Police Body Cam Footage No Longer Public In NC

Kontra Kommando said:

Really, than I guess that makes you a liar when you read some of the descriptions of the shootings. Crime has a lot to do with these incidents.

Here's some statistics for you,

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/leoka/2011/officers-feloniously-killed/officers-feloniously-killed#disablemobile

Offenders that have killed police in 2011.

"43 of the alleged offenders were white, 29 were black, 2 were American Indian/Alaskan Native, and 1 was Asian/Pacific Islander. The race was not reported for 2 offenders."

Edit: crime and poverty is the problem. Nothing will ever get fixed if we continue to screw people out of opportunities, while the Democrats continue to eliminate jobs.

We're talking about unarmed people getting shot by cops. We're not talking about gangland warfare. You keep trying to make this about that. It's not. It's about the rest of those communities. Cops police poor urban areas differently than they police the suburbs. This is a fact. Police officers have admitted to this. Is it fueled more by racism or more by convenient expedience or more by crime rates? It's probably more of a mix than anyone on any side of the issue wishes to admit, but that doesn't change the fact that if you're a NORMAL person you have to deal with it because of the color of your skin. (There are racist white people and I know for a fact that you don't enjoy having to deal with people blaming you for their actions, what makes you think a black person enjoys having to deal with that same shit?)

That's the problem. A long term systemic mistrust between the police and the people they're policing and a failure to address that issue. Which will never happen by dismissing the concerns of NORMAL people with "don't commit crimes". When you have concerns about government transparency (you know the thing that people in the party of individual liberty should fucking be concerned about) those concerns need to be addressed.

P.S. neither party is responsible for or is going to do shit about the inevitable technological advancements that are making low wage jobs obsolete.

Tarnsman said:

We're talking about unarmed people getting shot by cops. We're not talking about gangland warfare. You keep trying to make this about that. It's not. It's about the rest of those communities. Cops police poor urban areas differently than they police the suburbs. This is a fact. Police officers have admitted to this. Is it fueled more by racism or more by convenient expedience or more by crime rates? It's probably more of a mix than anyone on any side of the issue wishes to admit, but that doesn't change the fact that if you're a NORMAL person you have to deal with it because of the color of your skin. (There are racist white people and I know for a fact that you don't enjoy having to deal with people blaming you for their actions, what makes you think a black person enjoys having to deal with that same shit?)

That's the problem. A long term systemic mistrust between the police and the people they're policing and a failure to address that issue. Which will never happen by dismissing the concerns of NORMAL people with "don't commit crimes". When you have concerns about government transparency (you know the thing that people in the party of individual liberty should fucking be concerned about) those concerns need to be addressed.

P.S. neither party is responsible for or is going to do shit about the inevitable technological advancements that are making low wage jobs obsolete.

High crime, gangs and death tolls that exceed war zones IS the reason they police differently in urban areas. Are you fucking kidding me? Yet cops of any race are automatically racist according to you. Yet you get upset about generalized statements

Also BOTH parties are absolutely responsible for the outsourcing of jobs. This is also why poverty has destroyed urban environments. Black people came to big cities partly because of manufacturing jobs. Well the jobs left and a lot of the black people are still there. This is why there's a high poverty and subsequently a high crime rate.

Kontra Kommando said:

High crime, gangs and death tolls that exceed war zones IS the reason they police differently in urban areas. Are you fucking kidding me? Yet cops of any race are automatically racist according to you. Yet you get upset about generalized statements

Okay so you admit that police have a different paradigm when dealing with certain communities? Those communities aren't 100% criminals! There are a lot of normal people in those communities. When you take a broad approach I don't give a shit about whether or not it's justified or not, that means that certain people are going to be treated unfairly exclusively because they're unlucky enough to live in a certain area. There is a racial component to it. Plain and simple. No if ands or buts about it. You can't say "well sorry someone who has your skin tone fucked it up so you just have to deal with it".

That's just if it was 100% about crime rate, which it's not. It's also about quotas which cops have admitted to. When the city (you know the things generally run by DEMOCRATS so you should be all on board this train) says they need to write X tickets or have X arrests the cops are going to (and they admit this and they complain about it) go to the poor communities where people won't complain. Which happens to target a certain group of people more than others.

You can have racism without purposeful malice. If you're fucking over a group of people because of their race, that's racism. I mean there is probably some straight good old fashioned racism in there too, but there doesn't have to be.

P.S. no they're not. What are they supposed to do? Put an ass load of tariffs on everything? I know 'but our regulations and minimum wage' gets thrown around a lot but even if we got rid of those we're not competing with people literally making 50 cents a day.

Tarnsman said:

Okay so you admit that police have a different paradigm when dealing with certain communities? Those communities aren't 100% criminals! There are a lot of normal people in those communities. When you take a broad approach I don't give a shit about whether or not it's justified or not, that means that certain people are going to be treated unfairly exclusively because they're unlucky enough to live in a certain area. There is a racial component to it. Plain and simple. No if ands or buts about it. You can't say "well sorry someone who has your skin tone fucked it up so you just have to deal with it".

That's just if it was 100% about crime rate, which it's not. It's also about quotas which cops have admitted to. When the city (you know the things generally run by DEMOCRATS so you should be all on board this train) says they need to write X tickets or have X arrests the cops are going to (and they admit this and they complain about it) go to the poor communities where people won't complain. Which happens to target a certain group of people more than others.

You can have racism without purposeful malice. If you're fucking over a group of people because of their race, that's racism. I mean there is probably some straight good old fashioned racism in there too, but there doesn't have to be.

P.S. no they're not. What are they supposed to do? Put an ass load of tariffs on everything? I know 'but our regulations and minimum wage' gets thrown around a lot but even if we got rid of those we're not competing with people literally making 50 cents a day.

Yes they have to police high crime area differently, it would be stupid not to. Of course it's not 100% of the people there. But how are these people who don't commit crimes going to have a chance at living a normal life when their communities are plagued with violence? Yes, it is possible that some of the police might be racist. But you're making a generalization when you say there's a racial component. That is to be decided by the courts. Humans beings are capable of anything. But it is of my opinion that racism is being exploited for the sake of not addressing the real issue, which is restoring the livelihoods of Americans.

Also, you cannot deny the fact that the outsourcing of jobs have destroyed urban communities. "What are they supposed to do?" What does that have to do with the fact that it destroyed big cities?

Kontra Kommando said:

Yes they have to police high crime area differently, it would be stupid not to. Of course it's not 100% of the people there. But how are these people who don't commit crimes going to have a chance at living a normal life when their communities are plagued with violence? Yes, it is possible that some of the police might be racist. But you're making a generalization when you say there's a racial component. That is to be decided by the courts. Humans beings are capable of anything. But it is of my opinion that racism is being exploited for the sake of not addressing the real issue, which is restoring the livelihoods of Americans.

THERE IS A RACIAL COMPONENT. If a high crime rate means that a normal black person has to deal with increased scrutiny BECAUSE OF THEIR RACE that means there is a racial component to it. What is so hard to accept about that? You can make an argument about whether or not it's right, that's irrelevant. It exists. Dismissing people's concerns about that as "racial arson" is fucking retarded. You help those communities by getting people to trust police and you do that by listening to their concerns and creating a higher standard of accountability so shit like quota based policing (which fucking exists) doesn't happen. It's not about the individual cops. It's about the system. What is so hard for you to understand about that? It is possible for plenty of good cops to be stuck within a shitty system. It's a system that hurts those areas because instead of worrying about violent crime they're wasting time on draconian traffic enforcement to hit some quota.

Kontra Kommando said:

Also, you cannot deny the fact that the outsourcing of jobs have destroyed urban communities. "What are they supposed to do?" What does that have to do with the fact that it destroyed big cities?

I never denied that. I denied the notion that a political party has the power to do anything about that. What political course of action is there to take to prevent PRIVATE business from choosing to do that? You'd have to go into some crazy trade war level sanctions.

Tarnsman said:

THERE IS A RACIAL COMPONENT. If a high crime rate means that a normal black person has to deal with increased scrutiny BECAUSE OF THEIR RACE that means there is a racial component to it. What is so hard to accept about that? You can make an argument about whether or not it's right, that's irrelevant. It exists. Dismissing people's concerns about that as "racial arson" is fucking retarded. You help those communities by getting people to trust police and you do that by listening to their concerns and creating a higher standard of accountability so shit like quota based policing (which fucking exists) doesn't happen. It's not about the individual cops. It's about the system. What is so hard for you to understand about that? It is possible for plenty of good cops to be stuck within a shitty system. It's a system that hurts those areas because instead of worrying about violent crime they're wasting time on draconian traffic enforcement to hit some quota.

I never denied that. I denied the notion that a political party has the power to do anything about that. What political course of action is there to take to prevent PRIVATE business from choosing to do that? You'd have to go into some crazy trade war level sanctions.

Are you really that gullible to not see how much this issue has been exasperated by the media that endorses the fucking democratic nominee? Hillary and people like you salivate at the moment racial tension can be exploited. You're a racial arsonists when you say people are automatically targeted by a racial diverse police force, for their skin color. You know that it has to do with poverty and crime rates, but you are obsessed with race. You toss a match into a powder keg by making these claims.

The government has a lot to do with outsourcing, what the fuck do you think the EPA, NAFTA, and soon to be the TPP were drafted by?

Tarnsman said:

THERE IS A RACIAL COMPONENT. If a high crime rate means that a normal black person has to deal with increased scrutiny BECAUSE OF THEIR RACE that means there is a racial component to it. What is so hard to accept about that? You can make an argument about whether or not it's right, that's irrelevant. It exists. Dismissing people's concerns about that as "racial arson" is fucking retarded. You help those communities by getting people to trust police and you do that by listening to their concerns and creating a higher standard of accountability so shit like quota based policing (which fucking exists) doesn't happen. It's not about the individual cops. It's about the system. What is so hard for you to understand about that? It is possible for plenty of good cops to be stuck within a shitty system. It's a system that hurts those areas because instead of worrying about violent crime they're wasting time on draconian traffic enforcement to hit some quota.

You assert with no argument that there is a racial component to the policing methods in inner-cities with high crime rates literally after saying the high crime rates are the reason for the policing method. Non sequitur. You assume because these communities are mostly black-americans, that must mean racism if the policing methods for that community is different, ignoring what you said previously about the crime rates. Prove racism is a cause of the policing methods, not to be confused with pointing out that some racist cops exist.

Kontra Kommando said:

Are you really that gullible to not see how much this issue has been exasperated by the media that endorses the fucking democratic nominee? Hillary and people like you salivate at the moment racial tension can be exploited. You're a racial arsonists when you say people are automatically targeted by a racial diverse police force, for their skin color. You know that it has to do with poverty and crime rates, but you are obsessed with race. You toss a match into a powder keg by making these claims.

What the fuck even is your argument at this point? You just finished acknowledging that police have a different approach when it comes to urban policing but now apparently that's not true and no one has ever been policed differently because of their skin color. I mean that's just fucking hilarious. You're basically saying we can't acknowledge problems and attempt to address them in a sane way because some people (mainly the media) do it with extreme hyperbole. Racial arson is saying that quota based policing doesn't exist (WHEN YOU HAVE COPS BITCHING ABOUT IT) and black people just need to shut the fuck up.

insanoflex312 said:

You assert with no argument that there is a racial component to the policing methods in inner-cities with high crime rates literally after saying the high crime rates are the reason for the policing method. Non sequitur. You assume because these communities are mostly black-americans, that must mean racism if the policing methods for that community is different, ignoring what you said previously about the crime rates. Prove racism is a cause of the policing methods, not to be confused with pointing out that some racist cops exist.

No, you seem to be under the assumption that something can only be racial if someone directly states "I am doing this because I am racist" that's not the case. If targeted policies impact innocent people of one race more than innocent people of another race. There is a racial component to it. It doesn't have to be fueled by direct racism. It simply means if you're black and you live in a certain area you're going to have a different experience because of those two conditions. That's an experience for a lot of people and it's one that should be acknowledged. What's wrong with "yes we police these people differently here are the resources and transparency you need to ease your concerns that you're not the victim of government overreach"?

Kontra Kommando said:

The government has a lot to do with outsourcing, what the fuck do you think the EPA, NAFTA, and soon to be the TPP were drafted by?

THE EPA!? The EPA (which I can tell you sucks to deal with) is not the reason your shirts are made in china for 50 cents. You can blame the free trade deals but again would you rather have instead some insane tariffs? The reason those jobs left is because people in india and china do them for PENNIES. You'd have to put some import tax on shit that'd be so insane that it wouldn't be economically feasible. Even if we did do that, then what we bring back jobs in an industry that's replacing jobs with technology constantly?

Tarnsman said:

What the fuck even is your argument at this point? You just finished acknowledging that police have a different approach when it comes to urban policing but now apparently that's not true and no one has ever been policed differently because of their skin color. I mean that's just fucking hilarious. You're basically saying we can't acknowledge problems and attempt to address them in a sane way because some people (mainly the media) do it with extreme hyperbole. Racial arson is saying that quota based policing doesn't exist (WHEN YOU HAVE COPS BITCHING ABOUT IT) and black people just need to shut the fuck up.

Yes they have a different approach BECAUSE OF THE FUCKING CRIME RATES! That's is not the same thing as targeting people for the color of their skin. How many times do I need to say it?! Tell me how many times, so we can get it over with. Because cops can be targets too! Of course you're not going to police a rich neighborhood the same way, you would have to be a fool! Of course racism can exists, but it is not the reason for this kind of policing. You take the idea of systemic racism to absurd extremes and seem to confuse yourself. And addressing the problem would be TACKLING POVERTY! Not bitching at police for not being inhumanly perfect in policing a violent and dysfunctional area. I know it's not in vogue, but that's the reality.

Tarnsman said:

THE EPA!? The EPA (which I can tell you sucks to deal with) is not the reason your shirts are made in china for 50 cents. You can blame the free trade deals but again would you rather have instead some insane tariffs? The reason those jobs left is because people in india and china do them for PENNIES. You'd have to put some import tax on shit that'd be so insane that it wouldn't be economically feasible. Even if we did do that, then what we bring back jobs in an industry that's replacing jobs with technology constantly?

The EPA was created by Nixon to drive industry out of the country. I don't think he did it because he was a tree hugger. Tarrifs will be necessary to force industry back into the country. What's the point of paying less for useless shit if we don't have the jobs to produce income for people who struggle to even be lower middle class? I can tell how much you care about your fellow man by acknowledging the exploitation of the 3rd world as a "good thing", and the impoverished urban areas as something inevitable. Yet being vitriolic of police, who have one of the hardest jobs, somehow is a solution. A solution to what? Certainly not to helping black American community achieve upward mobility.

Welp, that's another thread KK (the third K is silent) has ruined. I can barely read this horseshit.

Kontra Kommando said:

Yes they have a different approach BECAUSE OF THE FUCKING CRIME RATES! That's is not the same thing as targeting people for the color of their skin. How many times do I need to say it?! Tell me how many times, so we can get it over with. Because cops can be targets too! Of course you're not going to police a rich neighborhood the same way, you would have to be a fool! Of course racism can exists, but it is not the reason for this kind of policing. You take the idea of systemic racism to absurd extremes and seem to confuse yourself. And addressing the problem would be TACKLING POVERTY! Not bitching at police for not being inhumanly perfect in policing a violent and dysfunctional area. I know it's not in vogue, but that's the reality.

Okay since you seem to be incapable of a discussion due to your blind hatred of even acknowledging race exists, let's change it to vehicles. I used to go camping a lot and that generally involved driving in a van long distances (usually where there would be some night time driving). I got pulled over. A LOT. 99.9% of the time it was for dumb minor shit I didn't even get a ticket for. Why? Because I was driving a van. Vans looks specious. Cops are going to check that out. That's a targeted policy. The cop isn't a bigot, they're just doing their job. That didn't change the fact that I was being targeted because of the vehicle I was driving.

That's what urban black people deal with except it's not just 'when I go camping' it's their daily lives and they have basically no resources to ensure that they're not being exploited. It's why when cops are forced to fill quotas they go to those neighborhoods. COPS ACKNOWLEDGE THIS. COPS COMPLAIN ABOUT THIS. IT FUCKING HURTS COPS TO FORCE THEM TO DO THIS. But instead of attempting to address this issue and show solidarity with some of the most disadvantaged people in the country. You're telling a chunk of Americans to go fuck themselves and you're telling cops that they're lying and they need to bitch less. All while claiming to support an ideology that's making sure the government doesn't fuck over its citizenry.

Saying "yes this happens and it impacts certain people because of the color of their skin" is not saying the same thing as "every cop is a racist", it's not the same as saying "every cop is a bad person", it's definitely not the same as saying "kill cops", it's not the same as marching down the street screaming "black power" or rioting or blocking traffic or any of those destructive behaviors that do nothing to help the situation but only further get people to dismiss the problems as "thugs complaining". You want those people to be less angry? Talk to them like adults and not "brainwashed hillary supporters". Maybe then the Republican Party could get more that 8% of the black vote.

Screaming about how they're not being treated with more suspicion because of where they live and what they looked like just further alienates those people.

dethtoll said:

Everyone I disagree with is racist!

Another meaningful post by death toll. Keep it up, you might actually write something of value to the debate.

Tarnsman said:

Okay since you seem to be incapable of a discussion due to your blind hatred of even acknowledging race exists, let's change it to vehicles. I used to go camping a lot and that generally involved driving in a van long distances (usually where there would be some night time driving). I got pulled over. A LOT. 99.9% of the time it was for dumb minor shit I didn't even get a ticket for. Why? Because I was driving a van. Vans looks specious. Cops are going to check that out. That's a targeted policy. The cop isn't a bigot, they're just doing their job. That didn't change the fact that I was being targeted because of the vehicle I was driving.

That's what urban black people deal with except it's not just 'when I go camping' it's their daily lives and they have basically no resources to ensure that they're not being exploited. It's why when cops are forced to fill quotas they go to those neighborhoods. COPS ACKNOWLEDGE THIS. COPS COMPLAIN ABOUT THIS. IT FUCKING HURTS COPS TO FORCE THEM TO DO THIS. But instead of attempting to address this issue and show solidarity with some of the most disadvantaged people in the country. You're telling a chunk of Americans to go fuck themselves and you're telling cops that they're lying and they need to bitch less. All while claiming to support an ideology that's making sure the government doesn't fuck over its citizenry.

Saying "yes this happens and it impacts certain people because of the color of their skin" is not saying the same thing as "every cop is a racist", it's not the same as saying "every cop is a bad person", it's definitely not the same as saying "kill cops", it's not the same as marching down the street screaming "black power" or rioting or blocking traffic or any of those destructive behaviors that do nothing to help the situation but only further get people to dismiss the problems as "thugs complaining". You want those people to be less angry? Talk to them like adults and not "brainwashed hillary supporters". Maybe then the Republican Party could get more that 8% of the black vote.

Screaming about how they're not being treated with more suspicion because of where they live and what they looked like just further alienates those people.

Of course race exists, but you're proposal does not address the core issue. Suppose you had your way, do you actually think that would improve the quality of life in those areas? You're alienating the people in those communities by not affording them safety and protection from crime and violence that has a greater impact on their lives. What the hell are you proposing anyway?

FYI
I'm not a supporter of police quotas.

dew said:

You'd make a great cop, because you automatically equated people to criminals without the slightest pause.

So the statement "criminals are people, too" never crossed your mind, huh?

Kontra Kommando said:

The EPA was created by Nixon to drive industry out of the country. I don't think he did it because he was a tree hugger. Tarrifs will be necessary to force industry back into the country. What's the point of paying less for useless shit if we don't have the jobs to produce income for people who struggle to even be lower middle class? I can tell how much you care about your fellow man by acknowledging the exploitation of the 3rd world as a "good thing", and the impoverished urban areas as something inevitable.

Before the EPA, you could go to any old lake and drop a match in it, and the whole lake would be set on fire because it was that polluted. Dangerous pesticides like DDT were widespread. How about you go to Azerbaijan and see the stagnant pools of industrial waste in playgrounds. Or ask a Chinese citizen what the color of snow is. The EPA is not what drove industry out of the US. Corporate agreed drove industry out of the US.

Kontra Kommando said:

Of course race exists, but you're proposal does not address the core issue. Suppose you had your way, do you actually think that would improve the quality of life in those areas? You're alienating the people in those communities by not affording them safety and protection from crime and violence that has a greater impact on their lives. What the hell are you proposing anyway?

FYI
I'm not a supporter of police quotas.

Those communities not trusting the cops is a core issue. It facilitates crime. It makes cops more jumpy. It's a lose lose for both sides.

My solution is acknowledging the problem. It's having transparency so the citizens can see they're not being exploited. It's ending quotas as a way to supplement state revenue. Allowing people to see body camera footage is huge. Every cop should wear one. There is a great video of a cop pulling over a guy in Vegas and the guy pulling the gun on the cop and the cop having to shoot him. All clearly caught on his camera. That right there ends any and all discussion about "racism" or "justification" or any of that shit. It eases people's concerns.

Saying their concerns are "racial arson" doesn't. Police departments hiding their footage doesn't.

Kontra Kommando said:

The EPA was created by Nixon to drive industry out of the country.

Holy. Shit. The hate brigade against Nixon continues to astound me. If the quality of life of Americans matters less than "industry", then you have no moral compass.

Here are a list of Presidents and Veeps that would find your statements to be absolute horseshit:

George W. Bush(R,2001-2009)
Bill Clinton(D,1993-2001)
George Bush Sr.(R,1989-1993)
Ronald Reagan(R,1981-1989)
Jimmy Carter(D,1977-1981)
Gerald Ford(R,1974-1977)
Richard Nixon(R,1969-1974)
Lyndon Johnson(D,1963-1969)
John F. Kennedy(D,1961-1963)
Dwight Eisenhower(R,1953-1961)
Harry S Truman(D,1945-1953)

Vice Presidents:
Dick Cheney
Al Gore
Dan Quayle
Bob Dole
Walter Mondale

You know, it's not really hyperbole to say that Reagan would be considered a tax-and-spend socialist now. God almighty.

Gothic Box said:

Before the EPA, you could go to any old lake and drop a match in it, and the whole lake would be set on fire because it was that polluted. Dangerous pesticides like DDT were widespread. How about you go to Azerbaijan and see the stagnant pools of industrial waste in playgrounds. Or ask a Chinese citizen what the color of snow is. The EPA is not what drove industry out of the US. Corporate agreed drove industry out of the US.

Combating pollution and creating insensitives for cleaner production methods is necessary. I mainly used the EPA as an example for Tarnsman of how government can force industry out of the country. I believe Nixon did it more to help the interests that wanted to circumvent paying American workers a decent wage, and have access to cheap labor.

Oh my, I have stirred the pot quite a bit here today, haven't I?

TraceOfSpades said:

Oh my, I have stirred the pot quite a bit here today, haven't I?

Stirred it with a jackhammer I'd imagine..

Kontra Kommando said:

Combating pollution and creating insensitives for cleaner production methods is necessary. I mainly used the EPA as an example for Tarnsman of how government can force industry out of the country. I believe Nixon did it more to help the interests that wanted to circumvent paying American workers a decent wage, and have access to cheap labor.

No company needed the EPA to outsource business. We live in a global economy. If one continent produces cheap shit it's going to have a negative impact on the rest of the world. Protectionist trade is not going to magically bring back manufacturing to the US. You would literally have to find a way to make it illegal (and actually enforce it) to import products from the third world. At which point you're creating a global trade war. I mean if you want to go for that, I'm sure China will be totally fine with a complete economic crash and wouldn't do some WW2 era Japan shit.

P.S. the nations with the lowest levels of income inequality such as Norway? They love the fuck out of free trade.

Tarnsman said:

Those communities not trusting the cops is a core issue. It facilitates crime. It makes cops more jumpy. It's a lose lose for both sides.

My solution is acknowledging the problem. It's having transparency so the citizens can see they're not being exploited. It's ending quotas as a way to supplement state revenue. Allowing people to see body camera footage is huge. Every cop should wear one. There is a great video of a cop pulling over a guy in Vegas and the guy pulling the gun on the cop and the cop having to shoot him. All clearly caught on his camera. That right there ends any and all discussion about "racism" or "justification" or any of that shit. It eases people's concerns.

Saying their concerns are "racial arson" doesn't. Police departments hiding their footage doesn't.

Police wearing body cameras while making an arrest seems reasonable to me. It can help to protect police as much as civilians. But keeping them on all day doesn't seem necessary. I was never against body cams. I was pretty enthusiastic about them when they were first proposed (if anyone can recall.)

Tarnsman said:

No company needed the EPA to outsource business. We live in a global economy. If one continent produces cheap shit it's going to have a negative impact on the rest of the world. Protectionist trade is not going to magically bring back manufacturing to the US. You would literally have to find a way to make it illegal (and actually enforce it) to import products from the third world. At which point you're creating a global trade war. I mean if you want to go for that, I'm sure China will be totally fine with a complete economic crash and wouldn't do some WW2 era Japan shit.

P.S. the nations with the lowest levels of income inequality such as Norway? They love the fuck out of free trade.

You cannot compare a homogeneous country with a small population to the USA. It's like proposing policies that work for a small town, to a metropolis.

Edit: free trade worked out great for the usa because most of the world was destroyed by the devastation of WWII. Moreover, we were bankrolling the reconstruction of these countries. Today we have a much different situation at hand. We need to shape our policies with the goal to maximize the returns to our own countrymen.

Kontra Kommando said:

Combating pollution and creating insensitives for cleaner production methods is necessary. I mainly used the EPA as an example for Tarnsman of how government can force industry out of the country. I believe Nixon did it more to help the interests that wanted to circumvent paying American workers a decent wage, and have access to cheap labor.

No, he did it because the state of the environment at the time was a fucking disaster. The Great Lakes were almost unswimmable. Rivers were having massive amounts of fish kills. No regulations on car emissions and toxic chemicals allowed radiators to spew toxic antifreeze onto the ground. Children were exposed to unhealthy amounts of lead that was known to cause developmental issues and birth defects. "Scrubbers" didn't exist, and instead of recycling, it was common to just burn. Burn anything. even Lead batteries.

Expecting Industry to "clean up" after itself was, and will always be, a pipe dream.

Just like Libertarian Jetpacks.

You expect to use a shit point as an example on these forums? Then get ready to defend your shit points on these forums. Like I'm supposed to accept that Nixon had malicious intent to destroy the country by cleaning it up?

than ks every1. good thread. let's pack up

PureSlime said:

than ks every1. good thread. let's pack up

It should should have been "packed" up and buried in the ground 54 replies ago.

Csonicgo said:

No, he did it because the state of the environment at the time was a fucking disaster. The Great Lakes were almost unswimmable. Rivers were having massive amounts of fish kills. No regulations on car emissions and toxic chemicals allowed radiators to spew toxic antifreeze onto the ground. Children were exposed to unhealthy amounts of lead that was known to cause developmental issues and birth defects. "Scrubbers" didn't exist, and instead of recycling, it was common to just burn. Burn anything. even Lead batteries.

Expecting Industry to "clean up" after itself was, and will always be, a pipe dream.

Just like Libertarian Jetpacks.

You expect to use a shit point as an example on these forums? Then get ready to defend your shit points on these forums. Like I'm supposed to accept that Nixon had malicious intent to destroy the country by cleaning it up?

More gullible shitty assumptions, he did it to appease special interests that wanted to create this shitty world order we have today, where all of our industry is sent overseas. conviently he did this while he opened trade with China.

Kontra Kommando said:

More gullible shitty assumptions, he did it to appease special interests that wanted to create this shitty world order we have today, where all of our industry is sent overseas. conviently he did this while he opened trade with China.

You went full Infowars. Never go full Infowars.

Seele00TextOnly said:

*yawn* so edge. much cut. The truth is that people shouldn't be getting shot unless it is necessary and none of these incidents that I've heard of at least have any evidence of that.

I'm not sure you know what being edgy means. When you're dealing with police, you keep calm and cooperate. People that behave in such a way that police officers have to use their judgement creates a scary situation and it should be no surprise that mistakes happen in these particular situations. The people getting shot are not without blame.

Tarnsman said:

You went full Infowars. Never go full Infowars.

Lmao! How is that an infowars assumption? You admitted a few posts ago that this is inevitable!!!

World order is a real term used in fucking text books, I suggest reading one. Are you actually saying free trade should be paramount, but then dismiss it as some kind of conspiracy?

40oz said:

I'm not sure you know what being edgy means. When you're dealing with police, you keep calm and cooperate. People that behave in such a way that police officers have to use their judgement creates a scary situation and it should be no surprise that mistakes happen in these particular situations. The people getting shot are not without blame.

Haha, this is exactly why I'm afraid of ever visiting America. You already have institutionalized fear of the cops and from the craddle you're taught behaviour required not to get fucking blasted to pieces by arrogant blue swines. As a foreigner, my only concept of this is from what I read in retarded shit threads like this where idiots DEFEND such atmosphere of fear and cop bullying. Having to keep your hands on the wheel when the cops stop you for a routine check, because a bad movement gets you shot? Jeeeezus. Definitely blame the guy that gets shot!

On 7/13/2016 at 5:30 PM, 40oz said:

People that behave in such a way that police officers have to use their judgement creates a scary situation and it should be no surprise that mistakes happen in these particular situations. The people getting shot are not without blame.

*deleted*

Edited March 17, 2017 by Seele00TextOnly