MaxFly

Vipa, I'm in for the yahoo... Lol, you can never have too many fantacy teams.

Oh... he said yo mama... Ohhhhhhhhhh Blatant instigation... :lolsign: Sadly, my superior intellect has no idea what ya'll are talking about. I guess I must be above simple put downs.... No, wait, that's definately not it. I think in this case I must use the ScyHigh defense of 99: :therain: :therain: :damnyou: :damnyou: :davidblaine: :davidblaine: :gettinjiggywitit: So instigator, where's your score? We know you've got some game! 139... My official numbers are in the low 150s, but you certainly beat me in this one. As a result, I've resorted to simple instigation.

Indeed... :sipread:

By admiting that the reports were wrong, I've already admited that I was wrong to accept the level of crime that was reported. There are about 4-6 pages in the original thread with my stance. I've admited that with the newest reports concerning the level of crime, my original stance was wrong. Concerning the topic of "racist perceptions," all I can do is state the truth. Whether you choose to believe it or not is up to you. I don't know you, you don't know me, and so this opinion of yours is of no significance. You've chosen to make this personal. That's fine. Concerning the govenment's slow response, my prior statements stand. Concerning Kanye's statements on national television, my stance remains the same as well. Concerning my being able to conceive of the actocities human beings can commmit... I've seen enough first hand to realize that human beings are capable of anything, whether good or bad, irrespective of race. As to whether I respect my forum mates, I've made it abundantly clear to everyone my level of respect, both privately and openly. Again, the demagoguery is noted. Thanks.

Game is known for his name dropping, but half of the time, the references are obscure or irrelevant. What are the surrounding lines? I haven't heard the song.

Yeah, Walker had a good game with 20 and 5 steals. Wade had 18, Shaq had 17. Duncan had 16 with Manu and Brent Barry both at 13. Heat fans are hilarious. They booed the Spurs during introduction, seemingly forgetting that it was a Katrina benefit game. It's going to be a long season. In other news, Cleveland 116, Washington 94. I expect Cleavland to make the playoffs this year. As for Washington... time will tell. I'm interested to see how Butler will work out for them. He's a decent player, and he showed that he could do quite a bit last year.

Lol, don't you just love the internet. Good times.

Lol, Chuck D's a funny dude... I think they're callin it the Millions More Movement. Oct. 14th, 15th, 16th

I know, I've followed it pretty closely. You make a reasonable point. Shoot to kill is definitely not desireable, and it's certainly not something that people here in the US would readily accept. The potential that it could be abused or misapplied is there. At the same time, New Orleans wasn't a standard situation. I posted this in another thread, but shoot to kill in the US comes with a few caveats when involving National Guard troops... Shoot to kill orders are usually accompanied with specific rules of engagement, clarifying exatly under what conditions troops are allowed to kill civilians. By and large, the only conditions are those where troops believe themselves to be in evident danger, under armed attack or where the lives of others are in danger. As we saw in New Orleans, the general rules of engagement seemed to be largely followed even in absence of veritable martial law. Given the fact that there was lawlessness in New Orleans, they were given the proper orders. In absence of shoot to kill, there is no other directive. There is no such thing as shoot to injure. Shoot to kill is basically a term used to imply zero tolerance of crime. Even in the absense of specific shoot to kill orders, similar directives or rules of engagement would have been carried out in New Orleans, just quietly. Cozmo pointed out that the result of shoot to kill in such situations is usually dead Americans, however the purpose of these orders is to ultimately minimize the number of lives lost and to preserve order. For the most part, things worked well in New Orleans. I guess that the concern would be that a passive policing presence would lead to a more aggresive and escalating criminal presence in whatever form it manifests itself.

First I didn't insist on the guilt of the populace. Don't put words in my mouth. From the very beginning, I expressed that any crimes taking place in New Orleans were the act of a those who would take advantage of the horrible situation post Katrina for selfish reasons. The populace at large were victims, but there were a few who used the situation to their advantage. You are trying to twist that into saying that I was attempting to demonize the public. The demagoguery is obvious, and I don't think it will be lost on those reading this. Again, this is why when you say that you deal in "facts," you have to forgive me for being skeptical. I'll state what I posted in the other thread you created. Here lies the break down in the logic of your "racist perceptions" theory. The race of those in New Orleans had absolutely nothing to do with what I believed to be the case in terms of crime in the city. I wasn't more willing to believe these things because the population was largely black. Your only link to "racist perceptions" is the word "black" in statements such as "You went even further by being willing to believe that black people were capable of these horrible atrocities even with EVIDENCE THAT THEY NEVER HAPPENED..." However, I have not said anything intimating that I believed these things because black people were said to be involved. Again, your claims are merely asinine personal attacks that are completely baseless, but it doesn't surprise me. Incidentally, if you think I actually care whether you believe me or not, keep thinking that... I find it amusing. Why did I believe these things to be true? I'll first reiterate that it has nothing to do with the race of those who were believed to be involved in crimes. That being said, police officers, local government officials, and citizens themselves had attested to many of these things, making definitive and unambiguous statement. The first contrary evidence was that there were not official reports. Considering that New Orleans had no real way to report crime, and lacked a police force capable of carrying out any serious investigations, this "evidence" was suspect. Further evidence of a lack of bodies found in the convention centers and the superdome was more believeable and more easily verifiable, yet these didn't address things that took place outside of those two sites. The evidence simply wasn't expansive enough to speak on the conditions in New Orleans as a whole, as the claims of violence and disorder spanned beyond just those two sites and the majority of troops were commited to areas other than those two sites. I've already admitted it Tim. It's the "racist perceptions" theory I'm trying to clarify. You have to admit, it's a heinous accusation, especially since I haven't said anything that would intimate that race was a factor in what I belived. It also doesn't mean that the government's slow response was due to racism. I suspect that Cozmo's goal is to link something... anything... to racism by the end of this discussion.

I'm more than willing to concede that you are smarter than me. In fact, I believe that I did so from early on. This thing is about the truth for me, as the truth is what I love above all else. Again... This a far more serious discussion than who is smarter. My point from the beginning was that the whole damm country was willing to believe that black people were capable of these horrible atrocities even without corroborating evidence, and that reveals OUR racist perceptions. You went even further by being willing to believe that black people were capable of these horrible atrocities even with EVIDENCE THAT THEY NEVER HAPPENED, and that reveals YOUR racist perceptions. Even now, you stand in favor of the deployment of troops with "shoot to kill" orders when it is obvious that no such thing was needed. Thank God that the only people killed were those who purportedly shot at the engineers. BTW, care to place a wager on what the truth will be of that situation once it is finally investigated? Here lies the break down in the logic of your "racist perceptions" theory. The race of those in New Orleans had absolutely nothing to do with what I believed to be the case in terms of crime in the city. I wasn't more willing to believe these things because the population was largely black. Your only link to "racist perceptions" is the word "black" in statements such as "You went even further by being willing to believe that black people were capable of these horrible atrocities even with EVIDENCE THAT THEY NEVER HAPPENED..." However, I have not said anything intimating that I believed these things because black people were said to be involved. Concerning the shoot to kill orders... In dealing with the information that officials had at the time and what they were seeing with looting and lawlessness, it was the proper decision. In looking back, officials still aren't sure exactly how much crime was perpetrated throughout the city, but to establish the necessary order that the city needed for those engaged in search and rescue to effectively and efficiently carry out their mission, it was a necessary order, regardless of how unpleasant. I think there is a misunderstanding of exactly what shoot to kill orders actually are. People often associate this with shoot on sight. Shoot to kill orders are usually accompanied with specific rules of engagement, clarifying exatly under what conditions troops are allowed to kill civilians. By and large, the only conditions are those where troops believe themselves to be in danger, under armed attack or where the lives of others are in danger. As we saw in New Orleans, the general rules of engagement were largely followed even in absence of veritable martial law. Given the fact that there was lawlessness in New Orleans, they were given the proper orders. In absence of shoot to kill, there is no other directive. There is no such thing as shoot to injure. Shoot to kill is basically a term used to imply zero tolerance of crime. Even in the absense of specific shoot to kill orders, similar directives or rules of engagement would have been carried out in New Orleans, just quietly.

The fact that Bush is using the military force as a police force is not only very dangerous, IT IS ILLEGAL!!!! (I refer you to the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.) Bush wasn't the one to give the shoot-to-kill orders. His power in this specific situation was somewhat limited since the national guard had not been federalized. Also, New Orleans was more or less operating under the rules of martial law although it wasn't officially declared. You're right though. This is definitely something that needs to be addressed because national guard troops should not carry out policing activities outside of martial law. The situation in New Orleans was unique, but the federal govenment should take steps to explore how such situations should be handled in the future if the police force of a given region is ever significantly depleted under a similar situation or one just as significant.

As EVERYBODY HERE CAN SEE so you can't twist my words anymore, I was specifically talking about the stories that YOU posted here. I STAND BY MY STATEMENT STILL! The only statement that PURPORTS to be first person is the one from the doctor. I tried to show you how it is common that people who are a part of a team or group will refer to what happens to that group as "we", even if they didn't personally take part, and of course you ridiculed me. Now we find that a portion of his "first person" statement NEVER HAPPENED, so we have to assume that either the good doctor was A) lying, B) grossly exaggerating, or C) was relaying what was told him by his colleagues and was misinformed or misunderstood. I will give the doctor the benefit of the doubt and choose C). YOU insisted that these horrors took place even in the face of surmounting evidence to the contrary. When I asked you why, you had no answer, but stuck to it just the same. When I made the point that this was evidence of a racist taint to your perceptions, you got offended but insisted on ignoring all of the evidence anyway. Now you claim that, even though all of these horrors were completely unsubstantiated by anybody, sending in troops with "shoot to kill" orders was the right thing to do. You say that "they went in and reestablished order" when it is now obvious that disorder was extremely over-exaggerated. You say that it hasn't been demonstrated that the "shoot to kill" orders were wrong, when it has now been proven that those orders were given based solely on RUMORS! Your words betray your mindset. You have been proven to be WRONG. You have been proven to be a HYPOCRITE. You have been proven to be a BULLY. You have been proven to be GULLIBLE. You have been proven to be OBSTINATE. You have been proven to be ABSENT OF ANY HUMILITY. And WORST OF ALL, you have been proven to be willing to believe THE ABSOLUTELY MOST HORRIBLE THINGS OF BLACK PEOPLE, EVEN IN THE FACE OF EVIDENCE TO ABSOLVE THEM!!! Kanye West said that they were sending troops down there to kill us. He was implying that the "shoot to kill orders" were unjustified. Turns out that he was right. You, on the other hand, still approve of sending troops with "shoot to kill" orders amongst the suffering innocent based solely on rumors, EVEN AFTER knowing this to be the case. Better hope that the police are never dispatched to your home under the same situation. I have repeatedly asked you to point out things I have said that have exposed me as having "racist perceptions," yet you've repeated it without proof and devoid or logical reasoning. My belief that many of these crimes took place had nothing to do with the fact that most of those accused are black, yet, in essece, this is what you are saying. As for the shoot to kill orders, those involved dealt with the information they had, even from Compass and Nagin. Again, I will clarify, they were the proper orders to be given at the time, especially looking back at how things turned out with the involvement of troops. Kanye' statement. First, Kanye said that troops were being sent to shoot black people. If he wanted to say that the orders were unjustified, that is what he should have said. This is the second time you have sought to interpret what he meant by his statement. Before, you said that what he was trying to get across was his concern that black people may be grouped together, innocent and guilty alike, and shot at or harassed. How are you interpreting his statement now? edited to provide a space between comments...

Haha, I agree. That mustache he has in those picts is hilarious. I half expect him to call someone a jive turkey at some point in the movie.

Lol, I feel you Ty. I'm this close to saying "bah, humbug" in relation to all of this myself.

I think the problem is that as long as there is a market for the kind of music 50 et al. make, they will continue to make it, and the record companies will pander to that market. It's more about the image right now than it is about the music. It's cool to be profane, to rebel against authority and to objectify women. If 50 and others like him were to disappear, would the market still be there for the kind of music they make? It's likely that it would be and if someone felt the need to take their place in the future, that person would have an audience. I guess the question is "Does the industry create the market, or does the market create the industry." I think it's a mixture of the two.

All classics. the "Tiny by Nature" is one of my favorites.

So Mr. Fly, what do you have to say to your forum mates? You showed everybody here FOR WEEKS how much bigger than them you imagined yourself, so now it's time you showed them just how big you really are. So far you're coming up mighty small... I've already agreed that the reports of violence at the convention center and the superdome were overstated. That's not to say that neither violence nor crimes took place throughout the city. It also doesn't follow that troops should not have been given shoot to kill orders, considering the outcome and how quickly they were able to reestablish some semblence of order in the city without absuing their power. And going back to the purpose of this entire debate, there is still no evidence that racism or the neglect or lack of concern for black people had anything to do with the govenment's slow response. You've also tried to make this entire debate into a "who's smarter" thing from the get go. "Battling intellects" or something of that nature is what I believe you called it. It's certainly not about being bigger than anyone else. A debate is a debate. While a few argued that the delayed response was due to racism, I agrued that it was due to bureaucracy and incompetent govenment officials, while outnumbered. It's a far more serious discussion than who is smarter or who is bigger.

Haha, it's laughable that you even have the gall to post about hypocrisy, but today's a holiday and I have a some free time so I'll indulge you a little. Were reports of crime overstated at the superdome and convention center? Yes, and I am happy that this was the case as opposed to these horrible stories actually being true. My premise all the while has been that troops were needed, and they were given the proper orders to carry out their mission. They went in and reestablished order in New Orleans without grossly abusing their power. They provided relief for the depleted police force in the city. Was it wrong that they were given shoot to kill orders? No one has demonstrated why. If you recall, Nagin and Compass themselves said that these things were taking place and didn't provide additional statements until long after the shoot to kill orders were given. As for hypocrisy, I've pointed out enough statements you've made and refused to clarify or address to last for some time. I'm especially waiting for a "no first person statements" clarification.

I actually have one on ESPN. Virtual GM. What format are you guys going to use?

It was really close... just for good measure...

Oh... he said yo mama... Ohhhhhhhhhh Blatant instigation...

You go knock on wood too... Stop tempting fate...

Lol, we're going to have to have a quiz off.

:hmm: [crickets] Still waiting for Compass, Nagin, or Blanco to say that troops weren't needed. Still waiting for someone to prove that troops were sent with the express purpose of shooting black people indiscriminately...