Originally Posted by wdmso (Post 1215618)

It’s like making sugar cookies then throwing in a handful of chocolate chips .. and saying I didn’t change anything it’s still a cookie

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by scottw (Post 1215622)

you don't read very well....

"you can argue the cop was wrong in what he did and he's now paying the price for making a very poor decision"

Originally Posted by Got Stripers (Post 1215621)

Wow talk about stupidity Scott or should I say holding the line, you really think he needed a knee on his neck for that long to subdue him? You are the mirror image of that cops mentality with that post. You’d have fit right in where the Celtic legend Bill Russell couldn’t buy a house.

A little history. Back when America was "great," this man couldn't buy a house in my home town of Wakefield, Massachusetts. He bought one in Reading, next door, where one night a band of Americans broke in, stole his valuables, smashed his trophies, and #^&#^&#^&#^& inside the covers of his and his wife's bed. Yes, #^&#^&#^&#^& on his bed. And every game, he stood stoically for the anthem, looking around at thousands of white faces as they boasted of the "land of the free and the home of the brave."
I could live in Wakefield. But Bill Russell, the greatest player in the history of basketball, the man in this picture wearing his Presidential Medal of Freedom, couldn't.
Don't let anyone tell you there's no such thing as white privilege. Don't let any government official, especially a president, tell you or anyone else when it is appropriate to stand, sit, or kneel in protest. And most of all, don't fall for this MAGA bull#^&#^&#^&#^&.

Originally Posted by wdmso (Post 1215618)

Jim when you use your black on black crime line to distract from talking about police brutality.

It’s like making sugar cookies then throwing in a handful of chocolate chips .. and saying I didn’t change anything it’s still a cookie

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1215626)

conservatives look at what’s going on in the cities and say that what we’re doing isn’t working, these people deserve better. which is obviously why we advocate for school choice.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1215628)

Just NIMBY

As you said before:
“No, because many people work their butts off to be able to move from Hartford to West Hartford specifically for the schools, and they deserve that.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1215629)

who says not in my backyard? that may be your instinctive reaction, and it’s probably a big reason why liberals oppose school choice. That’s your racism, keep it to yourself please.

i clarified my comment you posted ( you conveniently forgot that) to say that i’m opposed to forcing suburb kids to go to school in the cities. i’m all in favor of getting good students out of the cities failing schools and into good schools. liberals are the ones who oppose that. conservatives love it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1215630)

But you’re the one who decided that it would become “forced busing”
Redlining and exclusionary zoning is just the workaround
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1215631)

not sure why this is going too fast for you, but i’m all
in favor of letting city kids choose to divert their tax dollars to get seats in better schools.

That’s pretty simple. if you still don’t get it, that’s your issue, not mine. perhaps try loosening the straps in your tim foil hat. if i could put it in a pop-up book for guy I would, maybe that would help you understand.

it doesn’t necessarily mean forcing suburb kids to cities. but sometimes it leads to that. here in CT, they have talked about regionalizing schools. No thanks. NIMBY

Liberals oppose school choice. Conservatives love school choice.

Going too fast for you?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1215639)

Oddly enough, Vermont has school choice.



And no, we are not paying for kids to go to a religion based school.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1215640)

So in the same post, you deny that liberals oppose school choice. Then in the next sentence, you adamantly oppose school choice.

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1215641)

I oppose the use of my tax dollars to fund your religion, Jefferson and Madison did also.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1215642)

i know you oppose it. but you also said i was lying when i said liberals oppose school choice. so you’re saying two contradictory things. I said Vermont has school choice, and by your definition it is a liberal state. If that makes you a liar :huh:

how about my tax dollars? why can’t i use my own tax dollars to send my kids to the school i think is best? why are my tax dollars forcibly taken from
me and given to schools i would t choose to send my kids to? and much of that money goes to teachers unions, who donate it to democrat political campaigns and to planned parenthood. so it’s unfair for your tax dollars to fund things you don’t like, but ok if my tax dollars go to causes i don’t like.

For the same reason the rest of us can't use our tax dollars as we choose.


Jim: liberals oppose school choice.

Pete: no they don’t, you’re lying!

Jim: so you support school choice?

Pete: No!

like taking to a three year old.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by scottw (Post 1215622)

you don't read very well....

"you can argue the cop was wrong in what he did and he's now paying the price for making a very poor decision"

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1215643)

Once again the mistress of false equivalence demonstrates a complete lack of comprehension

You only like the Constitution when it fits your desires, perhaps the latest appointees will decide it says what you want.

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1215612)

Jim, you ask pretty banal questions.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1215648)

"I said Vermont has school choice, and by your definition it is a liberal state. If that makes you a liar"

Right, right. If I say "liberals oppose school choice", and you can find a liberal who doesn't oppose school choice, that makes me a liar. So you're also lying if you say "conservatives oppose abortion", because there are some who support abortion. My fault, I sometimes forget how stupid you are. We can't accurately state the general positions the two parties have. Because you don't comprehend it.

"For the same reason the rest of us can't use our tax dollars as we choose."

No no, you are lying! Because there are some places that allow school choice, including the use of tax dollars at religious schools. Liar! In fact, the Supreme Court (Zelman case) specifically upheld this as constitutional. Got any more falsehoods to spew? Do you ever stop making stuff up? Look up the Zelman case, tell me what it said?

Your side just doesn't want those blacks to succeed, any more than they wanted them to escape plantations in the 1800s.. You're still missing that history lesson about the Southern Strategy

You don't get invited to too many MENSA picnics, do you?

Originally Posted by scottw (Post 1215620)

Quote:



you characterization is incredibly stupid, we don't have "Government or authority" killing Americans with impunity.....and we don't have Government or authority" killing Americans, particularly Americans of color with impunity....and there is no acceptance of this false notion...

seem you need a definition lesion like Jim in the context of the topic

impunity.

exemption from punishment or freedom from the injurious consequences of an action.

Seeing you don’t understand what it means in the context of the topic

Here is another.

Qualified immunity is a defense that law enforcement and other government officials can raise in response to lawsuits seeking monetary damages for alleged civil rights violations. ... Critics argue this high bar effectively shields law enforcement from accountability So if your a cop you're a representative of the Government..


honest question wayne, your hate and vitriol toward law enforcement/police is very apparent and irrational...did you have a bad experience at some point, where does this anger come from?

I have no hate or Vitriol towards law enforcement if you recall I did 32 years as a corrections officer and shift commander in a prison.. So I have a ton of experience on use of force and wore a sidearm taser in plain clothes in public Transporting Inmates all over the State .. I do have much vitriol for thoses who see shootings of unarmed people or clear uses of excessive force and staff who knowingly and willing use excessive force.. then excuse it with the line they should have just done what they were told .... wanting Accountability is not dislike for police .. unless your a conservative

in each of these cases....I ask myself, if I'd done what the "victim" did, would I have had the same result?...in the case of Floyd...absolutely...if I was hopped up on drugs driving around, did something that required the police to be called and the resisted arrest to the extent that they had to pin me to the ground to control and cuff me and I hit my head or in Floyds case,
The police caused George Floyd’s death, but drugs and heart disease played a role, the medical examiner says.
....you can argue the cop was wrong there's no argument in what he did and he's now paying the price for making a very poor decision that was far beyond a poor decision but keep up the defense apparently but Floyd also paid the price for what were apparently decades of bad decisions including all of the bad decisions HE made THAT day...have you ever tried to restrain someone that was 6'7" and crazy on drugs? yes I have and guess what A knee on the neck was never allowed

we can go case by case....there is a reason that in most of these cases the police are not found guilty and it's not due to systemic racism and not the result cops driving around targeting people of color with impunity.. its called Qualified immunity


the Wendy's shooting in Atlanta, was another....if I'd done what that guy did...yup, I'd expect to get shot.. what while running away? he had a taser as dangerous as a can of pepper spray so he deserved to be shot ok

if I do something that causes the police to show up and restrain me and I'm uncooperative or give them reason to think I have a weapon or I'm belligerent and resist arrest, yup...I expect bad things will happen to be.... please define Bad things but once you are restrained force is required to stop

unfortunately we have a lot of people running around making bad decisions and thinking that there won't be consequences some are cops or the former POTUS

you can go ahead and take that to mean I accept Government or authority Killing Americans with impunity with clear disparities based on race:hihi:

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1215626)

i’m not mentioning black on black crime to deflect away from the police. people
with IQs above 65 can think about two things at once. im sorry if you don’t fall into that category.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by wdmso (Post 1215657)

ok jim you win i can't defeat your idiocy :sleeps: next time we talk about a topic .. I'll start talking about tuna fishing even if it's not relevant .. Just to prove . I can talk about 2 different things at the same time :rotflmao:

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1215659)

According to Spence, 13 unarmed blacks were killed by cops in 2019.

Originally Posted by scottw (Post 1215623)

this sounds racist

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1215659)

According to Spence, 13 unarmed blacks were killed by cops in 2019. According to the FBI, 8,600 blacks were homicide victims in 2020/

I say we should work to address police brutality and black on black crime, but that we should allocate resources and energy to those problems according to the magnitude of each issue. One issue claims 660 times more black lives than the other.

You say it's "idiocy" to give any weight to the difference in magnitude of those crises. You are entitled to that opinion.

Originally Posted by wdmso (Post 1215666)

Any unarmed Americans is to many no matter their Race to be killed by police.. not sure why expecting more from law enforcement is anti law enforcement to the Right? They sees accountability as a woke or a CRT suggestion .. apparently

Ps for the record your black on black crime is still irrelevant to the police brutality question.. I guess you still never read the article in the link I provided
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Got Stripers (Post 1215647)

I read enough to prompt my response, here is what you posted, which suggested the cop was justified.

.

Originally Posted by wdmso (Post 1215666)

Any unarmed Americans is to many

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by wdmso (Post 1215655)

even in a combat zone I couldn't shoot an Iraqi because I thought he had a gun .. I am sure some did ..

Originally Posted by wdmso (Post 1215655)

.

that was far beyond a poor decision but keep up the defense

.

Originally Posted by wdmso (Post 1215666)

Any unarmed Americans is to many no matter their Race to be killed by police..

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1215675)

Of course, some would say we should be able to solve more than one problem at a time.

Location matters when it comes to police killings, both in U.S. states and around the world. Black persons in Oklahoma are six times more likely to be killed by police than those in Georgia. Additionally, eight of the 100 largest police departments in the United States kill black men at higher rates than the U.S. murder rate. These departments are Reno, Oklahoma City, Santa Ana, Anaheim, St. Louis City, Scottsdale, Hialeah, and Madison.

The United States, however, does not have the highest number of police killings or the highest rate of police killings per 10 million people. The United States has the fifth-highest number of police killings and the 30th-highest police killing rate per 10 million people.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by scottw (Post 1215683)

what are your thoughts on Ashli Babbit?

Originally Posted by scottw (Post 1215679)

this is an unreasonable standard....this is like saying any death from cancer is too many....well, in the real world...it's gonna happen

Originally Posted by scottw (Post 1215680)

maybe we should combat train our police so they will better equipped to deal with these situations

Originally Posted by scottw (Post 1215683)

what are your thoughts on Ashli Babbit?

Originally Posted by scottw (Post 1215679)

this is an unreasonable standard....this is like saying any death from cancer is too many....well, in the real world...it's gonna happen

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1215687)

exactly, you send cops into gravely dangerous situations, they’re pumped up and scared like anyone would be, mistakes will be made. it’s tragic, and we can try to train them better, but mistakes will be made, just like good faith mistakes are made by doctors in hospitals.

it would be nice if we could
differentiate between well intentioned mistakes ( say, Brianna Taylor where the cops walked into a barrage of fire) Jim they conducted a house invasion with a licensed gun owner who was defending himself and murder ( like the Floyd case). and it would be nice if we didn’t always assume race was the main motive when we have no idea.




Sadly, that kind of honesty doesn’t help democrats win elections. What helps them, is pretending this issue is much worse than it actually is. And if innocent cops get killed as a result of portraying them as racist assassins, the DNC has decided that’s a price they’re willing to pay
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by wdmso (Post 1215690)

Ah the Babbit false equivalence nonsense


I don't recall the capitol police saying they shot her because they thought she had a weapon (but would haven't been outrageous if they had).. with her hands up .. but please keep trying to suggest she wasn't actively trying to break into an area with our representatives to . with clear intent to do Harm . against orders from law enforcement to not enter...

I thought you would have said she should of complied or in your words
"if I do something that causes the police to show up and restrain me and I'm uncooperative or give them reason to think I have a weapon or I'm belligerent and resist arrest, yup...I expect bad things will happen to be."

which is it ?

Almost immediately, white supremacist and anti-government extremists began trying to use Ashli Babbitt's death as a clarion call for recruits. and now Trump what a surprise

Originally Posted by wdmso (Post 1215690)

but please keep trying to suggest she wasn't actively trying to break into an area with our representatives to . with clear intent to do Harm . against orders from law enforcement to not enter...