AndyBoyd

Driving a car with expired plates/tags whatever is doing something wrong. Seems unreasonable to expect to be left alone. I agree. I was talking about the specific situation mentioned by the OP -- where individual A is driving a car and not violating any laws, but A is pulled over because he is driving individual B's car and B has a suspended driver's license. In that case, A is pulled over having done nothing wrong. In the situation you describe I agree that it would be unreasonable not to expect to get pulled over, because it is clear there is a violation of the law. In the OP's case, where the cop is not sure who is driving, it is much less clear there has been a violation. And yes, I know that cops can have probable cause without being 100% certain a crime has occurred. I just think that in the OP's case, giving cops PC in that situation gives them too much freedom to pull folks over. That kind of power can easily lead to abuse.

You are missing the point of Iowa's question. You could be following the law entirely and get pulled over if, for example, you are driving your buddy's car and his license is suspended. Your buddy is the "dumbfuck" who broke the law, but you, who are not breaking the law, get pulled over. Most people don't like to be stopped by the police when they have done nothing wrong. So stop promptly, hands at 11 and 1, show license and insurance, answer questions honestly without waiving 5th Amd privileges, and you'll be fine. Unless you are a dumbfuck who's broken the law, in which case--fuck you, welcome to jail. If I've done nothing wrong, I don't want to have to deal with the cops. And, more importantly, if I've done nothing wrong, the cops have no business stopping me. Go find some criminals. Leave me alone.

We are veering into SC territory here, and the mods may move this thread. Which is not such a bad thing. It's an interesting issue. I personally don't want the police stopping me if I've done nothing wrong. I don't want a "have a nice day" from a cop after being pulled over and having to show my license and insurance card. I'd rather the cop left me alone if I was doing nothing wrong. My guess is that most people feel the same way. But the law as it stands is that there is PC in such a situation. And maybe you are OK with being stopped by the police when you haven't done anything wrong. The usual idea, though, is that we don't allow cops to hassle people who haven't broken the law. I concede that there is PC here, I just don't like it.

You are missing the point of Iowa's question. You could be following the law entirely and get pulled over if, for example, you are driving your buddy's car and his license is suspended. Your buddy is the "dumbfuck" who broke the law, but you, who are not breaking the law, get pulled over. Most people don't like to be stopped by the police when they have done nothing wrong.

Very good question. In Illinois, there is a presumption that the owner of a car is its driver. If a cop runs someone's plates and determines that the registered owner is unlicensed, that is indeed probable cause to pull the vehicle over. The law is similar in most other states to the best of my knowledge. The courts have found exceptions to this presumption where the registered owner is, for example, a 65 year old female and the driver is a 20 year old male and the cop can easily see this. The general rule, though, is that where the registered owner has a suspended or revoked license, there is probable cause to pull the vehicle over.

Sigh. Ok. I'm not going to get into an argument over the internet about such a complex concept as rationality with someone who clearly has no idea what he is talking about, and with someone who is so sure he knows everything about the concept. If you or anyone else wants to take a look at what some of the top thinkers have to say about the concept, check out this link, especially #5. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/practical-reason/#MaxRat

This is incoherent nonsense. A "decision" cannot be both "universal and unique to the thinker" at the same time. The definition of rationality is most certainly not being able to justify one's position to one's self. Your third statement is simply bizzare and makes you sound mentally unbalanced.

The Wall Street protesters are no different than the tea partiers. Neither group makes much sense. They just come from different ends of the political spectrum. Of course the Wall Street Journal doesn't like the Wall Street protesters. And of course the conservative posters here don't like the WS protesters. And both groups will continue to shout past each other, no one really saying much of anything worth listening to.

This is the way I have been taught to do it, assuming the team's coach is not present. Watch the jump as a team, and simply watch the entire formation the first time through. In other words, don't focus on yourself at first. Then watch the jump again and this time focus on your own flying. Then everyone gets a chance to say something positive about either the team as a whole or their own flying. Then mention something to work on, either for the team or yourself. Say nothing negative about an individual team member, and try to keep a positive attitude in general. Every team member gets a chance to speak, and the rest of the team stays quiet while someone is speaking. In analyzing the jump, look to the specific team or individual goals, like better communication, tighter blocks, better stops, whatever it might be. If your coach is there, obviously let him or her take control of the debrief.

That is simply false. The Center for Constitutional Rights filed a lawsuit against the Obama administration before this happenned, trying to stop this assassination. http://ccrjustice.org/newsroom/audio-clips/ccr-attorney-pardiss-kabriaei-targeted-assassinations-glenn-greenwald-radio If you poke around their website, you will find that they are pretty clearly a "liberal" organization. http://ccrjustice.org/ In addition, Glenn Greenwald, a lawyer/commentator/blogger, has criticized this action. http://news.yahoo.com/awlaqi-killing-reignites-us-debate-rights-152720230.html Greenwald describes himself as neither liberal nor conservative, but you would probably call him a liberal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Greenwald In addition, I call myself a liberal on most issues, and I think Obama screwed up here and deserves criticism. You like to paint with a very broad brush. It's a sign of someone who doesn't think very carefully about the issues. You seem bright enough to make your point without resorting to such broad overgeneralizations based on what you think someone's political views might be.

You've got a really mixed up view of the United States criminal justice system. In the broadest terms, the system is set up so that we try to minimize the amount of innocent people who are convicted of crimes. Of course there are always mistakes, and prosecutors overstep sometimes. You seem to think that the system ought to be set up to maximize convictions of the guilty, even if a higher percentage of the innocent are convicted. That is just not the way the system works, and honestly, your suggestions are wrongheaded and un-American. Frankly, your earlier suggestion that we execute innocent people to be sure we execute all the guilty murderers was flat-out bizzare. I have never heard anyone, conservative or liberal or anywhere in between, make such a goofy claim.

After running 3 marathons and a bunch of half marathons, I ended up with runner's knee. http://www.time-to-run.com/injuries/thebig5/runnersknee.htm After going through physical therapy twice without much success, I decided to try natural (not barefoot) running. The principle is the same as decribed in Born to Run. Land with your feet underneath your hips, on the ball of your foot, and let the heel tap the ground and bounce back up. The general idea is that the heel strike encouraged by the built-up running shoes is harmful, regardless of the amount of padding in the shoe. By running naturally, you take that harmful heel strike out of the equation. I run in the New Balance Trail Minimus, but there are many options for natural running footwear. I do not run barefoot because the trails I do most of my training on are crushed gravel, with sharp stones. No way am I running barefoot on that. Here's a good review of the New Balance compared with another similar shoe by Merrell. http://www.irunfar.com/2011/02/merrell-trail-glove-vs-new-balance-minimus-trail-review.html If you decide to transition to natural running, do it slowly. I started the transition in June, and I'm up to 7 mile runs natural. If you do it too quickly, you run the risk of injury, particularly stress fractures in your feet, which are not used to the different stresses caused by natural running. You will also notice considerable soreness in your calfs in you do too much too soon. I plan to be 100% natural running by the start of the new year. There is lots of literature on the subject. The best I have found is: http://www.runblogger.com/2010/12/review-of-natural-running-by-danny.html Sorry if I got long-winded. Hope this info helps you and anyone else trying to find a healthier way to run.

I was at the DZ that day and scratched off the load that went in. I won't go into the details, other than to say it was absolutely devastating. As far as the question, why didn't prosecutors charge the DZO or anyone else with manslaughter, the simple answer is most likely because the prosecutors didn't see what happened as a crime. And even if they did, they probably didn't think they could prove it. I've never heard of anyone being criminally prosecuted for a plane crash. That doesn't mean it hasn't happened somewhere, it's just very unlikely. Also, the DZO would have made a very sympathetic defendant. He lost 2 sons in that crash, and it would have looked absolutely heartless to prosecute him. The bottom line is that this just wasn't the type of incident that lends itself to criminal prosecution. Honestly, I doubt the prosecutors gave it much thought, if any at all. These things are usually hashed out through civil lawsuits.

No one did anything at Kent State that justified the National Guard opening fire. One of the girls that was killed was walking to class that day. The National Guard panicked because they were poorly trained and poorly disciplined. But, yeah, if you open fire with live ammunition on a bunch of unarmed college kids, it will sure slow them down.

Yep. And these are the same people who tell the joke about how a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged. (You know, no matter how many times that joke gets told, it just never gets old...) The flip-side of that joke: A liberal is a conservative who just got arrested.

I had great times at Quicny in the 90's. Never made it to Rantoul. I've never been to summerfest at SDC, but it seems like a close approximation of the WFFC vibe. http://www.skydivechicago.com/Events/Summerfest_2011 I hear Lost Prairie in Montana is also lots of fun. http://www.skydivelostprairie.com/JUMPMEET-2011.html

Actually, the federal prosecutors in the Northern District of Illinois have been very aggressive in going after corruption in Chicago. Some argue they have been too aggressive. If they had the goods on Daley, they would have gone after him, I'm sure. Either Daley was too dumb to be involved, or his people did a great job of insulating him from the dirty stuff, or both. The feds in Chicago have gone after mob bosses, gang leaders, and politicians of all kinds. I guarantee you they are not afraid of Daley.

The last 2 governors of Illinois were convicted of crimes. Not the mayors of Chicago.

I thought it was one of the best tv shows I've ever seen. The last scene of he last episode was mindblowing. I hadn't read the book, and didn't see that coming.

I haven't posted in a while, and you and I disagree on some things, but that's cool. I've read a lot of your posts, and you clearly believe more guns = less crime. It's a respectable viewpoint, one I may even be open to argument on, although I am not fully convinced. Here's a book on the topic, I'm sure you've read it, others may not have. http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493636 I guess I'm just trying to say, why not just come out and make your argument on this? It's a reasonable one. Why dance around?

"Walgreens is not stupid, if the pharmacist had been killed or wounded, or customers killed or wounded. there would be a huge lawsuit." As an attorney, I can tell you this is the answer plain and simple. Corporations will not alllow their employees to start shooting, even when it may be justified, because of the legal liability. I agree with a lot of the posters, it looks like this guy knew what he was doing with his firearm and defended himself successfully. But if the next Walgreens employee hits an innocent customer, it costs the company millions. If I were a Walgreens stockholder or officer, I would fully support the policy they have. Now, I have no problem with guns or self-defense. And I know this kind of thing grinds people's gears. But a corporation like Walgreens simply cannot have their employees shooting at people. The guy should have called the cops.

There are lots of sources reporting on civilian casualties in the war. That just happenned to be the one I picked. Here's another one. http://www.dawn.com/2011/03/09/afghan-war-civilian-deaths-highest-yet-in-2010-un.html To be fair to our troops, this article indicates that 75% of civilian casualties are caused by insurgents rather than coalition forces. Still, it is clear that Afghani civilians are getting hit hard from both sides, and that this is causing an erosion of support for the war. "“In a year of intensified armed conflict, with a surge of activity by pro-government forces and increased use of improvised explosive devices and assassinations by anti-government elements, Afghan civilians paid the price with their lives in even greater numbers in 2010,” said Ivan Simonovic, the UN’s assistant secretary-general for human rights."

yup to you and piisfish.. ...Which says nothing of substance. All wars involve occasional atrocities beyond combat. Reprehensible, but true. All prisons have occasional abuses of prisoners by guards. Reprehensible, but true. Abu Graib was particularly noteworthy for the wide scope of its abuses, combined with the extent of the post-event conspiracy to conceal evidence of wrongdoing. Now then: if you think this is comparable, don't just bark out slogans; make your case out thoughtfully, using specific examples and cogent arguments. That's how it's done. In some cases, really bad atrocities can change public opinion about a war. The My Lai massacre was arguably a turning point in America's support for the Vietnam war. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/vietnam/trenches/my_lai.html Some people argue that our war in Afghanistan is causing unjustified and needless civilian caualties. http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-South-Central/2010/0223/Afghanistan-war-As-civilian-deaths-rise-NATO-says-Sorry. Are these casualties changing America's support for the war? Hard to say, but it seems like this is what the OP is concerned about.

I think the Abu Ghraib reference was to the thoughtless and callous photos.

I was a powerlifter when I was in high school and college. I am now 46, and I haven't lifted weights in many years. Here's a couple of links to the top 100 performances in the USA for the 148 and 165 pound weight classes. http://www.usapowerlifting.com/rankings2010/viewbyweightclass.php?weightclassid=6&sex=1&lifts=8 http://www.usapowerlifting.com/rankings2010/viewbyweightclass.php?weightclassid=7&sex=1&lifts=8 This website should answer your questions about the sport. http://www.usapowerlifting.com/index.shtml According to the website, USA Powerlifting is a drug-free organization that drug-tests athletes at competitions. I know you are not asking about technique, so I won't give advice except to say this: powerlifting is extremely stressful on muscles and joints. Be careful, because this sport can hurt you.