Well prove me wrong instead of mocking or egging me :-)

My claim is that nothing the senator said racist or counter factual. Here's his speech:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D1rtfLMXgAAqHit.jpg:large


Now if you want to claim that the senator's speech was insensitive, I 100% agree. And had he been actually racist, I would be advocating for rock throwing not egg throwing ;-)

Sorry folks, she should not be allowed to drive, What the fuck is that. Maybe she does not have a state license. But if she does then that is just fucked up and wrong.


Commence rock throwing..
..
...
.

..

NOW !

ROCK!!

*Throws up the horns*

It’s only criminal if it is against the law...but that goes without saying.
However, @ButterflyKiss, this is not terrorizing, this is manipulating. The protesters simply removed these manipulations from their line and nothing terrorizing happened. It is when protesters sit ideally by or join in on the rock throwing that they are "terrorized." If they are dumb enough to be targeted with negative advertisement, so be it.

Either way, this is wrong. A message should remain free from obstruction (Even if that has never happened.) However, it is up to the actual protestors to dictate how clean and clear their message is--and to defend their message from outsiders.

By the way.. this is all in response to reports of rocks being thrown. All that tear gas and attempted murder shown here with a 40mm canister over rock throwing protesters.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/16/AR2009031602666.html

JERUSALEM, March 16 -- An American injured last week during a demonstration near the West Bank village of Naalin remains in critical condition, still heavily sedated but breathing on his own, a hospital official said Monday.
...
The Californian has been removed from a respirator, and a spokesman for Tel Hashomer hospital in Tel Aviv said he was "semi-conscious" after days under full anesthesia. Anderson's associates and hospital and other officials said he was able to lift fingers on one hand in response to a voice command.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
^Money justifies all? Pretty shallow, buddy.


I said no such thing, buddy. You and your posse can downvote me for going against the tide, but I stand by what I said (not what you seem to think I said). A corporation has a legal responsibility to its shareholders to make money, so there's nothing sensational or remarkable about the dramatic quote at the end; it's absolutely true.

I'm not sure what you saw in this that Disney needs to justify, but I sure didn't see much. I think Disney could stand to add some color to its movies, but that's true of all entertainment, and I don't think there's any need to assume there's some sort of conspiracy or evil corporate policy. But if you could read something into my brief comment that I didn't say, I suppose it's not difficult to see what you want to see in the giant.

Commence your rock-throwing, brave David.

^NordlichReiter:
I'll let someone else tear you a new one. This makes me wish we had a mandatory military like germany. It would really open your eyes to the respect your taught to give everyone even your enemies. Go to a recruiting station for any branch and tell them you want to shoot people and that's the reason you want to join. Please do so and tell me what they say. I think you'll be surprised.

Of course, no one in his right mind (i.e. not mentally ill) would say that he likes to kill people to anyone, army recruiter or not. You'll have to revise your 12th grade pop psychology and look up "subtility", "concealment", "repressed desire" and "uncounscious desire". Man is a machine with a big and powerful nervous system (yes, that last bit means essentially "powerful brain") and it would be idiotic to think everyone is always open about their feelings to others and even to themselves, or that they even know about their true feelings, emotions or beliefs. This may go against your christian-centric "freedom of will and everything else" worldview, but science doesn't care about you or religious ideology­.

On another note, I too would like for mandatory military service, like Switzerland (they provide for a much better political and economical model than Germany at present), but obliviously for different reasons than your warmongering american ones. There is value in defending one's life and the lives of your kin (which, in my book, should a priori include every human being in the world), but essentially your right to do so stops where the right of the others to defend themselves begins. This may be a cliché, but it is a useful one nevertheless. Of course, where to draw the line in real situations is difficult, but the principle should be remembered. When you are invading a whole country with the pretense of defending yourself, in this case Afghanistan and Iraq, you have to ask yourself some big and important questions, and the answers should be as strong as your claim is: that you somehow have the right to invade someone else for your own protection as a defensive action. Now, you may think, and probably many americans do, that you have the right to bully and push around anyone else you may want to just because of the fact that you exist: that's called "survival of the fittest" thinking (or "being a dick" for short), and as game theory shows, it won't take you far in the long run.

If you can't be a dick and your freedom to defend yourself is restricted, why would you want a military, let alone a mandatory military service? Two big reasons: one, you sometimes do need to actually defends yourself against "I-have-a-bigger-dick-than-you-so-do-my-dad-and-I'll-show-you-why" type of idiots, who either don't know, don't understand or couldn't give a fuck about game theory if their lives somehow depended on it (yes, military officers know about it, but your COMMANDER-IN-FUCKING-CHIEF, the supposed equal of George Washington, has got not even a hint of the most little clue) and they are best dealt with a quick and impressive show of actual or what seems like actual force, not bombastic military parades though these can serve to frighten some kinds of idiots. Two, being in an actual conflict, even and perhaps especially on a peacekeeping mission, can sometimes have a calming effect on trigger-happy or shoot-first-ask-later kind of young men and women. This effect is of course not guaranteed since every one is different (another useful cliché, in moderation).

As an aside, a corps of able and ready young people can be useful in humanitarian situations. Military training can also provide useful skills that some might not want or be able to get elsewhere (navigation, survival, basic weapon and self-defense, etc.). If not misused, a military can be a boon, like everything else in life.

Sorry for the long posts, but even with this (or maybe because of it? The internets are not used to reading long, thoughtful and rhetoric- and logic-filled discourses, especially not this abstract) many don't get what I'm trying to say, so imagine if I just said "EXCUSE THE FUCK OUT OF ME?". That could be deviously misconstrued as rock throwing if I was former military personnel, proud of my time of duty, responding to an anti-military statement!

P.S. I never said everyone in the military is lowlife scum or that everyone is joining to protect their country. From what I said would follow that in the worst case, half of everyone would be lowlife scum, and the other half would join to defend their country (in the case of the present american army stationed in Iraq at least). Of course I do not think it is so clear-cut, that was rhetoric. But far worse and damaging rhetorically is the typically american FOX-Newsy "misunderstanding" (conscious or not) of quoting me as saying they were all lowlife, or that they were all joining to defend their country. These are statistically very improbable situations, to say the least! There are also those who join because they need money they can't get otherwise, those who want to make their daddy proud, those who want to continue a familial tradition, those who are planning their political careers, etc. But they are not the focus of this discussion since I believe they form a minority, all the more so when you look at the true, hidden motives.

I agree with darksun - They describe it happening but you can't see it happen. Rock throwing may or may not be visible for the predator drone footage, but that was done after he was already dead.