Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: USA is one of the few countries with a L
Unfortunately, things like Social Security, Medicare, and many pension programs are run similar to a pyramid scheme. What the boomers paid /pay in is being spent on the older generation (I think they were the silent generation, but that could be incorrect). And being that they were a particularly large generation, they need an even larger generation to support them. And the amount of time they will need that support has increased with dropping mortality rates and rising life expectancy. Basically, more people living longer, combined with far less availability from younger family members to provide care and daily living support means a greater reliance on professional services. And while we haven't raided social security, it's just not growing fast enough; most public pensions have never been properly funded and are eating up local government budgets.
We aren't facing an imminent collapse, but we could reduce the strain by going the opposite direction that nitwit in the White House is taking us in terms of immigration. Gee, no surprise he's part of the Boomer generation ruining the American dream for the rest of us.
Thank you, that's the point I was making. Older generations panicking over the new things changing the way the younger generations live.
Biden doesn't understand how Facebook as a "news source" is fundamentally different than NBC or WaPo. TV and Newspapers only publish minimal, if any, content from their audience, like letters to the editor and viewer call-ins, which are often scrutinized by editors in advance. If Facebook was liable for everything users said then it would just cease to exist. And while some people love that idea, the truth is that is pretty damn selfish attitude. Don't like Facebook, don't use it, it's that simple.
And more to my point, I'm 38, have an almost 2 year old, and my mom is 58. My mom has shared a hoax about some new kind of poisonous spider killing people locally, random "missing persons" posts which have zero media coverage confirming any such person is missing, and has told me breastfeeding is gross and absolutely unnecessary after 6 weeks, that my concerns about walkers and old toys from before the nineties are perfectly safe for my daughter, they didn't kill me as a child after all, I shouldn't be so paranoid. I think it's clear who needs to learn how to vet their information sources. And my toddler can figure out how to exit and find the different apps for her on my phone, as well as open the camera app, switch to selfie mode and take pictures of herself (she much prefers books, and playing with toys, canned goods and my pots and pans, but sometimes she plays with my phone too) It won't be long before I'm struggling to keep up with her knowledge, and I will embrace the challenge.
Or, a person caught up in a cult. I'm not saying he isn't culpable for his actions, but psychologists are starting to weigh in on how Trump's following is rather cult like. I think it's a legitimate mitigating factor. And while I hold some skepticism, I think it's worth seeing if his claims can be substantiated, some of which have.
And I find it hilarious that he is going to keep putting out pictures and videos proving these people who deny knowing him are lying.
I don't think it's the children that need nearly as much instruction and guidance on the internet as their parents, and especially grandparents. As evidenced by this exact nonsense. Children have always embraced the new technology, activity, means of art or communication, and the parents have always thrown themselves into a full on moral panic because things were different when they were kids. Bicycles used to raise the ire of parents of girls because of the independence it gave the girls. Bicycles! And novels were thought to corrupt the children and drive them to suicide.
And I would put money on not a single presidential candidate being able articulate what 230 actually does and why it's a good thing.
Did anyone see Ted Lieu's letter to Nunes lawyer? Something along the lines of looking forward to discovery, or he can take the letter and shove it. Priceless.
Weren't you calling us, or specifically me, "losers" a few lines up? And just because you're insults in this comment weren't directed to a particular person doesn't make it any less the insulting commentary that you are whining about.
I can't help but crack up at adults who make negative claims about the younger generations. On one hand you have people claiming the kids are so much worse and dangerous today. Really, when hazing freshmen involved whipping them with paddles and different forms of public humiliation just a generation or two before mine. ( I'm 38, but considered a millennial; I reject that and call myself and those born before 1990 generation Y because we don't have the millennial experience). And because there are claims that kids are so bad nowadays, we stick cops in schools, even at elementary level. We create zero tolerance policies that don't allow for discretion when a little kid brings a knife to cut their birthday cake even when they hand it directly over to their teacher. Or a kid brings some Advil to school and keeps it in their bag instead of handing it over to the nurse like they are incapable of taking it without supervision. Kids can't even exclude a another kid, even if there is good reason, like the kid is a bully, because that makes them the bully and there is zero tolerance for that.
And then after we demand constant supervision, refuse to allow kids (or parents and teachers) some leeway for their own discretion, disallow them from making independent decisions, outlaw anything that one could imagine is some how dangerous or a distraction- like lip balm or sun block or butter knives, or open toed shoes, which have zero tolerance consequences, and then we claim these younger generations are just snowflakes with no sense of the real world. Which is it? Are they dangerous thugs or helpless babies?
And let's not forget how expectations of parents have changed. When stay at home moms began entering the workforce and divorce became more acceptable, we started trying to frighten them into the traditional roles with stranger danger; you couldn't take your eye of your children for even a second because killers were lurking around every corner. But don't dare think it's ok to collect welfare so that you can provide your kids with proper supervision. Stay in an abusive marriage for the kids, but your a bad mother for letting those kids witness or experience the abuse. Whenever a kid gets in trouble, we all want to know where were the parents, the parents don't pay any attention and leave kids to be babysat by the TV. Then it's oh no, the parents are hovering of their kids and coddling them from the real world. Make up your mind. .
That's not how Techdirt's comment policy works, and you aren't being good spirited. But you are right that I should not attack the person, but rather the ideas. I apologise for the name calling. However, your ideas are moronic and cast the obviously corrupt police system in an undeserved heroic light. You are advocating for the permanent psychological damage of a child by forcing her to face the consequences designed for adults who commit crimes which actually hurt another person, all because she exercised her first amendment right in a way that you don't like. And you repeatedly argue that this is not just an acceptable way to treat a child, but that it's the appropriate way to treat a child, supporting your argument with a claim that abusive authority figures didn't do you any permanent harm and in fact, straightened you out. That's not just a poor argument, but it's statistically unsupported. Having a master's degree or a doctorate doesn't make your argument any less moronic. And advocating for the full power of the state, the militarized police, to swoop in and arrest a child for what amounts to speech you don't like and finger pointing is the kind of thing a bootlicker says.
There are effective ways to respond to questionable behavior, or even violent behavior, in children that don't include bringing armed guards to terrorize them. As a 30+ year old adult I had to present myself to be arrested and wasn't handcuffed nor did I have to wait in a holding cell; that experience was so frightening and upsetting that a significant amount of my hair started coming in grey. (Long story short, I went to the police for help, instead of investigating my complaint they interrogated me and coerced me into saying I lied. I didn't do anything wrong, the only lie I told was the one they coerced me into. I fought back and got the prosecutor to drop the case) I can't imagine what that would have done to me as a child. And for the adults that I trusted to simply wash their hands of me, that would have easily triggered a lot of self destructive behavior. I don't know if this girl is a goodie goodie like I was, or a defiant troublemaker. But girls and boys are socialized differently; boys will be boys, but girls who violate social norms are marked forever.
I would agree that it was just a shade darker than typical twisted talk of preteens if she didn't supposedly end it with herself, that's what I find worrying. Otherwise, a simple conversation with the child to explain that such games can be frightening to other kids and misconstrued as threatening by others not in on the game would be sufficient. And I don't see any harm in the adults taking a moment to check in the girl and give her an ear or a shoulder if she needs it. Those preteen and early teen years are tough.
Oh, and those damn school resource officers need to go. They are just cops by another name and like dog shit, stink just the same.
So this is your excuse for being a bootlicker?
You think good things come from being frightened and abused by authority? That kids learn positive lessons from juvenile detention centers and therefore many never return? That this child will think the teachers, principal, and other staff give a shit about her interests and she should trust them if she feels she is in crisis? You are a moron. And a bootlicker.
I read that she ended her "hit list" with herself. We can only pray that her parents get her help to cope with her feelings and whatever gave her reason to put those kids on a hit list, and then change her school. Arresting and charging this girl is only going to make her more likely to act out violently, whether it's towards others or herself. She needed compassion and she got handcuffs. It's plain wrong.
Re: Re: Re: 'Hello, police? I'd like someone to be killed.'
I'm a white middle class, almost middle aged mom and the only way I'm ever calling or cooperating with the police is if I am in a car accident, because insurance requires a police report, or I am a victim or witness of violent crime and have confidence that catching the perpetrator will prevent someone else's suffering, and it's likely they will be caught.
Cops don't give a shit about victims or solving crimes that require any effort or risk unless they will personally benefit. From a number of personal experiences, cops are quite happy to threaten victims with arrest and criminal charges instead of actually helping them. And that's if you're white, we've seen the horrific videos of black women being tased and violently attacked when trying to get help. And I have seen a racist cop treat a black gentleman who had valuable information like garbage and nuisance while collecting my unhelpful statement politely.
There is no war on cops; and though I believe in the non-aggression principle, I would understand if there was. Cops choose to escalate situations, put themselves into more risky situations where they must make these split second decisions instead maintaining safe positions- such as inside or shielded by their car doors until they can get a better assessment or more back up. (Seriously, why would you get out of your cop car if a naked man is running towards you and you can't clearly see his hands? Why make a an aggressive physical arrest of a man you think is armed instead of making commands to disarm him safely behind your car door? Those are dumb things to do and they shouldn't be getting a pass for stupidity that resulted in killing another person)
Maybe if cops actually assumed everyone was armed and competent in using their firearm, they might actually treat people with a little respect and dignity so no one would feel the urge to shoot them in their face. But regardless of the number of guns in the US, most people are not armed, and even the violent criminals that are armed have zero interest in shooting a cop because of the blue rage. Cop killers don't get away, well unless they are other cops.
I'm a libertarian, so my trust in the government is very, very limited. So I try to look at every situation with logic, and try to figure out the most likely motivation of the different actors.
Sure, it could be a partisan attack. However, there is no indication that the evidence supporting the whistleblower has been manufactured or tainted by partisan operatives.
The CIA specialty is keeping secrets, so for a member to bring a matter to the public's attention is kinda a big deal. Because the CIA has missions all over the world, with a significant amount of resources devoted to watching and countering the Russians, another motivation could be out of concern for operations in Ukraine that would be harmed if the aid they need to keep the Russians at Bay is delayed too long. Russia is already sitting right outside their capital's door in territory they illegally annexed. If Russia detected a weakness and invaded, CIA operatives would be captured. Hearing the president make a clearly politically motivated demand of a nation that needs the US, combined with the surrounding circumstances of an arbitrary hold placed on aid that Congress has appropriated and has met the conditions to be released, that puts dedicated missions at risk is a much more likely motivation. The CIA being motivated out of concern for themselves and their secret missions seems like a stronger motivation than just partisan drive; who knows what their afraid could be revealed by operatives caught by Russia.
Here's the thing. The oligarch behind Burisma might have thought that by bringing Hunter Biden on that it would garner favor from Joe Biden; after all, it's not a stretch to think other rich and powerful people are corrupt like you. However, that doesn't mean that Joe Biden was influenced in any way by his son's connection. Given the amount of time Biden has been in politics, he probably knew better than to caught up in such obvious corruption. I'm not saying Biden isn't possibly corrupt, I'm just saying that if he is, it's going to take some deeper digging to find.
Similarly, Russians could have been seeking connections and potential favor with people in Trump's circle (they did) without making any meaningful arrangements or without any of their targets knowing they were compromised. Because Trump is inexperienced and willfully ignorant and chooses to surround himself with questionable people, it's reasonable to investigate to ensure foreign powers like Russia haven't compromised the president.
And stop the bullshit claims that the impeachment is over a single phone call. There were months of unethical and illegal actions directed by the president which laid out the quid pro quo before Trump would even agree to have that phone conversation. Ukraine needs all the support it can get to ward off Russia, so they aren't going to dare cross Trump. They have already felt the pain of Trump's power by his illegal usurpation of Congressional power of the purse, and God knows what evidence Trump will demand they produce and under what kind of threat.
"How do you expect....protect you and your family" blah blah blah. I don't expect you to protect us, as you have made abundantly clear that you are under no obligation to protect us.
"How do you explain to a victim..." How about you demonstrate that you give one iota of shit about victims and ensure that no police department gets away with shoving rape kits the closet to collect dust and run out the statute of limitations.
And that nonsense about letting your children mingle with strange adults who might groom them... For just a second, let's be real. Who are the people who, statistically, are the most likely to hurt and victimize children? Not strangers! Aside from parents, it's the familiar adults that parents know and trust, like church leaders, coaches, counselors, other family members, friends, scout leaders, teachers and even doctors. I'm not saying that strangers don't find ways to groom children, but statistically, it's the people that kids are supposed to trust and respect and obey.
Law enforcement needs to get a legislative overhaul that gives it priorities. Decriminalize drugs, prostitution and whatever else consenting adults want to do that doesn't harm anyone else. Legalize all immigration, except anyone with a credible history of violence, so that no one is forced to work under the table-. And I know most people disagree with this but, decriminalize possession of child porn, and refocus efforts to crushing it's production. Production is where children are harmed, and without prohibition of possession, the value of production drops. When law enforcement's goals become bringing justice to victims, including victims of law enforcement, and they dump all the junk science bullshit, we could have this nonsense conversation about encryption again.
In theory this is not a bad idea. Too bad there's no way to force the payment center to apply your payment towards the fine portion only and not all the other crap. And the penalty is effectively against the vehicle registration, not your driver's license, but I can only assume they would decide entitles them to seize the car for it's debt.
Don't be an ass. Some people are jerks and drive recklessly. But not most or even many. It's one thing for the cops to pull over someone driving aggressively and quite another to harass and shake down drivers with speed traps ticket machines. No one is made any safer, and there are studies showing these things can actually increase the likely hood of accidents.
Did you know cops and road crews screw around with the timers and set them so that they don't give enough stopping time specifically to increase violations? And sometimes they even mess around the timers of multiple lights in order to frustrate drivers and increase the likely hood of running red lights and speeding further along that route that falls in within city limits. Like Newark, or Newport or Elsemere.
It's purely a "civil" offence. I'm a Delawarian. If you don't pay then they block renewing the registration of the "offending" vehicle, until the car's fine is paid. And while the cops can pull you over for an expired registration, they can't arrest you for it.
I got one of these a few years ago in my mom's car and my boyfriend just got one a few days ago. It's sort of like how asset forfeiture is filed against the actual asset, and the only purpose is to make money for the state. They do allow for you to try to put the liability on the actual driver, but who is going to turn over their spouse or significant other? No one that doesn't want to sleep on the couch for a month, and chances are it's shared money that's going to pay it anyway.
Anyone remember the asset forfeiture database for New York (city or state, can't remember which) where just a basic query would freeze the entire $6 million dollar system? And tracking potentially the only physical evidence of violent rape collected in a special kit proved impossible for many police departments. We're talking about the incredibly basic process of keeping inventory, which could even be outsourced to a private company for a reasonable price, is fucked up in station after station after station.
And now we think police can and will use some sort of human resources software, or hell, enter relevant information on a spreadsheet, and manage to share that spreadsheet regularly by, say, attaching it to an email? This isn't television folks! CSI has warped your expectations of what the cops are actually capable of.
Cops and their unions will never allow this data to be collected because they don't ever believe they have done anything wrong to document. They want to keep pretending that that all cops are heroes doing the most dangerous job in the nation, practically for free, being unfairly maligned because of some whiney criminals and those terrorist at the ACLU.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, Lood Gord! You've no problem denying 2A righ
I agree with everything you said. The problem is people want a solution, and explanations of why all the proposed solutions won't work seems to go ignored. Or labeled as fatalist.
People are scared. Unfortunately, their more afraid of the random, lone wolf, individual attackers over the highly organized, fortified, armed thugs with badges. Of course, people are far more afraid of strangers lurking in the bushes than the people we know and trust that are far more likely to perpetrate a crime against us.
I think we do need more mental health care, but not by force or with dystopian technology. We need more counselors, with community ties, who people can reach out to, and that can reach out to not only offer their services, but also help people connect with what they need, be it a job, opportunities for social interaction, or even hobbies to take interest in. Basically ways to connect troubled people with outlets to focus their energy and relieve some of the conditions that drive them to violence. And people with disabling mental illness need access to safe places to sleep and eat that aren't forced institutionalization, with advocates and lawyers so they aren't being warehoused in jails for being a nuisance. But I don't know if anyone could build a business off such things without turning into the bloated dysfunctional government mess we already have.
On the post: Utah State Rep Unveils Bill To Force Porn To Come With A Warning Label
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: USA is one of the few countries with a L
Unfortunately, things like Social Security, Medicare, and many pension programs are run similar to a pyramid scheme. What the boomers paid /pay in is being spent on the older generation (I think they were the silent generation, but that could be incorrect). And being that they were a particularly large generation, they need an even larger generation to support them. And the amount of time they will need that support has increased with dropping mortality rates and rising life expectancy. Basically, more people living longer, combined with far less availability from younger family members to provide care and daily living support means a greater reliance on professional services. And while we haven't raided social security, it's just not growing fast enough; most public pensions have never been properly funded and are eating up local government budgets.
We aren't facing an imminent collapse, but we could reduce the strain by going the opposite direction that nitwit in the White House is taking us in terms of immigration. Gee, no surprise he's part of the Boomer generation ruining the American dream for the rest of us.
On the post: Joe Biden Can't Tell The Difference Between The 1st Amendment & Section 230; Still Thinks Video Games Cause Violence
Re: Re: Re: Who needs to teach whom?
Thank you, that's the point I was making. Older generations panicking over the new things changing the way the younger generations live.
Biden doesn't understand how Facebook as a "news source" is fundamentally different than NBC or WaPo. TV and Newspapers only publish minimal, if any, content from their audience, like letters to the editor and viewer call-ins, which are often scrutinized by editors in advance. If Facebook was liable for everything users said then it would just cease to exist. And while some people love that idea, the truth is that is pretty damn selfish attitude. Don't like Facebook, don't use it, it's that simple.
And more to my point, I'm 38, have an almost 2 year old, and my mom is 58. My mom has shared a hoax about some new kind of poisonous spider killing people locally, random "missing persons" posts which have zero media coverage confirming any such person is missing, and has told me breastfeeding is gross and absolutely unnecessary after 6 weeks, that my concerns about walkers and old toys from before the nineties are perfectly safe for my daughter, they didn't kill me as a child after all, I shouldn't be so paranoid. I think it's clear who needs to learn how to vet their information sources. And my toddler can figure out how to exit and find the different apps for her on my phone, as well as open the camera app, switch to selfie mode and take pictures of herself (she much prefers books, and playing with toys, canned goods and my pots and pans, but sometimes she plays with my phone too) It won't be long before I'm struggling to keep up with her knowledge, and I will embrace the challenge.
On the post: Rep. Lieu Tells Rep. Nunes He Looks Forward To Discovery, As More Evidence Of Nunes Connections With Parnas Emerge
Re:
Or, a person caught up in a cult. I'm not saying he isn't culpable for his actions, but psychologists are starting to weigh in on how Trump's following is rather cult like. I think it's a legitimate mitigating factor. And while I hold some skepticism, I think it's worth seeing if his claims can be substantiated, some of which have.
And I find it hilarious that he is going to keep putting out pictures and videos proving these people who deny knowing him are lying.
On the post: Joe Biden Can't Tell The Difference Between The 1st Amendment & Section 230; Still Thinks Video Games Cause Violence
Who needs to teach whom?
I don't think it's the children that need nearly as much instruction and guidance on the internet as their parents, and especially grandparents. As evidenced by this exact nonsense. Children have always embraced the new technology, activity, means of art or communication, and the parents have always thrown themselves into a full on moral panic because things were different when they were kids. Bicycles used to raise the ire of parents of girls because of the independence it gave the girls. Bicycles! And novels were thought to corrupt the children and drive them to suicide.
And I would put money on not a single presidential candidate being able articulate what 230 actually does and why it's a good thing.
On the post: Rep. Devin Nunes Now Threatening To Sue Fellow Congressional Reps
Shove it
Did anyone see Ted Lieu's letter to Nunes lawyer? Something along the lines of looking forward to discovery, or he can take the letter and shove it. Priceless.
On the post: Cops Arrest 12-Year-Old For Pointing 'Finger Guns' At Classmates
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Weren't you calling us, or specifically me, "losers" a few lines up? And just because you're insults in this comment weren't directed to a particular person doesn't make it any less the insulting commentary that you are whining about.
On the post: Cops Arrest 12-Year-Old For Pointing 'Finger Guns' At Classmates
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I can't help but crack up at adults who make negative claims about the younger generations. On one hand you have people claiming the kids are so much worse and dangerous today. Really, when hazing freshmen involved whipping them with paddles and different forms of public humiliation just a generation or two before mine. ( I'm 38, but considered a millennial; I reject that and call myself and those born before 1990 generation Y because we don't have the millennial experience). And because there are claims that kids are so bad nowadays, we stick cops in schools, even at elementary level. We create zero tolerance policies that don't allow for discretion when a little kid brings a knife to cut their birthday cake even when they hand it directly over to their teacher. Or a kid brings some Advil to school and keeps it in their bag instead of handing it over to the nurse like they are incapable of taking it without supervision. Kids can't even exclude a another kid, even if there is good reason, like the kid is a bully, because that makes them the bully and there is zero tolerance for that.
And then after we demand constant supervision, refuse to allow kids (or parents and teachers) some leeway for their own discretion, disallow them from making independent decisions, outlaw anything that one could imagine is some how dangerous or a distraction- like lip balm or sun block or butter knives, or open toed shoes, which have zero tolerance consequences, and then we claim these younger generations are just snowflakes with no sense of the real world. Which is it? Are they dangerous thugs or helpless babies?
And let's not forget how expectations of parents have changed. When stay at home moms began entering the workforce and divorce became more acceptable, we started trying to frighten them into the traditional roles with stranger danger; you couldn't take your eye of your children for even a second because killers were lurking around every corner. But don't dare think it's ok to collect welfare so that you can provide your kids with proper supervision. Stay in an abusive marriage for the kids, but your a bad mother for letting those kids witness or experience the abuse. Whenever a kid gets in trouble, we all want to know where were the parents, the parents don't pay any attention and leave kids to be babysat by the TV. Then it's oh no, the parents are hovering of their kids and coddling them from the real world. Make up your mind. .
On the post: Cops Arrest 12-Year-Old For Pointing 'Finger Guns' At Classmates
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's not how Techdirt's comment policy works, and you aren't being good spirited. But you are right that I should not attack the person, but rather the ideas. I apologise for the name calling. However, your ideas are moronic and cast the obviously corrupt police system in an undeserved heroic light. You are advocating for the permanent psychological damage of a child by forcing her to face the consequences designed for adults who commit crimes which actually hurt another person, all because she exercised her first amendment right in a way that you don't like. And you repeatedly argue that this is not just an acceptable way to treat a child, but that it's the appropriate way to treat a child, supporting your argument with a claim that abusive authority figures didn't do you any permanent harm and in fact, straightened you out. That's not just a poor argument, but it's statistically unsupported. Having a master's degree or a doctorate doesn't make your argument any less moronic. And advocating for the full power of the state, the militarized police, to swoop in and arrest a child for what amounts to speech you don't like and finger pointing is the kind of thing a bootlicker says.
There are effective ways to respond to questionable behavior, or even violent behavior, in children that don't include bringing armed guards to terrorize them. As a 30+ year old adult I had to present myself to be arrested and wasn't handcuffed nor did I have to wait in a holding cell; that experience was so frightening and upsetting that a significant amount of my hair started coming in grey. (Long story short, I went to the police for help, instead of investigating my complaint they interrogated me and coerced me into saying I lied. I didn't do anything wrong, the only lie I told was the one they coerced me into. I fought back and got the prosecutor to drop the case) I can't imagine what that would have done to me as a child. And for the adults that I trusted to simply wash their hands of me, that would have easily triggered a lot of self destructive behavior. I don't know if this girl is a goodie goodie like I was, or a defiant troublemaker. But girls and boys are socialized differently; boys will be boys, but girls who violate social norms are marked forever.
On the post: Cops Arrest 12-Year-Old For Pointing 'Finger Guns' At Classmates
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I would agree that it was just a shade darker than typical twisted talk of preteens if she didn't supposedly end it with herself, that's what I find worrying. Otherwise, a simple conversation with the child to explain that such games can be frightening to other kids and misconstrued as threatening by others not in on the game would be sufficient. And I don't see any harm in the adults taking a moment to check in the girl and give her an ear or a shoulder if she needs it. Those preteen and early teen years are tough.
Oh, and those damn school resource officers need to go. They are just cops by another name and like dog shit, stink just the same.
On the post: Cops Arrest 12-Year-Old For Pointing 'Finger Guns' At Classmates
Re: Re:
So this is your excuse for being a bootlicker?
You think good things come from being frightened and abused by authority? That kids learn positive lessons from juvenile detention centers and therefore many never return? That this child will think the teachers, principal, and other staff give a shit about her interests and she should trust them if she feels she is in crisis? You are a moron. And a bootlicker.
On the post: Cops Arrest 12-Year-Old For Pointing 'Finger Guns' At Classmates
Re: Re:
I read that she ended her "hit list" with herself. We can only pray that her parents get her help to cope with her feelings and whatever gave her reason to put those kids on a hit list, and then change her school. Arresting and charging this girl is only going to make her more likely to act out violently, whether it's towards others or herself. She needed compassion and she got handcuffs. It's plain wrong.
On the post: Cop Peforming A Welfare Check Kills Woman By Shooting Her Through Her Own Backyard Window
Re: Re: Re: 'Hello, police? I'd like someone to be killed.'
I'm a white middle class, almost middle aged mom and the only way I'm ever calling or cooperating with the police is if I am in a car accident, because insurance requires a police report, or I am a victim or witness of violent crime and have confidence that catching the perpetrator will prevent someone else's suffering, and it's likely they will be caught.
Cops don't give a shit about victims or solving crimes that require any effort or risk unless they will personally benefit. From a number of personal experiences, cops are quite happy to threaten victims with arrest and criminal charges instead of actually helping them. And that's if you're white, we've seen the horrific videos of black women being tased and violently attacked when trying to get help. And I have seen a racist cop treat a black gentleman who had valuable information like garbage and nuisance while collecting my unhelpful statement politely.
There is no war on cops; and though I believe in the non-aggression principle, I would understand if there was. Cops choose to escalate situations, put themselves into more risky situations where they must make these split second decisions instead maintaining safe positions- such as inside or shielded by their car doors until they can get a better assessment or more back up. (Seriously, why would you get out of your cop car if a naked man is running towards you and you can't clearly see his hands? Why make a an aggressive physical arrest of a man you think is armed instead of making commands to disarm him safely behind your car door? Those are dumb things to do and they shouldn't be getting a pass for stupidity that resulted in killing another person)
Maybe if cops actually assumed everyone was armed and competent in using their firearm, they might actually treat people with a little respect and dignity so no one would feel the urge to shoot them in their face. But regardless of the number of guns in the US, most people are not armed, and even the violent criminals that are armed have zero interest in shooting a cop because of the blue rage. Cop killers don't get away, well unless they are other cops.
On the post: DOJ And DNI's Attempt To Bury Whistleblower Report Yet Another Indication Of The Official Channels' Uselessness
Re: Re: Re: Democrat collusion
I'm a libertarian, so my trust in the government is very, very limited. So I try to look at every situation with logic, and try to figure out the most likely motivation of the different actors.
Sure, it could be a partisan attack. However, there is no indication that the evidence supporting the whistleblower has been manufactured or tainted by partisan operatives.
The CIA specialty is keeping secrets, so for a member to bring a matter to the public's attention is kinda a big deal. Because the CIA has missions all over the world, with a significant amount of resources devoted to watching and countering the Russians, another motivation could be out of concern for operations in Ukraine that would be harmed if the aid they need to keep the Russians at Bay is delayed too long. Russia is already sitting right outside their capital's door in territory they illegally annexed. If Russia detected a weakness and invaded, CIA operatives would be captured. Hearing the president make a clearly politically motivated demand of a nation that needs the US, combined with the surrounding circumstances of an arbitrary hold placed on aid that Congress has appropriated and has met the conditions to be released, that puts dedicated missions at risk is a much more likely motivation. The CIA being motivated out of concern for themselves and their secret missions seems like a stronger motivation than just partisan drive; who knows what their afraid could be revealed by operatives caught by Russia.
On the post: DOJ And DNI's Attempt To Bury Whistleblower Report Yet Another Indication Of The Official Channels' Uselessness
Re: Re:
Here's the thing. The oligarch behind Burisma might have thought that by bringing Hunter Biden on that it would garner favor from Joe Biden; after all, it's not a stretch to think other rich and powerful people are corrupt like you. However, that doesn't mean that Joe Biden was influenced in any way by his son's connection. Given the amount of time Biden has been in politics, he probably knew better than to caught up in such obvious corruption. I'm not saying Biden isn't possibly corrupt, I'm just saying that if he is, it's going to take some deeper digging to find.
Similarly, Russians could have been seeking connections and potential favor with people in Trump's circle (they did) without making any meaningful arrangements or without any of their targets knowing they were compromised. Because Trump is inexperienced and willfully ignorant and chooses to surround himself with questionable people, it's reasonable to investigate to ensure foreign powers like Russia haven't compromised the president.
And stop the bullshit claims that the impeachment is over a single phone call. There were months of unethical and illegal actions directed by the president which laid out the quid pro quo before Trump would even agree to have that phone conversation. Ukraine needs all the support it can get to ward off Russia, so they aren't going to dare cross Trump. They have already felt the pain of Trump's power by his illegal usurpation of Congressional power of the purse, and God knows what evidence Trump will demand they produce and under what kind of threat.
On the post: FBI Director Deploys Straw Men While Calling For The End Of Straw Men Arguments In The Encryption War
"How do you expect....protect you and your family" blah blah blah. I don't expect you to protect us, as you have made abundantly clear that you are under no obligation to protect us.
"How do you explain to a victim..." How about you demonstrate that you give one iota of shit about victims and ensure that no police department gets away with shoving rape kits the closet to collect dust and run out the statute of limitations.
And that nonsense about letting your children mingle with strange adults who might groom them... For just a second, let's be real. Who are the people who, statistically, are the most likely to hurt and victimize children? Not strangers! Aside from parents, it's the familiar adults that parents know and trust, like church leaders, coaches, counselors, other family members, friends, scout leaders, teachers and even doctors. I'm not saying that strangers don't find ways to groom children, but statistically, it's the people that kids are supposed to trust and respect and obey.
Law enforcement needs to get a legislative overhaul that gives it priorities. Decriminalize drugs, prostitution and whatever else consenting adults want to do that doesn't harm anyone else. Legalize all immigration, except anyone with a credible history of violence, so that no one is forced to work under the table-. And I know most people disagree with this but, decriminalize possession of child porn, and refocus efforts to crushing it's production. Production is where children are harmed, and without prohibition of possession, the value of production drops. When law enforcement's goals become bringing justice to victims, including victims of law enforcement, and they dump all the junk science bullshit, we could have this nonsense conversation about encryption again.
On the post: Court Tells Man $172 Red Light Camera Ticket Is Actually Less Than $100 And Can't Be Challenged In Court
Re:
In theory this is not a bad idea. Too bad there's no way to force the payment center to apply your payment towards the fine portion only and not all the other crap. And the penalty is effectively against the vehicle registration, not your driver's license, but I can only assume they would decide entitles them to seize the car for it's debt.
On the post: Court Tells Man $172 Red Light Camera Ticket Is Actually Less Than $100 And Can't Be Challenged In Court
Re:
Don't be an ass. Some people are jerks and drive recklessly. But not most or even many. It's one thing for the cops to pull over someone driving aggressively and quite another to harass and shake down drivers with speed traps ticket machines. No one is made any safer, and there are studies showing these things can actually increase the likely hood of accidents.
Did you know cops and road crews screw around with the timers and set them so that they don't give enough stopping time specifically to increase violations? And sometimes they even mess around the timers of multiple lights in order to frustrate drivers and increase the likely hood of running red lights and speeding further along that route that falls in within city limits. Like Newark, or Newport or Elsemere.
On the post: Court Tells Man $172 Red Light Camera Ticket Is Actually Less Than $100 And Can't Be Challenged In Court
Re: Re: Two can play that game
It's purely a "civil" offence. I'm a Delawarian. If you don't pay then they block renewing the registration of the "offending" vehicle, until the car's fine is paid. And while the cops can pull you over for an expired registration, they can't arrest you for it.
I got one of these a few years ago in my mom's car and my boyfriend just got one a few days ago. It's sort of like how asset forfeiture is filed against the actual asset, and the only purpose is to make money for the state. They do allow for you to try to put the liability on the actual driver, but who is going to turn over their spouse or significant other? No one that doesn't want to sleep on the couch for a month, and chances are it's shared money that's going to pay it anyway.
On the post: Police Use Of Force Data Remains A Mess And The FBI's Involvement Isn't Making Anything Any Better
Typical SOP
Anyone remember the asset forfeiture database for New York (city or state, can't remember which) where just a basic query would freeze the entire $6 million dollar system? And tracking potentially the only physical evidence of violent rape collected in a special kit proved impossible for many police departments. We're talking about the incredibly basic process of keeping inventory, which could even be outsourced to a private company for a reasonable price, is fucked up in station after station after station.
And now we think police can and will use some sort of human resources software, or hell, enter relevant information on a spreadsheet, and manage to share that spreadsheet regularly by, say, attaching it to an email? This isn't television folks! CSI has warped your expectations of what the cops are actually capable of.
Cops and their unions will never allow this data to be collected because they don't ever believe they have done anything wrong to document. They want to keep pretending that that all cops are heroes doing the most dangerous job in the nation, practically for free, being unfairly maligned because of some whiney criminals and those terrorist at the ACLU.
On the post: White House Pushing Proposal That Would Subject Mentally Ill People To Increased Surveillance
Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, Lood Gord! You've no problem denying 2A righ
I agree with everything you said. The problem is people want a solution, and explanations of why all the proposed solutions won't work seems to go ignored. Or labeled as fatalist.
People are scared. Unfortunately, their more afraid of the random, lone wolf, individual attackers over the highly organized, fortified, armed thugs with badges. Of course, people are far more afraid of strangers lurking in the bushes than the people we know and trust that are far more likely to perpetrate a crime against us.
I think we do need more mental health care, but not by force or with dystopian technology. We need more counselors, with community ties, who people can reach out to, and that can reach out to not only offer their services, but also help people connect with what they need, be it a job, opportunities for social interaction, or even hobbies to take interest in. Basically ways to connect troubled people with outlets to focus their energy and relieve some of the conditions that drive them to violence. And people with disabling mental illness need access to safe places to sleep and eat that aren't forced institutionalization, with advocates and lawyers so they aren't being warehoused in jails for being a nuisance. But I don't know if anyone could build a business off such things without turning into the bloated dysfunctional government mess we already have.
Next >>