Words of Wisdom for Ferguson and America

[_sabotage_]

1. Were they profiting from CFCs in a way that they haven't profited from substitutes?

2. You were not responding to my point, that substitutes for cigarettes that have proven effective and less harmful are legislated against. That the most harmful aspect of cigarettes, the freebase nicotine which increases the rate of addiction and makes them more difficult to quit, is not mentioned at all. Especially by the group of crybabies who called for the tax.

[Metsfanmax]

1. Were they profiting from CFCs in a way that they haven't profited from substitutes?

Yes. The tax is on ozone-depleting substances. Substances that don't deplete the ozone layer are not taxed. It is very simple.

(The Montreal Protocol amendments may start taxing some of the substitutes because of their global warming potential, but then I expect the same thing will happen -- industry will have to find substitutes again, and if they aren't greenhouse gases, they won't be taxed. Eventually, industry will find coolants that don't destroy the environment, I hope.)

2. You were not responding to my point, that substitutes for cigarettes that have proven effective and less harmful are legislated against. That the most harmful aspect of cigarettes, the freebase nicotine which increases the rate of addiction and makes them more difficult to quit, is not mentioned at all. Especially by the group of crybabies who called for the tax.

Sure. My comment was not a defense of all regulation against all behavior everywhere. It is true that some taxes really are revenue-generators, and some taxes and regulation really do not respond to demonstrable harms to society. That doesn't mean we throw out all regulation or tax policy. Some of it actually works.

[_sabotage_]

Look, you are suggesting theta CFCs were out-phased due to tax, and I don't disagree. What I would disagree with is if they said, CFCs are dangerous and therefore they should be taxed, but you can't use any substitutes.

That is what has happened with many things. Prior to CFCs being taxed and currently, the government makes the same amounts of money.

Cigarettes were already taxed and the higher tax has increased their profits. I hold the consumer responsible, but I also know that the tobacco companies are intentionally making cigarettes more harmful and the government does nothing about it because it increases their profit.

Just as when if the CO2 tax comes in, the government will make sure that no one can escape it.

My wife doesn't smoke, should the taxes I pay on cigarettes go to her? How about we cut out the middleman? My grandfather died of skin cancer, can we tax the sun or do we have to wait a few more decades?

[Metsfanmax]

Look, you are suggesting theta CFCs were out-phased due to tax, and I don't disagree. What I would disagree with is if they said, CFCs are dangerous and therefore they should be taxed, but you can't use any substitutes.

I am basically with you on that. As I said to patches, my support of a carbon tax isn't because I think people should stop driving cars, it is because the stuff cars use to get around is toxic. I support the tax only insofar as it speeds up the transition to the day when the stuff that powers the cars is much less toxic.

That is what has happened with many things. Prior to CFCs being taxed and currently, the government makes the same amounts of money.

This is an empirical question. It depends on the price elasticity and the availability of substitutes. Cigarettes, because of their addictive behavior, don't necessarily respond in such a way that increasing the tax proportionally decreases the usage. To people who smoke cigarettes, there isn't really an obvious substitute. But as we have seen, people do switch to substitutes in the case of industry, because usually there is more than one way to go about the same industrial process. In the case of CFCs, the usage dropped more than the price rose, which represents a declining source of revenue for the government with time.

My wife doesn't smoke, should the taxes I pay on cigarettes go to her? How about we cut out the middleman?

Depends. Will everyone pitch in?

[_sabotage_]

Dude, this is the Ferguson thingy thread, let the CFCs go. My whole point is that its not merely the police, it is broken window policing.

If I go to New York, I'll be smoking a cigarette. And someone may see my cigarette and ask me for one. And I will give it. And they may insist on giving me some small sum for it. And that apparently is worth a state execution.

And it's all because we pay them to do this.

[Phatscotty]

the truth doesn't matter, all that matters is that social justice is marching forward with it's officially hijacked story which curiously has not changed a single bit since the first night Ferguson made the news up until today. Funny how they got it so right without knowing any of the information. But really they didn't get the narrative right, they created the narrative, and made it right, to suit their own ends.

Honest question that would appreciate an honest answer. What is the evidence that Darren Wilson is a racist, or was motivated by racism?

I am tickled that in virtually every other context Phatscotty would argue that the burden of proof is on those who believe the state isn't out to oppress and violate the rights of citizens, but when the context is the clearest case of state oppression this country ever had, suddenly the burden of proof is on those who think that a police officer may have done something wrong.

Hmm, oppressor? violate rights of citizens? Tell me who is the oppressor, who is violating other's rights here....



LOL I'm not demanding anything, I'm challenging the narrative. And since you didn't even address the question and instead turned it all about the person asking it, I'm pretty sure I know why nobody can answer it.

[Phatscotty]

the truth doesn't matter, all that matters is that social justice is marching forward with it's officially hijacked story which curiously has not changed a single bit since the first night Ferguson made the news up until today. Funny how they got it so right without knowing any of the information. But really they didn't get the narrative right, they created the narrative, and made it right, to suit their own ends.

Honest question that would appreciate an honest answer. What is the evidence that Darren Wilson is a racist, or was motivated by racism?

I am tickled that in virtually every other context Phatscotty would argue that the burden of proof is on those who believe the state isn't out to oppress and violate the rights of citizens, but when the context is the clearest case of state oppression this country ever had, suddenly the burden of proof is on those who think that a police officer may have done something wrong.

You're tickled? I just shake my head in disgust. What Phatscotty should be doing is posting links to Rand Paul articles on this issue; instead, he's trotting out the same old conservative tropes. Plus, you know, who cares about the Constitution? Amirite PS?

I like to post what I think sometimes too Greeky. but I don't get your question. Feel free to be more specific

[Phatscotty]

(Apologies in advance to others)...

Phatscotty - Do you think that police departments have too much power, are given too much leeway and/or benefit of the doubt, and/or target minorities (over others) (understanding that you may view such targeting to be valid based on statistics)?

Alternatively (or additionally) do you understand that your consistent (and applauded, at least by me) railing against the state on certain issues, supported by your belief in the Constitution and individual rights and then your almost blind support of the state on certain other issues are hypocritical views? Do you at least understand that you cannot have it both ways?

Duh? ofc they have too much power. They don't even need search warrants anymore. it's legal for them to lie to you, to trick you, to coerce you. Yes, they are given leeway. Too much?? How could I really know? I could easily assume sometimes/many times yes, too much leeway. In my recent experience, a cop lied his ass of in court against me, saying the traffic sign was visible and reflected 'bright as day' I had photos time stamped to show he was lying, county records to show the sign was broken.... and the judge threw my case out. They didn't stick together against me, but they might have if it were a national hot-topic? I couldn't say either way. But aren't we really talking about ''authority' here? If you are asking me if members of the legal system system stick together, well of course they do, perhaps even the same way members of Michael Brown's race stick together and grant each other way too much leeway. From the statistics, as I've often shared, over 75% of people shot by police are white...which would leave me hard pressed to say minorities are targeted in this specific topic.

I'm not supporting the state and it's killing of these people at all Greeky, I asked what made the Ferguson shooting a race issue. If you are referring to a different comment, by all means, throw it at me. Both deaths are nothing but sad and tragic.

[Phatscotty]

Because, by the words of PS:

Freedom! Immediately submit to authority!

I find it hard to believe you take that away from what I said. I could do what you are doing, and turn that into quoting Sabotage: Freedom! Argue with the cop who has a gun and the authority to use it on you! Don't follow any orders of a police officer! Freedom!

The Freedom part ala individual rights comes in the court room. The trick sabby is to be alive and in court to defend your rights, to show how the officer was wrong or you are innocent or whatever. If a police officer is trying to place you, Sabotage, under arrest, do you think their is anything you can say or do to change their minds?? By all means, tell us, what is your advice here? What does a free person who is highly suspected to have committed a severe crime do when the law attempts to detain them?

[Metsfanmax]

From the statistics, as I've often shared, over 75% of people shot by police are white...which would leave me hard pressed to say minorities are targeted in this specific topic.

As usual, your handle on "statistics" is more like a casual acquaintance than a serious interest. Where does that statistic come from? Is the source trustworthy?

Hmm, oppressor? violate rights of citizens? Tell me who is the oppressor, who is violating other's rights here....

What does that have to do with Darren Wilson? Let's phrase this a different way: between Darren Wilson and Michael Brown, which person is responsible for shooting and killing someone, and which person stole some cigars from a convenience store?

[Phatscotty]

From the statistics, as I've often shared, over 75% of people shot by police are white...which would leave me hard pressed to say minorities are targeted in this specific topic.

As usual, your handle on "statistics" is more like a casual acquaintance than a serious interest. Where does that statistic come from? Is the source trustworthy?

As usual, it's now left to you to explain how the FBI statistics on people shot and killed by police officers from 1999-2008 is a 'casual acquaintance'? It doesn't account for every signle police shooting, but it's by far the best stats we have.

Hmm, oppressor? violate rights of citizens? Tell me who is the oppressor, who is violating other's rights here....

What does that have to do with Darren Wilson? Let's phrase this a different way: between Darren Wilson and Michael Brown, which person is responsible for shooting and killing someone?

I knew you couldn't handle the Q and would turn it into something else and about someone else. Basically, I asked you if Michael Brown oppressed others, if Michael Brown was violating other people rights.

[Metsfanmax]

As usual, it's now left to you to explain how the FBI statistics on people shot and killed by police officers from 1999-2008 is a 'casual acquaintance'?

Since I assume you did not compile these statistics yourself, please provide the source you got it from. I ask because, for example, this ProPublica analysis found that you are 21 times more likely to be shot as a young male if you are black instead of white.

It doesn't account for every signle police shooting, but it's by far the best stats we have.

Statistics are only as useful as much as you can trust them. If the best statistics are unreliable, and that appears to be the case for the FBI statistics, then it's better to just not say anything rather than say something which could very likely be incorrect.

I knew you couldn't handle the Q and would turn it into something else and about someone else. Basically, I asked you if Michael Brown oppressed others, if Michael Brown was violating other people rights.

This is an amusing statement since the "Q" itself was completely unrelated to the thing I actually asked you about -- basically you answered my question with an unrelated question, and then got mad when I answered your question with the original question. Which is unrelated to your question, but that's because your question was irrelevant to begin with.

I have no problem with saying that Michael Brown did a bad thing by robbing a convenience store of some cigars. If you want to call that "oppressing" someone, go ahead. There, you win whatever argument you were trying to make. Now, can we get back to whether Michael Brown should have been killed? The real question here is, despite everything you have said about how police officers have way too much power, whether you're still willing to give Darren Wilson the benefit of the doubt, simply because you don't like the political agenda of social justice warriors.

[BigBallinStalin]

Aside from (systemically shitty) policing, here's what bothers me about the Michael Brown incident:

(1) The initial confrontation. The officer (of course) tells the court that he was responding to a reported theft of cigarillos. He sees two people and tells them (politely, ha!) to walk on the sidewalk. The two don't comply, so officer (dick) throws his car in reverse and cuts into the street at angle in order to block them. He then tells them to walk on the sidewalk.

That's just asking for a fight. The confrontation is unnecessary, and it hardly doesn't matter if they're walking on the side of the street. I'd expect the officer to have a history of being unnecessarily confrontational. That's not the proper role of a cop.

Also, before the struggle ensues and during the shouting, officer dick notices the cigarillos and suspects Brown of theft. I think that's bullshit; he probably was too busy brow-beating the two to notice anything else important. I think he made this up in order to smooth over his confrontational attitude. It gives the public the perception that officer dick was acting righteously.

(2) The witness reports were staggeringly contradictory, so it was disappointing to see so many news sources and people hold very strong opinions about the "facts"--especially the "facts" about confrontation and the shooting. For me, after skimming through some testimonies, that incident was really weird.

[BigBallinStalin]

Also, Michael Brown serves as a crappy poster child for fighting injustice. TGD WINS!!!

Don't give cops any lip service. They'll make up shit in order to justify unnecessarily coercing you, and this method tends to work (because government courts + government police lead to dysfunctional outcomes). Some cops will also try to provoke you. They'll launch any kind of verbal assault because they have no morals. They just want to coerce you.

Finally, I don't buy the "few bad apples" claim about police. The 'good' cops know what the bad ones are up to, yet hardly any of them report it. That's just being complicit in the crime, so few Good Cops exist. Besides, a lot of laws are fucked up, and if a person willingly joins the police and enforces them, then they lose that morally good status.

[_sabotage_]

PS,

The last time I was arrested, I had about 9 or 10 plainclothes officers pointing guns at me so I reached into my waistband and scratched my belly button. Actually, I thought I was being robbed. The had no badge or indication they were cops. When I saw them I turned to the wall and put my hands up on it. They beat me for about a minute and then brought me into a car. They pointed a gun in my face and demanded to know where I lived, then one of them said something and they pointed the gun at my knee.

I was accused of trafficking hash, but they had no evidence, so they made some up.

On the other hand, since America is exceptional, democratic, represents the people, and has laws against search and seizure (or used to), I would expect them to use force only when warranted. Since the rights of the citizens have been scaled back and since the powers of the police have been scaled up and the laws have been increased, they are actually worse than most countries police.

People have the right to film police, but you will often see videos of the police preventing people from filming them. People are innocent until proven guilty, so regardless of what you think they have done, the police should be held to treating people as such. If it is clear that the person is an immediate threat, then their are standard procedures for dealing with it. But apparently, those procedures don't matter any more and refusing to cooperate with the police by allowing them to arrest you for no reason is in itself a reason to be considered an immediate threat to be dealt with by immediate means.

In Canada, the police weren't allowed to pursue a fleeing car. They had researched it and found that pursuing the car lead to more deaths and that they were just as likely to catch the guy if they just let him go. But it had a drawback, cops didn't like letting people flee. So they changed the law back. Recently, about 20 miles from here, a cop was chasing a guy and it ended in a death, for which that guy is being charged.

I find it ironic that the state very clearly understands that they were increasing the danger that citizens face by the policy and knew the results of it and are laying them on the person who would have been caught anyway had he not been chased.

[AndyDufresne]

The real answer here is simply to have drones monitoring everyone, and at any slight twitch the drone can be authorized to take that person out.


--Andy

[BigBallinStalin]

The real answer here is simply to have drones monitoring everyone, and at any slight twitch the drone can be authorized to take that person out.


--Andy

Group punishment is more effective than selectively punishing an individual. Historical research has confirmed this with real social experiments from the CIA's "counter-terror" programs, POW camps, and numerous government occupations of foreign lands (e.g. Israel, US, Soviet Union, and the Third Reich).

Therefore, the drones should be equipped with mini-bombs that have a blast radius of 10 feet. People around nearby potential twitch-offenders now have an incentive to stop the twitch before it occurs. Collective monitoring and death by air will harbor an era of global peace and prosperity!

[Phatscotty]

PS,

The last time I was arrested, I had about 9 or 10 plainclothes officers pointing guns at me so I reached into my waistband and scratched my belly button. Actually, I thought I was being robbed. The had no badge or indication they were cops. When I saw them I turned to the wall and put my hands up on it. They beat me for about a minute and then brought me into a car. They pointed a gun in my face and demanded to know where I lived, then one of them said something and they pointed the gun at my knee.

I was accused of trafficking hash, but they had no evidence, so they made some up.

On the other hand, since America is exceptional, democratic, represents the people, and has laws against search and seizure (or used to), I would expect them to use force only when warranted. Since the rights of the citizens have been scaled back and since the powers of the police have been scaled up and the laws have been increased, they are actually worse than most countries police.

People have the right to film police, but you will often see videos of the police preventing people from filming them. People are innocent until proven guilty, so regardless of what you think they have done, the police should be held to treating people as such. If it is clear that the person is an immediate threat, then their are standard procedures for dealing with it. But apparently, those procedures don't matter any more and refusing to cooperate with the police by allowing them to arrest you for no reason is in itself a reason to be considered an immediate threat to be dealt with by immediate means.

In Canada, the police weren't allowed to pursue a fleeing car. They had researched it and found that pursuing the car lead to more deaths and that they were just as likely to catch the guy if they just let him go. But it had a drawback, cops didn't like letting people flee. So they changed the law back. Recently, about 20 miles from here, a cop was chasing a guy and it ended in a death, for which that guy is being charged.

I find it ironic that the state very clearly understands that they were increasing the danger that citizens face by the policy and knew the results of it and are laying them on the person who would have been caught anyway had he not been chased.

Sorry to hear about your shitty experience with pigs. I'm aware bad shit happens, I've seen it and had it happen to me. I'm pretty sure I clearly pointed out I was speaking of events in general, and in no way did I mean to defend the idea that police never act badly or break the law themselves. If you go back and look at my '**Attention!** post some here still give me crap for, the overall premise was completely based on the understanding police cannot be right 100% of the time, police cannot act perfectly 100% of the time, and with some you may be lucky to get 50-50.

Anyways, what happened to me when I was 17, me n my homies were rollin downtown Minneapolis 4 deep. 2 my mates and my younger brother, I was driving my mates car, spittin it loud wih Tupac/Spice 1 'Jealous Got Me Strapped! I keep my hand on my gun cuz they got me on the run!',....and we had just finished smoking a honey blunt perhaps 30 minutes prior.



I was just a few yards from approaching an intersection, the traffic light turns yellow, I look left, cop first in line at the stop light perpendicular. The traffic light does not turn red while I am in the intersection. I check my speed, 33 in a 35. The time, 9:10 p.m. Cop pulls us over, both white cops. We already got the air freshener plenty and the roach had already been tossed 'to the homeless' long ago. We were straight, I figured the cop was gonna say I was driving too fast or the light turned red while I was in the intersection. The cop didn't say anything about why he pulled me over, did not ask for my license or insurance, told me to get out of the car immediately, and I did. He asked me a few questions, who I was with, where we were going and why, if the car was my car, if I had any warrants and if I had any weapons on me. I told him who we were and what we were up to, that I had no weapons and no warrants. He patted me down, found a boxcutter in my back pocket. SLAMS me up against the car window and angrily shouts 'I thought you said you didn't have any weapons! Well then what the f*ck is this!!!!' I told him it was a boxcutter, and I have it on me because I worked at Walgreens. Violently throws me in the back of the cop car, I'm all like wtf? All I can see is my homies get pulled out the car sittin on the curb while the cops search the car top to bottom. They find nothing, they finally let me out of the back of the cop car, tell me to sit with the others on the curb, and they take everyone's ID and start writing us tickets. we were looking at each other like 'FOR WUT?????' when my younger brother, 14, says aloud 'excuse me officer, but may I please ask why you pulled us over?' The cop grabs him by the hair, marches him to the squad I had been sitting in for a good while and violently throws him into the backseat and says 'you only speak to us when spoken to!' They proceed writing the tickets, none of us said a word. They hand us the tickets and let us know it's 10:04, and we are out past curfew, They gave us curfew tickets and never even stated why they pulled me over.

Now, close your eyes for a second, and imagine the us 4 young white punks in that car were instead 4 black people. Why would this story change into automatic confirmation of racism, or how blacks are always treated by police? And with the assumption this never happens to white people? If it was 4 black people instead of 4 white people, why would the black people be extremely convinced it only happened to them because they were black, and the cops were some racist assholes? And that assumes that when it happens to white people, like me, it's the same exact BS, but of course it can't be for racism so it must be for a completely different reason why it happened to us? That too is BS. Perhaps it's a lot more to do with some people are just dickheads, and when put in a position of any authority whatsoever it only gets worse?

[_sabotage_]

PS,

I agree with you. It isn't racism. It's profiling. To the cops, you fit the description of people they can f*ck with. They will f*ck with white, black, brown, red, and yellow. The difference is twofold:

1. Some people never stop fitting the description.
2. The police will be a bit more careful in handling some cases than others.

The only time I was arrested in the US, my mom made a call, and I was on a plane. The likelihood that a white guy may have such connections are higher than for a black guy. Since I didn't get a record, the next time the police stop me, they have a pretty white boy with a clean record. And when they run my plates, they might just let me roll on by. By now, I'm 34, still pump Tupac but at like half the volume, look somewhat respectable and have a lawyer at the tip of my fingers, not for criminal activities, but for financial ones.

They have a system where all kinds of young people could get a record, can be searched, ticketed and marked for life. They have cops going around the school parking lot with dogs. It's like a factory line producing little legal commodities.

The courts, prisons, enforcement agencies, supplier's, small prison towns, structure of society, all require several million people going through the system at one time. It's like the checkout line at Walmart and the taxpayer pays the bill for a lot of it.

And they keep the population in fear. And it's not a choice that the population is making for themselves. In Canada, we are overwhelmingly in favour of decriminalizing/legalizing weed and they make mandatory sentencing and build super-prisons. Now we need to fill them.

[warmonger1981]

I was just listening to that CD in my car earlier. Its still in the deck.

[thegreekdog]

I'm not supporting the state and it's killing of these people at all Greeky, I asked what made the Ferguson shooting a race issue. If you are referring to a different comment, by all means, throw it at me. Both deaths are nothing but sad and tragic.

Good. Except...

Hmm, oppressor? violate rights of citizens? Tell me who is the oppressor, who is violating other's rights here....



LOL I'm not demanding anything, I'm challenging the narrative. And since you didn't even address the question and instead turned it all about the person asking it, I'm pretty sure I know why nobody can answer it.

The two posts don't seem to interact cohesively.

What the first post says to me is "Phatscotty believes police have too much power and that the deaths are sad and tragic."
What the second post says to me is "Phatscotty thinks it's okay that this particular person was killed because he committed a crime."

[AndyDufresne]

The real answer here is simply to have drones monitoring everyone, and at any slight twitch the drone can be authorized to take that person out.


--Andy

Group punishment is more effective than selectively punishing an individual. Historical research has confirmed this with real social experiments from the CIA's "counter-terror" programs, POW camps, and numerous government occupations of foreign lands (e.g. Israel, US, Soviet Union, and the Third Reich).

Therefore, the drones should be equipped with mini-bombs that have a blast radius of 10 feet. People around nearby potential twitch-offenders now have an incentive to stop the twitch before it occurs. Collective monitoring and death by air will harbor an era of global peace and prosperity!

This seems logical and is likely the best plan. Lets move forward with it.


--Andy

[BigBallinStalin]

The real answer here is simply to have drones monitoring everyone, and at any slight twitch the drone can be authorized to take that person out.


--Andy

Group punishment is more effective than selectively punishing an individual. Historical research has confirmed this with real social experiments from the CIA's "counter-terror" programs, POW camps, and numerous government occupations of foreign lands (e.g. Israel, US, Soviet Union, and the Third Reich).

Therefore, the drones should be equipped with mini-bombs that have a blast radius of 10 feet. People around nearby potential twitch-offenders now have an incentive to stop the twitch before it occurs. Collective monitoring and death by air will harbor an era of global peace and prosperity!

This seems logical and is likely the best plan. Lets move forward with it.


--Andy

Finally. That makes 2 Voices of Reason in this thread. Anybody else signing up?

[thegreekdog]

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/watch ... est-story/

I love Andrew Hawkins.

[DaGip]

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/watch-andrew-hawkins-tell-his-side-of-the-protest-story/

I love Andrew Hawkins.

I cannot respond to so much inspiration and clarity of position.