On 11/27/17 12:13 PM, wrote:
On 27 Nov 2017 16:44:03 GMT, Keyser Soze wrote:

wrote:
On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 20:24:34 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 11/26/17 3:24 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 14:28:36 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 11/26/17 1:48 PM, wrote:

Again an ad hominem attack and ignoring the facts.
The Trib did endorse Gary. I guess they must be "looney" yet you still
cite them.


You boys are going downhill as quickly as Trump. I can differentiate
between a news story in a legitimate newspaper and the positions of its
editorial writers or board. I suppose in your world of uneducated
ignorance, they are one and the same.

You really need to make up your mind. Yesterday you were criticizing a
paper because you did not like the editorial board and you thought
they were slanting the news.. Now you say that slant does not exist.
Is it possible you only think it happens when you disagree with them?


The Trib is not controlled by the insane religious right. The Wash Times
is. Got it?

A always had it. If a paper, or anyone else, disagrees with your
narrow view of things, there is something wrong with them.


That’s just stupid.

... but it appears to be true. Any news outlet that has a conservative
slant on things is somehow defective to you. On the other hand, if
they lean left they are the gospel truth.


Oh, really? I don't spend much time whining about the Wall Street
Journal, even though it is a Fox New outlet. It is a little more
responsible than, say, the NY Post. The Wash Times is a Moonie
paper...it's a special case in the world of rightwing propaganda. I
actually know a couple of people who worked there and whose reportage
was "changed" by the church editors to reflect more of the church' right
wing "slant," as you call it. I don't slam the rightwing "Real Clear
Politics" site. Oh, I also don't claim any left leaning papers as "the
gospel truth."

You really have a problem here, fella. You continuously protect your
anti-progressive fantasies on others.

BTW, what's the catechism of your Libertarians on "stop and frisk,"
which you favor?

On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 12:26:59 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

BTW, what's the catechism of your Libertarians on "stop and frisk,"
which you favor?


As part of a larger plan, it is not the worst thing that can happen,
particularly if the police use the Terry guidelines of reasonable
suspicion. It is hard to deny that the broken windows plan did show
striking results against the crime wave that consumed New York before
Rudy took over.
It should also be noted that in those "safe" European cities you are
always talking about, the police have been using these tactics and the
low tolerance for quality of life crimes for decades.

On 11/27/17 1:32 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 12:26:59 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

BTW, what's the catechism of your Libertarians on "stop and frisk,"
which you favor?


As part of a larger plan, it is not the worst thing that can happen,
particularly if the police use the Terry guidelines of reasonable
suspicion. It is hard to deny that the broken windows plan did show
striking results against the crime wave that consumed New York before
Rudy took over.
It should also be noted that in those "safe" European cities you are
always talking about, the police have been using these tactics and the
low tolerance for quality of life crimes for decades.


Not a fan of the 4th Amendment, eh? In the absence of probable cause,
why should cops be stopping and frisking...because the object of their
attention is a minority?

On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 19:17:18 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 11/27/17 1:32 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 12:26:59 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

BTW, what's the catechism of your Libertarians on "stop and frisk,"
which you favor?


As part of a larger plan, it is not the worst thing that can happen,
particularly if the police use the Terry guidelines of reasonable
suspicion. It is hard to deny that the broken windows plan did show
striking results against the crime wave that consumed New York before
Rudy took over.
It should also be noted that in those "safe" European cities you are
always talking about, the police have been using these tactics and the
low tolerance for quality of life crimes for decades.


Not a fan of the 4th Amendment, eh? In the absence of probable cause,
why should cops be stopping and frisking...because the object of their
attention is a minority?

Ah the race card. I knew you would pull that out. Maybe they look
harder at some people because that is who is over represented in both
the shooters and the victims.
Did you even bother to look at the Baltimore Sun table of murder
victims? See anything striking about who was being shot?
Maybe they are just another biased paper you do not trust.

On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 19:33:15 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 19:17:18 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 11/27/17 1:32 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 12:26:59 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

BTW, what's the catechism of your Libertarians on "stop and frisk,"
which you favor?


As part of a larger plan, it is not the worst thing that can happen,
particularly if the police use the Terry guidelines of reasonable
suspicion. It is hard to deny that the broken windows plan did show
striking results against the crime wave that consumed New York before
Rudy took over.
It should also be noted that in those "safe" European cities you are
always talking about, the police have been using these tactics and the
low tolerance for quality of life crimes for decades.


Not a fan of the 4th Amendment, eh? In the absence of probable cause,
why should cops be stopping and frisking...because the object of their
attention is a minority?

Ah the race card. I knew you would pull that out. Maybe they look
harder at some people because that is who is over represented in both
the shooters and the victims.
Did you even bother to look at the Baltimore Sun table of murder
victims? See anything striking about who was being shot?
Maybe they are just another biased paper you do not trust.

How much you want to bet Harry doesn't provide a pertinent answer to that?