Squab Posted April 22, 2018 Share Posted April 22, 2018 1 hour ago, GAROVORKIN said: Try imagining what your existence would be like if there were no police officers around to protect you from actual criminals. Don't really need to. Didn't the police and firefighters go on strike in montreal in the 60's? that's a reasonably good example. I would bet any city in the united states would be worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GAROVORKIN Posted April 22, 2018 Share Posted April 22, 2018 1 hour ago, Week said: Do you have zero understanding of other people's experiences in this country or are you intentionally that fucking obnoxious? There is no question and no argument that there are cops that have does some pretty horrendous and criminals things to minorities . You see it in the news every week somewhere in this country. Cops that are not fit to be cops should be allowed to be cops and if they commit crimes like murder and assault , they should be subject to arrest and punishment under the law. That said , the vast majority of cops are good people trying to do a very difficult and dangerous Job. Society needs cops to enforce the law , without them, there would be chaos . I should think that last two parts should be obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GAROVORKIN Posted April 22, 2018 Share Posted April 22, 2018 7 minutes ago, Squab said: Don't really need to. Didn't the police and firefighters go on strike in montreal in the 60's? that's a reasonably good example. I would bet any city in the united states would be worse. How long did those strikes go on for ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongRider Posted April 22, 2018 Share Posted April 22, 2018 The sea lion is in the wrong thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MercenaryChef Posted April 22, 2018 Share Posted April 22, 2018 24 minutes ago, GAROVORKIN said: Perhaps you shouldn't engage in knee-jerk responses to comment don't like and do a little critical thinking yourself ? This country fucked up not just because the police. knee jerk? i like others have been reading your poorly argued bullshit for long enough to know your game. sometimes it's funny and cute. on this you are inadvertently (we hope) apologizing for cops for covering for nazis. and for that you aren't clever or humorous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GAROVORKIN Posted April 22, 2018 Share Posted April 22, 2018 6 minutes ago, MercurialCannibal said: knee jerk? i like others have been reading your poorly argued bullshit for long enough to know your game. sometimes it's funny and cute. on this you are inadvertently (we hope) apologizing for cops for covering for nazis. and for that you aren't clever or humorous. The last part of your comment is a prime example of knee-jerk . Im neither an apologist nor a nazi and I resent that bit of nastiness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted April 23, 2018 Share Posted April 23, 2018 I watched this New York congressman(?) named Peter King on CNN tonight and he was talking about a pardon for ...Jack (?) Johnson, the first black heavyweight champion who lost his title after being convicted under the Mann Act (white slavery, taking a white woman across state lines). He was asked if that wasn’t hypocritical, when the president has criticized so many black athletes. Colin K. was protesting police brutality, which was nonsense, King said, the police were the greatest protectors of black people there were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squab Posted April 23, 2018 Share Posted April 23, 2018 42 minutes ago, GAROVORKIN said: How long did those strikes go on for ? wasn't it just one night? not long anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GAROVORKIN Posted April 23, 2018 Share Posted April 23, 2018 8 minutes ago, Squab said: wasn't it just one night? not long anyway. imagine what might have happened had it gone on for a week or two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted April 23, 2018 Share Posted April 23, 2018 "A creature that gestates inside a living host -these are your words- and has concentrated acid for blood." -Weyland-Yutani VP "Yes." -Witness "The analysis team that went over the lifeboat centimeter by centimeter found no evidence of the creature you describe." - Weyland-Yutani Chairman of the Board "Good. That's because I blew it out the goddamn airlock. Look, I can see where this is going. But those things exist,and they're breeding in the Politics thread." -Witness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GAROVORKIN Posted April 23, 2018 Share Posted April 23, 2018 3 minutes ago, Pony Empress Jace said: "A creature that gestates inside a living host -these are your words- and has concentrated acid for blood." -Weyland-Yutani VP "Yes." -Witness "The analysis team that went over the lifeboat centimeter by centimeter found no evidence of the creature you describe." - Weyland-Yutani Chairman of the Board "Good. That's because I blew it out the goddamn airlock. Look, I can see where this is going. But those things exist,and they're breeding in the Politics thread." -Witness. Ah good, just what this thread needs, an Alien film reference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mlle. Zabzie Posted April 23, 2018 Share Posted April 23, 2018 Anyone else read The Hill or The Guardian? Apparently they have figured out why Sean Hannity was talking to Michael Cohen. Surprisingly, this only smells like garden variety corruption and money laundering. "Fox News host Sean Hannity is linked to a group of shell companies that have spent $90 million buying hundreds of homes across the U.S through the help of foreclosures and the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Guardian reported Sunday." (from The Hill). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted April 23, 2018 Share Posted April 23, 2018 Just now, Mlle. Zabzie said: Anyone else read The Hill or The Guardian? Apparently they have figured out why Sean Hannity was talking to Michael Cohen. Surprisingly, this only smells like garden variety corruption and money laundering. "Fox News host Sean Hannity is linked to a group of shell companies that have spent $90 million buying hundreds of homes across the U.S through the help of foreclosures and the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Guardian reported Sunday." (from The Hill). Why are Shell companies a thing? I've known that term, and that it's never a good thing, since I was like 10. We watched a lot of Martin Sheen movies in my house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mlle. Zabzie Posted April 23, 2018 Share Posted April 23, 2018 Just now, Pony Empress Jace said: Why are Shell companies a thing? I've known that term, and that it's never a good thing, since I was like 10. We watched a lot of Martin Sheen movies in my house. So "shell companies" aren't really a thing. It's something that people talk about. A lot of people invest through corporate vehicles (e.g., limited companies, etc.) to limit liability, to have privacy (which honestly isn't a bad thing - property ownership is publicly registered, so anyone can go online and find out my address....which is a bit....unsettling), and, well, mais oui, for tax reasons (though that is a lot harder than it was in the 1970s). And if the person is investing with multiple people, it makes sense to have a company to define each investor's rights and obligations vis a vis the investment. The US is relatively unusual in my experience in the limited amount of information required to form a company, the ability to hide the ownership form the public, and the limited amount of information required to be made public by private companies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted April 23, 2018 Share Posted April 23, 2018 1 minute ago, Mlle. Zabzie said: So "shell companies" aren't really a thing. It's something that people talk about. A lot of people invest through corporate vehicles (e.g., limited companies, etc.) to limit liability, to have privacy (which honestly isn't a bad thing - property ownership is publicly registered, so anyone can go online and find out my address....which is a bit....unsettling), and, well, mais oui, for tax reasons (though that is a lot harder than it was in the 1970s). And if the person is investing with multiple people, it makes sense to have a company to define each investor's rights and obligations vis a vis the investment. The US is relatively unusual in my experience in the limited amount of information required to form a company, the ability to hide the ownership form the public, and the limited amount of information required to be made public by private companies. Every word you just said screams 'corruption' to me. We live in a free society (nominally), if you invest in something it should be known to the public so that you can be judged accordingly. Look at that, I just saved the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IamMe90 Posted April 23, 2018 Share Posted April 23, 2018 1 hour ago, Pony Empress Jace said: Every word you just said screams 'corruption' to me. We live in a free society (nominally), if you invest in something it should be known to the public so that you can be judged accordingly. Look at that, I just saved the thread. What? Freedom and privacy are inextricably linked principles. I don't know why you would invoke the concept of "free society" to support the premise that no one should be able to make private investments; that is almost inherently contradictory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted April 23, 2018 Share Posted April 23, 2018 9 minutes ago, IamMe90 said: What? Freedom and privacy are inextricably linked principles. I don't know why you would invoke the concept of "free society" to support the premise that no one should be able to make private investments; that is almost inherently contradictory. Why do your investments need to be private? If you feel the need to hide that you invest in porn maybe you shouldn't disavow porn in public lest you be labeled (correctly) a hypocrite. ETA: That's just an analogy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IamMe90 Posted April 23, 2018 Share Posted April 23, 2018 3 minutes ago, Pony Empress Jace said: Why do your investments need to be private? If you feel the need to hide that you invest in porn maybe you shouldn't disavow porn in public lest you be labeled (correctly) a hypocrite. ETA: That's just an analogy. Uhh... well, first of all, I was just pointing out that you reasoning didn't make any sense. "This is a free society therefore investments should be made public" just doesn't make any sense. I wasn't taking a particular stance on that issue one way or the other. However, I would say that absolutely, there shouldn't be some sort of publicly available ledger of all the investments people have made. That's bordering on 1984-level shit. Do you think that there should be a a public ledger documenting all of the purchases people make? There are plenty of ways to tighten up loopholes in regulations surrounding investments without completely taking away any element of privacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted April 23, 2018 Share Posted April 23, 2018 2 minutes ago, IamMe90 said: Uhh... well, first of all, I was just pointing out that you reasoning didn't make any sense. "This is a free society therefore investments should be made public" just doesn't make any sense. I wasn't taking a particular stance on that issue one way or the other. However, I would say that absolutely, there shouldn't be some sort of publicly available ledger of all the investments people have made. That's bordering on 1984-level shit. Do you think that there should be a a public ledger documenting all of the purchases people make? There are plenty of ways to tighten up loopholes in regulations surrounding investments without completely taking away any element of privacy. If you want privacy you've come to the wrong tree. Even the powerful should experience the ignominy of the worker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IamMe90 Posted April 23, 2018 Share Posted April 23, 2018 7 minutes ago, Pony Empress Jace said: If you want privacy you've come to the wrong tree. Even the powerful should experience the ignominy of the worker. Honestly, this just sounds like a half-baked, empty platitude to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.