Woman Pepper-Sprays Wal-Mart Shoppers
The LA Times is saying that a woman pepper-sprayed about twenty shoppers at Wal-Mart yesterday so she could get to the sale-priced items.
Authorities are searching for a woman accused of pepper-spraying other shoppers Thursday night at the Wal-Mart in Porter Ranch so that she could grab more discounted merchandise.Twenty customers, including children, were hurt in the 10:10 p.m. incident, officials said.Shoppers complained of minor skin and eye irritation and sore throats."This was customer-versus-customer 'shopping rage,'" said Los Angeles Police Lt. Abel Parga.The woman used the spray in more than one area of the Wal-Mart "to gain preferred access to a variety of locations in the store," said Los Angeles Fire Capt. James Carson."She was competitive shopping," he said.Black Friday's sales began at the Wal-Mart at 10 p.m. and featured door-buster sales on toys, including $5 Bratz dolls, $10 Wii video games and $29 tricycles. Woman pepper-sprayed adults, kids at Wal-Mart sale, police say
The police have said the lady could be charged with felony battery, which raises the interesting question of charges against the UC Davis cop who committed the same offense against a bunch of students.
(PS Blogger has changed their editor in incomprehensible and nonsensical ways. You will notice double-spacing and strangeness in recent posts, it is forced by the new changes.)
posted by JimK at 1:38 PM
18 Comments:
this woman saw an opportunity to buy Bratz dolls for $5 and a bunch of loiterers in the way
she seized the day
who can blame her?
she was probably a liberal who had limited funds and a long list of small children she wanted to corrupt
so a few people got "minor skin and eye irritation and sore throats"
big deal!
weigh that against the children who will learn valuable bratty ways to cope with life
"The police have said the lady could be charged with felony battery"
I mean, lighten up people
no harm, no foul
no pain, no gain
"The police have said the lady could be charged with felony battery, which raises the interesting question of charges against the UC Davis cop who committed the same offense against a bunch of students"
look
Jim committed the classic liberal thinking error
spraying innocent capitalist shoppers with excruciatingly painful chemicals is not the same as spraying obnoxious vagrants who were disrupting an educational institution
that's kind of like saying hanging Saddam Hussein is the same as shooting John Lennon
"(PS Blogger has changed their editor in incomprehensible and nonsensical ways."
oh, Homeland Security has their reasons
"You will notice double-spacing and strangeness in recent posts, it is forced by the new changes.)"
call the ACLU
liberals are furious with Obama for one reason:
he won the Presidency and successfully enacted the liberal agenda and proved forever in posterity that it doesn't work
but they can hardly say that, so they float other ideas
"President Obama's cheerleaders are starting to peel away along with his approval ratings, and it's a fascinating sight to behold. They offer different reasons, but they all boil down to one obvious thing -- Obama is first and foremost about Obama -- and one less obvious: He has been a failed president.
Democratic pollsters Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen penned an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal urging Obama "to abandon his candidacy for re-election."
The authors conclude that the only way Obama could possibly win in 2012 would be "to wage the most negative campaign in history," because he has no successful record to run on.
If he would happen to win in that way, he wouldn't be able to govern, they say, so he should step aside and allow Hillary Clinton to run.
Their main beef with Obama seems to be his extreme partisanship, which is a particularly damning indictment coming from fellow Democrats.
Two credible Democrats, both still loyal to their party, concede that Obama is hyperpartisan and hopelessly mired in the quicksand of scapegoating his predecessor.
Even more interesting was the viral video of Chris Matthews explaining to fellow MSNBC host Alex Witt why his Obama-thrill is gone. This represents quite a fall from Matthews' previous perch of Obama hero worship.
Matthews clearly believes that Obama peaked about the time his campaign ended and his term in office began, because "the day he was inaugurated, with the Mall filled with people, African-Americans and everyone else, he sent us all home and said, 'Thank you. Now watch how smart I am.' That's the worst kind of a notion of the presidency.""
What a waste of time to plagiarize a commentary written by entertainment lawyer David Limbaugh over at World Net Daily. For those who want to read Limbaugh's actual WND commentary, especially the parts Anonymous omitted from his dishonest 'quote,' here's the link http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=370149
Unlike the opinions offered by the entertainment lawyer who writes for WND, here are some current facts reported by Real Clear Politics about the President's reelection chances for 2012:
Obama beats Romney 45.9 to 44.4
Obama beats Gingrich 49.1 to 42.3
Obama beats Cain 49.6 to 39.4
Obama beats Perry 49.8 to 40.2
Obama beats Paul 46.7 to 39.0
Obama beats Bachman 49.7 to 35.7
Obama beats Huntsman 45.7 to 37.0
Obama beats Santorum 45 to 34
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html
"What a waste of time to plagiarize a commentary written by entertainment lawyer David Limbaugh over at World Net Daily."
no plagiarism took place, the excerpt was clearly enclosed with quotation marks
"For those who want to read Limbaugh's actual WND commentary, especially the parts Anonymous omitted from his dishonest 'quote,' here's the link http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=370149"
as anyone will see that reads the entire article, most of the stuff I left out would be even more damaging to Obama's cause- I certainly didn't alter the meaning of the author
this blog has word limits on its posts, in case you weren't aware
it's not practical, advisable, or even possible to excerpt entire articles
"Unlike the opinions offered by the entertainment lawyer who writes for WND,"
actually, the author opined less than he provided specific examples of mainstream and liberal Democrats who have forsaken Obama
history has shown that direct match-ups are less relevant than approval ratings at this point
also RealPolitics polls are averages that include some polls who poll those who are unlikely to vote
which would be a good chunk of Obama supporters
hahahahahaha!!!
here are some current facts reported by Real Clear Politics about the President's reelection chances for 2012:
looks like a comment didn't make it
"Bill Clinton praised Newt Gingrich while explaining his recent surge in the polls.
"I think he’s doing well just because he’s thinking, and people are hungry for ideas that make some sense," Clinton told NewsMax. "He's being rewarded for thinking."
He also praised the candidate's debate performance.
"I still think Romney comes across as strong and forceful and knowledgeable and I thought Perry had a better debate last night, he did much better than he's doing," he said.
The former president's praise is a surprise considering their contentious past. During Clinton's presidency, then-House Speaker Gingrich fought Democrats hard on such issues as Medicare and welfare reform. He also pushed for Clinton's impeachment.
More recently, though, Clinton and his allies have offered positive feedback on the GOP candidate.
"He is brilliant," Dick Morris, a former Clinton campaign strategist, told HuffPost's Sam Stein. "He's a very skilled adversary."
Clinton called Gingrich "creative, flexible, and brimming over with new ideas.""
Last week, 5,000 files of private email correspondence among several of the world's top climate scientists were anonymously leaked onto the Internet. Like the first "climategate" leak of 2009, the latest release shows top scientists in the field fudging data, conspiring to bully and silence opponents, and displaying far less certainty about the reliability of anthropogenic global warming theory in private than they ever admit in public.
The scientists include men like Michael Mann of Penn State University and Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia, both of whose reports inform what President Obama has called "the gold standard" of international climate science, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Rep. Ed Markey (D., Mass.) says the leaker or leakers responsible are attempting to "sabotage the international climate talks" and should be identified and brought "to justice."
At least one scientist involved—Mr. Mann—has confirmed that the emails are genuine, as were the first batch released two years ago. So any malfeasance revealed therein ought to be blamed on the scientists who wrote them, rather than on the whistleblower who exposed them.
Consider an email written by Mr. Mann in August 2007. "I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose McIntyre, and his thus far unexplored connections with fossil fuel interests. Perhaps the same needs to be done w/ this Keenan guy." Doug Keenan is a skeptic and gadfly of the climate-change establishment. Steve McIntyre is the tenacious Canadian ex-mining engineer whose dogged research helped expose flaws in Mr. Mann's "hockey stick" graph of global temperatures.
The sensible thing to do so is to prove Mr. McIntyre wrong using facts and evidence and improved data. Instead the email reveals Mr. Mann casting about for a way to smear him. If the case for man-made global warming is really as strong as the so-called consensus claims it is, why do the climategate emails show scientists attempting to stamp out dissenting points of view? Why must they manipulate data, deliberately concealing an inconvenient divergence, post-1960, between real-world, observed temperature data and scientists' preferred proxies derived from analyzing tree rings?
This is the real significance of the climategate emails. They show that major scientists who inform the IPCC can't be trusted to stick to the science and avoid political activism. This, in turn, has very worrying implications for the major international policy decisions adopted on the basis of their research.
That brings us to the motives of the person calling himself "FOIA" who leaked the emails onto the Internet last week.
In his introductory notes, he writes: "Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day. Every day nearly 16,000 children die from hunger and related causes. One dollar can save a life. . . . Poverty is a death sentence. Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels. Today's decisions should be based on all the information we can get, not on hiding the decline."
For the service he has performed in pursuit of this larger end, FOIA deserves not opprobrium but gratitude.
the head of homosexuals in America is quitting:
"US Representative Barney Frank, the state’s highest-profile congressman and one of the nation’s leading liberal voices after being among its first openly gay elected officials, announced today that he will not seek reelection next year.
The Newton Democrat faced the prospect of a bruising reelection campaign next year after surviving a brutal battle in 2010."
"no plagiarism took place, the excerpt was clearly enclosed with quotation marks...
this blog has word limits on its posts, in case you weren't aware
it's not practical, advisable, or even possible to excerpt entire articles"
Some people paste entire articles in more than one comment on this blog. Others prefer lying and editing pieces other people write and pretending they didn't.
Clinton was a great President who did great things for our economy. Here's what he says now.
"Former President Bill Clinton tells Newsmax that he stands by comments he made saying he doesn't support tax increases and spending cuts at this moment in the midst of the nation's economic crisis.
But he does agree with President Barack Obama's proposal to raise taxes on the nation's wealthier citizens. “I favor people in my income group — the top 1 percent or a fraction of it — paying more not because I want to punish success, but because I think the only way to balance the budget is through economic growth, spending restraint, and new revenues,” he said.
Earlier this year, the former president made headlines during an interview with Newsmax when he said it would be a mistake to increase taxes during an economic downturn. That view was widely interpreted as diverging from President Obama's focus on raising taxes on the wealthy.
But in a Newsmax interview last week to discuss Clinton’s new best-selling book, "Back to Work: Why We Need Smart Government for a Strong Economy," the former president emphasized that timing is everything when it comes to raising taxes.
Obama, he said, "doesn't propose to raise any taxes before 2013. And he is assuming that the economy will have recovered sufficiently in 2012 to do that."
That would be a policy he agrees with, he said.
As for increasing taxes on the wealthy, Clinton said: "We're in the best position to chip in. In other words, to me we ought to do it because we should be trying to create an economy of shared prosperity with a growing middle class and declining poverty — not because I want to punish people who are successful or I think they're bad.
"But, like I said in the book, Willie Sutton said he robbed banks 'cause that's where the money was. Right now, we've got the money, and more of it than we've had since the 1920s.
"And so I think we'll actually benefit from broader prosperity, from having a more vibrant small-business community, from having more middle class wages going up, and stronger families, and especially reversing this big increase in poverty through work, having poor people work their way into the middle class," he said.
The former president told Newsmax it would be a mistake to cut discretionary spending in a bid to reduce the deficit, because it would have a negative impact on the nation's future."
number one, Bill, taxes for the wealthy are already going up drastically, any more will seriously damage our economic structure
number two, taxing people and hiring and spending on unnecessary wasteful pursuits harms the economy
number three, there will be more opportunity and a broadened middle class if private enterprise creates growth
socialist governments in Western Europe had the same unemployment we have now for decades- we were spared because we embraced free markets, low taxes and Reaganomics
that ended with the socialist Obama who wants us to be like Europe
yeah, that would be great
three guys walk into a bar: a Greek, an Italian and a Spaniard
they spend all night drinking
who pays the bill?
the Germans
I don't think they'll pay ours
The United Wisconsin coalition needs 540,208 signatures by Jan. 17 to force a recall election for Gov. Walker sometime in 2012. They reported Monday that over half the number needed had been collected in just 12 days, with signatures coming in from all 72 Wisconsin counties.
United Wisconsin did not report how many signatures had been collected for the recall of Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch, but a spokeswoman for the group said the totals were close.
Walker has already moved into campaign mode assuming the necessary signatures will be collected. He has released two television ads to counter the recall effort. The national conservative group Americans for Prosperity has also hit the airwaves in support.
Anger spurred nine state Senate recall elections this summer targeting six Republican and three Democratic incumbents. Two Republicans lost, leaving them with a slim one-vote majority in the Senate.
Petitions are also circulating against four more Republican incumbents, setting up the possibility of more recall elections next year that could give Democrats control of the Senate.
The earliest a Walker recall could be held, assuming enough petitions have been collected, would be March 27.
wow!
the state of Wisconsin focused 24/7 on giving power to government employees
really sad
why would anyone not in a union support this?
People who enjoy the 40 hour workweek and allowing their children to have childhoods should be grateful to the labor unions for making these benefits a reality. Non-union members like "doesn't everybody have a $500K Tiffany's revolving charge account? Newt Gingrinch" think poor kids should be janitors at their public schools.
"We shouldn’t bother reforming education for poor kids, Newt Gingrich says. Forget graduation rates — what these kids need is to spend more time scrubbing bathrooms.
Yes, since thousands of children are stuck in failing schools, we might as well put them to work there as janitors, the presidential candidate says.
"The kids would actually do work, they would have cash, they’d have pride in the schools, they’d begin the process of rising," Gingrich said recently.
Because it’s not failing schools that trap kids in a cycle of poverty — it’s child labor laws, he maintained, which are "truly stupid."
If he were president, Gingrich told an audience at Harvard University last week, he’d do away with such laws. They’re the real reason for income inequality in this country — if poor kids weren’t "trapped in child laws," they’d be able to earn money. (Just think of the riches they’d earn as school janitors).
Gingrich, who has since backtracked on his comments, didn’t offer any evidence to support this theory. That would be difficult, since studies have found that the more students work, the lower their grades and the more likely they are to have academic and behavioral problems and drop out of school.
He also didn’t feel the need to lecture rich kids about the benefits of cleaning toilets. Because children of privilege couldn’t possibly be lazy — and if they were, they could always hire poor kids to mop their floors, too.
After all, in the days before "stupid" child labor laws, impoverished kids like novelist Charles Dickens were pulled out of school and forced to toil in factories.
And look what a success Dickens was! He wrote a novel called "Oliver Twist" that was based on his miserable childhood.
That novel helped inspire child labor laws, to allow kids to focus on education instead of grunt work, so they can reach their full potential. But Gingrich says he has better ideas to fix poverty — like in 1994, when he argued we should reduce welfare rolls by shipping children of the poor off to orphanages.
First the orphanage, then the workhouse, says the man who wants to be our president — bring back the days of Oliver Twist."
http://blog.nj.com/njv_editorial_page/2011/11/newt_gingrich_derides_child_la.html
"Dear Newt,
Our country outlawed child labor. Almost a hundred years later, in the middle of the worst unemployment crisis in decades, you want to bring it back. Seriously?
Doing janitorial work in a school entails sanitizing toilets, handling hazardous cleaning chemicals, and scrubbing floors hunched over a mop for hours. It's hard to imagine a nine-year old doing any of those tasks. Come on.
The US outlawed child labor because it denied children the chance at a real education and allowed employers to exploit children — and because children were often injured or killed on the job. That's why labor unions fought to pass laws outlawing child labor and protecting all workers.
And the people you want to fire and replace with kids? A lot of them are parents. That job puts a roof over kids' heads, food on the table, and provides them with health care and the chance to get an education. That job is the only thing between a kid and poverty. Firing someone's mom and hiring the kid for less money isn't exactly the "process of rising." It is, in fact, the process of falling. It is the process of exploiting and destroying working families. The fact that you don't get that makes you not only out of touch, but utterly unqualified to serve in any elected position, let alone President of the United States.
Count me in as one more person who thinks you and your ideas are vicious and wrong."
Sign the letter!
"People who enjoy the 40 hour workweek and allowing their children to have childhoods should be grateful to the labor unions for making these benefits a reality."
that was generations ago and not the issue in Wisconsin
public employee unions are the main issue bankrupting our country
teachers alone make 20% more in public schools than in private schools
paying comparable wages is the way to reduce our debt, not raising taxes to allow government employees better compensation than the rest of us
"teachers alone make 20% more in public schools than in private schools"
Perhaps the folks who send their children to exclusive private schools might find it within their means to raise the salaries of their children's teachers instead of treating them as if they are hired gardners, maids, or nannies!
Typically...those who have enormous wealth do not believe in improving the lives of those who are less fortunate than they are.
Perfect examples of elitist "Christians"!
sure
maybe star athletes and liberal movie stars should take their enormous wealth and send it to me
typically...those who have enormous wealth do not believe in improving the lives of those who are less fortunate than they are, like me
perfect examples of elitist "leftists"!
btw, the bulk of those who send their kids to private schools do so at great financial sacrifice and pay twice: once to the local government in the form of taxes to support public schools and then to the private school in the form of tuition
what "public" schooling has become is liberal indoctrination centers where philosophies unsupported by most citizens is pushed on kids while these public "servants" who push the use union-style political tactics to enrich themselves at the expense of taxpayers
it's a screwed-up situation and the educational system has fallen further and further behind thise of other countries while our debts have piled up
it has to change if we are to survive
Let's talk about the smallness first.
Yes, the bullying is troubling, the thin-skinned aversion to criticism vexing. But in the end, it is the piddling, picayune pettiness, the sheer, Lilliputian smallness of the behavior that I can't quite get past.
We are talking about Emma Sullivan's tweet -- and the governor's response. For those who haven't heard, it seems Sullivan, an 18-year-old senior at a high school just south of Kansas City, Kan., heard Gov. Sam Brownback speak last week at a "Youth in Government" program in Topeka. Afterward, Sullivan, no fan of the governor, sent the following tweet to her Twitter followers, who numbered perhaps 60: "Just made mean comments at gov brownback and told him he sucked, in person #heblowsalot."
She had not in fact met Brownback, much less said mean things to him. It was a joke, spelled j-o-k-e, among friends and it would have come and gone in her normal run of tweets about Justin Bieber and the "Twilight" movies, except the governor's office happened upon it while patrolling the 'Net for mentions of his name. Next thing you know, a Brownback aide contacts Youth in Government, which contacts Sullivan's principal. Rather than defending her right to free expression and telling both Youth in Government and the governor's office to take a flying leap, the principal calls Sullivan to his office and berates her for "embarrassing" the school. He orders her to apologize.
Sullivan has refused. On Monday she was vindicated, as Brownback apologized to her, saying his staff "overreacted." Geez, ya think? It is astonishing that an aide to the state's highest official would have the time or the interest necessary to monitor -- and seek to punish -- what is said about him by a teenager to an audience of fewer than 100 people. Apparently, Kansas is a paradise where all the serious problems have been solved.
This episode seems par for the Zeitgeist, an era wherein our politics frequently feel shrunken and faintly absurd and elected officials often seem more concerned about manipulating and controlling the perception of their leadership than with providing leadership. Think Florida Gov. Rick Scott, making up a form letter for his supporters to send to newspaper editors praising his bang-up stewardship of a banged-up state. Think Mike Winder, a small town mayor in Utah who posed as a so-called "citizen journalist" and anonymously wrote articles quoting himself. Think President George W. Bush, whose administration paid newspaper columnists to write favorably about his policies.
It is not just the smallness, the ethical poverty of those tactics, that stands out. One is also taken by the contempt they suggest for the intelligence of the American electorate.
The nation's symbol is, as you know, the bald eagle, prized for its fierceness and proud bearing. But if we are what some politicians seem to think we are, perhaps that symbol ought instead to be the cow -- a docile beast, easily herded. I repeat: if.
Emma Sullivan, for one, is not yet bovine. And she did not "embarrass" her school -- her principal did. No, her only "sin" was that she expressed an opinion, albeit rudely. She refused to be herded. She got out of line.
Good for her. That's what Americans do.
Post a Comment
<< Home