Trump prepares to lift limits on military gear for police

[busybee01]

This is not a right vs left issue as you want to make it. The police do not need tanks or anti-mine vehicles. The fact is that we have seen the results of the militarization of police officers. Gestapo tactics being used against peaceful and non-violent people and demonstrators. Fascist thugs like you need to be deported.

Now that's your typical commie response. "If you don't think like a liberal, you need to be removed from the country."

No, I think it's liberals that should be removed from the country. There is only one place for conservatives in the world, and that is the USA. For Socialist/ Communist types, there are all kinds of utopias for you people to move to. Besides, if we could get rid of Democrats in our country, my property value would double overnight and we could start repaying the US debt.

You are not a conservative. You are the liberal. You are the commie. This country was founded on constitutional principles. Principles that are threatened by the militarization of the police. Military style tactics should not be used against American citizens.

Police should use all means necessary to resolve a problem. Our police should have the best protection available to them.

Who says they don't? A tank is not protection. It is a offensive weapon designed to kill people. I have never seen a instance where officers need a tank.

A tank isn't protection? I"d like to see you attack a police officer in a tank.

A tank is a offensive weapon not a defensive weapon. You don't need tanks to protect officers. It will encourage more violence and division.

 

[busybee01]

This is not a right vs left issue as you want to make it. The police do not need tanks or anti-mine vehicles. The fact is that we have seen the results of the militarization of police officers. Gestapo tactics being used against peaceful and non-violent people and demonstrators. Fascist thugs like you need to be deported.

Now that's your typical commie response. "If you don't think like a liberal, you need to be removed from the country."

No, I think it's liberals that should be removed from the country. There is only one place for conservatives in the world, and that is the USA. For Socialist/ Communist types, there are all kinds of utopias for you people to move to. Besides, if we could get rid of Democrats in our country, my property value would double overnight and we could start repaying the US debt.

You are not a conservative. You are the liberal. You are the commie. This country was founded on constitutional principles. Principles that are threatened by the militarization of the police. Military style tactics should not be used against American citizens.

Tactics? Who said anything about tactics? This is hardware and protective gear. The left is just unhappy that there aren't more Miosotis Familias getting shot. Come out and say it.... The police should not have anything that decreases their vulnerability to criminal killers.

And how many times do police officers run across land mines? The fact is that they have the equipment they need. Combine military gear with military style training and the combination is not good.

Who said anything bout military style training? You do realize that many police officers already had military training in the service, don't you?

The fact is that many officers are receiving military style training. And we are going to give them tanks and other military equipment, that is asking for trouble. Rand Paul makes sense. Make defensive military gear available.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Now that's your typical commie response. "If you don't think like a liberal, you need to be removed from the country."

No, I think it's liberals that should be removed from the country. There is only one place for conservatives in the world, and that is the USA. For Socialist/ Communist types, there are all kinds of utopias for you people to move to. Besides, if we could get rid of Democrats in our country, my property value would double overnight and we could start repaying the US debt.

You are not a conservative. You are the liberal. You are the commie. This country was founded on constitutional principles. Principles that are threatened by the militarization of the police. Military style tactics should not be used against American citizens.

Tactics? Who said anything about tactics? This is hardware and protective gear. The left is just unhappy that there aren't more Miosotis Familias getting shot. Come out and say it.... The police should not have anything that decreases their vulnerability to criminal killers.

And how many times do police officers run across land mines? The fact is that they have the equipment they need. Combine military gear with military style training and the combination is not good.

Who said anything bout military style training? You do realize that many police officers already had military training in the service, don't you?

The fact is that many officers are receiving military style training. And we are going to give them tanks and other military equipment, that is asking for trouble. Rand Paul makes sense. Make defensive military gear available.

They are? So where are they receiving military training from? Have any departments you'd like to use as an example?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Now that's your typical commie response. "If you don't think like a liberal, you need to be removed from the country."

No, I think it's liberals that should be removed from the country. There is only one place for conservatives in the world, and that is the USA. For Socialist/ Communist types, there are all kinds of utopias for you people to move to. Besides, if we could get rid of Democrats in our country, my property value would double overnight and we could start repaying the US debt.

You are not a conservative. You are the liberal. You are the commie. This country was founded on constitutional principles. Principles that are threatened by the militarization of the police. Military style tactics should not be used against American citizens.

Police should use all means necessary to resolve a problem. Our police should have the best protection available to them.

Who says they don't? A tank is not protection. It is a offensive weapon designed to kill people. I have never seen a instance where officers need a tank.

A tank isn't protection? I"d like to see you attack a police officer in a tank.

A tank is a offensive weapon not a defensive weapon. You don't need tanks to protect officers. It will encourage more violence and division.

It will? I don't know about you, but if I'm a troublemaker and I see a tank driving towards me, I'm running like hell.

 

[danielpalos]

I don't have a problem with it, but it should be available to me as well. Second Amendment and all that.



"The Trump administration is preparing to restore the flow of surplus military equipment to local law enforcement agencies under a program that had been sharply curtailed by the Obama administration amid an outcry over police use of armored vehicles and other war-fighting gear to confront protesters."

hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TRUMP_POLICE_MILITARY_GEAR?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-08-27-19-21-39

The current administration should "lift limits on Commerce, well regulated"; because we have a Commerce Clause.

Our Second Amendment clearly enumerates what is necessary for nation-State security.

 

[JoeB131]

h yes, distribution of wealth. We are all walking down the street one day, and somebody hands us money. Some get little money, many get more money, and some get a lot of money. It's simply unfair. Since somebody has more money than we do, we should take some of theirs. Wouldn't that be fair? After all, nobody really earned it.

In fact we should all have the same amount of money. It doesn't matter what you do for a living or how well you live. Everybody should have the same amount.

Nobody actually said that... but okay, please argue the straw man.

Here's the thing. The guy who is getting an 8 figure CEO salary did not produce 8 figures in value. Shit, sometimes these guys fuck it up and get the golden parachute.

But wait! What would we do when we need a doctor or something? Nobody would spend all that money to get an education if they made the same money as a garbage man.

Here's the problem with that argument. Garbage Men make pretty decent money, because they are doing an unpleasant job and they belong to a union. And they don't come out of medical school with decades of debt.

So we've decided as a society that someone who does an unpleasant job with no real skills actually deserves a decent salary because we don't want to live in a world where they don't exist.

Meanwhile, doctors make good money on paper, but more often than not these days, they are drowning in debt when they get out of medical school and it takes them decades to make any real money.

So much for the "Meritocracy" argument.

 

[JoeB131]

Yet you say nothing about all those blacks using the term. If the TERM is racist, as you claim, it has to be racist when anyone uses it or it's not racist at all. That's how definitions works, son.

No, actually, it doesn't, but since context is one of those concepts you don't understand, I don't think explaining it to you would do much good.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well that depends on how you consider attack. Executions are attacks. They're legal.

I didn't say anything about "blacks fund campaigns", I said in Africa. So I can see why you have no idea what I'm talking about if you can't even read what I wrote (again).

But I'll try and explain. The whole idea of democracy is that the people have a vote and the representatives then represent the voters somehow in order to get re-elected. However when you have people like the Koch brothers, among others, throwing cash everywhere and literally paying politicians to do their bidding for cash, which is then spent on paying for that politician to be re-elected, then you have corruption. However it's not called corruption. It's legitimized. In Africa when people use money to take money out of the system, it's called corruption. Leaders who stay in power and do whatever they like are called corrupt. But the Koch brothers, among others, can't be kicked out of power, just like African dictators can't be kicked out of power.

"Why do you leftists always go back in time to make a point instead of talking about the present? "

Do you want me to be frank Ray? The simple answer to this is because I'm not fucking stupid. It's because I understand how to make points and to back my points up with EVIDENCE. I do understand that a lot of people have a hard time understanding how to make a legitimate point, they look at the media and get pissy because the media doesn't say what they want them to say, but fucking hell Ray, what I'm doing is making a point and BACKING THE FUCKING THING UP. I can't believe that you're attacking me for backing up a point. You reach new lows every fucking time I talk to you.

Look.......do you want to talk about current situations in the US or not? I don't GAF about Africa. If you want to talk about Africa, start a topic on it. This topic is about military gear for our police IN THE US!!!!!

Executions are not an attack. Executions are a legal penalty decided by a jury and a judge. Political contributions are on both sides. Ever hear of George Soros? Ever hear of unions? Ever hear of Hollywood or trial lawyers? Ever hear of a guy named Warren Buffet?

Civil rights and other protests you wish to go back to were at a time when there was antiquated communications. It was virtually the only way for people to be heard. That's unnecessary today. Today you have cable TV, today you have email, today you have social media, today you have investigative reporting, today you have the internet. There is no need to protest or start riots today unless the only reason you have is to start trouble. And because people are only out on the streets to start trouble, our police need any means to combat that trouble by the left.

Yes Ray, and in talking about the present, you can look back at the past to see how things work.

Seemingly what you're doing Ray, is finding things that are inconvenient and then coming up with a tactic designed to stop that inconvenience from impacting your argument. Sorry Ray, you talk to me you talk to me in the present which is impacted by the past, and based on the reality that history repeats itself, and to understand things you need to look at the past.

Look Ray, I couldn't give a fuck if you never learned how to make an argument properly, but I did. If you have a problem talking to people who make arguments and back them up, I'm sure there are plenty of fuckheads who will do it in the way of morons and idiots. But that's not me, okay. So choose.

Executions ARE an attack Ray. And your argument as to why they're not goes back to them being legal. Just because something is legal doesn't stop it being an attack Ray. It's like saying this biscuit isn't a biscuit because it's Thursday.

You can have a group of people decide to make an attack. Just because they're a judge and jury doesn't stop it being an attack. It's clearly not self defense, is it? So it must be an attack. If I were to kill someone in the same manner as an execution I would be hunted down by the police for it. Why? Because I attacked someone.

I didn't say political contributions weren't on both sides Ray. So why you brought this up, I have no fucking idea. What, exactly, does this have to do with this conversation?

Ray, the Civil Rights movement was at a time of limited communications. But the Constitution is still the same Constitution. In the modern world it's still difficult for people to be heard. I've been on political forums like this for 20 something years and yet the media has ignored me completely and utterly. Not that I care.

The media did NOT ignore those protesters. Nothing much has changed Ray, the more communications we have, the more we have to sift through it all and the more we ignore things. We're still acting like the 1960s with limited media. The right have one TV news show, Fox News. Why so limited? Because it's easier that way, rather than having to make choices.

Protest is still protest, it's still protected by the Constitution and you're saying that protest makes you the enemy of the state (or at least the state as you think it should be).

If something was right in the 1960s, why is it wrong today?

There is no need? Well there is no need to have guns in the modern era either. There's no need to have TV in fact, we have the internet, you can watch programs on your computer. There's no need for lots of things, like lights with different voltage, or with special colors. We're not talking about NEED here Ray, we're talking about RIGHTS>

That's about the stupidest thing I have ever read. Let me ask: if a police officer arrests somebody, is that an attack? When the officer throws a criminal in jail, is that an attack? When a judge sentences a murderer to 20 years in jail, is that an attack?

The death penalty is just that--a penalty. It's what you owe society and a victims family for their loss and unacceptable behavior to society. It's not an attack especially when you caused the harm to other people that brought you the penalty. When you committed the act, you knew the possibilities of the penalty. You brought it on yourself.

No, you can't kill somebody on your own, that's called murder, just like you can't legally put somebody in handcuffs and put them someplace where they can't get out. That's called kidnapping. Only authority (which we the public give to others) are allowed to do that.

The people have never had a louder voice than today. For crying out loud, somebody can't kick their dog without the news doing a story on it. People who riot, attack our police officers, attack citizens, destroy property are criminals, and criminals need to be dealt with as harshly as possible. Allowing our police the equipment to do that job safely and efficiently is not a problem as far as I (and most law abiding citizens) are concerned. And do you know why it doesn't concern me? Because I will never be in a confrontation with police.

It hardly surprises me that this is the stupidest thing you've ever read, but I do wonder what it is you are actually reading, it's probably not what I wrote, but anyway. I didn't say a police officer arresting someone is an attack, so.... had you read what I actually wrote on the other hand....

Just because the death penalty is a penalty, that doesn't stop it being an attack. If I do EXACTLY the same thing, the law would see it as an attack. You logic doesn't stand up to any scrutiny here Ray.

Yes, it's called murder. THANK YOU VERY MUCH for proving me right.

The people have never had a louder voice, and I guess politicians have never had stronger ear plugs either. The US and democracy don't go together for fuck's sake. You have politicians massively on the take.

Why do you think opensecrets.org is called open secrets. But then you've always defended the system, no matter how fucking corrupt it is, as long as it's the Republican side of the corruption. You'll happily tell me all about the Democratic corruption.

You have superPACs Ray, what do you think one of those is? It's a way of people funneling money to politicians so no one, not you, not me, can see what the fuck is going on. We don't know how much money these people are giving to politicians, but we know it's happening and I know it's wrong. You seem to think it's okay though because you'll excuse corruption.

You'll never be in confrontation with the police? Well, time will tell whether you're lucky enough for that to be the case or not. The way the US is going, you SHOULD be in confrontation with the police in a few decades.

But then you know why the RKBA exists right? It's so that people could topple the govt, topple the police, take it all down. Or maybe you didn't know that.

How is it you are incapable of distinguishing the difference between an attack and a punishment? Would you like me to go to Dictionary.com and bring the definitions for you to read? Citizens cannot do things our authority does, that's why we have authority. If we all decided to execute people we thought were guilty of something, you probably wouldn't be around in a year or two. That's why we give that authority to our judicial system.

Open Secrets is a perfect example of our communications today. You didn't have Open Secrets 30 years ago because nobody had the internet. You didn't have social media to tell people about your problems 30 years ago. You couldn't get the other side of the story--only one side that the MSM controlled. Now there are hundreds of news outlets.

No, I will never be in a confrontation with police. How do I know? Because I'm pushing 60 and have never been in a confrontation yet. In fact I just got pulled over Friday. The officer was friendly to me and I was friendly and cooperative right back. He had no reason to pull me over, he just wanted to check me and my vehicle out. He even gave me a phony warning; something I should have never been cited for. But I was not about to start a fight with the guy over it. I gave it to my employer and he took care of it. That's how civilized human beings handle problems.

Now if I put my finger in his face, started yelling at him, threatening to sue the state because of a rights violation, it wouldn't have turned out the way it did. That's because you never challenge a police officer on the street. You lose every time if you do and only make matters worse.

How are you not able to see the difference between heroin and morphine? (Yes, I know you haven't said this)

Both of these are heroin.

The difference between heroin and morphine is mainly that one is illegal and one is legal. That's the basis of the difference. There are times when there are differences simply because heroin is made illegally it could potentially contain other stuff, who the hell knows, but for the purpose of this the difference is the legality.

Executions are the legal killing of people. Murder is the illegal killing of people. There's not much difference between the two other than that. Yes, there will be different situations between the actual events, but that is neither here nor there.

We like to do this. We like to give labels to things that are the same thing, but one is legal and the other is legal. To be legal it doesn't need to be moral, it doesn't need to be anything other than the people in charge believe they can get away with it because they hold power over an area.

You're talking about the difference between attack and punishment. To go off on one a bit I'll ask you what the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist is. Well a freedom fighter is seen by people as fighting for a good cause, a terrorist is someone who is fighting for a bad cause.

Example is this man:

In 2008 this man was on the US terrorist watch list. Yeah, the US called the guy a terrorist.

Why Nelson Mandela was on a terrorism watch list in 2008

" in fact, as late as 2008, the Nobel Prize winner and former president was still on the U.S. terrorism watch list."

But the man will go down in history as a FREEDOM FIGHTER. The difference is clear, I think, it's about someone's view, rather than anything else, you can be a freedom fighter and terrorist at the same time, to different people.

What is punishment? Punishment is when you do something wrong. But who decides if you have done something wrong? If I think you have done something wrong and I punish you for doing that thing wrong, say, but killing you, what will happen to me? Is it not punishment? Well it clearly is, because this is how I think. But the govt will think I have also done something wrong, and will then punish me too. If they kill me others might think they have done something wrong, and they can try and punish those responsible, but they are the authority and have a large army and police force behind them. Power here is what often amounts to power and authority to tell people that they have the power to do what they like.

Attack is the same thing. You can attack AND punish at the same time. Clearly an execution is not self defense, so it must be an attack, and it is punishment for what someone thinks you have done wrong.

This is a simple understanding of how things work. For some reason you seem to see the govt as infallible, as if the govt says it is so, it must be so and no one should be questioning their power. At the same time you have a gun which suggests the exact opposite. So I suggest you think on this a little more of figure out your contradictions.

Yes, Opensecrets is an example of there being a lot more information. But the problem with opensecrets is that there are superPACs and opensecrets doesn't know who pays into superPACs and doesn't know who receives.

They have manages to see the level of information and change the rules so that they can HIDE from this new level of information. A lot of the information, probably 99% is what people SAY about the information. There are statistics out there but you have to know how statistics work. You have to get all the statistics together.

A great example of this came up in a debate I was having, maybe with you, I'm not sure. The debate involved whether the rich pay a fair share of tax.

So I looked up federal taxes, it's easier because federal taxes are for the whole of the USA, rather than each individual state which means 50 times more work.

So I looked it up and I found what I was looking for. But I know that people pay more taxes to the federal govt than just income tax, which there is plenty of information about how the rich pay x amount.

High-income Americans pay most income taxes, but enough to be ‘fair’?

Here's an example.

Boom, I just found out that the top 2.7% pay 51.6% of taxes. Wow, the rich pay more than their fair share. But no. This doesn't tell me shit about how much the rich pay.

If I'm stupid, I look at this and decide that it's true, the rich pay loads of federal tax.

I look at this chart and I see there is 47.4% of taxes come from individual income taxes. But 32.8% come from payroll taxes. Hmm.... let's see about payroll taxes.

us federal payroll tax rich pay more - Yahoo Search Results

This is what came up.

Number one is about INCOME TAX
Number two is about INCOME TAX
Number three is the difference between the two taxes and doesn't tell me shit about how much payroll tax is paid by the rich.

Do you see my problem? The information is being repressed. I clearly didn't type in "income tax", I typed "payroll tax" and still it gives me stuff about "income tax".

Took me ages to find one thing about how much payroll tax was being paid.

Then we get beyond all of this I have to wonder whether this information is correct or not. Is this the information that has come based on the money coming in, or the money that SHOULD be coming in?

I don't know. How the hell can I know?

So there's more information out there, but I can't get the RAW DATA, I can only get websites which claim to have seen the raw data and gone through it and made some charts, which may or may not be distorted because they have chosen their own raw data. Where is this raw data? Fucked if I know, but I don't get the see it. If I want it I have to go the old way, the way people did 50 years ago. I have to go to some office and ask to see the raw data. Then I have to hope they want to give it to me, then I have to compile the data for myself.

So you see, the internet is full of information, but not enough information for me to be able to come up with the truth.

 

[Conservative65]

Yet you say nothing about all those blacks using the term. If the TERM is racist, as you claim, it has to be racist when anyone uses it or it's not racist at all. That's how definitions works, son.

No, actually, it doesn't, but since context is one of those concepts you don't understand, I don't think explaining it to you would do much good.

When you say a TERM is racist, context is irrelevant. I don't expect a racist like you that looks at race as an excuse for everything to understand,.

 

[JoeB131]

When you say a TERM is racist, context is irrelevant. I don't expect a racist like you that looks at race as an excuse for everything to understand,.

Actually, just because you don't understand context doesn't mean it isn't a thing.

This also applies to science, and math, and a lot of other things right wingers don't understand.

 

[Conservative65]

When you say a TERM is racist, context is irrelevant. I don't expect a racist like you that looks at race as an excuse for everything to understand,.

Actually, just because you don't understand context doesn't mean it isn't a thing.

This also applies to science, and math, and a lot of other things right wingers don't understand.

Because you claim context makes a difference here doesn't mean it does.

I understand you posted a claim about your resume compared to mine and refused to show anything supporting that claim. When I gave you an opportunity to do it, you ran like a coward. If you're that big of a pussy when it comes to backing up what you say, I don't give any credibility to anything you say.

 

[Brain357]

I find it fascinating that those who claim to not trust big government support this...

So what's big government about more advanced gear for police when they feel they need it? Conservatives have always been for our police. It's leftists that hate them.

Just more for big gov to impose their will.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I find it fascinating that those who claim to not trust big government support this...

So what's big government about more advanced gear for police when they feel they need it? Conservatives have always been for our police. It's leftists that hate them.

Just more for big gov to impose their will.

And when did police ever advance governments will?

Police are there to enforce the laws that our representatives make. They are there to respond to situations and prevent criminal action if that is possible.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

We like to do this. We like to give labels to things that are the same thing, but one is legal and the other is legal. To be legal it doesn't need to be moral, it doesn't need to be anything other than the people in charge believe they can get away with it because they hold power over an area.

The people in power are the people we chose to lead and make decisions.

It's illegal for me to go into your house, take money, and give it to the lady on the next street so she can get medical care. When government does the exact same thing, it's legal. So because government does the exact same thing, could we say that the government are thieves?

You're talking about the difference between attack and punishment. To go off on one a bit I'll ask you what the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist is. Well a freedom fighter is seen by people as fighting for a good cause, a terrorist is someone who is fighting for a bad cause.

Actually, a terrorist is one who participates in terror. Terror is used to put fear in as many people as possible for political or religious reasons.

What is punishment? Punishment is when you do something wrong. But who decides if you have done something wrong? If I think you have done something wrong and I punish you for doing that thing wrong, say, but killing you, what will happen to me? Is it not punishment? Well it clearly is, because this is how I think. But the govt will think I have also done something wrong, and will then punish me too. If they kill me others might think they have done something wrong, and they can try and punish those responsible, but they are the authority and have a large army and police force behind them. Power here is what often amounts to power and authority to tell people that they have the power to do what they like.

You as a civilian do not have the authority to punish anybody. You did not get the people to give you such authority. If you kill somebody, that is murder because it's not sanctioned by the public. You had no trial, the person you killed had no defense, you just plain out murdered them. In a civilized society, we give only certain individuals such authority that the majority agrees upon. That authority represents the people as a whole of society. The authorities make sure the defendant had constitutional rights, proper legal representation, a impartial judge, or jury of his or her peers, and then punishment is handed out by the authority that represents all of us.

Yes, Opensecrets is an example of there being a lot more information. But the problem with opensecrets is that there are superPACs and opensecrets doesn't know who pays into superPACs and doesn't know who receives.

Super PAC's were created after the McCain/ Feingold law was passed. The law is that the contender that the PAC represents are not allowed to have communications with the contender for office themselves, leaving the PAC to run ads and collect money on the contenders behalf, but not part of his or her organization. It was a stupid law that Republicans were against because we knew it would solve nothing.

I look at this chart and I see there is 47.4% of taxes come from individual income taxes. But 32.8% come from payroll taxes. Hmm.... let's see about payroll taxes.

Payroll taxes are different than income taxes. If you live the average lifespan in America, you will get most all of your payroll taxes back and then some. None of your payroll taxes go to run the federal government outside of Medicare and Social Security which again, you get back anyway.

Income taxes are what runs our federal government. Those taxes go for the defense of our country, for various administrations of our country, and unfortunately, for the bureaucracies in our country. Income taxes pay for all our federal representatives, for all the social programs outside of SS and Medicare. Payroll tax does none of that. Payroll taxes support a few social programs, state and local taxes.

Given the fact nearly half of our population pays no federal income tax at all, it means that only half of our country are supporting our federal government.

 

[JoeB131]

Because you claim context makes a difference here doesn't mean it does.

Um, actually, it does.. Sorry you are too stupid to get that, but you are a very dumb person.

I understand you posted a claim about your resume compared to mine and refused to show anything supporting that claim. When I gave you an opportunity to do it, you ran like a coward.

I didn't have to. Anyone who reads your posts can tell you are not well educated and probably have anger management issues.

 

[frigidweirdo]

We like to do this. We like to give labels to things that are the same thing, but one is legal and the other is legal. To be legal it doesn't need to be moral, it doesn't need to be anything other than the people in charge believe they can get away with it because they hold power over an area.

The people in power are the people we chose to lead and make decisions.

It's illegal for me to go into your house, take money, and give it to the lady on the next street so she can get medical care. When government does the exact same thing, it's legal. So because government does the exact same thing, could we say that the government are thieves?

You're talking about the difference between attack and punishment. To go off on one a bit I'll ask you what the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist is. Well a freedom fighter is seen by people as fighting for a good cause, a terrorist is someone who is fighting for a bad cause.

Actually, a terrorist is one who participates in terror. Terror is used to put fear in as many people as possible for political or religious reasons.

What is punishment? Punishment is when you do something wrong. But who decides if you have done something wrong? If I think you have done something wrong and I punish you for doing that thing wrong, say, but killing you, what will happen to me? Is it not punishment? Well it clearly is, because this is how I think. But the govt will think I have also done something wrong, and will then punish me too. If they kill me others might think they have done something wrong, and they can try and punish those responsible, but they are the authority and have a large army and police force behind them. Power here is what often amounts to power and authority to tell people that they have the power to do what they like.

You as a civilian do not have the authority to punish anybody. You did not get the people to give you such authority. If you kill somebody, that is murder because it's not sanctioned by the public. You had no trial, the person you killed had no defense, you just plain out murdered them. In a civilized society, we give only certain individuals such authority that the majority agrees upon. That authority represents the people as a whole of society. The authorities make sure the defendant had constitutional rights, proper legal representation, a impartial judge, or jury of his or her peers, and then punishment is handed out by the authority that represents all of us.

Yes, Opensecrets is an example of there being a lot more information. But the problem with opensecrets is that there are superPACs and opensecrets doesn't know who pays into superPACs and doesn't know who receives.

Super PAC's were created after the McCain/ Feingold law was passed. The law is that the contender that the PAC represents are not allowed to have communications with the contender for office themselves, leaving the PAC to run ads and collect money on the contenders behalf, but not part of his or her organization. It was a stupid law that Republicans were against because we knew it would solve nothing.

I look at this chart and I see there is 47.4% of taxes come from individual income taxes. But 32.8% come from payroll taxes. Hmm.... let's see about payroll taxes.

Payroll taxes are different than income taxes. If you live the average lifespan in America, you will get most all of your payroll taxes back and then some. None of your payroll taxes go to run the federal government outside of Medicare and Social Security which again, you get back anyway.

Income taxes are what runs our federal government. Those taxes go for the defense of our country, for various administrations of our country, and unfortunately, for the bureaucracies in our country. Income taxes pay for all our federal representatives, for all the social programs outside of SS and Medicare. Payroll tax does none of that. Payroll taxes support a few social programs, state and local taxes.

Given the fact nearly half of our population pays no federal income tax at all, it means that only half of our country are supporting our federal government.

Ray, I understand the difference between what is legal and what is not legal. I understand that it is legal for the govt to do one thing, and illegal for everyone else to do the very same thing. This isn't the issue we're talking about here.
What we're talking about is that if the thing is legal for the govt and illegal for everyone else, it doesn't change the fact that it's the SAME THING. Therefore if it's an attack for an ordinary person, therefore it's an attack for the govt too.

Actually Ray, the term terrorism is used to denote someone who is essentially fighting for something that you don't agree with AND is not a govt run army. The problem is Ray, war is terror, and for those without armies they only have the choice to attack people. Freedom fighters will also cause terror. The US armed forced in Iraq caused terror, but the US govt didn't call its own forces terrorists, did they?

I don't have the authority to punish anyone? Really? So a teacher doesn't have the authority to punish their pupils? A parent doesn't have the authority to punish their children? A husband (or wife) doesn't have the authority to punish their wife (or husband)? Bosses don't have the authority to punish those below them?

Oh, come off it Ray, people punish other people all the time on a daily basis. How can you make such a silly statement?

Whether the super PACs were opposed or not by whoever is neither here nor there. They exist and they allow massive amounts of corruption.

Yes, I know payroll taxes are different to income taxes, and that isn't the point of what I was saying. Can you not get through this without getting massively side tracked? Just because I mention payroll taxes doesn't mean we're having a debate about payroll taxes. Do you know why I mentioned payroll taxes? Please tell me you know, because your reply looks like you have no fucking clue what I was talking about.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Because you claim context makes a difference here doesn't mean it does.

Um, actually, it does.. Sorry you are too stupid to get that, but you are a very dumb person.

I understand you posted a claim about your resume compared to mine and refused to show anything supporting that claim. When I gave you an opportunity to do it, you ran like a coward.

I didn't have to. Anyone who reads your posts can tell you are not well educated and probably have anger management issues.

Another one of those posts in reply to someone I put on ignore, and feel like I am vindicated putting them on ignore by your reply to them.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Ray, I understand the difference between what is legal and what is not legal. I understand that it is legal for the govt to do one thing, and illegal for everyone else to do the very same thing. This isn't the issue we're talking about here.
What we're talking about is that if the thing is legal for the govt and illegal for everyone else, it doesn't change the fact that it's the SAME THING. Therefore if it's an attack for an ordinary person, therefore it's an attack for the govt too.

No, its not the same thing. Attacking somebody is breaking the law. Executing somebody is not murder no more than locking them up in jail is kidnapping.

verb (used with object)
1.
to set upon in a forceful, violent, hostile, or aggressive way, with or without a weapon; begin fighting with:
He attacked him with his bare hands.
2.
to begin hostilities against; start an offensive against:
to attack the enemy.

the definition of attack

noun, plural penalties.
1.
a punishment imposed or incurred for a violation of law or rule.

the definition of penalty

Now please point out one similarity between an attack and punishment.

Actually Ray, the term terrorism is used to denote someone who is essentially fighting for something that you don't agree with AND is not a govt run army. The problem is Ray, war is terror, and for those without armies they only have the choice to attack people. Freedom fighters will also cause terror. The US armed forced in Iraq caused terror, but the US govt didn't call its own forces terrorists, did they?

No, that's because it wasn't terror. We did not go there to put fear into people to get our way. We went in there to remove Saddam and find WMD's. And in fact, the reason most of our people died was because we didn't want to hurt the innocent. We sent our solders in to sift through the people to find terrorists and Saddam's worshipers. Terrorism would have been if we went in and started to kill unsuspecting innocent people until they brought Saddam to us.

I don't have the authority to punish anyone? Really? So a teacher doesn't have the authority to punish their pupils? A parent doesn't have the authority to punish their children? A husband (or wife) doesn't have the authority to punish their wife (or husband)? Bosses don't have the authority to punish those below them?

Apples and oranges. Punishment is acceptable provided it's non-violent. If my kid acts out, I can beat his ass. If my neighbor sees my kid throwing rocks at his dog, he can't beat his ass. That's against the law. He doesn't have the legal right (as I do) to apply physical punishment against my child.

If my employer is unhappy about something I did, he can suspend me, fire me, or give me crappy work to do for a while. If he hits me, that's felonious assault, and I would have him arrested and locked up.

Whether the super PACs were opposed or not by whoever is neither here nor there. They exist and they allow massive amounts of corruption.

And yet you have no proof of this corruption.

Yes, I know payroll taxes are different to income taxes, and that isn't the point of what I was saying. Can you not get through this without getting massively side tracked? Just because I mention payroll taxes doesn't mean we're having a debate about payroll taxes. Do you know why I mentioned payroll taxes? Please tell me you know, because your reply looks like you have no fucking clue what I was talking about.

Correct, I have no clue as to why you compared the two. So what was the point you were trying to make?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Ray, I understand the difference between what is legal and what is not legal. I understand that it is legal for the govt to do one thing, and illegal for everyone else to do the very same thing. This isn't the issue we're talking about here.
What we're talking about is that if the thing is legal for the govt and illegal for everyone else, it doesn't change the fact that it's the SAME THING. Therefore if it's an attack for an ordinary person, therefore it's an attack for the govt too.

No, its not the same thing. Attacking somebody is breaking the law. Executing somebody is not murder no more than locking them up in jail is kidnapping.

verb (used with object)
1.
to set upon in a forceful, violent, hostile, or aggressive way, with or without a weapon; begin fighting with:
He attacked him with his bare hands.
2.
to begin hostilities against; start an offensive against:
to attack the enemy.

the definition of attack

noun, plural penalties.
1.
a punishment imposed or incurred for a violation of law or rule.

the definition of penalty

Now please point out one similarity between an attack and punishment.

Actually Ray, the term terrorism is used to denote someone who is essentially fighting for something that you don't agree with AND is not a govt run army. The problem is Ray, war is terror, and for those without armies they only have the choice to attack people. Freedom fighters will also cause terror. The US armed forced in Iraq caused terror, but the US govt didn't call its own forces terrorists, did they?

No, that's because it wasn't terror. We did not go there to put fear into people to get our way. We went in there to remove Saddam and find WMD's. And in fact, the reason most of our people died was because we didn't want to hurt the innocent. We sent our solders in to sift through the people to find terrorists and Saddam's worshipers. Terrorism would have been if we went in and started to kill unsuspecting innocent people until they brought Saddam to us.

I don't have the authority to punish anyone? Really? So a teacher doesn't have the authority to punish their pupils? A parent doesn't have the authority to punish their children? A husband (or wife) doesn't have the authority to punish their wife (or husband)? Bosses don't have the authority to punish those below them?

Apples and oranges. Punishment is acceptable provided it's non-violent. If my kid acts out, I can beat his ass. If my neighbor sees my kid throwing rocks at his dog, he can't beat his ass. That's against the law. He doesn't have the legal right (as I do) to apply physical punishment against my child.

If my employer is unhappy about something I did, he can suspend me, fire me, or give me crappy work to do for a while. If he hits me, that's felonious assault, and I would have him arrested and locked up.

Whether the super PACs were opposed or not by whoever is neither here nor there. They exist and they allow massive amounts of corruption.

And yet you have no proof of this corruption.

Yes, I know payroll taxes are different to income taxes, and that isn't the point of what I was saying. Can you not get through this without getting massively side tracked? Just because I mention payroll taxes doesn't mean we're having a debate about payroll taxes. Do you know why I mentioned payroll taxes? Please tell me you know, because your reply looks like you have no fucking clue what I was talking about.

Correct, I have no clue as to why you compared the two. So what was the point you were trying to make?

The funny thing is Ray, you say "No, it's not the same thing" then post a dictionary definition which proves it is the same.

As a verb it can mean many things. "to set upon in a forceful.... way", so, if the govt sets upon someone forcefully, it's an attack. Or violently, it's an attack, are you telling me that an execution isn't violent? Or using riot police to attack protesters isn't an attack?

I'm not sure why you're asking me what the similarities are between punishment and attack. Where did this pop into your head that I had said they're the same thing?

An action can be both forceful/violent AND punishment.

Just like a car can be both RED and FAST. Does this mean that red and fast mean the same thing? Fuck no. But your argument here Ray, has just suggested that if two adjectives are used for the same noun, or two adverbs for the same action, then they are the same thing. I really, really suggest you think about what you're going to write before you actually write it.

The US didn't go to Iraq for terror? Well, I'm not sure I agree with you there. There are plenty of issues which I could point to that amount to terror. But this isn't the topic here. The topic is that war is terror. That getting away from terrorism with war is almost impossible. Who isn't terrified of war?

So, I see you agree with me on the whole punishment thing then? Seeing as all your examples are PROOF that people who are not the govt can hand out punishment.

Ray, the whole point of me talking about super PACs is that they are impossible to prove corruption. And then you tell me that I don't have proof of this corruption. Are you fucking serious? Do you not get ANYTHING I am telling you?

Okay, at least you admit that you have no idea what I'm talking about.

My first suggestion is this Ray. Instead of fucking skim reading everything I write, that you actually spend time to read what I write, and you write a reply to what I write and not to get distracted by words every now and again.

If I write "potato", don't give me a fucking history of potatoes. The topic might not be about fucking potatoes, or molesting potatoes, or eating potatoes. It might be that the potato fucking is only an example to back up the point. Look at the point that is being made.

Because just about everything you have replied to in your post is a tangent of what is being spoken about, it's not the topic, it's got nothing to do with the topic, except the part of the dictionary definition, and that is just laughable that you can provide evidence that destroys your own argument.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Nobody actually said that... but okay, please argue the straw man.

Here's the thing. The guy who is getting an 8 figure CEO salary did not produce 8 figures in value. Shit, sometimes these guys fuck it up and get the golden parachute.

If they did not produce 8 figures in value, the company would not pay them 8 figures in salary.

The problem with you wealth haters is you watch too many movies. CEO's are not people that have large breasted secretaries and a putting green in their office. They are hired and fired all the time. They have to relocate constantly and if not, out of town on business away from their families.

CEO's are paid by their past performance with other companies. If you and I produce the same products, and you don't want to pay that CEO an 8 figure salary, then I will, and will put you out of business in a matter of time. Because a very talented CEO has the ability to do that.

CEO's are contract people just like actors, sports figures and musicians. They are paid by past performances. If a well known actress stars in a crappy movie, she still gets her 13 million dollars even if the movie is a flop. It's a risk Hollywood takes on her because of her ability in the past to sell movies.

If you think CEO's make too much money, then why don't you become a CEO yourself?

Here's the problem with that argument. Garbage Men make pretty decent money, because they are doing an unpleasant job and they belong to a union. And they don't come out of medical school with decades of debt.

So we've decided as a society that someone who does an unpleasant job with no real skills actually deserves a decent salary because we don't want to live in a world where they don't exist.

Meanwhile, doctors make good money on paper, but more often than not these days, they are drowning in debt when they get out of medical school and it takes them decades to make any real money.

So much for the "Meritocracy" argument.

I don't know about where you live, but garbage men don't make crap here, and they certainly don't make near what people with an advanced education make.

Society doesn't decide on what to pay a garbage man, the company he works for does, unless Chicago is so behind the times the city still has garbage men. Here, companies subcontract work from cities and they perform the job. Automation is replacing garbage men anyway to cut costs. The company provides us with garbage containers that are grabbed by the truck with claws and dumps the garbage into the truck. It's a one man operation.