LOCAL and Florida Politics

[spenser1058]

In any event, entry level theme park workers went in to be the CEOs of Disney and Sea World.

How many entry level NASA workers have gone on to run it?

Just now, spenser1058 said:

In any event, entry level theme park workers went in to be the leaders  of WDW and Sea World.

How many entry level NASA workers have gone on to run it?

 

Edited June 8, 2020 by spenser1058

[JFW657]

46 minutes ago, spenser1058 said:

In any event, entry level theme park workers went in to be the CEOs of Disney and Sea World.

How many entry level NASA workers have gone on to run it?

I don't know.

It's not an issue I would ponder.

[spenser1058]

So, it’s OK when the police destroy property even when they don’t know to whom it belings. Gosh, I’m glad we cleared that up.

https://twitter.com/nickkristof/status/1270109959636779008?s=21

 

[Uncommon]

6 hours ago, JFW657 said:

Just what I've said.

So you would like to merely repeat what an article has said and not add anything else to the conversation. In other words, you have nothing to say. Got it.

[JFW657]

2 hours ago, Uncommon said:

So you would like to merely repeat what an article has said and not add anything else to the conversation. In other words, you have nothing to say. Got it.

Wrong.

I added this.....

And this....

.

Edited June 9, 2020 by JFW657

[Uncommon]

7 hours ago, JFW657 said:

Wrong.

I added this.....

And this....

.

Your entire premise falls under “we should be allowed to talk about it.” In your posts, you either complained that the conversation wasn’t being had or discussed how black males contributed to crime rates. Once again, you’ve added nothing of your own originality, just regurgitating things we already know. So I ask you for the second time, what would you like to say or accomplish if you were “allowed” to talk or have this conversation?

[jack]

On 6/8/2020 at 12:32 AM, JFW657 said:

We need the best candidates possible to be applying for the jobs.

There is no way of knowing which ones may at some point during heir careers, be affected by outside stress and take it out on an arrestee.  

If we make the job so fraught with extra peril aside from getting killed or crippled by some criminal, like loss of livelihood, lawsuits, prison, etc., we may someday find ourselves having a very difficult time hiring good candidates, and reach a point where we have to take whatever we can get.

It's a delicate tightrope we're walking and why we should be very careful about how far we go in demanding a superhuman level of perfection out of the people who do our dirty, dangerous work for us.

This is the problem. They are human beings and prone to make mistakes. Which is why we need to limit their interactions with the public. Police reform is not just about the police, it is about reforming the entire system they work under. 

[JFW657]

1 hour ago, Uncommon said:

Your entire premise falls under “we should be allowed to talk about it.” In your posts, you either complained that the conversation wasn’t being had or discussed how black males contributed to crime rates. Once again, you’ve added nothing of your own originality, just regurgitating things we already know. So I ask you for the second time, what would you like to say or accomplish if you were “allowed” to talk or have this conversation?

Wrong again.

In my original post on the subject, I stated that I thought the article was something that everyone should read.  Period. Putting it out there for others to read and consider was my only intention at that time.

I didn't add any editorializing because I felt and still feel that it stands on its own.

After there was a response, I then added my own opinions, so I don't know what else you're expecting.

Instead of getting snarky with me just because you're upset over what I and the article said, why don't YOU add something to the conversation?

So far you've done nothing but make snide remarks.

[jack]

23 hours ago, JFW657 said:

Mixed bag results-wise it looks like.

Meanwhile, here's an interesting article I think everyone should have a look at and consider as it relates to what is and what is not being talked about in the national discussion on current issues.

It was written by this guy.....

Peter Kirsanow, a labor attorney and partner in a Cleveland  law firm, and  a GHW Bush appointed member of The US Commission on Civil Rights. The piece was published recently in the conservative National Review. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Kirsanow

The article is entitled Flames from False Narratives.

Of particular interest, are the included stats which were taken from the 2018 National Crime Victimization Survey, US Census data and the FBI Uniform Crime Reports. While reading them, keep in mind, the fact that black males make up about 6%  of the US population.

Link - https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/flames-from-false-narratives/

I'm don't draw any concrete conclusions from the data in this piece, but it is the fact that we are not allowed to even mention or discuss these particular aspects of the race issue in this country, that is cause for concern. 

Straw man attacks. These protest are not just about Floyd. It is much bigger than that. It is about a system that does not allow for equal protection under the law nor does it give victims of tyranny from the state an outlet to get justice. I just don't understand how so many people are missing that. 

[JFW657]

4 minutes ago, jack said:

This is the problem. They are human beings and prone to make mistakes. Which is why we need to limit their interactions with the public. Police reform is not just about the police, it is about reforming the entire system they work under. 

Feel free to elaborate.

Limit their contact how? 

In which matters should the police not be allowed to interact with the public?

Which laws should they no longer be allowed to enforce or which crimes should they no longer be allowed to investigate?

In what ways do you feel the system should be reformed?

I'm all for legalizing certain "morality crimes", like prostitution and marijuana use.

But do you think the police should no longer be allowed to forcibly arrest people who resist their attempts to non-forcibly arrest them?

What might that lead to in the rest of society?

Do you feel law breakers should be allowed to walk the streets with impunity because the police should no longer be allowed to take them in without their permission and consent?

[Uncommon]

30 minutes ago, JFW657 said:

Wrong again.

In my original post on the subject, I stated that I thought the article was something that everyone should read.  Period. Putting it out there for others to read and consider was my only intention at that time.

I didn't add any editorializing because I felt and still feel that it stands on its own.

After there was a response, I then added my own opinions, so I don't know what else you're expecting.

Instead of getting snarky with me just because you're upset over what I and the article said, why don't YOU add something to the conversation?

So far you've done nothing but make snide remarks.

I’m not making snide remarks or being snarky. I’m asking you a question which you are tap-dancing and tiptoeing around. Why do you refuse the address the query?

You post an article with a CLEAR agenda, introduce statistics again with a CLEAR agenda, lament that a conversation isn’t occurring about this topic, and your supposed only intention is for others to “read and consider” the information? To what end? I’ve asked you this three times now and you’ve failed to answer each time, so I’ll make it very clear and in all caps so you don’t miss it:

WHY SHOULD ANYONE READ THE ARTICLE AND HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT OR CONSIDER YOUR STATISTICS ON BLACK CRIME?

I await your answer in high anticipation.

[JFW657]

7 minutes ago, jack said:

Straw man attacks. These protest are not just about Floyd. It is much bigger than that. It is about a system that does not allow for equal protection under the law nor does it give victims of tyranny from the state an outlet to get justice. I just don't understand how so many people are missing that. 

I don't buy the premise that one group is being denied equal protection just because they happen to get themselves arrested disproportionately to their overall representation in society.

That, and that the media has programmed people to ignore that very fact by not talking about it, was the entire point of the article.

For 6% of society being responsible for nearly 40% of the violent crime in the nation to be attributable only to discrimination based solely on race, would mean that nearly every cop, state attorney and judge in America, certainly over 50% of them, would have to have a severe underlying racist hatred combined with a total lack of respect for their profession, their professionalism, the oath they took to uphold the law fairly and equally and overall, to just be dishonest, corrupt, lowlife scumbags. 

Is that really what we have come to think of the people who comprise our justice system? 

Is that what our current popular culture has programmed people to think?

If that were all true, if our justice system is primarily populated by dishonest people who don't care about their own integrity, then what does that say about the rest of us? After all, the people who fill these important positions come from the same population we are all a part of. It would stand to reason therefore, that if our justice system is populated by underhanded people who are so full of racial prejudice that they'd  allow it to unfairly influence how they perform their duties, and victimize one segment of society, then the overall pool of American citizens they come from is just as polluted.

Doesn't say much about us as a people.

I think that, once you take a good, well reasoned look at it, the notion that our justice system is corrupt on such a level is kind of preposterous.

[JFW657]

2 minutes ago, Uncommon said:

I’m not making snide remarks or being snarky. I’m asking you a question which you are tap-dancing and tiptoeing around. Why do you refuse the address the query?

You post an article with a CLEAR agenda, introduce statistics again with a CLEAR agenda, lament that a conversation isn’t occurring about this topic, and your supposed only intention is for others to “read and consider” the information? To what end? I’ve asked you this three times now and you’ve failed to answer each time, so I’ll make it very clear and in all caps so you don’t miss it:

WHY SHOULD ANYONE READ THE ARTICLE AND HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT OR CONSIDER YOUR STATISTICS ON BLACK CRIME?

I await your answer in high anticipation.

The answers to your questions are so obvious they shouldn't need to be answered.

Honestly, they're not even legitimate questions, posed only to foment an argument about my intentions rather than any substance.

At this point, I have elaborated at length about variousl aspects of the subject whereas all you have done is throw false accusations and baseless denials of the premise, with no real substance to back up anything you've said.

Read what I have posted thus far.

Either comment on the subject at hand or go away and sulk because the premise has offended you and hurt your feelings.\

I'm not playing your little game.

[spenser1058]

Well, in the midst of all this upheaval and tragedy is that the gap between The Donald’s disapproval and approval ratings is 13.8 points on 538, which is about the biggest I’ve seen it.

The irony is it got down to about a three-point gap when COVID first ramped up as people tried to give the commander in chief the benefit of the doubt as is customary. He had been running about 9.5. -10 points down before that.

So, if he keeps pushing the status quo, I may have to thank JFW come November. It’s a hard row to hoe to make things better but I’ve never seen so many ready to do the heavy lifting.

Edited June 9, 2020 by spenser1058

[JFW657]

Just now, spenser1058 said:

Well, in the midst of all this upheaval and tragedy is that the gap between The Donald’s disapproval and approval ratings is 13.8 points on 538, which is about the biggest I’ve seen it.

The irony is it got down to about a three-point gap when COVID first ramped up as people tried to give the commander in chief the benefit of the doubt as is customary. He had been running about 9.5. -10 points down before that.

So, if he keeps pushing the status quo, I may have to thank JFW come November. It’s a hard row to how to make things better but I’ve never seen so many ready to do the heavy lifting.

I don't understand what you're getting at here.

Sounds like you're being coy and hinting around about something without actually saying it.

Please feel free to say exactly what you mean.

What may you have to thank me about?

What heavy lifting is being done and by whom?

[Uncommon]

15 minutes ago, JFW657 said:

The answers to your questions are so obvious they shouldn't need to be answered.

Honestly, they're not even legitimate questions, posed only to foment an argument about my intentions rather than any substance.

At this point, I have elaborated at length about variousl aspects of the subject whereas all you have done is throw false accusations and baseless denials of the premise, with no real substance to back up anything you've said.

Read what I have posted thus far.

Either comment on the subject at hand or go away and sulk because the premise has offended you and hurt your feelings.\

I'm not playing your little game.

It’s not a game at all. It was a question that you failed to answer on four separate occasions because you are a coward. If you feel a certain way, stand up, elaborate, and articulate your thoughts.

You knew exactly why you posted the article and whined about a conversation needing to happen. Yet when pressed, you become frightened all of a sudden, perhaps because you didn’t expect a response? Or maybe because you fear some kind of repercussion or ramification? Or you don’t want to acknowledge who or what you truly are?

And now you are attempting to introduce a red herring by claiming “false accusations and baseless denials,” when every single one of my posts to you in this thread have been asking the same exact question, which you have proven to be hesitant to answer.

If the answers are so obvious, then why be such a recreant? Answer them. Because they’re not obvious to most people. If you don’t view this topic as challenging or complex, that clearly says a lot about your makeup.

Edited June 9, 2020 by Uncommon

[Uncommon]

My point in posing those questions to you was proving that you lack the courage and conviction to make your true thoughts, feelings, and intentions known, and you’ve helped me tremendously in that endeavor. Even behind the shield of your keypad and relative anonymity, you do not possess the gall to stand up for what you clearly believe in.

And therein lies the reason I hate politics: too many politically correct feeble cowards terrified to display what’s really in their hearts and minds. I happened upon this thread totally by accident but will resume avoiding it, so your shameful responses to me will not be viewed, entertained, or considered. Don’t waste the keystrokes. 

[JFW657]

2 minutes ago, Uncommon said:

It’s not a game at all. It was a question that you failed to answer on four separate occasions because you are a coward. If you feel a certain way, stand up, elaborate, and articulate your thoughts.
You knew exactly why you posted the article and whined about a conversation needing to happen. Yet when pressed, you become frightened all of a sudden, perhaps because you didn’t expect a response? Or maybe because you fear some kind of repercussion or ramification? Or you don’t want to acknowledge who or what you truly are?
And now you are attempting to introduce a red herring by claiming “false accusations and baseless denials,” when every single one of my posts to you in this thread have been asking the same exact question, which you have proven to be hesitant to answer.
If the answers are so obvious, then why be such a recreant? Answer them. Because they’re not obvious to most people. If you don’t view this topic as challenging or complex, that clearly says a lot about your makeup.

I have done everything you falsely claim I have not and then some.

I think it's hilarious that, after having to resort to childish name calling,  you have unwittingly proved at least one passage from the quoted article.

From the link: "The narrative has been repeated so frequently, so universally, that it’s an unassailable given, a fact not to be challenged. Indeed, it’s an article of faith which, if questioned, exposes the heretic to rage, venom, and ostracization. Some fear losing their jobs. Best therefore, not to even consider questioning the narrative."

You can rant, rave, kick, scream, cry and generally throw your little temper tantrum all you want to, thinking incorrectly that you've somehow backed me into a corner or confounded me, but the manner and length to which I've spoken directly to the issue and related ones, is all there in black and white for everyone to read.

Your advantage lies in that you are in friendly territory where your comrades in arms would eagerly step in to agree with you and support your empty contentiousness in spite of the obviousness of its lack of substance and its blatant falseness. You don't even need to do anything else because your little "victory", imaginary though it is, is baked into the cake.

Congratulations for falling so easily and predictably into your own trap and proving exactly what the author said about those who subscribe to and push the false narrative.

1 minute ago, Uncommon said:

My point in posing those questions to you was proving that you lack the courage and conviction to make your true thoughts, feelings, and intentions known, and you’ve helped me tremendously in that endeavor. Even behind the shield of your keypad and relative anonymity, you do not possess the gall to stand up for what you clearly believe in.

You are a shameless purveyor of falsehoods.

The proof of that is in the direct contradiction to your mindless nonsense that is easily viewable by anyone who wishes to read it.

3 minutes ago, Uncommon said:

And therein lies the reason I hate politics: too many politically correct feeble cowards terrified to display what’s really in their hearts and minds. I happened upon this thread totally by accident but will resume avoiding it, so your shameful responses to me will not be viewed, entertained, or considered. Don’t waste the keystrokes. 

Pot, kettle etc. etc.

You perfectly described yourself to a tee.

[jack]

1 hour ago, JFW657 said:

Feel free to elaborate.

Limit their contact how? 

In which matters should the police not be allowed to interact with the public?

Which laws should they no longer be allowed to enforce or which crimes should they no longer be allowed to investigate?

In what ways do you feel the system should be reformed?

I'm all for legalizing certain "morality crimes", like prostitution and marijuana use.

But do you think the police should no longer be allowed to forcibly arrest people who resist their attempts to non-forcibly arrest them?

What might that lead to in the rest of society?

Do you feel law breakers should be allowed to walk the streets with impunity because the police should no longer be allowed to take them in without their permission and consent?

1. You limit their interactions by reforming the laws on the books. Every law in this country is backed by the bayonet (or barrel of the gun).  
2. Banning no knock raids
3. Reforming the fine system so departments are not encouraged to view law enforcement has a revenue generator 
4. Focus on citizen education to encourage them to not call the police for every minor issue (LEO are very supportive of this) 
5. Reforming qualified immunity 
6. Reforming unions - I will be transparent and tell you that I am opposed to all public sector unions 
   1. I'll never understand conservatives that rail on teachers unions but are silent on police unions  

[jack]

1 hour ago, JFW657 said:

I don't buy the premise that one group is being denied equal protection just because they happen to get themselves arrested disproportionately to their overall representation in society.

That, and that the media has programmed people to ignore that very fact by not talking about it, was the entire point of the article.

For 6% of society being responsible for nearly 40% of the violent crime in the nation to be attributable only to discrimination based solely on race, would mean that nearly every cop, state attorney and judge in America, certainly over 50% of them, would have to have a severe underlying racist hatred combined with a total lack of respect for their profession, their professionalism, the oath they took to uphold the law fairly and equally and overall, to just be dishonest, corrupt, lowlife scumbags. 

Is that really what we have come to think of the people who comprise our justice system? 

Is that what our current popular culture has programmed people to think?

If that were all true, if our justice system is primarily populated by dishonest people who don't care about their own integrity, then what does that say about the rest of us? After all, the people who fill these important positions come from the same population we are all a part of. It would stand to reason therefore, that if our justice system is populated by underhanded people who are so full of racial prejudice that they'd  allow it to unfairly influence how they perform their duties, and victimize one segment of society, then the overall pool of American citizens they come from is just as polluted.

Doesn't say much about us as a people.

I think that, once you take a good, well reasoned look at it, the notion that our justice system is corrupt on such a level is kind of preposterous.

All groups are being denied equal protection when they do not have recourse to challenge unjust actions by the state. Policing is a microcosm of unjust actions by the state that impacts all Americans. Are we better than other countries? Sure but we have a founding document and accompanying amendments that guarantee due process, equal protection privileges and immunities. 

All people are presumed innocent until the state brings evidence in a court of law and a citizen has an opportunity to face those charges. Until that happens, I generally  side with the people. 

 

[spenser1058]

Disbanding you’re police department can work wonders for a community:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/09/us/disband-police-camden-new-jersey-trnd/index.html
 

From CNN

It doesn’t mean no police, it means redoing it the way it should be done in a democracy.

[JFW657]

4 hours ago, jack said:

1. You limit their interactions by reforming the laws on the books. Every law in this country is backed by the bayonet (or barrel of the gun).  
2. Banning no knock raids
3. Reforming the fine system so departments are not encouraged to view law enforcement has a revenue generator 
4. Focus on citizen education to encourage them to not call the police for every minor issue (LEO are very supportive of this) 
5. Reforming qualified immunity 
6. Reforming unions - I will be transparent and tell you that I am opposed to all public sector unions 
   1. I'll never understand conservatives that rail on teachers unions but are silent on police unions  

 

4 hours ago, jack said:

All groups are being denied equal protection when they do not have recourse to challenge unjust actions by the state. Policing is a microcosm of unjust actions by the state that impacts all Americans. Are we better than other countries? Sure but we have a founding document and accompanying amendments that guarantee due process, equal protection privileges and immunities. 

All people are presumed innocent until the state brings evidence in a court of law and a citizen has an opportunity to face those charges. Until that happens, I generally  side with the people. 

 

Appreciate the thoughtful civilized responses.  

Most of which I agree with BTW.

So much better than angry hissy fits and emotional drama. 

15 minutes ago, spenser1058 said:

Disbanding you’re police department can work wonders for a community:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/09/us/disband-police-camden-new-jersey-trnd/index.html
 

From CNN

It doesn’t mean no police, it means redoing it the way it should be done in a democracy.

Meet the new boss.

Same as the old boss.

                          - The Who 

[spenser1058]

It affects so much more than just the big cities:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/09/us/george-floyd-protests-petal-mississippi.html
 

From the New York Times

[jack]

18 hours ago, spenser1058 said:

Disbanding you’re police department can work wonders for a community:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/09/us/disband-police-camden-new-jersey-trnd/index.html
 

From CNN

It doesn’t mean no police, it means redoing it the way it should be done in a democracy.

When I first heard this slogan, I did a double take. But the more I looked into it, I realized almost no one really is for disbanding them (good) just variations of major reform. Either way, I question a slogan that advocates for the opposite of what you really want to do. I guess, "reform the police with this 12 point plan" does not fit on a sign very easily. 

[JFW657]

16 minutes ago, jack said:

When I first heard this slogan, I did a double take. But the more I looked into it, I realized almost no one really is for disbanding them (good) just variations of major reform. Either way, I question a slogan that advocates for the opposite of what you really want to do. I guess, "reform the police with this 12 point plan" does not fit on a sign very easily. 

Certainly it doesn't play on or into people's anger and resentment.

Whatever it's called, nothing will change either way.