ACTION ITEM: HB 312, Police Transparency

So how does this relate to the case of Sam D? He had audio recording running along with video recording in the courthouse hallway. Should they have told him to disconnect the microphone?

Charley, is it absolutely necessary in your defense of liberty to be a total dick?

I understand that being violated over a lifetime by statist policies is enough to emotionally scar anyone but maybe you could focus your rage on your direct oppressors instead of spewing forth a relentless barrage of ad hominem attacks on indoctrinated cogs who've just taken their first dip in the liberty pool?

You have a few flaws of your own you might want to work on before bludgeoning others with stones of invective, particularly your inability to control your negative emotions, an inefficiency at prioritizing the targets of your ire, inadequate communication skills and some sort of superiority complex over anyone who hasn't yet reached your vision of liberty.

says the biggest dick on this site.

I'm afraid you have me confused with yourself. Or perhaps you'd like to back up your assertion with proof? I may be an opinionated loudmouth at times but I do try to keep an open mind should any arguments I hear ring true. You, however, have been entirely confrontational and vindictive since you first appeared on this site.

state explicitly and honestly (if possible) why you use the term “ad hominem” there.

Thanks for the dig at my honesty. I appreciate that attack as well because, hell, who could possibly be honest these days besides yourself, right?

I use the term "ad hominem" because it means to "attack the man and not the argument" which you do aplenty.

Labeling LPViper a coward:

the assertion that violence begets violence is easily controverted coward-speak

Insulting LPViper's mental faculties:

would be funny were it not evidence of deep mental degradation/infancy.

Insulting LPViper's mental faculties:

are you that stupid?

Labeling LPViper a state-lover:

you obviously love the state deeply.

Labeling LPViper a scumbag-by-association:

he’s at heart just another nuremberg defense scumbag, and you’re one of his fans.

Etc.

to hell with you.

state-slurper

That explicit enough for you?

At all times, LPViper has attempted a bit of levity in his discussion with you, appeared open-minded and you have returned the favor by viciously bludgeoning him over the head with a rock nearly every time.

If this is the way you educate others, I hope you never do it for a living. I can only imagine there'd be an abnormal amount of children in your region with scarred psyches before you were fired in disgrace.

"Mr. Hardman called me a coward, a retard and scumbag because I got the answer wrong, Mommy! I'm never going back there! He's mean!", Little Johnny cried.

And let me be very clear on this: I don't favor many of LPViper's statements or arguments anymore than you do but the guy was asking some legitimate questions you completely ignored. He stated he's new to the concepts of liberty and you've done nothing but attempt to humiliate and destroy him with your savage retorts.

Browbeating him isn't going to teach him anything about liberty. There can be no understanding between two parties when one acts toward the other with such a cold, malevolent attitude.

Is it really so much to ask that you engage in civil discussion on this site with healthy debate?

I didn't think you'd actually address my legitimate criticisms, Charley.

As for your diversionary "context" retort, I figured you'd play that card sooner or later and you didn't disappoint me, thus revealing your own disingenuous nature.

To clarify: I haven't attacked your character, Charley. I've merely made objective observations about your negative attitude and your disparaging comments, supplied evidence of such and called you on it.

As I suspected, you have no explanation (let alone a defense) for your brutish behavior.

To clarify: I haven’t attacked your character, Charley. I’ve merely made objective observations about your negative attitude and your disparaging comments, supplied evidence of such and called you on it.

As I suspected, you have no explanation (let alone a defense) for your brutish behavior.

two brief paragraphs so riddled, contextually, with logical errors that i could write at least a huge kickass article about it.

never argue from ignorance.

There you go again making claims with no supporting evidence, Charley.

Instead of making empty claims, why don't you point out with specificity what logical errors those two paragraphs have? You can't possibly be afraid I'll successfully refute your claims, can you? Of course not, not you. You're morally and intellectually superior. You hinted at such earlier.

How is "calling out your objectionable behavior with objective observations supported by evidence" the same as "attacking your character and ignoring your argument"? I'm all agog for the answer to this mystery.

I learnt that from Dane Cook

"Serendipitous" and "Valkyrie" are also cool.

Government is men and women providing services at the barrel of a gun. If those services were worthy of their value people would willingly pay for them.

Arguing and debating over their laws, handbooks, tactics etc. gives the liars, thieves and murders an air of legitimacy.

They seek legitimacy as their primary need. For if they primarily sought control they skip the paper terrorism and dog & pony courtroom shows and just pull out their guns and make us all do what they tell us to do.

They're not bureaucrats. They're terrocrats. That word strikes at the heart of their supposed legitimacy.

If the terrocrats with their paper terrorism want a real war on terror they need look no further than themselves.