You are right, I should be ashamed of myself; but telling Pedinska to take a course on criminal justice seemed a bit much, especially from someone who fills this space with hundreds of pages of marginally relevant material.

By the way, what is the term for stringing together out of context partial quotations?

Yes, I am aware that it is legal in some circumstances for the law enforcement authorities to break down your door unannounced. I would also consider this act a violation of the fourth amendment unless carried out under exceptional circumstances. There appear to be none in this case. Nor do I believe there are in many case when this is used to make drug-related arrests. So, tell me, how is this justified in this case?

I did not realize I am in such diverse company.

if we cannot keep the US free, there is no point in even thinking about being of help to anyone else. We must publicize our own problems even if there is exaggeration; there is no other way. The whole world is in this together now; there is no isolation, and there is no extra time.

Elephantman:

But of course there are people like the woman in the video that Glenn Geenwald linked. She appered to me to be pushing her flower into the faces of the police at close range, and standing in their way as they attempted to pass. No one struck her or pushed her down. To move her away, an officer sprayed her with pepper spray from what appeared to be about five feet away. And so... what? She was not some little old lady on her way to church. She was a protester, pressing herself into the formation of police. The flower ruse was just that.

It is hard to see exactly where she was, but the police closest to her did not seem upset. The one that sprayed her from further back managed to do it without hitting the ones who were closer to her. So I doubt that she was really pressed into the formation. When he sprayed her the second time, she was well out of the way, and obviously not coming back.

While you are waiting, you could explain your misinterpretation of the video of the woman with the flower.

I was referring to E's misinterpretation of what actually happened on the video, not why it happened. You could be right about the order, I have no idea. Your misinformed comment gave E an opening to justify his non-response. Maybe you should think more before you attack me. What you are doing is no less childish than some of the "demonstrators", who at least have the excuse of high hormonal levels.

Wrote:I don't care. I'm not playing a game with trolls. I'll leave that to you.

If you comment online, you are playing a game with trolls. If you do not wish to address them directly, I understand. But even so, they use what you say.

wrote:

But for months you folks have been going on about the rule of law because Bush has violated the law repeatedly and obstructed justice at every opportunity.

The difference of course is: Individuals who engage in civil disobedience expect (or should expect) to pay the legal price if they step over the line. When the administration breaks the law, they have every expectation of getting away with it.

Perhaps your analogy is a bit weak, but I see what you mean.

Do you have any comments from your perspective (justice system expert) on the transcript that usedtobekristin referred to a couple of messages above?

But maybe they're more tolerant of "Progressive" guns than "Conservative" guns. Who knew?

Probably not, but who knows. You think that guy meets the definition of a "progressive"? Probably not, but that does not stop you from pretending you do.

I agree with you. (LWM, no need to comment)

Sarah Palin lied many times in her speech last night. The repubs do not really have much choice. O&B do not need to lie in order to make a much stronger case than they have. I think they better get to work.

wrote: Excuse me, what lies are those? Too lazy to list them out?

Yes, actually. Palin's lies are well-documented and you can find many lists. Really, there is no need to type them out. But I see that a couple of the more polite and helpful folks here at UT have taken the trouble to respond to your request. May I assume that you will carefully study these lists and present a well-reasoned rebuttal promptly?

This is just one more point in a stream of data showing that attacks work, and that the only response to attack is to attack back. It does not say how far the attack should go. Anything short of outright lies is OK by me, (but leave out pregnant daughters). Why not lie? It is not necessary and if you are a democrat, it will turn off your own supporters.

wrote:

Only Rethuglicans can do this. If the Dems do, they are angry left partisans, and the village can't allow that! It really is a bit of a trap, especially with Turdy McRove just waiting for an "angry black" moment.

Yes, they will attack back, but you are still better off; in the US, you cannot look weak.

wrote: Americans deserve the leaders they elect.

Where does this come from? People deserve good government period. I think it is our job to help them get it.

You cannot let stuff like that bother you.

CNN has figured out the McCain part of the story. It just took a while.