Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
oochymp

Louisiana passes "Blue Lives Matter" law

Recommended Posts

The idea that the rich are only doing it because of high taxes is just such a dumb argument. They're not gonna be like, "Oh this tax burden is acceptable."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you think that barrel of crap Trump pushes as his tax plan is going to work in reality- without massively throwing the US into debt, at least- I really don't know what to say.

 

Perhaps the only thing there is to say is that you really need to go take an economics course.

The US is being pushed massively into debt by inefficiency and poor government spending. The way to not go into debt is by cutting all the shit programs that bog us down and allow people to spend the money they have earned freely. The American people are not trillions of dollars in debt. The government is. And they refuse to stop spending.

 

Apparently conservative economics makes me stupid and in need of another economics class. If you believe the government is more efficient than the individual at allocating income properly, just say it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's actually exactly what trickle down economics is. Cutting taxes for everyone really only benefits the rich. It's not a zero sum game. BWare hit the nail on the head when he said they'll always try to avoid taxes or costs. The greed of these people is beyond most people's imagination.

I entirely agree. The greed of people is insane. But what is greed? Trying to get the best deal possible. Trying to have the best personal outcome possible. If it's a better deal to keep the money here, you take that deal.

 

Trickle-down economics is the idea that cutting taxes for only the rich helps the poor through job growth and employment. The issue with a flat tax or system that taxes the poor more is that it doesn't understand the demand at the bottom of the system. Poor people inevitably buy more stuff. They purchase more goods and make investments that they deem fit for their lifestyle. You agree with this yes?

 

Cutting taxes for everyone benefits everyone. The rich create jobs because it's cheaper to create them. The poor spend more money because it's not as financially difficult to spend money. The more money you put in the hands of an individual the more likely they are to thoroughly weigh their options and make a good financial decision. Taxes should be minimal.

Edited by Chernobyl426

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First off, nobody would ever get elected by saying, "we're just going to cut the taxes for the rich because they create jobs." They say they're cutting the taxes for everyone. That is trickle down economics and it's a policy that's been in place in this country for decades. The rich have been getting richer and not creating jobs because they're outsourcing a ton of labor. The jobs that are being created suck. You're contradicting the shit out of yourself right now young buck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The US is being pushed massively into debt by inefficiency and poor government spending. The way to not go into debt is by cutting all the shit programs that bog us down and allow people to spend the money they have earned freely. The American people are not trillions of dollars in debt. The government is. And they refuse to stop spending.

 

Apparently conservative economics makes me stupid and in need of another economics class. If you believe the government is more efficient than the individual at allocating income properly, just say it.

 

I'm pretty sure that's not conservative economics, but whatever it is, it doesn't make you stupid, but you are wrong if you believe that it works. It has no basis in reality at all as has been proven for the past twenty years. At least.

 

As for the American people not being in debt, well, I have a surprise for you: The American people are, as of 2015, in 12.12 trillion dollars worth of debt:

 

TL;DR:

(Average US consumer debt/Total)

 

Credit cards $15,762/$733 billion

Mortgages $168,614/$8.25 trillion

Auto loans $27,141/$1.06 trillion

Student loans $48,172/$1.23 trillion

Any type of debt $130,922/12.12 trillion

Edited by Thanatos
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First off, nobody would ever get elected by saying, "we're just going to cut the taxes for the rich because they create jobs." They say they're cutting the taxes for everyone. That is trickle down economics and it's a policy that's been in place in this country for decades. The rich have been getting richer and not creating jobs because they're outsourcing a ton of labor. The jobs that are being created suck. You're contradicting the shit out of yourself right now young buck.

They like to do it under the guise of fairness in taxes via flat tax, which is fucking silly. Flat taxes are the effective version of trickle-down economics in your eyes, right? People making minimum wage and paying 0% income tax isn't exactly the same.

 

The policies that have been in place for decades are the policies that tax the rich to the point where it's cheaper to leave the US rather than pay taxes. Those are the policies that need fixed. The idea that cutting taxes for all is some rich guys evil plan is silly. It benefits everyone. Everyone has more disposable income. Everyone benefits.

 

I'm pretty sure that's not conservative economics, but whatever it is, it doesn't make you stupid, but you are wrong if you believe that it works. It has no basis in reality at all as has been proven for the past twenty years. At least.

 

As for the American people not being in debt, well, I have a surprise for you: The American people are, as of 2015, in 12.12 trillion dollars worth of debt:

 

TL;DR:

(Average US consumer debt/Total)

 

Credit cards $15,762/$733 billion

Mortgages $168,614/$8.25 trillion

Auto loans $27,141/$1.06 trillion

Student loans $48,172/$1.23 trillion

Any type of debt $130,922/12.12 trillion

Credit cards. Mortgages. Auto loans. Student loans. Any type of debt... Why are people owing all this shit? Its pretty simple. They can't pay off debt when the government is taking their income lmao.

 

Conservative economics = Cut government out of markets at a reasonable level. That's exactly what I'm proposing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trickle down economics is synonymous with Laissiez Faire capitalism. Conservative economics IS trickle down economics. What you're describing is like text book trickle down economics. You also have an incredible simplistic view of why people are in as much debt as they are. College Tuition fees are a good example. They haven't exactly risen with inflation. The inflation of housing prices has nothing to do with income taxes either....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The trickle-down effect is an economic phenomenon whereby low-income groups benefit indirectly from the accumulation of wealth of those having higher incomes; that is, the income is said to "trickle down" from the rich to the poor. This phenomenon happens as a result of economic growth."

 

 

The wealth is not trickling down in everything I said. It's simply being undisturbed by government influence. The poor continue to make the money they have always made, but aren't getting fucked by taxes. They're more free to spend money on things they deem fit for their lifestyle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if you want to ruin your night, look up Alton Sterling. This happened in Louisiana so its especially relevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's just straight forward execution. Officer should be charged with first-degree murder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus H Christ. That is fucking horrible. I'll say it yet again...all cops who do things like this should be released into genpop at state prisons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fucking pigs. Hopeful that cop is murdered for this

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the thing that gets me in this one is that the officer didn't pull his gun out until he had Sterling pinned to the ground, at that point there's absolutely no need for anything near lethal force

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no means for lethal force whatsoever.

 

The defense I'm hearing amongst LEO's is that the guy had a gun in his pocket.

 

1) By the time you have the man on the ground and are putting cuffs on him, you have control even though he's resisting.

 

2) The subject was not reaching for his gun in any way shape or form (Really couldn't with 2 men on his back)

 

3) The least amount of force needed to control a subject is the most any officer should ever use.

 

4) At no point in time were either of these officer's lives in danger to the point where they had to use force (The man never reached for his gun at all)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't see his right arm when he is on the ground. He potentially could have been reaching? It's definitely a stretch as I don't see his shoulder move. Can anyone make out what was said right before shots were fired?

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't see his right arm when he is on the ground. He potentially could have been reaching? It's definitely a stretch as I don't see his shoulder move. Can anyone make out what was said right before shots were fired?

even if he is reaching for a gun, when you have him pinned you can keep his hand away from his pocket without lethal force

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

even if he is reaching for a gun, when you have him pinned you can keep his hand away from his pocket without lethal force

Assuming he hadn't already grabbed it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if he'd already grabbed it odds are he'd get a shot off before he's pinned to the ground, either way at that point officers had full control of him or pretty damn close and didn't need anything more than a taser, if that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To the shock of absolutely no one, another trigger happy cop kills a black man in his car. Again, a graphic video warning for anyone who cares.

 

http://www.citypages.com/news/graphic-video-shows-black-man-bleeding-after-police-shooting-in-falcon-heights-video-8415016

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDRSDvZxkPA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if he'd already grabbed it odds are he'd get a shot off before he's pinned to the ground, either way at that point officers had full control of him or pretty damn close and didn't need anything more than a taser, if that

 

I dunno how true this "reaching for the gun" stuff is cause I can't tell jack shit from that cell phone video, but it's honestly not as simple as "the officers had control of him". It is not easy to keep someone from moving their arm with just using the strength of your own arms, especially given how much size he had on the cop that tackled him, and it appeared to me that cop was the only one trying to wrestle with his right arm.

 

The cop on the left managed to get control of his left arm by moving it down to the ground(Maybe by locking the elbow though it doesn't look like he managed that. just it appears that Sterling was more focused on the cop that tackled him and that's what allowed the cop on the left to get control of the left arm) and then placing his body weight(kneeling on the arm) on it.

 

Now you might would question with the other cop didn't do this with his right arm, but the issue there is the car being right next to them, making it more difficult to take control of his right arm. I think this brings in to question the situational awareness of the cop. I'm also not entirely sure why he tackled him when he did, though. It looked like he tried to "take him by surprise", but it appears to me Sterling had his hands up. Not sure if he was ignoring further orders or not from that point, as the video doesn't offer any context in that regard, though even if he were the decision to tackle him is a terrible one from the way I see it given Sterling appears to have not shown any sign of violence towards the cops.

 

It would not surprise me if Sterling was able to overpower the cop that tackled him in trying to reach for his gun. Whether he actually did or not is an entirely different story, and regardless of whether or not he did, the cops appeared to have handled this situation extremely poorly up to that point anyway.

 

Police academies in this country do a pathetic job of weeding out the douche bags and also do a pathetic job of training.

Edited by .AirMcNair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get what you're saying, when a gun is involved anything less than restrained in handcuffs is dangerous (and maybe even someone handcuffed in certain circumstances) but I still don't see why lethal force was necessary at that point in the encounter, seems to me he could have achieved what he needed to with something less

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again you don't know whether or not lethal force was necessary because you can't see what is going on with his right arm/hand. Logically, when a cop yells don't move or I'll shoot...and he shoots, something must have been going on. If not, then yeah I'm all with you but no one can know for sure based off of this video.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly can't imagine what it would take for you to believe a cop killed someone he shouldn't have. Does the victim have to be unconcious and the cop needs to yell "yes! I killed an innocent man!" While signing a notarized confession in 1080p?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right, there's always more to the story, but you have to admit that the timing is at least somewhat unsettling, the officer didn't feel the need to even draw his gun until he was on top of Alton Sterling, then he decides he needs to shoot him multiple times?

 

Regarding Philando Castile, it's a lot harder to actually judge because all we see is the aftermath and we hear his girlfriend and the officer give their accounts. The truth, as always, is probably somewhere between the two. On the one hand, telling an officer you're armed and then reaching to a back pocket would definitely make a reasonable officer feel threatened, on the other hand, telling the officer you're armed is exactly what you're supposed to do when you are legally carrying a concealed firearm so, what the fuck? I'm sure something happened in between, but we might never know what.

 

The bottom line is, as I've said in other threads (or maybe in this one) officers should always have the burden of de-escalating whatever situation they're faced with, they're the professionals, they're the ones who are supposed to be trained to deal with these encounters, and the whole shoot first and ask questions later approach is getting beyond tiring. In both of these cases it seems like the officers had way too big a part in escalating the situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Chatbox

    TGP has moved to Discord (sorta) - https://discord.gg/JkWAfU3Phm

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×