Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9035 total)
85 online now:
(85 visitors)
Newest Member: Barry Deaborough
Post Volume: Total: 885,592 Year: 3,238/14,102 Month: 179/724 Week: 28/93 Day: 28/22 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Who's the bigger offender: Conservatives or Liberals?
Percy
Member
Posts: 20101
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 136 of 147 (886533)
05-23-2021 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by marc9000
05-22-2021 7:53 PM


marc9000 writes:

quote:
Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt signed a bill Wednesday granting immunity to drivers who unintentionally injure or kill protesters while attempting to flee and which stiffens penalties for demonstrators who block public roadways, according to the Oklahoma State Legislature.

UNINTENTIONALY??? Is that the reason others wouldn't provide links, is that the reason you didn't show any text from the link? Unintentionally injuring or killing while attempting to flee threatening mobs who are blocking roads? A big part of the reason for these types of laws is to discourage mobs from blocking roads! HELLOOOOOOOOOOO!!

There are already laws on the books covering vehicular manslaughter and vehicular homicide that take circumstances into account. Granting immunity from prosecution under certain proscribed circumstances is analogous to the stand your ground laws that have caused murder rates to rise in those states and the qualified immunity that police receive. Courts in Oklahoma will now debate whether a reasonable person would have thought there was a riot or considered their life to be in danger.

It's actually an intimidation law encouraging motorists to drive through protests.

Leading up to this law, how many Oklahomans in cars had been killed by angry mobs?

Now I'm done in this thread.

Making light of your casual relationship with truth is very unfunny.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by marc9000, posted 05-22-2021 7:53 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Mercury
Junior Member
Posts: 21
From: Socorro, NM, USA
Joined: 06-04-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 137 of 147 (886556)
05-23-2021 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by marc9000
05-22-2021 7:45 PM


Re: Why, Yes, Marc. Our sky is blue. What's yours?
I heard plenty of horror stories from primary sources who directly experienced that era, is that sufficient? Being raised by them gave me plenty of time for it, right anglagard?

You must think really highly of Democrats if you think they're competent enough to pull off entire inventions.

Global Warming?

Shell and Exxon's secret 1980s climate change warnings | Benjamin Franta

Black Lives Matter? I'll let someone with more directly applicable life experience field that one.

As to defund the police, I'm open to negotiations. How about police duty? It'll be like jury duty but you're doing it for observing/aiding the police.

Police always say that people don't know how hard their job is, that the paperwork is excessive, and that they aren't paid enough for what they do. Leftists always say we need independent oversight and community policing. Both concerns can be addressed at the same time, while slightly inconveniencing people in true moderate fashion!

Police already do civilian ride-alongs, so we know it can be done safely. I think we can at least lighten the load on traffic enforcement.

If the people on police duty are paid the same wages as the individuals presently assigned to those tasks, they can judge for themselves if the police are getting paid enough for what they contribute for their community.

This will fight corruption by creating more opportunities to catch it, it'll break the toxic elements of police culture by interrupting it with an outside element, and it'll ensure that the community is well-informed about law enforcement and how it relates to public safety. Surely, only a few bad apples without a sense of duty would object to that?


And God said let there be irony. Nothing happened.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by marc9000, posted 05-22-2021 7:45 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by dwise1, posted 05-27-2021 8:51 PM Mercury has acknowledged this reply

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4606
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.5


(3)
Message 138 of 147 (886558)
05-23-2021 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by marc9000
05-22-2021 7:45 PM


Re: Why, Yes, Marc. Our sky is blue. What's yours?
What did you think of the Ronald Reagan presidency?

He didn't know what he was doing. Or rather, he didn't understand reality.

Two landmark results of his governorship of California was to defund the public education system and to waste state money on "conservation" efforts. Implementing his changes to turning office lights on and off and office telephones cost much more than was ever saved.

His talk of the "traditional nuclear family" came from complete ignorance of traditional families. Traditional families are multigenerational extended families. Basically, it was accruing as many family hands as possible to work the family farm. That included grandparents to take care of the children who were too young to work yet, aunts and uncles and cousins. Not only were the elders cared for, but if any member were to be injured and unable to work then the others could cover for him. The extended family could continue to function and take care of its own.

The "traditional nuclear family" was an aberration born mainly of the Industrial Revolution which replaced the actual traditional farm family with an urban family unit consisting of non-productive children and only one wage-earner. If that single wage-earner were to become injured then that isolated family faced doom. If a family elder were to become too old to work or become infirm, there was no safety net for him. As the US population moved from being mainly rural to become urban in the 1930's and 40's, the loss of the social safety net of traditional families led to the need for Social Security.

 
There were two questions put to Reagan which told me the most about his unsuitability:

  1. The Equal Rights Amendment. Equal rights for franchised citizens. Should be a no-brainer, not controversial in the least. Kind of like the idea of "one citizen, one vote" which is currently so vehemently under attack by Republicans.

    Reagan deemed it "too controversial" and so it should not be an amendment to the Constitution, but rather become enacted through a patchwork of state and local laws -- kind of like gay marriage laws which left families vulnerable to having their children taken away from them should they ever dare to travel through another state with different laws.

  2. Abortion, which is a very controversial issue full of all kinds of moral dilemmas. If anything is far from settled and in need to thoughtful discussion and deliberation, that would be this issue.

    Reagan favored a Constitutional Amendment banning abortion.


So a highly controversial issue should be resolved with a Constitutional Amendment while a clear and obvious fact that even Mr. Magoo could see should not? This guy had no clue which way was up.

And "trickle down" economics doesn't. Never has, never will.

My views represent more of mainstream America than do yours, and that's a fact.

Then that is an indictment of "mainstream America" who are well known for voting against their own interests. But most of that is because the Republicans are lying to them.

 
ABE:
I forgot to mention Reagan's "big tax cut" that he and Republicans bragged about. It nearly doubled my taxes -- lower middle class at that time. And nearly everybody I asked about it at the time also saw their income tax go up drastically. Yet again, the rich got a big tax break and the middle class got screwed.

Ever since then, every time a Republican starts talking about "tax cuts" I grab hold of my wallet very tightly. The Great Republican Tax Scam of 2017 is a prime example.

Edited by dwise1, : ABE


This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by marc9000, posted 05-22-2021 7:45 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by LamarkNewAge, posted 05-24-2021 1:56 AM dwise1 has responded
 Message 140 by LamarkNewAge, posted 05-24-2021 1:59 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1838
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 139 of 147 (886560)
05-24-2021 1:56 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by dwise1
05-23-2021 7:34 PM


Re: Why, Yes, Marc. Our sky is blue. What's yours?
What did Reagan do with abortion now?

I thought Reagan did nothing (historically speaking), but you made this a hallmark of his presidency.

1984 did see the first Presidential race where the Republican was, nominally, anti-abortion and the Democratit was Pro Abortion rights, but how the heck does this amount to anything?

The 1983 congressional vote was known to be a show vote. The 2/3 majority to begin the process for a constitutional amendment was never serious.

What the f are you talking about?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by dwise1, posted 05-23-2021 7:34 PM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by dwise1, posted 05-24-2021 12:40 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1838
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 140 of 147 (886561)
05-24-2021 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by dwise1
05-23-2021 7:34 PM


Re: Why, Yes, Marc. Our sky is blue. What's yours?
So has ERA been implemented, at the federal level?

(Era was constitutional amendment, right? Reagan was against it, right?)

(Required 38 states to ratify, right)

What about the post Reagan period?

I don't know. Honestly.

I know military drafts, for females, were an issue.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by dwise1, posted 05-23-2021 7:34 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4606
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 141 of 147 (886564)
05-24-2021 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by LamarkNewAge
05-24-2021 1:56 AM


Re: Why, Yes, Marc. Our sky is blue. What's yours?
As I said: "There were two questions put to Reagan which told me the most about his unsuitability:"

These were statements he made during the campaign about his position. So what the f are you talking about?

Something that is controversial like banning abortion he wanted to be enacted on the federal level as part of the Constitution while he opposed the same for something that is so obviously right like equal rights for citizens.

As I said, that is what showed me that Candidate Reagan was unsuitable.

Also, the draft ended in the early 70's.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by LamarkNewAge, posted 05-24-2021 1:56 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by kjsimons, posted 05-24-2021 2:16 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
kjsimons
Member
Posts: 725
From: Orlando,FL
Joined: 06-17-2003


Message 142 of 147 (886566)
05-24-2021 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by dwise1
05-24-2021 12:40 PM


Re: Why, Yes, Marc. Our sky is blue. What's yours?
dwise1 writes:

Also, the draft ended in the early 70's.


Registering for the draft though was reinstituted starting in 1980 though. Of course that was not under Reagans presidency but Jimmy Carter's.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by dwise1, posted 05-24-2021 12:40 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2177
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.7


(3)
Message 143 of 147 (886568)
05-24-2021 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by marc9000
05-22-2021 7:35 PM


Also we should note that you argued that:

My belief is that government should leave traditional activity alone, and let free markets and shifts in public opinion make things right.

in this case the traditional activity isn't the good old southern classic of "on the third sunday of the month we switch things up and let the pigs fuck us" but the institution of Slavery. You argued in favor of letting a few additional decades worth of slaves to experience suffering rather than have the southern goat molesters get their ass beat in the civil war.


It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by marc9000, posted 05-22-2021 7:35 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4606
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.5


(4)
Message 144 of 147 (886622)
05-27-2021 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Mercury
05-23-2021 6:24 PM


Re: Why, Yes, Marc. Our sky is blue. What's yours?
As to defund the police, I'm open to negotiations. How about police duty? It'll be like jury duty but you're doing it for observing/aiding the police.

To be honest, I misread this entire section a couple times.

One of the biggest problems with "defund the police" is that it's a lightning rod for GQP lies and propaganda, like some Democrats self-identifying as "democratic socialists" (despite their instead describing social democracy which is an improved form of capitalism).

Police are needed, but we do need better police. Part of the problem is a form of "creeping features" (a problem well known to all engineers) in which more and more social tasks have been given to the police with insufficient or no training and no resources. Their mission needs to be well defined and they need to be trained and supported for that mission. Reorganization is needed to create agencies within the police who are trained and supplied for those extra missions that had creeped in and entire police organizations to be set up to work together and support each other in the police organization's overall mission. Yes, I'm running in military mode right now, but remember that it's the amateurs who study combat whereas the professionals study organization and logistics.

Greater community involvement such as you advocate could help in providing direction for that reorganization by helping to identify what it needs to address.

The trend towards militarizing the police further confuses their mission, basically transforming de-escalation and negotiation into armed conflict. That's where a lot of funding has been going (though I understand that police departments can get good deals from government military surplus). Again, it's not so much defunding but rather diverting the funds to where they can do more good for the community. We will still need police special tactics units for certain situations that will still arise, but that's different from creating an environment where every stop is seen as that certain situation.

There's also that police culture for hiding and moving problems (not unlike what the Catholic Church and other organizations have done with their problematic leaders) while getting rid of the good cops who try to do the right thing even when that's short of whistleblowing (I'll spare us of what I've seen). Greater community involvement should help in stopping that, but it will undoubtedly take more.

But now I'm going to downshift from military mode into my Chief mode. Training! Police forces in other countries, especially in Europe, do much better. Why? Training! In Europe, in order to become a cop you need to basically get a college degree, at least two years worth. Here, I'm not even sure whether you need to be a high school graduate. You get selected for Police Academy and after a couple/few months of intensive training you're considered qualified. Mind you, that training is not trivial. For one thing, you are required to memorize by heart every single word of the entire criminal and traffic code (ie, all the laws that you will be expected to enforce) -- in some cases, if you transfer from one state to another you might need to go through that state's academy in order to come up to speed, or maybe not.

It's that "or maybe not" that worries me as a retired Chief Petty Officer. Shifting back up to military mode, training can make the difference between life and death. We've all seen depictions of USMC basic training where the DI tells his recruits to remember their training in order to survive. That is true (along with giving 110%, which is a real thing and our only weapon against mediocrity). Warfare has been described as days of mind-numbing boredom punctuated by minutes of sheer terror. Not unlike police patrols where any traffic stop could go sideways in an instant even though the vast majority of them don't. In those minutes of sheer terror, changes in blood flow within the brain shut down the ability to think rationally and kick into high gear near-instinctive reacting. The fundamental purpose of training for emergency situations is to make the correct actions nearly instinctive, so that when an emergency happens your training will kick in and you will know what to do without having to think it out when you have no time to think it out. Truly, remember your training.

And if there's no training for the emergency situations you find yourself in? Then random shit happens and people get hurt and even die.

My son's a cop who had to go through police academy a second time because he moved from one state to another. And when he did the right thing instead of covering up for another cop (Down, boy! It was a DUI involving a sheriff's deputy who had a loaded weapon in the car full of other drunks (the deputy was the least drunk of them, but not by much) -- in one CPO induction, one of the selectees was a sheriff's deputy who had joined the Sheriff's Department because, as his father advised him, "Son, since you drink so much and still drive, you need to become a cop." During that stop, civilians were coming out of the Denny's across the street, each with a phone that has a camera, so my son did the right thing for the community and took the deputy in (BTW, the deputy agreed that that was the right thing). As a result, his PD leadership went on a campaign to expel him even though he was an outstanding cop.

About a year ago, there was a small town incident in which a policewoman on patrol drew her sidearm and it accidentally discharged, killing the suspect. She resigned.

It turns out that she had never been to the police academy, nor had received much in way of formal training. Basically, she was out on patrol learning OJT (On the Job Training)! And because of her lack of training, a life was lost.

Following up on the news coverage saying that she had been put in for the police academy, but a slot hadn't opened up yet, so they had started training her locally and placed her on patrol as part of that training. I texted my son about it and he said that that is a common situation what with too many local PDs needing to fill positions but they can't qualify them by getting them the training that they need. My son was trying to justify what these community PDs were doing for purely practical reasons while my CPO-nature kept screaming out that if you don't train your people then you're screwed. Everybody's screwed!

Reform is definitely needed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Mercury, posted 05-23-2021 6:24 PM Mercury has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Percy, posted 05-28-2021 9:47 AM dwise1 has not yet responded
 Message 146 by LamarkNewAge, posted 05-28-2021 9:15 PM dwise1 has not yet responded
 Message 147 by anglagard, posted 05-30-2021 2:54 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20101
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.2


(1)
Message 145 of 147 (886625)
05-28-2021 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by dwise1
05-27-2021 8:51 PM


Re: Why, Yes, Marc. Our sky is blue. What's yours?
The slogan "defund the police" is attention getting but should be dropped because it's most often taken literally. By the time it's explained what it actually means eyes have glazed over.

I agree about training. Too many articles about police abuse quote them saying things like, "I will light you up." These are the words of adrenaline, not training. And from what I've read, too many training courses send police into fits of paranoia who see themselves marching off to war determined that they're not going to the casualty, the other guy is going to be the casualty. They see the streets filled with potential enemies rather than the public they serve. They have the paranoia of US troops in Vietnam, never knowing which of the innocent looking villagers are actually Vietcong seeking to cut their throats. No wonder so many police interactions with innocent civilians end badly.

Qualified immunity is to blame. Give a respectable force infinite power and within a generation its ranks will be filled with the aggressively empowered prepared to wreak their own brand of justice upon the public. Qualified immunity is an ad hoc legal principle concocted by the court system but eventually blessed by the Supreme-Court, so prosecutorial discretion has no choice but to follow it.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by dwise1, posted 05-27-2021 8:51 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1838
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 146 of 147 (886640)
05-28-2021 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by dwise1
05-27-2021 8:51 PM


Re: Why, Yes, Marc. Our sky is blue. What's yours?
I saw the Democratic party primary, in 2016, as an example ( the best example) of the amazing lies that pass for informatjon & debate, and which tells us alot about the con job involving labels.

The media kept referring to Martin O'Malley as "the progressive Governor from Maryland", but the guy was nothing of the sort. Poor people, who had Medicaid, would did from mouth infections, because Medicaid would not cover "dental" ailments until the deadly infection spread far enough beyond the mouth ( often to the brain) to count as " medical". Known as "too late", for many.

O'Malley liked to bash Sandets over the "socialist" label (like many Klobuchar types would, 4 years later), but he basked in his "progressive" label. He wanted to be a "progressive" alternative to Hillary.

He endorsed H Clinton, after he got his much deserved 0% in Iowa. It is amazing that no Democrat has gotten more than 52% in Maryland governor's races, since Glendening got 56% in 1998. (O'Malley got 52% in 2006 and 51% in 2010). That roughly corresponds to the O'Malley ascendancy. (Biden won 65 to 33, and Obama won 62 to 37 and 61 to 36)

Democrats are the ones who like to twist labels. The GOP just sits back and watches.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by dwise1, posted 05-27-2021 8:51 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2305
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006
Member Rating: 6.5


(2)
Message 147 of 147 (886669)
05-30-2021 2:54 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by dwise1
05-27-2021 8:51 PM


Re: Why, Yes, Marc. Our sky is blue. What's yours?
One of the biggest problems with "defund the police" is that it's a lightning rod for GQP lies and propaganda, like some Democrats self-identifying as "democratic socialists" (despite their instead describing social democracy which is an improved form of capitalism).

As a member of the DSA, I beg to differ concerning this definition. The way I see it is the USA is currently 40% socialist (social security, medicare, medicaid, armed forces). Now, the social democrats have an economy that is 50% socialist and 50% capitalist (medicare for all, humane punishment of infractions, better standard of living, more happiness, vastly better educational systems, free college, fairer tax codes). What I posit is beyond Scandinavia, Canada, NZ, and Australia, 60% socialist, 40% capitalism. Water, clean air, non-toxic environment, assault weapon-free, Everyone has the right to 2500 calories, adequate clothing, 10 square meters of housing (with at least 2 meters height, I know about weasels). My inspiration for such measures comes from the purported words of Christ, Krishna, Muhammad, even Gandhi, Mandela, King, Malcolm, Kant, and Spinoza. I know, serious name-dropping, I am referring to content.

I understand how this definition of Democratic Socialist may not be more universal than the one commonly accepted in the USA. However, considering the Republicans are the new Nazis and centrist Democrats are Weimar Republicans, I consider my positions on political issues relative to the rest of the world rather mainstream when one considers the issues at large.

Just letting you know what this DSA member is about, so I am not falsely represented, either by accident or intentionally.


The problem with knowing everything is learning nothing.

If you don't know what you're doing, find someone who does, and do what they do.

Republican = death


This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by dwise1, posted 05-27-2021 8:51 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021