Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 789

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Yes. I thought it was funny, and kind of disturbing, that a cop would be endorsed by such a person. I’m calling Mike the Cop an apologist for police brutality and excessive force. 'Cause that’s what motherfucker is, dude!

More proof that reasoned conversation is not to be had with you.

Mike the Cop literally believes that if you run away from him while he’s in uniform, then he has the legal right to shoot you multiple times in the back and kill you. Oh, but he might think it’s a tragedy afterward, which is cold comfort to the dead kid and his family.

Did you watched the whole video? If no, then maybe you don’t really know exactly what he believes.

To be exact, he does believe that he does believe a cop can shoot a fleeing person under certain circumstances and he sited a US Supreme Court ruling to back him up.

Mike the Cop literally believes that if you run away from him while he’s in uniform in certain circumstances, then he has the legal right to shoot you multiple times in the back and kill you, even if you’re unarmed. Is that better? I did watch parts of his videos and I saw some other videos of his and I think he’s dangerous. I wish people like him were not cops and didn’t have access to firearms.

And the Supreme Court has said all kinds of horrible shit in the past. The Supreme Court said Bush could be president without even finishing the Florida recount. The Supreme Court said segregation was A-okay. The Supreme court said black people were property, not people. Need I go on?

Nonetheless, US Supreme Court rulings are legally binding. The case he was referring to here was Tennessee vs Garner. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner

He supports a bad ruling.

Mike the Cop argued that a fleeing suspect can be shot if the cop believes the suspect poses an imminent danger to people around the suspect.

And his definition of “imminent danger” is not something I trust given the murders that he has justified. Both of the times I’ve seen him defend police executions, the suspect was unarmed. Plus, he’s opposed to California’s attempt to protect citizens from the police because it requires police to deem it “necessary” to use deadly force which he thinks is too stringent. This man is not safe. I don’t know where he lives, but I sincerely hope that he isn’t in my county because I would not want to be up against this guy. His notion, “Innocent people don’t run,” is fascist and horrifying. People like this man are why people want to run from the police. Cops are scary! They’re the only people (typically) that can get away with killing you no matter how young you are, no matter how unthreatening, and no matter how obviously unarmed. How can people possibly not understand why sane people of all races, but especially black people, are afraid of cops?

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Mrebo said:

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

I don’t know that your second question makes too much sense. It’s sort of like asking whether I am a Constitutional absolutist. That Amendment states:

Let try to re-word it. You said you were not a “states rights absolutist”. Are situations where you are not absolutist in that regard, situations where we either

1. are dealing with a power delegated to Feds by the Constitution

and/or

2. are dealing with a power prohibited to the states by the Constitution

When you say you are not a “states rights absolutist”, you mean that you are not pro-states-rights in situations where the Constitution is not pro-states-rights, correct?

When I say I am not a “states rights absolutist” I mean the states don’t always win. Health insurance was an example.

It does not mean I think the federal government should exercise its authority to the maximum extent under the Constitution. There are areas where the federal government can act under the Constitution but I think should exercise restraint and instead respect state laws (eg marijuana).

How about medical marijuana?

The FDA should regulate that. In states where pot is legal it may not make much of a difference, but allow people in other states to have approved medication.

I’m not in favor of legalization and I never had an interest in the stuff. So my desire for the federal government to step back isn’t self-serving. It’s partly based on my view that the federal government is overstepping the bounds of its authority and partly on the view that there is value in states forging their own paths, especially where an activity is so broadly practiced with relatively little harm.

Okay, so the federal government can’t ban you from imbibing a substance, but the state can? Why is that any better? This is what I mean when I complain that states’ rights is bullshit when it’s all about the rights that states can deprive you of.

Because people disagree. In a democratic system that is a really important fact. If I had my way, pot wouldn’t be legal. That is the law at the federal level. So ask the people in the nine states where recreational use or 30 states where medical use is legal “how that is better.”

I get your impulse of wanting your policy preferences enacted everywhere. Who doesn’t want that? But of course that’s not how reality works. Where the federal government is the first and last stop, change is stifled. The constituencies of the various states have different views so let them make the laws they want. Granted you won’t like all choices in all states, but that is inevitable no matter what level of government choices are made.

As Jay said this isn’t difficult to understand. He and I both pointed out that national change has often happened because states had freedom to act.

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Mrebo said:

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

I don’t know that your second question makes too much sense. It’s sort of like asking whether I am a Constitutional absolutist. That Amendment states:

Let try to re-word it. You said you were not a “states rights absolutist”. Are situations where you are not absolutist in that regard, situations where we either

1. are dealing with a power delegated to Feds by the Constitution

and/or

2. are dealing with a power prohibited to the states by the Constitution

When you say you are not a “states rights absolutist”, you mean that you are not pro-states-rights in situations where the Constitution is not pro-states-rights, correct?

When I say I am not a “states rights absolutist” I mean the states don’t always win. Health insurance was an example.

It does not mean I think the federal government should exercise its authority to the maximum extent under the Constitution. There are areas where the federal government can act under the Constitution but I think should exercise restraint and instead respect state laws (eg marijuana).

How about medical marijuana?

The FDA should regulate that. In states where pot is legal it may not make much of a difference, but allow people in other states to have approved medication.

I’m not in favor of legalization and I never had an interest in the stuff. So my desire for the federal government to step back isn’t self-serving. It’s partly based on my view that the federal government is overstepping the bounds of its authority and partly on the view that there is value in states forging their own paths, especially where an activity is so broadly practiced with relatively little harm.

Okay, so the federal government can’t ban you from imbibing a substance, but the state can? Why is that any better? This is what I mean when I complain that states’ rights is bullshit when it’s all about the rights that states can deprive you of.

Because people disagree. In a democratic system that is a really important fact. If I had my way, pot wouldn’t be legal.

I really don’t care what your “way” is. You wanting a harmless, and often helpful substance outlawed because of your preference is totally irrational, unfair, and unAmerican. I don’t believe any state should have the right to outlaw marijuana.

That is the law at the federal level. So ask the people in the nine states where recreational use or 30 states where medical use is legal “how that is better.”

Well, they made the less totalitarian decision. If you live in a shithole that has it outlawed, then you’re not so lucky.

I get your impulse of wanting your policy preferences enacted everywhere. Who doesn’t want that? But of course that’s not how reality works. Where the federal government is the first and last stop, change is stifled. The constituencies of the various states have different views so let them make the laws they want. Granted you won’t like all choices in all states, but that is inevitable no matter what level of government choices are made.

I don’t believe that anyone has the right to decide what substances adults can ingest.

As Jay said this isn’t difficult to understand. He and I both pointed out that national change has often happened because states had freedom to act.

You used slavery as a really bad example, I remember that. States wanting to legalize or outlaw slavery is what started the Civil War.

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Yes. I thought it was funny, and kind of disturbing, that a cop would be endorsed by such a person. I’m calling Mike the Cop an apologist for police brutality and excessive force. 'Cause that’s what motherfucker is, dude!

More proof that reasoned conversation is not to be had with you.

Mike the Cop literally believes that if you run away from him while he’s in uniform, then he has the legal right to shoot you multiple times in the back and kill you. Oh, but he might think it’s a tragedy afterward, which is cold comfort to the dead kid and his family.

Did you watched the whole video? If no, then maybe you don’t really know exactly what he believes.

To be exact, he does believe that he does believe a cop can shoot a fleeing person under certain circumstances and he sited a US Supreme Court ruling to back him up.

Mike the Cop literally believes that if you run away from him while he’s in uniform in certain circumstances, then he has the legal right to shoot you multiple times in the back and kill you, even if you’re unarmed. Is that better? I did watch parts of his videos and I saw some other videos of his and I think he’s dangerous. I wish people like him were not cops and didn’t have access to firearms.

And the Supreme Court has said all kinds of horrible shit in the past. The Supreme Court said Bush could be president without even finishing the Florida recount. The Supreme Court said segregation was A-okay. The Supreme court said black people were property, not people. Need I go on?

Nonetheless, US Supreme Court rulings are legally binding. The case he was referring to here was Tennessee vs Garner. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner

He supports a bad ruling.

It is a bad ruling in your opinion. Regardless, it is still legally binding.

I never said it wasn’t. My arguments on police brutality are often more morality-based because unfortunately cops have the legal right to kill unarmed people.

Mike the Cop argued that a fleeing suspect can be shot if the cop believes the suspect poses an imminent danger to people around the suspect.

And his definition of “imminent danger” is not something I trust given the murders that he has justified. Both of the times I’ve seen him defend police executions, the suspect was unarmed. Plus, he’s opposed to California’s attempt to protect citizens from the police because it requires police to deem it “necessary” to use deadly force which he thinks is too stringent. This man is not safe. I don’t know where he lives, but I sincerely hope that he isn’t in my county because I would not want to be up against this guy. His notion, “Innocent people don’t run,” is fascist and horrifying. People like this man are why people want to run from the police. Cops are scary! They’re the only people (typically) that can get away with killing you no matter how young you are, no matter how unthreatening, and no matter how obviously unarmed. How can people possibly not understand why sane people of all races, but especially black people, are afraid of cops?

I don’t have the patience to address the above.

I usually really respect laziness, but I don’t respect intellectual laziness.

Warbler said:

I implore others to not just listen to Mfm, and actually watch the videos I linked to and then see what you think of Mike The Cop.

Yes, everyone, please do! It’s really boring, but you’ll see what I mean! It should make you want to reform our justice system even more.

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Mrebo said:

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

I don’t know that your second question makes too much sense. It’s sort of like asking whether I am a Constitutional absolutist. That Amendment states:

Let try to re-word it. You said you were not a “states rights absolutist”. Are situations where you are not absolutist in that regard, situations where we either

1. are dealing with a power delegated to Feds by the Constitution

and/or

2. are dealing with a power prohibited to the states by the Constitution

When you say you are not a “states rights absolutist”, you mean that you are not pro-states-rights in situations where the Constitution is not pro-states-rights, correct?

When I say I am not a “states rights absolutist” I mean the states don’t always win. Health insurance was an example.

It does not mean I think the federal government should exercise its authority to the maximum extent under the Constitution. There are areas where the federal government can act under the Constitution but I think should exercise restraint and instead respect state laws (eg marijuana).

How about medical marijuana?

The FDA should regulate that. In states where pot is legal it may not make much of a difference, but allow people in other states to have approved medication.

I’m not in favor of legalization and I never had an interest in the stuff. So my desire for the federal government to step back isn’t self-serving. It’s partly based on my view that the federal government is overstepping the bounds of its authority and partly on the view that there is value in states forging their own paths, especially where an activity is so broadly practiced with relatively little harm.

Okay, so the federal government can’t ban you from imbibing a substance, but the state can? Why is that any better? This is what I mean when I complain that states’ rights is bullshit when it’s all about the rights that states can deprive you of.

Because people disagree. In a democratic system that is a really important fact. If I had my way, pot wouldn’t be legal.

I really don’t care what your “way” is. You wanting a harmless, and often helpful substance outlawed because of your preference is totally irrational, unfair, and unAmerican. I don’t believe any state should have the right to outlaw marijuana.

You are ignoring the point. Feel whatever you want, that doesn’t make you right nor does it change the law.

That is the law at the federal level. So ask the people in the nine states where recreational use or 30 states where medical use is legal “how that is better.”

Well, they made the less totalitarian decision. If you live in a shithole that has it outlawed, then you’re not so lucky.

If it’s only a matter of luck…and not hard fought democratic change, your argument is totally senseless.

I get your impulse of wanting your policy preferences enacted everywhere. Who doesn’t want that? But of course that’s not how reality works. Where the federal government is the first and last stop, change is stifled. The constituencies of the various states have different views so let them make the laws they want. Granted you won’t like all choices in all states, but that is inevitable no matter what level of government choices are made.

I don’t believe that anyone has the right to decide what substances adults can ingest.

Cool.

As Jay said this isn’t difficult to understand. He and I both pointed out that national change has often happened because states had freedom to act.

You used slavery as a really bad example, I remember that. States wanting to legalize or outlaw slavery is what started the Civil War.

Slavery is a perfectly fine example of how state autonomy brought about the end of slavery. It’s only an extreme example because it necessitated war.

Another example was gay marriage. Another appears to be marijuana, a subject near and dear to you. It’s staring you right in the face why state autonomy is preferable to a national law that criminalizes it.

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Mrebo said:

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

I don’t know that your second question makes too much sense. It’s sort of like asking whether I am a Constitutional absolutist. That Amendment states:

Let try to re-word it. You said you were not a “states rights absolutist”. Are situations where you are not absolutist in that regard, situations where we either

1. are dealing with a power delegated to Feds by the Constitution

and/or

2. are dealing with a power prohibited to the states by the Constitution

When you say you are not a “states rights absolutist”, you mean that you are not pro-states-rights in situations where the Constitution is not pro-states-rights, correct?

When I say I am not a “states rights absolutist” I mean the states don’t always win. Health insurance was an example.

It does not mean I think the federal government should exercise its authority to the maximum extent under the Constitution. There are areas where the federal government can act under the Constitution but I think should exercise restraint and instead respect state laws (eg marijuana).

How about medical marijuana?

The FDA should regulate that. In states where pot is legal it may not make much of a difference, but allow people in other states to have approved medication.

I’m not in favor of legalization and I never had an interest in the stuff. So my desire for the federal government to step back isn’t self-serving. It’s partly based on my view that the federal government is overstepping the bounds of its authority and partly on the view that there is value in states forging their own paths, especially where an activity is so broadly practiced with relatively little harm.

Okay, so the federal government can’t ban you from imbibing a substance, but the state can? Why is that any better? This is what I mean when I complain that states’ rights is bullshit when it’s all about the rights that states can deprive you of.

Because people disagree. In a democratic system that is a really important fact. If I had my way, pot wouldn’t be legal. That is the law at the federal level. So ask the people in the nine states where recreational use or 30 states where medical use is legal “how that is better.”

I get your impulse of wanting your policy preferences enacted everywhere. Who doesn’t want that? But of course that’s not how reality works. Where the federal government is the first and last stop, change is stifled. The constituencies of the various states have different views so let them make the laws they want. Granted you won’t like all choices in all states, but that is inevitable no matter what level of government choices are made.

As Jay said this isn’t difficult to understand. He and I both pointed out that national change has often happened because states had freedom to act.

Nonetheless, the differences in state laws can cause inconveniences. Sometimes the state boundary lines can go right through a house, meaning that pot could be legal in on part of the house but illegal in another part.

There are well-established ways of dealing with many inconveniences. chyron’s mom could tell you about some of them. Sounds awfully convenient to have a “pot room” in your house if that’s your thing.

More surprises!

https://hotair.com/archives/2018/07/02/nyc-private-school-end-racial-segregation-policy-homerooms/

Warbler said:

I implore others to not just listen to Mfm, and actually watch the videos I linked to and then see what you think of Mike The Cop.

I’m sorry, but I agree with mfm here. I don’t have the time, and I really am not interested in being required to invest half and hour each to such videos. Additionally, if you don’t have a weapon, you shouldn’t be at risk of being shot. Period. Supreme Court ruling or no.

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Mrebo said:

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

I don’t know that your second question makes too much sense. It’s sort of like asking whether I am a Constitutional absolutist. That Amendment states:

Let try to re-word it. You said you were not a “states rights absolutist”. Are situations where you are not absolutist in that regard, situations where we either

1. are dealing with a power delegated to Feds by the Constitution

and/or

2. are dealing with a power prohibited to the states by the Constitution

When you say you are not a “states rights absolutist”, you mean that you are not pro-states-rights in situations where the Constitution is not pro-states-rights, correct?

When I say I am not a “states rights absolutist” I mean the states don’t always win. Health insurance was an example.

It does not mean I think the federal government should exercise its authority to the maximum extent under the Constitution. There are areas where the federal government can act under the Constitution but I think should exercise restraint and instead respect state laws (eg marijuana).

How about medical marijuana?

The FDA should regulate that. In states where pot is legal it may not make much of a difference, but allow people in other states to have approved medication.

I’m not in favor of legalization and I never had an interest in the stuff. So my desire for the federal government to step back isn’t self-serving. It’s partly based on my view that the federal government is overstepping the bounds of its authority and partly on the view that there is value in states forging their own paths, especially where an activity is so broadly practiced with relatively little harm.

Okay, so the federal government can’t ban you from imbibing a substance, but the state can? Why is that any better? This is what I mean when I complain that states’ rights is bullshit when it’s all about the rights that states can deprive you of.

Because people disagree. In a democratic system that is a really important fact. If I had my way, pot wouldn’t be legal. That is the law at the federal level. So ask the people in the nine states where recreational use or 30 states where medical use is legal “how that is better.”

I get your impulse of wanting your policy preferences enacted everywhere. Who doesn’t want that? But of course that’s not how reality works. Where the federal government is the first and last stop, change is stifled. The constituencies of the various states have different views so let them make the laws they want. Granted you won’t like all choices in all states, but that is inevitable no matter what level of government choices are made.

As Jay said this isn’t difficult to understand. He and I both pointed out that national change has often happened because states had freedom to act.

Nonetheless, the differences in state laws can cause inconveniences. Sometimes the state boundary lines can go right through a house, meaning that pot could be legal in on part of the house but illegal in another part.

Can you cite an actual example? That sounds awesome.

Yeah, Warbler sounds like a bong half empty kind of guy.

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:
As Jay said this isn’t difficult to understand. He and I both pointed out that national change has often happened because states had freedom to act.

You used slavery as a really bad example, I remember that. States wanting to legalize or outlaw slavery is what started the Civil War.

Slavery is a perfectly fine example of how state autonomy brought about the end of slavery. It’s only an extreme example because it necessitated war.

What necessitated the war was the state autonomy. Look up the Kansas-Nebraska Act.

Another example was gay marriage. Another appears to be marijuana, a subject near and dear to you. It’s staring you right in the face why state autonomy is preferable to a national law that criminalizes it.

Nothing is near and dear to me. State autonomy is better than a national law that criminalizes it, but if it’s not federally illegal, then fascist states criminalizing it are definitely not better.

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:
As Jay said this isn’t difficult to understand. He and I both pointed out that national change has often happened because states had freedom to act.

You used slavery as a really bad example, I remember that. States wanting to legalize or outlaw slavery is what started the Civil War.

Slavery is a perfectly fine example of how state autonomy brought about the end of slavery. It’s only an extreme example because it necessitated war.

What necessitated the war was the state autonomy. Look up the Kansas-Nebraska Act.

Usually the states rights justification is dismissed as a basis for the war. I think slavery was the reason. The fact that each state had autonomy and could foster moral opposition free from economic benefits allowed us to get to the point of demanding a national solution.

Another example was gay marriage. Another appears to be marijuana, a subject near and dear to you. It’s staring you right in the face why state autonomy is preferable to a national law that criminalizes it.

Nothing is near and dear to me. State autonomy is better than a national law that criminalizes it, but if it’s not federally illegal, then fascist states criminalizing it are definitely not better.

Well you live in a fascistic world I guess. Let me know if you have a solution to that.

.