Posted by seamar_116 on 5/3/2015 7:13:00 PM (view original):
MOY

<<I'm a law abiding citizen. Just because I don't believe in a law (and there are plenty of laws I think are stupid) doesn't mean, in my opinion at least, that I don't need to follow them. Those serving on the underground railroad were breaking the law and if caught they deserved to be prosecuted. Unfortunately at that time slaves were considered property. Fortunately however the 13th amendment changed that. Legally, as was done with the 13th amendment, would be the way to make permanent change with integrity... Not smuggling, stealing, rioting, etc.

Justification is always in the eye of the beholder (which is why we have laws to clarify what is just and what is not). Smuggling kids across the US border for a better life is no different than smuggling a slave north of the Mason Dixon line for the same. Do you think breaking the law today to help illegal immigrants across our borders is 'justifiable'?>>

At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, if you were a Jew in Nazi Germany you would voluntarily go along with the program because it was "legal"? Or if you were an AMERICAN CITIZEN of Japanese heritage you would just sell off your property for cents on the dollar and head off to the prison camp the government had set up for you because of nothing you had done ...nor would you protest on behalf of your friends who were in such a situation?

Just because it's legal doesn't make it right. Not justifying the rioting or looting...because I don't see the higher purpose. But I can acknowledge that illegal behavior can be justified. And don't let the behavior of the knuckleheads detract from the legitimate claims of those who have peacefully and maybe not so peacefully protested the actions of police around the country that step over the line.

I wouldn't voluntarily go along with the program. I would flee the country if I was in that much danger. When you sign up to be a citizen you are signing up to abide by ALL of that country's laws - for good or bad. In a 'free' democracy you have two choices if you don't like the laws... Change them (legally) or move.

Like Mike has stated times are different but there are still plenty of refugees around the world fleeing from war, persecution, or natural disasters.

I do agree with you that just because something is legal does not make it right... BUT the law is the law and there is a process to change those laws that should be followed so they are more fair and just. Rioting and breaking the law is not the way to go. Protests are not illegal - and are a legitimate avenue because in this country you are free to express yourself 'peacefully'. There is a reason MLK is heralded for what he did.... And that's because he accomplished what he did without burning down buildings and robbing stores.

Who the hell brought up the Underground Railroad?

That was a non violent, non destructive activity.

Posted by bad_luck on 5/3/2015 10:40:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/2/2015 9:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/2/2015 8:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/2/2015 7:44:00 PM (view original):
Are you now equating MLK to the Baltimore rioters?

Nope. I'm saying that sometimes breaking the law is acceptable. Sometimes the ends justify the means.

And what "end" were the Baltimore rioters trying to achieve?

I already said before, that, in this case, it's not clear that the rioting is justifiable. My point is that sometimes it is justifiable.

And I'll contend that there are no scenarios in which rioting (burning, looting, violence and destruction) is justifiable in America today, and that it's utterly retarded to assert that there are.

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/3/2015 7:22:00 PM (view original):

So much long-windedness.

Do not compare what happened 160 years ago to what happens today.   160 years ago we could actually own a human being.   We're a little more advanced, i.e. civilized, than we were in 1855.

Am I seriously the only person who knows this?

160 years ago we could own a human being. Today we allow people to murder babies and call it "choice." I would not call that much of an advance.

<<
I wouldn't voluntarily go along with the program. I would flee the country if I was in that much danger. When you sign up to be a citizen you are signing up to abide by ALL of that country's laws - for good or bad. In a 'free' democracy you have two choices if you don't like the laws... Change them (legally) or move.>>

That was not an option open to everyone in Germany who wanted to flee. In the case of the Jews aboard the SS. St.Louis, they were denied entry into a number of countries...including the USA, and had to return to Germany where most ended up in the camps. Also, in order to leave Germany and Austria you had to have a visa from a country that would accept you or you weren't allowed to leave.

And Moy, now you are faced with a choice based on your previous statement regarding illegal immigration, which you absolutely opposed...are you the guy at the border turning back refugees fleeing oppression?  Yes or no? Or do you tell the Jews to go back to Germany and work it out?

Posted by seamar_116 on 5/3/2015 9:39:00 PM (view original):
<<
I wouldn't voluntarily go along with the program. I would flee the country if I was in that much danger. When you sign up to be a citizen you are signing up to abide by ALL of that country's laws - for good or bad. In a 'free' democracy you have two choices if you don't like the laws... Change them (legally) or move.>>

That was not an option open to everyone in Germany who wanted to flee. In the case of the Jews aboard the SS. St.Louis, they were denied entry into a number of countries...including the USA, and had to return to Germany where most ended up in the camps. Also, in order to leave Germany and Austria you had to have a visa from a country that would accept you or you weren't allowed to leave.

And Moy, now you are faced with a choice based on your previous statement regarding illegal immigration, which you absolutely opposed...are you the guy at the border turning back refugees fleeing oppression?  Yes or no? Or do you tell the Jews to go back to Germany and work it out?

Cause blacks in this country are oppressed like Nazi Germany? For the record I'm not in Germany and here in the US we are not ruled by a violent dictator.... Nor have we been in over 200 years. That's the beauty of a democracy. I wouldn't want to live in Syria today for the same reasons.... Thus I live in the US and abide by US laws to the best of my ability.

Its a no brainer for the US border question... Immigrants must apply for a visa like everyone else or you don't come here. Sneaking into this country is against the law. If there was an extreme situation like genocide in mexico or something one would hope the US sets up temporary refugee camps like Turkey has for Iraq right now.

Its pretty simple.... Don't overcomplicate it. The law is the law. No exceptions.

When you start to say sometimes the ends justify the means then you get muddied situations like 'well Bush thought he was going to find WMDs in Iraq, and they do have oil over there, and he did remove a tyrant in Saddam, and they did hold elections for the first time ever in Iraq.... So it was OK that we invaded that country and 4000 Americans lost their lives'. Of course in Bush's case he got the authority to go to war from congress but imagine had he not and the 'ends' could justify the means... Imagine what so many others would do if they didn't 'have to' follow the law if they thought the ends justified the means. Scary thought.

See that's the problem...you think these are simple problems, with simple solutions. I understand why you won't answer my question...you either come across as a hypocrite or heartless.

But here...take another stab at it:

And Moy, now you are faced with a choice based on your previous statement regarding illegal immigration, which you absolutely opposed...are you the guy at the border turning back refugees fleeing oppression?  Yes or no? Or do you tell the Jews to go back to Germany and work it out?

I'll make it simpler  << If there was an extreme situation like genocide in mexico or something one would hope the US sets up temporary refugee camps like Turkey has for Iraq right now.>> Let's assume your Mexican genocide scenario, but no US refugee camps. Someone comes to you for help. Do you turn them away?

Posted by tecwrg on 12/1/2014 9:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 12/1/2014 8:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/1/2014 7:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 12/1/2014 6:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/1/2014 5:03:00 PM (view original):
Wrong in a criminal sense. Not wrong in a "*******, dude, you're a ******* idiot, how did you allow that to happen, you're fired" sense.

I'm sure he's glad to trade his job for his life. He said his conscience is clean.

He seems like a smart enough guy to recover - it was his decision to resign, and probably the right decision to get off the street. Maybe book and movie deal money in the short term, consulting police departments and seminars/key note speaking in the long term?

yeahno. No one is hiring him to consult. He'll probably struggle to find work in the short term and will need to find a career unrelated to law enforcement.

Time will tell. I would bet cops will line up to hear his story, how he dealt with the media, etc. How many cops across the nation wore I am Darren Wilson bands? The St Louis police just filed a compliant with the NFL for allowing the rams players to do the hands up don't shoot gesture during a game. Not everyone thinks this guy is toxic, especially police officers that can relate.

Maybe he consults, maybe he doesn't. Not every consultant has years of experience in an industry. Wilson has experience that very few cops have.... Experience being in the national spotlight and how to handle that pressure. Some 20 year vets can't teach you that and it's something police departments around the country are concerned about - especially with how easy things go viral nowadays.

Maybe he writes a book. Stacey Koon raised over $4 million writing "Presumed Guilty: The Tragedy of the Rodney King Affair". One of the other officers that was sentenced in the King case got out of jail and went to law school. At 28, Darren Wilson will be fine. What, he lost a $60,000 a year job? He can replace that.

You're as bad as BL.  Say something dumb, then double down when called out on it.

You're making Wilson out as "super cop", who has somehow become a master of dealing with the media when in the crosshairs of controversy.

He is/was just a regular cop, doing his job.  Nothing more, nothing less.

****A look back**** What's Darren Wilson doing now?

On the fundraising trail as a key note speaker:

http://newsone.com/3099111/darren-wilson-surfaces-at-ferguson-area-fundraiser/

And an estimated $1.5 million he's made from interviews and donations:

http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/darren-wilson-reportedly-receives-a-large-bounty-of-financial-support-for-killing-michael-brown/19029-darren-wilson-reportedly-receives-a-large-bounty-of-financial-support-for-killing-michael-brown

Posted by seamar_116 on 5/4/2015 12:36:00 AM (view original):
See that's the problem...you think these are simple problems, with simple solutions. I understand why you won't answer my question...you either come across as a hypocrite or heartless.

But here...take another stab at it:

And Moy, now you are faced with a choice based on your previous statement regarding illegal immigration, which you absolutely opposed...are you the guy at the border turning back refugees fleeing oppression?  Yes or no? Or do you tell the Jews to go back to Germany and work it out?

I'll make it simpler  << If there was an extreme situation like genocide in mexico or something one would hope the US sets up temporary refugee camps like Turkey has for Iraq right now.>> Let's assume your Mexican genocide scenario, but no US refugee camps. Someone comes to you for help. Do you turn them away?

I call 1-866-DHS-2ICE like I'm supposed to and they sort it out. If I personally think refugee camps are important I call my representatives and tell them so. Maybe I blog about how we should enact a law that temporarily allows Mexicans to stay in refugee camps until their country is safe for them. Maybe I do a YouTube video suggesting that.... Did I break the law yet? No. Have I rioted yet? No. If I take them in I am breaking the law which I will not do even if I disagree with the law.

Posted by moy23 on 11/26/2014 1:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 11/26/2014 12:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bheid408 on 11/26/2014 12:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 11/26/2014 10:32:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/26/2014 10:29:00 AM (view original):
Our judicial system doesn't work if you've already decided guilt/innocence. 

And our law enforcement system can't work if they decide potential for guilt/innocence based on skin color.  Which is the underlying reason these protests exist.

The only solution to a problem like that is to have 1 cop of each race in every patrol car or only have a black cop handle crimes against black criminals and white cops handle crimes against white criminals. It'll never happen. The demonstrators/rioters are asking for something that can't be given.

As I said earlier, cameras on cops, so we can see what happens in these cop altercations.

We are all fine with cameras on cops. No one is against that, even cops. Cameras on cop cars and on vests has tremendously increased convictions in court over 90% in many studies while reducing the chance of violent confrontations from those aware they are being filmed. That's a good thing, and expensive, but probably worth the cost.

One doesn't need to riot for that... They need to legislate.

Seamar - I've been consistent that to create the change you want you need to get it done the right way. This quoted post is from 6 months ago and I was whistling the same tune I am now. Its OK to believe in something and to want change... Go for it by all means.... But HOW you do it is important. Rioting and robbing stores is not the way to get the change you want.

Posted by moy23 on 11/26/2014 3:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/26/2014 3:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 11/26/2014 3:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/26/2014 3:18:00 PM (view original):
Natalie's Cakes and More has received more than 100k in donations since her shop was damaged in the riots.    My guess is the FPD didn't donate that money.

That's what's so stupid. Instead of using Mike Browns death for good its 'Burn this ***** Down".

I knew a girl who's sister bled to death in a car accident over 20 years ago because 1st responders like police and firemen didn't know basic first aid. This girls mother didn't drum up support for a riot - instead she drummed up donations and formed a not for profit that now has helped pass laws requiring first responders to know basic first aid. The foundation also teaches things like CPR to children in schools around the country and all kinds of other great stuff.

Sharpton and the Stepdad shouldn't be crying foul.... They should be facilitating lasting change the right way, legally, and people would support that - including whites.

I still don't know the "message" or the "change" they should be seeking.

You can't ******* steal **** and then fight cops.    You CANNOT do that. 

Better relationship with the police force?   OK, two way street.   Both sides have to want that.   But, the moment you steal **** and then fight cops, that relationship becomes meaningless.

Let's stop pretending like something good can come from Brown's death.   He did something you CANNOT do and died for it.  The relationship with the FPD priot to that would not have mattered.   End of that story.   Start a new book.

Let's say it was to get cameras on all police vests? Certainly Al could call his good friend Barack and get some politians moving in the right direction.... Or the step dad could start a foundation to move the objective.

But sadly you are correct - The only message I see from anyone notable right now is burn this ***** down and the jury was rigged.

Seamar - another post for your reference


Turns out they are now trying to pass a Michael Brown Law, the proper way :

https://www.change.org/p/u-s-house-of-representatives-pass-the-michael-brown-jr-law-to-begin-equipping-police-with-body-cameras

I don't disagree with trying to go about things the "right" way. And I do not have sympathy for rioters or looters, nor do I have sympathy for those that prey on the poor and oppressed. But it seems to me, that you are saying that you would refuse to provide aid to someone, if it violates a law, even a law you feel is immoral and unjust. Do I have that right?

If I put you on the beach in Florida and two refugees are struggling to get ashore, one from Cuba and one from Haiti, you would tell the Cuban "welcome," but tell the Haitian, "get lost?"

Posted by seamar_116 on 5/4/2015 2:46:00 AM (view original):
I don't disagree with trying to go about things the "right" way. And I do not have sympathy for rioters or looters, nor do I have sympathy for those that prey on the poor and oppressed. But it seems to me, that you are saying that you would refuse to provide aid to someone, if it violates a law, even a law you feel is immoral and unjust. Do I have that right?

If I put you on the beach in Florida and two refugees are struggling to get ashore, one from Cuba and one from Haiti, you would tell the Cuban "welcome," but tell the Haitian, "get lost?"

I'd call the authorities on both if it was that obvious they were sneaking into the country illegally. I wouldn't know the difference between Cuban and Haitian. I'm assuming both don't have visas based on the little detail you've given me. I'd also assume the authorities would give them food, drink, and medical attention while they process the two individuals you mentioned.

Now for those that are legal citizens in need I do my best to help them... I'm on a couple boards for non-profit organizations that raise money/equipment for underprivileged children, I helped raise over $300,000 for the local United Way last year, and I'm coordinating a fundraiser for the local food pantry that starts next month which I hope is a huge success. This heartless, racist, evil conservative probably does more for people in need than most bleeding heart liberals do.

"it seems to me, that you are saying that you would refuse to provide aid to someone, if it violates a law, even a law you feel is immoral and unjust. Do I have that right?"

And to clarify - yes - you have that correct. I'm not aiding and abetting someone I know is breaking the law. I'm not risking my family, safety, or livelihood - nor do I expect anyone else to.