Chris Rock

[Daqueef]

I noticed he didn't use doctors and malpractice that kills thousands yearly

I don't take advice from crack heads like Pookie.

 

[Eddiehaskell]

Thank you for saying the obvious Mr Rock. However, there damage to the bow of the Hollywood opinion in politics.

 

[Mr Person]

OMG he did not list all the jobs that should not be done by bad people!

 

[PirateMk1]

I noticed he didn't use doctors and malpractice that kills thousands yearly

I don't take advice from crack heads like Pookie.

Give him a break, the man make sense.

 

[bullseyelqcs]

I noticed he didn't use doctors and malpractice that kills thousands yearly

I don't take advice from crack heads like Pookie.

I also notice you aren't out there advocating that being a doctor is hard and that should a doctor **** up and incapacitate or kill you that we should just sweep it under the rug.

Wonder why?

 

[bullseyelqcs]

Thank you for saying the obvious Mr Rock. However, there damage to the bow of the Hollywood opinion in politics.

If Clint Eastwood had said the same ****, many like yourself would be breaking your elbows trying to give him the greatest applause.

What he said is absolutely correct. If you had listened to the message from the very beginning, it was not about getting rid of police altogether, its was about getting rid of BAD police.

It amazes me that people are so unwilling to accept bad doctors, lawyers and trash guys, but make excuses for the only group of people who can kill you legally and don't expect them to be better.

 

[Simpletruther]

I noticed he didn't use doctors and malpractice that kills thousands yearly

I don't take advice from crack heads like Pookie.

Incredibly few “bad apples” want to harm themselves. So obviously this is stupid if taken as a serious political commentary, as a joke it’s subpar.

To imply in a serious way that one expects perfection in police or military, or doctors etc, or you will riot and destroy your fellow Americans is insane to say the least.

 

[Eddiehaskell]

If Clint Eastwood had said the same ****, many like yourself would be breaking your elbows trying to give him the greatest applause.

What he said is absolutely correct. If you had listened to the message from the very beginning, it was not about getting rid of police altogether, its was about getting rid of BAD police.

It amazes me that people are so unwilling to accept bad doctors, lawyers and trash guys, but make excuses for the only group of people who can kill you legally and don't expect them to be better.

Get rid of bad cops...well isn’t that some deep stuff? Hollywood is simply made up of regular people with money. Many just excel at some talent in the big talent show that is entertainment in America.

I’ve seen maybe two movies with Eastwood. Don’t know much about him really.

 

[Lutherf]

Hmm...every year we have a few pilots that end up busted for flying while drunk or at least showing up drunk. We have a system where even the bad pilots are dealing with passengers that are tightly controlled. Our pilots work within a system where the people they interact with have willingly given up damned near all their rights (temporarily) for the privilege of being flown somewhere instead of walking or swimming. Finally, our pilots have the benefit of knowing who all their passengers are, where those passengers are going and where those passengers are along the way (I wish the same could be said for the luggage!). If Mr. Rock doesn't mind controlling the people to the same extent that air travel passengers are controlled then I'm quite sure that even the "bad apples" won't have all that much impact on society.

 

[bullseyelqcs]

Hmm...every year we have a few pilots that end up busted for flying while drunk or at least showing up drunk. We have a system where even the bad pilots are dealing with passengers that are tightly controlled. Our pilots work within a system where the people they interact with have willingly given up damned near all their rights (temporarily) for the privilege of being flown somewhere instead of walking or swimming. Finally, our pilots have the benefit of knowing who all their passengers are, where those passengers are going and where those passengers are along the way (I wish the same could be said for the luggage!). If Mr. Rock doesn't mind controlling the people to the same extent that air travel passengers are controlled then I'm quite sure that even the "bad apples" won't have all that much impact on society.

You totally missed the actual point of what he was saying. Let me clear it up for you.

It not about the safety of pilots. They are pretty well protected. The analogy was about the fact that nobody would be okay with an airline allowing a pilot who routinely shows up drunk to continue flying. His choice of crashing the plane was an admittedly bad way of trying to get that point across, but that aside, was still a very apt analogy.

That having been said, even if we looked at it the way you did, it still shows the lunacy of your apparent stance. For the analogy to be accurate from your point of view, it would require that you are okay with a pilot crashing the plane because he didn't like the way you spoke to him.

Doesn't sound so smart, does it?

 

[Eddiehaskell]

You totally missed the actual point of what he was saying. Let me clear it up for you.

It not about the safety of pilots. They are pretty well protected. The analogy was about the fact that nobody would be okay with an airline allowing a pilot who routinely shows up drunk to continue flying. His choice of crashing the plane was an admittedly bad way of trying to get that point across, but that aside, was still a very apt analogy.

That having been said, even if we looked at it the way you did, it still shows the lunacy of your apparent stance. For the analogy to be accurate from your point of view, it would require that you are okay with a pilot crashing the plane because he didn't like the way you spoke to him.

Doesn't sound so smart, does it?

If we had 1 million or whatever (however many cops we have) pilots flying people around you could bet your butt we’d have some showing up to work drunk.

 

[jdog21]

You totally missed the actual point of what he was saying. Let me clear it up for you.

It not about the safety of pilots. They are pretty well protected. The analogy was about the fact that nobody would be okay with an airline allowing a pilot who routinely shows up drunk to continue flying. His choice of crashing the plane was an admittedly bad way of trying to get that point across, but that aside, was still a very apt analogy.

That having been said, even if we looked at it the way you did, it still shows the lunacy of your apparent stance. For the analogy to be accurate from your point of view, it would require that you are okay with a pilot crashing the plane because he didn't like the way you spoke to him.

Doesn't sound so smart, does it?

I think the difference is in the job desrcription. A pilot is to take off, fly, and land a plane safely. A cop is there to detain a person and bring them into the court for a trial. A pilot is not being beaten up or shot at, a cop is. So we give the cop the use of force to stop the threat to their life and to overwhelm the person for their safety to bring a person in.

 

[bullseyelqcs]

If we had 1 million or whatever (however many cops we have) pilots flying people around you could bet your butt we’d have some showing up to work drunk.

I'm not saying that they wouldn't be....I'm saying that if we found out that the airlines knew about it, we would be looking for them to do something about it, not run interference for those pilots and let them continue flying.

It feels like you are basically saying that that fact would be perfectly okay with you.

That is insane, by the way.

 

[bullseyelqcs]

I think the difference is in the job desrcription. A pilot is to take off, fly, and land a plane safely. A cop is there to detain a person and bring them into the court for a trial. A pilot is not being beaten up or shot at, a cop is. So we give the cop the use of force to stop the threat to their life and to overwhelm the person for their safety to bring a person in.

Yes, we give them that ability. We also expect them to use that ability properly. That's the whole point. When they utilize that ability when there is no need, it erodes the publics trust in thier ability to properly use it and makes the public consider not giving them that power anymore.

 

[Eddiehaskell]

I'm not saying that they wouldn't be....I'm saying that if we found out that the airlines knew about it, we would be looking for them to do something about it, not run interference for those pilots and let them continue flying.

They could do what they could but I doubt they’d never not find a closet drunk.

We have a huge number of cops vs jet pilots.

 

[Lutherf]

You totally missed the actual point of what he was saying. Let me clear it up for you.

It not about the safety of pilots. They are pretty well protected. The analogy was about the fact that nobody would be okay with an airline allowing a pilot who routinely shows up drunk to continue flying. His choice of crashing the plane was an admittedly bad way of trying to get that point across, but that aside, was still a very apt analogy.

That having been said, even if we looked at it the way you did, it still shows the lunacy of your apparent stance. For the analogy to be accurate from your point of view, it would require that you are okay with a pilot crashing the plane because he didn't like the way you spoke to him.

Doesn't sound so smart, does it?

You seem to completely miss the point that pilots deal with a highly controlled environment while cops deal with a generally uncontrolled environment. We would have much fewer "bad cops" if we had fewer criminals for them to deal with. A pilot intentionally crashing a plane (and that HAS happened) would be akin to a cop going into a neighborhood and shooting random people.

Let's use the Rayshard Brooks case as an example of a "bad cop". The cop was 100% right to engage Brooks who was blocking the linee at the fast food joint because he was passed out in his car. The cop was 100% right to have Brooks conduct field sobriety tests and interview him. The cop was 100% right to apprehend Brooks for DUI. The cop was 100% right to fight back when Brooks attacked him and, finally, the cop was 100% right to use deadly force to stop Brooks who had just assaulted two cops, stole a weapon and discharged that weapon at the cops in an effort to effect his escape. The left, however, looks at Brooks from the perspective of "he didn't do nothin'! Just let the man be so he can go home to his side piece".

If a cop can be "bad" because you hold him to impossible standards while holding the people he deals with to no behavioral standard whatsoever then the whole idea of "bad cop" is purely subjective and has no rational meaning.

 

[bullseyelqcs]

They could do what they could but I doubt they’d never find a closet drunk.

Well, right now, in the analogy, the airlines aren't doing **** about drunk pilots, and have even gone so far as to make it extremely difficult to do anything about them. The airlines would essentially be protecting the drunk pilots because doing something about them would open them up to financial loss, and we all know that isn't going to happen.

They aren't even looking for the drunks.. That is a problem.

 

[HennyBogan]

He left out lawyers!

 

[coco]

I really like his comedy. Why are you on his case. What did he do wrong.

 

[coco]

I did some research. And still cant work out why the thread maker has made a thread about Chris. He has done nothing wrong, or bad.

 

[jdog21]

Yes, we give them that ability. We also expect them to use that ability properly. That's the whole point. When they utilize that ability when there is no need, it erodes the publics trust in thier ability to properly use it and makes the public consider not giving them that power anymore.

And how often is to often?

 

[coco]

Can somebody please tell me why Chris Rock has a thread.

 

[coco]

And how often is to often?

Its as often as its often.

 

[jdog21]

Its as often as its often.

When they utilize that ability when there is no need, it erodes the publics trust in thier ability to properly use it and makes the public consider not giving them that power anymore.

This happens every year and doesnt happen very often. The washington post has been keeping tabs on this on thier website. Also people have been getting upset even when the use of force is justified, so how can we trust the publics judgement?

 

[Daqueef]

You totally missed the actual point of what he was saying. Let me clear it up for you.

It not about the safety of pilots. They are pretty well protected. The analogy was about the fact that nobody would be okay with an airline allowing a pilot who routinely shows up drunk to continue flying. His choice of crashing the plane was an admittedly bad way of trying to get that point across, but that aside, was still a very apt analogy.

That having been said, even if we looked at it the way you did, it still shows the lunacy of your apparent stance. For the analogy to be accurate from your point of view, it would require that you are okay with a pilot crashing the plane because he didn't like the way you spoke to him.

Doesn't sound so smart, does it?

I doubt I was taking a stance by posing a question. Looks like an open minded concern of someone I came up with in Texas who knows the struggle and ran with the gangsters in the day.