| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Our state stores are horrible. Seriously, I wouldnt be surprised if one day I entered my local one to find only one kind of bottle on every shelf: a white bottle with LIQUOR written in black letters. On the back it would say: Ingredients: liquor.
Our state stores are horrible. Seriously, I wouldnt be surprised if one day I entered my local one to find only one kind of bottle on every shelf: a white bottle with LIQUOR written in black letters. One the back it would say: Ingredients: liquor.
would that be so bad?
would that be so bad?
For an effete snob such as myself, it would indeed! Do you have any idea how hard it is to build a proper Sazerac cocktail here?
|
would that be so bad?For an effete snob such as myself, it would indeed! Do you have any idea how hard it is to build a proper Sazerac cocktail here? ** spoiler omitted **
Damn right, variety of liquor is what keeps some sane
|
|
Of course, in the long run hugs and cupcakes work better than efficient killers. Community policing, detective work, trust and relationships do more to keep crime down than all the SWAT teams and beatings ever do.
And yet when someone goes on a killing spree you need someone capable of stopping them. The problem is not whither they are trained combatants or detectives, it is how much over site they get and if it has teeth
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, do remember that the main job of police is to apprehend, not kill. Training police to be efficient killers should not be priority #1 or 2 or 7 even.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, do remember that the main job of police is to apprehend, not kill. Training police to be efficient killers should not be priority #1 or 2 or 7 even.
I think it should be in the top 5. They really are the only people who are capable of taking out armed people who flip out.
Even apprehend is fairly rare, though a high priority. And the actual apprehension is often the easy part. Investigating to find the guy is the hard part.
In many cases, simply having cops out on the street, in neighborhoods, interacting with people does more to prevent crime than all the busts can do.
I agree they should be on the street, walking a beat. I want to know the cops in my hood.
complicated one. Deserves time for armed robbery, but spent time undeserved for murder
If Im understanding correctly, he already did his time for the Tenn. armed robbery, then was released into TX's custody to serve for the (wrongful) murder conviction.
complicated one. Deserves time for armed robbery, but spent time undeserved for murderIf Im understanding correctly, he already did his time for the Tenn. armed robbery, then was released into TX's custody to serve for the (wrongful) murder conviction.
Yeah, I gathered that as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, do remember that the main job of police is to apprehend, not kill. Training police to be efficient killers should not be priority #1 or 2 or 7 even.I think it should be in the top 5. They really are the only people who are capable of taking out armed people who flip out.
Sure. But you dont need to be a highly trained killer to do that. Priority 1 should be getting innocents out of the way, not taking a guy out, and surely not shooting at people because they drive a truck.
Once innocents are out of harms way, negotiations can take place, or at the very least, a siege can occur where the police simply out-wait the assailant. Only when innocents are endangered by the gunman should lethal force be applied, and I imagine that this is so rare to not even need to appear in the top-top priorities of police training.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
More on America's expanding "kill list"
Exactly how many times does the "slippery slope fallacy" have to come true before its no longer a fallacy?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"The federal judiciary has proven to be almost as impotent. Federal judges did not ask federal prosecutors why, in violation of the whistleblower protection laws, they were prosecuting National Security Agency senior executive Thomas Drake for blowing the whistle on the NSA’s illegal spying on US citizens instead of the officials who broke the law and committed felonies. Judges did not ask why CIA agent John Kiriakou was prosecuted for blowing the whistle on the torture program instead of those who committed crimes by authorizing and committing torture.
The innocent and the truth-tellers were prosecuted. The criminals and the liars were not.
Liberty is disappearing before our eyes.
Expect no help from “progressives,” who believe in Obama more than they believe in liberty."
Thanks for the illustration, Comrade Jeff.
|
|
Yeah, do remember that the main job of police is to apprehend, not kill. Training police to be efficient killers should not be priority #1 or 2 or 7 even.
There are only three ways it ends, the guy gives up(rare), physical combat/restraint(much more frequent) and to shoot the guy that is armed and willing to fight. Combat is a major part of the job. We can all wish it was not so till we are blue in the face but at the end of the day bad men must be stopped.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"The federal judiciary has proven to be almost as impotent. Federal judges did not ask federal prosecutors why, in violation of the whistleblower protection laws, they were prosecuting National Security Agency senior executive Thomas Drake for blowing the whistle on the NSA’s illegal spying on US citizens instead of the officials who broke the law and committed felonies. Judges did not ask why CIA agent John Kiriakou was prosecuted for blowing the whistle on the torture program instead of those who committed crimes by authorizing and committing torture.
The innocent and the truth-tellers were prosecuted. The criminals and the liars were not.
Liberty is disappearing before our eyes.
Expect no help from “progressives,” who believe in Obama more than they believe in liberty."
Thanks for the illustration, Comrade Jeff.
If this was a republican the currently silent democrats would be wailing and calling him a murderer. Their guy is the one pulling the trigger so it is ok. yay politics
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Drone strikes won't be used to eliminate "everyone disliked or distrusted by those who have the power", because that will be so blatant that it would bring down the government.
The existing stuff is moving the hell out of the Overton Window, however. Bush & Obama can do stuff routinely now that makes Nixon's wiretaps look like nothing -- and RMN was impeached for his stuff. Give it a few years, and drone strikes on random dissenters will seem normal, unless we rein in things now.
Agreed. This is going overboard.
I'm currently using sambucca instead of absinthe, Angostura bitters instead of Peychaud, and rye whiskey from Indiana of all places).
Absinthe is illegal, isn't it?
Why the hell is it illegal, anyway? That sounds like government folly right there. We can have vodka, but not absinthe?
Absinthe originally contained essence of wormwood, which was reputed to be psychoactive and toxic -- reports were likely exaggerated. In any event, absinthe has recently been re-allowed in the U.S. (I think in like 2007 at least one U.S.-based distiller started making it again); I had a nice bottle of it in Texas, before I moved back north.
In New Orleans, the Sazerac Bar (where I first discovered the cocktail that bears the name) still uses Herbsaint instead, which works just as well.
Drone strikes won't be used to eliminate "everyone disliked or distrusted by those who have the power", because that will be so blatant that it would bring down the government.The existing stuff is moving the hell out of the Overton Window, however. Bush & Obama can do stuff routinely now that makes Nixon's wiretaps look like nothing -- and RMN was impeached for his stuff. Give it a few years, and drone strikes on random dissenters will seem normal, unless we rein in things now.I really have no idea how you make that leap, but I'm going to leave this.
Don't want to derail this and get BT's thread shut down again. No need for a Son of the Bride of Government Folly.
Thanks guys.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No. I think, regardless of the technicalities of the law or the wording of executive orders, political reality trumps everything. A drone strike killing Putin won't happen, not because of any US law, but because it would lead to directly to war with Russia, which has nukes.
Drone strikes won't be used to eliminate "everyone disliked or distrusted by those who have the power", because that will be so blatant that it would bring down the government. If we're so far gone that political opponents can be openly murdered, then all of the futzing around with legal justification wouldn't be necessary. Any political assassinations will be done in the usual way, making it look like an accident, a crazed lone or something else not obviously tied to the government.
That's a lot of verbiage to defend dismissing an article based on what is clearly a flippant comment by the author:
"Whether Washington sends a drone to murder Putin and the president of China remains to be seen. But don’t be surprised if Washington has targeted the president of Iran."
I do remember that they tried to drop bombs on Qadaffi a couple of time, once murdering his grandchildren. If things continue to deteriorate with Iran and Syria, I don't think it's really that outlandish to imagine a drone strike on Ahmadinejad.
I do. It would be political suicide, not to mention a possible trigger for thermonuclear war (see: Iran's pact with North Korea).
Again though, I'm 100% cool with drone strikes as a thing, plain and simple it's the way that we're going to prosecute wars in the future. We just need total transparency and need it right now. It's a fuzzy issue because, hey, is it a military strategy or is it an extrajudicial execution? I tend to think it's the former, but my voice has no weight compared to, say, the Supreme Court, who needs to weigh in on this shit toot sweet.
I do. It would be political suicide, not to mention a possible trigger for thermonuclear war (see: Iran's pact with North Korea).
Again though, I'm 100% cool with drone strikes as a thing, plain and simple it's the way that we're going to prosecute wars in the future. We just need total transparency and need it right now. It's a fuzzy issue because, hey, is it a military strategy or is it an extrajudicial execution? I tend to think it's the former, but my voice has no weight compared to, say, the Supreme Court, who needs to weigh in on this s$@~ toot sweet.
+1
I do. It would be political suicide, not to mention a possible trigger for thermonuclear war (see: Iran's pact with North Korea).
It's possible, although I don't see anything in the pact other than the exchange of nuclear and missile technologies, as opposed, to say, promises of military aid in case of attack.
But, either way, the pact hasn't much altered the U.S.'s economic war against Iran, or its cyberattacks. I don't think, if push comes to shove and the U.S. military decides that it can shift forces from its "pivot to Asia" to intervene directly in either Syria or Iran, that the latter's pact with North Korea is going to make much difference.
It isn't mentioned as a factor in most of the articles that I've read on the subject, anyway.
Yeah, do remember that the main job of police is to apprehend, not kill. Training police to be efficient killers should not be priority #1 or 2 or 7 even.There are only three ways it ends, the guy gives up(rare), physical combat/restraint(much more frequent) and to shoot the guy that is armed and willing to fight. Combat is a major part of the job. We can all wish it was not so till we are blue in the face but at the end of the day bad men must be stopped.
Citation? Because in my experience, most interactions with police dont even end in any confrontation at all. And of the ones that do end in a confrontation, is there a contrasting method employed to compare to? (for example, hitting a guy with a nightstick vs tailing him until he settles down for the night, then arresting him in his sleep.)
You know, it's been a while since we've had a good racist police killing article. I think Comrade Thorn is slipping.
Ba-da-bump!
|
|
Citation? Because in my experience, most interactions with police dont even end in any confrontation at all. And of the ones that do end in a confrontation, is there a contrasting method employed to compare to? (for example, hitting a guy with a nightstick vs tailing him until he settles down for the night, then arresting him in his sleep.)Yeah, do remember that the main job of police is to apprehend, not kill. Training police to be efficient killers should not be priority #1 or 2 or 7 even.There are only three ways it ends, the guy gives up(rare), physical combat/restraint(much more frequent) and to shoot the guy that is armed and willing to fight. Combat is a major part of the job. We can all wish it was not so till we are blue in the face but at the end of the day bad men must be stopped.
That is when they (all too often) are playing clean up and not stopping some one in the act. If someone is being violent they do not wait it out
|
|
Absinthe originally contained essence of wormwood, which was reputed to be psychoactive and toxic -- reports were likely exaggerated. In any event, absinthe has recently been re-allowed in the U.S. (I think in like 2007 at least one U.S.-based distiller started making it again); I had a nice bottle of it in Texas, before I moved back north.
In New Orleans, the Sazerac Bar (where I first discovered the cocktail that bears the name) still uses Herbsaint instead, which works just as well.
Does absinthe actually taste anything like sambucca? i have been drinking that for years and have been curious about trying absinthe.
Absinthe is illegal because it makes you have gay love affairs and write poetry in French.
Pardon me, was illegal.
But didn't have to take out the wormwood? The part that rotted you brain and made you have mad ecstatic visions of the beyond? And be gay?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pardon me, was illegal.
But didn't have to take out the wormwood? The part that rotted you brain and made you have mad ecstatic visions of the beyond? And be gay?
To my understanding,no. they found that the amount of thugol, the "drug" in wormwood, was not even close to high enough in absinthe to have any effect without drinking such a huge amount you would risk death from alcohol.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, that's disappointing.
Do you still get to have mad visions?
:(
You guys are crazy.
Michigan Worker Fired After Turning In Gun Found On The Job
anything to keep someone from retirin . Jerks.
Does absinthe actually taste anything like sambucca? i have been drinking that for years and have been curious about trying absinthe.
Absinthe is made in part with anise, so you definitely get that licorice flavor at the beginning of each sip. There are some other herbs, too, though (including fennel, I think), that you can taste if you get past the licorice flavor.
Whether absinthe is enough different to warrant the much higher price tag is a matter of personal preference.
I'm totally naming my next barbarian character "Thujone."