LaxPower Back-Up Stick

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 6:24 am Are you saying the justice system is inherently biased depending on what judge is assigned the case? That does not speak very well for our system of justice IMO. You know your case is screwed before you even get to court. The other side is you know with the right judge... wink, wink your case is walking down easy street. What a great system of justice.

Matnum PI wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 1:41 pm Anish Shroff on Bigotry in Lacrosse
I’m not quite sure how this conversation begins. So I’m just going to let the words come and write unplugged. I’m angered that... http://fanlax.com/fanlax/2020/06/08/ani ... -lacrosse/

Brooklyn wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 1:27 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 1:24 pm

It wasn’t gas, it was lighter fluid.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5096012/

Poison gas banned in war but police are free to use it or its variants in USA and in other nations to their own citizens. Damn thing should be banned as a menace to society.

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 2:05 pm Am I allowed to disagree with his central premise in the article? Cause I do.

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 2:05 pm

Matnum PI wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 1:41 pm Anish Shroff on Bigotry in Lacrosse
I’m not quite sure how this conversation begins. So I’m just going to let the words come and write unplugged. I’m angered that... http://fanlax.com/fanlax/2020/06/08/ani ... -lacrosse/

Well, I'm white and I happen to think Anish is the best television announcer for lacrosse (in spite of his being a 'Cuse homer), the best twitter account to follow, and obviously an all around great human being; if lacrosse was made up of by 100% Anish Shroff's, it would be a fantastic sport.

Am I allowed to disagree with his central premise in the article? Cause I do.

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 2:06 pm

Obama/Biden had 8 years to change the policy. They did nothing. Well, Barack did squirrel away enough favors to live happily evah after, so theres that. Hope climate change doesn't submerge his Turkey Road home on the Vineyard. He taking a plane to Martha's, or driving in a Prius

Matnum PI wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 2:11 pm

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 2:05 pm Am I allowed to disagree with his central premise in the article? Cause I do.

The central premise being...

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 2:14 pm

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 2:05 pm

Matnum PI wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 1:41 pm Anish Shroff on Bigotry in Lacrosse
I’m not quite sure how this conversation begins. So I’m just going to let the words come and write unplugged. I’m angered that... http://fanlax.com/fanlax/2020/06/08/ani ... -lacrosse/

Well, I'm white and I happen to think Anish is the best television announcer for lacrosse (in spite of his being a 'Cuse homer), the best twitter account to follow, and obviously an all around great human being; if lacrosse was made up of by 100% Anish Shroff's, it would be a fantastic sport.

Am I allowed to disagree with his central premise in the article? Cause I do.

you are not white. You are transparent. Or, rather, you are the universal color of the rectum......and what the rectums "knickname" is.

It rymes with arsehole.

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 1:31 pm If Trump or any other POTUS wants to walk across the street and hold up a bible for a photo op... the secret service job is to secure the safety of the POTUS. They have no political dog in the hunt. If the secret service felt the need to pop 1000 CS grenades to clear a path, then that is what their mission determines them to do. If the secret service needed bulldozers to clear a path, that is what they would have done. They would have done the same for POTUS Obama. I guarantee if they had done so very few of the FLP regulars here would have said dicky doo about it.

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 2:22 pm

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 2:14 pm

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 2:05 pm

Matnum PI wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 1:41 pm Anish Shroff on Bigotry in Lacrosse
I’m not quite sure how this conversation begins. So I’m just going to let the words come and write unplugged. I’m angered that... http://fanlax.com/fanlax/2020/06/08/ani ... -lacrosse/

Well, I'm white and I happen to think Anish is the best television announcer for lacrosse (in spite of his being a 'Cuse homer), the best twitter account to follow, and obviously an all around great human being; if lacrosse was made up of by 100% Anish Shroff's, it would be a fantastic sport.

Am I allowed to disagree with his central premise in the article? Cause I do.

you are not white. You are transparent. Or, rather, you are the universal color of the rectum......and what the rectums "knickname" is.

It rymes with arsehole.

Your ability to add tremendous depth to the convo, often with remarkably incoherent posts, is unmatched. So, thanks I guess!

njbill wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 2:44 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 1:31 pm If Trump or any other POTUS wants to walk across the street and hold up a bible for a photo op... the secret service job is to secure the safety of the POTUS. They have no political dog in the hunt. If the secret service felt the need to pop 1000 CS grenades to clear a path, then that is what their mission determines them to do. If the secret service needed bulldozers to clear a path, that is what they would have done. They would have done the same for POTUS Obama. I guarantee if they had done so very few of the FLP regulars here would have said dicky doo about it.

I agree with this in part, but I disagree in another part.

As a general proposition, I would agree that Trump or any president has the right to walk across Lafayette Square for a photo op and that the Secret Service has the obligation of ensuring his safety along the way.

However there are limits. I don’t agree that the Secret Service could use a bulldozer (I assume you are exaggerating for emphasis) or any means necessary to clear a path. They almost always do an exceptionally good job of crowd control. They strike the very tough balance between ensuring physical safety and allowing crowds to witness and participate in the event in question.

And, of course, sometimes the SS tells the president that a situation is too dangerous so they prevent him from doing something he wants to do. This might have been such a situation.

Here, putting aside the curfew violation for a moment, I think it would have been fine for the Secret Service to create a 10 or 20 foot wide passageway for the president to go to the church. Clearing the entire Square, however, was unreasonable. And, of course, it wasn’t done by the Secret Service, but by other law-enforcement agencies.

The people in the Square were exercising their First Amendment rights at a location which I would say is the preeminent spot for protesting in the United States. I do not agree that Trump had the right to move all of those protesters out of the Square so that he could have a campaign photo op.

And then there is the matter of the curfew. The law applies to Trump and his entourage. Yes, under the DOJ guideline, Trump, himself, could not have been arrested, but everyone else in that group could have been. As a practical matter, I certainly understand that that would not have happened, but nonetheless that does not make his stroll across the park legal. More on point, it undercuts Trump’s right to clear all of the protesters out of the Square so that he could have his curfew-violating stroll.

get it to x wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 3:29 pm No one ordered martial law. So it's a good spot, so what? If you threaten anyone's physical safety, you lose the privilege. If you set a church on fire, you lose the privilege. You think Trump went into protective mode on his own, or was he advised by Secret Service? I think Dems know Trump might get 50% more blacks to vote for him than last time. Still a small number but not insignificant. They aren't throwing the race card at him, they are throwing an entire blackjack card shoe of race cards at him. Hence the BLM street display.

get it to x wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 3:29 pm

njbill wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 2:44 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 1:31 pm If Trump or any other POTUS wants to walk across the street and hold up a bible for a photo op... the secret service job is to secure the safety of the POTUS. They have no political dog in the hunt. If the secret service felt the need to pop 1000 CS grenades to clear a path, then that is what their mission determines them to do. If the secret service needed bulldozers to clear a path, that is what they would have done. They would have done the same for POTUS Obama. I guarantee if they had done so very few of the FLP regulars here would have said dicky doo about it.

I agree with this in part, but I disagree in another part.

As a general proposition, I would agree that Trump or any president has the right to walk across Lafayette Square for a photo op and that the Secret Service has the obligation of ensuring his safety along the way.

However there are limits. I don’t agree that the Secret Service could use a bulldozer (I assume you are exaggerating for emphasis) or any means necessary to clear a path. They almost always do an exceptionally good job of crowd control. They strike the very tough balance between ensuring physical safety and allowing crowds to witness and participate in the event in question.

And, of course, sometimes the SS tells the president that a situation is too dangerous so they prevent him from doing something he wants to do. This might have been such a situation.

Here, putting aside the curfew violation for a moment, I think it would have been fine for the Secret Service to create a 10 or 20 foot wide passageway for the president to go to the church. Clearing the entire Square, however, was unreasonable. And, of course, it wasn’t done by the Secret Service, but by other law-enforcement agencies.

The people in the Square were exercising their First Amendment rights at a location which I would say is the preeminent spot for protesting in the United States. I do not agree that Trump had the right to move all of those protesters out of the Square so that he could have a campaign photo op.

And then there is the matter of the curfew. The law applies to Trump and his entourage. Yes, under the DOJ guideline, Trump, himself, could not have been arrested, but everyone else in that group could have been. As a practical matter, I certainly understand that that would not have happened, but nonetheless that does not make his stroll across the park legal. More on point, it undercuts Trump’s right to clear all of the protesters out of the Square so that he could have his curfew-violating stroll.

No one ordered martial law. So it's a good spot, so what? If you threaten anyone's physical safety, you lose the privilege. If you set a church on fire, you lose the privilege. You think Trump went into protective mode on his own, or was he advised by Secret Service? I think Dems know Trump might get 50% more blacks to vote for him than last time. Still a small number but not insignificant. They aren't throwing the race card at him, they are throwing an entire blackjack card shoe of race cards at him. Hence the BLM street display.

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 1:46 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 1:31 pm

ggait wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 1:01 pm

If you have a better solution go ahead and enlighten everyone. If it takes huge snootful of CS gas to break up an unruly mob then so be it.

C&S -- I'm referring to the feds weaseling/hair-splitting/gaslighting in order to lie to us.

Prior to the Monday night walk to the church, they feds deployed riot control agents against the protesters. The riot control agents used caused the same physical reactions as other riot control agents (like tear gas) do. As is plain and obvious from numerous video sources.

But in the aftermath, Kayleigh McGaslighter and other Trump mouthpieces said:

Tear gas -- no tear gas used. Pepper spray -- no pepper "spray" used. Chemicals -- no "chemicals" used. Because they used "pepper balls" on the crowd.

It is the "distinction without a difference" BS game. The Trumpsters (including our own Salty) keep trying to describe a distinction between two things where no discernible difference exists. Being done to solely avoid the obvious connotations associated with tear gas.

Hey -- I did not pour gasoline onto the fire. [Leaving out that I did pour kerosene onto the flames.]

I don't understand Barrs comments. He would not know a CS grenade from a water balloon. If Trump or any other POTUS wants to walk across the street and hold up a bible for a photo op... the secret service job is to secure the safety of the POTUS. They have no political dog in the hunt. If the secret service felt the need to pop 1000 CS grenades to clear a path, then that is what their mission determines them to do. If the secret service needed bulldozers to clear a path, that is what they would have done. They would have done the same for POTUS Obama. I guarantee if they had done so very few of the FLP regulars here would have said dicky doo about it.

tRump should have been arrested by DC police. For violating curfew. What a coward the mayor is. SHe is another loser. Never looking in the mirror and blaming the blacks problems on electing people who really care about them What's his name again, the guy that a former friend smoked crack with......Mayor Barry? Gets out of jail, gets re-elected. Yuup....thats' honkeys fault.

RedFromMI wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 10:12 am

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 10:01 am

Kismet wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 8:42 am

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 8:20 am

Kismet wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 7:04 amI'm so thrilled to learn that the irritating ingredient in pepper balls/spray is NOT A CHEMICAL. If not a CHEMICAL What the heck is it?
Lastly,, if they are all on the up and up on all this - then why not go to Capitol Hill and answer some questions about it

Pepper spray/balls are made of (are you ready for this ?) ...PEPPER

Yep - and the main ingredient is Capsaicin which is a chemical compound that was first isolated from chili peppers in crystalline form in 1878.

So Mr. Barr's statement was incorrect at best and a LIE at worst.

The active ingredient in pepper spray is capsaicin, which is a chemical derived from the fruit of plants in the genus Capsicum, including chilis.
Extraction of oleoresin capsicum (OC) from peppers requires capsicum to be finely ground, from which capsaicin is then extracted using an organic solvent such as ethanol. The solvent is then evaporated, and the remaining waxlike resin is the oleoresin capsaicin.

It is all in the definition of chemical the two of you are using, and OS's version is much stricter including (from the context) only man-made chemicals.

But that is not a standard definition - capsaicin is a naturally occurring organic compound, more commonly the definition as a noun is:

a compound or substance that has been purified or prepared, especially artificially.

The process of preparing capsaicin if obtained from a pepper certainly meets the definition as an artificially prepared purification, so yes this most commonly would be considered a chemical. And since peppers are quite common, you would not bother to synthesize it in most circumstances.

OS is being disingenuous in his usage.

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 4:14 pm

RedFromMI wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 10:12 am

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 10:01 am

Kismet wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 8:42 am

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 8:20 am

Kismet wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 7:04 amI'm so thrilled to learn that the irritating ingredient in pepper balls/spray is NOT A CHEMICAL. If not a CHEMICAL What the heck is it?
Lastly,, if they are all on the up and up on all this - then why not go to Capitol Hill and answer some questions about it

Pepper spray/balls are made of (are you ready for this ?) ...PEPPER

Yep - and the main ingredient is Capsaicin which is a chemical compound that was first isolated from chili peppers in crystalline form in 1878.

So Mr. Barr's statement was incorrect at best and a LIE at worst.

The active ingredient in pepper spray is capsaicin, which is a chemical derived from the fruit of plants in the genus Capsicum, including chilis.
Extraction of oleoresin capsicum (OC) from peppers requires capsicum to be finely ground, from which capsaicin is then extracted using an organic solvent such as ethanol. The solvent is then evaporated, and the remaining waxlike resin is the oleoresin capsaicin.

It is all in the definition of chemical the two of you are using, and OS's version is much stricter including (from the context) only man-made chemicals.

But that is not a standard definition - capsaicin is a naturally occurring organic compound, more commonly the definition as a noun is:

a compound or substance that has been purified or prepared, especially artificially.

The process of preparing capsaicin if obtained from a pepper certainly meets the definition as an artificially prepared purification, so yes this most commonly would be considered a chemical. And since peppers are quite common, you would not bother to synthesize it in most circumstances.

OS is being disingenuous in his usage.

Blah, blah, blah. You are changing the definition of tear gas to suit the situation.

CS is a synthetic chemical compound -- C10H5ClN2. That's tear gas.
OC = pepper spray/balls. They're extracted from naturally growing plants = peppers.
Law enforcement distinguishes between pepper spray/balls & tear gas (much more severe) in describing what they use.
You, & the MSM, are disingenuously distorting the terminology to make things seem worse than they are.
USPP, USSS & Barr have said only pepper/spray balls (OC) were used on Mon, May 31, not tear gas (CS)
Even WUSA was honest in making the distinction when reporting on the canisters they found.

seacoaster wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 4:16 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 4:14 pm

RedFromMI wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 10:12 am

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 10:01 am

Kismet wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 8:42 am

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 8:20 am

Kismet wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 7:04 amI'm so thrilled to learn that the irritating ingredient in pepper balls/spray is NOT A CHEMICAL. If not a CHEMICAL What the heck is it?
Lastly,, if they are all on the up and up on all this - then why not go to Capitol Hill and answer some questions about it

Pepper spray/balls are made of (are you ready for this ?) ...PEPPER

Yep - and the main ingredient is Capsaicin which is a chemical compound that was first isolated from chili peppers in crystalline form in 1878.

So Mr. Barr's statement was incorrect at best and a LIE at worst.

The active ingredient in pepper spray is capsaicin, which is a chemical derived from the fruit of plants in the genus Capsicum, including chilis.
Extraction of oleoresin capsicum (OC) from peppers requires capsicum to be finely ground, from which capsaicin is then extracted using an organic solvent such as ethanol. The solvent is then evaporated, and the remaining waxlike resin is the oleoresin capsaicin.

It is all in the definition of chemical the two of you are using, and OS's version is much stricter including (from the context) only man-made chemicals.

But that is not a standard definition - capsaicin is a naturally occurring organic compound, more commonly the definition as a noun is:

a compound or substance that has been purified or prepared, especially artificially.

The process of preparing capsaicin if obtained from a pepper certainly meets the definition as an artificially prepared purification, so yes this most commonly would be considered a chemical. And since peppers are quite common, you would not bother to synthesize it in most circumstances.

OS is being disingenuous in his usage.

Blah, blah, blah. You are changing the definition of tear gas to suit the situation.

CS is a synthetic chemical compound -- C10H5ClN2. That's tear gas.
OC = pepper spray/balls. They're extracted from naturally growing plants = peppers.
Law enforcement distinguishes between pepper spray/balls & tear gas (much more severe) in describing what they use.
You, & the MSM, are disingenuously distorting the terminology to make things seem worse than they are.
USPP, USSS & Barr have said only pepper/spray balls (OC) were used on Mon, May 31, not tear gas (CS)
Even WUSA was honest in making the distinction when reporting on the canisters they found.

Does pepper spray happen in nature? Asking for a friend.

https://www.aftermath.com/content/tear- ... per-spray/

TEAR GAS VS. PEPPER SPRAY
The two biggest differences between tear gas spray and pepper spray are their chemical makeup and delivery methods. Pepper spray (sometimes referred to as “OC spray“) is a combination of natural chemicals, whereas tear gas (also called “CS gas“) comes from man-made compounds. Learn more about the different effects of each type of spray.

TEAR GAS SPRAY AND PEPPER SPRAY: COMPARE AND CONTRAST
Pepper spray and tear gas spray are both non-lethal irritants commonly used in self-defense and crowd control. While some people use the terms interchangeably, it is important to note that tear gas and pepper spray are not the same product, and each has its own unique chemical distinctions.

njbill wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 2:44 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 1:31 pm If Trump or any other POTUS wants to walk across the street and hold up a bible for a photo op... the secret service job is to secure the safety of the POTUS. They have no political dog in the hunt. If the secret service felt the need to pop 1000 CS grenades to clear a path, then that is what their mission determines them to do. If the secret service needed bulldozers to clear a path, that is what they would have done. They would have done the same for POTUS Obama. I guarantee if they had done so very few of the FLP regulars here would have said dicky doo about it.

I agree with this in part, but I disagree in another part.

As a general proposition, I would agree that Trump or any president has the right to walk across Lafayette Square for a photo op and that the Secret Service has the obligation of ensuring his safety along the way.

However there are limits. I don’t agree that the Secret Service could use a bulldozer (I assume you are exaggerating for emphasis) or any means necessary to clear a path. They almost always do an exceptionally good job of crowd control. They strike the very tough balance between ensuring physical safety and allowing crowds to witness and participate in the event in question.

And, of course, sometimes the SS tells the president that a situation is too dangerous so they prevent him from doing something he wants to do. This might have been such a situation.

Here, putting aside the curfew violation for a moment, I think it would have been fine for the Secret Service to create a 10 or 20 foot wide passageway for the president to go to the church. Clearing the entire Square, however, was unreasonable. And, of course, it wasn’t done by the Secret Service, but by other law-enforcement agencies.

The people in the Square were exercising their First Amendment rights at a location which I would say is the preeminent spot for protesting in the United States. I do not agree that Trump had the right to move all of those protesters out of the Square so that he could have a campaign photo op.

And then there is the matter of the curfew. The law applies to Trump and his entourage. Yes, under the DOJ guideline, Trump, himself, could not have been arrested, but everyone else in that group could have been. As a practical matter, I certainly understand that that would not have happened, but nonetheless that does not make his stroll across the park legal. More on point, it undercuts Trump’s right to clear all of the protesters out of the Square so that he could have his curfew-violating stroll.