Thanks for the tip pedo-boy. You might likewise want to avoid having your fondness for fondling little kids become public in, say, prison. Chances are they'll find out anyway, but the longer you can keep it a secret the less damage your asshole will take.
That people should have the right to yell FIRE! in a theater ?
You DO have that right. Whether or not it's criminal depends entirely on the context. The only time such speech is restricted is when it's both false, malicious, and likely to cause immediate harm. If there's an actual fire, you can yell fire. If you're on actor on stage and have to yell fire as part of the performance, you can yell fire. If you make it obvious to everyone that you're joking, you can yell fire. If you see smoke and assume that there's a fire, but there isn't, you can yell fire.
This is why it's a shit analogy for "hate speech". The vast majority of what people classify under that label fails at least one of the required criteria, if not all of them. The only time that "hate speech" really isn't protected as free speech is when it involves a direct, immediate call to action. As in "Look over there, its a $slur! Go fuck him up!".
Yes. With a great degree of certainty prior to your response, and with 100% certainty now that you've confirmed it.
Fortunately the US judicial system doesn't agree with you, and has confirmed that continuing to beat a drunk and subdued man is a violation of due process
Wrong. Your quote does not say what they were actually convicted of, so its entirely irrelevant to the point you're trying to make. The page you stole it from, however, does; to summarize, the judge in the case found that the first minute and a half of them beating him was perfectly fine and within the law, including the facial fractures, the broken leg bone, and all of the substantive harm caused to him. None of that violated any of his rights. The judge then went on to rule that the last 4-6 times that they struck him was excessive and unnecessary.
To call this a violation of due processes is idiotic. To convict 2 officers to 3 years in jail for continuing a 2 minute long altercation for 6 seconds longer than a judge subjectively decided was reasonable is a gross miscarriage of justice. And certainly none of that means that the scumbag they were trying to arrest deserved a 3 million dollar reward.
Yes, King was a piece of shit that needed brought to justice. No, this does not give police the right to deny due process and beat senseless someone that annoys them. At least not in the USA.
Again, wrong. Ignoring your asinine mischaracterization of an actively resisting criminal as "someone who annoys then", the judge in the case found that (as detailed in my last paragraph) beating him senseless was within the scope of the law. Where they erred was in striking him 4-6 times AFTER the judge "determined" that he was already senseless.
That last one is just plain wrong, borne of racist arrogance, stupidity, or both. And it fits right in with your racist comments in this thread.
Oh noes. A pedophile thinks I'm racist. Whatever shall I do.
In municipal elections? Be serious. Voter turnout is dismal, especially in large cities, and issues like these don't even make it onto the voters radar. The negative publicity around these events can occasionally damage political aspirations; the fines never do.
As far as a perpetrator resisting arrest and all that, the last time I checked, "Innocent until proven guilty" is a thing in this country, and it should serve to equally protect all: white, black, brown, and yellow.
Of course. But if you think that the presumption of innocence gives you the right to resist arrest... you are badly confused.
We don't justify skimping on due process for anyone, for obvious reasons. Ever. Even if it results in a miscarriage of justice from time to time.
The way due process works: you see police lights in your reaeview mirrror, so you pull over to the side of the road. The police question you. They then tell you to put your arms behind your back because you are under arrest. You do so. You are taken to jail and charged. You are given a fair trial in front of a jury of your peers.
The way due process does not work: you drive your car at 130 km/h through residential speeds in an attempt to escape police cars and helicopters, because you're drunk and you don't want to go back to jail. When they finally corner you, you refuse to get out of the car. One you finally get out you laugh, act like a maniac, and generally do things which indicate that you're a danger to others. When they attempt to arrest you, you fight with them. They beat you silly because they have no better way to affect an arrest. You then whine about being a poor innocent victim, and a bunch of retards riot.
I'm not sure what part of "due process" you think was violated in the King case, but I know that you're wrong.
But the FTC can't do much more than force Verizon to clarify "Unlimited".
Which is all that's required. This whole thing seems to have been caused bt the fire departments chief IT guy presentung this plan as "totally unlimited" to the actual firefighters. If, instead, he had said "I got you this plan which is super fast for 25 gigabytes and then slow as balls afterwards", it's unlikely that anyone else would have signed off on it... and if they did, they would only have themselves to blame.
Remove the ambiguity about what "unlimited" means and people can make properly informed decisions.
It's common knowledge the plan they had specifically included a clause for no throttling in emergencies.
No, it's not. It seems to be a common assumption, but an assumption is not knowledge. Insofar as any of the articles have discussed this, none of them have stated that this was part of any contract. From what I can gather Verizon just has an internal policy that directs employees to lift throttling restrictions if/when emergency personnel call in and tell them that they need data for emergency use. It's not a contractual requirement, it's a "we're trying to be decent human beings" policy.
Now, since you seem so self-certain about your "common knowledge", I'm sure you'll be able to link to the relevant contract and quote the section in question, right?
So, if two companies offered unlimited data service, but one offer was $2 cheaper, then that would be chosen (or the office may be sued by the company who offered the cheaper service).
That would be true if the service was actually the same, but they never are. You can put all of your requirements in the bid request. Typically you would define the speeds you expect, the service availability, the total amount of data needed per month, etc. Just because two different companies both market their plans as "unlimited" doesn't mean that both of them can actually deliver all of what you require.
Of course I don't really think they'll go for that... because it turns out that those body cameras sometimes end up being used in court to justify the actions of the police against bad actors. There's been a handful of incidents where someone get's pulled over by the cops, make up a wild story after the fact about police brutality, only to have their claim completely disproves when the body camera footage is released.
They don't see it that way generally because body cams do correlate with a decrease in accusations of police misconduct, so most of the people complaining about the cops still want them.
It's funny watching their spin on it though. The decrease in accusations against police is spun as "See they work! Cops don't commit as much crime when they're being watched!". Of course an equally likely explanation is that the rate decreases because many false accusations of misconduct don't get made when people know they're being recorded.
Yep, the cops killing people are never to blame. These people have no reason to be scared.
The 20-ish cops per year who kill an innocent person are absolutely to blame, for those killings. No, they are not to blame for every other fucking thing that ignoramuses like you try to pin on them. Nor are cops as a whole to be feared and hated just because you suck at understanding statistics.
Sometimes I wish white people were the minority for once, and I am white.
This is essentially the new motto of the Democrat party. Pretty sad.
NO! They are sick and tired of being called liars. And are now doing shit about it.
Awesome. I'm sure they'll have the problem fixed in no time.
Listen it's either his or a war vs the cops. The city of Baltimore doesn't want a war on cops. Because the cops won't win.
If the cops don't win, it's the people who lose. Go ahead and have your war on cops. Whatever good cops are left in that shithole will pack up and leave, while the rest either hide out in their precincts or become paid mercenaries for the gangs. I'm sure the average person will be thrilled that the cops "lost".
I don't quite understand this comment. We're not talking about the people who *aren't* killed by police. This is about people who *are* killed by police. And minorities represent a disproportional share of these people.
No, it's about fear, and whether that fear is justified.
Your "minorities" (obviously code for "black"; this is not a Japanese-American problem) are statistically far more likely to be killed by other "minorities" - or even by white criminals - than they are by police officers. Logically, then, either one of two things is true:
1. The fear of police is irrational; or 2. The fear of police is rational, but should be accompanied by an even greater fear of other civilians.
In either case police are more likely to be a benefit (by catching the criminals who pose a much larger threat) than they are a detrement. Even if your fear of them were justified the rational thing would be to work with them as the lesser of two evils, at least until you can put together a better solution. If "black lives matters" was truly serious about black lives mattering they would be demanding more policing to try and prevent the insanely high number of black-on-black murders which take place on a daily basis.
A lot of this seems to be a vicious cycle where minorities are suspicious of the police and, as a result, do things that aren't objectively reasonable (like run from the police even though they've committed no crimes).
I can't think of a single example where something like this has occurred. I'm sure that it does, on occasion, but it has to be incredibly rare. You're not describing a "vicious cycle" so much as a handful of edge cases.
The actual "vicious cycle" is that as an area accumulates a larger "minority" population it tends to cause the crime rate to go up. As the crime rate goes up, violent contact between cops and criminals increases. This results in cops becoming more paranoid and defensive, which slightly increases the odds that they'll overreact or frighten/injure an innocent person. The increase of such incidents (helped along by lopsided media coverage) leads to civilians becoming more hostile towards cops, and less likely to cooperate with them. This makes investigation and enforcement more difficult, which further drives up the crime rate. It also increases the odds that an interraction between a cop and an innocent person will result in violence, which again further drives animosity and paranoia on both aides. At the same time property values plummet, which leads to ghettoization; whites and prominent minorities flee the area while the poor and the criminal classes flock to it. As violent crime and animosity towards police become endemic, police effectively abandon the area, allowing crime to flourish even more.
THAT is a vicious cycle. Ending it is possible, but it requires people to act rationally. Which is a tall order for even the most educated and thoughtful humans, let alone for the impoverished and ignorant masses who are abandoned in these ghettoes.
Two of them were convicted in a federal show trial and sentenced to 3 years in prison.
but the City of Los Angeles still had to pay out $3.8M in civil damages.
Which, in this case, rewards the perpetrator for being a cunt who resists arrest after leading cops on a high-speed chase which itself was motivated by the desire to avoid going back to jail for a previous robbery. So obviously that's a miscarriage of justice right there. Even if you're going to "punish" the city with a monetary fine, the money should not be going to the scumbag who caused the incident to occur in the first place; it should be given to charity or something.
More importantly, though, it also does nothing to fix any problem. Even if we could all agree that the cops in this particular case acted unreasonably, forcing the city to pay a fine does nothing. It doesn't punish those cops. It doesn't punish their leadership. It doesn't punish any of the politicians. The only result is that the city temporarily loses some money, and a few projects get cancelled (so the taxpayers lose out on a service) or the city raises taxes to make up for the difference (and the taxpayer gets fucked again).
The threat of large monetary payouts works ok for "punishing" individuals and corporations, but it doesn't do a damn thing to fix government.
I think it's hilarious that you idiots see this as progress. First you upend traditional values to the point that "stay at home mom" is seen as some shameful betrayal of feminism. Then you fuck up the male/female dynamic so that fewer people are getting married an having children. Thanks to both of those things you guarantee that the economics of our societies change to the point where single-income families are no longer possible for the vast majority of couples. And then you ry to fix this by making employers pay one parent to be at home.
Congrats, you've come full circle. Very "progressive".
FDR swore a very similar oath before he signed an executive order to round up American citizens and put them in concentration camps. So did the military personnel who carried it out.
And they did uphold the constitution. The Supreme Court reviewed the legality of the exclusion order in 1944 and found it to be constitutional. Which makes sense, really; if it's constitutional to draft men in a time of war, or to quarantine large populations during a disease outbreak, then it's no less constitutional to identify and isolate those who pose a security risk during a time of war.
Of course the way they went about determining who was a security risk was rather problematic in this case, which was the real issue. There was quite a bit of anti-Japanese sentiment amongst the west-coast populace (and laws specifically discriminating against them) long before the war started.
That's usually how it goes. You like the idea of everyone having everything they need, so you support a guy who says he can make it happen. Next thing you know you're wiping your ass with worthless $1,000 bills and killing feral dogs in the streets to feed your family for dinner.
And then you wonder how it could possibly have happened when wealth distribution has worked out SO well every other time it's been tried....
I love how you compare the USA to poor conutries with massive problems (as opposed to dirst world nations) then conclude that the main cause for difference is the laws on guns.
I love how you read one thing and then make up something completely different. You must be one of them artsy fartsy creative types.
Uhm, you do realize the right in the US constantly request free for all capitalism, right?
No, that's just another one of your silly misapprehensions.
There's a constant stream of "we don't need regulation" and "the government needs to stop interfering"
There's essentially nobody anywhere near the mainstream "right" who argues for zero regulation, so you're just flat out wrong. Even Friedman argued that regulation was needed in some rare situations. Zero regulation is more a position of the Libertarian party, and even there it's not a universally held opinion.
Even those who do argue for zero regulation are arguing for zero regulation of economic activity by a central government. That is not a "free for all". Nobody is arguing that businesses should be allowed to murder, steal, commit fraud, or enslave people. They're speaking strictly about economic activity; buying and selling of goods and services. If you think there's any place in the world which descended into anarchy because the government didn't regulate buying and selling, you're a fool.
First you said "real capitalism has been tried. And it leads to hellholes that are even worse than Maoist China". Then you said "free-for-all capitalism is just another name for anarchy". The place you fucked up is when you assumed that it's the capitalism part of " free-for-all capitalism" which leads to anarchy, rather than the free-for-all part.
You basically said "anarchism and capitalism leads to anarchy" and then tried to pretend that capitalism is the problem. What do you do for an encore? "Ice cream is bad because poisoned ice cream will kill you"?
And yet none of that supports your assertion that "Expensive items are not green because normal people cannot afford them". But way to double-down on stupid.
He uploaded simulated footage of weapons at a school. It's just that's simple, that's generally going to be perceived as wrong.
By idiots, sure. I fully understand that there are people out there who are so terrified of guns that even pictures of a gun makes them pee themselves. I just don't think we should be basing policies and laws on the desires of such people.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for the tip pedo-boy. You might likewise want to avoid having your fondness for fondling little kids become public in, say, prison. Chances are they'll find out anyway, but the longer you can keep it a secret the less damage your asshole will take.
Good luck!
Seriously? You're equating New Jersey native Ellen Pao with Mao and Chinese censorship? How racist is that exactly? Can I get a judge's score?
This is why everyone hates SJWs.
That people should have the right to yell FIRE! in a theater ?
You DO have that right. Whether or not it's criminal depends entirely on the context. The only time such speech is restricted is when it's both false, malicious, and likely to cause immediate harm. If there's an actual fire, you can yell fire. If you're on actor on stage and have to yell fire as part of the performance, you can yell fire. If you make it obvious to everyone that you're joking, you can yell fire. If you see smoke and assume that there's a fire, but there isn't, you can yell fire.
This is why it's a shit analogy for "hate speech". The vast majority of what people classify under that label fails at least one of the required criteria, if not all of them. The only time that "hate speech" really isn't protected as free speech is when it involves a direct, immediate call to action. As in "Look over there, its a $slur! Go fuck him up!".
I'm able to state that the senior officials and firemen involved have all stated this to be part of the contract.
You're able to state all kinds of things, but until you support them with actual evidence it's all meaningless.
You said "disagree", and then went on to agree with me. Fascinating.
You know? Do you now?
Yes. With a great degree of certainty prior to your response, and with 100% certainty now that you've confirmed it.
Fortunately the US judicial system doesn't agree with you, and has confirmed that continuing to beat a drunk and subdued man is a violation of due process
Wrong. Your quote does not say what they were actually convicted of, so its entirely irrelevant to the point you're trying to make. The page you stole it from, however, does; to summarize, the judge in the case found that the first minute and a half of them beating him was perfectly fine and within the law, including the facial fractures, the broken leg bone, and all of the substantive harm caused to him. None of that violated any of his rights. The judge then went on to rule that the last 4-6 times that they struck him was excessive and unnecessary.
To call this a violation of due processes is idiotic. To convict 2 officers to 3 years in jail for continuing a 2 minute long altercation for 6 seconds longer than a judge subjectively decided was reasonable is a gross miscarriage of justice. And certainly none of that means that the scumbag they were trying to arrest deserved a 3 million dollar reward.
Yes, King was a piece of shit that needed brought to justice. No, this does not give police the right to deny due process and beat senseless someone that annoys them. At least not in the USA.
Again, wrong. Ignoring your asinine mischaracterization of an actively resisting criminal as "someone who annoys then", the judge in the case found that (as detailed in my last paragraph) beating him senseless was within the scope of the law. Where they erred was in striking him 4-6 times AFTER the judge "determined" that he was already senseless.
That last one is just plain wrong, borne of racist arrogance, stupidity, or both. And it fits right in with your racist comments in this thread.
Oh noes. A pedophile thinks I'm racist. Whatever shall I do.
Don't these citizens vote?
In municipal elections? Be serious. Voter turnout is dismal, especially in large cities, and issues like these don't even make it onto the voters radar. The negative publicity around these events can occasionally damage political aspirations; the fines never do.
As far as a perpetrator resisting arrest and all that, the last time I checked, "Innocent until proven guilty" is a thing in this country, and it should serve to equally protect all: white, black, brown, and yellow.
Of course. But if you think that the presumption of innocence gives you the right to resist arrest ... you are badly confused.
We don't justify skimping on due process for anyone, for obvious reasons. Ever. Even if it results in a miscarriage of justice from time to time.
The way due process works: you see police lights in your reaeview mirrror, so you pull over to the side of the road. The police question you. They then tell you to put your arms behind your back because you are under arrest. You do so. You are taken to jail and charged. You are given a fair trial in front of a jury of your peers.
The way due process does not work: you drive your car at 130 km/h through residential speeds in an attempt to escape police cars and helicopters, because you're drunk and you don't want to go back to jail. When they finally corner you, you refuse to get out of the car. One you finally get out you laugh, act like a maniac, and generally do things which indicate that you're a danger to others. When they attempt to arrest you, you fight with them. They beat you silly because they have no better way to affect an arrest. You then whine about being a poor innocent victim, and a bunch of retards riot.
I'm not sure what part of "due process" you think was violated in the King case, but I know that you're wrong.
But the FTC can't do much more than force Verizon to clarify "Unlimited".
Which is all that's required. This whole thing seems to have been caused bt the fire departments chief IT guy presentung this plan as "totally unlimited" to the actual firefighters. If, instead, he had said "I got you this plan which is super fast for 25 gigabytes and then slow as balls afterwards", it's unlikely that anyone else would have signed off on it ... and if they did, they would only have themselves to blame.
Remove the ambiguity about what "unlimited" means and people can make properly informed decisions.
It's common knowledge the plan they had specifically included a clause for no throttling in emergencies.
No, it's not. It seems to be a common assumption, but an assumption is not knowledge. Insofar as any of the articles have discussed this, none of them have stated that this was part of any contract. From what I can gather Verizon just has an internal policy that directs employees to lift throttling restrictions if/when emergency personnel call in and tell them that they need data for emergency use. It's not a contractual requirement, it's a "we're trying to be decent human beings" policy.
Now, since you seem so self-certain about your "common knowledge", I'm sure you'll be able to link to the relevant contract and quote the section in question, right?
So, if two companies offered unlimited data service, but one offer was $2 cheaper, then that would be chosen (or the office may be sued by the company who offered the cheaper service).
That would be true if the service was actually the same, but they never are. You can put all of your requirements in the bid request. Typically you would define the speeds you expect, the service availability, the total amount of data needed per month, etc. Just because two different companies both market their plans as "unlimited" doesn't mean that both of them can actually deliver all of what you require.
Of course I don't really think they'll go for that... because it turns out that those body cameras sometimes end up being used in court to justify the actions of the police against bad actors. There's been a handful of incidents where someone get's pulled over by the cops, make up a wild story after the fact about police brutality, only to have their claim completely disproves when the body camera footage is released.
They don't see it that way generally because body cams do correlate with a decrease in accusations of police misconduct, so most of the people complaining about the cops still want them.
It's funny watching their spin on it though. The decrease in accusations against police is spun as "See they work! Cops don't commit as much crime when they're being watched!". Of course an equally likely explanation is that the rate decreases because many false accusations of misconduct don't get made when people know they're being recorded.
Either way, body cams are a good idea.
Yep, the cops killing people are never to blame. These people have no reason to be scared.
The 20-ish cops per year who kill an innocent person are absolutely to blame, for those killings. No, they are not to blame for every other fucking thing that ignoramuses like you try to pin on them. Nor are cops as a whole to be feared and hated just because you suck at understanding statistics.
Sometimes I wish white people were the minority for once, and I am white.
This is essentially the new motto of the Democrat party. Pretty sad.
NO! They are sick and tired of being called liars. And are now doing shit about it.
Awesome. I'm sure they'll have the problem fixed in no time.
Listen it's either his or a war vs the cops. The city of Baltimore doesn't want a war on cops. Because the cops won't win.
If the cops don't win, it's the people who lose. Go ahead and have your war on cops. Whatever good cops are left in that shithole will pack up and leave, while the rest either hide out in their precincts or become paid mercenaries for the gangs. I'm sure the average person will be thrilled that the cops "lost".
I don't quite understand this comment. We're not talking about the people who *aren't* killed by police. This is about people who *are* killed by police. And minorities represent a disproportional share of these people.
No, it's about fear, and whether that fear is justified.
Your "minorities" (obviously code for "black"; this is not a Japanese-American problem) are statistically far more likely to be killed by other "minorities" - or even by white criminals - than they are by police officers. Logically, then, either one of two things is true:
1. The fear of police is irrational; or
2. The fear of police is rational, but should be accompanied by an even greater fear of other civilians.
In either case police are more likely to be a benefit (by catching the criminals who pose a much larger threat) than they are a detrement. Even if your fear of them were justified the rational thing would be to work with them as the lesser of two evils, at least until you can put together a better solution. If "black lives matters" was truly serious about black lives mattering they would be demanding more policing to try and prevent the insanely high number of black-on-black murders which take place on a daily basis.
A lot of this seems to be a vicious cycle where minorities are suspicious of the police and, as a result, do things that aren't objectively reasonable (like run from the police even though they've committed no crimes).
I can't think of a single example where something like this has occurred. I'm sure that it does, on occasion, but it has to be incredibly rare. You're not describing a "vicious cycle" so much as a handful of edge cases.
The actual "vicious cycle" is that as an area accumulates a larger "minority" population it tends to cause the crime rate to go up. As the crime rate goes up, violent contact between cops and criminals increases. This results in cops becoming more paranoid and defensive, which slightly increases the odds that they'll overreact or frighten/injure an innocent person. The increase of such incidents (helped along by lopsided media coverage) leads to civilians becoming more hostile towards cops, and less likely to cooperate with them. This makes investigation and enforcement more difficult, which further drives up the crime rate. It also increases the odds that an interraction between a cop and an innocent person will result in violence, which again further drives animosity and paranoia on both aides. At the same time property values plummet, which leads to ghettoization; whites and prominent minorities flee the area while the poor and the criminal classes flock to it. As violent crime and animosity towards police become endemic, police effectively abandon the area, allowing crime to flourish even more.
THAT is a vicious cycle. Ending it is possible, but it requires people to act rationally. Which is a tall order for even the most educated and thoughtful humans, let alone for the impoverished and ignorant masses who are abandoned in these ghettoes.
The cops who beat Rodney King were acquitted
Two of them were convicted in a federal show trial and sentenced to 3 years in prison.
but the City of Los Angeles still had to pay out $3.8M in civil damages.
Which, in this case, rewards the perpetrator for being a cunt who resists arrest after leading cops on a high-speed chase which itself was motivated by the desire to avoid going back to jail for a previous robbery. So obviously that's a miscarriage of justice right there. Even if you're going to "punish" the city with a monetary fine, the money should not be going to the scumbag who caused the incident to occur in the first place; it should be given to charity or something.
More importantly, though, it also does nothing to fix any problem. Even if we could all agree that the cops in this particular case acted unreasonably, forcing the city to pay a fine does nothing. It doesn't punish those cops. It doesn't punish their leadership. It doesn't punish any of the politicians. The only result is that the city temporarily loses some money, and a few projects get cancelled (so the taxpayers lose out on a service) or the city raises taxes to make up for the difference (and the taxpayer gets fucked again).
The threat of large monetary payouts works ok for "punishing" individuals and corporations, but it doesn't do a damn thing to fix government.
I think it's hilarious that you idiots see this as progress. First you upend traditional values to the point that "stay at home mom" is seen as some shameful betrayal of feminism. Then you fuck up the male/female dynamic so that fewer people are getting married an having children. Thanks to both of those things you guarantee that the economics of our societies change to the point where single-income families are no longer possible for the vast majority of couples. And then you ry to fix this by making employers pay one parent to be at home.
Congrats, you've come full circle. Very "progressive".
FDR swore a very similar oath before he signed an executive order to round up American citizens and put them in concentration camps. So did the military personnel who carried it out.
And they did uphold the constitution. The Supreme Court reviewed the legality of the exclusion order in 1944 and found it to be constitutional. Which makes sense, really; if it's constitutional to draft men in a time of war, or to quarantine large populations during a disease outbreak, then it's no less constitutional to identify and isolate those who pose a security risk during a time of war.
Of course the way they went about determining who was a security risk was rather problematic in this case, which was the real issue. There was quite a bit of anti-Japanese sentiment amongst the west-coast populace (and laws specifically discriminating against them) long before the war started.
Anyone can call themselves anything. Like, you could even call yourself an intelligent human being. Obviously it's not true, but you can do it.
Maybe you can also tell it to your fairy unicorn friend. You know, just as long as you're getting "real"
Sure Moviepass may not work but it may we should be willing to try new things!
That's usually how it goes. You like the idea of everyone having everything they need, so you support a guy who says he can make it happen. Next thing you know you're wiping your ass with worthless $1,000 bills and killing feral dogs in the streets to feed your family for dinner.
And then you wonder how it could possibly have happened when wealth distribution has worked out SO well every other time it's been tried ....
I love how you compare the USA to poor conutries with massive problems (as opposed to dirst world nations) then conclude that the main cause for difference is the laws on guns.
I love how you read one thing and then make up something completely different. You must be one of them artsy fartsy creative types.
Uhm, you do realize the right in the US constantly request free for all capitalism, right?
No, that's just another one of your silly misapprehensions.
There's a constant stream of "we don't need regulation" and "the government needs to stop interfering"
There's essentially nobody anywhere near the mainstream "right" who argues for zero regulation, so you're just flat out wrong. Even Friedman argued that regulation was needed in some rare situations. Zero regulation is more a position of the Libertarian party, and even there it's not a universally held opinion.
Even those who do argue for zero regulation are arguing for zero regulation of economic activity by a central government. That is not a "free for all". Nobody is arguing that businesses should be allowed to murder, steal, commit fraud, or enslave people. They're speaking strictly about economic activity; buying and selling of goods and services. If you think there's any place in the world which descended into anarchy because the government didn't regulate buying and selling, you're a fool.
No shit sherlock.
First you said "real capitalism has been tried. And it leads to hellholes that are even worse than Maoist China". Then you said "free-for-all capitalism is just another name for anarchy". The place you fucked up is when you assumed that it's the capitalism part of " free-for-all capitalism" which leads to anarchy, rather than the free-for-all part.
You basically said "anarchism and capitalism leads to anarchy" and then tried to pretend that capitalism is the problem. What do you do for an encore? "Ice cream is bad because poisoned ice cream will kill you"?
And yet none of that supports your assertion that "Expensive items are not green because normal people cannot afford them". But way to double-down on stupid.
He uploaded simulated footage of weapons at a school. It's just that's simple, that's generally going to be perceived as wrong.
By idiots, sure. I fully understand that there are people out there who are so terrified of guns that even pictures of a gun makes them pee themselves. I just don't think we should be basing policies and laws on the desires of such people.