• 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!

Police for me, not for thee

X Factor said:
Oh, it’s not “reform”, in Minneapolis they’ve voted to end their police department to be replaced with social workers and therapy chickens and violent crime is up 400% (I think it is). So the city officials are using taxpayer money to protect themselves but not their citizens. That was the point of the OP.
Click to expand...

“Defund the police” is a terrible slogan that allows people to deliberately interpret it as you did if they don’t like the idea.
 
poweRob said:
You are confusing me with someone else. Go find the last time I talked about that.

So... you still believe, "By August, this phony virus will be forgotten"? :lol:
Click to expand...

Catchy pic 45. Had to give that a good 2nd look - nicely done
 
HIP56948 said:
Defund the police does not mean what you think it means. There's things in this reality call "nuances"
Click to expand...
Well, no. "Defund" means

defund
verb [ T ] US
US /ˌdiːˈfʌnd/ UK /ˌdiːˈfʌnd/

to stop providing the money to pay for something:
She opposes any proposal to defund U.S. troops.
Click to expand...

You guys embraced it as a slogan without checking the definition and no your nuts are in a vice. So like usual you desperately try to twist and turn the word.

But "reduce funding to police" just doesn't have that ball-grabbing power does it. Who's gonna follow people chanting "reduce police funding"?
 
HIP56948 said:
Defund the police does not mean what you think it means. There's things in this reality call "nuances"
Click to expand...

We do not live in a nuanced time. That was true before Trump, but he drove a stake through the heart of reasoned discussion.
 
X Factor said:
It’s funny, I remember when liberals had issues with private prisons but, apparently, private security in place of police is fine.
Click to expand...

There is a difference, and I would guess you know your comparison is invalid.
 
Nickyjo said:
Trump has a separate police force provided at taxpayer expense.
Click to expand...
Should all politicians now have their own private security at public expense? Wonder how that may conflict with any feelings they may have on the Second Amendment and whether that will also become a 'me but not for thee' thing. They'd better hope to keep winning elections.
 
Fred C Dobbs II said:
The same liberals who are disallowing free speech and opinions on campus, instituting speech codes, tearing down statues and rioting and looting in the guise of 'anti fascism'?

You can see these same hate filled mobs fighting for slavery and attacking Black Americans just as they supported the slavery under Fidel Castro, Mao and all Communist dictatorships while also, at the same time, turning on their own elected President. They willingly overlooked the millions of murders in the Communist world because they are attracted to systems, not freedom and responsibility..

They've been like this for centuries and haven't changed much at all. Once the facade fades and their character is exposed we quickly discover the disgusting, hateful people these 'liberals' really are. Robot Check
Click to expand...

listen carefully. You need to understand this if you want to participate in political discussion knowledgably. Anyone who opposes free speech isnt a liberal. Do you understand? Anyone who advocates rioting and social violence isnt a liberal. Nobody who supports slavery or communist dictators is a liberal. Do you understand?
You can insist on being wrong and youll have lots of company but nobody who has a clue about the basics of political discussion will engage with you. You will make yourself a waste of time.
 
poweRob said:
If red states seceded... who the **** would they then mooch off of?

Click to expand...

It's just the opposite, Rob. The bluest of blue "moochers" are making more money because they are "mooching" off the blood red hard work of people who actually FEED those blue, paper-pushing, not very essential arses. I do so surely hope that the hardest working folk in this country get their fair shake, and maybe for a change it should be in the green!! Thank!!
 
Schism said:
Police for me, not for thee | washingtontimes.com



The elected Democrat Party leadership has voted to give themselves armed protection from their own voters.

Meanwhile, the same group has voted to defund and disband police for their citizens. :shock: You can't even make this up. The implosion of Democratic Party run urban cities is a complete disaster. There is simply NO SUCCESS to point to. None.
Click to expand...

Now we are hearing crime and murder are spiking in a lot of blue urban hell holes. NO police , the rats come out. That's what democrats want. BLM except those getting murdered by blacks. The dummies march with BLM.
 
Grand Mal said:
listen carefully. You need to understand this if you want to participate in political discussion knowledgably. Anyone who opposes free speech isnt a liberal. Do you understand? Anyone who advocates rioting and social violence isnt a liberal. Nobody who supports slavery or communist dictators is a liberal. Do you understand?
You can insist on being wrong and youll have lots of company but nobody who has a clue about the basics of political discussion will engage with you. You will make yourself a waste of time.
Click to expand...
So the definition of 'liberal' will change according to the time and the issue. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.

Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, who both made huge contributions to the downfall of Communism, are now 'liberals', are they? People who called themselves Liberals certainly didn't think so at the time.

And on that same note, do you think it was Conservatives who were supporting Fidel Castro and Che Guevara? Is Communism now Right Wing?

The only constant among 'liberals' is their love of historical revisionism.
 
Irredentist said:
No one needs a referendum to see that the Minneapolis police are not capable of maintaining order in the city. They should be replaced with an organization which can.
Click to expand...
Or receive additional funding and training and get a new Mayor that does not stupidly order them to stand down. We see how well getting rid of the police works in the CHOP zone in Seattle. Defunding or disbanding the police will hurt poor people.
 
Fred C Dobbs II said:
So the definition of 'liberal' will change according to the time and the issue. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.

Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, who both made huge contributions to the downfall of Communism, are now 'liberals', are they? People who called themselves Liberals certainly didn't think so at the time.

And on that same note, do you think it was Conservatives who were supporting Fidel Castro and Che Guevara? Is Communism now Right Wing?

The only constant among 'liberals' is their love of historical revisionism.
Click to expand...

"Liberalism*is a*political*and*moral philosophy*based on*liberty,*consent of the governed*and*equality before the law. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support*free markets,*free trade,*limited government,*individual rights*(including*civil rights*and*human rights),*capitalism,*democracy,*secularism,*gender equality,*racial equality,*internationalism,*freedom of speech,*freedom of the press*and*freedom of religion. "

Liberalism - Wikipedia

The definition of liberalism hasnt changed. Thats the problem you lot are having. You want to change it.
 
Fred C Dobbs II said:
Should all politicians now have their own private security at public expense? Wonder how that may conflict with any feelings they may have on the Second Amendment and whether that will also become a 'me but not for thee' thing. They'd better hope to keep winning elections.
Click to expand...

I don’t believe so. But if these folks were threatened due to their actions as public officials, increased security makes sense, even at public expense.
 
poweRob said:
You are confusing me with someone else. Go find the last time I talked about that.

So... you still believe, "By August, this phony virus will be forgotten"? :lol:
Click to expand...

What virus? I haven't met, nor do I know, ONE person who got it. Never mind anyone who died from it. WHERE is this "pandemic"?
 
Paradoxical said:
What virus? I haven't met, nor do I know, ONE person who got it. Never mind anyone who died from it. WHERE is this "pandemic"?
Click to expand...

Nobody I know has had brain cancer, clearly it doesn't exist.
 
Grand Mal said:
Conservative Democrats opposed civil rights. If you can find a conservative Democrat nowadays go ahead and berate him about the history of the Democratic Party. It's the Republicans who gave all those conservative bigots a home. Want proof? Poll the KKK, the Aryan Brotherhood, the Hells Angels, any racist organization and tell me how many liberals you found.
Click to expand...

Well, put your money where your mouth is. Please list the throngs of racist Democrats that voted against the Civil Rights Bill who became Republicans. I know of only one who switched parties, not at all unheard of. But you claim many, many more did. Like the entire southern part of the party. So, go ahead, prove it.
 
Atomic Kid said:
Those are the historical facts. You need to see history through the lens of what it actually was, and not how you think it was, in order to be able to get to the truth.
Click to expand...

I'm waiting for one of you to prove it. I'm not holding my breath.
 
Anthony60 said:
Well, put your money where your mouth is. Please list the throngs of racist Democrats that voted against the Civil Rights Bill who became Republicans. I know of only one who switched parties, not at all unheard of. But you claim many, many more did. Like the entire southern part of the party. So, go ahead, prove it.
Click to expand...

Got a name? Strom Thurmond, maybe? John Connaly? I can't be arsed to put effort into it. Those two are off the top of my head because they're high profile. That's as far as I'm willing to jump.
 
Schism said:
Police for me, not for thee | washingtontimes.com



The elected Democrat Party leadership has voted to give themselves armed protection from their own voters.

Meanwhile, the same group has voted to defund and disband police for their citizens. :shock: You can't even make this up. The implosion of Democratic Party run urban cities is a complete disaster. There is simply NO SUCCESS to point to. None.
Click to expand...

The United States is officially a 3rd world country.
 
Anthony60 said:
Well, put your money where your mouth is. Please list the throngs of racist Democrats that voted against the Civil Rights Bill who became Republicans. I know of only one who switched parties, not at all unheard of. But you claim many, many more did. Like the entire southern part of the party. So, go ahead, prove it.
Click to expand...

Lincoln was a Republican, btw

Biden voted against de-segregation

Fact Check: ‘More Republicans Voted for the Civil Rights Act as a Percentage Than Democrats Did’ - Countable

Richard Russell, Strom Thurmond, Robert Byrd, William Fulbright, and Sam Ervin joined together to launch a filibuster that lasted for 57 days.

Strom Thurmond, an ardent foe of integration, filibustered the vote for a total of 24 hours and 18 minutes in protest—the longest individual filibuster in history. Thurmond once said in a speech that “there’s not enough troops in the army to force the southern people to break down segregation and admit the Negro race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes and into our churches.”
Click to expand...



Biden was a good friend of Thurmond who was invited to his funeral.
 
Paradoxical said:
You haven't heard of anyone unless you know people i nursing homes.
Click to expand...

Now you're claiming it does exist, but only people in nursing homes have it? Who gave it to them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom