a specific code of law and made it sound as if I was making a general comment. That changed the meaning, making my complaint legitimate."

      I did that because I was mocking you. See? A legitimate reason.

      ROTFLMAO@U

      Delete
    99. "I did that because I was mocking you. See? A legitimate reason."

      You weren't mocking behavior. Notice that when you were called out on it, you didn't even try to defend yourself.

      You lose.

      Delete
    100. Just for fun, here's more;

      My quote: "If there's no difference, then you shouldn't feel a need to change it. And yet, you did."
      Your representation: "If there's no difference ..."
      Your response to the cropped quote: "That's what I thought."

      That was you taking a phrase out of context in order to pretend that I was saying that were was no difference between two words, when obviously I was arguing that there was a difference. You can't hide behind your misunderstanding of "mocking" on that one; that's simply a lie on your part.

      Incidentally, it's amusing that you tried to accuse me of any sort of dishonesty when you admittedly crop quotes. If it's somehow justified for you, then my obvious mocking of your behavior is justified. If it's dishonest when you do it, as it obviously is, then you're not in any position to criticize anyone else. Either way, you'll have to retract your accusation or end up slithering away in shame.

      Delete
    101. "You weren't mocking behavior. "

      Are you crying? Gee, I didn't mean to make you cry. If it will make you feel better I'll stop making you cry.

      ROTFLMAO@U

      Delete
    102. "Are you crying?"

      No, I'm pointing out that your excuse is dishonest.

      And, again, you: "So you must agree with that part of the statement that you dishonestly left out."

      That would be you "crying", by your standard.

      Anything else?

      Delete
    103. "No, I'm pointing out that your excuse is dishonest."

      I'm pretty sure that was the same excuse you used ("I was mocking you, in case you aren't bright enough to figure it out."), so you must be admitting that you are dishonest.

      Delete
    104. "I'm pretty sure that was the same excuse you used ("I was mocking you, in case you aren't bright enough to figure it out."), so you must be admitting that you are dishonest."

      You're wrong. I was mocking your habit of cropping quotes. You weren't mocking any behavior on my part.

      Anything else?

      Delete
    105. " You weren't mocking any behavior on my part."

      Sure I was, your behavior as a liberal atheist.

      Are you done floundering?

      Delete
    106. "Sure I was, your behavior as a liberal atheist."

      Your prejudice doesn't qualify as valid criticism. Your dishonest cropping of quotes, on the other hand, is behavior which warrants mockery.

      As you said, generalizing about large groups of people "just doesn't seem right". So, by your own words, trying to hold me accountable for your perception of a group isn't appropriate.

      All you've done is to show that there is no specific behavior for you to criticize. Try again?

      Delete
    107. "All you've done is to show that there is no specific behavior for you to criticize."

      And, you had no "specific behavior" of mine to criticize. I gave a good enough excuse (the same one you used) so that couldn't be the reason,

      I guess you're not done floundering.

      ROTFLMAO@U

      Delete
    108. "And, you had no "specific behavior" of mine to criticize."

      You dishonestly crop quotes, which is specific.

      "I gave a good enough excuse (the same one you used) so that couldn't be the reason,"

      Wrong. Just because I had a valid reason, that doesn't mean the same is automatically true for you. As already established, generalizing doesn't give you justification for "mocking" anyone.

      Try again?

      Delete
    109. "You dishonestly crop quotes, which is specific."

      But it wasn't dishonest. I was "mocking" your behavior, just like you did me.

      Keep floundering?

      Delete
    110. "But it wasn't dishonest. I was "mocking" your behavior, just like you did me."

      There's nothing for you to "mock"; your generalizations are invalid, by the same logic that you used to defend police officers.

      You seem to have hit a wall; you are having problems getting around that, and simply repeating yourself doesn't make it any better for you.

      Try again?

      Delete
    111. Oh, and if you're claiming that it's the same for you as it is for me, then you've retracted your charge of dishonesty against me. That would come with an apology, if you were raised properly.

      Delete
    112. "You seem to have hit a wall; you are having problems getting around that, and simply repeating yourself doesn't make it any better for you."

      Problem is ... so have you. You've repeated "try again" how many times now? That seems to be your favorite catch phrase when you realize you've lost in a discussion and need to back out without appearing like a quitter to your peers. It's a good attempt, but (unfortunately for you) all what you have written is still here for all to see.

      Good luck with that

      Delete
    113. "Problem is ... so have you. You've repeated "try again" how many times now?"

      That's not a problem for me. I've asked you if you want to try again because you're not gaining any ground.

      "That seems to be your favorite catch phrase when you realize you've lost in a discussion and need to back out without appearing like a quitter to your peers."

      That's a convenient little fantasy for you, but obviously I'm not trying to "back out" of anything here. On the other hand, you didn't address what I said, suggesting that you know that you have nothing more to say.

      "It's a good attempt, but (unfortunately for you) all what you have written is still here for all to see."

      That's funny, considering how your desperate effort at generalizing failed because of your own words on this thread.

      Thanks for playing.

      Delete