posted by iclfan2

That would be accurate if people didn't say the same thing about George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. I dgaf what MLK did, but it will be funny to see the defense of it.

Well, those people that say the same thing about GW and Jefferson are wrong. I'm limiting my views to the Confederate named items. 

And yeah I don't care what the FBI may or may not have listened to or King's private life. I also like the whole article just glosses over how the FBI illegally was listening to an American citizen for no legit reason. 

posted by ptown_trojans_1

Well, those people that say the same thing about GW and Jefferson are wrong. I'm limiting my views to the Confederate named items. 

And yeah I don't care what the FBI may or may not have listened to or King's private life. I also like the whole article just glosses over how the FBI illegally was listening to an American citizen for no legit reason. 

Obviously, that's not okay, and it certainly shouldn't be the sort of thing that would ever be used in legal action ...

... but if that stuff happened, I don't really think the legality of the surveillance has to be a factor in public opinion.

As for Washington and Jefferson, they joined a colonial rebellion against England.  Lee and Davis just joined a side in a civil war.  I'm not sympathetic with the South, but I think calling them traitors is a stretch (in both cases, frankly).

You know, when I started reading this article I thought it might actually be a joke.  Shame on me.

https://gizmodo.com/bias-against-female-lab-animals-is-messing-up-scientifi-1835126400

posted by gut

You know, when I started reading this article I thought it might actually be a joke.  Shame on me.

https://gizmodo.com/bias-against-female-lab-animals-is-messing-up-scientifi-1835126400

Oh FFS ...

posted by ptown_trojans_1

You equate the renaming of the schools and streets to Metoo. It is not. It is a false argument. 

The renaming of streets and schools is related to the rewrite the false history of the Confederacy's Lost Cause bullshit from the late 19th century through the 1960s. Lee and Jefferson Davis were traitors and do not deserve to be recognized on streets and schools. 

So if MLK was party to rape, the MeToo crowd, or even normal Americans, should not be outraged and re-think the naming of streets etc after him, because he was black, or a democrat, or sought civil rights etc….   is that what you are saying?

posted by ptown_trojans_1

 

The renaming of streets and schools is related to the rewrite the false history of the Confederacy's Lost Cause bullshit from the late 19th century through the 1960s. Lee and Jefferson Davis were traitors and do not deserve to be recognized on streets and schools. 

1. Technically so where the founding fathers (Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, etc), they were technically traitors, just happened to be on the winning side and the side we deem more "moral" based on our history.

2. Lee was highly conflicted and wanted to lead the Union Army during the Civil War, but ultimately he chose to be loyal to his state of Virginia. Calling him a traitor is like calling George Washington one. Jefferson Davis was a rather vile man (from what I have read), so I am not going to defend him, but Lee was for abolition, just eventual/slow abolition. He was just more loyal to his state (VERY common in the first 1700s and 1800s) than he was the United States.  He actually freed the slaves on his wife's family's land (Arlington House back then, Arlington Memorial Cemetary now) the YEAR BEFORE (1862) Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation. So while he was fighting for the Confederacy, he freed the slaves on his wife's family's land. Not exactly a "traitor" or vile human like the revisionist historians are trying to make him out to be now.

posted by jmog

Not exactly a "traitor" or vile human like the revisionist historians are trying to make him out to be now.

 

 

I don't know if it's revisionist as much as it is the race to further-left progressivism that has been infecting democrats for a long time now. 

The question is: are these people trying to catch up with the curve or create it?

I grew up with the idea that Lee was a traitor.  I think it's mostly just a case of the winners writing the history books.

Still, I don't think it's a fair assessment.

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1134966028881027072

We need S&L to come back to tell us it's only a few people.  I am sure Boogie will. 

posted by like_that

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1134966028881027072

We need S&L to come back to tell us it's only a few people.  I am sure Boogie will. 

Lol. You’d think moderates like ptown would be worried about the crazy mainstream beliefs of the Democratic Party in 2019. 

posted by like_that

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1134966028881027072

We need S&L to come back to tell us it's only a few people.  I am sure Boogie will. 

Almost as bad as the booing are all the comments that agree with it.  I'd say a couple courses in economics should be mandatory, but then AOC has a degree in economics!

It seems like the new branding for socialism is "this isn't socialism....isn't what fails all over the place".  I've had this argument before that the 200 year old textbook definition of socialism is simply wrong - you don't need to actually run production when you can achieve the same outcomes thru taxation and regulation.

Taxation and regulation implicitly redistribute resources, which fundamentally IS socialism.  The degree of the former determines the degree of the latter.  I've never argued for no taxation or no regulation....but more of either DOES represent a shift away from economic freedom towards socialism.

I can't recall this ever being brought up before, maybe it has. If so , apologies!

https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/state-status

This has been talked about before and even tried, but failed. Now it is going again. Essentially, states are willing to give up their electoral votes in order to give them to other states in an effort to ensure that whoever wins the popular vote will also win the electoral vote. 

Most recently, Nevada has rejected it.

posted by CenterBHSFan

I can't recall this ever being brought up before, maybe it has. If so , apologies!

https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/state-status

This has been talked about before and even tried, but failed. Now it is going again. Essentially, states are willing to give up their electoral votes in order to give them to other states in an effort to ensure that whoever wins the popular vote will also win the electoral vote. 

Most recently, Nevada has rejected it.

 

 

It has been discussed here and there on this site.  Mostly the people who defend this don't have a grasp onto history and why we have an EC.  Liberals love to think in absolutes and the EC is a perfect example.  This is why they are currently ok with abolishing it, because they see themselves holding the popular majority for eternity.  Considering the fact that conservatives are outbreeding liberals, they should really be careful what they wish for. 

posted by like_that

It has been discussed here and there on this site.  Mostly the people who defend this don't have a grasp onto history and why we have an EC.  Liberals love to think in absolutes and the EC is a perfect example.  This is why they are currently ok with abolishing it, because they see themselves holding the popular majority for eternity.  Considering the fact that conservatives are outbreeding liberals, they should really be careful what they wish for. 

posted by like_that

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1134966028881027072

We need S&L to come back to tell us it's only a few people.  I am sure Boogie will. 

No I won’t.  There are probably a lot o socialists in CA. 

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

No I won’t.  There are probably a lot o socialists in CA. 

California absolutely does, along with NY.

What's funny is that, while leaning more "socialistic" than the average state, California is paying poop patrollers a comprehensive $184,000.00 per year to clean up the massive poop problem. 

Doesn't seem very fair to the meter readers!

Scott Peterson arrested today. Remember that time CNN has a town hall calling out Dana Loesch and Marco Rubio instead of that loser? (That dumbass show also won some Walter Cronkite media award)

The media truly is the enemy of truth. 

posted by iclfan2

Scott Peterson arrested today. 

Good! 

That sheriff that stayed safely away from the school during the shooting?

I'm not sure how I feel about that.  I mean, it's his job, but doesn't that mean he should be fired?  It seems a little harsh to charge someone as a criminal for not putting their life at risk, does it not?

Don't get me wrong; the guy needs fired.  Putting himself in harm's way is part of his job, so if he can't do it, then he shouldn't have the job.

Prosecution just seems harsh for that.  I'm still mulling it over, though.

posted by O-Trap

That sheriff that stayed safely away from the school during the shooting?

I'm not sure how I feel about that.  I mean, it's his job, but doesn't that mean he should be fired?  It seems a little harsh to charge someone as a criminal for not putting their life at risk, does it not?

Don't get me wrong; the guy needs fired.  Putting himself in harm's way is part of his job, so if he can't do it, then he shouldn't have the job.

Prosecution just seems harsh for that.  I'm still mulling it over, though.

The deputy sheriff.  The actual sheriff was busy virtue signaling at CNN's town hall blaming everyone other than his own department.  They are both trash.

posted by O-Trap

I'm not sure how I feel about that.  I mean, it's his job, but doesn't that mean he should be fired?  It seems a little harsh to charge someone as a criminal for not putting their life at risk, does it not?

From a law angle it gets interesting. I was always under the impression that courts ruled that police don't have a legal duty to protect (probably based on the supreme court ruling below). However, it appears one judge in Florida through one Parkland case out, while another said it could go on. Will be interesting to see how the legalities play out. Regardless him, the real sheriff, and the POS media all failed in this instance. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2018/12/21/us-judge-says-law-enforcement-officers-had-no-legal-duty-protect-parkland-students-during-mass-shooting/?utm_term=.b501598e35d5

posted by like_that

The deputy sheriff.  The actual sheriff was busy virtue signaling at CNN's town hall blaming everyone other than his own department.  They are both trash.

posted by iclfan2

From a law angle it gets interesting. I was always under the impression that courts ruled that police don't have a legal duty to protect (probably based on the supreme court ruling below). However, it appears one judge in Florida through one Parkland case out, while another said it could go on. Will be interesting to see how the legalities play out. Regardless him, the real sheriff, and the POS media all failed in this instance. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2018/12/21/us-judge-says-law-enforcement-officers-had-no-legal-duty-protect-parkland-students-during-mass-shooting/?utm_term=.b501598e35d5

I don't disagree with either of these takes.  I think they're hot garbage, too.  Just not sure how I feel about a law that says, "Either risk death or be put in prison," regardless of a person's employment.

Does the guy deserve to be in jail for not doing their job?  Probably not.  Is he liable for negligent behavior?  Yep 100%

posted by O-Trap

I don't disagree with either of these takes.  I think their hot garbage, too.  Just not sure how I feel about a law that says, "Either risk death or be put in prison," regardless of a person's employment.

I'm with you. I also don't know how I think the law should be interpreted. It's a fine line.

If you sign up to be a cop and sit back while children are dying, I'm not sure if firing is enough of a punishment. If you sign up for a job or a profession, there are consequences for your actions. He also didn't just not risk death, he sat there for 45 minutes, and told the other cops to not engage.  

posted by Spock

Does the guy deserve to be in jail for not doing their job?  Probably not.  Is he liable for negligent behavior?  Yep 100%

So, you believe self-preservation can be cause for negligence?