Republican with a spine

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sun May 03, 2015 6:46 am

kudos to this guy. Oh, and for those of you unaware, there are actually loons that are touting the notion that Obama is planning on a military takeover
of Texas, due to the military exercises planned down that way.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/263700043/Let ... nor-Abbott

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun May 03, 2015 8:10 am

There are loons who think republicans want to starve children and put black people back in chains.

Where do these loons get their ideas anyway?!?

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sun May 03, 2015 9:24 am

And there are people, both Dem and Rep, that think Obama is angling to nationalize all the local police depts

http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/taskforce ... Report.pdf

Isaac · Post by **Isaac** » Sun May 03, 2015 10:53 am

Meanwhile most of the north east coast believes that allowing conceal handgun permit reciprocity between all states will cause more gun crime. Idiots

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Sun May 03, 2015 11:32 am

Your tinfoil hat won't protect you from chemtrails, my friends.

vision · Post by **vision** » Sun May 03, 2015 12:53 pm

woodchip wrote:And there are people, both Dem and Rep, that think Obama is angling to nationalize all the local police depts.

Interesting. I haven't read that report, have you? Can you tell me what the advantages/disadvantages are to nationalized police?

Nightshade · Post by **Nightshade** » Sun May 03, 2015 1:05 pm

vision wrote:
woodchip wrote:And there are people, both Dem and Rep, that think Obama is angling to nationalize all the local police depts.
Interesting. I haven't read that report, have you? Can you tell me what the advantages/disadvantages are to nationalized police?

Hm. The Stasi come to mind.

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Sun May 03, 2015 1:28 pm

The mission of the task force was to examine how to foster strong, collaborative relationships between local law enforcement and the communities they protect and to make recommendations to the President on how policing practices can promote effective crime reduction while building public trust.

I didn't read the entire report, but I skimmed a lot of it. It sure did seem to adhere to that very reasonable mission statement. Perhaps I simply missed the lines I was supposed to read between that alludes to "nationalize all the local police depts."

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sun May 03, 2015 1:37 pm

Each individual mission statement seems innocuous enough but added together one could interpret a form of control being established. Like what happens when a city police force rejects the "advice" outright?

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sun May 03, 2015 1:53 pm

wow, some folks really ARE that delusional.

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Sun May 03, 2015 2:38 pm

woodchip wrote:Each individual mission statement seems innocuous enough but added together one could interpret a form of control being established.

Meh. Coming up with "best practices" towards a reasonable goal establishes the control of common sense, I guess. Many of the recommendations specify local community input in actual policy creation, which pretty much belies a "nationalized" local police.

Like what happens when a city police force rejects the "advice" outright?

I don't know, they'll be in danger of receiving a big Al Gore sigh?

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sun May 03, 2015 3:57 pm

Or the DOJ comes in, proclaims they are racist and needs everyone fired to be replaced by officers from a approved list only?

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Sun May 03, 2015 4:58 pm

Why do you want to protect racist cops?

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sun May 03, 2015 6:23 pm

Vander, why do you assume because the DOJ labels them racist that they are racist?

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Sun May 03, 2015 7:21 pm

Why not? Aren't we playing the make sh!t up game?

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sun May 03, 2015 8:28 pm

Vander wrote:Why not? Aren't we playing the make sh!t up game?

hell, I just thought he wasn't sharing the mushrooms with the rest of us.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sun May 03, 2015 10:54 pm

I used to smoke some pretty good ★■◆● back in the day (IE: ten years ago or so), but I never had the ★■◆● woody is smoking.

Flatlander · Post by **Flatlander** » Mon May 04, 2015 5:21 am

Vander wrote:Why not? Aren't we playing the make sh!t up game?

Here is the list of burn centers in United States:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bu ... ted_States

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon May 04, 2015 10:52 am

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Mon May 04, 2015 1:18 pm

I found where they're hiding the FEMA camp. Highland Park.

http://deusex.wikia.com/wiki/Highland_Park

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon May 04, 2015 2:14 pm

I've heard it was Greenwood, Indiana at an Amtrak yard, where they are refurbishing Pullman cars.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon May 04, 2015 7:40 pm

sorry for the language, those that are squeamish, but this just sums the whole reality up:
http://www.stonekettle.com/2015/05/jade ... texas.html

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Tue May 05, 2015 7:00 pm

Vander wrote:Why not? Aren't we playing the make sh!t up game?

I thought maybe you were playing the Ostrich version of hide the sausage.

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Tue May 05, 2015 8:19 pm

Sorry if that was rude. You're asking if the ill-defined hypothetical subjects of an ill-defined hypothetical government action are racist. I don't know. None of this is defined in the report you linked. It's simply a bunch of ideas to build trust between police and the policed. You're asking me to see the boogey man, but I just don't see it.

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Thu May 07, 2015 6:42 pm

callmeslick wrote:sorry for the language, those that are squeamish, but this just sums the whole reality up:
http://www.stonekettle.com/2015/05/jade ... texas.html

Someone give this man a ★■◆●ing medal.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Thu May 07, 2015 7:31 pm

callmeslick wrote:sorry for the language, those that are squeamish, but this just sums the whole reality up:
http://www.stonekettle.com/2015/05/jade ... texas.html

ahh, that makes me so happy to see that there is indeed some rationality left.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Thu May 07, 2015 8:48 pm

Vander wrote:Sorry if that was rude. You're asking if the ill-defined hypothetical subjects of an ill-defined hypothetical government action are racist. I don't know. None of this is defined in the report you linked. It's simply a bunch of ideas to build trust between police and the policed. You're asking me to see the boogey man, but I just don't see it.

Well lets see:

" Just two months ago, President Obama held up the Baltimore police force as a model of unbiased community policing. Now he's investigating it for civil-rights violations."

Now the DOJ is:

"Yet now the Obama Justice Department is investigating the Baltimore police for a "pattern or practice of discriminating" against the black community in "arrests, traffic stops and other operations."

You see Vander, control is done thru various venues. Some are well meaning, some are knee jerk responses to a problem. In the end it still boils down to a federal agency coming in to control the dept.in one way or the other. In Baltimore's case, how do they go from being the poster child of police depts to needing a DOJ investigation?

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Fri May 08, 2015 8:23 am

the MAYOR requested DOJ involvement. You might not know that if you didn't live down this way.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri May 08, 2015 4:13 pm

callmeslick wrote:the MAYOR requested DOJ involvement. You might not know that if you didn't live down this way.

I knew that but I think the dichotomy of what I posted went over your head so you had to bring up some irrelevant item.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Fri May 08, 2015 6:22 pm

callmeslick wrote:wow, some folks really ARE that delusional.

yes they are... and they're starting to make inroads into Canada.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Tue May 12, 2015 6:10 am

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Tue Jun 02, 2015 10:43 am

summing it all up:

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Tue Jun 02, 2015 2:53 pm

YUP…and aspirins are still 5 bucks each at a hospital.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Tue Jun 02, 2015 3:26 pm

maybe at yours

Isaac · Post by **Isaac** » Tue Jun 02, 2015 7:09 pm

What great democrat "feel good" picture.

It's not like he didn't try to pass an assault weapons ban...

People against your favorite president aren't all the vocal minority

Then it assumes everyone leaning left is smarter.

Keep stroking yourself...

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Tue Jun 02, 2015 10:12 pm

Ferno wrote:I used to smoke some pretty good **** back in the day (IE: ten years ago or so), but I never had the **** woody is smoking.

I'm still waiting for our legislature to get their stupid regulations set up so I can smoke some here, legally.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Wed Jun 03, 2015 7:02 am

[removed]

vision · Post by **vision** » Wed Jun 03, 2015 10:59 am

Isaac wrote:Then it assumes everyone leaning left is smarter.

Actually, research shows that people who lean center are smarter, at least in the US. There are cultural reasons why this might change from country to country through history, but right now the stats show that leaning too far right or left is associated with less flexible and thus less intelligent brains. If you thought Obama was the anti-Christ and there would be Sharia law in the US, that qualifies as stupid and ignorant of how the country actually works.

Isaac · Post by **Isaac** » Wed Jun 03, 2015 11:32 am

vision wrote:
Isaac wrote:Then it assumes everyone leaning left is smarter.
Actually, research shows that people who lean center are smarter, at least in the US. There are cultural reasons why this might change from country to country through history, but right now the stats show that leaning too far right or left is associated with less flexible and thus less intelligent brains. If you thought Obama was the anti-Christ and there would be Sharia law in the US, that qualifies as stupid and ignorant of how the country actually works.

no

The findings discussed illustrate a number of key points. Firstly, highly intelligent individuals may actually support right-wing views, not just left-wing ones, contrary to claims that support for right-wing positions reflects a lack of intellectual sophistication. It seems fair to say then that not only liberals, but conservatives (and those with other positions, such as libertarians) can have intellectually sophisticated reasons for their political views. The second point is that categorising people simply as generally liberal or conservative may mask differences in people’s views on social versus economic issues. The results of Kemmelmeier’s study suggest that when people are asked if they are liberal or conservative, they may give more weight to their views on social issues (such as abortion and gay rights) than to their views on economic issues (such as taxation). Therefore, in order to better understand how political attitudes are related to intelligence, a two-dimensional model that separates social and economic attitudes (see The World’s Smallest Political Quiz (link is external) for one example) may be preferable to the traditional yet overly simplistic left/right distinction.

Finally, the relationship between intelligence and political attitudes is most likely not fixed in some simple way, but probably changes across time and context.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/un ... lationship

But keep pleasuring yourself with that false sense of superiority...

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Wed Jun 03, 2015 12:12 pm

Isaac,
That study clearly amplifies Vision's point. Folks who are intelligent can support right wing or left wing thinking, in terms of theory. It would follow that they can generally cull ideas from both sides of the argument. Thus, the centrists, very likely, are the most likely to possess the greater grey matter, in general(and the writer notes the problem with generalities). Further, nothing about the acceptance of ridiculous notions like 'death panels', blind Obama-hate stuff, government takeovers, etc, qualifies as a 'conservative' or 'right' notion. It's simply crazy. Folks who buy into crazy thinking are not intelligent.