But what do you replace the revenue with?Blaidd Drwg wrote:Civil forfeiture can be unraveled without socialism.
Officer Friendly.
Moderator: Dux
-
- Lifetime IGer
- Posts: 21247
- Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:54 am
- Location: Upon the eternal throne of the great Republic of Turdistan
Re: Officer Friendly.
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule
-
Topic author - Lifetime IGer
- Posts: 19098
- Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 5:39 pm
Re: Officer Friendly.
Turdacious wrote:But what do you replace the revenue with?Blaidd Drwg wrote:Civil forfeiture can be unraveled without socialism.
The way the law is structured as I understand it's not operating revenue, it pays for capital improvements, like DARE cars and armored personnel carriers and swat gear.
All complete wastes of money in the first place.
But under no scenario should we concern ourselves with how to replace money that was stolen in the first place. Forfeiture is flat out evil as are the boys in blue gaming that system.
"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that." JS Mill
-
- Lifetime IGer
- Posts: 21247
- Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:54 am
- Location: Upon the eternal throne of the great Republic of Turdistan
Re: Officer Friendly.
You and I may be looking at it in different ways. I don't really care if the gubmint takes Pookie's car for a DARE car because Pookie was caught with some weed (and may have been dealing); if they take Pookie's grandma's house because Pookie's a shithead, then I care. From what I've seen, civil asset forfeiture is most important in areas with declining tax revenues and high LEO needs (Ferguson, MO; Philly; dying small towns; etc...)-- in those cases it's operating revenue because raising taxes would likely increase taxpayer flight. The spice must flow.Blaidd Drwg wrote:Turdacious wrote:But what do you replace the revenue with?Blaidd Drwg wrote:Civil forfeiture can be unraveled without socialism.
The way the law is structured as I understand it's not operating revenue, it pays for capital improvements, like DARE cars and armored personnel carriers and swat gear.
All complete wastes of money in the first place.
But under no scenario should we concern ourselves with how to replace money that was stolen in the first place. Forfeiture is flat out evil as are the boys in blue gaming that system.
I tend to doubt that LEOs like to be used as revenue or morality crusade agents (NYC cigarette laws), but that's me.
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule
-
- Supreme Martian Overlord
- Posts: 15563
- Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 5:05 pm
- Location: Nice planet. We'll take it.
Re: Officer Friendly.
LEO's most definitely don't want to be revenue generators, I am pretty certain of that.
I am also certain that anyone trying to use datapoints wrt to SQF are wasting their time. Unless things have drastically changed, for every SQF report that is filled out (that does not lead to an arrest), there are likely dozens of other SQF episodes that go unreported. Same goes for felons, for every felony a mope is collared for, he has probably done many in which he has not been caught.
To the question about SQF and community reaction: my experience is dated, as most of you know. But mopes tended to see it as 'business as usual'. I know it would piss me the fuck off if I were SQF'd as a matter of routine, but I am not a bad guy. With that said THE most effective way to get guns out of the hands of bad guys are pick-up arrests by way of SQF. LEO has a duty to himself and the community to act on reasonable suspicion and must be able to articulate why he SQF'd someone (bulge in the waistband, for example).
I get the sense that a lot of people think some cops go to work wanting to shoot someone. Nothing can be further from the truth. Even if we forget the 'do gooder' reason for becoming a cop in the first place, no one wants to go through the hassle or risk of internal affairs/DA/justice department investigations.
Lastly, and perhaps a slight tangent: over the past few years, I have had 5 friends get pinched for DUI. Grads from Penn State, U of M, UW, Northwestern(!). Smart people, all six figure earners, all but one has direct reports/managers of people, all but one have spouses and kids. It is north of 5k for a mild DUI arrest for the 'perp'. None of them thought they were flaked, all of them owned their mistake and did what they had to do per the courts (one had an ankle bracelet, another had whiskey plates). All are lily white. The money is made off of the crackas, arresting the mopes costs money. Shit, my wife got ticketed last year for crossing a solid white line island to make a right on red to the tune of $140. She was technically wrong, but what a bullshit car stop. And she is a blue eyed MN blonde.
I am also certain that anyone trying to use datapoints wrt to SQF are wasting their time. Unless things have drastically changed, for every SQF report that is filled out (that does not lead to an arrest), there are likely dozens of other SQF episodes that go unreported. Same goes for felons, for every felony a mope is collared for, he has probably done many in which he has not been caught.
To the question about SQF and community reaction: my experience is dated, as most of you know. But mopes tended to see it as 'business as usual'. I know it would piss me the fuck off if I were SQF'd as a matter of routine, but I am not a bad guy. With that said THE most effective way to get guns out of the hands of bad guys are pick-up arrests by way of SQF. LEO has a duty to himself and the community to act on reasonable suspicion and must be able to articulate why he SQF'd someone (bulge in the waistband, for example).
I get the sense that a lot of people think some cops go to work wanting to shoot someone. Nothing can be further from the truth. Even if we forget the 'do gooder' reason for becoming a cop in the first place, no one wants to go through the hassle or risk of internal affairs/DA/justice department investigations.
Lastly, and perhaps a slight tangent: over the past few years, I have had 5 friends get pinched for DUI. Grads from Penn State, U of M, UW, Northwestern(!). Smart people, all six figure earners, all but one has direct reports/managers of people, all but one have spouses and kids. It is north of 5k for a mild DUI arrest for the 'perp'. None of them thought they were flaked, all of them owned their mistake and did what they had to do per the courts (one had an ankle bracelet, another had whiskey plates). All are lily white. The money is made off of the crackas, arresting the mopes costs money. Shit, my wife got ticketed last year for crossing a solid white line island to make a right on red to the tune of $140. She was technically wrong, but what a bullshit car stop. And she is a blue eyed MN blonde.
-
Topic author - Lifetime IGer
- Posts: 19098
- Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 5:39 pm
Re: Officer Friendly.
Turdacious wrote: You and I may be looking at it in different ways. I don't really care if the gubmint takes Pookie's car for a DARE car because Pookie was caught with some weed (and may have been dealing); if they take Pookie's grandma's house because Pookie's a shithead, then I care. .
Oh of that I'm sure. I look at it as a matter of Principle. The concept of civil asset forfeiture violates due process, and puts the presumption of guilt on a persons' objects. You're looking at is as a matter of Outcome, without regard to whether we can prove Pookie's guilt or innocence...just as long as his grandma doesn't get popped.
Same with Stop and Frisk...those that align themselves to the right are especially good at suspending disbelief over the constitutionality of the practice so long as the narrative of the result is pleasing. Not unlike Affirmative Action on the left....in principle it's unfair and based on a series of presumptions, but the left likes it because it delivers a narrative of an outcome theu find pleasing.
I prefer laws be based in sound principles, not murky outcomes that deliver more power to agencies who have shown to not use power or money responsibly in the first place.
"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that." JS Mill
-
- Lifetime IGer
- Posts: 21281
- Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 11:26 pm
Re: Officer Friendly.
The problem isn't just civil forfeiture of convicted criminals' properties...it's the property that stays forfeit when no charges are pressed or charges are dropped...millions of cash dollars are confiscated in each state using these laws and only a minuscule portion is returned to it's rightful owner...not to mention the fact that there is no due process and the other shit BD mentions above.
Let's say Bill is driving the family minivan and has a bag of weed on him. The minivan is confiscated, even though it's in his wife's name, and then later on, when charges are dropped, the minivan is still sold at the police auction.
Let's say Bill is driving the family minivan and has a bag of weed on him. The minivan is confiscated, even though it's in his wife's name, and then later on, when charges are dropped, the minivan is still sold at the police auction.
-
- Lifetime IGer
- Posts: 21247
- Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:54 am
- Location: Upon the eternal throne of the great Republic of Turdistan
Re: Officer Friendly.
You're looking at these questions from the safety of Caucasian Acres and you're ignoring my question-- where should a poorer municipality with a limited tax bases get it's revenue for public services if we limit the use of law enforcement as revenue generators?Blaidd Drwg wrote:Turdacious wrote: You and I may be looking at it in different ways. I don't really care if the gubmint takes Pookie's car for a DARE car because Pookie was caught with some weed (and may have been dealing); if they take Pookie's grandma's house because Pookie's a shithead, then I care. .
Oh of that I'm sure. I look at it as a matter of Principle. The concept of civil asset forfeiture violates due process, and puts the presumption of guilt on a persons' objects. You're looking at is as a matter of Outcome, without regard to whether we can prove Pookie's guilt or innocence...just as long as his grandma doesn't get popped.
Same with Stop and Frisk...those that align themselves to the right are especially good at suspending disbelief over the constitutionality of the practice so long as the narrative of the result is pleasing. Not unlike Affirmative Action on the left....in principle it's unfair and based on a series of presumptions, but the left likes it because it delivers a narrative of an outcome theu find pleasing.
I prefer laws be based in sound principles, not murky outcomes that deliver more power to agencies who have shown to not use power or money responsibly in the first place.
Same with stop and frisk-- it has to be looked at in conjunction with public safety concerns, not separately. I get that they're not easy questions and I'm not claiming to have the answer. I can tell you that telling governments and bureaucracies to 'go figure out a way to solve a problem that has both a rights and a revenue component' doesn't work very well.
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule
-
Topic author - Lifetime IGer
- Posts: 19098
- Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 5:39 pm
Re: Officer Friendly.
No. I just told you exactly where I'm looking at it from. Principle. Talk about the soft bigotry of low expectations. It's not incumbent on me to answer a multi-tiered nearly unanswerable question.."How should I replace my previous income that I obtained immorally?" Ummmm...different priorities and adherence to principle is a good start.Turdacious wrote:You're looking at these questions from the safety of Caucasian Acres and you're ignoring my question-- where should a poorer municipality with a limited tax bases get it's revenue for public services if we limit the use of law enforcement as revenue generators?Blaidd Drwg wrote:Turdacious wrote: You and I may be looking at it in different ways. I don't really care if the gubmint takes Pookie's car for a DARE car because Pookie was caught with some weed (and may have been dealing); if they take Pookie's grandma's house because Pookie's a shithead, then I care. .
Oh of that I'm sure. I look at it as a matter of Principle. The concept of civil asset forfeiture violates due process, and puts the presumption of guilt on a persons' objects. You're looking at is as a matter of Outcome, without regard to whether we can prove Pookie's guilt or innocence...just as long as his grandma doesn't get popped.
Same with Stop and Frisk...those that align themselves to the right are especially good at suspending disbelief over the constitutionality of the practice so long as the narrative of the result is pleasing. Not unlike Affirmative Action on the left....in principle it's unfair and based on a series of presumptions, but the left likes it because it delivers a narrative of an outcome theu find pleasing.
I prefer laws be based in sound principles, not murky outcomes that deliver more power to agencies who have shown to not use power or money responsibly in the first place.
Same with stop and frisk-- it has to be looked at in conjunction with public safety concerns, not separately. I get that they're not easy questions and I'm not claiming to have the answer. I can tell you that telling governments and bureaucracies to 'go figure out a way to solve a problem that has both a rights and a revenue component' doesn't work very well.
Your question, as per usual, is a total red herring. It's also disingenuous to conflate revenue generating with forfeiture. The two revenue stream are radically different and one is virtually untouchable...TVB's wife drifting over a center-line...technical violations are what give us the speed trap town mentality. It's the sort of soft graft we all have to deal with and tolerate because it's been too difficult a nut to crack and the stakes are so low.
I know exactly how you motivate all municipalities to set priorities. Turn off the spigot, be it federal, state or fraudulent obtained dollars. This practice happens daily across this country, courts put Cities and town in check for failing to meet obligations be they constitutional, environmental, fiduciary. The job of the elected is to figure out how to comply, not the bench and not the electorate. And Yes....dark times fall on a lot of municipalities because of that. Absolving them of their responsibility doesn't solve anything.
And No...No stop and frisk doesn't have to be looked at in conjunction with public safety. It has to be looked at in series with publci safety. First...is what your department's doing constitutional? If yes proceed to public safety. If no...fix that, then proceed. Your argument is based on a flawed premise.
Last edited by Blaidd Drwg on Sun Jul 10, 2016 4:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that." JS Mill
-
Topic author - Lifetime IGer
- Posts: 19098
- Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 5:39 pm
Re: Officer Friendly.
Perfect example...
County A's Fire department has several funded firefighter positions supported by a State grant for compliance with certain wild land fire suppression management measures...which they never undertake and never fulfill the terms of the grant because those measures conflict with the desires of several large land owners in the county.
When the State yanks the grant, how does County A make up the revenue to pay for the firefighters?
County A's Fire department has several funded firefighter positions supported by a State grant for compliance with certain wild land fire suppression management measures...which they never undertake and never fulfill the terms of the grant because those measures conflict with the desires of several large land owners in the county.
When the State yanks the grant, how does County A make up the revenue to pay for the firefighters?
"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that." JS Mill
Re: Officer Friendly.
Five years ago, there was a "drug house" at the end of my block. Eventually, it got busted and a cop wound up in my back yard. I'm so glad my doggy wasn't outside when the officer decided to do that. It would take an exceptional officer to refrain from shooting Chili-on-a-rampage to check-shit-out. And I can't say how I would respond to that...nightmare scenario.Blaidd Drwg wrote: Bad Dog Sadie..Bad dog......
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
W.B. Yeats
Are full of passionate intensity.
W.B. Yeats
-
- Lifetime IGer
- Posts: 21247
- Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:54 am
- Location: Upon the eternal throne of the great Republic of Turdistan
Re: Officer Friendly.
No, I'm looking things I don't like in the context of second and third order effects, recognizing that solving one problem (ex. getting rid of civil forfeiture) exacerbates another (high need for public services in areas with limited revenue).Blaidd Drwg wrote:Your question, as per usual, is a total red herring. It's also disingenuous to conflate revenue generating with forfeiture. The two revenue stream are radically different and one is virtually untouchable...TVB's wife drifting over a center-line...technical violations are what give us the speed trap town mentality. It's the sort of soft graft we all have to deal with and tolerate because it's been too difficult a nut to crack and the stakes are so low.
I know exactly how you motivate all municipalities to set priorities. Turn off the spigot, be it federal, state or fraudulent obtained dollars. This practice happens daily across this country, courts put Cities and town in check for failing to meet obligations be they constitutional, environmental, fiduciary. The job of the elected is to figure out how to comply, not the bench and not the electorate. And Yes....dark times fall on a lot of municipalities because of that. Absolving them of their responsibility doesn't solve anything.
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule
-
- Lifetime IGer
- Posts: 21247
- Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:54 am
- Location: Upon the eternal throne of the great Republic of Turdistan
Re: Officer Friendly.
Since they know they can't piss off firefighters (who, to be fair, were just doing their job) or landowners, they fund it by cutting music and STEM programs from the local schools, putting pressure on teh sheriff's dept to increase revenue by focusing on ticketing people with out of state plates, reduce court referrals to drug rehab, and raise cigarette taxes.Blaidd Drwg wrote:Perfect example...
County A's Fire department has several funded firefighter positions supported by a State grant for compliance with certain wild land fire suppression management measures...which they never undertake and never fulfill the terms of the grant because those measures conflict with the desires of several large land owners in the county.
When the State yanks the grant, how does County A make up the revenue to pay for the firefighters?
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule
-
Topic author - Lifetime IGer
- Posts: 19098
- Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 5:39 pm
Re: Officer Friendly.
False. Most school districts are funded separately from the municipal revenue stream. In this case they layoff two firefighters to start.Turdacious wrote:They fund it by cutting music and STEM programs from the local schools, putting pressure on teh sheriff's dept to increase revenue by focusing on ticketing people with out of state plates, reduce court referrals to drug rehab, and raise cigarette taxes.Blaidd Drwg wrote:Perfect example...
County A's Fire department has several funded firefighter positions supported by a State grant for compliance with certain wild land fire suppression management measures...which they never undertake and never fulfill the terms of the grant because those measures conflict with the desires of several large land owners in the county.
When the State yanks the grant, how does County A make up the revenue to pay for the firefighters?
Then the parade of horribles ensues, and the electorate can vote for new county commissioners nerd next year. Fraud is not a viable business solution.
"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that." JS Mill
-
Topic author - Lifetime IGer
- Posts: 19098
- Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 5:39 pm
Re: Officer Friendly.
All you've managed to do is convince us that for a guy who expounds on conservative values, tradition God and country that your principles are completely negotiable.
Your false dilemma of status quo (which most people recognize as at the very least deeply flawed) has only rampant redistribution of wealth (socialism) as its logical alternative. This is at once false and also logically troubling in that rampant redistribution of funds from those who can't afford to fight back to the coffers of those malfeasant actors in charge of redistribution is in fact indistinguishable in effect from the socialism bogey man you're propping up.
Your false dilemma of status quo (which most people recognize as at the very least deeply flawed) has only rampant redistribution of wealth (socialism) as its logical alternative. This is at once false and also logically troubling in that rampant redistribution of funds from those who can't afford to fight back to the coffers of those malfeasant actors in charge of redistribution is in fact indistinguishable in effect from the socialism bogey man you're propping up.
"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that." JS Mill
-
Topic author - Lifetime IGer
- Posts: 19098
- Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 5:39 pm
Re: Officer Friendly.
To review.... What do you do when your fraudulently obtained funds are removed?
A conservative might suggest you find non fraudulent methods and or live within lessor means. That's how your free market is intended to work.
A conservative might suggest you find non fraudulent methods and or live within lessor means. That's how your free market is intended to work.
"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that." JS Mill
-
- Lifetime IGer
- Posts: 21247
- Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:54 am
- Location: Upon the eternal throne of the great Republic of Turdistan
Re: Officer Friendly.
I recognize that structural problems are difficult to overcome, and that your understanding of my style of conservatism is as weak as your understanding of Christianity-- probably why you have to resort to these straw men. But then you're comfortable watching Detroit, Saginaw, and Baltimore descend into Bartertown.Blaidd Drwg wrote:All you've managed to do is convince us that for a guy who expounds on conservative values, tradition God and country that your principles are completely negotiable.
Your false dilemma of status quo (which most people recognize as at the very least deeply flawed) has only rampant redistribution of wealth (socialism) as its logical alternative. This is at once false and also logically troubling in that rampant redistribution of funds from those who can't afford to fight back to the coffers of those malfeasant actors in charge of redistribution is in fact indistinguishable in effect from the socialism bogey man you're propping up.
I do believe that, in general, if the central government requires something, that they should pay for it, rather than passing it on in the form of unfunded mandates which are generally regressive. In essence, higher levels of government (federal or state) create a situation where taxes which are regressive in effect (civil forfeiture, traffic stops, etc..) seem to be the best solution.
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule
-
- Lifetime IGer
- Posts: 21247
- Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:54 am
- Location: Upon the eternal throne of the great Republic of Turdistan
Re: Officer Friendly.
A conservative looks at how the free market actually works, not how it works in theory-- that's for simplistic libertarians who haven't outgrown Ayn Rand.Blaidd Drwg wrote:To review.... What do you do when your fraudulently obtained funds are removed?
A conservative might suggest you find non fraudulent methods and or live within lessor means. That's how your free market is intended to work.
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule
Re: Officer Friendly.
Your appeal to pragmatism over higher principles is part of why the world is so fucked up.A conservative looks at how the free market actually works, not how it works in theory-- that's for simplistic libertarians who haven't outgrown Ayn Rand.
-
- Lifetime IGer
- Posts: 21247
- Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:54 am
- Location: Upon the eternal throne of the great Republic of Turdistan
Re: Officer Friendly.
Ok college boy. What did you think of Atlas Shrugged?tonkadtx wrote:Your appeal to pragmatism over higher principles is part of why the world is so fucked up.A conservative looks at how the free market actually works, not how it works in theory-- that's for simplistic libertarians who haven't outgrown Ayn Rand.
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule
Re: Officer Friendly.
Actually, I'm a middle aged Libertarian on my second jaunt through the halls of higher education.Ok college boy. What did you think of Atlas Shrugged?
I think it's a boring and generally shitty book with a few noteworthy parts (i.e. The John Galt Speech/Who is John Galt?). I do think the book was culturally important because of the time it was released in the shadow of the Iron Curtain and the Red Scare/McCarthyism in the United States.
Ayn Rand is certainly not the be all and end all of political or Libertarian thought, but people who like to bag on her tend to forget she was raised in Russia during the revolution, she came by her beliefs honestly. That might tend to make one a zealot.
-
Topic author - Lifetime IGer
- Posts: 19098
- Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 5:39 pm
Re: Officer Friendly.
Turdacious wrote:A conservative looks at how the free market actually works, not how it works in theory-- that's for simplistic libertarians who haven't outgrown Ayn Rand.Blaidd Drwg wrote:To review.... What do you do when your fraudulently obtained funds are removed?
A conservative might suggest you find non fraudulent methods and or live within lessor means. That's how your free market is intended to work.
So, let's be clear.....you think the transfer and redistribution of wealth by way of abuse of process, fraud and graft to support unsustainable government practices represents a "free" market. That's Conservatism to you?
Ayn Rand? Jesus keep track of the fucking ball. To suggest a fairy-tail version of what it means to stand for personal liberty is motivating this debate is beyond the pale stupid. Perhaps you meant to refer to noted Libertarian Eric Holder?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fed ... rfeitures/
Go soak your head, son. This is why no one engages with you on any matter of substance. Ayn Rand was a dumb cunt. There's more than one shade of Libertarian ideals in the world and i feel no compunction to be consistent with any of them...In this case, i'm just one of those assholes who believes in due process.
"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that." JS Mill
-
Topic author - Lifetime IGer
- Posts: 19098
- Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 5:39 pm
Re: Officer Friendly.
Son, you have no style...what.so.ever. You have only a reflexive need to weakly play Devils advocate when in fact, you don't realize...you're advocating for the actual Devil of Conservatism.Turdacious wrote:I recognize that structural problems are difficult to overcome, and that your understanding of my style of conservatism is as weak as your understanding of Christianity-
As for your Christianity, you have none. You wouldn't recognize Jesus if he washed your feet or threw your capricious ass out of the temple.Turdacious wrote:In essence, higher levels of government (federal or state) create a situation where taxes which are regressive in effect (civil forfeiture, traffic stops, etc..) seem to be the best solution.
"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that." JS Mill
-
- Lifetime IGer
- Posts: 21247
- Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:54 am
- Location: Upon the eternal throne of the great Republic of Turdistan
Re: Officer Friendly.
I just refuse to ignore things like the stickiness of government payrolls and programs, the correlation between crime rates and public expenditure needs, or the many effects of municipal economic decline (i.e. Detroit, Baltimore, Sagnasty, etc...). I think the damage caused by known second and third order effects is too serious to be ignored.Blaidd Drwg wrote:Turdacious wrote:A conservative looks at how the free market actually works, not how it works in theory-- that's for simplistic libertarians who haven't outgrown Ayn Rand.Blaidd Drwg wrote:To review.... What do you do when your fraudulently obtained funds are removed?
A conservative might suggest you find non fraudulent methods and or live within lessor means. That's how your free market is intended to work.
So, let's be clear.....you think the transfer and redistribution of wealth by way of abuse of process, fraud and graft to support unsustainable government practices represents a "free" market. That's Conservatism to you?
I think the Founding Fathers were right not to trust human nature, and I don't believe your theory that if we just wave the right sparkly magic wand that we'll all live in a libertarian fairyland.
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule
-
- Lifetime IGer
- Posts: 21247
- Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:54 am
- Location: Upon the eternal throne of the great Republic of Turdistan
Re: Officer Friendly.
And I'm just one of those assholes who's actually spent time outside Pleasantville.Blaidd Drwg wrote:In this case, i'm just one of those assholes who believes in due process.
Read back a page or two (before you took the red pill)-- I'm not in favor of civil forfeiture laws. I do recognize the needs of impoverished communities for revenue, and know what it's like when a community descends into Bartertown.
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule
-
Topic author - Lifetime IGer
- Posts: 19098
- Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 5:39 pm
Re: Officer Friendly.
Next time you use the term "Strawman"...ever...just print this page out and press your dead eyes against it. Osmosis is as likely a processes any to reveal what an completely disingenuous and poor thinker you are.Turdacious wrote:I think the Founding Fathers were right not to trust human nature, and I don't believe your theory that if we just wave the right sparkly magic wand that we'll all live in a libertarian fairyland.
Again, when the first administration to do anything positive with regard to asset forfeiture is the Obama Admin...you've really got to reassess your "libertarian fairly land" narrative.
As has been stated by others, you have no principles whatsoever that you're not willing to shit on for the purpose of making an argument you don't for a moment believe. In this case, the It's Complex narrative is only useful to the degree you might understand any element of municipal funding...which as demonstrated above, you don't OR to the degree you could add a useful bit of insight...which to my recollection you never have.
"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that." JS Mill