(09-01-2020 12:48 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 11:16 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  I've probably typed five times that I can't put racism on Chauvin's actions.

Here is the problem 93... you have what seems to be a very reasonable position on the issue.... and quite frankly, IN ISOLATION, so too do Lad and others....

However...

Lad absolutely supports and I suspect that at least on some level, so do you... these peaceful protests (not the riots, but the protests) of things that are based on what you seem to be agreeing is at least sometimes a false pretense. Systemic racism may exist, but this isn't likely an example of it. Same with most/many of these events. When you look at the facts in these cases, only rarely (almost never?) are they the out-and-out drop-the-mic examples of a racist system that we are required to believe... in order to justify the PEACEFUL protest, much less the rioting and destruction.

I mean, Michelle Obama herself uses 'if they don't recognize me, they don't look me in the eye or they ignore me, cutting in line at the ice cream shop' as her example of racist actions. In addition to sounding a lot like a 'my black friend' anecdote that is routinely ridiculed, that's not anywhere on the same planet as being killed.

It is DEATH that warrants the angry protest that often devolves into destruction. Nobody would/should support such anger over someone cutting in line at the ice cream shop. It's wrong of course, and it COULD, but doesn't have to be racism... and it's not a 'system' of it nor is it reflective of anyone but that individual...

So why would you protest 'The Federal Building', much less throw molotovs at it because someone cut in front of you in a line and you think it's because you were black? How does that relate to 'Black lives NOT mattering'?

The left version on these and many other other issues is simply inane and illogical.

(09-01-2020 11:51 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Man I see a lot of of crap in our current Trump America that you will vote for.

If I were a Roman and you were siding with Attila, that does not mean I think Romans are perfect. But it still means you are standing with bad guys, for whatever reasons you want to give.

If by crap, you mean an expanding job market for everybody including black people, guilty. I will vote for that.

If by crap, you mean fracking and exploration that brings down gas prices for everybody, but helping the poorest people the most, guilty,. I will vote for that.

If by crap, you mean standing up to bad guys in North Korea, Iran, and China for the benefit of the American people, guilty. I will vote for that.

If by crap, you mean exposing the lies and illegal actions behind the Russia hoax, guilty. I will vote for that.

Certainly, none of us can find the perfect candidate or party to give us exactly what we want, no more, no less. But I am voting for the meat, you are voting against the presentation. Unless you are saying you are in favor of recession, in favor of doubling gas prices, and in favor of kissing dictator's rears. If that is the case, I have you wrong.

There is an old saying about throwing out the baby with the bathwater. That's what I think you and many antiTrump voters are doing.

(09-01-2020 12:42 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 12:22 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 10:59 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 10:31 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 10:05 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Thanks for the clarification there - this would have helped our back and forth get nipped in the bud much earlier. I misunderstood that the hand written document and the memo were from different lawyers since they were dated the same.

Not my problem you really didnt read it fully. The differences in the memos are plain as day, tbh. Im not the one leaping to false assumptions without fully looking at the link, let alone even noting where the direct quotes came from. Please dont pin your misunderstanding on me or my actions.

Oof - looks like I’ll just never admit my misunderstanding or mistakes again if you’re going to be a massive ******* about it.

lad, the point is you decided not to treat my direct quotes as such at the outset in the first place.

Then you kept making some very baseless comments about what apparently obviously happened.

And finally, while the dates confused you, you overlook that the actors, places, and means of meeting in the two portions of the linked document were at great variance with one another.

So yes, when you 'school' me that 'I should have pointed that out to you earlier' is a tad galling. Nothing kept you from charging willy nilly down whatever rabbit hole sounded good to you --- and when it turns out the basic facts in the two sections dont even match, you make a comment that I took as 'well dude, you shouldve pointed that out well before hand'.

Honestly, nothing prevented you from finding an exact quote. Instead you latched onto one that was similar and ran with that implying that *I* had changed the language.

Nothing stopped you then from going down the path that 'the lawyer changed the language' -- all with absolutely zero basis for that.

It was only *after* you ran down those rabbit holes that I could discern that you thought the typed portion was a redo of the handwritten notes. Sorry, none of those are really my problem with an error.

If you had said, 'you know, my bad' that would have been fine. Again, nothing prevented you from saying that without casting blame (at least in part) somewhere else.

Sorry, I read both portions, and noted that they were talking about two different events, with different people, different locations, and different ways of having a meeting. I am truly sorry that you did not. I am not chastened by that.

But, the portion where you cast *your* basic misunderstanding onto me and making it *my* responsibility kind of seemed a little churlish from this end.

I think you mistook what I typed there. I wasn't "schooling" you as you put it or trying to cast blame on you.

Fair enough.

Quote:I can see how you could have taken it that way, but I was talking about the clarification in my understanding, and not in you making the clarification.

Again, fair enough.

(09-01-2020 12:48 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 11:16 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  I've probably typed five times that I can't put racism on Chauvin's actions.

Here is the problem 93... you have what seems to be a very reasonable position on the issue.... and quite frankly, IN ISOLATION, so too do Lad and others....

However...

Lad absolutely supports and I suspect that at least on some level, so do you... these peaceful protests (not the riots, but the protests) of things that are based on what you seem to be agreeing is at least sometimes a false pretense. Systemic racism may exist, but this isn't likely an example of it. Same with most/many of these events. When you look at the facts in these cases, only rarely (almost never?) are they the out-and-out drop-the-mic examples of a racist system that we are required to believe... in order to justify the PEACEFUL protest, much less the rioting and destruction.

I mean, Michelle Obama herself uses 'if they don't recognize me, they don't look me in the eye or they ignore me, cutting in line at the ice cream shop' as her example of racist actions. In addition to sounding a lot like a 'my black friend' anecdote that is routinely ridiculed, that's not anywhere on the same planet as being killed.

It is DEATH that warrants the angry protest that often devolves into destruction. Nobody would/should support such anger over someone cutting in line at the ice cream shop. It's wrong of course, and it COULD, but doesn't have to be racism... and it's not a 'system' of it nor is it reflective of anyone but that individual...

So why would you protest 'The Federal Building', much less throw molotovs at it because someone cut in front of you in a line and you think it's because you were black? How does that relate to 'Black lives NOT mattering'?

The problem is that the left is joined at the hips with BLM.

Now, they as a whole have an issue with whom their bed partners are. The left, as a whole, supports the causes that go into the riots, thus provoking a state where they cannot wholeheartedly condemn it.

The contra-example might be white supremacist violence. But, on that vector, the right can wholeheartedly condemn both the acts *and* the rationale.

Whereas the left in this issue can only condemn the acts.

And, it didnt help that for the two weeks prior to the DNC the Democrats went out of their way to act like there was no issue at all. And, at the DNC, went studiously out of their way to even make it more than a backwater footnote.

Now, and only when people like Don Lemon has said 'whoa there cowboys, these riots are hurting the Dems in the polls, do the Dems go into overdrive to not just disavow the violence, but somehow to peg it on the most visible politician to state that cities, counties, and states need to actually protect their populations from such violence. And even offering assistance for them to do it. Such offers being ignored by the Democratic leaders in such locales, perhaps in a move to cut off their nose to spite their face.

(08-31-2020 09:25 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(08-31-2020 08:51 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-31-2020 08:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-31-2020 08:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-31-2020 08:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Did Baker file the memo, or did the lawyer?

Lawyer detailing her conversation with Baker. Again, rtfd.

My point exactly - Baker did not denote the word "would,"

Were you a party to that conversation?

Quote:the lawyer did

Wow apparently so. You sure get around.

Quote:(it wasnt in quotes like other lines were).

So your explanation is that the lawyer is lying to his boss about what was said in the conversation. lad, I hate to tell you this, but words are important. Most attorneys wouldnt make this bush league mistake that you ascribe to her, especially in something this important.

There is a *significant* difference between 'would' and 'could' -- one that most every attorney, no matter how stupid, would understand. One that you glibly and fairly idiotically simply explain away for no reason. But, I guess that this attorney *is* that stupid according to you. Glad you were listening in, or omniscient. Thank you for your worldly background on this.

Please do tell what other portions of that memo we should magically 'wipe away' and replace with verbiage that most would understand have vast differences with? Since you are undeniably stating this is the case, i am interested to know what other verbiage gets 'wiped away' in the LAD ALLKNOWING OMNISCIENCE TEST.

Cha cha cha. At this point you are seriously making **** up out of no basis whatsoever and seeing what sticks to the wall. Good grief.

I am so glad you are so fing omniscient and telling the world precisely what happened and why, even when you had zero to do with that conversation. You should really use those powers of omniscience for world good instead of hole digging and hydrology work.

Curious how TOD works. If a patient comes in DOA what do they list? The time they roll in or perhaps they don't assign a TOD if the patient doesn't die while in the facility? I have no idea how this works. He was on video (on the street) motionless at 8:27 pm... did he roll into the ER ALIVE thereafter? To my amateur mind, it seems that TOD of 9:25 doesn't signify much of an attempt at resuscitation. Maybe ruowls could chime in on this if he's following this thread...

We are getting back to levels of Fentanyl and whether it not it could be fatal. IMO opining about this seems somewhat incomplete if you aren't taking into account the guy's prior history of using narcotics.

I'd be curious to hear what other experts have to say about this "new" information. My guess is that their opinions (positive or negative when it comes to Fentanyl's possible contribution to Floyd's death) won't change much.

TOD would be determined by a provider. If resuscitation was ongoing during transport to the ED, then the ED provider would stop resuscitation efforts and determine that as TOD. This may be after a period where a heart beat, spontaneous respirations or neurological activity may have stopped. It is likely that some circulation and oxygenation would be occurring during resuscitation which would make blood tests of serum levels of drugs more likely to be reflective of life conditions.

It appears Floyd was a terrible druggie, who demanded to be placed on the ground, and dropped down to the ground himself while resisting arrest and repeatedly being non-compliant with all officers requests to help him comply for the entire 45 min before he succumbed to the drugs he took. Who killed George Floyd? George Floyd killed George Floyd. Who is to blame for Floyd's death? George Floyd is to blame for George Floyd's death. No wonder the douche is a hero to the far left.

(09-02-2020 08:49 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  It appears Floyd was a terrible druggie, who demanded to be placed on the ground, and dropped down to the ground himself while resisting arrest and repeatedly being non-compliant with all officers requests to help him comply for the entire 45 min before he succumbed to the drugs he took. Who killed George Floyd? George Floyd killed George Floyd. Who is to blame for Floyd's death? George Floyd is to blame for George Floyd's death. No wonder the douche is a hero to the far left.

"terrible druggie"? "douche"?

I guess you feel that anybody who has a problem with addiction to narcotics is a horrible, irredeemable person? Seems pretty harsh for a problem that is unfortunately so prevalent.

(09-03-2020 09:56 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  I guess you feel that anybody who has a problem with addiction to narcotics is a horrible, irredeemable person?

Not going to speak to GO's wording. I just want to note that if we replace the words "addition to narcotics" above with "racism", we pretty much have the left's attitude.

(09-03-2020 09:56 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  "terrible druggie"? "douche"?

I guess you feel that anybody who has a problem with addiction to narcotics is a horrible, irredeemable person? Seems pretty harsh for a problem that is unfortunately so prevalent.

Well, if it even remotely contributes to their untimely death, and especially if it provokes the interaction with police.... then yes, they are unredeemable (on this earth anyway) because they're dead... and while 'they' may not be horrible, the events ostensibly caused by their actions certainly are horrible.

I get your point, but so much of these arguments stem around people's choice of words and then some form of blame shifting to that. As I suspect you'd agree, I've put forth more concrete plans about making changes to police interactions than most politicians from either side... and more than anyone else on here, including those who support the idea. You engaged me somewhat, but not that much. I fought 'your' (meaning the left's) fight FOR you (meaning the left).

Drug addiction is a horrible thing... no doubt... and treatment is expensive, and does almost no good if someone goes right back to the same situation... which they almost always do... especially if they are poor and live in public housing. I've actually suggested ways to stop/reduce this. They are somewhat radical and need lots of vetting... and I have suggested that some area where this is seen as an absolute PRIORITY, whether it be Portland or LA or NYC or Chicago or St Louis adopt some version of it....

But instead we seem to want to criticize people over their choices of descriptors... as if calling this guy something more sensitive would bring him back to life.

I was just reading an article about a guy killed in NY back in March, in part due to having a spit shield applied due to excessive spitting near the onset of COVID. The guy apparently had a history of mental issues and outbursts, and in addition to his prescription medications, was taking PCP. The police were called because he was running through town, naked.

So what is the answer?
- Don't bother with naked people running through town?
- Don't protect police officers from potentially infected people with spit shields, which are little more than the same masks we are being asked to wear?

Without the PCP, according to the family... he's a really nice guy who doesn't bother anybody.

Rather than protesting police, why aren't we protesting drug dealers? Where is this unbridled passion towards the SINGLE common denominator in ALL of these things, including the desperation?

(09-03-2020 11:11 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-03-2020 09:56 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  "terrible druggie"? "douche"?

I guess you feel that anybody who has a problem with addiction to narcotics is a horrible, irredeemable person? Seems pretty harsh for a problem that is unfortunately so prevalent.

Well, if it even remotely contributes to their untimely death, and especially if it provokes the interaction with police.... then yes, they are unredeemable (on this earth anyway) because they're dead... and while 'they' may not be horrible, the events ostensibly caused by their actions certainly are horrible.

I get your point, but so much of these arguments stem around people's choice of words and then some form of blame shifting to that. As I suspect you'd agree, I've put forth more concrete plans about making changes to police interactions than most politicians from either side... and more than anyone else on here, including those who support the idea. You engaged me somewhat, but not that much. I fought 'your' (meaning the left's) fight FOR you (meaning the left).

Drug addiction is a horrible thing... no doubt... and treatment is expensive, and does almost no good if someone goes right back to the same situation... which they almost always do... especially if they are poor and live in public housing. I've actually suggested ways to stop/reduce this. They are somewhat radical and need lots of vetting... and I have suggested that some area where this is seen as an absolute PRIORITY, whether it be Portland or LA or NYC or Chicago or St Louis adopt some version of it....

But instead we seem to want to criticize people over their choices of descriptors... as if calling this guy something more sensitive would bring him back to life.

I was just reading an article about a guy killed in NY back in March, in part due to having a spit shield applied due to excessive spitting near the onset of COVID. The guy apparently had a history of mental issues and outbursts, and in addition to his prescription medications, was taking PCP. The police were called because he was running through town, naked.

So what is the answer?
- Don't bother with naked people running through town?
- Don't protect police officers from potentially infected people with spit shields, which are little more than the same masks we are being asked to wear?

Without the PCP, according to the family... he's a really nice guy who doesn't bother anybody.

Rather than protesting police, why aren't we protesting drug dealers? Where is this unbridled passion towards the SINGLE common denominator in ALL of these things, including the desperation?

I feel that the Democrats position re: the legalization of marijuana and reforming drug laws would have a favorable effect on this issue.

(09-03-2020 11:57 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(09-03-2020 11:11 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Rather than protesting police, why aren't we protesting drug dealers? Where is this unbridled passion towards the SINGLE common denominator in ALL of these things, including the desperation?

I feel that the Democrats position re: the legalization of marijuana and reforming drug laws would have a favorable effect on this issue.

So why aren't we protesting the people who make those laws? Why are we instead protesting the people who enforce the laws that were made?

I agree that this is the argument being made, but it's not the actions being taken.

My son was having work/life balancing issues and I made up a spreadsheet for him that took a 24 hour day and then assigned 8 hours to work, 1 hour to commute, 30 minutes to get ready for work etc etc etc... and then asked him to fill that out and then sum the various categories... careful to look for overlaps, like how watching football with the girlfriend is only 'couple' time if she also enjoys football... or that commutes could be 'us' time if you do it together... to demonstrate that every choice has at least an opportunity cost... and that 'where you spend your time' demonstrated much better where your real priorities are.

The REAL priorities seem to be in tearing down those who enforce laws and those who support those that do... while leaving the people who write these laws alone, unless they support law enforcement.

So its the support for enforcement, not the correction of the laws that is where the priority is, because the people who write the laws are running for office and apparently like things the way they are.

I don't believe that you don't support the enforcement of duly enacted laws. That is where all of the focus has been though... and why I've repeatedly asked why Democrats, who control PLENTY of places where they could do whatever they wanted in terms of mj legalization and drug law reform and demonstrate efficacy...

and why it is so ridiculous IMO to support a woman who spent 25 years willingly prosecuting people under those very laws.

Many many of these reported incidents of racism are taking place in areas where Democrats have controlled the law making AND law enforcing bodies for sometimes generations.... If Democrats have solutions, why aren't they putting them into practice and showing us the benefits of it?

Floyd is a perfect example... Form memory, this was a 20yr cop with apparently a pretty clean record... so much so that he was selected to train other cops... he was obviously known by his police chief whom also had been on the force for 30 years... the last 3 of it as chief, and the 7 before that... essentially as Internal Affairs focused specifically on racial profiling and bias within the department, who was selected for that position after suing the city and winning after being passed over for jobs. The mayor is a democrat... the city leans fairly hard left... but the state is fairly balanced. I mean, you couldn't have a better situation for democrats to put their reputations where their mouths are.... where selective enforcement priorities showed an improvement... putting pressure on the legislature to pass better laws.

Relevant (I posted this in another thread):

Quote:The House will vote on legalizing marijuana next month.

States would still have to vote to legalize the drug. Marijuana is already legal in 11 states.

The MORE Act would remove cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act and erase some cannabis criminal records. The vote will come during the September work period, according to an email Majority Whip Jim Clyburn’s (D-S.C.) office that was sent to members Friday.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/28...ote-404455

(09-03-2020 01:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Relevant (I posted this in another thread):

Quote:The House will vote on legalizing marijuana next month.

States would still have to vote to legalize the drug. Marijuana is already legal in 11 states.

The MORE Act would remove cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act and erase some cannabis criminal records. The vote will come during the September work period, according to an email Majority Whip Jim Clyburn’s (D-S.C.) office that was sent to members Friday.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/28...ote-404455

This is okay, but almost entirely ceremonial as it regards federal offenses only... and these laws are only really enforced against traffickers. This is just something that needs to be addressed as we move forward and you won't get a lot of push back from most on the right... Dems support it more than reps, but even reps are 55/45 in favor... and when you take out the bible belt, it's probably more like 70/30.

In 2017, there were only 92 people sentenced federally for possession... 92 out of almost 20,000.... More than 99% of the 82,000 drug offenders are in Federal jail for trafficking... which generally means kilos of mj. The states that have passed similar laws like Illinois grant clemency for 30 grams and you can petition for 30-500 grams. So far less than what we're seeing at the Federal level where some people are moving literally TONS of the stuff.

So again, why are we protesting feds and state police rather than state legislatures?

The numbers are a bit squirrely as the comparisons overlap... hard to tell if we're talking 10% of all, or 10% of all drug convictions... but either way, it seems telling... and the numbers are so much larger than the Federal numbers that it's almost meaningless to discuss them in the same context. I'm not saying you're wrong lad... I'm saying that this demonstrates my point.

https://drugabusestatistics.org/marijuan...rceration/

939,000 out of 1.1million people on STATE probation used illegal marijuana while on probation. 290k out of 370k on parole used illegal marijuana. I've noted this in my comments about COPS. It's a fait accompli, and you often see the cops even go light on people if what they have is a joint... but not for meth... I don't know if they are on probation for mj or not... but they were arrested for using it while on probation.... and we're talking over 1mm people, vs 92.

Massachusetts has 67,000 probationers paying $20mm/yr in probation service fees and they incarcerate people who can't pay... giving them $30/day credit?? I'm sure there's a reason for that in someone's mind, but that just seems egregious.

This is why I favor a different approach... they don't stand a chance... but the cops are only enforcing the laws put there by the legislatures... and if the legislatures haven't addressed the 'what about people convicted under things that no longer are a crime', that too isn't their problem. Cops aren't supposed to be judge/jury. It's NOT the cops. It's what their leadership requires them to do and focus on.

(09-03-2020 03:06 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-03-2020 01:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Relevant (I posted this in another thread):

Quote:The House will vote on legalizing marijuana next month.

States would still have to vote to legalize the drug. Marijuana is already legal in 11 states.

The MORE Act would remove cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act and erase some cannabis criminal records. The vote will come during the September work period, according to an email Majority Whip Jim Clyburn’s (D-S.C.) office that was sent to members Friday.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/28...ote-404455

This is okay, but almost entirely ceremonial as it regards federal offenses only... and these laws are only really enforced against traffickers. This is just something that needs to be addressed as we move forward and you won't get a lot of push back from most on the right... Dems support it more than reps, but even reps are 55/45 in favor... and when you take out the bible belt, it's probably more like 70/30.

In 2017, there were only 92 people sentenced federally for possession... 92 out of almost 20,000.... More than 99% of the 82,000 drug offenders are in Federal jail for trafficking... which generally means kilos of mj. The states that have passed similar laws like Illinois grant clemency for 30 grams and you can petition for 30-500 grams. So far less than what we're seeing at the Federal level where some people are moving literally TONS of the stuff.

So again, why are we protesting feds and state police rather than state legislatures?

The numbers are a bit squirrely as the comparisons overlap... hard to tell if we're talking 10% of all, or 10% of all drug convictions... but either way, it seems telling... and the numbers are so much larger than the Federal numbers that it's almost meaningless to discuss them in the same context. I'm not saying you're wrong lad... I'm saying that this demonstrates my point.

https://drugabusestatistics.org/marijuan...rceration/

939,000 out of 1.1million people on STATE probation used illegal marijuana while on probation. 290k out of 370k on parole used illegal marijuana. I've noted this in my comments about COPS. It's a fait accompli, and you often see the cops even go light on people if what they have is a joint... but not for meth... I don't know if they are on probation for mj or not... but they were arrested for using it while on probation.... and we're talking over 1mm people, vs 92.

Massachusetts has 67,000 probationers paying $20mm/yr in probation service fees and they incarcerate people who can't pay... giving them $30/day credit?? I'm sure there's a reason for that in someone's mind, but that just seems egregious.

This is why I favor a different approach... they don't stand a chance... but the cops are only enforcing the laws put there by the legislatures... and if the legislatures haven't addressed the 'what about people convicted under things that no longer are a crime', that too isn't their problem. Cops aren't supposed to be judge/jury. It's NOT the cops. It's what their leadership requires them to do and focus on.

Ceremonial?

The federal criminalization of marijuana (and any drug) is the first, and most important, reason why marijuana (or any drug) is not legal, or at least decriminalized, in every state.

States that have voted to legalize weed are violating federal law and the feds could come in and prosecute individuals for breaking federal law if they want. Federal law wins when it comes to a situation like this - luckily in this instance Obama admin had issues directives of not enforcing the federal laws in states that had legalized weed.

Anyways, I was just adding information about a relevant topic, and not specifically on where blame lies for the issue.

(09-03-2020 04:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Ceremonial?

The federal criminalization of marijuana (and any drug) is the first, and most important, reason why marijuana (or any drug) is not legal, or at least decriminalized, in every state.

If it were true, Federal officials could just position themselves outside of legal pot dispensaries and arrest people. You're arguing that because Feds arrested 92 people, that's why states arrested more than 1mm? That doesn't even make sense to you, Lad.

Quote:States that have voted to legalize weed are violating federal law and the feds could come in and prosecute individuals for breaking federal law if they want. Federal law wins when it comes to a situation like this - luckily in this instance Obama admin had issues directives of not enforcing the federal laws in states that had legalized weed.

If they wanted to... so show me where they last wanted to? It was legal in some states before Obama... Medicinal marijuana has been allowed in many states for decades and is not exempt from Federal law... This law hasn't been enforced on the Federal level for decades. Obama similarly made it ceremonially more official. It's obviously still federally illegal, because they still charge a few people with it.... but not those who buy it where it is legal, unless they travel across state lines with it.... so again, why praise Obama rather than blame Congress?

Quote:Anyways, I was just adding information about a relevant topic, and not specifically on where blame lies for the issue.

So did I provide information. The information I added is that this is demonstrably a lot of show and almost meaningless 'go'. It impacts almost nobody. If the states were to do it, THAT would be meaningful. The whole idea that somehow they can't until the feds do rings hollow on the issue, since they have no problem legalizing it without changes on the Federal level.

So why don't state legislatures address the sentencing issues? Why aren't we protesting state legislatures and instead, we're attacking police and blaming feds.

This isn't really about blame either... I don't blame states for not doing it yet... takes time to turn the titanic and foresee all of the possible issues...

To me it's about the legitimacy of these protests and where they are focusing their energies. If it were actually about solving the issues related to the issues of petty crimes, they'd be protesting state legislatures and MAYBE Congress. Instead, it's Trump and 'certain' white people (not even just racists, but anyone who doesn't simply submit)

(09-03-2020 04:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  luckily in this instance Obama admin had issues directives of not enforcing the federal laws in states that had legalized weed.

Lolz. Obama's actions were feckless. If he had had an ounce of fiber, he could have gone DACA on weed --- just not enforce Federal law, period.

But he did this weird ass stuff where it was 'selective' enforcement.

Again, a principled person would have been non-selective --- if weed didnt belong on the DEA Controlled Substances or was believed to be unimportant, nothing in the world could have stopped the Obama administration from exercising prosecutorial discretion on MJ, period.

Nothing in that would have hindered state enforcement on the books.

Brave Sir Obama, what a brave, righteous, knight (with the sounds of coconut halves being thrown together and band of minstrels singing about the brave deeds of Sir Obama)

(09-03-2020 06:55 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-03-2020 04:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  luckily in this instance Obama admin had issues directives of not enforcing the federal laws in states that had legalized weed.

Lolz. Obama's actions were feckless. If he had had an ounce of fiber, he could have gone DACA on weed --- just not enforce Federal law, period.

But he did this weird ass stuff where it was 'selective' enforcement.

Again, a principled person would have been non-selective --- if weed didnt belong on the DEA Controlled Substances or was believed to be unimportant, nothing in the world could have stopped the Obama administration from exercising prosecutorial discretion on MJ, period.

Nothing in that would have hindered state enforcement on the books.

Brave Sir Obama, what a brave, righteous, knight (with the sounds of coconut halves being thrown together and band of minstrels singing about the brave deeds of Sir Obama)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZwuTo7zKM8

(09-03-2020 09:56 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(09-02-2020 08:49 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  It appears Floyd was a terrible druggie, who demanded to be placed on the ground, and dropped down to the ground himself while resisting arrest and repeatedly being non-compliant with all officers requests to help him comply for the entire 45 min before he succumbed to the drugs he took. Who killed George Floyd? George Floyd killed George Floyd. Who is to blame for Floyd's death? George Floyd is to blame for George Floyd's death. No wonder the douche is a hero to the far left.

"terrible druggie"? "douche"?

I guess you feel that anybody who has a problem with addiction to narcotics is a horrible, irredeemable person? Seems pretty harsh for a problem that is unfortunately so prevalent.

There are a ton of good, law-abiding, educated-by-books and educated-by-life experiences, hard-working black American citizens out there. Those unsung fathers who daily provide for their children, teach them to be good citizens, stay off drugs and educate themselves for a career. Those black men are the REAL unsung heroes, not this creep. Not at all defending the douche who kneeled on him for so long either, but if you actually watch the entire video, not just the last few minutes, you clearly see that douche tried repeatedly to get douche Floyd to stop resisting and stop covering up and stalling for whatever he was for over 45 minutes. (what, he was supposed to just let him get up and run away? Floyd was much bigger and was consistently and constantly resisting. You don't think the officer correctly assessed that something was very wrong with him and that he might be lying and deflecting to try to get out of it? Glad you're not a soldier, the enemy would love you to death...literally.)

Yes, if all you watch is the last 5 minutes of the video, you certainly can get one picture. But life is not a tweet or a sound-bite. This man Floyd was no one any decent person, of any background, would ever want to hold yup or celebrate. Watching the ENTIRE long video, you see what a impossible job cops have to try and regulate those who don't care to regulate themselves. All Floyd had to do was be responsible for his own choices (lethal-level drugs he took, and his criminal actions, and later, when he was busted for his own free-will choices (not his skin color) he could have complied and let the judge decide and hear his case. Instead, he forfeited any opportunity to do so, or any chance at redemption for his own free-will bad choices by spending 45 minutes not once doing simply what he was requested to do. It's Floyd's own da** fault, and he makes every good citizen look worse because of it, and that is what is truly unfair.

As to the drugs, I didn't like them when I was on campus and I certainly don't like them or have any sympathy for anyone who uses them now. And you obviously have never encountered children who have been directly affected by them. If you had, you might think differently than trying to defend this kind of druggie scumbag. Some have the unfortunate experience of seeing what drugs do to families. And it's not harmless fun" by a longshot.

(09-03-2020 11:11 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-03-2020 09:56 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  "terrible druggie"? "douche"?

I guess you feel that anybody who has a problem with addiction to narcotics is a horrible, irredeemable person? Seems pretty harsh for a problem that is unfortunately so prevalent.

Well, if it even remotely contributes to their untimely death, and especially if it provokes the interaction with police.... then yes, they are unredeemable (on this earth anyway) because they're dead... and while 'they' may not be horrible, the events ostensibly caused by their actions certainly are horrible.

I get your point, but so much of these arguments stem around people's choice of words and then some form of blame shifting to that. As I suspect you'd agree, I've put forth more concrete plans about making changes to police interactions than most politicians from either side... and more than anyone else on here, including those who support the idea. You engaged me somewhat, but not that much. I fought 'your' (meaning the left's) fight FOR you (meaning the left).

Drug addiction is a horrible thing... no doubt... and treatment is expensive, and does almost no good if someone goes right back to the same situation... which they almost always do... especially if they are poor and live in public housing. I've actually suggested ways to stop/reduce this. They are somewhat radical and need lots of vetting... and I have suggested that some area where this is seen as an absolute PRIORITY, whether it be Portland or LA or NYC or Chicago or St Louis adopt some version of it....

But instead we seem to want to criticize people over their choices of descriptors... as if calling this guy something more sensitive would bring him back to life.

I was just reading an article about a guy killed in NY back in March, in part due to having a spit shield applied due to excessive spitting near the onset of COVID. The guy apparently had a history of mental issues and outbursts, and in addition to his prescription medications, was taking PCP. The police were called because he was running through town, naked.

So what is the answer?
- Don't bother with naked people running through town?
- Don't protect police officers from potentially infected people with spit shields, which are little more than the same masks we are being asked to wear?

Without the PCP, according to the family... he's a really nice guy who doesn't bother anybody.

Rather than protesting police, why aren't we protesting drug dealers? Where is this unbridled passion towards the SINGLE common denominator in ALL of these things, including the desperation?

No, Ham. Sez the Left: Drugs are gud, po-lice are bad. People have the "rigth" to do drugs, but other people don't have the right to defend themselves from the first group of druggies. That's the "progressive" argument in a nutshell, and it's complete BS. At least you are smart enough and experienced enough to see it and call it what it really is.

Too many people placing too much emphasis on being able to escape their reality, instead of valuing their own lives and the lives of others and working on their own lives instead of choosing to make them worse. Video-phone-game mentality only makes it worse...drugs are bad because they do bad things to a person, and make any bad situation far worse than if there were no drugs involved. Where does valuing of life, ALL life come from? Were does de-valuing of life come from? Hmmmm. #truthtopower.

(09-03-2020 06:55 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-03-2020 04:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  luckily in this instance Obama admin had issues directives of not enforcing the federal laws in states that had legalized weed.

Lolz. Obama's actions were feckless. If he had had an ounce of fiber, he could have gone DACA on weed --- just not enforce Federal law, period.

But he did this weird ass stuff where it was 'selective' enforcement.

Again, a principled person would have been non-selective --- if weed didnt belong on the DEA Controlled Substances or was believed to be unimportant, nothing in the world could have stopped the Obama administration from exercising prosecutorial discretion on MJ, period.

Nothing in that would have hindered state enforcement on the books.

Brave Sir Obama, what a brave, righteous, knight (with the sounds of coconut halves being thrown together and band of minstrels singing about the brave deeds of Sir Obama)

Yes, better actions could have been taken. Sorry that my comment got your hackles up - was just noting that Obama, when faced with states legalizing a drug that was illegal at the federal level, responded in a positive manner, as opposed to cracking down.