• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. Police Have Shot Dead 385 People In Five Months

For example? When has Singapore ever ****ed the US?

Think of the ways you been ****ed by the rest of the world and they have not finished yet.
 
The no-knock thing is definitely a problem.... even I can agree on that one.

However, its a small percentage (albeit growing) chance that this will happen to you. Nothing to lose sleep over.

A small percentage? Small relative to what? If society wants 0 no knock wrongful fatalities,and 1 occurs that's 100% increase. What are u comparing that "small percentage" with
 

Yeah, really. According to the OP's link, about 1/4th of the people shot were described as mentally ill. Then about 80% were described as being armed. A significant percentage of the rest were just dumb and refused orders to comply or were "unarmed" criminals who tried to grab the cop's gun.

What if your simply at home in bed in the middle of the night?

Then the odds are your boyfriend presents a greater danger. Cases of cops barging into homes in the middle of the night to assassinate innocent residents are rare.
 
1. Free soilers were against slavery because it was giving too much competition to labor. https://books.google.de/books?id=Tv...page&q=free soil party on immigration&f=false

Your link doesn't work. But the response is still this: So? You are arguing the Republican roots are not in the anti-slavery movement. Obviously they are. The motivation of the anti-slavery roots of the Free Soil movement is irrelevant. Their motto was: "free soil, free speech, free labor, and free men” ... obviously authoritarians. :roll:

"Free soil" was a reference towards westward expansion for natural citizens, not slavery... Their stance on slavery attracted anti slave democrats, libertarians, who thought it was unconstitutional like Jefferson.

No to the first part, yes to the second. They opposed slavery specifically in the new territories. They wanted free laborers, not slaves, in the territories. It was that anti-slavery stance that attracted abolitionists to the cause.

2. My argument was that neocons are authoritarians which you just objectively proven, and then my counter argument was that republicans have always been authoritarians which I've shown to be true as well...

No, contrary to your opinion, outlawing slavery is not authoritarian as the aggregate effect if an increase in freedom of the population. Regarding the anti-communist FOREIGN policy of the NeoCons, that also isn't "authoritarian" for the same reason. Ask Poland and the satellite states if they see the fall of the Soviet Union as a loss of freedom. If the goal of the NeoCons was to increase the freedoms of communist populations then can't be authoritarian.

3. Because with an inflationary currency it makes it almost impossible to price cut internationally. The 10 million $ is an example, but the fact that they've monopolized themselves without any firms competing against them show us they are acting as a perceived duopoly. This is because of things like inflationary currency, subsidized exports, protective tariffs through inflationary currency. Not because of competition, they may have started as a competitive business but it takes state power to enforce duopolies and with an inflationary currency you don't necessarily need the state power, especially when you outsource. This is why it's almost impossible to compete with these mega companies. Have you ever studied exchange rate theory or monetary theory or subjective monetary value theory at all?

False, in you own example the limitation of cost cutting between China and the US are the results of the actions of China, not the US. Regardless of the currency valuation chosen by the US China can always pin their currency to the US dollar and accomplish the same goal. You are essentially trying to blame the US for a foreign countries protectionism. Since you already assume that these foreign nations will change their own monetary policy to benefit their own economy, why not explain how a fixed currency protects the US against such foreign manipulation? I mean hell, when you go with a fixed currency penned to a internationally traded commodity all you have accomplished is to give the rest of the world control over the value of your currency.

What happens in your scenario when the US pins their currency to gold, for instance, and China decides to by a trillion dollars in gold and take it out of circulation? They have effectively increased the strength of the US dollar. At that point they could flood the market with their own non-fixed currency, devaluing it and forcing the US into an import posture.

So how if giving America less control of the value of their currency equal to greater freedom? (hint: It isn't)

Your $10 million example is not due to monopolies, it is due to the realities software development. Software development is inherently long and costly work, and is completely impossible is not limited to a small list of hosting operating systems. By nature the industry will always congeal to a few big operating systems and a long list of losers. Your argument that the Government makes the Apple/Microsoft duopoly is simply absurd and demonstrates a functional illiteracy of way the computer industry functions. The number of viable Operating systems in the private sector is dependent on the number of platforms a software developer is able to program to successfully. At the moment that limit appears to be about 3.
 
1. Obviously you have no economic backround in monetary theory. Us forces domestic prices to go up because they devalue the dollar. If I am selling an apple for 4$ in Japan and the market equilibrium rate is 3$, then I devalue the currency to make the value 2$in japan rather then 4$, I hold a competitive edge over Japanese apple market. In doing so, I skyrocket the price from 4$ to 6.5$ in the United States, thus making Japanese imports of rice which was valued at 5 yen import to jump to 8 yen import. Which makes it a tariff as well as an export subsidy. Doing so protects the production of American firms which lessens competition and where we have this loss of competition "deadweight loss" we create the perceived monopoly because all they need to do now is turn the demand curve inelastic by reducing production.

All of your arguments assume that only commodity prices are fluctuating given economy. Essentially all of your proofs require an economy locked in a form of stagflation where the cost of goods go up without an inflation in wages. This is not a common occurrence. The last time this happened it wasn't a "NeoCon" that caused it, either.

2. The only difference between a fiat currency and a centrally controlled economy is that a centrally controlled economy, I.e. Socialism, is the ultimate later stage of a fiat currency due to the fact that it is unsustainable. When monetary value rests in the hands of a few people, the entire purpose of the market becomes a cartel. This is literally what is happening to us right now, which is why we will always see more expansion on government

False. You are fooling yourself when you say that "monetary value rests in the hands of the people" in a fixed currency system. In fact, monetary value rests in the hands of foreign governments in a fixed monetary system. To truly have a stable fixed currency you would have to pin the currency to a commodity that only has value to the citizens of that country which would dissuade foreign companies from manipulating the cost of the commodity on which the currency is fixed (which is also protectionism), but even if you were able to do that you would have created a currency that is essentially valueless in the world market.

3. You did not explain any difference in monetary value theory at all, you explained the differences of the functions of a market society and a socialist society, not the differences of a central controlled monetary system and a central controlled economic system

No, you are projecting. You asked for a difference between a controlled economy and a controlled currency and then defined them both as variations in currency control which is absurdly false.
 
A small percentage? Small relative to what? If society wants 0 no knock wrongful fatalities,and 1 occurs that's 100% increase. What are u comparing that "small percentage" with

Zero to 1 is not a 100% increase. :roll:
 
Is that a pun about how no-knock raids frequently involve killing people in their sleep?
Nice reply - the irony was not lost on me, either!
 
Your link doesn't work. But the response is still this: So? You are arguing the Republican roots are not in the anti-slavery movement. Obviously they are. The motivation of the anti-slavery roots of the Free Soil movement is irrelevant. Their motto was: "free soil, free speech, free labor, and free men” ... obviously authoritarians. :roll:



No to the first part, yes to the second. They opposed slavery specifically in the new territories. They wanted free laborers, not slaves, in the territories. It was that anti-slavery stance that attracted abolitionists to the cause.



No, contrary to your opinion, outlawing slavery is not authoritarian as the

1. Free soil litterally means free land for natural American citizens, this is rooted in Anti-immigration and inflation. Anti-slavery was a protectionist policy for ameirican workers wanted to remain competitive.

2. Authoritarian requires a bigger federal government, republican, authoritarian requires a state controlled monetary system, republican, authoritarian is taking peoples lands and giving it to certain industry, republican, authoritarian is limiting the ability of other people to practice culture, republican... I can go on and on. I'm not saying the slave owning democrats were any better, b particular to the anti slavery stance of the republicans is why the libertarian democrats flocked to the begining stages of the republicans, which was the purpose of the party. Guess what happened when the know nothingers and the massive Whig migration at the baby stages of the party? The libertarians went back to the democrats...

3. That's if you think the Soviet Unions collapse was solely and directly related to the lieing foreign policy of the Reagan administration. The fact is, is that the rest of the world sees the collapse of the Soviet Union due to the economic fallacies of socialism and had absolutely nothing to do with Reagan or the neo cons. The Soviet Union collapsed because it is impossible to sustain itself.

4. A. The policy manners of china have no concern to me at all what so ever

B. Fixed exchange rates are a response to inflationary policies. This is a result of modern merchantilism through monetarism, which the United States is very guilty of

C. I'll respond to your gold issue in two effects
C.1. If Chinese people buy all the gold first off they would have to allow their currency to unfix itself to the United States dollar. Doing so, would immensely increase the value of the Chinese yuan. Then when the Chinese buy the trillion yuan worth of gold and then hold It out of circulation the United States then would start buying Chinese assets. Doing so, would benefit the consumer in the United States
C.2. When the consumer benefits they will take the gold backed money and save it when they save they will eventually invest in more pronounce production, doing so would cause the Chinese investors to buy American reserves and then invest it in American companies which would eventually, in the Long run, create a monetary equilibrium of exchange rates where the central bank doesn't have the ability to devalue the currency

5. It's not america doesn't have control of their currency, it's the central banks no longer have control of the peoples currency

6. This is due to protectionist policies of international trade. We devalue the currency, force austerity measures, then bring in big companies like apple to pay with super cheap labor due to the austerity measure, then massively expand the export of the company causing it nearly impossible because the firm is operating as an "American company" while they have massive below market labor equilibrium, and massive protectionist policy to increase foreign sales... It's no longer competitive, not because the firms aren't competitive, but because the cronies in Washington, D.C. Have made elaborate ways to promote merchantilism
 
Yeah, really. According to the OP's link, about 1/4th of the people shot were described as mentally ill. Then about 80% were described as being armed. A significant percentage of the rest were just dumb and refused orders to comply or were "unarmed" criminals who tried to grab the cop's gun.



Then the odds are your boyfriend presents a greater danger. Cases of cops barging into homes in the middle of the night to assassinate innocent residents are rare.
Huh?

So we shoot dead the mentally ill? Well that justifies 25% of the killings, according to you!

And it appears you justify shooting another segment, "because they're 'just dumb'"?

And now, your equating the police (justifying their murderous activities, actually!) to abusive boyfriends?

Wow! You've got the whole package, there!
 
A small percentage? Small relative to what? If society wants 0 no knock wrongful fatalities,and 1 occurs that's 100% increase. What are u comparing that "small percentage" with

Small fraction of a chance that this will happen to someone. Thus it is not something to get paranoid about.

Im more worried about getting a mouse turd poisoned hamburger from McDonald's and contracting a fatal disease than I am worried about law enforcement storming into my home by mistake and slaughtering my family.


Should we do more to reduce both of those chances? Yes. Nobody is saying that.

But it is nothing to live in fear of.
 
0/1 to 1/1 = 100%

Lets be honest though..... Increase in a commodity over a number that one desires (which is also not realistic) is a kind of stupid argument to make.

So, because I want to win the 300 million dollar lottery, and I do win the 300 million dollar lottery.... I have received a 0% increase in lottery winnings?

Think about what you are saying for a second....
 
Lets be honest though..... Increase in a commodity over a number that one desires (which is also not realistic) is a kind of stupid argument to make.

So, because I want to win the 300 million dollar lottery, and I do win the 300 million dollar lottery.... I have received a 0% increase in lottery winnings?

Think about what you are saying for a second....

Yes you receive 0 percent more then what you initially wanted to win, he said 0 to 1 is not a 100% increase and I said it is because 0 to .2 is a 20% increase 0 to .74 is a 74% increase and 0 to 1.0 is an one hundred percent increase.... Not that complex
 
Small fraction of a chance that this will happen to someone. Thus it is not something to get paranoid about.

Im more worried about getting a mouse turd poisoned hamburger from McDonald's and contracting a fatal disease than I am worried about law enforcement storming into my home by mistake and slaughtering my family.


Should we do more to reduce both of those chances? Yes. Nobody is saying that.

But it is nothing to live in fear of.
I don't think I said let's live in Fear I said it's an issue we need to change
 
All of your arguments assume that only commodity prices are fluctuating given economy. Essentially all of your proofs require an economy locked in a form of stagflation where the cost of goods go up without an inflation in wages. This is not a common occurrence. The last time this happened it wasn't a "NeoCon" that caused it, either.



False. You are fooling yourself when you say that "monetary value rests in the hands of the people" in a fixed currency system. In fact, monetary value rests in the hands of foreign governments in a fixed monetary system. To truly have a stable fixed currency you would have to pin the currency to a commodity that only has value to the citizens of that country which would dissuade foreign companies from manipulating the cost of the commodity on which the currency is fixed (which is also protectionism), but even if you were able to do that you would have created a currency that is essentially valueless in the world market.



No, you are projecting. You asked for a difference between a controlled economy and a controlled currency and then defined them both as variations in currency control which is absurdly false.

Commodity prices? It's capital goods or consumption goods... Idk what your argument about "commodity prices" especially since commodity is subjective

2. Fixing a currency to a fiat system is worse then floating exchange rates because it gives more power to the central bank, fixi it to a tangible object will reduce credit expansion and induce savings backed investment... Which by definition is giving the power back to the consumers of a given society.

3. Let's try to think about this, sorry I don't have a crayon to write it out for you in.... I asked for the difference between a centrally planned economy and a centrally controlled currency and you defined the differences of the functions of a system of socialism vs capitalism, but then tell me that since I defined them both as a variation of controlled currency I am absurdly false...

Makes no sense, he fact is you have no idea so you can not answer it
 
But they won't get fired for not doing their jobs

The whole thing is retarded and not all the cops fault but the cops can be a big part of the solution...
 
The whole thing is retarded and not all the cops fault but the cops can be a big part of the solution...

I suggest people check out "The Counted" thread in the Law and Order Forum...

Interesting bit of information there
 
That is an odd way of thinking. Police who shoot defenseless and nonthreatening citizens are also criminals. Criminals will be criminals.

By vilifying police in general for the actions of a few you create an environment that discourages proactive policing, and you end up with the current murder sprees in Baltimore.

Then why is it that every time there is, as you put it, "a criminal cop," they get your unflinching support?
 
Then why is it that every time there is, as you put it, "a criminal cop," they get your unflinching support?

Nice straw man! I don't defend every cop that shoots someone.

So how is there a "criminal cop" without a trial and conviction, genius?
 
Last edited:
So we shoot dead the mentally ill? Well that justifies 25% of the killings, according to you!

If crazy people are coming at us or threatening others with guns and knives, yeah, I would say the sane among us would agree that lethal force is justified.

And it appears you justify shooting another segment, "because they're 'just dumb'"?

Correct. For example, walking down the middle of a street after you're just committed a strong-arm robbery, telling a cop to **** off after you've been asked to use the sidewalk, punching him and trying to grab his gun, refusing his repeated requests to stop, and then charging him like a linebacker for the Rams is not very intelligent in my estimation. I would say the cop was more than justified when he canceled your ticket. More than that, he performed a public service.

And now, your equating the police (justifying their murderous activities, actually!) to abusive boyfriends?

Equating? No. I'm just pointing out that a person is more likely to die in a domestic dispute with a boyfriend or spouse than get shot by a cop. You're also significantly more likely to off yourself, so if for some inexplicable reason you need to stay awake at night worrying about these things you should probably worry about that instead.
 
Think of the ways you been ****ed by the rest of the world and they have not finished yet.

And you dont think the US is winning that battle? Biggest economy, most power military, a McDonalds in every country?
 
And you dont think the US is winning that battle? Biggest economy, most power military, a McDonalds in every country?

And 48 million on food stamps? Check the obesity rate with those fast foods. Check your crumbling infrastructure. Check your healthcare system, education system, judiciary, drug problem, foreign policy, crime rates, etc. just to name a few. You can camouflage all that with so called biggest economy, most power military, McDONALDS lololol
 
Last edited:
And 48 million on food stamps? Check the obesity rate with those fast foods. Check your crumbling infrastructure. Check your healthcare system, education system, judiciary, drug problem, foreign policy, crime rates, etc. just to name a few. You can camouflage all that with so called biggest economy, most power military, McDONALDS lololol

That seems more like ****ing ourselves than you ****ing us.
 
That seems more like ****ing ourselves than you ****ing us.

Get to the gist of the problems! (instead of bragging)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom