grumdin Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 Why do you assume liberals are not against militarization of LEOs. It not like many people on both sides of the spectrum have already stated that it's stupid and wrong. I am speaking in generalities, because i do not agree with Commodore's link when it ties no knock warrants to the Bundy shenanigans. And it's a hell of a journey from "no knock warrants are wrong" to FEMA concentration camps. Obviously you're not against the militarization of LEOs when they're deployed against folk you dislike for ideological reasons. Say for instance when the BLM deploys hundreds of agents armed with full auto rifles against a few cowboys who committed the unpardonable sin of impacting on a slow moving reptile/failing to pay fees/interfering in a Senator's real estate deals. Equally the right has no ground to walk on when THEY failed to speak up when the occupiers where being tased/pepper sprayed/beaten the crap out off by our body armor wearing constabulary for having the gall to exercise their 1st ammendment rights. Perhaps we should stop all the bullshit and simply declare whether or not we believe that the Bill of Rights applies to all Americans or only to those who's opinions corresponds to our own? When I hear folks talk about stopping peaceful protests outside abortion clinics or fail to condemn 'free speach zones' my heckles are raised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Sprunk Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 Grumdin, Do you honestly not understand that every right has limitations, including the Bill of Rights? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 Jon,You do mean reasonable content neutral time, place, and manner restrictions, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 Obviously you're not against the militarization of LEOs when they're deployed against folk you dislike for ideological reasons. Say for instance when the BLM deploys hundreds of agents armed with full auto rifles against a few cowboys who committed the unpardonable sin of impacting on a slow moving reptile/failing to pay fees/interfering in a Senator's real estate deals. I believe it's been well established that the Harry Reid Solar Project connection to this story is a load of bullshit... http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/nevada.asp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 Grumdin,Obviously you're not against the militarization of LEOs when they're deployed against folk you dislike for ideological reasons. Say for instance when the BLM deploys hundreds of agents armed with full auto rifles against a few cowboys who committed the unpardonable sin of impacting on a slow moving reptile/failing to pay fees/interfering in a Senator's real estate deals.I don't know anyone on this board, left or right, who supports the militarization of LEOs. Most, if not all, would support limiting the deployment of SWAT teams to active shooter situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grumdin Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 Grumdin,I don't know anyone on this board, left or right, who supports the militarization of LEOs. Most, if not all, would support limiting the deployment of SWAT teams to active shooter situations.Scot there were folks on the previous thread wishing that the Fed Gov had dropped a few hellfire missiles onto the Bundy ranch, and no I don't think they were being ironic. Grumdin, Do you honestly not understand that every right has limitations, including the Bill of Rights?I know that people think of all kinds of ways to limit peoples right to protest on the public square. It's interesting that on the one hand folks support the Fed Gov owning 90% of Nevada because it ensures that ordinary citizens can access and enjoy it, but when a few thousand show up to exercise their 1A rights on pruported 'public land' the Feds try to coral them into a free speech zone. I believe it's been well established that the Harry Reid Solar Project connection to this story is a load of bullshit... http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/nevada.aspI wasn't referring to the solar project. Besides which the BLM own website detailed, before they deleted it, the importance of ridding the Bunby allotment of cattle not because of the solar project per se, but from the impact the solar development would have on the desert tortoise migrating. In other words the Bundy allotment being used as an environmental offset to allow the solar project to go ahead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Sprunk Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 Jon,You do mean reasonable content neutral time, place, and manner restrictions, right? Of course. I know that people think of all kinds of ways to limit peoples right to protest on the public square. It's interesting that on the one hand folks support the Fed Gov owning 90% of Nevada because it ensures that ordinary citizens can access and enjoy it, but when a few thousand show up to exercise their 1A rights on pruported 'public land' the Feds try to coral them into a free speech zone. You make a lot of assumptions as you accuse people here of having all kinds of motivations not in evidence. And I notice when you are confronted with evidence/arguments to the contrary, you tend to deflect or ignore the replies. For example, rather than answer my question, you deflected with the above statement that does not tell me if you understand constitutional rights have limitations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grumdin Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 Of course. You make a lot of assumptions as you accuse people here of having all kinds of motivations not in evidence. And I notice when you are confronted with evidence/arguments to the contrary, you tend to deflect or ignore the replies. For example, rather than answer my question, you deflected with the above statement that does not tell me if you understand constitutional rights have limitations. I wasn't delberately deflecting your question rather you failed to define what you think reasonable limitations on free speech should be? I take it you advocate something broader than stopping someone falsely shouting fire in a movie theatre? I bring up the Brundy ranch because in that situation the Federal Gov set up a small area which they designated as a 1st Ammendment, or free speech, zone. To protest outside that area, or even to take a picture or video, invited summary arrest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commodore Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 Harry Reid is a real life version of Clay Davis. Here's a question: How does Reid live year round at the DC Ritz Carlton on a senator's salary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 I wasn't referring to the solar project. Besides which the BLM own website detailed, before they deleted it, the importance of ridding the Bunby allotment of cattle not because of the solar project per se, but from the impact the solar development would have on the desert tortoise migrating. In other words the Bundy allotment being used as an environmental offset to allow the solar project to go ahead. What were you referring to then if not the solar project? And it's been shown that there is no relation between the solar project and the land on which Bundy's cattle graze. The land involved in the Reid deal is 20 miles northwest of the Bundy grazing site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commodore Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 prediction: Keystone XL will be "approved" a few weeks before the midterms. Late enough that Steyer won't have withheld any campaign donations, but early enough that red state senators can run ads about how they stood up to Obama. Then of course, something will be "discovered" after the midterms, and the project will be killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 Harry Reid is a real life version of Clay Davis. Here's a question: How does Reid live year round at the DC Ritz Carlton on a senator's salary? Kind of a strange way to phrase the issue, since as far as I can see he's never claimed to. It's a matter of public record both that he's privately wealthy and how he made that wealth. You can certainly question the latter, but the above 'when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife' framing of the issue implicitly alleges that he's been hiding his wealth and/or the source of it - which he hasn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suttree Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 Have a source for that?Of course grumdin doesn't. It should be pretty clear by now he's just making shit up as he goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazydog7 Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 Anyone remember when this thread used to be about politics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 CD,Politics, outside of discussions of first principles, is really boring. Always talking about the horse race is particularly dull. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aceluby Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 How Americans die: http://www.bloomberg.com/dataview/2014-04-17/how-americans-die.html Interesting graphic and I wonder how closely the graph of suicides and drug deaths match up to Big Pharma profits and the proliferation of the Rx drug market. I know my 54 year old father died of a Rx drug dose he was legally prescribed by his doctor and that his accidental Rx overdose is the most common type of drug overdoes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 CD,Politics, outside of discussions of first principles, is really boring. Always talking about the horse race is particularly dull. I'd rather we all just accepted rule-based utilitarianism and moved on to debating policy. I find first principles even more boring than the horse race. These threads would benefit enormously from an influx of charts and graphics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 Utilitarianism is too... soulless for me to get behind it all the time. It is certainly a useful benchmark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Walker Texas Ranger Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 Everybody is deontological until consequentialism suits their purposes better. And vice versa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 Eric,Pretty much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.