Powered by Outside

Thread of political debate and discussion

PB Forum :: Pinkbike Groups
Thread of political debate and discussion
Author Message
flag inverted180
Posted: Jul 19, 2016 at 8:46 Quote
"Conservatives hate tyrannical government because it violates our rights"

Is the current goverbment tyrannical? I so what rights are these again that they are currently violating with out legal consequence?
flag badbadleroybrown
Posted: Jul 19, 2016 at 13:54 Quote
inverted180 wrote:
therealtylerdurden wrote:
badbadleroybrown wrote:


Conservatives hate tyrannical government because it violates our rights... as do criminals. You resist arrest, you deserve to get shot. I don't care of you're Alton Sterling or LaVoy Finicum... don't break the f*cking law, or if you do just be a man and accept the consequences instead of resisting arrest.

See, all these thugs and all you idiot foreigners seem to miss the simple reality that you have no right in this country to resist arrest. You have a right to a fair trial in court, that's all... you don't have a right to a f*cking trial by combat with the arresting officer in the street. Conservatives believe in law and order... we support police and soldiers who uphold that law and order.

Well f*cking said. Agreed 100%, just because we won't stand for tyranny, doesn't mean that we view any laws at all as tyrannical. It truly is easy to not get shot by police. Don't make dumbshit decisions, and you'll probably be alright.

So according to your logic guys, at the next frat party that gets out of hand, when the police arrive and people start fleeing, they should just open fire. Once again your guys are f'd. It's not legal for a police officer to shot someone who is not posing an immediate threat to them or others.
If those frat boys first scuffle with the officer and make a grab for one of his weapons, then yes... yes they should.
flag badbadleroybrown
Posted: Jul 19, 2016 at 13:55 Quote
inverted180 wrote:
"Conservatives hate tyrannical government because it violates our rights"

Is the current goverbment tyrannical? I so what rights are these again that they are currently violating with out legal consequence?
Yes, in several ways... there are several rights. Obamacare is unconstitutional, they're making attempts at gutting the second ammendment, they've circumnavigated the legislative process several times pushing through executive orders, their efforts to use the no-fly list (which deprives Americans of due process) as a means through which to limit the rights of citizens. I could go on but there's really no point.
flag badbadleroybrown
Posted: Jul 19, 2016 at 13:59 Quote
iffy wrote:
Just my opinion here, but that man shot sombody in the back, it does appear that nobody would really have been hurt if he did manage to get away?

He should face a correct and thorough review of his actions.
Any falsification or omission of facts should elevate this type of incident to murder.

To be a policeman with anything less than 100% honesty respect and dedication for the law is asking for trouble.
Using the privalige of being a law enforcer to protect yourself from your mistakes should be dealt with as very serious matter.
In a strange way it is somehow much worse than someone who breaks the law but does not abuse and pervert it.
If they are not prepared to deal with the responsibility and consequences in an open and completely honest manner they should find another calling.

If they have absolutely no issues dealing with killing civillians, (especially under very dubious circumstances) criminals or not ( and I think you are still innocent till proven guilty), there is no way they should be trusted to use a weapon as part of their job.


Obviously truly life threatening situations are of course quite different, but on the admittedly little I know of this particular incident it just really looks like a cop shooting somebody in the back. Hard to see how his life or anyone elses was under threat by someone at that distance, not facing him and going in the opposite direction?

I can understand why people look upon it with horror.

The couple of people I know that have had the misfortune to be in a life threatening situation and have to kill or be killed on such a close face to face level ( talking about the military here) have had real issues dealing with the memories. And they were confronting generally terrified or manic individuals with automatic weapons and the full intention to use them...

I don't believe any normal sane person can kill somebody and be totally unaffected.

Only that officer knows truly what was in his mind and the fact is he shot and killed someone who was running away in the back is something he will have to live with.



2 cents
1. He is facing review of his actions... he's due to stand trial in October.
2. This is an extreme case for sure, and in general I wouldn't support shooting someone who's running away... but it can easily be argued that someone who makes a grab for an officers weapon does pose a threat to the officer and the public regardless of whether or not he's armed. Allowing him to run could've potentially developed into a hostage situation or worse.
3. No officer wakes up wanting to shoot someone, it nearly always has a lasting impact. In fact, the officer who shot Tamir Rice wasn't able to pass use of force drills after that incident and ended up resigning from the police force because he was so permanently shaken by it.
flag inverted180
Posted: Jul 19, 2016 at 15:11 Quote
badbadleroybrown wrote:
inverted180 wrote:
"Conservatives hate tyrannical government because it violates our rights"

Is the current goverbment tyrannical? I so what rights are these again that they are currently violating with out legal consequence?
Yes, in several ways... there are several rights. Obamacare is unconstitutional, they're making attempts at gutting the second ammendment, they've circumnavigated the legislative process several times pushing through executive orders, their efforts to use the no-fly list (which deprives Americans of due process) as a means through which to limit the rights of citizens. I could go on but there's really no point.

"The Supreme Court upheld ObamaCare on June 28, 2012. The final ruling on ObamaCare was a made by Supreme Court Judge Vinson. The basic idea of the ruling was that ObamaCare was declared a tax and not a mandate, and was therefore declared constitutional."

Sorry you lose. Game over....go home.
flag therealtylerdurden
Posted: Jul 19, 2016 at 15:51 Quote
Except you're required by law to have health insurance, otherwise you must pay a fee/tax for merely not having it. Forcing such legislation upon the people is by definition pretty damn unconstitutional, regardless of what the Supreme Court decided on the matter.

'You lose. Game over.' Really? You countered ONE of his points. Do you need a participation trophy now for citing case law?
flag fullbug
Posted: Jul 19, 2016 at 15:56 Quote
we have a family business in the healthcare industry. obamacare can go home.
flag therealtylerdurden
Posted: Jul 19, 2016 at 16:03 Quote
fullbug wrote:
we have a family business in the healthcare industry. obamacare can go home.

No kidding. Great to have input from someone in the field, thanks man.
flag fullbug
Posted: Jul 19, 2016 at 16:12 Quote
therealtylerdurden wrote:
fullbug wrote:
we have a family business in the healthcare industry. obamacare can go home.

No kidding. Great to have input from someone in the field, thanks man.

it is baffling how anyone with even an just ounce of fiscal self responsibility can't see that proposal for what it really is. oh wait...nevermind
flag badbadleroybrown
Posted: Jul 19, 2016 at 16:15 Quote
inverted180 wrote:
"The Supreme Court upheld ObamaCare on June 28, 2012. The final ruling on ObamaCare was a made by Supreme Court Judge Vinson. The basic idea of the ruling was that ObamaCare was declared a tax and not a mandate, and was therefore declared constitutional."

Sorry you lose. Game over....go home.
Incorrect... America loses. And I am home.

Obamacare forces Americans to purchase a product or face a penalizing tax. That is unconstitutional. A temporary verdict by the SCOTUS doesn't change that. It will eventually be struck down.

But you're a Canadian, so as always, you know jack shit about it.
flag therealtylerdurden
Posted: Jul 19, 2016 at 16:35 Quote
Lagging? Sure, by four years. Not that big of a deal- we're at about 80, the best is about 84. I'd argue that obesity has a far greater impact on our lifespans than a lack of universal healthcare. Obamacare doesn't magically eliminate obesity. We like everything big here, cars, engines, meals, drinks, and now people have grown in size to match. Universal healthcare won't stop that- it is a result of the personal decisions of people to give up on being healthy, and it is their right to make that choice.
flag therealtylerdurden
Posted: Jul 19, 2016 at 17:03 Quote
Before I read that article, I do have to raise the point that there is also a known correlation between income level and obesity.

I maintain that the disparity in life expectancies between upper and lower classes is due in large part to the prevelance of obesity of the lower classes, and the relative lack thereof of the upper classes, not due to a lack of universal healthcare.

Certainly, a lack of healthcare may result in early deaths for some, but I don't believe it to be as widespread of a concern as you do.
flag badbadleroybrown
Posted: Jul 19, 2016 at 17:37 Quote
harriieee wrote:
Freedom and rights necessarily stand in opposition to one another. After 1865, people were no longer free to buy and sell other human beings, because it was determined that those people also had inalienable rights as well (and somehow it took the USA almost a hundred years to figure out what 'all men are created equal' meant). People are not free to drive a car without passing a test, or free to practice medicine without a licence, because other people have rights not to be harmed by other people's malfeasance or incompetence.

In most highly-developed countries, citizens have the right to good-quality medical care. In this system, this means that people have to (yes, have to) pay for a universal, or near-universal, health system. The trade-off is better public health, and marginal economic benefits owing to productivity. There is a reason why the USA significantly lags behind countries of a similar economic/developmental level in terms of life expectancy.
Literally everything you just said is bullshit.

 


Copyright © 2000 - 2024. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv56 0.665110
Mobile Version of Website