Bangkoktraveler Posted January 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 Rose Yam? Close! Rosie Yam. I can call her rosie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Hippie Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 To bring it back on topic. http://news.google.com/news?q=BART+cop+arrested&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&sa=X&oi=news_result&resnum=1&ct=title Interesting how they don't show his face, but use an illustration. Were he a common "perp" his real face would be plastered all over the place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh_Hoy Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 He was shown being led into a courtroom on TV. Many courts do not allow cameras...only artists. HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Hippie Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 Yes, but no photos up close...although I do have to admit, I don't think ANY photos of suspects should be shown until after conviction...same with names maybe? In any event, My sympathies to all involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted January 17, 2009 Report Share Posted January 17, 2009 Hmmm...so the Americans that rebelled against the British in the 1770s were wrong? The American Revolutionaries had no institutions through which they could seek redress from their monarch so their revolution was justified. Still' date=' they did not drag innocent civilians out into the streets and smash their heads. You have absolutely nothing here, choco, and your pathetic thrashing about makes you look worse and worse.[/quote'] False. First a red herring by Rogueyam. The colonists asked for something they themselves didn't practice which was direct representation. Parliament was deemed to offer 'virtual' representation of all people, including colonies. Virtual meaning that despite only landed gentry given the vote, the MPs represented the interests of everyone: women, slaves, men without lands, etc. http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h640.html The stamp act of '65 that the colonists objected to was to pay for the monies that the crown spent protecting them in the French and Indian wars (7 years war in England). The colonies wanted protection but didn't want to pay for their share of it essentially but that is going off topic. As the link noted, direct representation was impractible and the leadership knew it. There are numerous historians that suggest that the colonists would not have wanted it anyway as they would not have had enough seats to change anything and would have legally abide by the imposition of taxes because of their own insistence. The estimated cost of the war was 200k, the colonies were asked to shoulder 78k of that amount and they thought it was too much. The american colonists on average paid less in taxes than their UK counterpart. Maybe RY believes the stuff he read in his 5th grade history primary 'Land of The Free' which gives a white washed, pristine historical account of the founding of the country, but the colonies threatened and attacked loyalists citizens. Business owners who participated in the sale of stamps (per the Stamp Act of '65) for example were threatened. People were tar and feathered, beaten up, etc., if they were deemed loyal to the crown. Why this is even being disputed is shocking. Also, the reference to harming 'innocent civilians' has to be addressed a little further. So, in that theory if we agree that the police in some cities made police brutality a common practice then those that were routinely abused by the police should direct their rioting against the cops and not include 'innocent civilians' similar to the perceived acts of the colonists. Pre civil rights ((as well post civil rights in many instances) when this occurred in areas of the country, we can agree there were no legal redress, especially in Jim Crow south. So, is RY advocating that those blacks in the south could act in the same manner as the american colonists? We're a great country. However, just like every other country, we gloss over the real truth about our history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lazyphil Posted January 17, 2009 Report Share Posted January 17, 2009 he got banned recently steve so you wont get a reply! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted January 17, 2009 Report Share Posted January 17, 2009 Rogueyam names the one person that was universally vilified and posts as if he was held up as some hero by the masses. It was you who said that the Rodney King riots were "started out by those who felt rightful indignation". That is not "vilification". The whole quote: Riots can take stages. The LA riots after Rodney King started out by those who felt rightful indignation. For years' date=' black angelenos complained about police brutality and felt that most angelenos outside of south central either didn't believe them or care. They felt the verdict was the majority cultures way of saying 'so what, we don't care'. I'm not saying that feeling was justified just repeating the prevailing sentiment.[/i'] Are you saying those that went down to Parker Center to protest about the verdict didn't feel rightful indignation? Even Mayor Bradley expressed disappointment with the verdict. A visibly angry Mayor Tom Bradley publicly declared, "Today, the jury told the world that what we all saw with our own eyes was not a crime." Obviously there were those that did illegal acts, acts that should be punished severely such as 'Football' Williams. Its possible to agree with the verdict (which I assume RY does and would be shocked otherwise) but understand the reasons why people were angered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted January 17, 2009 Report Share Posted January 17, 2009 he got banned recently steve so you wont get a reply! Been away for a minute. Reading posts (still not done) and thought it was a warning. Too bad. I understand why, but did enjoy sparring and exposing him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Munchmaster Posted January 17, 2009 Report Share Posted January 17, 2009 Hmmm...so the Americans that rebelled against the British in the 1770s were wrong? The American Revolutionaries had no institutions through which they could seek redress from their monarch so their revolution was justified. Still' date=' they did not drag innocent civilians out into the streets and smash their heads. You have absolutely nothing here, choco, and your pathetic thrashing about makes you look worse and worse.[/quote'] False. First a red herring by Rogueyam. The colonists asked for something they themselves didn't practice which was direct representation. Parliament was deemed to offer 'virtual' representation of all people, including colonies. Virtual meaning that despite only landed gentry given the vote, the MPs represented the interests of everyone: women, slaves, men without lands, etc. http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h640.html The stamp act of '65 that the colonists objected to was to pay for the monies that the crown spent protecting them in the French and Indian wars (7 years war in England). The colonies wanted protection but didn't want to pay for their share of it essentially but that is going off topic. As the link noted, direct representation was impractible and the leadership knew it. There are numerous historians that suggest that the colonists would not have wanted it anyway as they would not have had enough seats to change anything and would have legally abide by the imposition of taxes because of their own insistence. The estimated cost of the war was 200k, the colonies were asked to shoulder 78k of that amount and they thought it was too much. The american colonists on average paid less in taxes than their UK counterpart.... In 2009 who really gives a fuck? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lazyphil Posted January 17, 2009 Report Share Posted January 17, 2009 you knock knee scots with a sack of maris pipers on your shoulders still whinge about issues for years gone by superior english folks!....still seems to matter to you fried mars bars eating lot 2009! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.