Prominent Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates arrested at his Home in Cambridge, MA

From Wikipedia: "Harvard University Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct following an incident on July 16, 2009, when he had trouble ...
Read More


Prominent Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates arrested at his Home in Cambridge, MA 3

I lived and worked in Cambridge for many years at Harvard. I've met Professor Gates on a few occasions and he was always very nice to me though I was not someone who could benefit him in any way (I was a low level employee in another department). I've had interaction with Cambridge cops as well, good and bad, but the most notable was in 1995 when me and a friend came out of a bar and the friend walked the wrong way. When I yelled to him that he was going the wrong way, two cops nearby stopped us, and one of them said "what are you guys fags or something?"

When that is how cops lead off the interaction, it doesn't speak well for tolerance on that police force. I don't know officer Crowley and there are many accounts of him being a good cop but the focal point here is not race relations.

It is not a crime to argue or make smart remarks to a cop. Privately or publicly. It is not a crime to ask for a badge number. It is not a crime to threaten to file a complaint. Though rude, it is not illegal to make fun of or refer to a police officer's mother. These are all actions that are within a citizens rights and none of them warrant an arrest. Once it was ascertained that Professor Gates was in his own home and required no police intervention, it was incumbent upon the officers to leave professor Gates's property.

However you want to characterize professor Gate's behavior, rude, arrogant, childish, brave, foolish, mean, etc. It was not illegal. Police are given the authority to exercise force on behalf of a free society and therefore they are required to exercise restraint, not private citizens. If people are trained to be submissive to police no matter what, what sort shadow of free society is that? How many times does this same scenario play out where the "perpetrator", black or white, is arrested and has no recourse? We're only seeing this because the disorderly conduct "perpetrator" is a world renown scholar and has the President and Oprah in his Rolodex.

When good cops resort to arresting citizens because they don't like a citizens tone or words, what does that tell us about the society in general? President Obama is right that this is stupid, but not because Professor gates was black, rather because police should not feel like they have the ability to arrest someone to quell dissent. That notion is stupid, frightening and sad.

Join to vote! 9 Helpful / 0 Funny / 7 Agree / 3 Disagree
Showing 114 Comments
You must be logged in to comment. login now.
magellan commented 8 days ago.
(Edited 8 days ago)
Great review MCD. Sound like your friend was a dumbass - oh yeah, that was me. I remember a brief, whispered "should we drop these punks" conversation between you and me. Glad we thought better of that.

Lena commented 8 days ago.
Wholeheartedly agree.

Mc-D commented 8 days ago.
We could have. I think the mitigating factor was that they already had our IDs. Even in our haze, we thought about the ramifications of that.

EschewObfuscation commented 8 days ago.
So . . . Professor Gates is not a racist. And, Cambridge has a Police Department lacking in tolerance, based on one incident you've directly witnessed. Oh, wait, two incidents that you are aware of. And President Obama was right to call the cops' behavior "stupid" in a nationwide press conference held to discuss health care reform. And it was ok not to call Professor Gates' conduct idiotic, racial, insulting, immature, incendiary or deserving of some (any) reaction on the part of the police officer just doing his job, trying to leave once he realized no crime had been committed.

My advice to you is to buy your friend a Garmin next time he's in Cambridge. (By the way, he wasn't gay, was he . . . not that there's anything wrong with that . . . ?)

Wiseguy commented 8 days ago.
Mr. Gates was arrested for being disorderly. Maybe I don’t think he was disorderly, but it doesn’t matter what I think. Now the police shouldn’t make arrests because we don’t agree with their application of the law?

This is insanity people.

fitman commented 8 days ago.
Welcome to the Land of The Free. You will maintain order and decorum at all times. We have ways of dealing with any deviation. There will be no shouting, laughing or other boisterous behavior. Failure to obey, conform and show deference to authority at all times will be punished. You have been warned. Understood?

fitman commented 8 days ago.

Sarcasm aside, I recommend treading lightly when dealing with any armed person, especially when dealing with those licensed to kill and/or kidnap.

Mc-D commented 8 days ago.
It seems like you are not responding to my comment or misunderstood it's point.

Having a spouse of a different race, as Professor Gates does, does not prove that he is not a racist, but it does undercut that theory. As does his cordial relationship with white colleagues and underlings (like me a while back).

But who cares if he is a racist. He's allowed to be, he is a private citizen and not a representative of the state. That is the price of a free society. His views, attitude, words, and work may be abhorrent to you and the responding officers, but they are not illegal and are protected in the public sphere, let alone his own residence. Disagreeing with or being disrespectful to a Police Officer is not a crime.

I have no idea if Sargent Crowley is a racist. I personally suspect that he is not and he would have done the same thing if the person in question was white. And that is the heart of the problem here. People, like yourself, are so busy pointing to who is more or less racist that you ignore the fact that a police officer felt it OK to arrest someone who posed no physical threat because he did not like what he was hearing.

You can talk all you want about the propriety of what Professor Gates says here or anywhere, but he does not have a badge, a gun, and the authority of the state to silence his critics, Officer Crowley did and he used them. That is stupid and wrong.

So yes, it was not OK for Officer Crowley to react the way he did. However incendiary professor Gates' comments might have been, he is not a police officer. It is a Police Officer's duty to uphold the law and honor the Constitution, even when he finds it unpleasant, distasteful, or difficult. Professor Gates did not prevent him from leaving and there has been no suggestion from officer Crowley or the police force that this confrontation was in anyway physical. Until that is, Officer Crowley decided it needed to be and he needed to get the last word.

How many times does this play out without making the news, cowing people into accepting Police behavior, no matter its propriety? It both diminishes our free society and diminishes the esteem for officers who uphold the law and exercise restraint in charged environments.

As for Obama weighing in, that may or may not be a political miscalculation, but if it stops what will become another federal giveaway to special interests (health-care industry in this case), thank goodness.

Mc-D commented 8 days ago.
Yea. We can disagree with how police interpret the law. We can can second guess them. As members of a free society we are allowed to. we can second guess them in front of a crowd loudly. I use can here, when I perhaps I ought to use should. Its only in Police state that the actions of the police can't be questioned or second guessed.

If I'm missing material facts and Professor gates was in some way physically threatening, it is a different story. But no one seems to be alleging that was the case.

Nothing prevented Officer Crowley from leaving a hobbled, angry old man, yelling on his lawn.

Mc-D commented 8 days ago.
You made my point much better than I did. Thanks.

fitman commented 8 days ago.
You're welcome McD, though all I did was condense your thoughtful essay into a smartass comment.


Mc-D commented 8 days ago.
I wish I could cite the source, but I heard a proverb that went something like:
If you want the world to know about a wrong point it out.
If you want to change the wrong, ridicule it.

EschewObfuscation commented 7 days ago.
(Edited 7 days ago)
OK, McD, too wordy. I don't know if the nutty professor is a racist, nor do I know if the cop is a racist, even though he conducts seminars for his fellow officers regarding racial profiling, I'm assuming how NOT to do it, but I don't know that either. The actions that are racist here belong to the nutty professor, not the cop.

The nutty professor insulted the cop, not the other way around. The cop arrested the nutty professor for disorderly conduct, not breaking and entering. Whether or not the professor committed a crime is for a judge (during arraignment) and a jury (during trial) to decide. For Obama to use his huge, nationwide bully pulpit to call the actions of the cop "stupid" is irresponsible. AND stupid. Period.

I don't think Cambridge, or Boston, or New York, or San Francicsco or any other large (or small) American city are exactly at risk for being characterized as a police state, particularly with President Milque-Toast in charge. But, if Obama stokes and fans the fires of racism in reverse, I'd expect guiys like you to be a little harder on him than to have no opinion and wring their hands about a police state.

fitman commented 7 days ago.
We've been living in a (smiley face) police state ever since Bill Clinton militarized most of America's police departments. However, on a day-to-day basis, presidents don't have a lot of control of the police.

As I mentioned before, I believe President Obama put his foot in his mouth on this issue (although the cop did indeed act irresponsibly).

I also said I thought the professor got the officer's goat and Crowley retaliated by arresting him. Apparently, this case will never come to trial because it has already been dismissed.

Of course, the officer had to know he had no case, but engaged in the time dishonored tactic of "punishment first - trial afterward".

Whether the officer was motivated by racism [or just had no patience with uppitiness from anyone] will never be known. However, I think he might have thought twice before arresting a 'white' pillar of the community for being an ass.

jman1961 commented 7 days ago.
(Edited 7 days ago)
The usual suspects are back painting with broad brushes again, I see.
@ McD - When the cops called you and your friend 'fags', it spoke about their conduct only, not the entire force.
Isn't it true that we don't condemn entire 'groups' for the actions of a few? Or do you carry a bias against law enforcement?
Or try this; I was mugged and shot in the back by a black male in a Dorchester neighborhood on July 13, 1989. Would it be logical if I decided that all black males were likely criminals based on that incident?
You also need a course on law and police procedure; if Gates was standing up to the cops for de facto abuse, I'd be on his side 100%. He wasn't.
Funny idea of first amendment rights that you believe any citizen can, at will, berate a police officer because they're having a bad day. You're wrong - it's that simple.
By your estimation, there is NO such thing as 'disorderly conduct'. Wrong again.
And the charges were not 'dismissed', they were 'dropped'. What's the difference? Dismissal of charges is a ruling of law by a judge, and NOT always because the judge finds the charges baseless.
'Dropped' means, in this case, the county DA (Gerry Leone), and involves NO finding of fact. It's prosecutorial discretion.
And for the 3rd time, the police do not ever dismiss or drop charges; they simply file them. OK so far?
How many people who have logged comments on this case have read the police report? It's still available online, I believe.
You know, for folks who, I'm sure, would posit that we are a society of laws and not of men, you sure are advocating the polar opposite in this case.
And if folks here (Gates sympathizers) can't even politely refute the invocation of terms like 'police state' (with or without the 'smiley face'), rhetoric so overheated that it invites meltdown, then I suggest that Wiseguy is right - that's insanity.
Police state? You're kidding, right? Do you good people believe sincerely that we are living in a police state, or that this incident is indicative of that?
If your answer is yes, then...........

fitman commented 7 days ago.

fitman commented 7 days ago.
We've been living in a (smiley face) police state ever since Bill Clinton militarized most of America's police departments. However, on a day-to-day basis, presidents don't have a lot of control of the police.

As I mentioned before, I believe President Obama put his foot in his mouth on this issue (although the cop did indeed act irresponsibly).

I also said I thought the professor got the officer's goat and Crowley retaliated by arresting him. Apparently, this case will never come to trial because it has already been dropped.

Of course, the officer had to know he had no case, but engaged in the time dishonored tactic of "punishment first - trial afterward".

Whether the officer was motivated by racism [or just had no patience with uppitiness from anyone] will never be known. However, I think he might have thought twice before arresting a 'white' pillar of the community for being an ass.


fitman commented 7 days ago.

fitman commented 7 days ago.
<<< In a letter to Partisan Review in 1966, he uncannily foresaw where his country was headed, and it wasn't a swinging Aquarian utopia. ''I have a gloomy premonition though that we will soon look back on this troubled moment as a golden time of freedom and license to act and speculate. One feels the steely sinews of the tiger, an ascetic, 'moral' and authoritarian reign of piety and iron.'' - Robert Lowell >>>

fitman commented 7 days ago.

fitman commented 7 days ago.
This is slightly off topic, but I can't help wondering what the apologists for Crowley thought about the summary execution of Randy Weaver's wife and son at Ruby Ridge, and/or the burning alive of the wackos at Waco?

jman1961 commented 7 days ago.
Why can't you help wondering?

Mc-D commented 7 days ago.
(Edited 7 days ago)
Your response is directed to me, though most of the points you raise seem to be directed towards others. I'm not going to bother to address those.

The incident that I was directly a part of does speak to the atmosphere on the Cambridge force, though admittedly it was a while back. That was how the Officers began the interaction. I've friends on Police forces in other cities and states, notably New York, and whether or not they feel hostile towards a group, they do not lead off iterations with pejorative terms. They don't speak that way because they know there are ramifications both professionally and personally if they do. That awareness was absent from at least those officers. And my experience indicates to me that there is a level of professionalism that does not reach the bar of that set by police in many major cities. As you point out though that is a deduction that could be proved fallacious with more or better evidence.

But the important point is that you indicate a citizen does not have the right to speak their mind to a cop, berate him or what ever you want to call it. What then do they have the right to say to a police officer. Where is that spelled out? Tells me what are our rights are this regard. I think that this has little to do with race (except in the media), but rather an overstepping of Police Authority. You contend it is not OK to speak your mind to a police officer with in limits. The first amendment is unequivocal in the rights it grants citizens and the Supreme Court has been specific in how those rights may be curtailed. So point to me some enforceable guidelines of what rights citizens do have. Absent that present some cogent ones here.

I made no reference to dropped vs. dismissed charges but you are wrong that dropped implies NO fact finding. The DA felt there was not enough grounds to prosecute. Perhaps this was a political decision or perhaps the charge was unsubstantiated.

I did read the Police report. Let's take it as face value and agree that though biased (they occur from a perspective), they are factually accurate as to the events and words. Officer Crowley could have just gotten in his car and left. Professor Gates is allowed to yell. He is allowed to believe he is the victim of racial profiling, even if he is not. He is allowed to say so. He's allowed to yell at the officer for imagined abuse and to report that imagined abuse. People being surprised or startled by an old man yelling at a cop is not grounds for arrest in my thinking. Threatening to break a law or encouraging others would be. Poor and immature behavior is not tantamount to illegal behavior.

I do not think we live in a Police state, but the danger is there. It always has been and always will be. The duty of citizens in a representative Democracy is to insure that it doesn't become one. There are plenty of questionable practices at the Federal and Local level that would be deplored if practiced by another country. And the current federal administration is pretty much the same as the last in this regard.

@both, what characterizes a police state in your eyes? A government that informally implements and formally proposes trial-less detentions? A government that conducts surveillance on all citizens?
Political protesters and reporters arrested at peaceful organized protests? No knock searches? Arrest for vocal dissent (appropriate or inappropriate)?

Draw me the line.

Where in your estimation, would we be judged having crossing it. I assume that when you support one or more of these actions, you would equally praise the governments of China and Iran for carrying out parallel actions.

Mc-D commented 7 days ago.
Let me also say that I understand that Police are human and are burdened with a difficult responsibility. The culture we live in with it's litigiousness and shallow media coverage, do not allow for them to make honest mistakes.

Maybe 99 times out of 100, Professor Gates would not have succeeded in angering Sargent Crowley but this day the lottery came up. I'm not arguing that there be any repercussions to this assuming you subscribe to my argument. Because I think Officer Crowley's actions were wrong doesn't mean I don't understand them. But society needs to make sure that Police do not step out of bounds of the power they are given (as we should with politicians as well). P

EschewObfuscation commented 7 days ago.
McD, are you asking me to define a police state? Sorry, I'll know one when I see one, I don't see one here today, I disagree that we're in danger of it. We have a court system to sort out the particulars of such incidents but I doubt that Gates' stupid, inappropriate and racist statements were spoken because he felt he was living in a police state. He lives in Obama's America where blacks have an opportun ity to get even, and Obama will cover for them, as he did on national television last week.

By the way, I find it interesting the requirement you place on police officers regarding the expectation of professionalism and calm, but maintain that no such responsibility inures to the nutty professor from Harvard. He is, in your words, "allowed to yell. He is allowed to believe he is the victim of racial profiling, even if he is not. He is allowed to say so. He's allowed to yell at the officer for imagined abuse and to report that imagined abuse. " He, in your perfect world is allowed to berate the officer, as well, and he is guaranteed those rights by the First Amendment. Wrong again.

The First Amendment of the US Constitution does not convey any rights to anybody. It estops the government (meaning CONGRESS) from making any laws which infringe upon those rights, which have been conferred on all men (and probably women), who actually were created equal. The rights, all of them, were given by our Creator. The Constitution prevents the government from limiting or revoking them with laws. It doesn't specifically address the behavior of cops or racist black street organizers.

Mc-D commented 7 days ago.
Of course you won't comment on what constitutes a police state. That would require you take a definitive position that can be proved, disproved, or reasoned for or against. Your feelings provide very scant definition for the boundaries of a society of laws.

Reason would dictate you indicate that police arresting citizens for what they say is OK when conditions a, b, c are met. Imprisoning people without a trial is OK under conditions Y. Routing all traffic through NSA servers is OK when j happens. But it seems you are unwilling to rise to that level of discussion.

It is also of note that despite my contention that this is a case of abusing of authority, you insist it is a racial incident. I assume this is because Professor Gates called, in so many words, Officer Crowley a bigot without knowing officer Crowley. This is of course very different than you calling someone a racisit without knowing them. All evidence to the contrary, in either case, should be ignored.

And most imprortantly you misunderstand the Constitution. The first amendment reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That is pretty explicit granting of rights to individuals by dictating that government may not abridge those rights.

Following on that, these rights are extended through Article 6, paragraph 2 of the Constitution:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

And bolstered by language in the 14th Amendment:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.

How you could read that document and think otherwise is befuddling. Do you really want me to find the comparable language in the MA Constitution.

Now the constitution does not deal specifically with anything, so we must weigh the rights protected by the constitution against the local laws and ordinances, in individual circumstances. In this case the competing priorities are someone saying what they want about a police officer, true or not, against the ability of police officers to arrest people for infractions. The facts of the case are that professor Gates yelled at the officer and called him a bigot. Officer Crowley has the right as a citizen to accuse Professor Gates of slander, as does any citizen. He can write to the paper, he can avail himself of any civil recourse available to all citizens. Instead, he used the power of the state to silence his critic.

I am not apologizing for Professor Gates' behavior. But he is not an armed representative of the State. There are additional burdens and responsibilities placed on police officers. The situation does not have to be 1 right and 1 wrong. They could both be wrong, Professor Gates for lobbing epithats and Officer Crowley for arresting a physically harmless old man. The difference here is that Professor Gates made poor choice with his choice of speech, Officer Crowley erred in using his official power as a representative of the State. They are not equal transgressions until the state gives Harvard Professors firearms and the authority to detain citizens at their discretion.

Of course if your only answer will ever be the black guy was wrong, just have the courage to say that. My argument is consistent that white, black, Chinese, whatever, people have the right to say what they want in the United States of America to other adults, no matter how distasteful, provided they don't physically threaten others or incite others to physical violence. Black cops have to forestall their natural anger when they encounter a racist white person just as much. Because as cops they have additional responsibilities that private citizens don't.

It seems your contention is that private citizens don't have the right to speak their mind to a cop, if the cop might not like it. Particularly if they are a "racist black street organizes" Since you offer no guidance on what is and isn't within our rights, we can't know, unless you're around to tell us. A list of subjects might be useful or vetted phrases. To bad professor Gates didn't have you there. You could have told him where the line was.

EschewObfuscation commented 7 days ago.
Ok, McD, your filibuster is impressive, but the rights don't come from the amendments. They come from the Creator. I'm not getting through to you, you need to discuss this with someone with the patience to break through your opinion.

I will let the reader decide whose viewpoint is closer to reality and wish you a good night, until we tangle again.

Lena commented 6 days ago.
re: "the rights don't come from the amendments"

Shit, I think that means I don't have the right to vote (among other things).

fitman commented 6 days ago.
I think Eschew's obscure point is that governments can't create rights. They can only decide which rights they're going to take away.

Lena commented 6 days ago.
so atheists have no rights? ;)

fitman commented 6 days ago.
Well, as an Orthodox Agnostic Fundamentalist, I believe in Atheistic Creationism. Does that answer your question?

ayn commented 6 days ago.
Atheists make their own rights.

...Some times it ends badly...

Lena commented 6 days ago.
@ayn I would argue the same goes for theists (and, in fact, Deists in the case of our lovely Constitution plus its bill of rights and subsequent amendments). Which gets me back to the original point.

@Fit I think that answers it as well as anything :P

ayn commented 6 days ago.
Lena, I would argue that too, but the other day I was watching something about Hitler and religion and its been on my mind. Hence the comment.

Lena commented 6 days ago.
Given that context....Good point :)

ayn commented 6 days ago.
Maybe, but I would do well to keep my mind on the topic at hand. I tend to have a bad habit of being several places at once.

jman1961 commented 6 days ago.
(Edited 6 days ago)
@McD - I'll address some of your points:

" indicate a citizen does not have the right to speak their mind to a cop, berate him or what ever you want to call it."

I used the word 'berate' for a reason. It has a meaning. Look it up.
'Speak one's mind': more fungible; depends on specific circumstances.

"What then do they have the right to say to a police officer. Where is that spelled out?

Consult an attorney who specializes in that area of the law. You could rely on empiricism and logic, but on a guess from what you've written so far, your body of knowledge acquired from those disciplines is sorely lacking.

"You contend it is not OK to speak your mind to a police officer with in limits"

Wrong again.
I contended that it is not OK to speak your mind to a police officer WITHOUT limits.
You need to read more carefully, or 'bone up' on your interpretive skills.

"...but you are wrong that dropped implies NO fact finding. The DA felt there was not enough grounds to prosecute."

No, I was not wrong.
You've got it straight from the county DA himself, eh? You have lots of high profile friends, don't you ("...I've met Professor Gates on a few occasions...", "...I've friends on Police forces in other cities and states, notably New York...")? Did they give you the 'skinny' on this case? You have a direct line to the office of the Middlesex (Mass.) County District Attorney?
My assertion is TRUE: 'dropping the charges' does NOT mean, ipso facto, that the charges lacked ANY merit, nor that the arrest itself was 'bad'. Think of it this way: your verbosity on this subject does NOT mean, ipso facto, that you are correct, nor that you possess anything more than the reasoning ability of a junior high school student auditioning for the debating team.
Pick up a copy of "Law for Dummies" (you could use one); 'finding of fact' is a legal term-of-art, and is not to be confused with the simple word 'fact'. Again, refer to prior paragraph. Also, look up "public nuisance' and "disorderly conduct" while you're nosing around.

"...what characterizes a police state in your eyes?" "Draw me the line."

No, YOU draw the line for US. Remember, the burden of proof lies with the 'affirmative'. You assert it; you prove it.
Conduct an experiment: you and your companion can go back to Cambridge and re-create the events of that emotionally scarring evening in 1995 (were you drinking Scorpion Bowls at the Hong Kong in Harvard Square, by any chance?). For the reader's edification: what the cops did that night was stupid and unwarranted, assuming that what the writer asserted is true, and I have my doubts.
Approach law officers at random and start calling them names, threaten them, refuse to calm down (better yet, do everything you can to cause the situation to escalate), and then report back to us on the results of your adventure (likely your juvenile asses will be in the pokey quicker than you can scream "Mommy, come get us out of jail!").

For the record, I have gotten in the face of 'cowboy cops' a few times in my life, the last being with a Mass. State Trooper at Logan Airport in October 2007. But those encounters involved knowing the law, and the responsibilites under that law of BOTH the officer and myself.
The difference here is that you advertise clearly that your sentiments run against the police, and you have a simplistic view of their role in the society, to go along with similar 'tunnel visioned' stands on the 1st Amendment and the (according to you) nascent police state in the USA.
I respect the police, and KNOW (empiricism and logic again, you should try them sometime) that the vast majority of these men and women are good and decent people who do a very difficult job under trying circumstances, like the expectations of folks like you that they are paid to put up with whatever 'knee jerk' abuse a non-officer decides to throw at them (like I suggested earlier, YOU go try that and tell all of us how it works out for ya).

In closing, I'll reference a biblical passage that was scripted into an early, and funny episode of 'All in the Family':

(Proverbs 14:7, King James version): Go from the presence of a foolish man, when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge.
Translation: Don't waste your time arguing with an idiot.

And so I won't 'argue' with you. If you're half as smart as I'm guessing you think you are, you'll consider the points I've made here, and that others have made elsewhere. You still have some growing up to do, skippy.
If you're personally offended, then you're a hypocrite. You did say, in your most recent comment here: "My argument is consistent that white, black, Chinese, whatever, people have the right to say what they want in the United States of America to other adults, no matter how distasteful, provided they don't physically threaten others or incite others to physical violence." Well, I raise a glass in toast to your 'consistency'. Congratulations.

I'm done.

Fitman, you can come in and do your Major Frank Burns imitation for us now (the only one you do well, btw).

magellan commented 6 days ago.
Seriously, what's with all the name calling? Are you 12?

jman1961 commented 6 days ago.
Playing referee again? Are you 8?

jman1961 commented 6 days ago.
Try something unique, let the person I wrote to answer me, or are you paid to 'flak' for him?

numbah16tdhaha commented 6 days ago.
Honestly, some of these comments are just too many words for the level of importance I give the event and I just wont read them...

magellan commented 6 days ago.
jman, get over yourself. I think you will get more respect here if you learn to debate things civilly. I don't really give a shit either way, so knock yourself out.

Lena commented 6 days ago.
TL;DR: That's some self-absorbed, diatribe of a "done" you got there jman.

Note to self: back up all future insults with passages from the bible. If that's not the definition of ridiculousness, I'm not sure what is.

numbah16tdhaha commented 6 days ago.
*blows whistle* I'm calling a late hit on Lena. Back it up 15 yards...

jman1961 commented 6 days ago.
You sure 'chime in' a lot for someone who "...(doesn't) don't really give a shit either way."
I pointed it out to you elsewhere; many of your long time 'buddies' engage in genuinely insulting discourse, but you are strangely absent when it occurs.
You do have a penchant for intervening on behalf of people who share your views, however. McD was your drinking buddy that night, right?
It's that intellectual (dis)honesty thing again.
As for "getting over (my)self" - take a dose of your own medicine.
The voting on my reviews so far suggests that I get respect, btw.
Thanks for your input, though.

ayn commented 6 days ago.
(Edited 6 days ago)
Lena: I had to run to my Bible but here is one from the Psalms:
"Let my accusers be clothed with dishonor, And let them cover themselves with their own shame as with a robe."

numbah16tdhaha commented 6 days ago.
ayn, that one gives robes a bad name and the Jedi wear robes... *sniff*

jman1961 commented 6 days ago.

Input from admins who I wasn't writing to : 2
Specific points refuted : 0

Buggy about the bible? It's the first time I've cited it on RIA, so no hyperventilating about 'religious right wing zealots', OK?

magellan commented 6 days ago.
I do try and steer new members from not acting like jerks. Too many jerks and the site goes to hell, so yes, I have a selfish interest.

Two times prior, I've politely asked why you were coming in so hard and so personal on folks you disagreed with. Did Fit personally insult you? Did McD? If you can point me to folks that are personally insulting you, I will take back what I said.... it's possible that I missed those exchanges. Or maybe, you are just here to dish it out?

numbah16tdhaha commented 6 days ago.
Hey, if score is to be kept, how about funny snipes by numbah at everyone for getting carried away with a topic I'm cracking jokes on now?

ayn commented 6 days ago.
Numbah: Didn't Darth Vader also wear a robe?

numbah16tdhaha commented 6 days ago.
(Edited 6 days ago)
Vader wore a cape with the monkey suit. He was kinda emo...

jman1961 commented 6 days ago.
(Edited 6 days ago)
You do the research. I've been on the receiving end of it, a couple of times. If you can find it so quickly in cases like this, where it doesn't exist, then why can't you spot it as quickly where it does?
I don't mind disagreements, but I'll put up sarcasm for sarcasm, humor for humor, facts for facts, etc.
There was a disagreement with Lena a few days ago, in comments and resolved in a couple of private messages. All civil and polite.
Ask her.

ayn commented 6 days ago.
Lena: Here is another one from Lamentations:
"All who pass along the way Clap their hands in derision at you; They hiss and shake their heads At the daughter of Jerusalem, "Is this the city of which they said, 'The perfection of beauty, A joy to all the earth '?"

magellan commented 6 days ago.
*sigh* that's what I thought. Have a good night all, I'm out.

jman1961 commented 6 days ago.
If it's worth anything to you, Magellan, I can make one guarantee: I DON'T hold grudges. Free speech can be loud and raucous. If this is supposed to be Cooper Union, then maybe I'm in the wrong place.
Let me know.

ayn commented 6 days ago.
Numbah: Not enough bad guys wear capes these days...

numbah16tdhaha commented 6 days ago.
Fit's Chance card: Beat a Dead Horse. Go back three spaces.

numbah16tdhaha commented 6 days ago.
damn, I think he removed the comment I was crackin' on

ayn commented 6 days ago.
I know, I was looking for it.

Lena commented 6 days ago.
(Edited 6 days ago)
@jman Civil and polite, indeed. And yet, the same level of respect seems decidedly absent here. For the record, I was following your response with interest until you started calling everyone else stupid in an attempt to prove your point. I'd love to see you try to work that angle in real life, speaking of sophomoric debating skills.

@ayn I knew I could count on you :D

fitman commented 6 days ago.
Damn! $200.00 tax and I just bought Baltic Ave. too!!!

ayn commented 6 days ago.
Lena: Harder than I anticipated, there just aren't enough insults in the Bible. I didn't want to use Psalm 137:9 which is usually my old standby in these types of things.

ayn commented 6 days ago.
Fit: My advice would be to buy up all the railroads.

fitman commented 6 days ago.
Missing comment:

<<< I must respectfully disagree with Magellen.

Jman rants are almost as entertaining as Lmorovan's. >>>

I deleted it because I realized it was unfair to Lmo.


Lena commented 6 days ago.
Your breath disgusts your wife; everyone in your family turns away. Young children can't stand you, and when you come near, they make fun. Your best friends and loved ones have turned from you. - Job 19:17-19

ayn commented 6 days ago.
(Edited 6 days ago)
Lena: Nice!

jman1961 commented 6 days ago.
(Edited 6 days ago)
I didn't call 'everyone else' anything. I was writing to one person only.
"Sophomoric debating skills'? To you, perhaps, but then neither you nor Magellan answered ANY of it point for point. You get hung up on the sarcasm, or what you see as insults. I've read a couple of long time reviewers who employ the device (and worse) constantly, but they're reviewed, in those self-serving "rate the RIA members" flagellations as "witty", "ascerbic", etc. perhaps because their worldview agrees with....yours, for instance?
Is this a rating/review site, or a mutual admiration society for liberals?
Oh, and 'real life': I do just fine thanks, Lena. I spend more time there than a lot of folks who look to be camped out here constantly.

I'll think about what you've said, Lena.
Good night.

jedi58 commented 6 days ago.
Wow, it's quite amazing to see police arresting someone for "breaking and entering" in their home. I've not seen this story covered over here, but we've seen plenty of stories of Police abusing their power, such as the case where a suspect was already incapacitated (they were unconscious) and they were tasered anyway for being "threatening".

Though I suppose these cases can be considered a minority, not every police officer is like that - I imagine most of them in that police department are good honest people, they're just being let down by a few.

ayn commented 6 days ago.
Lena: "Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman,"

fitman commented 6 days ago.
... and Jman deals the "L" card...

ayn commented 6 days ago.
Holy shit, man.

numbah16tdhaha commented 6 days ago.
Not the "L" card! Hey, isn't there a Conservative clique here too? I think I got kicked out of it...

ayn commented 6 days ago.
Conservatives frown on your Star Wars?

fitman commented 6 days ago.
Note to Jedi:

I don't see Crowley as a "bad apple" (he over-reacted, but was sorely provoked), but I won't buy the "bad apple" theory until I see "honest cops" demanding to have the rogues removed from the ranks.

numbah16tdhaha commented 6 days ago.
I doubt it, but their all pissed off about somethin'...

fitman commented 6 days ago.
Note to Numbah:

I believe you were tossed out of the reactionary clique, not the conservative cabal.

I suggest taking the advice of Groucho: I wouldn't join any organization that would have me as a member.

Lena commented 6 days ago.
@ayn that one sounds like more of a compliment to me :P

@jedi Interesting take from across the pond. So a lack of guns means tasers instead of billy clubs now, does it?

@jman I think you'd be surprised at the liberal/conservative balance here on RIA, although it does seem to depend somewhat on the time of day and who you happen to follow on the site. While things can get heated, in my experience people rarely resort to unprovoked personal attacks (generally preferring to wax poetic about the nuanced intent behind their words instead). There are exceptions to the rule, of course: we did have a rather vengeful Bank of America commenter there for a while. Anyone seen mr. SageDaRkHoRsE lately?

ayn commented 6 days ago.
Lena: Which one?

ayn commented 6 days ago.
Jedi: Are British cops required to tase themselves upon training?

Lena commented 6 days ago.
"Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman"

jedi58 commented 6 days ago.
@ayn nope, but I did hear one police chief did so he knew what it felt like before he could condone his officers to use them on the public; he thought it meant they'd be a little more reserved about using them

@lena I think that case with the taser happened in the US :s

@fitman I know it's wrong to pass judgement without knowing all the facts, but that's how the situation looked from here :(

ayn commented 6 days ago.
Lena: I have very little understanding of Old English, so I'm probably wrong, but I took that one to mean 'your mothers a whore.' However, if in fact it means 'your mothers a saint' I will glady retract it.

ayn commented 6 days ago.
Jedi: as per my understanding, that is why that practice is done here. But then, people tend to have short memories of pain.

Lena commented 6 days ago.
Hah, you're undoubtedly right. These days, though....those two qualities may earn you some points.

ayn commented 6 days ago.
But who's keeping score

Gris commented 6 days ago.
(Edited 6 days ago)
Numbah, With his 100 sided Dice

jedi58 commented 6 days ago.
(Edited 6 days ago)
wow a 100 sided die would be amazing, mind boggling even!

Just imagine people using one of them in an RPG.... "Roll 2D100" :P

Mc-D commented 6 days ago.
(Edited 6 days ago)
I'm happy to respond to your points as scattered though they be and a s childish as your arguments are, ignoring your ad hominem attacks.

Your points seem to be I don't know what is going on in the DAs office so I'm wrong. In that sense, we are equally wrong.

You make a distinction between either the content or tone of confrontations with police. You getting in the face of a Police officer was OK because you believed you were right. Had they then arrested you, they would would be wrong. So the difference of between you and professor Gates is either 1) tone, 2) content or 3) both. So if the police officer had arrested you, we would be agreeing in principle that Police Officers can arrest people for disorderly conduct improperly.

But since you childishly dodged the question of how a citizen can know what is and isn't appropriate to say to a police officer even if they're irate, we've no way to know that line. Unless we all "consult an attorney"

And your notion about law and the curtailing of rights shows an equal lack of depth. Our right to free speech is expansive and is circumscribed by specific exemptions by law. The traditional example is the prohibition of yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater. So contrary to your assertion, it is incumbent upon anyone wishing to curtail rights protected in the Constitution to spell out how those rights are checked and justify those curbs. Snarky comments and lazy sophistry not withstanding.

fitman commented 6 days ago.


magellan commented 6 days ago.
Let's leave Jman's mother out of this. See? One person gets personal, and then the whole thing slides.

Mc-D commented 6 days ago.
Fair enough, but I was just quoting Professor Gates, I'm sure Jman would appreciate the humor as I appreciated his Bible/All in the Family reference.

fitman commented 6 days ago.
I'm not so sure.


Mc-D commented 6 days ago.
in another review mv3554 pointed out the statute on disorderly conduct.
Here is a link to the relevant case law in Massachusetts: urt=ma&vol=appslip/appMar03i&invol=1

Here is the relevant guidelines from the state of Ma (pdf warning): istrictcourt/jury-instructions/criminal/pdf/7160-disorderly-conduct.pdf

Notable quote would be the explicit ruling in "Commonwealth v. Lopiano, 60 Mass. App. Ct. 723,725-726, 805 N.E.2d 522, 525 (2004) (finding no violent or tumultuous behavior where defendant, upon being told by police that he would be summoned to court for assault and battery, began to flail his arms and shout at police)"

Jman, you were so right, I should have looked at the law. It in fact mirrors what I said. No doubt, as an expert in the law that I misunderstood, you were just playing devil's advocate so I would look up the case law and rather than rely on discussion and analyses of ideas, I would have cold hard facts at my disposal.

Now you can drop your charade and admit to all of us that the reason the charges were dropped is becasue they clearly did not meet the requiremnts of Massacusetts Law. You knew that all along you dog. You were just funnin' us with all that fancy finding of fact fancy talk.

I really do think this was a teachable moment.

Thank you.

fitman commented 5 days ago.
Mc-D -

Please stop trying to confuse the issue. We already know what we believe and have no intention of being persuaded by facts, reason or logic.

Thank you.

Mc-D commented 5 days ago.
Good Point. My bad.

EschewObfuscation commented 3 days ago.
Ah, sure, fit referencing "facts, " that's always interesting. Be careful not to use big words you don't really understand.

OK, fit, which are the facts that prove what you believe: 1). Sgt. Crowley "profiled" Gates, and is, therefore, a racist. 2). Obama handled this in his national health care press conference like a well-informed, mature, objective leader who really isn't a racist. 3). Sgt. Crowley violated local statutes and his oath by arresting Gates. 4). Gates is something other than a career-long race mercenary.

Take your time, unlike President Boy-Wonder, and try to get your facts straight before publicizing your views. By the way, is President Boy-Wonder as offensive as calling the president the "chimp" or the "shrub" like so many here did with President Bush? For eight years?

Mc-D commented 3 days ago.
I won't speak for fit but
1) he didn't. Never said he did.
2) Handled it poorly = racisit. That's a big jump. Should we make that jump with you every time you make a comment involving race that is not perfect, though unlikely that may be?
3) That is clear. See links above for local law.
4) Some examples would be helpful. Sure he's black, and sure he's concerned about race issues. But what has he done along the lines of what has been alleged that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have done (notably threat of protest without a payoff). I don't think being prejudiced or feeling like another race is out to get you (correctly or incorrectly) makes you a "race mercenary" or you just might qualify.

EschewObfuscation commented 3 days ago.
You know, the only problem, mc, is that little word "fact. " I don't think you or I really know all of the facts, the sequence of things said and/or done on that night, so to comport what you don't know with the local law is risky. We are, therefore, relegated to a theoretical, political discussion about Obama's well-chronicled statements because I heard him misspeak myself. I know enough of the facts that if the "Police" are said to have acted stupidly, any fair-minded person would expect at least the same to be said about Gates. It still has not been corrected by President Boy Wonder, beer summit or no beer summit, all meaningless and insincere apologies notwithstanding.

"Another race is out to get you? " I thought we were trying to keep the discussion about "facts. " Which "race" is out to get someone? Or, are they all?

And back to the first point, if this wasn't about racial profiling (and many on the left contended loudly that it was) what was Gates upset about in the first place? I mean how did we get here then?

fitman commented 3 days ago.
Did "many on the left contended loudly that it was about racial profiling" for a fact?

And just who are these mysterious "many on the left"?

The Socialist Workers Party, perhaps?

EschewObfuscation commented 3 days ago.
No, CNN, for starters. The LA Times, USA Today, Rachel Maddow. The list is almost endless, you might try googling "racial profiling and Professor Gates" for starters. Literally hundreds of liberal newspaper columnists, publications and media outlets (all, INCLUDING FoxNews) have used the term in their coverage of the story. So much so that you could accurately say that it is MORE about racial profiling than it is about legal minutiae, probably because, as I mentioned in my chastising of Mc-D, the actual facts of the house visit remain under wraps for some reason.

But, if you don't know that this uproar is about an accusation of racial profiling (which I contend appears baseless) you don't know very much about the story itself. What in the world are you two lefties arguing about then? Whether the nutty professor "deserved" to be placed under arrest? I (and probably you) don't know enough factual information to decide whether the arrest is legitimate. But, I do at least know that the outrage was about an accusation of profiling by Gates against Sgt. Crowley.

fitman commented 3 days ago.
My bad... I forgot you guys believe the corporate media is "on the left".

Mc-D commented 3 days ago.
You made the comment here about racial profiling, not clear if you're reponding to me but since I started this particular thread, I responded.
Also, I haven't seen anyone on this thread defend what Gates said as appropriate. My point has always been that though inappropriate, it was legally permissible.

As to facts.
Fact: Mass law specifically allows you to yell at police and gesticulate wildly.
Fact. Police report made no mention of violence, threat of violence, resisting arrest, or inciting violence or unrest.

If those elements had occurred, the police would have put them in there. Perhaps they forgot, but all accounts are that Crowley is a seasoned officer and knew that omitting things that point to a different or more serious charge, when there were lots of witnesses, would not have been a sound move. I suspect he stuck pretty close to the facts of the case as he was sure to know that dealing with any Harvard faculty member would cause scrutiny. So while I did not speak with Officer Crowley, there are ample facts to judge this arrest. I also don't know what color shirt the neighbor was wearing nor the age of the officers responding. If the police had more evidence, they would have referenced it in the report.

That does not make Gates behavior appropriate, but two people can be inappropriate in the same interaction. In this case, Officer Crowley overstepped his authority as a police officer. That is the more serious transgression of the two.

As for the 'race out to get them', there has been the contention of those who fault Gates exclusively in this stipulate that Gates behaved prejudicial against a white officer because of his skin when the officer was just responding to a call. So when the President, stands up for a friend (Mike Brown indecent anybody), your reaction is to call him a racist base don the color of their skin. No way it could be merits, no way it could be friends looking our for friends, as you would expect regardless of race (Mike Brown). It's racisim. That really separates you from the sharpton-esque.

Here is the text of the presidents initial remarks:
Well, I should say at the outset that Skip Gates is a friend, so I may be a little bias ed here. I don’t know all the facts. What’s been reported, though, is that the guy forgot his keys. He jimmied his way to get into the house. There was a report called into the police station that there might be a burglary taking place. so far so good. Right? I mean, if I was trying to jigger in — well, I guess this is my house now so it probably wouldn’t happen. Let’s say my old house in Chicago. here I’d get shot. But so far so good. They’re reporting, the police are doing what they should. There’s a call. They go investigate what happens. My understanding is at that point Professor Gates is already in his house. The police officer comes in. I’m sure there’s some exchange of words but my understanding is that Professor Gates then shows his I.D. to show that this is his house. And at that point he gets arrested for disorderly conduct, charges which are later dropped. Now, I don’t know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts what role race played in that, but I think it’s fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry. Number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home and, number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. And that’s just a fact.
As you know, Lynn, when I was in the state legislature in Illinois we worked on a racial profiling bill because there was indisputable evidence that blacks and hispanics were being stopped disproportionately. And that is a sign, an example of how, you know, race remains a factor in this society. That doesn’t lessen the incredible progress that has been made. I am standing here as testimony to the progress that’s been made. And yet, the fact of the matter is that, you know, this still haunts us. And even when there are honest misunderstandings, the fact that blacks and hispanics are picked up more frequently and often time for no cause cast suspicion even when there is good cause, and that’s why I think the more that we’re working with local law enforcement to improve policing techniques so that we’re eliminating potential bias, the safer everybody’s going to be.

Qualifies his bias,
admits he doesn't know the details beyond the salient arrested a disorderly charge in own home after showing ID and charges dropped
Talks about a problem in America and wonders if race was involved. I don't think it was, but that doesn't mean there is no larger problem.

Or maybe it's just because he raised the potential that race is a problem in general and perhaps in this case and mentioning that possibility is racist.

I also noticed how you failed to provide evidence of Professor Gates being a "race mercenary" I assume it just slipped you mind.

You may want to talk about Obama and his shortcomings, but the point I made on this thread, to which you are responding, is that the police overstepped the bounds of their authority and arrested someone for what they said and how they said it. That people in a democracy can strait faced defend that is appalling. It's OK, until authorities stop liking what your saying right?

Mc-D commented 3 days ago.
I'm not a lefty as you say, I roll libertarian. But I don't much care who abuses power and why. I just care that it is curtailed.

There are plenty of facts out there, they just don't agree with your argument. If facts come out that he did threaten someone, I'm all for the arrest. The officer is not alleging that at all.

I don't disagree that the media has done a bad job about this case, but that's not really a stready baromother is it? If news doesn't sell adspace, it doesn't get aired. Racial profiling of friend of president sells adspace, even Fox realizes that.

fitman commented 3 days ago.
Hey, Mc-D...

You know you're arguing with folks who apparently simultaneously believe 'government is bad' and 'the authorities must be obeyed without question'.


EschewObfuscation commented 3 days ago.
Mc-D, do fit's idiotic mischaracterizations clarify things for you? Funny how you'd read me chapter and verse on my error but fit's inane and unfunny comments deserve no such rejoinder from you, the libertarian.

At least you have finally said that Gates acted stupidly, unlike the biased and uninformed president. I'll try and respond to your legitimate, serious questions. The sarcastic ones, you'll understand if I don't get into it.

I wish I could conclude, at this point, that the cop did something wrong. I hesitate to only because I don't know what was said nor if the fig leaf of the law in Massachusetts covers it, although it appears to put the cop in a position of being a punching bag for the likes of Professor Gates in every situation.

But, your wrath against the cop is palpable (and justifiable if your orientation is to demasculate them all in every city in every case) and a much greater offense compared to the cop exceeding his authority by slapping the cuffs on the smartass. I guess I don't disagree. Why then did the abusive cop who took advantage of the poor, foul-mouthed, professor get an invitation to slug a beer at the White House with the much smarter players in this drama? Isn't that compounding the affront by elevating the cop?

Mc-D commented 3 days ago.
(Edited 3 days ago)
Fit can defend his own points. He has not disagreed with me here as near as I can tell. Perhaps I'm misreading, but it seems like he concurs. I don't care about his tone or yours. I'm cool with polite and I'm cool with lowbrow.

As for emasculating a police force, you can blame the Massachusetts legislature and courts for that if you disagree. I think the police and the power of government need to be clearly constrained as much as reasonably possible.

If Gates threatened these officers, then he should suffer the consequences. He didn't. That doesn't make him morally correct for what he did, but it does not make him legally liable. Nor should it anywhere.

I do not have anything against police as a profession and have friends and relatives in law enforcement and military. Some agree with my position, but they understand where it comes from. Many of the police and service people I know take the Constitution very seriously and understnad the logic even if they disagree with the conclusions.

Flip this around and have a Nazi KKK person hurling racial epithets at a black cop, the black cop should have to deal with it as well. Freedom is not always pleasant, and its price is we have to listen to nutjobs of whatever flavor so that we reserve our right to be heard.

You seem to contend that this is a justifiable error, I think it is evidence of a larger problem where when people agree with the overstepping of authority when it seems OK because they don't like what the victim said. I don't think it's OK ever. It's an extension of the Broken Window Theory that William Bratton made famous in NYPD. If you tolerate the small stuff, the big stuff is a easier next step. This is true for crime and true for government authority.

You think it's OK for a cop to have the discretion to arrest you when he doesn't like what your saying. What happens when you meet a cop who doesn't like what you say? What recourse do you have? If you really pose a physical danger to someone, then yea, a police officer has an obligation to arrest you. By maintaining that people can say what they want an in a manner of their choosing, it is not clear to me how that emasculates an armed policie officer with the authority to use deadly force. This was an elemental principle for our founders and they made it an explicit part of the fiber of our country.

If someone doesn't like what Gates says, either in a diatribe against a police officer or of his scholarly work, the best medicine is sunlight. How different would the tenor be if the officer left, filed the incident report. Then when the beat reporter read the report, and filed the story we'd be talking about the nutty Harvard Professor berating an honest cop who just went to check that everything is OK.

Again, I think there is a great chance that this would have happened regardless of race. I think the cop did not like someone badmouthing him publicly, period.

As far as offenses go, this is a small one, but the problem is emblematic of the push in society and the media to say yes to authority no matter what. If this is how Obama deals with it that is his choice. I don't agree with it. But then I the Obama administration is equally bad on civil liberties as the Bush administration was. I've yet to see a significant difference.

EschewObfuscation commented 2 days ago.
I think you're wildly optimistic to say the Obama administration is "only" as bad as the Bush administration on civil liberties. I see bleak days ahead and an arrogant government abusing its authority with a press accustomed to wiping their fingerprints off everything.

fitman commented 2 days ago.
Well, Obama didn't apologize for his "health care" scam, but apparently the rest of my dream scenario came true:

Mc-D commented yesterday.
I don't see a difference vis a vis civil liberties. Bush 43 oversaw a massive erosion of civil liberties and Obama seems happy to keep it that way and cover up for Bush. They aren't on opposite teams as far as I can tell.

Do you mean that as a political move it was a successful maneuver?

EschewObfuscation commented yesterday.
Except that Obama will be the most anti-choice (with the exception of his radical zealotry in favor of abortion) president we've ever seen. Ever imagined.

fitman commented 18 hours ago.
I wasn't particularly thinking of politics when I said I hoped the professor and the cop would apologize to each other, and Obama would apologize for trying to scam us with his "health care plan".

I'm more interested in social advancement.

Mc-D commented 2 hours ago.
You lost me. I'm not sure what you're talking about other than that you are strongly against his abortion position.

I guess since this didn't erupt into violence, we're doing better than a generation ago.

fitman commented 2 hours ago.
Perhaps Amadou Diallo didn't die in vain.
Showing 114 Comments