Passive Occupy protesters take pepper spray blast

[freeatlast]

You make a blanket insult based on one article with one paragraph that mentions one ex-Marine.

...But I suppose that's all that's needed to self-justify.

My friend I made that statement way before that article was ever published in several other discussions. You will find it is true if you do your homework and check out how may officers who brutalize the citizens are ex-military against those who are not. Based on the percentage of those who are ex-military and those who are not the higher percentage are ex-military who brutalize people and my guess is that the ones not ex-military learn from them as it becomes a feeding frenzy..

If you can find stata to prove me wrong I will recant, but you are not going to find them. If anything you will find me correct.

 

[InTheLight]

If you can find stata to prove me wrong I will recant, but you are not going to find them. If anything you will find me correct.

Sorry, but the burden of proof is on you. You must show that your assertion is true.

I can wait. I know Don has been waiting for weeks. Go for it. Show your sources of facts and figures on this claim.

 

[TCassidy]

TC- I think he's just looking to pick a fight with anyone he can find.

You may be right. It seems rather sad on a Christian forum, but I suppose it happens more often than we would like to believe.

 

[Arbo]

My friend I made that statement way before that article was ever published in several other discussions. You will find it is true if you do your homework and check out how may officers who brutalize the citizens are ex-military against those who are not. Based on the percentage of those who are ex-military and those who are not the higher percentage are ex-military who brutalize people and my guess is that the ones not ex-military learn from them as it becomes a feeding frenzy..

If you can find stata to prove me wrong I will recant, but you are not going to find them. If anything you will find me correct.

The onus is not on me to disprove an assertion that you have made. The burden is yours. Time to cite your evidence (other than your one article), if you have any. Otherwise, your accusation will appear baseless.

 

[Arbo]

Sorry, but the burden of proof is on you. You must show that your assertion is true.

I can wait. I know Don has been waiting for weeks. Go for it. Show your sources of facts and figures on this claim.

I should have read your post before submitting mine. Could've saved the effort.

 

[Alcott]

TC: was the right to assembly not what you meant when you said "Its not freedom unless EVERYBODY has it?"

 

[TCassidy]

TC: was the right to assembly not what you meant when you said "Its not freedom unless EVERYBODY has it?"

I stated in post #104 "Its not freedom unless EVERYBODY has it." That was in reference to my earlier statement in post #84, "We, as a people, need to return to "equal justice under the law.""

See the correlation? "Equal justice" = "EVERYBODY has it."

 

[freeatlast]

The onus is not on me to disprove an assertion that you have made. The burden is yours. Time to cite your evidence (other than your one article), if you have any. Otherwise, your accusation will appear baseless.

No I gave proof. If it is not enough for you then do your own homework.

 

[Don]

My friend I made that statement way before that article was ever published in several other discussions. You will find it is true if you do your homework and check out how may officers who brutalize the citizens are ex-military against those who are not. Based on the percentage of those who are ex-military and those who are not the higher percentage are ex-military who brutalize people and my guess is that the ones not ex-military learn from them as it becomes a feeding frenzy..

If you can find stata to prove me wrong I will recant, but you are not going to find them. If anything you will find me correct.

Wow. Just wow.

You basically refused to post such evidence in the previous thread. Now you want to use one piece of evidence to back up your bodacious claim. One policeman, one incident, does NOT equal "higher percentage are ex-military who brutalize people." And you further hurt your claim with "my guess."

That's because you can't find the data to support your claim. Thus, your viewpoint is incorrect, and can't be corroborated.

Those who hold on to a viewpoint that can't be proven, that can't be supported, that has been shown to have research that contradicts such viewpoint--are either willfully ignorant, or insane.

You are intellectually dishonest, both with those who read these threads; and more importantly, with yourself.

There--I've publicly called you a liar. Now prove me wrong.

 

[Don]

Here's a quote that's readily available on the internet, if you just take a few minutes to look:
"...there are about 10% of military on my department of around 1200 sworn."

I'm not thinking that fulfills "high percentage."

 

[freeatlast]

Wow. Just wow.

You basically refused to post such evidence in the previous thread. Now you want to use one piece of evidence to back up your bodacious claim. One policeman, one incident, does NOT equal "higher percentage are ex-military who brutalize people." And you further hurt your claim with "my guess."

That's because you can't find the data to support your claim. Thus, your viewpoint is incorrect, and can't be corroborated.

Those who hold on to a viewpoint that can't be proven, that can't be supported, that has been shown to have research that contradicts such viewpoint--are either willfully ignorant, or insane.

You are intellectually dishonest, both with those who read these threads; and more importantly, with yourself.

There--I've publicly called you a liar. Now prove me wrong.

Well we know you are a traitor to the nation for wanting our rights taken away and defending those who are in authority and use abusive power so you say I am a liar and I say you are a traitor.

 

[Don]

Well we know you are a traitor to the nation for wanting our rights taken away and defending those who are in authority and use abusive power so you say I am a liar and I say you are a traitor.

Problem with that is, I've proven you're a liar. And a silly response like this, instead of showing anything to the contrary, only adds more proof to my statement.

By the way: Would it do any good for me to ask you to provide the proof that I want to take away your rights?

 

[freeatlast]

Problem with that is, I've proven you're a liar. And a silly response like this, instead of showing anything to the contrary, only adds more proof to my statement.

By the way: Would it do any good for me to ask you to provide the proof that I want to take away your rights?

Well if you say so, but you have also proven you are a traitor and coward by your statements.

 

[Don]

Well if you say so, but you have also proven you are a traitor and coward by your statements.

Silly boy; it's not just me "sayin' so." I provided my references in that other thread, and you never posted anything to refute that, much less support your position.

Now you refuse to post your support that I'm a traitor and a coward.

You're just full of unsubstantiated accusations, aren't you?

 

[freeatlast]

Silly boy; it's not just me "sayin' so." I provided my references in that other thread, and you never posted anything to refute that, much less support your position.

Now you refuse to post your support that I'm a traitor and a coward.

You're just full of unsubstantiated accusations, aren't you?

Silly boy, Like I said you think I am a liar and I think you are a traitor and a coward.

 

[Don]

Silly boy, Like I said you think I am a liar and I think you are a traitor and a coward.

I don't think you're a liar; you are a liar. Your lie is that a high percentage of policemen who are guilty of brutality are ex-military. In the previous thread, you said "many." In both that thread and this one, you have yet to provide proof to corroborate your statements. That makes you a liar, plain and simple.

It'd be real easy to get past the school-yard part of this conversation: Post your proof, and then I'll look the fool, and have to do all kinds of apologizing and groveling.

Problem is, you can't. So you resort to calling me a traitor and a coward--again, with no proof to back up your statements.

 

[freeatlast]

I don't think you're a liar; you are a liar. Your lie is that a high percentage of policemen who are guilty of brutality are ex-military. In the previous thread, you said "many." In both that thread and this one, you have yet to provide proof to corroborate your statements. That makes you a liar, plain and simple.

It'd be real easy to get past the school-yard part of this conversation: Post your proof, and then I'll look the fool, and have to do all kinds of apologizing and groveling.

Problem is, you can't. So you resort to calling me a traitor and a coward--again, with no proof to back up your statements.

Well prove it is not what I said. I know you are a traitor and a coward because you defend those who strip away our rights and freedoms while you spit on the graves of the men and women who have fought and died for those freedoms by your words. Read post 38. Yes you are a traitor and a coward through your denial.

 

[Don]

Well prove it is not what I said.

Say what? What were you even referencing with that statement?

I know you are a traitor and a coward because of your standing with those who strip away our rights and freedoms.

Come on, Free; I double-dog dare you to provide your proof of my standing with those who strip away our rights and freedoms.

Or was I offering a counter-point to the immediate "the police are wrong" statements? (see post #90, page 9)

 

[Don]

Well prove it is not what I said. I know you are a traitor and a coward because you defend those who strip away our rights and freedoms while you spit on the graves of the men and women who have fought and died for those freedoms by your words. Read post 38. Yes you are a traitor and a coward through your denial.

Since I wrote previous message while you were editing this, here's my question: How does post #38 support your premise that I'm a traitor and a coward? Much less that I'm denying something?

I asked a relevant question in that post; are you ignoring that question because it would actually damage your position?

 

[righteousdude2]

Is this the Same FAL....

.....who seems to be for military intervention in other threads?

Did this incident hit too close to home??? This doesn't seem to be like the FAL that is always preaching the Scripture, and if Jesus told us to render unto Ceasar what is his Matthew 22:21, and before you jump on me and tell me that this particular Scripture is related to the paying of taxes, could it not also mean that we are to obey the laws of the land?

After all Jesus did quiet any talk of revolution on behalf of His Disciples and followers as they dragged Him off to stand trial and face execution on the cross!?!?!

And yes, I realize that Jesus knew He had to die for our sin, so he was simply trying to quell the faithful to intervening with God's eternal plan and Scriptrual prophecy foretelling of His death and resurrection! However, how did Jesus know that this particular incident was the one leading to the crucifixion?

We also need to take into context the fact that Jesus told His following, when confronted by the Pharisees, that the Kingdom He preached about was not one on earth, and it would not come personal or fleshly observation (Luke 17:20-21)!

This just doesn't seem like the FAL I'm used to hearing, especially when it comes to following the legal content and direction of the Word?!?!?!