Kapaernick

[untermensche]

No, actual rights.

The rich can hire the best lawyers who can ensure their rights are not violated.

The poor cannot.

Granted, money talks, bullshit walks. But you insist on talking about rights and privileges as if they are one and the same.

They are not.

Are you suggesting that poor people do not have rights? I am poor. I earn well under the so-called poverty level for a single person in Arizona. But I have rights, I know my rights, and I exercise my rights. No one is shitting all over me.

If you are poor the government abuses your rights at a higher rate than if you are rich. Like your right to be assumed innocent if your are not doing anything unusual.

Abuse of your rights is saying you don't really have them.

It is taking them away with force.

One of us needs to learn the difference between rights and privileges.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Kaepernick is so fucking gawd awful, even without him, the 49ers are 0-5.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[blastula]

What an American hero. He valiantly spent a lot of money to stand in a stadium during the national anthem. Such honor.

This is like when he went to the Korean DMZ to stare down the N. Koreans. This time he wanted to stare down those kneeling sons of bitches. He makes us all proud.

 

[WAB]

Granted, money talks, bullshit walks. But you insist on talking about rights and privileges as if they are one and the same.

They are not.

Are you suggesting that poor people do not have rights? I am poor. I earn well under the so-called poverty level for a single person in Arizona. But I have rights, I know my rights, and I exercise my rights. No one is shitting all over me.

If you are poor the government abuses your rights at a higher rate than if you are rich. Like your right to be assumed innocent if your are not doing anything unusual.

I pretty much agree with this, as you may have noticed in my prior post where I said that money certainly obtains privileges. But you may not have noticed?

Abuse of your rights is saying you don't really have them.

What does this mean? Can you please write more clearly? I can interpret this in two ways:

1) If I say I don't really have rights, I am abusing my rights.
2) If the authorities are saying that I don't really have rights, then that is an abuse of my rights.​

Obviously, option 2 makes much more sense. Is that what you meant to convey? If so, I absolutely agree.

It is taking them away with force.

Arrest involves a temporary, and sometimes (upon sentencing, convicting, incarceration) permanent suspension of certain rights. Not all rights, but some. And yes, with force: hence use of the term law enforcement.

One of us needs to learn the difference between rights and privileges.

I agree.

 

[untermensche]

Abuse of your rights is saying you don't really have them.

What does this mean? Can you please write more clearly? I can interpret this in two ways:

If the government can abuse your rights you do not really have them.

The first time was clear. Compare the two points. Your interpretations were wild and bizarre.

 

[WAB]

Had to

 

[WAB]

What does this mean? Can you please write more clearly? I can interpret this in two ways:

If the government can abuse your rights you do not really have them.

The first time was clear. Compare the two points. Your interpretations were wild and bizarre.

Nonsense. You are suggesting that the exception is the rule. You are making a classic error.

YES - there are evil cops, and evil individuals in all places of authority. But by and large, meaning statistically, our system of laws and law enforcement has been tremendously effective.

YES - there are instances where individuals have been treated by thugs with badges who DID NOT respect or have any regard for that individual's rights, or ANY concept of rights whatsoever. Thugs are thugs, whether they have badges or are your garden variety street criminals.

And no, my interpretations were spot on. You need to write more clearly.

"Abuse of your rights is saying you don't really have them." - ie: who is "saying" in this sentence?

Edit: Also, it needs to be made clear: if a person is mistreated and violated by a police officer, that DOES NOT mean that that individual had no rights; what it means is that the police officer committed a crime, by NOT recognizing the rights of the violated individual.

 

[untermensche]

If the government can abuse your rights you do not really have them.

The first time was clear. Compare the two points. Your interpretations were wild and bizarre.

Nonsense. You are suggesting that the exception is the rule. You are making a classic error.

It is a rule that the government violates the rights of the poor at a greater rate than it does to the rich.

 

[WAB]

Nonsense. You are suggesting that the exception is the rule. You are making a classic error.

It is a rule that the government violates the rights of the poor at a greater rate than it does to the rich.

Of this I have no doubt. Money buys privileges. Anyone remember the Pete Townshend fiasco? Nah, of course not. It's good to have money. It gets you out of a lot of scrapes. Of course, I wouldn't know, since I'm literally a poor person.

And I love it!



Edit: Bad Bill!

Poor by USA standards; ridiculously spoiled and rich by world standards.

I noted that one of those poor ISIS buggers who surrendered smelled so badly that he had to be taken into another room. He earned about a 100 bucks a month. With that kind of income, I'd have jumped off the London Bridge a long time ago.

One of the others who surrendered asked this poor young man why he didn't have a beard. They thought he was being disrespectful.

He was too young to grow a beard.

 

[untermensche]

It is a rule that the government violates the rights of the poor at a greater rate than it does to the rich.

Of this I have no doubt. Money buys privileges. Anyone remember the Pete Townshend fiasco? Nah, of course not. It's good to have money. It gets you out of a lot of scrapes. Of course, I wouldn't know, since I'm literally a poor person.

You don't seem to understand the concept "at a greater rate".

As opposed to a "lower rate".

Hint: That does not mean never.

 

[WAB]

Of this I have no doubt. Money buys privileges. Anyone remember the Pete Townshend fiasco? Nah, of course not. It's good to have money. It gets you out of a lot of scrapes. Of course, I wouldn't know, since I'm literally a poor person.

You don't seem to understand the concept "at a greater rate".

As opposed to a "lower rate".

Hint: That does not mean never.

Ok. I am finished with this silly dialogue. You win a lifetime supply of cakey earwax, and a suitcase full of dirty lawn-darts.

 

[untermensche]

You don't seem to understand the concept "at a greater rate".

As opposed to a "lower rate".

Hint: That does not mean never.

Ok. I am finished with this silly dialogue. You win a lifetime supply of cakey earwax, and a suitcase full of dirty lawn-darts.

You are not a gracious loser.

 

[WAB]

Of this I have no doubt. Money buys privileges. Anyone remember the Pete Townshend fiasco? Nah, of course not. It's good to have money. It gets you out of a lot of scrapes. Of course, I wouldn't know, since I'm literally a poor person.

You don't seem to understand the concept "at a greater rate".

As opposed to a "lower rate".

Hint: That does not mean never.

No, but seriously, no, it does not.

The USA, despite it's faults, is still the place you want to be when you want to have a good life but are not exactly a genius.

This is a time-honored fact, unter. Socialism, which IS communism, DOES NOT WORK.

Free-market, limited gomment, it works, and has worked, for a long time.

Stalin, Lenin = evil.

Reagan, Nixon, Trump = silly at times, and dangerous (especially the Orange Clown), but NOT evil.

Hitler (excuse me, I spelled it wrong) Shitler: evil.

- - - Updated - - -

Ok. I am finished with this silly dialogue. You win a lifetime supply of cakey earwax, and a suitcase full of dirty lawn-darts.

You are not a gracious loser.

Oh for goodness sake, I haven't lost! I've been educating you the whole time! But have it your way.

Notice the paucity of people leaping to your assistance.

 

[untermensche]

You don't seem to understand the concept "at a greater rate".

As opposed to a "lower rate".

Hint: That does not mean never.

No, but seriously, no, it does not.

The USA, despite it's faults, is still the place you want to be when you want to have a good life but are not exactly a genius.

This is a time-honored fact, unter. Socialism, which IS communism, DOES NOT WORK.

Free-market, limited gomment, it works, and has worked, for a long time.

Stalin, Lenin = evil.

Reagan, Nixon, Trump = silly at times, and dangerous (especially the Orange Clown), but NOT evil.

Hitler (excuse me, I spelled it wrong) Shitler: evil.

There is no such thing as a free market if there are some with billions and others with nothing.

But markets are not the problem.

Power and how it is distributed is always the human problem.

We have learned that dictatorship is an immoral system of government.

We have not learned it is an immoral way to structure the workplace yet.

Democratic control and ownership by workers. That is the next phase of human progress. If the species survives.

Not by the state.

And not dictatorial control by masters. Even nice masters.

Oh for goodness sake, I haven't lost! I've been educating you the whole time! But have it your way.

Oh so it was you who told me about the disparity in power between the rich and poor?

 

[WAB]

No, but seriously, no, it does not.

The USA, despite it's faults, is still the place you want to be when you want to have a good life but are not exactly a genius.

This is a time-honored fact, unter. Socialism, which IS communism, DOES NOT WORK.

Free-market, limited gomment, it works, and has worked, for a long time.

Stalin, Lenin = evil.

Reagan, Nixon, Trump = silly at times, and dangerous (especially the Orange Clown), but NOT evil.

Hitler (excuse me, I spelled it wrong) Shitler: evil.

There is no such thing as a free market if there are some with billions and others with nothing.

But markets are not the problem.

Power and how it is distributed is always the human problem.

We have learned that dictatorship is an immoral system of government.

We have not learned it is an immoral way to structure the workplace yet.

Democratic control and ownership by workers. That is the next phase of human progress. If the species survives.

Not by the state.

And not dictatorial control by masters. Even nice masters.

Oh for goodness sake, I haven't lost! I've been educating you the whole time! But have it your way.

Oh so it was you who told me about the disparity in power between the rich and poor?

Do you enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing?

I am poor. I know very well, by experience, of the disparity between the two.

What is your income?

Again, I repeat, notice the lack of members jumping to your defense.

If I was so clearly wrong, many of the lefty-loonies would have latched on (as is their habit, being predatorial and control-obsessed by nature), and sided with you, and tried to make me look foolish.

You have not demonstrated yet that you understand the difference between a right and a privilege, despite my carefully worded help.

You have failed to address most of my arguments about how law enforcement works, and HAS worked, quite efficiently, for so many years in this nation.

For you, it seems, any use of force by those who are in authority is, in and of itself, bad, and evil. I will assume this until and unless you can persuade me otherwise.

Do you envision a society where no-one will be in a position of authority, granted the power to go after and stop the actions of criminals? Because no such society would be possible.

OR: do you envision a utopia where NO persons in authoritative positions will EVER overstep their duties and commit crimes? Because no such utopia is possible.

 

[sharon45]

There is no such thing as a free market if there are some with billions and others with nothing.

Free does not mean a giveaway, and the individual players in the market do not start out as physically, mentally, and financially equal.

 

[untermensche]

There is no such thing as a free market if there are some with billions and others with nothing.

Free does not mean a giveaway, and the individual players in the market do not start out as physically, mentally, and financially equal.

Free also does not mean a few people can dominate the game and all else are excluded.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Here's a great example of famous Trump supporters that apparently live on another planet.

Mike Ditka Has Not Been Paying Attention To History

“There has been no oppression in the last 100 years that I know of,” said Ditka, a Hall of Famer and supporter of President Donald Trump . “Now maybe I’m not watching it as carefully as other people.

Ditka has been an outspoken opponent of NFL players’ protest during the national anthem, as has Trump.

Oh, really... So no group oppressed another group in this country. In the last 100 years. At all.

 

[sharon45]

Free does not mean a giveaway, and the individual players in the market do not start out as physically, mentally, and financially equal.

Free also does not mean a few people can dominate the game and all else are excluded.

Hardly a few people, and free refers to the lack of regulations and restrictions.

 

[sharon45]

Here's a great example of famous Trump supporters that apparently live on another planet.

Mike Ditka Has Not Been Paying Attention To History

“There has been no oppression in the last 100 years that I know of,” said Ditka, a Hall of Famer and supporter of President Donald Trump . “Now maybe I’m not watching it as carefully as other people.

Ditka has been an outspoken opponent of NFL players’ protest during the national anthem, as has Trump.

Oh, really... So no group oppressed another group in this country. In the last 100 years. At all.

Hey, and all this time it seemed like the Republicans thought that they were oppressed during Obama's regime of merciless tyranny.