Nope, it's not just about the 'white' racist white people. I grew up in Ferndale and Madison Heights and have no issues with race. There are certain areas you learn not to visit if you are white, just like black people learn where not to go.
The Detroit area has a lot of bigots and racism, but it's not just white bigots and racists. If you have doubts and are black, go driving around in Livonia. If you are white, cruise around in Centerline. These are just 2 examples, but there are plenty to be found.
You claim to be white and from "the city" but don't actually mention a city which to me indicates that you are just a poser. Driving main roads into the "Joe" or Cobo Hall does not make you "from the city".
Wiki does a horrible job of explaining this fallacy, and only gives one use case and definition. I'd recommend a college Logic book which explains the fallacy very well in numerous ways. My old text book spends a chapter on this one because it's not a simple fallacy.
To your second point, it's not a humor deficiency. People were showing different ways of defining this fallacy. Some of them correct, others not. A fallacy is a logic error, it does not prove true or false. It can surely help to demonstrate the logical errors made in statements, but the reason for calling out fallacies in debate is to reduce an argument to it's simplest terms and invalidate irrational/illogical statements.
Example: "The sky is blue you ass!" may contain an ad hominem and may contain a true statement. I have given no proof as to the color or whether or not you are an "ass". I just presented a fallacy hoping that people believe me.
In Logic we would break that into two statements and choose what's relevant to our debate. If we were trying to determine people's opinion of you, we would keep the later calling sky color a fallacy (it could fit quite a few). If we were debating the color of the sky the former would stay and the later would be called fallacy (most likely ad hominem).
Certification has the same issue as gun licensing, which is not an issue for gun shops as much as it's a concern for being tracked and tagged as a gun owner by the Government.
Make it part of public schools where everyone is a potential gun owner and I'd agree easily.
The common misnomer of the 2nd amendment is that a person owns a gun for self protection. The real purpose of the amendment is so that citizens in mass can revolt against corrupt government. (I don't mean to imply you made this misnomer, just preventing some trolling).
If everyone was a potential gun owner and trained to operate weapons, we are not worse off. Corrupt politicians certainly would not like it, but as far as I'm concerned they should be on trial and/or in jail anyway.
And then there is reality! Having driven from Michigan to Texas numerous times, living in Texas for 4 years I found plenty of Rock, Hip/Hop, Rap, and yes lots of "Country" music stations.
If you switched to AM radio for some dumb ass reason when crossing into a different state that's your own damn fault! I can find Christian stations both AM and FM in Detroit just as easy as search for them down "South". Plenty of music stations no matter where in the country I have been.
Claiming Michigan is some blessed region of non-biased people is laughable. If you are white simply drive anywhere in or near Detroit, Flint or Pontiac with your windows open so people can see you. Hell, the majority of Wayne county is not very safe for "Whitey". If you are black, head to Grosse Pointe and wave at a nice police officer who will beat you bloody for being in the wrong city, before hauling your ass to jail. For that matter, head a few counties out of Detroit and see how you are treated. Mackinac Island is a great place to be if you are black too, no really! Livonia is a self proclaimed "Whitest City in America".
No wonder you post anonymously, it takes a certain kind of coward to make up that much bullshit!
Nope, not especially Oakland. Madison Heights, Royal Oak, Ferndale, bleh! Really it depends on where in Oakland County you are, but don't lump in cities like I just mentioned. Safer than Detroit for sure, but Baghdad is safer than Detroit.
Long long ago the line was 8mile, and today it's around 12 mile to be "good area" which rules out lots of Oakland County cities.
I moved from there 3 years ago and still keep tabs (I have relatives from Detroit out to Flint and Pontiac). GM called me when they started pulling their IT back into Detroit and I laughed at their offer.
You hint at it, but I'll state it plainly. Claiming there is a "Boom" in Detroit is horribly distorting reality. In reality, the numbers went up because IT jobs were brought back from overseas, not because there is some magical "new" businesses. Next year these numbers will show very little change, and the next. Sure, there is some trickle effect but it's not a "boom". It's a one time relocation.
Michigan's tax laws pushed the majority of businesses away long ago. Tax rates are too high for any industrial work to move back, and large commercial companies will avoid Michigan for the same reason. Granholm ran around trying to peddle companies to move in for 1-3 years tax free. Companies would talk to her, but looking at a 20-28% tax when your free time ends is simply too much. Especially when you can cross the border into Ohio and pay 1/2 that rate.
Where I don't agree with you is that the city has been corrupt for 100+ years. Prior to Young the city was on par with any other big city in the US. Young was horribly corrupt and should have been in jail, just like Killpatrick.
Apologies, lying may have been too strong a term. Misleading, dishonest, and distorting would be more accurate. I make that claim based on your statements which I had quoted and what you previously wrote. Such as making an issue of the duration of time he was in Hong Kong and implying he was acting nefariously by "passing through repressive countries" and his itinerary was "circuitous". The last part quoted is an absolute fairy tale, his itinerary was linear and off the cuff after the leaks were made public.
You have an implication in your statements that Snowden was not selective in his initial location when the leaks occurred, or that he chose the location for nefarious reasons. You further imply that he had a desire to be in Russia, and had a choice in the matter after the leaks were made public.
There is no reading things into your post, you wrote similar posts twice. You distorted the timelines and at least implied fabricated motives more than once. You then claimed someone else was ignorant (indirectly and correctly I'll add) which at least implies that you have better facts. In reality your facts were just as distorted as the person you were responding to.
If you did not intend to distort both motives and timelines, correct yourself and move on. I'm good with that. I do get tired of people making up information to base an opinion upon, and touting both both as factual. Because of that I am not always patient in my responses and occasionally am very blunt. As stated, claiming you were lying may have been a bit heavy and I could have chosen different words. You did however write at least one untrue statement, so I'm not completely out of bounds.
You claim someone else needs to read that itinerary, but make an absolutely false claims and ignore your own itinerary. Did you read what you linked to?
He passed through two incredibly repressive countries in his travels, for the most circuitous itinerary ever.
Hong Kong -> Russia is "passing through two incredibly repressive countries? I guess you and I have different definitions of "passing through", and in English we would not say he passed through any of them. He was intentionally in Hong Kong, and had no other choice but to end up in Moscow.
I have no idea why you are fabricating why he was in those locations. Snowden and Greenwald issued statements on this long ago, it does not take some magic itinerary from the BBC to figure out. Read fucking history instead of telling fairy tales! You screaming "FOURTEEN DAYS" is just asinine if you actually used historical data instead of telling lies.
Snowden was in Hong Kong because it was one of few places he felt was a secure location to be located when the leaks were made public. Snowden was not sure how most other Governments would react to the leaks, let alone if any would offer him protection (Including Russia). Snowden only went to Moscow after his passports were cancelled in the US, he was labelled a traitor and felt there was no way he could receive a fair trial, and other asylum options he had hoped for were closed. Investigating asylum options is exactly the reason he remained in Hong Kong for "FOURTEEN DAYS". He landed in Moscow and lived at the airport because he still had not requested asylum in Russia. Snowden only applied for asylum at the point he legally had to do so, or be turned over to the US.
If you remember, the US pressured other governments to illegally force diplomatic aircraft to land so that they could search for Snowden. In other words, even if Venezuela or another South American country offered him asylum he had almost no chance of getting there. Interesting that your magical timeline does not mention those things. Almost as interesting as you fabricating information and telling stories.. almost.
But today's body of law is so great that I'm not sure it's possible for a person to read it all within a single lifetime, let alone piece together all of the cross links and understand everything that applies to you.
2,567 hours just to read the US Federal Tax law, which is 120% of a work year if your full time job was to read that Law. And just think of your joy when you find out next year laws are changed (not amended) and grows at a frightening rate. 26,300 pages in 1984, to 54,846 by 2003, to 67,204 in 2007, and 73,954 today. Reference.
Spending 2 minutes reading Feinstein's Wiki page discounts any possible claim you have of "extraordinary". You could not possibly be claiming that everything I stated was dependent on Feinstein explicitly stating one sentence in one way, because that would be idiocy.
I can not find the exact quote from Feinstein either, but this is not uncommon nor does it make my statement wrong. Feinstein called Snowden a traitor, which has a punishment of the death penalty. If Feinstein was not a supporter of the death penalty I may cut some slack. Her Wiki page speaks for her very well.
Feinstein is a supporter of capital punishment.
Even assuming she did not state "kill him" directly, there is a very obvious indirect statement by her calling him a traitor (on numerous occasions).
Also, compare how the main Russian media speak about Putin with how Fox News speaks about Obama.
There is no difference, sorry. Obama is not talked poorly about in US media. Anyone that talks negatively tends to be labelled a racist almost immediately.
In the last week the only things I have heard regarding President Obama in broadcast media are that he talked to Putin about the Ukraine, and that he's coming to town for a yet another fund raiser. I can not possibly watch all 3 major stations all the time (obviously) but do try and rotate stations. It's possible someone did question or talk poorly about him and I didn't watch during that time, but I have severe doubts.
Who are these three people?
Last I checked, Google is not broken. Start with Rupert Murdoch and Ted Turner, then see who's on the boards of every media company in the US. This is really not hard to figure out, if you care to look. If you don't care about the facts at least have the decency not to muddy the waters for people that do.
Do you really think Fox News calls up the White House to ask them how President Obama would like their broadcast today to go?
Are you falsely trying to claim that the only possible way to organize a message is by one person disseminating information? Perhaps you are trying to claim that "Don't talk about Gitmo in a negative way, or ignore Gitmo completely." could not possibly be directed, and the only way to direct a message is revoke individually? Either way, your false assumption is just that. False.