Which is weird, because if he payed attention he'd know that Anklebiter assumes a dozen positions far more contradictory and convoluted before he puts his pants on in the morning.
[Fails Will save]
For example?
Alternate response: Yeah, that's what your mother said.
Interesting enough, non violence is statistically more likely to succeed. While violence can produce change, it's success rate is relatively low.
Name a single non-violent movement that was not surrounded by violence. MLK, Gandhi, Mandela, all existed within the context of violent rebellions or riots against the government. Even the examples being used in your video as non-violent revolutions had at minimum rioting. She spends a couple minutes talking about Serbia, and while I will admit I'm not expert, the fact that Parliament was burned down according to Wikipedia makes me question what definition she is using for non-violent revolution.
Which is weird, because if he payed attention he'd know that Anklebiter assumes a dozen positions far more contradictory and convoluted before he puts his pants on in the morning.My opinion of police unions is largely the same, but I am holding off on commenting about them until I can figure out what contradiction or stupidity or whatever that Citizen Canockers thinks he sees in that original post.I must disagree.
The unions ate a party of the problem here. I am not saying its time to go union busting, but the police union will happily make sure a paid vacation is as comfortable as possible when an officer is accused of a crime.
Possibly as simple as "You like unions. You hate police. Police have unions. Head explode".
that's a bit simplistic.
CAs viewpoints are a bit more nuanced than that. If only a bit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which is weird, because if he payed attention he'd know that Anklebiter assumes a dozen positions far more contradictory and convoluted before he puts his pants on in the morning.[Fails Will save]
For example?
Alternate response: Yeah, that's what your mother said.
Joke's on you, my mother's dead.
Alternative response: So's your face.
reading these in HK-47s voice makes them HILARIOUS!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just trying to figure out what point Citizen Canockers is trying to make and what he thought he saw in the post to which he initially responded.
You are calling for unions to come out and protest against police violence.
Police are part of the unions.Therefore
You are calling for police to come out and protest against themselves.
(Note that in the US, the police unions have a long standing history of protecting bad cops. Stopping them from being fired, getting them reinstated with back pay, helping hide their criminal activities, etc.)
It's unfortunate that the unions spend so much time and money protecting bad members.
yikes
Yikes indeed! Not good. Not good at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which is weird, because if he payed attention he'd know that Anklebiter assumes a dozen positions far more contradictory and convoluted before he puts his pants on in the morning.[Fails Will save]
For example?
Alternate response: Yeah, that's what your mother said.
Joke's on you, my mother's dead.
Alternative response: So's your face.
I'm sorry to hear that, son. Your mother was an extraordinary woman.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You are calling for unions to come out and protest against police violence.
Police are part of the unions.
Therefore
You are calling for police to come out and protest against themselves.(Note that in the US, the police unions have a long standing history of protecting bad cops. Stopping them from being fired, getting them reinstated with back pay, helping hide their criminal activities, etc.)
Arcane Marxist shiznit: Not that it's really pertinent to this thread, but, for the record, the standard commie line is that cops aren't workers, they are agents of the state. Therefore, police unions aren't workers organizations but, rather, professional associations of agents of the state.
I don't call on them to do anything. I agree with the points you raise in your parenthetical paragraph, as my previous posts indicate.
It's unfortunate that the unions spend so much time and money protecting bad members.
In my experience, they spend a lot of time, but not so much money. I mean, the disciplinary meetings are on the employer's dime, not ours. [Details may vary from shop to shop]
Got tomorrow off of work, can go see Charles Cobb and Judy Richardson at UMass Lowell and build for our May Day rally! Huzzah!
[Don Juan de Doodlebug]Apparently, one of the CAJE members, a self-described "anarcho-Zionist d+~*" (no, I've never met one of those, either) told Mr. Comrade that she's wicked into me.
[Rubs knuckles on chest]
Yup. I've got the good stuff. Drives all the chicks crazy.[/Don Juan de Doodlebug]
Glad I moved back to Florida.You win the prize for creating a sentence never thought or uttered by another human being before you. Congrats!
Heh.
Seriously though, Florida may have a bad rap because of all the weird s@#* that goes down, but the state's not a bad place to live at all.
Just like anywhere you have to filter out a lot of people you don't want to meet, but it's a nice place to call home.
Plus, we don't have as much of an alligator problem any more. Those new pythons are eating them all!
Glad I moved back to Florida.You win the prize for creating a sentence never thought or uttered by another human being before you. Congrats!Heh.
Seriously though, Florida may have a bad rap because of all the weird s#%# that goes down, but the state's not a bad place to live at all.
Just like anywhere you have to filter out a lot of people you don't want to meet, but it's a nice place to call home.
Plus, we don't have as much of an alligator problem any more. Those new pythons are eating them all!
I suspect that the pythons will also prove to be something of a problem as well. Reptiles in general tend to think of "food" as anything smaller than they are. And pythons can do something alligators can't. Namely hide in trees.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
We'll burn that bridge when we come to it. First we have to get Voldemort out of office.
|
Arcane Marxist shiznit: Not that it's really pertinent to this thread, but, for the record, the standard commie line is that cops aren't workers, they are agents of the state. Therefore, police unions aren't workers organizations but, rather, professional associations of agents of the state.You are calling for unions to come out and protest against police violence.
Police are part of the unions
Interesting - so what is the conservative line on this? Am I correct in thinking that conservatives dislike all unions except for police and fire? Or is that an unfair simplification?
If true, can you give us the reasoning?
I've never heard a conservative talk about police/fire unions, other than in a specific context (like a mayor of a city in the middle of negotiations). They seem to mostly pretend that those unions don't exist, instead focusing on similar language that they use to describe the military (brave men and women, honor, duty, etc).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is interesting how so many conservative types, always worried about government overreach and abuse of power, seem to have no problem with the most blatant example: police brutality.
Take a look at where most police brutality is directed and the answer becomes a lot more obvious.
Take a look at where most police brutality is directed and the answer becomes a lot more obvious.It is interesting how so many conservative types, always worried about government overreach and abuse of power, seem to have no problem with the most blatant example: police brutality.
There was an op-ed a couple of weeks back in the New York Times that illustrated this point beautifully. It was basically a textbook example of upper-class WASP privilege. Someone was complaining about the move to require body cameras on police, because it would limit the freedom of police to use their judgment, for example, by deciding to let the (upper class, white, male, educated) columnist off with a warning for whatever law he had decided to break.....
"Putting a camera on an officer means she is less likely to cut you some slack, less likely to not write that ticket, or to bend the regulations a little as a sign of mutual care."
You are calling for unions to come out and protest against police violence.
Police are part of the unions.
Therefore
You are calling for police to come out and protest against themselves.(Note that in the US, the police unions have a long standing history of protecting bad cops. Stopping them from being fired, getting them reinstated with back pay, helping hide their criminal activities, etc.)
Arcane Marxist shiznit: Not that it's really pertinent to this thread, but, for the record, the standard commie line is that cops aren't workers, they are agents of the state. Therefore, police unions aren't workers organizations but, rather, professional associations of agents of the state.
I don't call on them to do anything. I agree with the points you raise in your parenthetical paragraph, as my previous posts indicate.
It's unfortunate that the unions spend so much time and money protecting bad members.In my experience, they spend a lot of time, but not so much money. I mean, the disciplinary meetings are on the employer's dime, not ours. [Details may vary from shop to shop]
Some of those cop unions are AFL/CIO, part of the same unions as the workers.
They spend the money too, hiring their lawyers, setting up press conferences, bribing various people, all sorts of expenses.
Some of those cop unions are AFL/CIO, part of the same unions as the workers.
I know. There's even some in my local.
I specifically meant spending money on defending bad workers. Sorry if I was unclear. Although, it's true, arbitration cases can cost a lot.
But, again, I don't really see how this is pertinent to the thread, so I'm inclined (but no promises) to ignore further posts on the matter.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've never heard a conservative talk about police/fire unions, other than in a specific context (like a mayor of a city in the middle of negotiations). They seem to mostly pretend that those unions don't exist, instead focusing on similar language that they use to describe the military (brave men and women, honor, duty, etc).
Here in Wisconsin, when they were crafting Act 10 the union busting bill from a few years back, they specifically exempted police and fire/rescue unions. When the next round of attacks came, they were exempted once again, and in fact the police were given raises rather than cuts.
To conservatives, property "rights">human rights in all cases.
Glad I moved back to Florida.You win the prize for creating a sentence never thought or uttered by another human being before you. Congrats!Heh.
Seriously though, Florida may have a bad rap because of all the weird s~#! that goes down, but the state's not a bad place to live at all.
Just like anywhere you have to filter out a lot of people you don't want to meet, but it's a nice place to call home.
Plus, we don't have as much of an alligator problem any more. Those new pythons are eating them all!
Well if you like it that's all that matters I guess. Thing is, even before Gov. Voldemort Florida has been bass ackwards in nearly all regards. Did you know they're not required to teach history before WWII in public schools? That's f!!+ed up.
But as someone who does his best to avoid sunlight and prefers more moderate temperatures, there's nothing to recommend Florida as a place to live. I think we should give it back to the Spanish and be done with it.
Glad I moved back to Florida.You win the prize for creating a sentence never thought or uttered by another human being before you. Congrats!Heh.
Seriously though, Florida may have a bad rap because of all the weird s*#$ that goes down, but the state's not a bad place to live at all.
Just like anywhere you have to filter out a lot of people you don't want to meet, but it's a nice place to call home.
Plus, we don't have as much of an alligator problem any more. Those new pythons are eating them all!
Wait...Pythons?!? How is that better?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To conservatives, property "rights">human rights in all cases.
Ahem. To a conservative property rights ARE "human rights". A lot of what are claimed to be "human rights" these days are not rights at all by the original definition of the term.
A "right", properly understood in its original context, was freedom of action within a certain sphere. Blackstone in his Commentaries identified the 3 most basic of these as life, liberty and .... (wait for it) ... property. Because I have a right to life, you cannot legitimately assault/kill me. Because I have a right to liberty, you cannot legitimately enslave me without my consent. Because I have a right to property, you can not legitimately steal from me. All your recognition of my rights requires is that you leave me alone to go my way in peace and vice versa. It was understood that there was no such thing as a legitimate right to a good or a service.
The fact that I have a right to life does not require you to feed me. As originally understood, if I had a "right" to demand food from you, you would effectively be my slave with your liberty and property being at least partially infringed by your duty of having to supply my food on demand. How then, do I get fed? I either grow the food myself, practice some sort of trade that will enable me to make money so I can buy food, or as a last resort depend on charity. Charity back in the day was the province of the family and the church. Government was neither seen as nor intended to be the "charity" of last resort.
There were a variety of different reasons for that. One of the more important being that while charitable contributions are voluntary on the part of the giver, paying taxes to support government expenses is most definitely NOT voluntary. Try opting out of the income tax as an example.
But what about the poor? A much wiser and more compassionate person than I am put it simply, "The poor you will always have with you." Indeed, there are many reasons why people might be poor, and some of them can not be dealt with by the actions of other people. In America we have spent trillions of dollars over the past 5 or 6 decades in attempts to eradicate poverty and the end result today is the we are no better off in that regard than we were originally, we appear to have created a permanent underclass of people who are dependent on government largesse, and last but not least have created a significant tax burden on society as a whole that MUST be paid by individuals (or else!). The end result of all this being a governmental system that is in the process of collapsing under its own weight.
But hey, the "liberals" can look at the existence of all these (obviously ineffective) government programs as "proof" that they are more concerned about the poor. With the added advantage that they are getting all this done with "other people's money" so their personal involvement over and above whining about how the government has to "do something" is minimal.
In short, TANSTAAFL.
The end result of all this being a governmental system that is in the process of collapsing under its own weight.
The system is not only perfectly sustainable, but actually more efficient form of growth than just about any other place we can invest resources. It is failing because of sabotage of lack of funding that is easily available.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ahem. To a conservative property rights ARE "human rights". A lot of what are claimed to be "human rights" these days are not rights at all by the original definition of the term.
Like rights for black people. Originally not human.
It was understood that there was no such thing as a legitimate right to a good or a service.
And yet what did all of the founding fathers do the second they came into power? They said holy bleep this government thing is expensive and started taxing people, and when people tried to rebel (whiskey rebellion) they put it down with force.
Meet the new boss. Same a the old boss.
The idea of a government that isn't going to take some of your stuff is a myth.
How then, do I get fed? I either grow the food myself, practice some sort of trade that will enable me to make money so I can buy food, or as a last resort depend on charity. Charity back in the day was the province of the family and the church. Government was neither seen as nor intended to be the "charity" of last resort.
And people died in the streets from starvation. So it didn't work, so we replaced it with something better, because if our options are your right to property and keeping people alive I'm going with keeping people alive.
But what about the poor? A much wiser and more compassionate person than I am put it simply, "The poor you will always have with you." Indeed, there are many reasons why people might be...
And when he could conjure food out of the air he fed them. Feeding a few hundred people wth one person was a nice start. Nowadays that we have tractors that let one farmer feed thousnds shouldn't we do the same thing?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To conservatives, property "rights">human rights in all cases.
Ahem. To a conservative property rights ARE "human rights". A lot of what are claimed to be "human rights" these days are not rights at all by the original definition of the term.
A "right", properly understood in its original context, was freedom of action within a certain sphere.
That's a lie that conservatives like to tell, but it's exactly that... a lie. And a rather transparent one, too. For example, the "right to trial by jury" implies an obligation on the citizens to serve (against their will, if necessary), on a jury. The right to a trial in the first place implies the existence of a court system and the coresponding obligation on the citizens to pay for the court.
Well, when giving a "let them eat cake" speech you need to make sure your guards have bread and butter, otherwise...
Ironically, I just got a call from the New Hampshire Patrolmen's Association looking for donations.
On top of the predictable reasons why I didn't donate, I knew a guy who used to work for one of those phone banks. He said it was a scam--the patrolmen's association, or the firefighters, or whoever, get, like 10% of the proceeds and the rest go to fund the call center.
Anyway, off to go see Cobb and Richardson!
|
The fact that I have a right to life does not require you to feed me. As originally understood, if I had a "right" to demand food from you, you would effectively be my slave with your liberty and property being at least partially infringed by your duty of having to supply my food on demand. How then, do I get fed? I either grow the food myself, practice some sort of trade that will enable me to make money so I can buy food, or as a last resort depend on charity. Charity back in the day was the province of the family and the church. Government was neither seen as nor intended to be the "charity" of last resort.
The great part about progress is that we can grow past earlier concepts into later concepts the evolved from them. With time, and with mankind's improved capacities thanks to technology, many things that were once true no longer are.
We accumulated knowledge, we constructed more sophisticated structures of thought and layered them on the foundations prior generations lay for us.
To be frank, the way some concept or another was originally understood is quite meaningless. The concepts you speak of are after all themselves progress made based on even older knowledge and even older concepts. Go back far enough, and lightnings were originally understood as farts some pagan patriarchal god made after a particularly good supper in his sky-cave. Or some such.
For all practical purposes, human rights should now be considered to be the minimum that any human is entitled to by mere virtue of being a human. Given the means that modern western societies have, it is absolutely monstrous to put something such as "not starving" out of reach for this bare minimum.
|
|
All that I said above is, of course, more a description of ideals than of reality. I am aware that western society does not manage to perfectly preserve human rights within itself, let alone in other countries. Still, way closer than the human race has ever been, and (hopefully?) making progress in the right direction.
The fact that I have a right to life does not require you to feed me. As originally understood, if I had a "right" to demand food from you, you would effectively be my slave with your liberty and property being at least partially infringed by your duty of having to supply my food on demand. How then, do I get fed? I either grow the food myself, practice some sort of trade that will enable me to make money so I can buy food, or as a last resort depend on charity. Charity back in the day was the province of the family and the church. Government was neither seen as nor intended to be the "charity" of last resort.The great part about progress is that we can grow past earlier concepts into later concepts the evolved from them. With time, and with mankind's improved capacities thanks to technology, many things that were once true no longer are.
We accumulated knowledge, we constructed more sophisticated structures of thought and layered them on the foundations prior generations lay for us.
In other words, rights are a great ideal, but they're not based in empiricism.
This just sort of reinforces my idea of political conservatism as theorycrafting vs. play experience.
The fact that I have a right to life does not require you to feed me. As originally understood, if I had a "right" to demand food from you, you would effectively be my slave with your liberty and property being at least partially infringed by your duty of having to supply my food on demand. How then, do I get fed? I either grow the food myself, practice some sort of trade that will enable me to make money so I can buy food, or as a last resort depend on charity. Charity back in the day was the province of the family and the church. Government was neither seen as nor intended to be the "charity" of last resort.The great part about progress is that we can grow past earlier concepts into later concepts the evolved from them. With time, and with mankind's improved capacities thanks to technology, many things that were once true no longer are.
We accumulated knowledge, we constructed more sophisticated structures of thought and layered them on the foundations prior generations lay for us.
In other words, rights are a great ideal, but they're not based in empiricism.
This just sort of reinforces my idea of political conservatism as theorycrafting vs. play experience.
Well, without access to food, the right to life is kinda meaningless. Is that empirical?
Anyways, down with police violence.
Vive le Galt!