continuing proofs America is wacko

I suspect the veil will drop one day and you - you leelee - will at last be revealed.

Orwell wrote:Does it concern you at all that I don't give a hoot about your welfare?

Oh come'on, are you completely immune to those ears? I imagine myself discreetly following a ways behind, dashing from tree trunk to tree trunk, just making sure no orcs get at her.

Tin's nose has that effect on me at times as well.

Okay... I admit I've got a soft spot for the ears... but I'm resolved, Halfwise... resolved!

Do not succumb to his fibs dear Half wise, we shall believe your resolve Orwell when the weight is lost and you are actually a success at wooing the Princess. She shall not settle for less than that and all the Shire and all Imladris will be watching.
And Halfwise , which i suspect is all wise I would suspect with your kind flattery you indeed are with a lovely Elf. Oh and to answer your flirting question, we elves simply don't see the need for it. I was referring to my friends in Manhattan and Staten Island. Arguing with those guys was like standing under a boulder. I never won. Even my Jewish friends there, the girls rather intimidate me. No guy should dare mess with them or make less than six figures, and that is just for a trip to the fast food joint. And i am not sure about down east for i live in the west, but people are so much more polite and reserved with one another. Perhaps our association with our Queen is responsible. Who knows.
Between you and Mrs. Figg, I am very confident now that our Scottshobbit and our resident bobby will not be able to do that much mischief as formerly.
And Orwell this is the real Leelee, nothing more, nothing less. A blonde amber eyed Jewess with a learning disability from a head injury that has caused me an ocean of tears. (people usually remark I look sad in the picture.) And if you go on Faces in General discussion and down to the link to the council members you will see me and you can decide for yourself if I look a liar and a fraud or just a regular person who is not into meanness or unkindness. Oh...........and Orwell, I am going to get ready for sleep now and I shall say a prayer for you,.

The facade has dropped a little, leelee. Or maybe all I detect is a bit more forthrightness. Whatever the case, good. I like talking to Real people. Less sweet nothings and more sharp observations. Straight talk is good talk.

"Arguing with those guys was like standing under a boulder. I never won. Even my Jewish friends there, the girls rather intimidate me. No guy should dare mess with them or make less than six figures, and that is just for a trip to the fast food joint."

You may have a learning disability but with lines like that you certainly haven't got a mental disability. I look forward to some fair dinkum butting of heads in future --- and maybe even the occasional agreement.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:
I'm confused! Does that mean I don't have to believe in them anymore because they exist now?

That depends. Are you bringing the buckie or am I? I figure beliefs can be flexible when somebody else is buying.

Would that be Real buckie or Imaginary buckie. If the latter, I'm sure Petty will be over soon. (I warn you, he will assume you have Real buckie yourself).

Leelee - interesting observation about the argumentative prowess of New Yorkers. I think it comes about because there are so dratted many of them. You can tell a native by the ability to pick up a conversation with anybody, make a full drawn out philosophical study of it, and part without introductions on either side. In New York introductions are seen as so provincial. I mean, in all likelihood you'll never see each other again, so why bother?

I think the argumentative nature extends into central new jersey as well. As evidence for this, rent "My Cousin Vinny". Seems to be an Italian influence.

halfwise wrote:I think the argumentative nature extends into central new jersey as well. As evidence for this, rent "My Cousin Vinny". Seems to be an Italian influence.

If my mom's family is anything to go by, then that's a trait that extends to anywhere Italians (or at least Italian-Americans) are to be found, and NY/NJ just have a particularly high concentration of them.

Believe me, its all Italians. I think its centuries of large families, you have to shout to get heard.

That would make sense. I've only been to Italy to visit family there once and I was five at the time so I don't have a lot of clear memories, but I do remember a ton of people (it was a wedding though, so I'm sure many people traveled like my parents and brother and I, but even before and after it was huge).

Wasnt sure given the unpleasant seriousness of this that this was the appropriate thread, but I think it is.
I've been following the case of the US citizen who shot a young black kid dead for acting supsicous. But has not been arrested as he claimed he acted in self defence. Not sure what sort of self defence invovles following an unarmed teenager then shooting them. But it does seem only in America could this sort of thing happen at all. Where else could a child be shot dead for no reason, committing no crime and the killer does not even get arrested? What the hell is going on here?

This is ugly in so many ways, and it needs to go to court.

It sounds like George Zimmerman may have got knocked down and his nose broken before he fired, which would be his claim of self defense. Personally I know several people with broken noses who didn't need a gun to defend themselves.

We'll see what comes out, but for now it sounds to me like Zimmerman saw a stranger (Trayvon Martin) and followed him (which I've done), Martin tried to ditch him (which I've done), Zimmerman caught up with Martin and blows were exchanged (no comment). There may or may not have been a racist comment. We'll see what the experts say.

So far there's some bad judgment of the everyday kind that's common when testosterone is involved. Then the gun comes out and it all goes to hell.

It makes me sick to think about what Trayvon's family and friends have lost. At the very least they're entitled to see the killer face a jury.

I couldn't agree more, and its the lack of an arrest I am having a hard time grasping (goodness knows how hard the lads parents are finding that). Even if the kid did get mouthy, or throw a punch- and I might have done that at his age if I thought some dodgy guy was following me about for no good reason- it does not justify murder.
I listened to the what has been released of Zimmerman's phone conversation with the police, and they ask him if he is following the boy, and he says yes, and they tell him he doesn't need to do that, the police will take over- so as far as I am concerned anything he does after that point is pure unnecessary vigiliantism- and there is a good reason we dont have vigiliante law and mob rule-because this sort of tragic disaster is nearly always the inevitable result.

Change of topic, as in 'more proofs...'

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/03/26/war-on-words-nyc-dept-of-education-wants-50-forbidden-words-removed-from-standardized-tests/

No more comment needed.

But back to the shooting case: if our own vice president wasn't safe with a gun, there has to be a lot of caution about private citizens carrying a gun.

I've heard people I respect say that any government should be afraid of its people, and that's actually a profound statement with repercussions in places like Syria. And yet...if you require months of training to drive a car, surely the same should be done for guns. A well trained person may not have gotten off a kill shot.

But we don't really know the facts of the case yet, and the lynch mob mentality that's started is perhaps as bad as the original shooting.

Its more the process and the legality of it I am having a hard time understanding. If that happened here, even if guns were legal, they would be arrested (probably as much for their own safety from the mob as anything else) and held in custody until trial. This guy doesn't seem to have been arrested. He told the police his version of events, they seem to have accepted it as fine and sent him on his merry way- given he shot a teenage kid dead that just seems mad to me.

I can definitely agree he should have been at least taken into custody. but held until trial is asking a lot, as that may take months to get underway. Police have to be very good at developing judgement at the scene, and my limited experience has been that the more police there are (up to a point) the better the judgement: they talk things through, pool knowledge and intuition, and often do a good job.

The guy's not going anywhere, it looks like there may be a civil trial. Those are more likely to be swayed by popular emotion than criminal trials, with less care about evidence. I think a criminal trial would be the better way to go in this case.

I wasn't there. I wonder what actually happened. I'm immediately on the black kid's side. They're never in the wrong in a politically correct world.

Actually, all cynicism aside, it would be interesting to know all the facts, which I doubt we'll get.

I really baulk at giving opinions as to the guilt of any person in a case I know next to nothing about -- even if he's white and probably deserves all he gets ---- because he's white...

What if the white guy had every reason (within American Law) to shoot him ? And that's why he wasn't charged? (Not saying it was like that - I wasn't there. Just offering another idea).

As a general point, though, I have to say, Americans do seem to have too easy access to guns.

One interesting point though. If he is tried and convicted in criminal court they will revoke his concealed carry permit. But if he is convicted in civil court he will still retain the right to carry a concealed weapon.

Different states have different rules for concealed carry permits. It may seem crazy but in some ways it makes a lot of sense. For example Alaska and Southern California mostly use guns for completely different reasons so different standards apply.

If there's anything positive about this at all, it's that it will almost certainly lead to a discussion that's long overdue.

I'm wondering now (me being someone who lives in largely gun free society) if everyone having guns around you makes everyone more, or less, responsible in regard to their use?

I really baulk at giving opinions as to the guilt of any person in a case I know next to nothing about- Orwell

For my part I am not assuming guilt either way- what shocked me was that the guy was not in custody and that whether he shot in self-defense or not was not being heard in a court, but seemed to have been left for the police to decide- thats the bit I cant understand. In a case where a teenager has been shot dead surely a court of law must decide if a crime was comitted here? - the police seemed to have dealt with him as if he had been accused of a littering charge.

If you've ever been violently mugged (I have, more than once) you'll find the police have a pretty good instinct about what happened. But I totally agree he should have been taken into custody, and when someone is killed perhaps charges should automatically be filed just to ensure there is a proper investigation, no matter how much it may look like cut and dry self defense to the officers on the scene. The white guy was a stupid idiot in any case, they should have hauled him in for that whether or not he killed someone.

As far as guns go, I feel they should (at least!) be regulated the same way cars are: knowing you can get caught goes a long way towards helping people not act totally stupid on the road. The Florida Stand Your Ground law scares me - is a broken nose really reason for killing someone? On the other hand there's an argument that an armed society is a polite society. May look good on paper, but people lose all sense of balanced logic just when they need it most.

Recent studies have shown that people who are carrying a gun are more likely to assume others are carrying guns. Which in dicey situations is likely to lead to a shoot first ask questions later mentality.

I think the gun thing is pretty clear cut. In modern western countries who do not have legal guns there are a lot less shootings. Simple. The sort of horrible disaster where some kid shoots up a school does happen elsewhere, but its a tragic rare, once in a generation or more incident that is remembered for decades, in the US its seems to be an annual event- that cannot be unlinked to the free availablitly of guns.

Just some thoughts on the original proposition. I am not sure it is completely objective to look at one country and its events in isolation. Similiar or even stranger things (from one's perspective) occur in many countries. You really don't have to look far to find tensions and violence based on all the same types of conflicts (race, class, sex, religion, power, resources, etc) in many if not all parts of the world. And I would suggest it has been going on like that as far back as we can tell from historical sources.

I do think, there is an upsurge in tensions within the US in recent years. But to understand, much less explain that, would be complicated, as there are many groups and many factors, and changes going on. I would guess all societies have calm and turbulent phases, and the US may be in a turbulent one right now. One factor I do see as standing out as a major component I can only give the general name Cultural War. There are more then two groups in the US, but most do align in one or the other of the two main coalitions, which are represented in the two main parties.