Jump to content

Recommended Posts

william barr has chosen to not quarantine in spite of having been in close contact with numerous other folks who has tested positive for covid-19.

preview.jpg?s=690x

this choice by the ag is curious 'cause while baatezu is immune to fire and poison, as well as having cold and acid resistance o' 10, they is not having a noteworthy defense to disease. 

HA! Good Fun!

  • Like 1
  • Haha 6

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

"Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Orogun01 said:

As the Visigoths later became the Spanish and the Spanish would later beget the Hispanics, and as a Hispanic I find your reference to Visigoths and walls racist sir.

Orog was it you or GD that told us the story about the Cuban American father whose daughter comes home from university and lectured her Dad about how "socialism " was not so bad and that he had the wrong idea about Cuba in the years of Fidel. 

I thought of a very interesting question I wanted to ask you around this and part of it is this reality of the daughter being so uninformed of the reality of Cuba

To be fair to the daughter I know many Universities in SA and UK that are   breeding grounds for these " socialist " movements that always want to change the world for the better of all mankind and its easy to align with them because they are mostly well meaning and do have legitimate global goals like climate change and concerns around  cruelty to animals. So you can imagine how young and innocent students can be beguiled by certain " views " these university groups have.....but most people dont follow these socialist movements outside of university 

Anyway did you tell this story ?

"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” -  George Bernard Shaw

 

"What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Orog was it you or GD that told us the story about the Cuban American father whose daughter comes home from university and lectured her Dad about how "socialism " was not so bad and that he had the wrong idea about Cuba in the years of Fidel. 

Probably GD or someone else.

10 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

I thought of a very interesting question I wanted to ask you around this and part of it is this reality of the daughter being so uninformed of the reality of Cuba

I think there's propaganda from both sides and the reality lies somewhere in the middle. I wouldn't go as far as to say that the Cuban government is good but I also don't think its as bad as the Khmer Rouge or some more genocidal regimes. But that's cause by the time I was born a lot of the killings of dissidents had stopped.

 

12 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

To be fair to the daughter I know many Universities in SA and UK that are   breeding grounds for these " socialist " movements that always want to change the world for the better of all mankind and its easy to align with them because they are mostly well meaning and do have legitimate global goals like climate change and concerns around  cruelty to animals. So you can imagine how young and innocent students can be beguiled by certain " views " these university groups have.....but most people dont follow these socialist movements outside of university 

Is a lot of these well meaning ideals that are exploited by foreign disinformation/subversion campaigns. It matters not that they don't follow the movements just that their ideals align with the movement. To follow with one of your examples, climate change. The science around climate change has been politicized, I've seen interviews with climate scientist that rightly called the movement an end of days cult. I'd dare say that a lot of environmentalists have regressive Luddite ideas when it comes to industrialization, ignoring the fact that it is technological advancement which will give us climate control.


My point is that countries that have no climate considerations can rapidly industrialize and become technological superpowers (e.g: China) vs how climate considerations has slowed progress in the US and raised the cost of entry into tech industries.


You can see the benefit of promoting certain ideas that will influence the development of your opponents, coincidentally I'm currently playing Endless space and I'm turning everyone into a pacifist so that they will be crushed by my warmongering Hisso.

  • Like 2
I'd say the answer to that question is kind of like the answer to "who's the sucker in this poker game?"*

 

*If you can't tell, it's you. ;)

village_idiot.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Orogun01 said:

I think there's propaganda from both sides and the reality lies somewhere in the middle.

I've never been there so I don't have much credibility on the matter, but this is the conclusion I've come to as well after carefully studying propaganda and political agendas from all spheres of influence and not confining myself strictly to Western sources.  Propaganda and narrative control is a well honed art at this point and every state is ready to spend big money on hiring experts on the matter.

I will say this though, U.S. economic sanctions against Cuba for many many decades certainly does not help there internal conditions at all -in fact it hurts the population- but fans of neoliberalism are not hesitant to blame it on the Cuban government and the 'socialist' boogyman.  It's beyond ridiculous what the U.S. government has been doing since 1945.

  • Like 1

'He who seeks to defend everything, defends nothing."

King Frederick the Great of Prussia

OUT OF STOCK

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Orogun01 said:

Probably GD or someone else.

I think there's propaganda from both sides and the reality lies somewhere in the middle. I wouldn't go as far as to say that the Cuban government is good but I also don't think its as bad as the Khmer Rouge or some more genocidal regimes. But that's cause by the time I was born a lot of the killings of dissidents had stopped.

 

Is a lot of these well meaning ideals that are exploited by foreign disinformation/subversion campaigns. It matters not that they don't follow the movements just that their ideals align with the movement. To follow with one of your examples, climate change. The science around climate change has been politicized, I've seen interviews with climate scientist that rightly called the movement an end of days cult. I'd dare say that a lot of environmentalists have regressive Luddite ideas when it comes to industrialization, ignoring the fact that it is technological advancement which will give us climate control.


My point is that countries that have no climate considerations can rapidly industrialize and become technological superpowers (e.g: China) vs how climate considerations has slowed progress in the US and raised the cost of entry into tech industries.


You can see the benefit of promoting certain ideas that will influence the development of your opponents, coincidentally I'm currently playing Endless space and I'm turning everyone into a pacifist so that they will be crushed by my warmongering Hisso.

What I wanted to ask you is generally what do Cuban American families teach there kids about Cuba and the  old days of the violence of the revolution if anything? So the story above is where a Cuban dad was forced to leave Cuba due to the revolution at some point. He has created  a new life in the USA and has a daughter who he decided didnt need to know the history of Cuba and he is perfectly entitled to decide what his daughter should know about the reasons he left Cuba. This decision does have a logical and reasonable reason or reasons to it  particularly around how any parent could decide " this is a new country and my kids dont need to know the exact and sometimes violent reasons for our  forced leaving of Cuba" 

 But I have also met people from  other conflicts outside of Cuba who now live in another country very happily but they have a view where the kids are well aware of  the history of forced migration. They are not bitter and jaded but they always remember the history and all kids understand this in there own way. Both groups have valid reasons for the actual decision on what younger generations should be aware of and there is no right of wrong approach 

I fall into the second group and its purely from a perspective of the importance of  where you came from and why and how this does need to be remembered but it doesn't define your new citizenship 

 

"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” -  George Bernard Shaw

 

"What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ComradeMaster said:

I will say this though, U.S. economic sanctions against Cuba for many many decades certainly does not help there internal conditions at all -in fact it hurts the population- but fans of neoliberalism are not hesitant to blame it on the Cuban government and the 'socialist' boogyman.  It's beyond ridiculous what the U.S. government has been doing since 1945.

It's kinda of an open secret that the reason for the political sanctions were held by Cubans in exile because of connections to the cocaine trade. I mean it's one of those unproven theories but its been there for years. I've only heard it in rumors and anecdotes of people close to those involved in the smuggling.


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/did-castro-use-cocaine-to-keep-the-economy-afloat-1073865.html

 

 

Its however the government refusal to both give better deals to foreign investors and the fact they stamp out any private enterprise that becomes successful, that had the biggest hand in keeping the GDP down.
During my two years studying to become an accountant in Cuba we were taught that surpluses were a bad thing. It still rattles my brain about how obtuse the system is that they would have rather kept up the rationing instead of allow a private sector to grow.

I'd say the answer to that question is kind of like the answer to "who's the sucker in this poker game?"*

 

*If you can't tell, it's you. ;)

village_idiot.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BruceVC said:

What I wanted to ask you is generally what do Cuban American families teach there kids about Cuba and the  old days of the violence of the revolution if anything? So the story above is where a Cuban dad was forced to leave Cuba due to the revolution at some point. He has created  a new life in the USA and has a daughter who he decided didnt need to know the history of Cuba and he is perfectly entitled to decide what his daughter should know about the reasons he left Cuba. This decision does have a logical and reasonable reason or reasons to it  particularly around how any parent could decide " this is a new country and my kids dont need to know the exact and sometimes violent reasons for our  forced leaving of Cuba" 

 But I have also met people from  other conflicts outside of Cuba who now live in another country very happily but they have a view where the kids are well aware of  the history of forced migration. They are not bitter and jaded but they always remember the history and all kids understand this in there own way. Both groups have valid reasons for the actual decision on what younger generations should be aware of and there is no right of wrong approach 

I fall into the second group and its purely from a perspective of the importance of  where you came from and why and how this does need to be remembered but it doesn't define your new citizenship 

 

There were events of sponsored violence, where agitators would rally people to publicly shame undesirable elements (dissidents, gays, people that listened to the Beatles and had long hair) The cops were also free to detain any person they considered part of these groups and that continued during my lifetime there. It was thankfully a regulated affair, the purpose was intimidate without putting enough pressure that would cause revolts. Part of the reason as to why the Cuban regime has lasted for so long is the fact that they know how much to pressure without causing the population to crack.

I think we don't like talking about it because its a depressing topic, also the stories are varied. Some might have just left because of economic reasons and not be privy to any of the other events.
 

  • Thanks 1
I'd say the answer to that question is kind of like the answer to "who's the sucker in this poker game?"*

 

*If you can't tell, it's you. ;)

village_idiot.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Orogun01 said:



I think we don't like talking about it because its a depressing topic, also the stories are varied. Some might have just left because of economic reasons and not be privy to any of the other events.
 

I got it, this last part  summarizes the general sentiment and it will be varied. As I mentioned there is a valid way of integration into any new culture or country when people are forced to immigrate and this can involve where the reason  for the immigration is not always highlighted and remembered by families and that is going to be a personal choice and its normal in many places in the world. In SA for example any legal immigrants that arrive  from countries like the DRC and Somalia very seldom talk about the reasons they left there countries for many reasons but most  of them  escaped unspeakable horror and violence and have become SA citizens through the acceptable, legal way of becoming a citizen which we appreciate as they have skills and help contribute towards our weak economic growth

But why  Cuba is still relevant  is I remember when Obama made attempts to normalize ties with Cuba and how this attempt was responded to by various groups in the  USA  was very interesting. Firstly I supported this USA  initiative even though it contradicted  my normal view of not recognizing any country that is a dictatorship or has implemented laws or ideological laws, like Cuban socialism , that can lead to the theft or nationalization of any domestic or international asset. So basically I am saying you cannot invest in any country if you cannot trust that government to honor the nature of the  investment ....hence the primary reason any modern day discussion of socialism will generally always be understandably criticized and dismissed by anyone who works in the financial   investment market because no investor is going to put at risk the money of there clients by allowing that money to be possibly stolen by some illegal socialist government policy. And you also cannot justify in international courts the nationalization of foreign investments due to historical colonialization or how historical theft of these assets has ostensibly created inequality in the country  . I know this may  sound unfair and unreasonable but I promise you cannot justify it in most  examples where we have seen this  like the Chavez theft of the international Oil companies in Venezuela in 2006/2007 and how this was by far the real reason the Venezuela economy collapsed 

And this doesn't mean you cant discuss redress of historical injustice  or any international investment cant be involved and persuaded to  be involved in many examples of transformation to help solve real historical economic imbalances. 

But back to Cuba and the new Obama attempt to have better relations , so I supported it initially because I took a view that basically was " its not like anyone is now going to want to copy Cubas socialist policies just because the USA starts trading with Cuba again so is there any real harm to this diplomacy even if its a contradiction to what I fundamentally previously mentioned  around the danger of nationalization "   

But then I heard  the views Marco Rubio and several prominent Cuban American business men   made around why  this new attempt to have better diplomacy with Cuba was a mistake as the Obama policy was not expecting certain reforms before seeing the normalization. Back in those days I was a " Democratic " supporter completely but I use to find that Republicans like Marco Rubio always use to sense to me on many topics. And I also realized he was right about how you should first get the commitment at least to reform from the Castro government before you relax any economic sanctions. Here is a good summary of what Rubio explained 

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/01/21/rubio-criticizes-obamas-sotu-call-to-end-cuba-embargo

So in summary this whole post is just a reason why the original story of the American  Cuban dad not educating his daughter on the reason why Cuban socialism is not a valid economic model  and government  can create the wrong impression of " socialism " because at universities some  groups and sometimes even professors of social science, not economic professors , will glamorize  and represent only the superficial reality of socialism which always sounds fair and attractive when well meaning students and citizens  think " socialism will fix modern day inequality " 

And also as you mentioned many people left Cuba and the direct reason would not be necessarily  related to the economic reality but nothing changes the fact around how at the moment any real transformation of the Cuban economy will require the Cuban government to change their laws and guarantee global economic regulations like respecting the importance of property rights 

 

 

"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” -  George Bernard Shaw

 

"What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@BruceVC If we are talking about geopolitics, then isolating Cuba makes sense. Specially since in recent years they have been funding leftist revolts across Latin America (though I suspect the financing comes from China) I honestly fear that we are heading towards a repeat of the Cold War against Russia, with several proxy wars in Africa and Latin America.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
I'd say the answer to that question is kind of like the answer to "who's the sucker in this poker game?"*

 

*If you can't tell, it's you. ;)

village_idiot.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Orogun01 said:

@BruceVC If we are talking about geopolitics, then isolating Cuba makes sense. Specially since in recent years they have been funding leftist revolts across Latin America (though I suspect the financing comes from China) I honestly fear that we are heading towards a repeat of the Cold War against Russia, with several proxy wars in Africa and Latin America.

Yes and the funding that has occurred between certain Socialist countries in the last 25-30 years  is perfectly understandable if you support this type of socialism but when the funding comes from Venezuela, at the expense of the fact they stole the assets of international oil companies, it should be heavily criticized  because its not legitimate tax payer money paying for the funding but the income primarily generated from the illegal theft of the assets of oil companies in the Venezuela example.  I can site similar examples of failed socialist countries who did basically identical things like Chavez 

And this type of nationalization generally  takes 3-5 years before the truly terrible  impact and economic consequence is felt by the country and can  also  be directed influenced  by the actual asset global price ( if  its a type of commodity that has been stolen\nationalized )  and its internationally traded price but this can only delay the real and inevitable harm nationalization causes 

So in other words  Chavez stole the assets of the main 6-7 oil companies in 2006/2007 when the oil price was about to reach almost record high levels in 2009/2010 but then due to several global factors the oil price started dropping and  by 2015 the oil price was below  $50, here is  is a good link on the overall oil price globally

https://inflationdata.com/articles/inflation-adjusted-prices/historical-crude-oil-prices-table/

Chavez was  greedy, arrogant and ignorant and he assumed the oil price  would always remain above $100 ( or whatever there acceptable cost for producing oil is ) so when the oil price correctly dropped from 2014 onwards Venezuela suddenly discovered that this primary source of income generation couldn't pay for there costs and socialist programs. And to make things worse the only  groups  who can help in a sustainable way in  this economic scenario are generally foreign investors who understandably  had no interest or appetite in investing even 1$ in Venezuela because 10 years before Chavez had stolen the investments of oil companies!!

So it always will end the same way, if you cannot guarantee the assets of foreign investors are safe from nationalization  you will ultimately undermine your entire economy and the outcome will be a slow but inevitable collapse because it will always be seen as breaking of international laws which has a direct impact on the health of all economies 

 

 

Edited by BruceVC

"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” -  George Bernard Shaw

 

"What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

So in other words  Chavez stole the assets of the main 6-7 oil companies in 2006/2007 when the oil price was about to reach almost record high levels in 2009/2010 but then due to several global factors the oil price started dropping and  by 2015 the oil price was below  $50, here is  is a good link on the overall oil price globally

What exactly happened there in 2006/2007? I tried to look it up, but couldn't really find anything 🤔

 

(edit: or rather, anything relevant to that got bumped too far down on google for me to keep looking, yeah, lazy. What I do know is Venezuela nationalized it's oil industry for good in 1976, but that was like 30 years before the time period you mention)

  • Thanks 1

“He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice.” - Albert Einstein

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Gorth said:

What exactly happened there in 2006/2007? I tried to look it up, but couldn't really find anything 🤔

Im so glad you asked that question  because I can finally share the important link below, by being asked and not when I post it as an example, which I bookmarked as it summarizes accurately what caused the real collapse of the Venezuela economy. And its hard to find  a better link that highlights the actual real outcome of any nationalization that is done in a way that investors lose out. I mentioned this before but one of uncles works for a UK investment bank  that personally lost about $10-15 billion due to how Chavez stole the assets of the international oil companies so I have real " lived " experience with this type of crime 

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2017/05/07/how-venezuela-ruined-its-oil-industry/#6b1c08137399

"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” -  George Bernard Shaw

 

"What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Gorth said:

 

 

(edit: or rather, anything relevant to that got bumped too far down on google for me to keep looking, yeah, lazy. What I do know is Venezuela nationalized it's oil industry for good in 1976, but that was like 30 years before the time period you mention)

No they never nationalized there oil companies until 2006 onwards, the link discusses this 

 

"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” -  George Bernard Shaw

 

"What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Im so glad you asked that question  because I can finally share the important link below, by being asked and not when I post it as an example, which I bookmarked as it summarizes accurately what caused the real collapse of the Venezuela economy. And its hard to find  a better link that highlights the actual real outcome of any nationalization that is done in a way that investors lose out. I mentioned this before but one of uncles works for a UK investment bank  that personally lost about $10-15 billion due to how Chavez stole the assets of the international oil companies so I have real " lived " experience with this type of crime 

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2017/05/07/how-venezuela-ruined-its-oil-industry/#6b1c08137399

This looks like the pertinent part... (correct me if I'm wrong)

"So there are primarily two related causes that have resulted in the steep decline of Venezuela's oil production, despite the sharp increase in the country's proved reserves. The first is the removal of expertise required to develop the country's heavy oil. This started with the firing of PDVSA employees in 2003 and continued with pushing international expertise out of the country in 2007.

Second, the Chávez government failed to appreciate the level of capital expenditures required to continue developing the country's oil. This was in no small part due to inexperience among the Chávez loyalists that were now running PDVSA, but it may not have mattered in any case. When oil prices were high, Chávez saw billions of dollars that could be siphoned to fund the country's social programs, and that's exactly what he did. But he failed to reinvest adequately in this capital-intensive industry."

 

Tl;dr; Chavez purged the national oil company of expertise in 2003 and then invited foreign oil companies to participate (i.e. invest) and then changed the deal Darth Vader style, leading the expropriation of Exxon and ConocoPhilips assets (and generally alienating the outside world, which he would have been better off not inviting in the first place)

 

 

“He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice.” - Albert Einstein

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

No they never nationalized there oil companies until 2006 onwards, the link discusses this 

 

Sure about that?

(edit wiki, so take with grain of salt)

"Well before 1976, Venezuela had taken several steps in the direction of nationalization of its oil industry. In August 1971, under the presidency of Rafael Caldera, a law was passed that nationalized the country's natural gas industry. Also in 1971 the law of reversion was passed which stated that all the assets, plant, and equipment belonging to concessionaires within or outside the concession areas would revert to the nation without compensation upon the expiration of the concession.[6] The movement towards nationalism was experienced once again under decree 832. Decree 832 stipulated that all exploration, production, refining, and sales programs of the oil companies had to be approved in advance by the Ministry of Mines and Hydrocarbons.

Nationalization become official when the presidency of Carlos Andrés Pérez, whose economic plan, "La Gran Venezuela", called for the nationalization of the oil industry and diversification of the economy via import substitution. The country officially nationalized its oil industry on 1 January 1976 at the site of Zumaque oilwell 1

(Mene Grande), and along with it came the birth of Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. (PDVSA) which is the Venezuelan state-owned petroleum company. All foreign oil companies that once did business in Venezuela were replaced by Venezuelan companies. Each of the former concessionaires was simply substituted by a new 'national' oil company, which maintained the structures and functions of its multi-national corporation (MNC)-predecessor."

“He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice.” - Albert Einstein

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Gorth said:

 

 

Tl;dr; Chavez purged the national oil company of expertise in 2003 and then invited foreign oil companies to participate (i.e. invest) and then changed the deal Darth Vader style, leading the expropriation of Exxon and ConocoPhilips assets (and generally alienating the outside world, which he would have been better off not inviting in the first place)

 

 

You have it almost right,  the national oil company was purged and then international oil companies, who  for some  had been invested in Venezuela for over 100 years, were  forced to hand over there investments, meaning control of the oil production within the country  and all its revenue because Chavez sold directly to the global oil markets like all oil producers. So any government can do this with any company that has a physical presence within the country....its highly unethical, illegal and should lead to sanctions but you can still do it as any government controls the army and police and they can take any company over they want

And even the examples about some oil companies becoming  minority share holders is the same outcome because oil companies are listed companies outside of the Venezuela stock exchange so what Chavez did was not gain control of these companies " international listing  "value but  he stole full control of the revenue produced by the oil production in the local sense as the oil company had a massive oil production plant in the country 

"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” -  George Bernard Shaw

 

"What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.yahoo.com/news/no-charges-filed-against-white-191229680.html 
 

Just the cost of doing business? All these calls to defund the police are misguided. Perhaps a better idea would be to disarm the police. Non lethal munitions and weapons only. It seems like cops are panicky, frightened, and undisciplined types whose first reaction in any situation is to shoot everyone in sight. 

Edited by Guard Dog

Get off my lawn!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Guard Dog said:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/no-charges-filed-against-white-191229680.html 
 

Just the cost of doing business? All these calls to defund the police are misguided. Perhaps a better idea would be to disarm the police. Non lethal munitions and weapons only. It seems like cops are panicky, frightened, and undisciplined types whose first reaction in any situation is to shoot everyone in sight. 

Disarmament would seem to be a part of any defunding policies that are seriously being bandied about:

37f5c882-e5d5-45ae-939b-b4aae62826fc.png

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

given how unreliable is the non-lethal options available to the cops, it is impractical to disarm the police. as such, gd should be pushing for the disarming o' the populace if he wishes for cops to be disarmed. 

eliminate police access to militarized weapons is a bit o' a different issue.

oh, and trump is taking dexamethasone. 

Edited by Gromnir

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

"Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

eliminate police access to militarized weapons is a bit o' a different issue.

That's complex issue, big cities might just do with a specialized force like SWAT but border towns might end up in a shootout with a paramilitary group. So they do need access to military equipment.

I'd say the answer to that question is kind of like the answer to "who's the sucker in this poker game?"*

 

*If you can't tell, it's you. ;)

village_idiot.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Orogun01 said:

 but border towns might end up in a shootout

They should then call for military help, just like civilians call for police help. There should be a hierarchy.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Gorth said:

This looks like the pertinent part... (correct me if I'm wrong)

Bruce linked to a sites.forbes.com article which is, basically, a blog. There's even less editorial control and oversight there than with an opinion piece in a newspaper/ website. If something from a reputable- and much of the time even semi reputable- source contradicts a sites.forbes article on a matter of fact it's almost certain it's the forbes blog which is wrong.

(There are some pretty good opinion pieces from forbes- eg Erik Kain on entertainment- but it's almost entirely useful just for opinion)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Sarex said:

They should then call for military help, just like civilians call for police help. There should be a hierarchy.

Response times matter.
Image the following situation: 911 receives a call about a shooting in progress, the assailants are equipped with semi automatic rifles. If the cops go over there and assess the situation without the proper equipment then 2 things will happen:


1- Cops are in a active combat zone whilst outgunned
2-The situation will continue while the military rushes to the scene.

Putting aside the fact that it is not the military's job to respond to domestic crime, you now have double the response time and since military personnel is not actively patrolling an area a larger response time.

I understand why you think that way, but it is a severely impractical way to deal with real situations. Better that the cops are over-prepared for a shooting situation than having to wait until the military gets there.

I'd say the answer to that question is kind of like the answer to "who's the sucker in this poker game?"*

 

*If you can't tell, it's you. ;)

village_idiot.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/no-charges-filed-against-white-191229680.html 
 

Just the cost of doing business? All these calls to defund the police are misguided. Perhaps a better idea would be to disarm the police. Non lethal munitions and weapons only. It seems like cops are panicky, frightened, and undisciplined types whose first reaction in any situation is to shoot everyone in sight. 

I hate to sound pro-cop here -I'm speaking from a purely practical standpoint that's not ideologically driven- but disarming the police as long as the population is allowed to own firearms doesn't make any sense.

Since I'm not a fan of turning in weaponry, I'd rather opt for removing the police entirely because cop vs. citizens is becoming a completely polarized affair.  It's funny how cops used to be nice and correctly perceived as the good guys decades ago, but times are getting a bit strange.

Laws are becoming overly complex and multifaceted, and that's all the police are trained to do: enforce laws, not "Protect and Serve" (which was the motto actually chosen by the population in the 1950's again in a totally different time and atmosphere where cops were considered "good").

I guess we have two options: 1) Remove the police, FBI and leave everything to armed citizenry militias and/ or the Nation Guard, or 2) really crunch down on the 18,000+ police agencies scattered across the country and condense that number down significantly.

Edited by ComradeMaster

'He who seeks to defend everything, defends nothing."

King Frederick the Great of Prussia

OUT OF STOCK

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Gorth locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...