The Goat Pen

He's now the patron saint for idiots everywhere.

so now they have called Freddie grays death a homicide that in itself means his death was caused by somebody else. wonder how many cops get charged. have to be some kind of involumtary manslaughter if just throwing him in the back of the paddy wagon caused this. course supposedly the other guy in the paddywaggon said gray was throwing himself around trying to hurt himself

http://local12.com/m/news/features/top- ... 5307.shtml

ECat is gonna be mad.

I don't have a problem with drone strikes on terrorists. I have a problem with drone strikes on Americans

75% of Americans say its ok to use them on Americans? Thats just sad

crashcourse wrote:so now they have called Freddie grays death a homicide that in itself means his death was caused by somebody else. wonder how many cops get charged. have to be some kind of involumtary manslaughter if just throwing him in the back of the paddy wagon caused this. course supposedly the other guy in the paddywaggon said gray was throwing himself around trying to hurt himself

1. I'll be surprised if there is any conviction. They will move the venue to the county and it will go away.

2. The other guy in the paddy wagon was in there for 5 minutes with Freddie Gray before they reached their destination, never saw Gray and only told homicide police (a distinction he was adamant about making...not the "regular po-lice") he heard banging in that part of the van, which sounded like the dude's head hitting the wall. By the time that guy was in the van Freddie already had a severed spine and had no pulse. If what he heard was indeed Freddie hitting the wall of the van, it was his lifeless body sliding there as it laid unsecure in the wagon.

3. "Throwing him in the back of the paddy wagon" didn't cause it, as they have on video Freddie Gray getting into the van on his own power. Once again, as has happened time and time again in these types of situations, the police keep modifying their story. They said they made 3 stops, but a CCTV found the van on another stop in between the (supposed) 2nd and 3rd stops.

The BPD planted that "self-inflicted/bang your head" story with the WaPo and it won't stick after all the dust settles. They killed that man, and most likely did their major damage to Freddie and his spine and head around stop 2 and 3, but it will take a federal prosecution to make it stick...if it ever does.

well here you go

http://news.yahoo.com/freddie-gray-sust ... 21845.html

handcuffs and shackles and no seat restraints

eCat wrote:I don't have a problem with drone strikes on terrorists. I have a problem with drone strikes on Americans

75% of Americans say its ok to use them on Americans? Thats just sad

I think that's with the knowledge of them being traitors though and endorsing killing Americans.

crashcourse wrote:well here you go

http://news.yahoo.com/freddie-gray-sust ... 21845.html

handcuffs and shackles and no seat restraints

They never buckled me. Just cuffed me to the divider.

there's a line from Longest yard you wonder if any of those cops uttered..........

listening to Elizabeth Warren this morning on the news talking about the trade agreement she is at odds with President Obama over.

According to her, she and about 20 other Senators know whats in the trade agreement but they can't tell the public, and the people that helped write the trade agreement represents about 500 people, 85% of which are industry and lobbyist directly affected by the trade agreement - meaning there is no balance in representing the needs of the people.

She did say that part of the agreement would allow corporations to sue countries that do not practice the trade agreement, and instead of it going to court, the disputes would be mediated by private lawyers.

Obama was asked about Warren's opposition to this trade agreement, that no one in the general public can be trusted enough to know about before its implemented, and he said all her concerns were speculative (not unfounded). The first thing I thought of was "well , Obama has 18 months left in office, he's probably in a mode where he's gonna get some serious money out of this deal , a few positions on some board of directors after he leaves office, etc and this deal is so shitty that they just have decided to blatantly keep it under wraps".

I'm kind of at a point where I am just amazed at how our government works - not just at the federal level but at all levels.

I was thinking this morning about how some hick town council decides to put up a traffic camera to generate revenue off the public it represents, and for the most part, the public will grumble about it but not do anything. Yet they'll end up forking over $125 of their money at some point after they get fined.

And then you think about all the different ways people who were elected just make these decisions at the expense of the people they represent - mostly to their benefit moreso than the public.

Maybe that's why I have such a libertarian slant - inevitably power corrupts and the only good government is limited, hamstrung in their ability to execute for or against the people.

However I can see where if you are a minority, you lean in the other direction in a belief that a powerful government is an ally to represent your rights.

At the end of the day both views want the same thing - to be left alone from oppression.

But you take a look at Baltimore for example - the last republican mayor they've had was in the 60's if I read the reports correctly - so here is a group of people that have continually elected government officials supposedly dedicated to furthering their cause, and in the 40-50 years in that time period , little has changed - even with not only a democratic mayor, but mostly democratic officials across the board - but I bet if you asked the citizens of Baltimore, they'd tell you they need Democrats representing them. That's not to say that republicans are the answer - my point is government isn't the answer.

We expect government to represent us , to look out for us but corruption doesn't allow it - instead you get shit like a climate change denier James Inhofe in charge of the Environment and Public Works committee (yes, I realize he is a republican but that doesn't detract from my point), you get supreme court justices that aren't blind to justice but are appointed based on biases they already had before even hearing a case, and I could go on forever.

Now we don't even care to enforce quid pro quo. A man could give millions of dollars to a politician and as long as he doesn't exchange millions of dollars in government support directly,its considered a friendship. Hillary Clinton gets millions of dollars from foreign sources of revenue and we are concerned about their influence, but if a corporation or Soros gave her that money, then its a freedom of speech issue if we try to stop it.

Which takes me back to this trade agreement - Even though I admittedly know little about this trade agreement and even less about what activities have been kept from public view in the past, when Obama - representing the concerns the people talked about transparency in 2007, I'm not sure they took it to mean, we're going to be transparent about hiding shit from you which apparently is becoming more prevalent today.

There is a boldness about just being so blatant about all of this. Maybe its the age of instant information we live in that makes it seem worse than 70 years ago. Maybe its the size and scope of government that gives them so many opportunities or maybe its just the decline of American sensibilities, the benefit of lowered expectations of our politicians to actually do right by us.

Maybe we all should do a little more burning and looting.

reminds me of an old tom cruise line

https://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0 ... &fr2=14166

somewhere on that page

Like a local Texas official once proclaimed when asked whether he would run for higher office (paraphrasing): "They don't pay enough in Washington."

Politicians have been lining their pockets off their government influence forever. It surely doesn't make it right, but it surely isn't a new phenomenon made invisible by the changing of American sensibilities.

I'm glad you acknowledge the hypocrisy of so many going after Clinton for her ties to foreign money via the Clinton Foundation, but those same people not saying a peep about Super PACs funneling gobs of cash to pols without a single view on who is sending most of the cash. The whole thing stinks...and it sorta always has...but it's just so much better than other governments in the world (I would dare say almost every other one).

I guess I need to catch up on this trade agreement proposal. I am not going to lie, I have not paid a lick of attention to it yet.

This sorta kills that origin story of waterboarding and "enhanced interrogation" lead to bin Laden's capture.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n10/seymour-m- ... -bin-laden

I may not agree with Warren on many things, but I think she is sincere in her attempts to protect the American people.

But I don't know if she's right on this or not. Something is up because the democrats are revolting on Obama and the Republicans are backing him on this

that leads me to believe that some future stockholders are going to get rich on this.

Bklyn wrote:This sorta kills that origin story of waterboarding and "enhanced interrogation" lead to bin Laden's capture.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n10/seymour-m- ... -bin-laden

when I heard that report, the first thing I thought was the Pakistani doctor that aided the Americans and after Bin Laden was killed, he was subsequently imprisoned for some form of treason against his country.

Now maybe he just fucked up their bargaining position - who knows but at the time it seemed to validate they were protecting Bin Laden or at least intent on setting an example for someone who invites the Americans to enter Pakistan covertly.

Truth or not, that is some serious rabbit holing Hersh does in that story. That took some time to cultivate. Hersch says the doctor was a patsy.

also, if his account is true, doesn't that mean Zero Dark Thirty is based on a lie?

"I guess I need to catch up on this trade agreement proposal. I am not going to lie, I have not paid a lick of attention to it yet."

I don't know much of the details myself, but I see this as more of a foreign policy, self-defense move to counter China's influence in the region. I am sure there will be some manufacturing jobs lost, not as much as NAFTA, but some; however, I feel from a 100 ft. level it is slightly painful from an economic standpoint, but a big plus for national defense.

This agreement will eventually be done no matter what. It's just a matter what's going to be in it.

On another note, ex-Presidents don't go on Board of Directors. They get their money mostly from speaking fees (up to $100,000 per speaking engagement)

eCat wrote:I may not agree with Warren on many things, but I think she is sincere in her attempts to protect the American people.

But I don't know if she's right on this or not. Something is up because the democrats are revolting on Obama and the Republicans are backing him on this

that leads me to believe that some future stockholders are going to get rich on this.

Yep, like I've said for 8 years, Obama is just another big-money conservative.

bill was getting pain 500,000 on at least 6 or 7 occasions to be deposited into his foundation