Rodney King strikes again...

[Guest Downhome]

Ok...

 

RIALTO, Calif. - Rodney King, whose videotaped beating led to the deadly 1992 riots in Los Angeles, was hospitalized with a broken pelvis after he lost control of his SUV while weaving through traffic at 100 mph and crashed into a house, police said.

 

 

King, 39, was spotted Sunday by a police officer who said King was speeding and weaving through traffic in his 2003 Ford Expedition when he slammed into a utility pole, a chain-link fence and then the home, police said. No one in the home was injured.

 

 

King was in fair condition Monday afternoon, hospital spokesman Jorge Valencia said. His condition was not available Tuesday as hospital officials did not answer phone calls.

 

 

Police said they suspect that King was intoxicated, and a blood sample was drawn to determine his blood-alcohol level. Test results have not yet been released.

 

 

King was not arrested, but a report detailing the crash circumstances will be submitted to prosecutors, police Lt. Kathy Thompson said.

 

 

King, who is black, was chased by police through the San Fernando Valley in 1991 and was captured on videotape being beaten by four white officers.

 

 

After their acquittal, riots broke out and lasted for four days, leaving 55 dead and more than 2,000 injured. The mayhem caused $1 billion in property damage.

 

 

King later received a $3.8 million settlement from the city of Los Angeles in 1994.

 

 

He was convicted of spouse abuse in 1999 in San Bernardino County and was sentenced to 90 days in jail and four years probation.

 

 

King pleaded no contest to three counts of being under the influence of PCP and a count of indecent exposure in October 2001. A judge gave King a year in a drug treatment center even though a prosecutor argued King should spend a year in county jail.

 

 

Rialto, where King lives, is 53 miles east of Los Angeles.

 

...he's so craaaaaaaaazy.

 

Sincerely,

...Downhome...

[Guest EricMM]

yeah he's crazy

 

Anyways, can I just hijack this post?

 

I wanted to bring up a point. Apparently there are ~120 americans killed or MIA from this war. A lot of people I know are making a big deal about this. Lost lives and all. Yeah, it's a shame. But I'm almost sure that more than 120 people die every day from auto accidents, and I doubt most of them are due to unavoidable mishaps.

 

I mean, it just seems like people ignore the fact that more people die from auto accidents per year than most anything else, and complain about say... sharks in the water (what year was that, it was recent)

 

Are car accidents really that unavoidable? I think if people obeyed the laws they wouldn't be so high.

[Guest WhenDanSaysJump]

King, who is black

 

Wow... we never knew that!

 

[/sarcasm]

[Guest DrTom]

Wow, and all this time, I thought he was such a model citizen...

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Apparently there are ~120 americans killed or MIA from this war

I'd just like to point out that this has been my precise estimate the entire time, as I mentioned on this board on the 15th of September, 2002, and in several papers of both earlier and later date.

And again:

Actually, that's my absolute uppermost estimate. 100, 150, and a large percentage of those in the usual wartime accidents rather than due to enemy action.

I believe people like outcast11/Tyler McClelland deserve a sound "Nyah!" at this point for their ignorant and inane doomsday predictions. This naturally includes 98% of all reporters and television news anchors, at least 75% of all Democrats, and most of the retired service personnel making asses of themselves by accepting cash to yammer about subjects on which they have absolutely NO relevant information because they have NO need to know.

 

As I've said time and time again: kindly listen to your government. We tend to know what we're talking about.

 

'k, y'all can go back to discussing Rodney King now. If anyone cares.

[Guest WhenDanSaysJump]

Holy shit! It's Marney! I thought she was gone for good... ESTABLISHED~! posters, can you fill me in on this?

 

Rodney who?

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

Marney it's... agreeable to see you again.

[Guest Vyce]

She must have come back thanks to that repost of the SKBF post!

 

Must be magic!!!

[Guest EricMM]

My entire car point was totally no sold (weeps)

 

that less than 150 people were actually killed is really amazing. I think I heard a while back that 10,000 Americans died during the battle of the bulge in WWII?

 

I can't imagine what CNN would be doing if 1,000 people were killed in a battle.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

Too bad Rodney lived.

 

Oh, and I would have loved to see CNN reporters on the boats during D-Day...

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

I believe people like outcast11/Tyler McClelland deserve a sound "Nyah!" at this point for their ignorant and inane doomsday predictions. This naturally includes 98% of all reporters and television news anchors, at least 75% of all Democrats, and most of the retired service personnel making asses of themselves by accepting cash to yammer about subjects on which they have absolutely NO relevant information because they have NO need to know.

Damn straight.

 

I'm waiting for Ms. Garafolo to crawl through broken glass at the White House on her hands and knees and apologize to the President.

[Guest CED Ordonez]

Great to know that as the days pass, Rodney King continues to prove more and more that he probably deserved that beating.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

I believe people like outcast11/Tyler McClelland deserve a sound "Nyah!" at this point for their ignorant and inane doomsday predictions

 

Um, what?

 

I never predicted doomsday, simply suggested it could happen if Iraq had WMDs and launched them at our troops in Kuwait, provoking a possible nuclear retaliation.

 

Get your facts straight before you fling accusations.

[Guest EricMM]

I just heard on the news that one of the reasons we didn't have more people killed, or say gassed was because Special Ops people bribed the leaders of the Republican Guard with hundreds of millions of dollars for them to just disappear.

 

Reminds me of Civilization

 

You can't put a price on U.S. lives, that's for sure.

[Guest Vyce]

My entire car point was totally no sold (weeps)

 

that less than 150 people were actually killed is really amazing. I think I heard a while back that 10,000 Americans died during the battle of the bulge in WWII?

 

I can't imagine what CNN would be doing if 1,000 people were killed in a battle.

Pat Buchanan, of all people, had an excellent point: in this war, the total number of American casualties is below 150....if you factor in ALL Coalition casualties, the number may creep up a little bit above 150. Many of those deaths, possibly a fourth of them (if not more), were not even caused by combat, but were the result of equipment malfunctions. But anyway, as Pat was saying, our casualties for this entire war are below 150.

 

We would lose 200 men A DAY in WW2.

 

That's amazing. Now, granted, Saddam's Iraq doesn't exactly stack up to the German military machine, but still, it's remarkable that we could fight a war, and win it, with so few casualties, bribes to the Republican Guard notwithstanding.

 

And Marney has an EXCELLENT point.

 

A LARGE part of the argument of many members of the anti-war crowd - including Susan Sarandon, for example - was that we shouldn't get into this war because many of "our children" (referring to the soldiers) were going to get killed in battle. That argument loses much of its power due to the low fatality statistics.

 

Oh, um.....to get back on subject: yeah, I'm shocked that Rodney's in trouble again.

 

Remember kids, if you're going to beat the shit out of someone, make sure there's no pesky videographic recordings of you committing the act.

[Guest Redhawk]

Many of those deaths, possibly a fourth of them (if not more), were not even caused by combat, but were the result of equipment malfunctions.

 

Is that supposed to make me feel better, since the enemy isn't killing our troops...or should I start wondering why our military keeps fucking up and killing their own guys? And what is "friendly fire" anyway and why are we losing people to it?

 

But about Rodney King...as a Black man, I feel even more stupid that we caused all that damage over his sorry ass (although I see the point, I still say they would have sent a bigger message by looting White people's 'hood). It would have meant so much more if it was someone like Rosa Parks or an upstanding person. Rodney's a bum.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Get your facts straight before you fling accusations.

I never predicted doomsday

why risk the lives of those 2 million people when all we have is hearsay to support our claims? Can you truly justify that?

who's to say that taking Saddam out will solve ANYTHING? The people will likely resent us even more for intervening, even if we eradicated the 'evil dictator'!

You don't think he will try to go out with a bang? Those biological weapons he has... you don't think he'll use every last drop of them to just haunt our troops' lives? You don't think there is ANY risk involved with this conflict? That's being a little optimistic, don't you think? Perhaps millions won't die, but hundreds may be grossly undershooting it.

You can't honestly believe that we have every biological weapon he owns on our radar maps. Even one of these weapons can take down platoons... even one of these weapons will ruin many lives.

 

Please feel free to deny these facts, Tyler McAl-Sahaf... I'm sure you have it in you. You shouldn't feel singled out, though; many people recited the same canned idiocy you spewed equally shamelessly and equally cluelessly, and not one of them has apologised for it either. You aren't remarkably silly. There are innumerable others sharing in your humiliation.

But Christ Jesus, you people have your pathetic little egos so enmeshed in your arguments here that it seems physically impossible for you to admit you were wrong. In this case, however, your own words prove it beyond any reasonable doubt, as anyone who cares to read the thread I linked to can see. Or have your posts been taken out of context by LYING MISERABLE INFIDELS who will ROAST IN HELL, by the will of Allah?

 

Pshaw. Take your pride and stick it in your shoe.

[Guest NoCalMike]

I thought Tyler was bringing up hypothetical situations of how many lives could be lost IF WMD were fired upon our troops when the were engaged in war. I mean honestly, I don't think there is a person in the world that thought our army straight up vs. their army would produce many casulties.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Skip the apologetics. He was told they wouldn't be used (because, as I said, the Iraqis would be given no opportunity to do so), and even if they were they'd be ineffective. He persisted in claiming that they definitely WOULD be used (see above) and that they WOULD be effective. Like everyone else who spouted the same nonsense, he was wrong.

 

Suck it up.

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

I had predicted 1,000 killed or wounded, but the Republican Guard didn't put up nearly as tough a fight as I thought they would. I think the press trying to say at any point that things weren't going well was REALLY stupid and shows a complete lack of understanding of how military campaigns usually go. I can only imagine if had, say, something the size of an Okinawa battle today. I mean, the government was right to dispel any ideas that things weren't going well. To conquer an area the size of California in several weeks is a daunting task and was done very handily. I don't see what the fuss is about.

 

As for any Iraqi WMD, they wouldn't have used any even if they had the chance because I feel they'd rather try and make the war seem needless and turn the world against us more than exact massive casualties and expose themselves. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't worried about the possibility though.

[Guest NoCalMike]

Skip the apologetics. He was told they wouldn't be used (because, as I said, the Iraqis would be given no opportunity to do so), and even if they were they'd be ineffective. He persisted in claiming that they definitely WOULD be used (see above) and that they WOULD be effective. Like everyone else who spouted the same nonsense, he was wrong.

 

Suck it up.

did you ever stop to think maybe they just didn't have these massive chemical weapons lying around? Oh wait, I forgot pesticides count too....

[Guest Cancer Marney]

did you ever stop to think maybe they just didn't have these massive chemical weapons

...

 

<notes post number for future quotation>

 

Some people just never learn.

[Guest NoCalMike]

<notes post number for future quotation>

 

Some people just never learn.

oh, this outta be great. Marney the inspector. Now if I just giver her enough time to find the quotes. Great to have ya back.

[Guest cartman]

Skip the apologetics. He was told they wouldn't be used (because, as I said, the Iraqis would be given no opportunity to do so), and even if they were they'd be ineffective. He persisted in claiming that they definitely WOULD be used (see above) and that they WOULD be effective. Like everyone else who spouted the same nonsense, he was wrong.

 

Suck it up.

did you ever stop to think maybe they just didn't have these massive chemical weapons lying around? Oh wait, I forgot pesticides count too....

Yup.

[Guest EricMM]

So NoCalMike do you really think that you know, after the U.S. military finishes this war we're still in and actually gets down to sweeping the whole country, we won't find any WMD?

 

I mean, post what you believe man, and nothing more and nothing less. But you can't always blame people for mocking you if you persistantly try to deny what's going on.

 

I can't think of any real political figure who has ever denied that Iraq has WMD besides Mr. Information Minister Guy, everyone else just advocated inspections as a method of fixing the problem. Almost no one has ever denied that there was a problem regarding WMD.

 

Besides, didn't the inspectors need more time? Now we have to find weapons while fighting a war in 3 weeks? It took Blix three weeks to do ANYTHING.

[Guest Vyce]

So NoCalMike do you really think that you know, after the U.S. military finishes this war we're still in and actually gets down to sweeping the whole country, we won't find any WMD?

Hell, even Eleanor Clift believes there's weapons there.

 

Besides, didn't the inspectors need more time? Now we have to find weapons while fighting a war in 3 weeks? It took Blix three weeks to do ANYTHING.

 

I do LOVE the double standard being used.

 

Blix, the anti-war crowd argued, needed more time. MONTHS.

 

Now those same people are bitching because we haven't found them in 4 weeks.

 

Smell the hypocrisy!

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

And yet, in posts later than 6 months ago, I had backed up and said it's not likely due to the fact that Hussein wanted to make a martyr out of himself.

 

Perhaps you should use your superior web browsing skills, Marney, to find a post of mine that isn't six months old.

[Guest NoCalMike]

So NoCalMike do you really think that you know, after the U.S. military finishes this war we're still in and actually gets down to sweeping the whole country, we won't find any WMD?

Hell, even Eleanor Clift believes there's weapons there.

 

Besides, didn't the inspectors need more time? Now we have to find weapons while fighting a war in 3 weeks? It took Blix three weeks to do ANYTHING.

 

I do LOVE the double standard being used.

 

Blix, the anti-war crowd argued, needed more time. MONTHS.

 

Now those same people are bitching because we haven't found them in 4 weeks.

 

Smell the hypocrisy!

I have never once said that Iraq has NOTHING. That quote you pulled from me is just stating that the inspectors needed more time to go in and find whatever may or may NOT be there, so stop quoting me out of context. I am just pointing out that, in this short of time, the administration in the whitehouse has already numerous time pointed the finger at Syria as the reason we aren't finding WMD and then accusing them of having their own.

 

Also, the military in it's month there has had access to 1000x times as much as the inspectors had in order to search. Every network is waiting to get their juicy hands on the scoop, thus you hear false reporting going on when any type of metal object is found. They automatically want to scream WMD, and then it turns out to be, basically, bug spray.

 

I am not saying ZERO amounts of evidence exsist. However, so far how can you say we have found a vast amount of ANYTHING incriminating?

[Guest MD2020]

Also, the military in it's month there has had access to 1000x times as much as the inspectors had in order to search.

 

Absoultely correct. What's with this slacker mililtary? I'm mean, it's not like there was a war or anything going on at the time!!!

 

 

Oh wait...

[Guest NoCalMike]

Well we can pretend that they aren't being pushed every second of the day to find the "smoking gun" but that just isn't true. Since the majority of them are done with combat(at least for now in Iraq). I am sure they just aren't sitting around eating bbq, knocking back a few beers.