You mean 20% of those who happened to be killed (Not of the total population...*doh*) who were not armed. As far as I know, the OP doesn't state what those 20% were doing at the time of their deaths, and what was or was not considered a "lethal object". For example.... If I am bat**** crazy and trying to drive you down in my pickup... one would say that the vehicle is not a lethal object.... but did the OP's article consider that?
I, for one, am willing to believe that there is a portion of that 20% who were otherwise a lethal threat to Officers. I am also willing to concede that there may be a portion of that 20% whose death at the hands of Officers is questionable.
And who the **** said anything about Democratic voters? Quit being a partisan tool.
I am okay with law enforcement killing hundreds of people who were armed with lethal weapons intent on doing law enforcement harm... yes.. I am completely okay with it.
I would rather 200 violent offenders be killed than 1 officer's life risked.
So don't people have Second Amendment rights? Nobody on your side wants to answer that.
As far as the "Democratic voters" if these were white bread Republicans, you'd be upset. I think that's why the right isn't bothered by this.
So don't people have Second Amendment rights? Nobody on your side wants to answer that.
As far as the "Democratic voters" if these were white bread Republicans, you'd be upset. I think that's why the right isn't bothered by this.
Do you have any actual way to prove that the majority of the people killed in their communities, I.e. Our combat zone, was actually an enemy combatant?
I think it means a whole lot when a criminalized government steals money illegally from my paycheck to kill innocent people halfway across the world just to stimulate a government propped up military defense sector, but then again I am a libertarian...
Who said people don't have 2nd amendment rights?
Your 2nd amendment does not give you the right to commit to armed resistance against law enforcement.
And just what are you saying about all this "white bread republicans" bull****? Are you playing the race card? ****ing pathetic. GTFO with that childish bull**** and come back when you can debate without accusing someone of something just so you can make up a false position to attack.
Please, since I didn't read it anywhere in the OP. What race AND political affiliation were the entire 380+ people who were killed by law enforcement this year? Go ahead... provide these facts.... but only if you are done making up false positions and attributing them to others on the forum.
Until then, nobody wants to read you post in this thread again.
Who said people don't have 2nd amendment rights?
Your 2nd amendment does not give you the right to commit to armed resistance against law enforcement.
And just what are you saying about all this "white bread republicans" bull****? Are you playing the race card? ****ing pathetic. GTFO with that childish bull**** and come back when you can debate without accusing someone of something just so you can make up a false position to attack.
Please, since I didn't read it anywhere in the OP. What race AND political affiliation were the entire 380+ people who were killed by law enforcement this year? Go ahead... provide these facts.... but only if you are done making up false positions and attributing them to others on the forum.
Until then, nobody wants to read you post in this thread again.
Did you read the Washington Post article (BTW...it wasnt 80%, it was a number listed as "greater than 80%")which cited the number of people in each category and the ways/means which they presented as a threat to arresting law enforcement officers?So someone says the word white and you go right to race?
Tell you what. The context is that apparently 80% of those killed by police are armed. Maybe you can explain how that automatically makes them a threat.
Until then, nobody wants to hear from you either.
In other words be a compliant little robot and we'll let you live. Is this the United States? Land of the free and home of the brave?
Well first off I use an iPad for this forum so sometimes the autocorrect on my typing switches the vocabulary, so yes detention meant definition.
Second of all, when I say believing in a national currency, I am suggesting that the entire purpose of a national currency was the creation of the state to dictate the value of the currency as opposed to the consumers, in a sense, with the ability to devalue to national currency, the republicans, were successfully able to switch the entire philosophy of the Democratic Party, why? By inflating the currency the republicans were able to prop up the export sector of business, doing so led to the progressive movement of the Democratic Party. Historically speaking, however, the democrats were infiltrated shortly after by authoritarians as well. This does not negate the fact that the Republican Party was created by authoritarians who wanted to inflate the currency and the only way they could do so is with a national currency.
The very definition of an elastic currency is authoritarian, because it calls for monetary policy to allocate power to certain industries. I could get into the dynamics of how it does his, but I would suggest reading up on supporters of the national bank in order to really understand this concept
Second, the substance of my argument stems from the inherent fact that having a police force that kills innocent lives, regardless of your own morals on the subject, leads us to believe we have room to revise the actual system itself to give any attempt to remedy the situation. In short, the police force need a complete redesign because they are becoming more and more militarized, and my argument is that it's the ultimate outcome of any state controlled institution is to eventually evolve to a huge totalitarian system on the premises of complete control
Thirdly, in the equating it to the neocon is the fact that
A. Neocons support torture
B. Neocons support the federalization of police force by voting unanimously for additional power of the national spy grid
C. Neocons historically support the military industrial complex by spending more and more on proxy wars that have no end in sight
In short, neocons, support an authoritarian state, historically republicans support an authoritarian state; research why the Republican Party started public schools. As well as in a political sense, when the left; who I do not agree with at all as well, suggest the police need to be reformed the neocons attack them in a partisan battle which really holds no bearing or water.
So by challenging my vocabulary what you're actually doing is what Ludwig v. Mises said about socialists, the only time people can actually respond in a factual matter is when they will, when they can't create a substantial argument they will attack what is perceived as character flaws. This holds truth to your particular style of debate.
No, that's not how it works, at least for me. If someone makes a definitive claim without proof, I'm going to question them and my decision to question them comes with zero responsibility to do anything. Go try that **** with someone else. Bye.
Yeah, see I've already admitted that error on my part. However, one unnecessary death at the hands of the government is one too many.
Happens to the best of us.
Wow, good luck with all of that. You seem to have a view of politics derived from Bond movies, comic books and the movie OFFICE SPACE.
No, it's not. You need to actually read up on what authoritarian actually means, for starters, and then maybe take an econ class or two.
No, you have a mix up of a bunch of disparate occurrences that you have forced into a twisted world view that doesn't actually exist in the real world. Accidents happen, and the police have about the same mix of bad apples as the population in general, you just choose not to see that. You will never make a perfect police force because we are human and incapable of perfection.
Nope, none of that has anything to do with neo-Conservatism. And as far as proxy wars go, the last two were minuscule compared to Vietnam and Korea, both wars that were started by liberals and Vietnam was ended by a neo-Conservatives.
In short, you are full of crap. For you "NeoCon" is a catchall for your personal boogiemen. You have no clue what NeoConservatism actually is. YOu could as easily replace "NeoCon" in your screeds with "DogOwners" and be about as on the mark. :roll:
Not at all, Ludwig von Mises would say you are full of **** too.
Killing 1% who were unarmed is a heinous crime by law enforcement.
Just one law enforcement officer is good enough to tarnish the image of the country.And if such an incident WAS indeed a crime.... it was an INDIVIDUAL CRIME commited by an INDIVIDUAL Law Enforcement Officer......
Not ALL law enforcement officers.
Why is it we are consistently reminded of this when it comes to race and economic crime demographics, but when it comes to police, the whole lot of them are to blame for the actions of a few individuals making bad choices........
Just one law enforcement officer is good enough to tarnish the image of the country.
1. Or maybe actually reading the history of the industrial revolution and the creation of the Republican Party in short the entire creation was to compete with the catholic immigrant way of life... Please explain to me how I am wrong
2. authoritarian
ɔːˌθɒrɪˈtɛːrɪən/
adjective
1.
favouring or enforcing strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom.
If I expand the money supply to create an export subsidy and a roundabout import tariff to boost my production and sales while limiting supply, and in the meantime I'm causing prices in the aggregate to rise due to my expansionary policy would I be using force at the expense of your freedom inside the market to maintain lower prices through competition, yes or no
3. Accidents happen and I agree, but there are definitely instances where the abuse was not just an accident. This is by definition, when it occurs, state oppression. The fact that you, as a neocon, will be willing to turn a blind eye for the "better good' rather then admitting there's work to be done proves my assumption that neocons are in favor of being authoritarian, by the mere fact that you are willing to allow the state to oppress people in certain instances and not be so up in arms because, well, accidents happen. Meanwhile, i would be charged with major crimes.
4. Really?
A. Enhanced interrogation = torture neocon response " it's ok torture those terrorists they don't have rights"
B. Patriot act...neocon
C. Has every 'conservative" in office since Eisenhower expand the military spending?
6. No neocons are a product of what is wrong with this country, they aren't the boogie man. They favor immigration bands, they favor increasing war spending, they favor subsidizing big business in the name of the "free market" which literally makes no sense, they oppose Keynesianism through supply side economics which is literally just as bad. They are a product of the state plain and simple, and the worse of it all is is that a majority of them actually call themselves libertarians when they favor increasing military, police force, elastic currency, and the war on drugs! Neocons are a product of the corrupt state.
A little history lesson for you, in the 1890s when big business started buying up politicians like Sherman and McKinley, they implanted a corrupt crony named Brian into the grass roots Jeffersonian/Jacksonian democrats and turned them authoritarian. Now I'll give you modern democrats are worse, however, the literal history of the Republican Party is controlled by big business and using schemes as protectionist policy while they maintain a pseudo "free market" perspective.
7. Considering I've done exchange rate theory and monetary theory research papers on the writings of mises and his prodigies like Murray and Hayek, I'm pretty sure I understand the intellectual thinking of mises. In fact, considering you support an elastic currency, not only would he call you an authoritarian but he would say you're no better then a socialist
that has to be the most asinine statement i have yet to read on this board
congrats sir
you win the interwebz
if "one" bad anything spoiled the whole bunch, every judge, every prosecutor, every sheriff, and every cop would have to walk off the job
there have been bad ones before, and will bad ones yet again
the whole justice system would just shut down
are there bad shootings? yep
are their cops on patrol that would be better bouncers at a local club? you bet
i have never heard anyone claim anything else
WASHINGTON, May 30 (Reuters) - U.S. police have shot and killed 385 people during the first five months of this year, a rate of more than two a day, the Washington Post reported on Saturday.
The victims ranged in age from 16 to 83. More than 80 percent were armed with potentially lethal objects, mostly guns. Ninety-two victims were identified as mentally ill.
The Post's analysis also indicates the daily death toll for 2015 is close to 2.6 as of Friday. At that pace, police will have shot and killed nearly 1,000 people by the end of the year, the paper said.
U.S. Police Have Shot Dead 385 People In Five Months: REPORT
I'm scared as hell. How did it get this bad? When have they turned into bad characters? And why?! Do the police ever evaluate whether any of those killings are avoidable? or preventable? And what can we do to change the situation? Because the situation is really horrible!
Part 1
You do realize that you are all over the place in your arguments, yes? The Neoconservative movement began in the 1960s, over 100 years after the formation of the Republican party. The Republican party was founded in 1854 as an anti-Slavery party, and it's first cause was to oppose the Kansas-Nebraska Act which threatened to spread slavery to the American territories, not to compete with "catholic immigration life". Where do you get this endless supply of imaginary history?
But anyway, do you want to neo Neoconservatism for what it actually is or do you want to just use the word as a lazy shorthand for a general problem you have with Republicans?
Well, first, explain how a boost in production is limiting supply, second explain to me how aggregate price increases "maintaining lower prices", third explain to me how competition is authoritarian.
Assuming you have a clearer explanation for your seemingly contradictory scenario above, explain what freedoms are being denied to the
And no, I am not a neoconservative, I am a conservative. If you want I can explain the difference to you, but you don't seem open to reality so I won't waste my time unless you request it.
None of which is platforms of Neoconservatism. You are just making a long winded category error.
First off, Sherman only held office for a year and was a figured head as he was suffering from dementia at the time, secondly, do you mean William Jennings Bryan? Either way, please provide the citation tyhat shows the Democrats being infiltrated by a Republican plant that "turned them authoritarian". :roll:
Hahahah!! Everyone on Debate Politics will be amused that you accuse me of being a Socialist! I really don't care what you did your research papers on, you still got it wrong.
Out of a nation of more than 300 million people, 385 shooting deaths really isn't that bad.
That's almost literally "one in a million." :shrug:
Yeah, so who cares. Right? 9/11 cost 3000 lives over 13 years ago, that's less than 230 lives/year, less than one in a million. No need to worry about terrorism, yes?
Killing 1% who were unarmed is a heinous crime by law enforcement.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?