HomeFactopediaBrainoffsRankingsCommunityLog In
You know 0 facts





Wed 21 Jun 17 #1 
jmaxg
Contributor


Michael Brown was a big guy. And yes, Michael had a relationship with the store that has a video of him roughing them up.

That's the part rarely pointed out. It's a proven fact that the store had a trade relationship with Michael Brown and they reneged on the deal. Whether or not you find the video of Michael Brown going apeshit in the store pertinent is beside the point. If a white person did the same thing, it would be accepted and not even worthy of reporting.

The Darren Wilson/Michael Brown Altercation

Michael Brown may have deserved to die. The point is, according to Darren Wilson, we'll never know. He approached and was shot dead. That is about as escalated as it gets.

Whether or not it was Michael Brown or Officer Wilson that resulted in ultimate demise, what we see here is a lack of will.

The Ferguson Police Department's worst possible statement

We're just doing our job

After the initial demise of Michael Brown, his dead body was kept in the open air for SIX HOURS!

I mean, he should've been hung from a tree, right?

That is the thing........as much as we think things have changed, they remain the same.




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Thu 22 Jun 17 #2 
Honey Badger
Member

Are you serious?  Seriously;y?  Michael Brown stuck his hands into the police car and tried to wrestle the cop's gun away from him!!  The cop shot him.  I think I would have shot anyone who was doing the same thing to me!  Sorry, there were witnesses to back that up.  

 

I agree it was unfortunate that Brown's body was out in the open for 6 hours.  I suppose there were some initial investigatory things being done but he should have been covered and certainly removed much sooner.  That part was indecent

 

I don't think it would have mattered what color he was.  He was doing something to a cop and he was wrong.  Forget the store incident.  You have said there was an arrangement.  Maybe there was so I will say, ok, maybe there was, though I have not heard that before.  I would have been shot if I had done the same thing!  YES!  I WOULD HAVE!!  WABZY WOULD HAVE BEEN SHOT!

 




Knows 4346 facts
like | send message


Fri 23 Jun 17 #3 
JMK
Editor

Though there were obviously things the police did wrong that led to this, the balance of evidence seems to support the officer's view of events.

However I just watched the  Philando Castile video and that the officer was found not guilty of even manslaughter defies belief. I also can't believe that the girlfriend kept calling the officer "Sir" after he had just brutally shot her boyfriend in front of her and her 4 year old child for the crime of reaching for identification when asked to do so.
And then the 4 year old telling mummy to be quiet so she doesn't get "shooted". Tell me again how guns keep you safe? And tell me again how this had nothing to do with Philando Castile's race?




Knows 47282 facts
like | send message


Fri 23 Jun 17 #4 
Honey Badger
Member

I do not know the Philandro Castile case at all.    I am sure it was a heart-wrenching situation.

Criminals will have guns no matter what laws are passed so I prefer to have some control over who gets them.  Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the country and their murder rate is an abomination.  I feel quite safe knowing that people who have legally acquired guns are out there, that they have training in how to use them and that they keep them away from people who don't deserve to own them.  I also hope that, should an incident arise, that person will use his/her weapon to shoot dead any SOB who threatens innocent people who are being threatened by some fool with a gun.  That is how guns have and do keep us safe:  by safe use, by responsible people.

The notion that police officers could possibly operate safely in the US in these times is absurd.  There will always be an occasional mistake mad, a tragedy, a wrong move, but with over 320 million people the % of errors by law enforcement officers is minimal.  

I would not like to see a situation here, as they saw in Great Britain on the London Bridge, where there were reports of police pushing their way through the crowd to escape the terrorists.  They are still unarmed and have to call for backup.  That is absurd in a city like London.

It is impossible to compare the needs of one nation to another.   The only way the US will ever give up gun ownership rights to qualified citizens is if there is a complete overthrow of the government.  However,  the prime reason our Founding Father's  included our right to own firearms was to ensure that our citizenry would be able to mitigate the threat of a tyrannical government.

A footnote, in case it is different in NZ, in the US  people are considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.




Knows 4346 facts
like | send message


Fri 23 Jun 17 #5 
JMK
Editor

Perhaps you need to watch the video. Philandro Castile was a law-abiding citizen with a permit-to-carry who told the officer he had a gun and a permit and that he was not reaching for his gun. He was shot by the officer when reaching for his identification after being asked to produce it. He was seated in his car at the time of the shooting and was in the car with his family. The officer said he shot in self defence.  He didn't see the gun because Philandro Castile wasn't reaching for it and it was not in view. So what made him think his life was in danger?
If Philandro Castile had been white we all know this would have had a different ending. Having watched the video it is obvious the only thing Philandro Castile could have done in this situation to avoid being shot would have been to be white.




Knows 47282 facts
like | send message
2 people like this post


Fri 23 Jun 17 #6 
jmaxg
Contributor

Okay, relative to Philandro Castile, I simply did not get the verdict.

I get that the police officer was nervous. I get that the police officer was twitchy.

The police officer, in effect, denied the civil rights of another to life.

The verdict should be unlawful death.

And a HUGE note that the NRA did not participate because the deceased was black, even though he was lawfully carrying.

It was literally the biggest point in the entire world that Philando Castile was a legal gun owner.

The National Rifle Association chose not to get involved.

The NRA are the biggest cowards and racists on the face of Planet Earth.

 

 




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Fri 23 Jun 17 #7 
jmaxg
Contributor

But here's the thing:

Michael Brown laid in that street for over six hours.

The alternative to that is hanging him in a tree.

I am not an idiot.




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message
1 person likes this post


Fri 23 Jun 17 #8 
jmaxg
Contributor

Well, Darren Wilson may hope to think he deserves some uppity position.

But the rest of us is normal.




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Fri 23 Jun 17 #9 
Honey Badger
Member

I will watch the Philandro Castile video and read about the case.  I was not there, and neither were any of us.  So I need to see it and I can then only see a small part of what went on but I will see what you saw and heard JMK. I still can only make a guess at the correctness of the verdict because I willl not have seen the entire trial.

Darren Wilson did not think he deserved an "uppity position".  Where did that fiction come from?  The man feared for his life, and rightfully so  Get off it, jamxg.  You have to stop being a racist in this matter.  You are committing as vile an act of bigotry as any "black man" by assuming Brown was killed because he was black.  He was killed because he did a series of things which were aggressive and frightening to Wilson, who just happened to want to live.  He has a family.  Now, Wilson's life is forever ruined because he was confronted by an angry, out of control man who tried to get ahold of his police weapon.  WHAT WAS BROWN GOING TO DO WITH THAT GUN???  He probably was going to kill Wilson but even if he wasn't he committed a serious felony and the reaction of Wilson was one of kill or be killed.   I cannot even take you to be a rational person after reading the things you have written about Brown.  Aside from his body being left out for an excessive period of time, there was no HUNT for BLACK men going on!  He brought this on himself.  It was his fault that he got killed.  People make bad decisions in life and he made a really bad one!  The way you are talking about this makes you sound like an idiot.  Your skewed thinking on this is pathetic.  You do realize that Wilson's life is ruined, right?  Yes, his life has been ruined and it was through no fault of his own except that he wanted to live to see another day  He would be DEAD if he had not acted as he did.

 

 

 




Knows 4346 facts
like | send message


Sat 24 Jun 17 #10 
chooky
Contributor

"....there were reports of police pushing their way through the crowd to escape the terrorists."

What a vile rumour which, needless to say, is completely unsupported by the facts!
I don't know where you heard this rubbish but if it was a news outlet, you should immediately stop using it as a source of information.
To argue a case for gun rights is one thing - they are, after all, enshrined in your constitution - but it's very unwise to try to buttress your position using statements that have the same basis in reality as "If you eat Mentos and then drink soda your stomach will explode"




Knows 167590 facts
like | send message
3 people like this post


Sat 24 Jun 17 #11 
Honey Badger
Member

I am sorry that those "reports" offended you but they were on several US news outlets including CNN.  I will be glad to stop using CNN as a source of information because I happen to agree with you!  They lie all the time if it means they can get a more sordid story to put out there.  

I am totally enshrined in our Constitution and am quite able to distinguish between  stating the facts as pertain to it and the fact is that we live in a pretty safe society here, with so many people, of so many diverse backgrounds and ethnicities and the usual trouble makers through all levels of societies and the insinuation that the Constitution is so banal that you would even suggest that it should be used to buttress such idiotic statement as "If you eat Mentos and then drink soda your stomach your will explode" it the most INSULTING comparison I have ever heard..  Perhaps one day you will take the time to read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, whose roots began with the Magna Carta of course, and you will probably be quite impressed with what you read.  The fact that the document was written several hundred years ago makes it an astounding achievement in the foresight our early founders had.  If you have read it already you should not be insulting it.

I am always amazed that as much as I avoid insulting other governments or of passing judgement, of saying negative things about anyone's country the USA seems to be open for target practice.  Maybe I should check out some of the political shortcomings of a few other places.  I know what some are, and they are bad, bad, bad but I will stop being polite about it.  I am on the search for things I think need explaining as far as human rights are concerned

 




Knows 4346 facts
like | send message


Sat 24 Jun 17 #12 
Honey Badger
Member

I have seen several videos of the Philandro Castile shooting and have been reading several accounts.  I have not been able to read enough to really learn enough about the incident to feel that I know what the situation was really like. I saw a video made by the girlfriend which did make me wonder why she was rather unemotional, seemed more interested in getting it on her phone and did not seem to care too much about her daughter.  It was odd.  I didn't understand her reaction.  Why was she so interested in getting a video and making a running commentary instead of reacting to her boyfriend, perhaps a tear?, a gesture of aid towards him even though he was clearly mortally wounded.  I have to see, hear and read more.

 

Regardless of the Philandro Castile case....I said this has nothing to do with what I think of that case........when a cop stops you, no matter who you are you put your hand where they can be seen.  You leave them there.  Especially if you have a weapon, you leave them there and you tell the cop, while your hands are in full view, that you have a gun on your person. The situation can be handled safely and there will be no accidental killings. 




Knows 4346 facts
like | send message


Sun 25 Jun 17 #13 
chooky
Contributor

It is not insulting to the U.S constitution, or the Magna Carta, or any other written document to call you out for repeating a spiteful, baseless (possibly non-existent) "news story" because you believe it helps you prove a point. If you think CNN is so crappy, why were you watching it in the first place?
Perhaps once you're done with your latest fit of faux moral outrage you might take the time for a moment of introspection. Ask yourself how often you are guilty of shortcomings that you complain about in others. Do you ever re-read your own comments? Or even bother to properly read other people's? If you did, you would notice how often you claim the right to speak plainly but then complain bitterly when someone else does the same. You seem to take it as a personal affront if someone happens to mention an idea or belief that doesn't coincide with your own
You are just adding to the toxic "them against us" mentality that is poisoning society at the moment.




Knows 167590 facts
like | send message
3 people like this post


Mon 26 Jun 17 #14 
Honey Badger
Member

I am not being spiteful at all.  I am merely stating some facts.  You actually seem quite unhinged at my remarks.  I am well aware of my shortcomings but are you and the others who write on here aware of theirs?  Are you even aware that you HAVE any?  

I do not take, as a personal affront, the remarks made by jmaxg about Michael Brown.  I simply stated the facts of the case.  I watch several different news stations and I am not the person writing the reports.   I do not have faux fits about anything.  I am a real person with real feelings which are just as valid as yours, chooky.  You seem a bit juiced up over this so I think I will let you re-read your latest post and assess exactly who is doing the attacking




Knows 4346 facts
like | send message


Mon 26 Jun 17 #15 
chooky
Contributor

Thanks to you HB, I am $1 poorer. I had a little bet with my husband - I said you would probably respond to my post by calling me something like a 'libtard' or 'troll' & he said it would  more along the lines of 'looney lefty' so he has taken 'unhinged' for the win, I'm afraid.   So  >: (

Sadly, it seems that indeed you are incapable of constructive self-analysis. If you were you would have taken a day or so to mull things over before replying.
You clearly take the remarks made by pretty much everybody as a personal affront. How you'd make it through the day if somebody happened to pinch your parking spot I can't imagine.

You're "merely stating some facts" are you? What facts? The 'London cops pushed citizens aside while running away from bad guys' "facts"?  Bullsh*t. Not facts. Didn't happen. You were wrong. Your source was wrong. Own it.

Just why the hell do you bother with this site anyway, given that you think so many of the regulars are such pin-heads? You very rarely play brainoffs any more & your profile indicates you have made 0 contributions. Or perhaps you have made some through wabzy, southshoregirl or one of your numerous other alt' accounts?

I hear funtrivia doesn't have quite as high a proportion of PC, left leaning, libtards as here. Why not give that a go?




Knows 167590 facts
like | send message


Mon 26 Jun 17 #16 
Ruby Franks
Contributor

I've spent some time searching the net for reports of the London police running from terrorists and could find nothing, not even reports of reports that it was done. I searched CNN and Fox fairly carefully. The attack on London Bridge was done with a vehicle, it could have been that any footage of police running in a different direction was so that they could help the injured, knowing that armed back-up was on the way. I didn't see any footage which would fit either case, and I'm assuming that here in the UK we had more coverage of the event than other countries. I wanted to have a look at this because I heard similar stories and fears from Americans during the 1980s when British cities were subject to IRA terror attcks. The fear was that the British police would not be able to cope or would be too cowardly to cope as they were unarmed. The UK has always had armed police and sadly these days they are a much more visible presence on city streets and at major transport hubs.

The London Bridge attackers then drove in to Borough Market and started to attack people with knives. One of the first people who was injured there was an off-duty (unarmed) policeman who ran to them in attempt to disarm them and halt their progress. When I googled police running from terror attacks, the results only showed police running to terror attacks. Perhaps a reporter got their prepositions confused.

Is it pertinent that the London Bridge attackers did not use guns? Were they unable to obtain them because UK gun control laws meant they were couldn't, either legally or illegally?

When I was younger and visited, and later worked in countries where police officers routinely carried arms, it always gave me a slightly sick and nervous feeling, not because I was a criminal, but because it speaks to me of a government that doesn't rule by consent, and a police force that doesn't police by consent. Yes, I do know that far less crime-ridden and peaceable countries than the UK have armed police and it says nothing about their healthy democracies. My generation was brought up by parents who lived through World War II who felt that an armed police was a police armed against the populace, and however misguided it may seem to be under current circumstances, it is still a strong political sentiment in all mainstream parties in the UK.

Gun control does not mean that the right to bear arms is withdrawn. It means that the citizen, just as when they wish to drive a car or become a doctor or teacher has to demonstrate that they can earn and maintain that right.

After the terrible Hungerford and Dunblane shootings in the UK, gun control was increased. The people I knew who owned guns, particularly the two who competed in international pistol shooting competitions grumbled about the increased measures, but fully accepted that for the general good, they were necessary.

Theresa May, who under no circumstances can be described as liberal, on becoming PM declared that the police and justice systems in the UK treated people from ethnic minorities unfairly. 

A recent study by the University of California in co-operation with the Oakland Police Department took transcripts from the head cameras of police officers doing routine traffic stops and asked members of the public to rate them for politeness and respect. The people doing the rating had no idea of the ethnic origin of either the officers or those who were stopped, they just saw plain transcripts. All those that rated poorly for rudeness, aggression and lack of respect (from both black and white officers) were directed toward black drivers. Black officers rated highest in respect and politeness to both white and black drivers. It seems to me that if there is a problem in this most mundane area of policing, then it's going to much worse when the stakes are higher.

Chicago is not an island with X-ray machines at every point of access. To me a high murder rate speaks more of social conditions and tensions within a community. You say murder rate, but don't say what the weapons are.

I'm quite prepared to have a go at documents that are several hundred years old. The Magna Carta is 800 years old and is wonderful historical artefact which codified parts of the relationship between monarch and subjects. However it was agreement between a weak and corrupt monarch and an aristocracy who held many of the population in villeinage and serfdom. There were other free men besides the baronage, but very few. It is often said that the Magna Carta was the start of the principle of Habeas Corpus, however earlier legal documents show that it was already a well-understood principle. The American Constitution is also a fine document. Many of the men who drew it up were owners of slaves, thus it has needed to have been amended in many areas. We should respect, not revere our histories, and also constantly re-examine them.

I think that we should remember that terrorism is not new and has happened at different periods of history, particularly at times of domestic and international unrest. Currently in the UK we are most concerned about ISIS-inspired attacks and the white right backlash, but over the past hundred years or so our concerns have included the IRA, the Blackshirts, the Angry Brigade and turn of the century East London anarchists to name a few. I hope that our American friends will take time to remember their awful history of school and college shootings, and the inhuman campaign of terrorism perpetuated during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries in the Southern States.




Knows 132606 facts
like | send message
2 people like this post


Tue 27 Jun 17 #17 
jmaxg
Contributor

And, all I would like to add to that is, when American police get involved, things die. Maybe not people, but something dies.

That's the part that nobody acknowledges.

And I know that other police forces around the world have different methods, indeed different approaches to crime investigation entirely.

The fact is on a case by case basis, the USA is the least efficient crime solving country on the face of the planet.

The most efficient is France.

Deal with it.




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Tue 27 Jun 17 #18 
jmaxg
Contributor

Honey Badger?




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Tue 27 Jun 17 #19 
jmaxg
Contributor

All I know is Michael Brown was "presented" as opposed to "dealt with.".

I'm not an idiot.




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Tue 27 Jun 17 #20 
jmaxg
Contributor

"Gun Control" means the right to NOT bears arms.

This is not rocket science. Less weapons means less death. Australia's example post Port Arthur is the definitive example.

G'head America. Explain it away.




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message
1 person likes this post


Thu 29 Jun 17 #21 
Honey Badger
Member

Honey Badger has been without the internet so when I have time and the stomach to respond to these questionable theories and Franks' extensive blathering about basically non-relevant things I will do so.  However, I have things I need to tend to here, at my home, and they are a priority.  When I am faced with contrarians being contrarian just to be that way I am gobsmacked by the sheer narrowness of thinking I see.  

I will write something when I have processed what has been written.  You don't think I am just going to throw untruths out there the way you guys do, do you?  The idiocy of discussing the fact that some of the American founders were slaveholders just set me back on my heels!  Ruby!  What does that have t do with current affairs?  I will tell YOU!  It has nothing at al to do with our discussion, as does most of your discourse.You see? I am being drawn into this when I do not want to be and I am leaving because I am too occupied with necessary things at home.  You will have to wait to pick on this painted bird.




Knows 4346 facts
like | send message


Fri 30 Jun 17 #22 
chooky
Contributor

Congratulations Honey Badger, you have managed to ramp up your cognative dissonance to a magnitude I never would have thought possible! You must be proud. Is it just a gift or something you have to really work at?
Have you checked, when you are "gobsmacked by the sheer narrowness of thinking", that you are not reading one of your own comments?
Throwing out untruths is most certainly what you have done at least once in this particular discussion. That wouldn't be so bad - after all, anyone can be mistaken - but you seem to be completely incapable not only of accepting the fact that you may not always be right but you also seem unable to allow other people to air any opinions that are contra to your own without subjecting them to a sizable dose of ad hominem invective.
Ruby's comment was very reasonable and well thought out.
Your response was petty, abusive, inapposite and did nothing to advance the conversation.




Knows 167590 facts
like | send message
3 people like this post


Sat 1 Jul 17 #23 
jmaxg
Contributor

Aww...if I had googly eyes I would be displaying them on behalf of Java and me.

You go chooky!




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message
2 people like this post


Sat 1 Jul 17 #24 
Ruby Franks
Contributor

Yes, I can be long-winded, but I thought that wouldn't leave me open to being misinterpreted. It obviously doesn't work.

Honey Badger, it was you brought up the US Constitution and the Magna Carta in post #11 by saying that you are 'totally enshrined in our Constitution'. That's interesting, I thought it was law and systems of government which are usually 'enshrined' in constitutions, it's nice to see the USA looking after individuals in the Constitution.

My point about the Constitution and Magna Carta and the American Constitution being that they were documents of their time, made by the power-brokers of their time and as such should not be regarded over-reverentially in the present. All law is subject to change.




Knows 132606 facts
like | send message
3 people like this post


Mon 3 Jul 17 #25 
Honey Badger
Member

Get your googly eyes on.

"The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change.  It has to change with society, like a living organism or it will be brittle and break.  But you would have to be an idiot to believe that.  The Constitution is NOT a living organism, it is a LEGAL DOCUMENT. It says something and it doesn't say other things."  (cf  Antonin Scalia)

It is not open to individual interpretations or changes.  GET IT!!!!!!!




Knows 4346 facts
like | send message


Mon 3 Jul 17 #26 
JMK
Editor

But it has been changed, frequently, there have been 27 ammendments to the constitution, the most recent was ratified in 1992. The 13th ammendment in 1865 banned slavery, the 15th ammendment in 1870 gave all citizens the right to vote for example. It most definitely does change as society changes.
 




Knows 47282 facts
like | send message
3 people like this post


Mon 3 Jul 17 #27 
Ruby Franks
Contributor

15th amendment only applied to men. It wasn't until 1919 and the 19th that women got the vote.

Hurray for NZ.




Knows 132606 facts
like | send message
2 people like this post


Mon 3 Jul 17 #28 
chooky
Contributor

And the 2nd ammendment protects the right of the people to keep & bear arms - something you obviously have strong feelings about.
Also, there are 9 Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. They are frequently called upon to interpret the constitution. They are individuals.
GET IT!!!!!!!

Oh, I nearly forgot - thanks to you HB, I am $3.79 richer. $2 from my husband and £1 or $1.79 (as per the exchange rate of the day) from another party. They both thought you would take a couple of days and come back with some really good zingers but you didn't.  So : D




Knows 167590 facts
like | send message
4 people like this post


Mon 3 Jul 17 #29 
JMK
Editor

Yes, Ruby, you are right, it was discrimination on the basis of race in the right to vote that was banned in the 15th ammendment.




Knows 47282 facts
like | send message
1 person likes this post


Mon 3 Jul 17 #30 
Honey Badger
Member

Of course, it changes, as it needs to change, as the people in a large majority see a need for change, and that is a good thing.  It is just not a thing to be changed without serious consideration and it isn't. 

I am not in a ZINGER contest with anyone. Why don't you grow up, chooky?




Knows 4346 facts
like | send message


Mon 3 Jul 17 #31 
chooky
Contributor

O_O  

YOU JUST SAID IT WASN'T OPEN TO INDIVIDUAL INTERPRETATIONS OR CHANGES!!
Y0U LITERALLY JUST SAID IT!!

Honey Badger, I think you're messing with everyone.
C'mon, admit it! You're yanking our chains!!




Knows 167590 facts
like | send message
3 people like this post


Mon 3 Jul 17 #32 
Ruby Franks
Contributor

Honey Badger, I'm glad we're in agreement about one small thing in this thread.




Knows 132606 facts
like | send message


Mon 3 Jul 17 #33 
Helen McKenzie (online)
Contributor

Chooky i believe you have grown up......your chooky not chicky




Knows 25046 facts
like | send message
2 people like this post


Wed 5 Jul 17 #34 
Honey Badger
Member

chooky,   The Constitution is absolutely NOT open to individual interpretations or changes.  Its meaning must not be changed by anyone unless an Amendment is passed. I will check on the rules for passing an Amendment.  They are very specific and I do not want to put misinformation in here.  I will get back to you.    I am not messing with anyone.




Knows 4346 facts
like | send message


Wed 5 Jul 17 #35 
chooky
Contributor

Cheers Helen!   : )   xx




Knows 167590 facts
like | send message
2 people like this post


Thu 6 Jul 17 #36 
jmaxg
Contributor

So leaving Michael Brown's body out on the street for six hours.

Umm, apart from making a statement, why was it done?

Since Honey Badger knows so much, go for it.




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Thu 6 Jul 17 #37 
jmaxg
Contributor

I think everybody guages that I am not changing MY mind.




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Thu 6 Jul 17 #38 
Honey Badger
Member

I do not know why Michael Brown's body was left out there on the street. Why would I have the answer to that?  I am not going to try to make up some half-assed guess about it. As I said before, I believe that once the investigation was done the body should have been removed and it should have been covered out of basic human respect in any case.

 

Regarding the Constitutional Amendments, there are 2 ways to get one passed.  Congress can pass one with a 2/3 vote in both houses.  The other way is if 3/4 of the states agree to make an Amendment.  I think there are 27 of them and obviously, some are more well known than others.  I have nothing more to say about the US Constitution and nothing at all to say about Michael Brown.  I hope you all appreciate the brevity of my post.




Knows 4346 facts
like | send message


Tue 11 Jul 17 #39 
jmaxg
Contributor

New "methods of delivery" MODs.....

Our new punchy MOD is doing it's best. Much pluming.

But my scientist that works out the juices is Lyne.

She actually doesn't like the juices as presented.

I accept her word no matter what.




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Tue 11 Jul 17 #40 
jmaxg
Contributor

Java's love of AFL is becoming legendary.

Her declarations of fairness and anger of bad umpire calls are becoming universal.

Her Brisbane Lions are HER team. Her daughter just got that. Whether they win or lose, final or not, make it or don't.

Our daughter just got the point. They are Java's team and that is that!

My wife has chosen. They are the Brisbane Lions. There will never, ever be a discussion point ever again.

I am in tears. Not about my love for my team, but about her unerring love for her team....

The Brisbane Lions.

I feel so honoured to have known this lady and by default, her love for this team.




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Tue 11 Jul 17 #41 
jmaxg
Contributor

Anyway, back to Michael Brown......

Yes, he laid there for six hours.

Was Michael Brown an asshole? Pretty much.

He decided his last night "thing" was a big deal and he tried to solve it.

(yes, we watched the tape)

BUT, did Michael Brown deserve to die?

And did Michael Brown deserve to be in the middle of the street for SIX HOURS?

There could've been trees to hang him in. At least that would've been honest.




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


This topic is now closed.






   About - Terms - Privacy Log In