De Facto Civil War Between Police and the Public?

[X_4AD_84]

I know I've gone a few rounds with various members here regarding whether or not this is a CW 4T. My opinion is generally not. We don't have either a serious sectional dispute (unless you look at the county vs county level) nor do we have the type of intense class warfare we saw last century in Europe and to a lesser extent Asia.

But do we perhaps have something else?

This whole situation of militarization of police, and, police escalating to deadly force, seems to have reached a boiling point. Now, although not well advised, it looks like at least some of the lone wolves are shooting back.

Potential complicating factor - infiltration of Nazi / White Nationalist elements into law enforcement.

Discuss!!!

[Eric the Green]

(07-08-2016, 10:11 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: I know I've gone a few rounds with various members here regarding whether or not this is a CW 4T. My opinion is generally not. We don't have either a serious sectional dispute (unless you look at the county vs county level) nor do we have the type of intense class warfare we saw last century in Europe and to a lesser extent Asia.

I don't think so quite yet, and we have a good chance to avoid civil war two.

But the divisions are real and major. It is almost sectional, given the landslide margins in elections between red and blue states. And it's true this is even starker between red and blue counties, and frequently rural vs. urban. But just because the territory is not as clearly marked as in 1860, it doesn't mean we aren't less divided and polarized.

Quote:But do we perhaps have something else?

This whole situation of militarization of police, and, police escalating to deadly force, seems to have reached a boiling point. Now, although not well advised, it looks like at least some of the lone wolves are shooting back.

Potential complicating factor - infiltration of Nazi / White Nationalist elements into law enforcement.

Discuss!!!

What is happening is truly tragic and mind-boggling. Perhaps Bob's "spiral of violence" is escalating. We have tragic mass shootings, which are becoming more and more racial and culturally-directed. The crazies and the angries of all kinds are able to make themselves heavily armed, thanks to American obsession with guns and free-access to them. We have the police patrolling neighborhoods in fear of all these crazies, angries and gangs with guns, tending to often shoot first and ask questions later. And they literally get away with murder. We have endemic racial profiling and injustice, resulting in tremendous anger at the police, especially in black communities. Conservative pundits even say that Martin Luther King Jr. would be "appalled" at the black lives matter movement, when it's obvious he'd be leading it, and justifiably so.

There's a number of factors that could lead to a rebellion, even if such a rebellion/CW is brief or easily put down. We have a great need for people to learn how to vote, and to recognize that the Party that is blocking all progress MUST be defeated in order for our country to move forward in resolving these endemic problems. This party can't be compromised or worked with; the people must get hip to what's happening, and come out on election day and vote them out. Otherwise, the spiral of violence will continue to escalate, who knows to what level.

[Classic-Xer]

(07-08-2016, 10:31 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: The Dallas shooter wanted to kill white cops. I believe he was thinking there were racist / White Nationalist / Nazi elements in the Dallas force. Probably some truth to that. DISCLAIMER - I do not condone what the shooter did. There are other legal and procedural ways to find and excise such elements from law enforcement and for that matter the military while we are at it.

I wonder who ( which group?) put that shit in his head? I assume the same group or groups who have succeeded with placing it in yours. Liberal's better wise up before it's to late.

[Eric the Green]

You must read the statement that the Sierra Club just came out with in support of #BlackLivesMatter

The violence in this country against black men and women and children has continued unabated. Tamir Rice, Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, did not slow the continued egregious uses of force and the criminal executions of American citizens by people hiding behind a badge. The #BlackLivesMatter movement has had to deal with people on the left and on the right, people down the middle, wondering aloud from time to time if their tactics, protests, are “well timed”, or properly “targeted.” As we have all been reminded in the last few hours, there is no time. Every moment that passes is another tick of the clock on another life unjustly extinguished, another family’s dreams and hopes dashed. The Sierra Club’s executive director Michael Brune made a statement today in support of ending the needless violence against black citizens.

After the police killings of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile this week, our executive director Michael Brune shared this:

"It is impossible to not be outraged by the devastating images of black people being gunned down by police on a shockingly regular basis and it should be impossible to remain silent in the face of this sustained injustice any longer. Sadly, the tragedies that are unfolding before our eyes are just a fraction of the violence that has been happening off camera in our nation for far too long.

The Sierra Club believes all people deserve a healthy planet with clean air and water, a stable climate and safe communities. That means all people deserve equal protection under the law and the right to a life free of discrimination, hatred and violence. Unfortunately, those aspirations and goals are not a reality in our country, and that is why that is why the Sierra Club stands in solidarity with all of those saying #‎BlackLivesMatter, demanding justice, accountability, and action to confront the racism and inequality that has allowed these tragedies to persist. We can do better and by standing together to work for the changes that are needed, we will.”
We must do better.
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/7/7...ivesmatter

[Classic-Xer]

(07-08-2016, 12:34 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(07-08-2016, 10:11 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: I know I've gone a few rounds with various members here regarding whether or not this is a CW 4T. My opinion is generally not. We don't have either a serious sectional dispute (unless you look at the county vs county level) nor do we have the type of intense class warfare we saw last century in Europe and to a lesser extent Asia.

I don't think so quite yet, and we have a good chance to avoid civil war two.

But the divisions are real and major. It is almost sectional, given the landslide margins in elections between red and blue states. And it's true this is even starker between red and blue counties, and frequently rural vs. urban. But just because the territory is not as clearly marked as in 1860, it doesn't mean we aren't less divided and polarized.

Quote:But do we perhaps have something else?

This whole situation of militarization of police, and, police escalating to deadly force, seems to have reached a boiling point. Now, although not well advised, it looks like at least some of the lone wolves are shooting back.

Potential complicating factor - infiltration of Nazi / White Nationalist elements into law enforcement.

Discuss!!!

What is happening is truly tragic and mind-boggling. Perhaps Bob's "spiral of violence" is escalating. We have tragic mass shootings, which are becoming more and more racial and culturally-directed. The crazies and the angries of all kinds are able to make themselves heavily armed, thanks to American obsession with guns and free-access to them. We have the police patrolling neighborhoods in fear of all these crazies, angries and gangs with guns, tending to often shoot first and ask questions later. And they literally get away with murder. We have endemic racial profiling and injustice, resulting in tremendous anger at the police, especially in black communities. Conservative pundits even say that Martin Luther King Jr. would be "appalled" at the black lives matter movement, when it's obvious he'd be leading it, and justifiably so.

There's a number of factors that could lead to a rebellion, even if such a rebellion/CW is brief or easily put down. We have a great need for people to learn how to vote, and to recognize that the Party that is blocking all progress MUST be defeated in order for our country to move forward in resolving these endemic problems. This party can't be compromised or worked with; the people must get hip to what's happening, and come out on election day and vote them out. Otherwise, the spiral of violence will continue to escalate, who knows to what level.

In my opinion, people have to stop following and listening to blue idiots like you and start thinking for themselves.

[Eric the Green]

[quote='Classic-Xer' pid='4576' dateline='1468000845']

Quote:In my opinion, people have to stop following and listening to blue idiots like you and start thinking for themselves.

In my opinion, people have to stop following and listening to red "idiots" like you and start thinking for themselves.

[Classic-Xer]

(07-08-2016, 01:05 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(07-08-2016, 01:00 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

Quote:In my opinion, people have to stop following and listening to blue idiots like you and start thinking for themselves.

In my opinion, people have to stop following and listening to red "idiots" like you and start thinking for themselves.

If you think I represent the views/opinions of a red idiot then you're crazy. If the Democrats were smart, which they are not, they'd shift their focus from supporting people like you to supporting people like me.

[Classic-Xer]

(07-08-2016, 01:31 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(07-08-2016, 12:36 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(07-08-2016, 10:31 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: The Dallas shooter wanted to kill white cops. I believe he was thinking there were racist / White Nationalist / Nazi elements in the Dallas force. Probably some truth to that. DISCLAIMER - I do not condone what the shooter did. There are other legal and procedural ways to find and excise such elements from law enforcement and for that matter the military while we are at it.

I wonder who ( which group?) put that shit in his head? I assume the same group or groups who have succeeded with placing it in yours. Liberal's better wise up before it's to late.

News flash - I'm viewing this from a classic conservative point of view. Not a liberal point of view. No one put any shit in my head. I seek out info on my own. Have you not heard about the fact that White Nationalists have infiltrated law enforcement? BTW - I make the rounds on the web. I lurk in some places that are pretty disgusting. You need to learn more about White Nationalists if you have not already done so. Unless of course you already are one.

As a general rule, whites don't have issues with killing whites who kill blacks because they're black. Whites don't have issues with black cops killing a white male to protect themselves or the public in general. Whites don't have issues with deporting illegal Mexicans. Whites don't have issues when the FBI cracks down on a group of white Supremacists. Do you think that I'd have an issue with removing Enzign from existence? Enzign didn't think so, I don't know why you would think so. In short, white nationalism doesn't have wide scale support among the whites and would be opposed by whites.

[Bob Butler 54]

(07-08-2016, 12:34 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: What is happening is truly tragic and mind-boggling. Perhaps Bob's "spiral of violence" is escalating. We have tragic mass shootings, which are becoming more and more racial and culturally-directed. The crazies and the angries of all kinds are able to make themselves heavily armed, thanks to American obsession with guns and free-access to them. We have the police patrolling neighborhoods in fear of all these crazies, angries and gangs with guns, tending to often shoot first and ask questions later. And they literally get away with murder. We have endemic racial profiling and injustice, resulting in tremendous anger at the police, especially in black communities. Conservative pundits even say that Martin Luther King Jr. would be "appalled" at the black lives matter movement, when it's obvious he'd be leading it, and justifiably so.

The Dallas reason concerns me over and above most of the recent incidents for several reason.

I'm getting a sense of tit for tat.  Black lives were taken, and there was a response.  The timing was too tight.  It had to have been a response.  I have often thought it takes two to spiral.  Things are more apt to escalate if both factions see themselves directly responding to provocations from the other side.  I don't see the police acting so.  They have chronic problems with poor training, lingering race problems, and a Blue Wall of Silence culture that makes a deadly few think they can get away with it.  One might justly claim it is only a very few bad cops, but too many incidents are being recorded and released to the press.  It feels like and is a chronic problem, even if the vast majority of police are guilty only by association.

The sniper / ambush tactics are a big change.  Such an approach might be survivable by the shooter.  The usual spree shooter is suicidal.  I've a sense that in many cases you have disturbed shooters who are going to kill themselves anyway and figure they might as well go out with headlines.  If ambush / sniper style shooters take a few shots then leave, everybody might have to start rethinking tactics.  (I'll take the initial shots, then retreat in this direction.  The real kill zone is here.  The bombs should be placed here, here and there.  The sewer manhole is there.)

The police response was also different.  A bomb squad robot on the attack, with explosives on the end of its arm?  It makes all sorts of sense given the situation, but it is certainly a notable change.

There are reports of a second shooter.  That could be the beginning of coordinated activity.  That is potentially a big jump from the lone nut to organized resistance.

It seems too soon to say whether Dallas is going to be a unique event or the beginning of a significant escalation.

I hope police abuse of power and the response to it aren't the central issue of a violent 4T movement.  As serious as the issue is, it doesn't tie in well with more basic economic and control of political power issues.  I think economic inequality should be the primary focus.  The race and violence issue could tie in if the central idea is a rejection of arrogant habitual abuse of power.  I don't know that such a broad general meme can take hold.

[Eric the Green]

(07-08-2016, 01:18 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: If you think I represent the views/opinions of a red idiot then you're crazy. If the Democrats were smart, which they are not, they'd shift their focus from supporting people like you to supporting people like me.

I think you're pretty typical of the average Republican supporter. You don't have to be all the way crazy to support many views that have put this country in the wrong direction. Democrats would not be smart just to abandon their policies and ideals, and support yours instead. We already have a Party (one too many such Parties in my opinion) which represents your views.

[Classic-Xer]

(07-08-2016, 02:06 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-08-2016, 12:34 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: What is happening is truly tragic and mind-boggling. Perhaps Bob's "spiral of violence" is escalating. We have tragic mass shootings, which are becoming more and more racial and culturally-directed. The crazies and the angries of all kinds are able to make themselves heavily armed, thanks to American obsession with guns and free-access to them. We have the police patrolling neighborhoods in fear of all these crazies, angries and gangs with guns, tending to often shoot first and ask questions later. And they literally get away with murder. We have endemic racial profiling and injustice, resulting in tremendous anger at the police, especially in black communities. Conservative pundits even say that Martin Luther King Jr. would be "appalled" at the black lives matter movement, when it's obvious he'd be leading it, and justifiably so.

The Dallas reason concerns me over and above most of the recent incidents for several reason.

I'm getting a sense of tit for tat.  Black lives were taken, and there was a response.  The timing was too tight.  It had to have been a response.  I have often thought it takes two to spiral.  Things are more apt to escalate if both factions see themselves directly responding to provocations from the other side.  I don't see the police acting so.  They have chronic problems with poor training, lingering race problems, and a Blue Wall of Silence culture that makes a deadly few think they can get away with it.  One might justly claim it is only a very few bad cops, but too many incidents are being recorded and released to the press.  It feels like and is a chronic problem, even if the vast majority of police are guilty only by association.

The sniper / ambush tactics are a big change.  Such an approach might be survivable by the shooter.  The usual spree shooter is suicidal.  I've a sense that in many cases you have disturbed shooters who are going to kill themselves anyway and figure they might as well go out with headlines.  If ambush / sniper style shooters take a few shots then leave, everybody might have to start rethinking tactics.  (I'll take the initial shots, then retreat in this direction.  The real kill zone is here.  The bombs should be placed here, here and there.  The sewer manhole is there.)

The police response was also different.  A bomb squad robot on the attack, with explosives on the end of its arm?  It makes all sorts of sense given the situation, but it is certainly a notable change.

There are reports of a second shooter.  That could be the beginning of coordinated activity.  That is potentially a big jump from the lone nut to organized resistance.

It seems too soon to say whether Dallas is going to be a unique event or the beginning of a significant escalation.

I hope police abuse of power and the response to it aren't the central issue of a violent 4T movement.  As serious as the issue is, it doesn't tie in well with more basic economic and control of political power issues.  I think economic inequality should be the primary focus.  The race and violence issue could tie in if the central idea is a rejection of arrogant habitual abuse of power.  I don't know that such a broad general meme can take hold.

Whatever it is, whatever it's about, it's clear to me that you're to tied to the liberal playbook and the beliefs associated with it to resolve the issues we face today. Sorry dude, I'm going to have to write off the current crop of Democrats as representing the solutions to our current problems. It may take a few more rough years for reality to sink into liberal brains but the reality is here to stay.

[Classic-Xer]

(07-08-2016, 02:14 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(07-08-2016, 01:18 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: If you think I represent the views/opinions of a red idiot then you're crazy. If the Democrats were smart, which they are not, they'd shift their focus from supporting people like you to supporting people like me.

I think you're pretty typical of the average Republican supporter. You don't have to be all the way crazy to support many views that have put this country in the wrong direction. Democrats would not be smart just to abandon their policies and ideals, and support yours instead. We already have a Party (one too many such Parties in my opinion) which represents your views.

I reconsider myself to be an average American of today. I don't consider socialism, social justice and the racial favoritism promoted by big government to be the right direction for most of America. I'd prefer to wrap it up and dump it into the shit can of the 60's where it belongs. But, I understand that it to valuable to you and liberal politicians like the Clinton's to give it up. So, we will continue down the path we are on. I'm not concerned about myself. I'm a pretty tough individual who is confidant in his ability to adapt, to provide and survive a rough patch in our history. I'm not concerned about you, you have the belief in big government to fall back on and save you.

[Eric the Green]

(07-08-2016, 02:45 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(07-08-2016, 02:14 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(07-08-2016, 01:18 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: If you think I represent the views/opinions of a red idiot then you're crazy. If the Democrats were smart, which they are not, they'd shift their focus from supporting people like you to supporting people like me.

I think you're pretty typical of the average Republican supporter. You don't have to be all the way crazy to support many views that have put this country in the wrong direction. Democrats would not be smart just to abandon their policies and ideals, and support yours instead. We already have a Party (one too many such Parties in my opinion) which represents your views.

I reconsider myself to be an average American of today. I don't consider socialism, social justice and the racial favoritism promoted by big government to be the right direction for most of America. I'd prefer to wrap it up and dump it into the shit can of the 60's where it belongs.

Like I say, typical Republican supporter. And only typical of that group, not of "Americans."

Quote: But, I understand that it's too valuable to you and liberal politicians like the Clintons to give it up. So, we will continue down the path we are on. I'm not concerned about myself. I'm a pretty tough individual who is confident in his ability to adapt, to provide and survive a rough patch in our history. I'm not concerned about you, you have the belief in big government to fall back on and save you.

Not only "belief," but I even get a little social security now

The path we are on leads to destruction indeed, but that path is the Republican path that you support.

But it's easy to see how the country can be divided on whom to vote for for congress almost down the middle, but on the question of whether the country is on the right or wrong track, large majorities say the latter; as you would, and as I would too. And on the question of confidence in that Congress whom the people support by not voting out the Republicans, the people are virtually unanimous in their disapproval.

[Classic-Xer]

(07-08-2016, 03:09 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(07-08-2016, 02:45 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(07-08-2016, 02:14 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(07-08-2016, 01:18 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: If you think I represent the views/opinions of a red idiot then you're crazy. If the Democrats were smart, which they are not, they'd shift their focus from supporting people like you to supporting people like me.

I think you're pretty typical of the average Republican supporter. You don't have to be all the way crazy to support many views that have put this country in the wrong direction. Democrats would not be smart just to abandon their policies and ideals, and support yours instead. We already have a Party (one too many such Parties in my opinion) which represents your views.

I reconsider myself to be an average American of today. I don't consider socialism, social justice and the racial favoritism promoted by big government to be the right direction for most of America. I'd prefer to wrap it up and dump it into the shit can of the 60's where it belongs.

Like I say, typical Republican supporter. And only typical of that group, not of "Americans."

Quote: But, I understand that it's too valuable to you and liberal politicians like the Clintons to give it up. So, we will continue down the path we are on. I'm not concerned about myself. I'm a pretty tough individual who is confident in his ability to adapt, to provide and survive a rough patch in our history. I'm not concerned about you, you have the belief in big government to fall back on and save you.

Not only "belief," but I even get a little social security now

The path we are on leads to destruction indeed, but that path is the Republican path that you support.

But it's easy to see how the country can be divided on whom to vote for for congress almost down the middle, but on the question of whether the country is on the right or wrong track, large majorities say the latter; as you would, and as I would too. And on the question of confidence in that Congress whom the people support by not voting out the Republicans, the people are virtually unanimous in their disapproval.

As a majority, I believe the country is pretty much on the right track. I'm on the same track as my parents and their parents. I'm on the American track like most Americans. A track that is considered scary for some, granted by others and acceptable to most who identify themselves as being Americans. However, there are some who believe that our track isn't for them/wasn't created for people like them. I'd place you in that group of people as a spokesman/wannabe leader of those people. An alternate path may be required for those who are unable to advance themselves naturally. An alternate that they can choose to take and create for themselves and hope it's able to last as long as our path. For an American, you sure don't know squat about the American spirit. You know, the good old "can do" spirit that so many Americans have that you and so many blue patrons appear to lack. You know, the good old "fighting" spirit that so many Americans still have that you and so many of your blue patrons appear to lack. America wasn't created to be given away to whoever or whatever group has an issue with it today. It's funny, the Democrats created the system that you have issues with today and all you can do is blame Republicans. YOU ARE CRAZY.

[Bob Butler 54]

(07-08-2016, 02:45 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I reconsider myself to be an average American of today. I don't consider socialism, social justice and  the racial favoritism promoted by big government to be the right direction for most of America. I'd prefer to wrap it up and dump it into the shit can of the 60's where it belongs. But, I understand that it to valuable to you and liberal politicians like the Clinton's to give it up. So, we will continue down the path we are on. I'm not concerned about myself. I'm a pretty tough individual who is confidant in his ability to adapt, to provide  and survive a rough patch in our history. I'm not concerned about you, you have the belief in big government to fall back on and  save you.

At the highest level, one might summarize the Red / Blue divide as being between rugged individuals and those who want to work together for the common good.  To often this conflict is described as a contest between wonderful virtues and disgusting mistaken vices.  I like to remind folk that both rugged individualism and working together for the common good can be and are considered virtues by those who believe in such things.

In a simpler culture, it is natural that more will be drawn to rugged individualism.  In a more crowded and complex environment, it is natural to work together more.  Thus, honest differences are apt to continue and are apt to become regional.

It is natural and expected that members of a culture want to spread their culture.  The answers provided by a complete and compatible set of values and world views feel wonderful.  Shouldn't they be expanded?  Shouldn't everyone share the rightness?

If one really believed one size fits all, perhaps.  Different regions have different problems.  Attempts to make one set of solutions work everywhere are going to be problematic.

Pushing the problem down to the lowest level might have something to be said for it.  If a town can't handle a problem that it understands best at the nearest-the-problem level, only then should one look to the county government, or the state, or...  Is there a higher level?

But that loses economy of scale.  It loses a sense of justice, that all are being treated equally.  It loses a sense that the best of all possible solutions (one's own) is being applied everywhere.

The federal government generously makes military equipment available to a small town police department that is running on a very tight budget.  Hey haven't had a problem with use of excessive force in years.  Thus, there is obviously no need to or ability to pay for the expensive training in how to use the equipment well and appropriately.  Should the federal government apply a one size fits all mandate that police forces have to train their people in order to get the equipment?

The problem may be more in good intentions falling than the other political group having bad intentions.  A lot more thought might be put into whether to push down more problem solving to the local level or private sector, or whether good practices should be be practiced everywhere.  I wouldn't want to recommend either extreme be pushed on every level for every issue, but that seems to be what is falling out of vehement partisan Red or Blue thinking.  I'd like to promote the idea that those other guys are well intentioned and trying hard too, rather than they are being in some way vile, insane, stupid, authoritarian, corrupt, fanatics, etc...  Lock into hight abstract principles less.  Look for creative fits-the-problem innovative approaches more.  Insult and demean those who look at a problem in a different way less.  Listen and hope to find gems of wisdom in what they say more.

And the above lecture shouldn't be considered addressed just to you and fellow Red thinkers.  It shouldn't take much reading between the lines to figure I'm writing towards the Blue folk as well.

To the extent that both sides are focused on stopping the other side's approach, that there is a culture of hostility directed toward the other culture of hostility, is it surprising that so many people with good intentions, trying to find a way to make things work, find themselves quashed or swimming against the tide?

[Classic-Xer]

(07-08-2016, 04:05 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-08-2016, 02:45 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I reconsider myself to be an average American of today. I don't consider socialism, social justice and  the racial favoritism promoted by big government to be the right direction for most of America. I'd prefer to wrap it up and dump it into the shit can of the 60's where it belongs. But, I understand that it to valuable to you and liberal politicians like the Clinton's to give it up. So, we will continue down the path we are on. I'm not concerned about myself. I'm a pretty tough individual who is confidant in his ability to adapt, to provide  and survive a rough patch in our history. I'm not concerned about you, you have the belief in big government to fall back on and  save you.

At the highest level, one might summarize the Red / Blue divide as being between rugged individuals and those who want to work together for the common good.  To often this conflict is described as a contest between wonderful virtues and disgusting mistaken vices.  I like to remind folk that both rugged individualism and working together for the common good can be and are considered virtues by those who believe in such things.

In a simpler culture, it is natural that more will be drawn to rugged individualism.  In a more crowded and complex environment, it is natural to work together more.  Thus, honest differences are apt to continue and are apt to become regional.

It is natural and expected that members of a culture want to spread their culture.  The answers provided by a complete and compatible set of values and world views feel wonderful.  Shouldn't they be expanded?  Shouldn't everyone share the rightness?

If one really believed one size fits all, perhaps.  Different regions have different problems.  Attempts to make one set of solutions work everywhere are going to be problematic.

Pushing the problem down to the lowest level might have something to be said for it.  If a town can't handle a problem that it understands best at the nearest-the-problem level, only then should one look to the county government, or the state, or...  Is there a higher level?

But that loses economy of scale.  It loses a sense of justice, that all are being treated equally.  It loses a sense that the best of all possible solutions (one's own) is being applied everywhere.

The federal government generously makes military equipment available to a small town police department that is running on a very tight budget.  Hey haven't had a problem with use of excessive force in years.  Thus, there is obviously no need to or ability to pay for the expensive training in how to use the equipment well and appropriately.  Should the federal government apply a one size fits all mandate that police forces have to train their people in order to get the equipment?

The problem may be more in good intentions falling than the other political group having bad intentions.  A lot more thought might be put into whether to push down more problem solving to the local level or private sector, or whether good practices should be be practiced everywhere.  I wouldn't want to recommend either extreme be pushed on every level for every issue, but that seems to be what is falling out of vehement partisan Red or Blue thinking.  I'd like to promote the idea that those other guys are well intentioned and trying hard too, rather than they are being in some way vile, insane, stupid, authoritarian, corrupt, fanatics, etc...  Lock into hight abstract principles less.  Look for creative fits-the-problem innovative approaches more.  Insult and demean those who look at a problem in a different way less.  Listen and hope to find gems of wisdom in what they say more.

And the above lecture shouldn't be considered addressed just to you and fellow Red thinkers.  It shouldn't take much reading between the lines to figure I'm writing towards the Blue folk as well.

To the extent that both sides are focused on stopping the other side's approach, that there is a culture of hostility directed toward the other culture of hostility, is it surprising that so many people with good intentions, trying to find a way to make things work, find themselves quashed or swimming against the tide?

I'm not viewing it or approaching it from the highest level. The issues we face today aren't going to be resolved at the highest level by the highest level. America is to big and to diverse for the liberal way of thinking. The liberal way of thinking only works among the liberals at the highest levels. What are going to do if a group of Hispanics decide they're more important than blacks? How are Democrats going to address such an issue? Here's the deal, if we were stranded on an island, I think we would work together to survive. I have skills. You have skills. We are both intelligent and understand the social concept that two is better than one. We would utilize our skills and we'd most likely get along and survive. I can't say the same about Eric. I'd probably have to kill Eric or let him die in order to survive. To me, Eric would be more of a liability than asset as far as survival is concerned.

[Eric the Green]

(07-08-2016, 04:03 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: As a majority, I believe the country is pretty much on the right track.

But the polls say by a 40% margin that America is on the wrong track. A majority of Republicans and Democrats say that.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/...y-902.html

Quote: I'm on the same track as my parents and their parents. I'm on the American track like most Americans. A track that is considered scary for some, granted by others and acceptable to most who identify themselves as being Americans. However, there are some who believe that our track isn't for them/wasn't created for people like them. I'd place you in that group of people as a spokesman/wannabe leader of those people. An alternate path may be required for those who are unable to advance themselves naturally. An alternate that they can choose to take and create for themselves and hope it's able to last as long as our path.

The "American track" has never been only self-reliance. Government help has been a part of it since Hamilton. I have covered all of that before, and in my article. http://philosopherswheel.com/freemarket.html

Quote: For an American, you sure don't know squat about the American spirit. You know, the good old "can do" spirit that so many Americans have that you and so many blue patrons appear to lack. You know, the good old "fighting" spirit that so many Americans still have that you and so many of your blue patrons appear to lack. America wasn't created to be given away to whoever or whatever group has an issue with it today. It's funny, the Democrats created the system that you have issues with today and all you can do is blame Republicans. YOU ARE CRAZY.

Reagan said that his trickle-down economics program "promises to revive the American spirit." The rapacious spirit of the wealthy yes, but American spirit has fallen behind Europe. Americans had spirit in the sixties, when they worked together to fight poverty and put man on the Moon under JFK and LBJ which created the computer industry and its famous valley where I live and work. Americans had spirit when they spoke up when their government started a deadly war they didn't need or want, and stopped it. Americans had spirit when they created the EPA and clean air and water, and stopped corporations from ripping off the consumer. Americans had spirit when groups discriminated against spoke up for their rights and advanced them. I don't have issues with any of that which the Democrats and the people created. I have issues because the Republicans came in and stopped all of that and more.

The Republicans have [i]given away]/i] this spirit and this country to the Republicans and to the wealthy 1% whom they represent. Democrats were complicit too, to the extent they were "New" Democrats who deregulated Wall Street. Bill Clinton bowed to the free market ideology of Reagan, but he still raised the minimum wage and created the earned income credit. His leadership had put the country on a path to prosperity when YOUR man came in, sent us off to 2 never-ending wars, exploded the debt, deregulated Wall Street and the corporations even more, denied climate change, and made the growing equality gap of the Reagan years into a grand canyon.

How can I be crazy, when I know that REPUBLICANS created the system we have today, and when I want them out so we can progress again after 35 years of neglect, mindless obstruction and decay?

[Eric the Green]

(07-08-2016, 04:37 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Here's the deal, if we were stranded on an island, I think we would work together to survive. I have skills. You have skills. We are both intelligent and understand the social concept that two is better than one. We would utilize our skills and we'd most likely get along and survive. I can't say the same about Eric. I'd probably have to kill Eric or let him die in order to survive. To me, Eric would be more of a liability than asset as far as survival is concerned.

I'm a fan of Survivor, but they don't kill people. They just vote them off the island. That's what we need to do. It's fine to understand that there are virtues on both sides. I don't disagree. But one side needs to win. Only then can we move on. The blue side is far more able to absorb the virtues of the red side, than vice-versa. We see that with the Clintons and Obamas, as opposed to the Bushs, Romneys, Trumps, Ryans, Gingrichs etc.

It is you who deny that two is better than one. Your side is individual self-reliance. You would not work with another; you would fight to maintain your property rights. That's your version of "intelligence." You would not be like Ethan, Erik or Yul; you would be like Russell Hantz.

"Russell Hantz is considered by many Survivor fans as the greatest and most notorious villain of all time. Some fans love him, while others have criticized his strategy. Each time he played he was extremely ruthless, manipulative and sometimes just plain mean. He’s played three times, Survivor: Samoa, Survivor: Heroes Vs Villains and Survivor: Redemption Island. The first time he ever played, he was the runner up. During Heroes Vs Villains, he developed a rivalry with fellow villain Boston Rob and was able to eliminate him from the game. He made it to the final three that time. On his third appearance, he was targeted by his tribe, who purposely lost an immunity challenge so they could eliminate him early on. He stated that his third appearance was his final, but since then, has indicated he would like to return."
http://www.therichest.com/expensive-life...-villains/

I think it's about time for the third round with the Republican villains.

[Danilynn]

This is why I avoid large gatherings, "peaceful protests" and anywhere there can be a herd mentality come into play. I saw Bosnia first hand, large groups and "peaceful Protests" are a great way to die. The streets of America are starting to feel much like Kosovo in the mid 90s felt.

This would also be prime reason number 1 why I have a CCW and utilize it daily. If some place is a "gun free zone" I consider it might be suspect and avoid going there.

Gonna be a long hot summer. Bet ole Charlie Manson is laughing his ass off right about now, seems he's getting his "helter skelter" a few decades later than he planned.

[Classic-Xer]

(07-08-2016, 08:14 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(07-08-2016, 04:37 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Here's the deal, if we were stranded on an island, I think we would work together to survive. I have skills. You have skills. We are both intelligent and understand the social concept that two is better than one. We would utilize our skills and we'd most likely get along and survive. I can't say the same about Eric. I'd probably have to kill Eric or let him die in order to survive. To me, Eric would be more of a liability than asset as far as survival is concerned.

I'm a fan of Survivor, but they don't kill people. They just vote them off the island. That's what we need to do. It's fine to understand that there are virtues on both sides. I don't disagree. But one side needs to win. Only then can we move on. The blue side is far more able to absorb the virtues of the red side, than vice-versa. We see that with the Clintons and Obamas, as opposed to the Bushs, Romneys, Trumps, Ryans, Gingrichs etc.

It is you who deny that two is better than one. Your side is individual self-reliance. You would not work with another; you would fight to maintain your property rights. That's your version of "intelligence." You would not be like Ethan, Erik or Yul; you would be like Russell Hantz.

"Russell Hantz is considered by many Survivor fans as the greatest and most notorious villain of all time. Some fans love him, while others have criticized his strategy. Each time he played he was extremely ruthless, manipulative and sometimes just plain mean. He’s played three times, Survivor: Samoa, Survivor: Heroes Vs Villains and Survivor: Redemption Island. The first time he ever played, he was the runner up. During Heroes Vs Villains, he developed a rivalry with fellow villain Boston Rob and was able to eliminate him from the game. He made it to the final three that time. On his third appearance, he was targeted by his tribe, who purposely lost an immunity challenge so they could eliminate him early on. He stated that his third appearance was his final, but since then, has indicated he would like to return."
http://www.therichest.com/expensive-life...-villains/

I think it's about time for the third round with the Republican villains.

You've seen one Survivor, you've seen them all. I intently watched the first one and began loosing interest in the second and ignored the rest. In real life, the chubby gay guy who couldn't physically compete with the feisty woman who defeated the old SEAL in the final challenge who quit wouldn't have been crowned Survivor by nature. Nature would have eliminated him. I represent self reliance aka the expectation and obligation placed on oneself to carry ones own weight and ones share of the weight so others don't have too. You represent the opposite, the expectation and  the demand placed upon others to carry your weight or your share of the weight for you for the sake of some liberal belief.