Boomerdog

Nine (9) more miscreants and their DNA out of the gene pool. Although I am concerned about what DNA they did spread before going to the big Harley Store in the sky. Never ends i guess. Oh well...

http://ftpcontent4.worldnow.com/wmbf/pdf/Part%2016%20decision.sm.pdf http://ftpcontent4.worldnow.com/wmbf/pdf/Judge%20Hyman's%20Order%20-%20SDMB.pdf Gotta use the URL brackets so I FIFY. Now the documents can be downloaded.

Ron, This woman is just showing off for her own aggrandizement. That is all.

We were discussing this issue today at my home DZ. Since this is an airport with a control tower, then any off landing, landing in the wrong area or too close to aircraft on taxiway, engines running etc etc is probably going to find its way into the tower logs. One guy very familiar with SDMB says this is a DZ that is well run with a high standard of safety. If a formal study has not been conducted, it would be interesting to know the basis for the FAA siding with the county, with or without tower logs. The other question I have is whether the county made it so unreasonable for SDMB to be there on the possibility that another business on the airport with "ins" to some elected county officials want to expand their business. If so, permit applications might already be on file and should be accessible to the public. All in all, this case has a stink to it that might be understood better when the money is followed rather than the public posturing.

Obviously the result of Common Core English.

The content of this thread notwithstanding, your comment clearly indicates you don't know jackshit about the American Civil War.

An MGM Studio inside Area 51! Don't forget that one important point!

I'm going to regret even engaging on this subject... Yep, you're right! Someone can be crazy i.e. mentally ill and still own firearms. Until we have the psychiatric/medical and technological means that can test and diagnose someone mentally ill is highly predisposed to commit mass murder, then it is reasonably safe to state that in spite of all the innovations in pharmaceuticals, research, applications and diagnoses, psychiatry and psychology is crude. In hindsight, the Oregon shooter displayed anti-social characteristics more than sufficient (sad to say) to mass murder. And yet, there are many more (statistically speaking) who have similar levels of mental illness yet wouldn't hurt a fly. Even if such tests were available, would everyone be required to undergo a week counseling session with a psychiatrist before being allowed to purchase a firearm. As far as the responded in this forum are concerned, I think it's safe to state that there is substantial division on this point. The next point to offer is that even if mental health issues are broadly defined, there are many of these people who are not violent. We should not be using the criteria that while they may be difficult to handle, attend to, and can be incorrigible at times, they are not violent. Therefore, to deny those with "mental health issues" their constitutional right to own a gun runs smack dab into the constitutional problem of the law being vastly over-inclusive; screeing out those who are violent (being permissible) but also screening out a large number of non-violent people who've committed no crime. Even in the best of all possibilities where a confirmatory mental health test or series of tests can identify those with a very high proclivity to violence and hence mass murder, such would be the basis for civil confinement and subsequent prevention of that individual ever legally owning a gun. Yet it cannot and should not be discounted that any level of prevention/intervention (even denial of gun rights) does not rule out the possibility that Person X will obtain a gun. However, success in the prevention of that person owning a gun will not prevent that person to make bombs, drive cars into a crowd of people crossing the street, set fire to a crowded building etc. etc. Both sides of the issue do not trust the others motives or change each other's mid and 700+ posts here is evident testament of that. We have seen the disappearance of the phrase "gun control" only to be replaced by "stopping gun violence" or words to that effect. No matter what phrase is used, the agenda as perceived by those of us "bitter clingers" out there is total gun confiscation and the end of private ownership of guns. And there is legitimacy to that perception when one hears the words of such illustrious paragons of virtue such as Dianne (I used to pack heat too but I'm better than anyone else) Feinstein and Chuck (never met a camera he didn't like) Schumer. The President advocates for "reasonable" gun laws but is on record that he admires the "Australia Model" which is (almost) complete confiscation. I personally don't see any reasonability in the President's terms to me as a gun owner. Likewise, those here who believe in 2A limitations will not believe my words when I unequivocally state that the guns I possess are no threat to you when in my hands. The only threat these guns pose are to those who credibly threaten my life, the life of my family, an occasional deer of wild turkey, or if I'm out in public legally packing (I do have a CCW), I find myself in a situation where an armed criminal is threatening lives and I have a better than even chance of ending theirs. My guns were bought legally at guns stores and shows. In both settings, two forms of pictured ID were required, I had to fill out either the ATF Forms 4477 or 4473 and I had to wait while the dealer phoned in to verify I had no criminal record to finalize the purchase. You may not trust me at my word. That's OK. I've been around; actively handled or owned firearms for over 30 years and no two legged life form has been shot by me. On the other hand, I've been listening to the rhetoric, agenda, and actions by the "gun control crowd and all of it speaks for itself. The tragedy of Oregon will not appreciably change hearts or minds on both sides of this issue. Many like myself hold fast to the position that our gun rights in the current state of affairs are now and never will be negotiable. Our sense, knowledge, and assessment of history and human behavior will not change this. If those who have so much dislike and/or fear of guns do not like the present situation, I would remind them that Cuba is close by, does not allow any private ownership of guns, has free health care AND a drop zone. U.S./Cuban diplomatic relations have been restored. Perhaps you'd be happier there. And I finally close with the fact that Ted Kennedy's Volkswagen has killed more people than any of my guns. There, I'm done. I will now put on my flak vest and await the verbal incoming expected shortly.

Hmmm...kinda reminds me of that scene in "Smokey and The Bandit" Bandit: [Bandit and Frog walking through the wooded area] When you tell somebody somethin', it depends on what part of the country you're standin' in... as to just how dumb you are. Carrie: Mr Bandit, you have a lyrical way of cutting through the bullshit. Bandit: And you have a unique way with the English language, Miss Frog.

My my! For even asking the question that a hurricane with an Hispanic name would be illegal. Such racist overtones! I'm shocked! Shocked I say! There is NO such thing as an ILLEGAL hurricane! NEVER! Destructive as hell but NOT illegal! Shame on you Amazon! And Gomer Pyle says, "Shame, Shame, Shame!"

From my post# 20 of "Here Comes The Pope." I warned y'all previously. Along with doing things neither side is going to like. Anyone who applies a Left or a Right Wing filter to what this Pope says or does is kidding themselves. There might be the "Right Wing Way" or ""The Left Wing Way." but... this Pope uses "The Catholic Way" and if that's a disappointment to some of you don't blame Pope Francis. Roman Catholic theology has stayed pretty consistent over 2000+ years and whatever changes occur, occur at the speed of glacial movement after serious and lengthy discussions. You may love the Church or vehemently hate the Church but one things is certain, the Church is not going to change.

Insult without argument is the sign of a fool. Rage on, I'm really enjoying your tirade.

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/beach-684634-huntington-school.html http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2015/09/25/student-who-defended-classmate-in-huntington-beach-school-fight-not-suspended/ The fight did occur as reported so the whole story is not a lie but a mixture of fact and fiction as we are finding out. Now the aftermath of what transpired from the basic facts is where the water gets muddied and I got sucked into the indignation of it all. Yup I sure did. No walking back this one. Now that this part is settled comes the fun part…speculation of which I freely admit but that’s what Speaker’s Corner is about, I hope. So Don SUSPECTS 43,000 people got “punked” into responding to a petition. One news article reports 43,000 and an article I provide above (local source) says 60,000. Then Don questions my suspicions asking me for solid proof of my allegations. So Don’s suspicions are right and mine are wrong because he’s him and I’m me. What’s wrong with this picture? So now we got a verbal fracas going on here…woooohooo! Do I have proof, school officials (in private) wanted to suspend the student for coming to the aid of the blind student. Nope! Muff528 weighs in on a personal experience and Turtlespeed provides a hoot of an article if true. There are just too many of stories like these all over the net. In matters such as these, I’m not confident in human nature as exhibited by school principals and administrators who can’t or willfully refuse to recognize the difference between being a bully and standing up to one. They’re only compounding injustice. But as I stated above, the net is full of way too many stories about asinine suspensions under this “zero tolerance policy.” These stories probably get reported with the truth stretched to milk out the sensational factor. But embellishment notwithstanding school administrators using good judgment in such cases is about as rare as winning the lottery. Yea, I still think those school clowns in Huntington Beach privately deliberated and wanted to send that kid packing. The truth has a strange ways of leaking out so maybe I’ll be proved wrong or maybe the converse. OK...there you be. Whether you're satisfied? Well, that's your call

Oh well...friends come, friends go and enemies accumulate. Pick a number and get in the queue...you're not the first and you sure as hell won't be the last. With respect to animal abuse...HMMM. I've shared my life with three Bullmastiffs (one was rescued) one great mixed breed dog (which we had as a puppy and never got kicked). I've rescued five cats. I've agonized on all six occasions having to put down four dogs and two cats; the most recent being two weeks ago when a wonderful three year old kitty of ours developed massive urinary blockage compounded by a significant heart murmur and the vet told us there was nothing more to be done. I'm a real animal abuser aren't I. But you do validate a belief of mine that four legged critters are a hell of a lot better to be around than two legged ones...present company included.

AS DO YOU! Take a look...a very good and long look in the mirror! P.S. Now's a good time to write that grant proposal. The end of the Fiscal Year is in three days and there's a better than even chance the NSF has a bunch of $$$ it wants to get out the door fast. Whaddya have to lose?

EXACTAMUNDO oh wise one. It's a WAG on my part. Bam ya got me cold. On the other hand, I've spent way too many years in government i.e. DoD and been part of many back room discussions making sensitive decisions on issues and I've had to observe a shit load of human behavior even my own. After 33 years of it, I might not get it completely right on human behavior with respect to backbiting pajama boy/girl bureaucrats, but in the end, I'd probably come out ahead in betting on the predictability of their behavior. And you have proof of your suspicions? My submission (which are by their very nature and my admission suspicions) bad, you're suspicions good? Hmmm...you see anything wrong with this picture? From this to little boys getting suspended for eating a pop-tart into a gun. Is it possible contemporary educators have a potential genetic predisposition for dumb ass? Do we have a research paper here? Perhaps it could be titled: "On the Genetic Predisposition of Self Inflicted Posterior Ignorance In The National Education Community." Submit the grant proposal to NSF...these days ya just might get it approved.

From the original subject to Planned Parenthood. My gawd man, you are ALL OVER the Ouija Board!

Congratulations and bravo. You are a classic example of standing up to these dumbass pajama boys and pajama girls! Take a bow! You got back in their face. THAT's what you do with bullies errr public school bureaucrats!

And I would submit that the dumb asses I cited sure as hell wanted to suspend that kid who defended the blind student and they were talking about it behind closed doors in private conversation. But given the fact that 43,000 signatures on a petition (as the press reports) in support of this kid and the fact that the police did not file charges against him would have them looking more like dumb asses. Dumb ass is as dumb ass does and in public education, we're seeing too much of it. THAT's my opinion and I'm sticking to it!

Here is today's news.... We had weather today!

One dumb ass school principal. One dumb ass school district superintendent. Another dumb ass public school identified. More dumb ass logic in use. Ugh!

I'd call that phrase "reductio ad absurdum." The cop's not wrong in approaching the subject for observing the jaywalk and the suspect is certainly not innocent of the charge by evident observation. The suspect (according to the cop) is observed jaywalking at a bus stop in a bus lane. Had the suspect been subsequently been struck by a bus resulting in a swift and sudden application of the brakes by the bus driver, the passengers in the bus could easily be thrown forward in their seats and injured. In my line of work we'd call that "a physics problem." I don't read any comments in this thread criticizing the cop for engaging the kid for jaywalking. In the total context of the location (a bus stop), the suspect posed a credible safety hazard to himself and others. I'm not (nor do I think anyone else here) is letting the kid off the hook for the hazard he created. What IS in serious question is why this kid deserved the beatdown he got. I am not nor will I be convinced that the level of the use of force was justified. We probably disagree on the last point, it will just have to remain so. A defense or civil trial lawyer is going ta have a lot fun if this case goes to trial. And if this results in a substantial payout to the suspect, that's just going to put the good, but already bankrupt city of Stockton into further financial arrears.

Gee, it took you one hour and 31 minutes to respond. I'd have thought you'd be quicker than that.

Jaywalking is of course the impetus for the cop engaging the suspect. All other actions (by all involved) emanate from that. Look, let's get real. The streets can be a mean place and I'm quite familiar with the city of Stockton, CA. I lived there while going to school and I still have friends who live in the area and I'm quite familiar with the part of town in which this incident occurred. If that kid had pulled a knife, a pistol and anything else capable of killing, the cop would have been within his legal mandate for the safety of the bystanders and himself to shoot that kid no questions asked and i would not be writing this. Suspect pulls and brandishes deadly weapon, shot and killed by cop, move on. What is going on here IMHO is too much brawn and very very little use of brains on the part of the cop and since the cop is the adult and holds "all the cards" i.e. size, gun, baton, and duty to enforce the law, the onus is on him. The police chief whines about the suspect attempting to wrestle the cop's baton from him. My question is why, given all the circumstances in the encounter, did the cop put himself in the position for the suspect to get his hands on his baton in the first place? That one speaks to both common sense and training...both lacking. Finally, think of me as the "canary in the coal mine." I'm the heterosexual, politically conservative White male (hpcWm); these days the most hated species walking the Earth. In the eyes of many, whale shit has more value than me taking up space and breathing on this planet. I'm supposed to be the guy who tacitly supports every action a cop makes on the streets. Take the time, to listen and observe. There's a lot of us hpcWm's who are speaking out against the use of excessive force by cops as well as the cops who protect and enable these thugs with badges and allow them to stay on duty. Such actions and behaviors are and quite possibly to a greater extent as corrosive to the social strata as criminal behavior. Bottom line is this, if the cops are losing the hearts and minds and getting criticism from those who stereotypically are assumed to always support them no matter what they do, then something in the profession of law enforcement is wrong, very very wrong. Too many civilians and cops are dying at the hands of the other these days and I personally find that unacceptable. The common denominator of justified counterforce is still violence and those legally commissioned to apply it must do so with propriety and in the context of the society they serve. Left unchecked and unaccountable, it's just as bad as criminals left free to roam the streets.

Not even warming up on the other side yet. Hey, not my words but saw this written by someone in one of the right wing rags I read: "Liberalism is like a nude beach: it's only great in your head. The full blown reality of it is pretty damn ugly and disturbing." Laughed my ass off, so I thought I'd pass it along!