The casting of a few dozen fraudulent ballots is certainly worth disenfrachising millions over.
The casting of a few dozen fraudulent ballots is certainly worth disenfrachising millions over.
Hope is the denial of reality
One has a purpose in creating terror to influence politics - it is typically considered particularly vile due to how corrosive it is. Compare that to "profiteering" which in many cases was actually fully legal and agreed to by the consumer? The two are so drastically different I wonder about your moral compass.Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
What one? Rioting and looting? No, that's what happens after protests which do seek to influence politics escalate to violence either through agitation, confrontation, or just the confluence of influences which alter human behavior in emotion-filled crowds. Behavior has devolved at that point and there is no longer any attempt or interest in influencing politics and instead intent becomes either lashing out or just a hindbrain instinct to take advantage of chaos and anarchy. No one here with your single exception looks at it as domestic terrorism in any way shape or form and we're not about to evaluate it according to your incredibly biased and cockeyed viewpoint.
As I already said, legality and morality are not the same thing and you were making an emotional moral argument about destruction and its costs, not a legal one (there is no legal argument to made about victims and inadequate insurance in that context). Something being legal doesn't make it the least bit more moral. Particularly not when the laws allowing it were written by those seeking to be enriched, for the precise purpose of engaging in immoral profiteering. And they weren't agreed to by any consumer still in the market. Those laws were passed decades ago, and the consumer doesn't have any choice but to agree. If those "agreements" had been made purely between the corps and the consumers without the involvement of what is laughably called "regulation" in Texas (really the codification of oligopoly, for the protection of the corporations from tortious retaliation by those consumers) they'd have been thrown out by the courts as unconsionable contracts of adhesion. But since they've been approved by the "regulatory environment" the courts are blocked from doing anything.Compare that to "profiteering" which in many cases was actually fully legal and agreed to by the consumer? The two are so drastically different I wonder about your moral compass.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Twitter Link
Bad enough that they fucked up like this, but to hold an innocent family—including children—at gunpoint for so long? While refusing to show the warrant? Come on. That ain't right.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
They couldn’t show the search warrant they were executing? How does that happen?
I hope the settlement is massive.
I'm not sure; this comment from the article doesn't really clarify matters:
I mean it's not exactly a "sneak & peek" situation, and I can't see how they can justify not showing the warrant given the family was standing right in front of them. Holding kids at gunpoint for an hour, wtaf.“They wouldn’t give us the warrant," said Dunigan. "They told us that the warrant was suppressed.”
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Clearly they fucked up, governments tend to do that often.
Good thing it was not a no knock?
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
The article quotes the attacked family as saying it was.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
You mean the police, which you do not want to see punished for just this kind of a constitutional violation.
Hope is the denial of reality
Christ on a stick...extra massive settlement please...which only helps if it comes out of the police budget and payroll for raises
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Police are agents of the government (typically city government). Government tends to muck things up and I've long held that police unions (like every single government employee union) does far more harm than good. I have no problem with holding idiots responsible for being idiots. This notion that you believe I think no officer can do any wrong is really weird.
You're right; they're only allowed to violate the rights of "bad guys."
Hope is the denial of reality
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
I'm sure being a racist didn't impact the police chief's work.
Hope is the denial of reality
Totally not racist.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
And more good news stories
https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/l...crime/2748446/
"Bowser called on the D.C. Council to approve funding for more police officers, and the federal government to fully reopen courts and clear the backlog of cases.
Deadly shootings are almost a daily occurrence in D.C. So far this year, 111 people have died in homicides, including 6-year-old Nyiah Courtney. Police announced an arrest in her death at a news conference Wednesday."
I thought Democrats wanted to defund the police?
Hope is the denial of reality
More Democrats are in favor of defunding the police than Republicans are but not all Democrats are fully retarded.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
