(07-20-2020 02:34 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(07-20-2020 06:52 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-20-2020 12:23 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(07-19-2020 06:43 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  If it is obvious, perhaps answer the fing question directly? Of just whine and fing rant....

Some serious hubris to act like I was giving some unfair edit comparing your comments to Lad's and then follow your criticism up a few post later with this.

I guess you didnt notice the lack of z direct answer. Funny that with you being an ace smokin attorney or somefink

So if someone doesn’t give you a direct answer to a question, you are entitled to be an a$$hat to them? Weird standards dude, that is all I am saying.

(07-20-2020 07:51 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

(07-20-2020 05:54 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Justin Amash just posted a tweet that is critical of the Trump administration’s actions in Portland. Any updated thoughts now that basically one of the top libertarians in the country has shared some thoughts?

“Donald Trump is deploying unmarked federal police, decked out like a paramilitary force, to grab Americans off the streets. He’s not practicing Liberty; he’s practicing tyranny.”

Libertarian Party official tweet - “Sending unmarked cars with federal police decked out in camo in Portland due to protests/riots happening over unaccountable police activity isn’t how you quell them. It encourages more disquiet. Implement real reforms. End Qualified Immunity. #PortlandKidnappings”

Another from the Libertarian Party - “Abolish the Department of Homeland Security. America deserves better than this. #PortlandKidnappings”

Libertarian Party also praised the ACLU for its lawsuit.

Jeez, even Rand found the mark. A low point for the Quad's totally-not-Trump-supporter "libertarians".

Perhaps you should share your suprr duper insights jnto the "at will" portion of the comment. Perhaps any of the knee jerk leftists may as well.

If you can truly show that I have been on record from the start on that.

I will awit the deafening silence on that. Maybe from you some mole mole tunnel sounds.

(07-20-2020 08:24 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-20-2020 02:34 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(07-20-2020 06:52 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-20-2020 12:23 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(07-19-2020 06:43 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  If it is obvious, perhaps answer the fing question directly? Of just whine and fing rant....

Some serious hubris to act like I was giving some unfair edit comparing your comments to Lad's and then follow your criticism up a few post later with this.

I guess you didnt notice the lack of z direct answer. Funny that with you being an ace smokin attorney or somefink

So if someone doesn’t give you a direct answer to a question, you are entitled to be an a$$hat to them? Weird standards dude, that is all I am saying.

(07-20-2020 07:51 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

(07-20-2020 05:54 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Justin Amash just posted a tweet that is critical of the Trump administration’s actions in Portland. Any updated thoughts now that basically one of the top libertarians in the country has shared some thoughts?

“Donald Trump is deploying unmarked federal police, decked out like a paramilitary force, to grab Americans off the streets. He’s not practicing Liberty; he’s practicing tyranny.”

Libertarian Party official tweet - “Sending unmarked cars with federal police decked out in camo in Portland due to protests/riots happening over unaccountable police activity isn’t how you quell them. It encourages more disquiet. Implement real reforms. End Qualified Immunity. #PortlandKidnappings”

Another from the Libertarian Party - “Abolish the Department of Homeland Security. America deserves better than this. #PortlandKidnappings”

Libertarian Party also praised the ACLU for its lawsuit.

Jeez, even Rand found the mark. A low point for the Quad's totally-not-Trump-supporter "libertarians".

Perhaps you should share your suprr duper insights jnto the "at will" portion of the comment. Perhaps any of the knee jerk leftists may as well.

If you can truly show that I have been on record from the start on that.

I will awit the deafening silence on that. Maybe from you some mole mole tunnel sounds.

Based on your responses here, you must think Paul is a idiot for posting that these guys are being rounded up “at will” since you were defending their decision to round up the person in the video dressed up like a ninja (or whatever you called his outfit).

(07-20-2020 07:51 PM)At Ease Wrote:  Jeez, even Rand found the mark. A low point for the Quad's totally-not-Trump-supporter "libertarians".

Rand is more libertarian than I am. He's a friend, but I don't go for everything he believes in. True libertarians are almost anarchists, and I don't go there. I'm a national defense and law-and-order libertarian.

If people are truly being rounded up. "at will," the I have a problem. But these look like very focused actions, the opposite of, "at will."

(07-20-2020 09:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-20-2020 08:24 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-20-2020 02:34 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(07-20-2020 06:52 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-20-2020 12:23 AM)mrbig Wrote:  Some serious hubris to act like I was giving some unfair edit comparing your comments to Lad's and then follow your criticism up a few post later with this.

I guess you didnt notice the lack of z direct answer. Funny that with you being an ace smokin attorney or somefink

So if someone doesn’t give you a direct answer to a question, you are entitled to be an a$$hat to them? Weird standards dude, that is all I am saying.

(07-20-2020 07:51 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

(07-20-2020 05:54 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Justin Amash just posted a tweet that is critical of the Trump administration’s actions in Portland. Any updated thoughts now that basically one of the top libertarians in the country has shared some thoughts?

“Donald Trump is deploying unmarked federal police, decked out like a paramilitary force, to grab Americans off the streets. He’s not practicing Liberty; he’s practicing tyranny.”

Libertarian Party official tweet - “Sending unmarked cars with federal police decked out in camo in Portland due to protests/riots happening over unaccountable police activity isn’t how you quell them. It encourages more disquiet. Implement real reforms. End Qualified Immunity. #PortlandKidnappings”

Another from the Libertarian Party - “Abolish the Department of Homeland Security. America deserves better than this. #PortlandKidnappings”

Libertarian Party also praised the ACLU for its lawsuit.

Jeez, even Rand found the mark. A low point for the Quad's totally-not-Trump-supporter "libertarians".

Perhaps you should share your suprr duper insights jnto the "at will" portion of the comment. Perhaps any of the knee jerk leftists may as well.

If you can truly show that I have been on record from the start on that.

I will awit the deafening silence on that. Maybe from you some mole mole tunnel sounds.

Based on your responses here, you must think Paul is a idiot for posting that these guys are being rounded up “at will” since you were defending their decision to round up the person in the video dressed up like a ninja (or whatever you called his outfit).

Funny, I have always predicated everything hinging on sufficient probable cause. And have multiple times noted that what prompted the detention is unknown.

To repeat if they were joyriding sround picking randos to fk with that obviously doesnt meet that (i.e. 'at will'). If some asshat in ninja commando sll black did something left wing asshats seemingly have a penchant for these days in Portland, then the detention of Pettibone would seemingly be valid.

Do you even read?

As for Pauls response he says 'at will'. Id like to know his source for that language. That bald language seems a stretch without facts --- kind of like what you did earlier yoday.

No offense, but you continuously rip me and others here on how we misstate what you say. Yet your statement above us a stunning testament to you apparently knee jerking to that end par excellence. I suggest next time reading a tad more carefully.

(07-17-2020 08:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Seeing reporting out of Portland of federal troops hopping out of vehicles and grabbing people in the streets. Freaky-deaky to say the least, especially when you see a video of it.

Quote:A block west of Chapman Square, Pettibone and O’Shea bumped into a group of people who warned them that people in camouflage were driving around the area in unmarked minivans grabbing people off the street.
“So that was terrifying to hear,” Pettibone said.
They had barely made it half a block when an unmarked minivan pulled up in front of them.
“I see guys in camo,” O’Shea said. “Four or five of them pop out, open the door and it was just like, ‘Oh ****. I don’t know who you are or what you want with us.’”
Federal law enforcement officers have been using unmarked vehicles to drive around downtown Portland and detain protesters since at least July 14. Personal accounts and multiple videos posted online show the officers driving up to people, detaining individuals with no explanation of why they are being arrested, and driving off.

https://www.opb.org/news/article/federal...rotesters/

From all the videos I've seen, it appears that they are looking for specific individuals and taking them in while ignoring others around them. It appears to be a very focused effort, not just grabbing people willy-nilly.

Let's see, they've had some property destruction, including burning at least one building related to law enforcement. At least some of those facilities probably had security cameras, and there is something called facial recognition software.

If they are grabbing vandalism perps that they have identified off security cameras or otherwise, then I have no problem with it. If they are indiscriminately picking up random people, then I do have a problem.

As far as camos without name tags and unmarked vehicles, I really don't ave a problem, per se. Officers in uniform traveling in marked police cars are going to attract mob attention, whereas traveling incognito may be a much more effective technique to apprehend criminals without inciting violence.

If you are a perp, and you get picked up in a way that does not harm you, then I don't see your grounds for complaining that the method was not in accordance with your expectations. LEOs in unmarked police cars make stops all the time, and non-uniformed plainclothes LEOs make arrests all the time.

(07-19-2020 02:13 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(07-18-2020 03:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  portland
Around 1:30 a.m., city police declared an unlawful assembly and told demonstrators to leave, police said.
Police said they moved in to disperse the crowd and arrested several people who didn't leave. Officers faced "projectiles such as glass bottles, rocks and broken pieces of metal from fencing," police said.
By 2:10 a.m., several hundred people returned to the area, and Portland police again dispersed them, arresting several more,

What made the assembly unlawful? Is there a curfew in place or permit requirement? Or did the police randomly decide that it was "unlawful"? Genuinely curious, not trying to rake muck with this one.

Do you have any support for, "randomly," particularly given what has transpired there in recent days?

(07-20-2020 09:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Based on your responses here, you must think Paul is a idiot for posting that these guys are being rounded up “at will” since you were defending their decision to round up the person in the video dressed up like a ninja (or whatever you called his outfit).

But Rand did not post any assertion that these people are being rounded up "at will." What he posted is that rounding up people "at will" is wrong. And I agree with that.

But what I'm seeing is a more focused effort than "at will." I would need to know more about why they were picked up before forming an opinion. Any constitutional issues that I am aware of would be driven far more by why they were picked up than how, particularly since I've seen no instance of injury to any one of those picked up.

(07-18-2020 09:38 AM)mrbig Wrote:  I can’t wait until masked and unidentified federal agents start grabbing conservative protestors during a Biden administration and the folks around here are asking for the details about what the protestors were doing and arguing that we don’t yet know enough to make any judgments.

If they were purely peaceful protesters, and nothing more, then I would have a problem. If they were engaging in vandalism as well as protesting, then I don't see an issue. I don't know which one of those applies here. Do you?

(07-21-2020 06:12 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-17-2020 08:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Seeing reporting out of Portland of federal troops hopping out of vehicles and grabbing people in the streets. Freaky-deaky to say the least, especially when you see a video of it.

Quote:A block west of Chapman Square, Pettibone and O’Shea bumped into a group of people who warned them that people in camouflage were driving around the area in unmarked minivans grabbing people off the street.
“So that was terrifying to hear,” Pettibone said.
They had barely made it half a block when an unmarked minivan pulled up in front of them.
“I see guys in camo,” O’Shea said. “Four or five of them pop out, open the door and it was just like, ‘Oh ****. I don’t know who you are or what you want with us.’”
Federal law enforcement officers have been using unmarked vehicles to drive around downtown Portland and detain protesters since at least July 14. Personal accounts and multiple videos posted online show the officers driving up to people, detaining individuals with no explanation of why they are being arrested, and driving off.

https://www.opb.org/news/article/federal...rotesters/

From all the videos I've seen, it appears that they are looking for specific individuals and taking them in while ignoring others around them. It appears to be a very focused effort, not just grabbing people willy-nilly.

Let's see, they've had some property destruction, including burning at least one building related to law enforcement. At least some of those facilities probably had security cameras, and there is something called facial recognition software.

If they are grabbing vandalism perps that they have identified off security cameras or otherwise, then I have no problem with it. If they are indiscriminately picking up random people, then I do have a problem.

As far as camos without name tags and unmarked vehicles, I really don't ave a problem, per se. Officers in uniform traveling in marked police cars are going to attract mob attention, whereas traveling incognito may be a much more effective technique to apprehend criminals without inciting violence.

If you are a perp, and you get picked up in a way that does not harm you, then I don't see your grounds for complaining that the method was not in accordance with your expectations. LEOs in unmarked police cars make stops all the time, and non-uniformed plainclothes LEOs make arrests all the time.

I feel like that first theory doesn’t comport with what happened for two reasons:
1) the guy in the video appears to have very little identifying markings visible, especially no facial features
2) the guy wasn’t even technically arrested because the federal agents didn’t have anything to charge him with. If they were truly looking for a specific individual, why let the individual they were looking for go?

And to the latter - you and DHS are clearly wrong in this theory. These actions have increased protests, raised tensions, and led to a greater chance of violence.

I agree with the idea that these methods may be appropriate in highly sensitive and high impact arrests, but I just don’t see any evidence so far to suggest that is close to what has happened here.

I thought libertarians typically erred on the side of caution in this instance and would expect to see more evidence that this type of detention was justified by evidence, instead of assuming it was without any evidence to support it?

(07-21-2020 06:35 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-19-2020 02:13 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(07-18-2020 03:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  portland
Around 1:30 a.m., city police declared an unlawful assembly and told demonstrators to leave, police said.
Police said they moved in to disperse the crowd and arrested several people who didn't leave. Officers faced "projectiles such as glass bottles, rocks and broken pieces of metal from fencing," police said.
By 2:10 a.m., several hundred people returned to the area, and Portland police again dispersed them, arresting several more,

What made the assembly unlawful? Is there a curfew in place or permit requirement? Or did the police randomly decide that it was "unlawful"? Genuinely curious, not trying to rake muck with this one.

Do you have any support for, "randomly," particularly given what has transpired there in recent days?

Two points for Big:

1. I gave a link. Read it and you know as much as I do. But it sounds as though they just decided it was to unruly, too dangerous, and/or too late. I don't know the trigger.
2. It was the Portland Police who declared the assembly unlawful, not the Feds. The police who work for the Mayor. The Mayor who is blaming the Feds.

Nah, one more.

3. I also would like to hear your support for your word choice of "RANDOMLY".

The shrill hysteria we hear from our left uses assumptions that are not warranted. I would like to see one warranted.

(07-17-2020 09:06 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And from my end, the constant slapping of any tax increase as being a movement towards communism/socialism just makes the argument ring absolutely hollow - so I don't make the simple act of advocating for tax increases a drop-dead show stopper.
I frankly have zero issue with the idea of increasing long-term capital gains taxes or changing what the definition of long-term and short-term gains are (i.e. extending long-term gains to being assets held for greater than 3 years). I agree with keeping them below income tax rates to encourage investment.

I do not agree with, "slapping any tax increase as being a movement toward communism," and I think republicans do themselves and the nation a great disservice by parroting that sound byte excessively. It is clear to me as a balanced-budget fiscal conservative that we need both more tax revenues and fewer government expenditures. What is a movement toward socialism/communism is using taxes as a means to redistribute wealth or income. And redistributive tax proposals such as current democrat positions are in fact sow-stoppers for me. Not every tax increase is a movement toward communism, but the specific tax increases being proposed by democrats are.

Keeping capital gains taxes below income taxes is not sufficient to encourage investment in the USA. If you want to encourage investment, you need to keep capital gains taxes, and in fact all taxes, below comparable taxes in other countries. For a long time, the USA encouraged investment by providing a vast array of exclusions and deductions for investment in focused targets. Those were largely eliminated in the 1980s, in conjunction with massive tax rate cuts across the board. Europe and the rest of the developed world saw this, and saw that our prosperity continued as GHWB and Bill Clinton tweaked our tax rates with the confines of the same concept--broader tax base by eliminating exclusions and deductions, coupled with lower rates. So they lowered theirs, beginning in the mid-1990s. For example, Ireland lowered its corporate rate from 49% to 12.5%, and all of the newly-capitalist former Iron Curtain countries adopted lower and flatter tax rates to arrant growth and investment. All of them adopted some form of national consumption tax (VAT/GST) to generate 20-30% of total tax revenues.

To give you an idea of how much the worldwide tax system changed in the decade 1995-2005, consider this: When bill Clinton got through raising tax rates, our rates across the board were still among the lowest in OECD. When GWB got through lowering tax rates, ours were among the highest, and our corporate rate became the highest when Japan dropped theirs.

Art Laffer's curve has been widely misrepresented as calling for ever lower taxes always. That's not close to what Laffer actually says. What he says is that there are two rates that generate zero tax revenues--0%, obviously, and 100%, because nobody would engage in taxable activity. Somewhere between the two, there is a rate that maximizes tax revenues. Below that, people would be willing to pay a higher rate, and above that, the tax rate starts to drive economic activity away. There is also some lower rate that maximizes economic activity and growth. Ideally, you should seek the sweet spot between the two that represents the optimal tradeoff between tax revenue and economic growth. IMO the Laffer optimal tax rate is defined to some great extent by tax rates in the rest of the world. As long as the rates are lower here than elsewhere, they will encourage investment and growth, not discourage. Once other places are more tax-efficient, industry will tend toward moving there.

Incidentally, Lafffer has said that the president who best reflected his ideas was Bill Clinton. He raised tax rates to generate tax revenues, but kept them below the rest of the world to generate investment and growth.

Tax competition is real, and it drives investment and growth decisions--not exclusively, but it is a major factor. We win on a lot of other factors, so we are not going to become Venezuela overnight. But we could win on taxes too, and balance the budget simultaneously, by going with lower and flatter taxes across a broader base, including adding a consumption tax. That is the approach that both Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin took (although only Dominici-Rivlin added a consumption tax) when seeking ways to balance the budget/reduce the debt and deficit.

So every tax increase is not a show-stopper for me, but the specific tax increases being proposed by democrats are.

(07-21-2020 07:40 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-17-2020 09:06 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And from my end, the constant slapping of any tax increase as being a movement towards communism/socialism just makes the argument ring absolutely hollow - so I don't make the simple act of advocating for tax increases a drop-dead show stopper.
I frankly have zero issue with the idea of increasing long-term capital gains taxes or changing what the definition of long-term and short-term gains are (i.e. extending long-term gains to being assets held for greater than 3 years). I agree with keeping them below income tax rates to encourage investment.

I do not agree with, "slapping any tax increase as being a movement toward communism," and I think republicans do themselves and the nation a great disservice by parroting that sound byte excessively. It is clear to me as a balanced-budget fiscal conservative that we need both more tax revenues and fewer government expenditures. What is a movement toward socialism/communism is using taxes as a means to redistribute wealth or income. And redistributive tax proposals such as current democrat positions are in fact sow-stoppers for me. Not every tax increase is a movement toward communism, but the specific tax increases being proposed by democrats are.

Keeping capital gains taxes below income taxes is not sufficient to encourage investment in the USA. If you want to encourage investment, you need to keep capital gains taxes, and in fact all taxes, below comparable taxes in other countries. For a long time, the USA encouraged investment by providing a vast array of exclusions and deductions for investment in focused targets. Those were largely eliminated in the 1980s, in conjunction with massive tax rate cuts across the board. Europe and the rest of the developed world saw this, and saw that our prosperity continued as GHWB and Bill Clinton tweaked our tax rates with the confines of the same concept--broader tax base by eliminating exclusions and deductions, coupled with lower rates. So they lowered theirs, beginning in the mid-1990s. For example, Ireland lowered its corporate rate from 49% to 12.5%, and all of the newly-capitalist former Iron Curtain countries adopted lower and flatter tax rates to arrant growth and investment. All of them adopted some form of national consumption tax (VAT/GST) to generate 20-30% of total tax revenues.

To give you an idea of how much the worldwide tax system changed in the decade 1995-2005, consider this: When bill Clinton got through raising tax rates, our rates across the board were still among the lowest in OECD. When GWB got through lowering tax rates, ours were among the highest, and our corporate rate became the highest when Japan dropped theirs.

Art Laffer's curve has been widely misrepresented as calling for ever lower taxes always. That's not close to what Laffer actually says. What he says is that there are two rates that generate zero tax revenues--0%, obviously, and 100%, because nobody would engage in taxable activity. Somewhere between the two, there is a rate that maximizes tax revenues. Below that, people would be willing to pay a higher rate, and above that, the tax rate starts to drive economic activity away. There is also some lower rate that maximizes economic activity and growth. Ideally, you should seekte sweet spot between the two that represents the optimal tradeoff between tax revenue and economic growth. Incidentally, Lafffer has said that the president who best reflected his ideas was Bill Clinton.

Tax competition is real, and it drives investment and growth decisions--not exclusively, but it is a major factor. We win on a lot of other factors, so we are not going to become Venezuela overnight. But we could win on taxes too, and balance the budget simultaneously, by going with lower and flatter taxes across a broader base, including adding a consumption tax. That is the approach that both Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin took (although only Dominici-Rivlin added a consumption tax) when seeking ways to balance the budget/reduce the debt and deficit.

So every tax increase is not a show-stopper for me, but the specific tax increases being proposed by democrats are.

I have consistently said two things: tax policy is important to me, and I am for pro-business policies.

taxes are a necessary thing, but should be applied with the good of the entire society in mind. I don't see the good that comes of discouraging business ventures and expansions. I think the left focuses on the end use of the money, not the source.

I don't know which anonymous Republicans Lad is quoting. I can see the redistribution policies 69 speaks of at work here. The trend is "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". Nobody here has even tried to refute that that is the underlying principle of Democrat party tax efforts.

Everybody is is one of three categories: they own a business, they work for a business, or they are unemployed.

Most of the unemployed would like to work for a business. Those jobs open up when businesses start up or expand - less liely in an antiBusiness atmosphere. Most of the people who work for a business would like to continue working for that business. Again, less likely when we make it difficult for the owners. Most business owners want their business to continue to perform and grow. Not going to happen in an oppressive tax atmosphere.

So who is helped by punitive taxes and regulations? Who is helped by antiBusiness policies including tax hikes?

People with other goals than employment and a growing economy, that's who. You don't mind so much if ExxonMobil goes out of business if your only concern is drilling.

Having been in business, I knew the impact of taxes and regulation on the planning of a business and the course of a business. Nobody opens a business to pay more taxes. Nobody expands a business to lose money.

Perhaps when their employers decide to close or cut back, some of the leftists here will see directly the results of some of their party's actions. Of course, though, they will accept the MSM's assertion that it is all Trump's fault. They will be comfortably ensconced in their rowboat as it goes over the falls.

Now will somebody, anybody tell what are the goals of the environmentalists and how will they correct the problem?

(07-17-2020 08:52 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Super busy day but top of my head: climate issues, gun control, women's right to choose, equality (race/LGBTQ, etc)

Climate - I favor accelerating the development of alternative energy sources as quickly as possible. But attempts by fiat to require elimination of fossil fuels before a suitable alternative is available will simply do far more to damage the economy than they will to mitigate climate change.

Gun control - I believe you linked an article talking about training and licensing gun users rather than focusing on guns. I agree with that approach, but that's not what I see any democrats talking about.

Abortion - I think masking it as "a woman's right to choose" is terribly dishonest and disingenuous. If you support choice, then you should support school choice and a whole bunch of other choices that democrats oppose. I believe that life begins at conception, and at that point the unborn acquires certain rights. The mother also has rights, and those rights trump those of the unborn up to a certain point. I would say that point is somewhere around the end of the first trimester, with later exceptions in cases of rape, health of the mother, or health of the unborn child. I do not support abortion at will up to the date of birth, which is what the New York law, for one, seems to license.

Equality - I firmly believe in equality of opportunity. That does not mean you manipulate things so that everybody ends up in the same place, nor does it mean that you describe any situation where that does not occur as inequality of opportunity.

Equality of opportunity is enhanced when jobs are available. Whose policies have resulted in more jobs and lower unemployment? Trump's. The best antidote to poverty is jobs, not handouts.

As for the generic "climate issues", outline the plan for me and if I like it I will get on board with t. Start with, What are the goals? How will they be achieved?

Gun control - not a hot button issue for me. That's why every time I list my priorities, guns are not at the top. Once again, outline the goals and the means to get there and let's see if I can get on board with them.

Women's right to choose - I have already said for the Nth time, I take no position on this. I agree with 69 that the child is a human from the earliest stages of a development that takes 25-30 years.- but still a human. We sometimes kill humans, legally and without repercussions. Sometimes, not. But I do not support the outlawing of abortion, nor the expansion. Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. Seen it both ways, don't like either one.

Got three out of four. Not bad for an old coot. Maybe you should vote for me.

(07-21-2020 07:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-21-2020 06:12 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-17-2020 08:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Seeing reporting out of Portland of federal troops hopping out of vehicles and grabbing people in the streets. Freaky-deaky to say the least, especially when you see a video of it.

Quote:A block west of Chapman Square, Pettibone and O’Shea bumped into a group of people who warned them that people in camouflage were driving around the area in unmarked minivans grabbing people off the street.
“So that was terrifying to hear,” Pettibone said.
They had barely made it half a block when an unmarked minivan pulled up in front of them.
“I see guys in camo,” O’Shea said. “Four or five of them pop out, open the door and it was just like, ‘Oh ****. I don’t know who you are or what you want with us.’”
Federal law enforcement officers have been using unmarked vehicles to drive around downtown Portland and detain protesters since at least July 14. Personal accounts and multiple videos posted online show the officers driving up to people, detaining individuals with no explanation of why they are being arrested, and driving off.

https://www.opb.org/news/article/federal...rotesters/

From all the videos I've seen, it appears that they are looking for specific individuals and taking them in while ignoring others around them. It appears to be a very focused effort, not just grabbing people willy-nilly.

Let's see, they've had some property destruction, including burning at least one building related to law enforcement. At least some of those facilities probably had security cameras, and there is something called facial recognition software.

If they are grabbing vandalism perps that they have identified off security cameras or otherwise, then I have no problem with it. If they are indiscriminately picking up random people, then I do have a problem.

As far as camos without name tags and unmarked vehicles, I really don't ave a problem, per se. Officers in uniform traveling in marked police cars are going to attract mob attention, whereas traveling incognito may be a much more effective technique to apprehend criminals without inciting violence.

If you are a perp, and you get picked up in a way that does not harm you, then I don't see your grounds for complaining that the method was not in accordance with your expectations. LEOs in unmarked police cars make stops all the time, and non-uniformed plainclothes LEOs make arrests all the time.

I feel like that first theory doesn’t comport with what happened for two reasons:
1) the guy in the video appears to have very little identifying markings visible, especially no facial features
2) the guy wasn’t even technically arrested because the federal agents didn’t have anything to charge him with. If they were truly looking for a specific individual, why let the individual they were looking for go?

As for 1 you are correct. However, if one who commited a crime is described as 'male all black clothing facial covering possible app. 5 ft 9 180 lbs' that would be more than sufficient for being detained.

In this respect you are making a distinction that hzs zero importance in the most germane point.

As for #2 the reason for detainment is to give LE a limited opportunity, with proper ptobable cause, to hold someone while further investigation occurs. This detention may or may not include interrogation of the suspect.

Your response 2 kind of jumps the shark with the purpose detention, and the corresponding safeguards when compared with a 'stop'.

In many cases the popo arent doing a lookout for a specific person; they are looking for people fitting a description.

With no offense intended, there are specific differences, responsibilities, and safeguards associated with each of a stop, a detention, and arrest.

The press in this case obviously has zero notion of that. And nor do many non-legal people. In many instances those issues can be critical and a actually determinative.

(07-21-2020 08:09 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Perhaps when their employers decide to close or cut back, some of the leftists here will see directly the results of some of their party's actions. Of course, though, they will accept the MSM's assertion that it is all Trump's fault. They will be comfortably ensconced in their rowboat as it goes over the falls.

I don't know where the point is that taxes get so high that people start leaving to avoid them. I do know that I don't want to find out. If the democrats enact all their tax proposals, I'm quite certain that some will leave. One problem is that the USA is kind of the Hotel California of taxes. Once you are in here, it's hard to leave. That's not a problem for foreign-based multinationals, because they can minimize their USA tax liability with aggressive transfer pricing. But a USA-based multinational is kind of stuck. I would expect them to start employing whatever methods they can--including inversions--to get out. At some point I could see 150-250 of the Fortune 500 relocating overseas. I don't know whether the current round of tax increases proposed by the democrats will get us there, but I think it might.

Obviously, proposals that we go back to 91% would lead to a mass exodus. So why didn't that happen in the 1950s and 1960s? Three big reasons:

1) We had so many exclusions and deductions in our tax code back then that our effective rates were still way, way lower than anybody else's. The effective rate paid by the "rich" didn't really change very much as the statutory rate decreased from 91% to 70% to 52% to 28%, because so many exclusions and deductions were eliminated. As a tax practitioner in the late 1980s, I remember many conversations having to explain to wealthy clients why their tax rate was cut virtually in half by the 1986 tax law but their tax bill increased, because of the elimination of exclusions and deductions.
2) Other countries had even higher rates. When our top marginal rate was 91%, almost everybody else was over 90%, and Sweden was even over 100%. Now the average OECD maximum individual rate is 43% and the average corporate rate is 23% (US is slightly higher than both, when state taxes are included). We go raising rates significantly, and I think we drive investment and growth overseas in a major way. That was actually sort of OK with us during the Cold War, because reindustrialization of Western Europe and Japan were seen as helping keep them away from communism, but that died when the Berlin Wall fell, and we haven't adjusted. Ross Perot said what I had been thinking back in 1992, "In the post-Cold-War era, economic power will be more important than military power." Thirty years later we sill haven't shifted gears.
3) The USA still has huge advantages. We have the largest area of contiguous farmland in the world, and the vast majority of it is connected by the Mississippi-Missouri-Ohio River system that constitutes about half of the inland navigable waterways in the world. That alone pretty much guarantees that we won't starve. Mountains, forest, and lakes to the north, mountains and desert to the south, and two vast oceans east and west pretty much guarantee a high level of military security. Therefore we start out way ahead of most of the world. In the Cold War era, we were willing to give up a lot of economic advantages to maintain a security alliance. But that's not exactly where we find ourselves today. If we need a security alliance today, it's more likely against China than Russia, and we aren't doing very well there.

(07-21-2020 08:40 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-21-2020 08:09 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Perhaps when their employers decide to close or cut back, some of the leftists here will see directly the results of some of their party's actions. Of course, though, they will accept the MSM's assertion that it is all Trump's fault. They will be comfortably ensconced in their rowboat as it goes over the falls.

I don't know where the point is that taxes get so high that people start leaving to avoid them.

I am not so concerned with companies leaving as I am with smaller companies not expanding. That will happen at a much lower point. Will Koolguy Heating and Air conditioning open a branch inn West Bumfick? That is an economic decision based on cost and expected return, and return is always after tax return. Koolguy is not moving to Portugal. But he does employ 30 people and would like to make that 60 people, if feasible.

Now multiply Koolguy by millions of businesses. Everything from bakeries to auto repair.

The other concern I have is that Joe Blow, who would like to open a restaurant serving fritters and fries, and employing 10 people, will sit down and run the numbers and decide not to. For you lefties out there the numbers alway lead to the after tax expected gain or loss. If the expected after tax gain is 5% instead of 12%, then a lot of people just won't take the leap. Not worth the risk.

Now big companies may well decide to expand overseas instead of here. Fine with me - Mexicans have kids too, they need jobs too. But it sure will not help anybody in Michigan or Iowa if those jobs go to foreign countries.


The more obstacles and costs you throw at business, the less they will expand and the less they will add jobs. Pretty simple concept. I wonder why the top leadership in the Democrats cannot grasp it... or the obedient followers, either. They seem to understand sticks but not carrots.

(07-21-2020 08:28 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-21-2020 07:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-21-2020 06:12 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-17-2020 08:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Seeing reporting out of Portland of federal troops hopping out of vehicles and grabbing people in the streets. Freaky-deaky to say the least, especially when you see a video of it.

Quote:A block west of Chapman Square, Pettibone and O’Shea bumped into a group of people who warned them that people in camouflage were driving around the area in unmarked minivans grabbing people off the street.
“So that was terrifying to hear,” Pettibone said.
They had barely made it half a block when an unmarked minivan pulled up in front of them.
“I see guys in camo,” O’Shea said. “Four or five of them pop out, open the door and it was just like, ‘Oh ****. I don’t know who you are or what you want with us.’”
Federal law enforcement officers have been using unmarked vehicles to drive around downtown Portland and detain protesters since at least July 14. Personal accounts and multiple videos posted online show the officers driving up to people, detaining individuals with no explanation of why they are being arrested, and driving off.

https://www.opb.org/news/article/federal...rotesters/

From all the videos I've seen, it appears that they are looking for specific individuals and taking them in while ignoring others around them. It appears to be a very focused effort, not just grabbing people willy-nilly.

Let's see, they've had some property destruction, including burning at least one building related to law enforcement. At least some of those facilities probably had security cameras, and there is something called facial recognition software.

If they are grabbing vandalism perps that they have identified off security cameras or otherwise, then I have no problem with it. If they are indiscriminately picking up random people, then I do have a problem.

As far as camos without name tags and unmarked vehicles, I really don't ave a problem, per se. Officers in uniform traveling in marked police cars are going to attract mob attention, whereas traveling incognito may be a much more effective technique to apprehend criminals without inciting violence.

If you are a perp, and you get picked up in a way that does not harm you, then I don't see your grounds for complaining that the method was not in accordance with your expectations. LEOs in unmarked police cars make stops all the time, and non-uniformed plainclothes LEOs make arrests all the time.

I feel like that first theory doesn’t comport with what happened for two reasons:
1) the guy in the video appears to have very little identifying markings visible, especially no facial features
2) the guy wasn’t even technically arrested because the federal agents didn’t have anything to charge him with. If they were truly looking for a specific individual, why let the individual they were looking for go?

As for 1 you are correct. If one who commited a crime is described as 'male all black clothing facial covering possible app. 5 ft 9 180 lbs' that would be more than sufficient for being detained.

In this respect you are making a distinction that hzs zero importance in the most germane point.

Look to the bolded for why I made the statement I did. See the comment about facial recognition software, which wouldn't be relevant in this instance. Therefore my comment is very germane.

Quote:As for #2 the reason for detainment is to give LE a limited opportunity, with proper ptobable cause, to hold someone while further investigation occurs. This detention may or may not include interrogation of the suspect.

Your response 2 kind of jumps the shark with the purpose detention, and the corresponding safeguards when compared with a 'stop'.

In many cases the popo arent doing a lookout for a specific person; they are looking for people fitting a description.

With no offense intended, there are specific differences, responsibilities, and safeguards associated with each of a stop, a detention, and arrest.

The press in this case obviously has zero notion of that. And nor do many non-legal people. In many instances those issues can be critical and a actually determinative.

But this isn't really germane to Owl#s comment, which was focused on the specificity of the potential perpetrator who was identified as having committed a crime.

"If they are grabbing vandalism perps that they have identified off security cameras or otherwise, then I have no problem with it. If they are indiscriminately picking up random people, then I do have a problem."

Clearly, this person was not identified off security cameras because they lack sufficient identifiable markings to be identified clearly.

Based on Owl#s' text, he's talking about clearly identifying a person and apprehending them. You're talking about casting a wide net and not looking for a specific person.

(07-21-2020 09:00 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-21-2020 08:28 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-21-2020 07:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-21-2020 06:12 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-17-2020 08:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Seeing reporting out of Portland of federal troops hopping out of vehicles and grabbing people in the streets. Freaky-deaky to say the least, especially when you see a video of it.
https://www.opb.org/news/article/federal...rotesters/

From all the videos I've seen, it appears that they are looking for specific individuals and taking them in while ignoring others around them. It appears to be a very focused effort, not just grabbing people willy-nilly.

Let's see, they've had some property destruction, including burning at least one building related to law enforcement. At least some of those facilities probably had security cameras, and there is something called facial recognition software.

If they are grabbing vandalism perps that they have identified off security cameras or otherwise, then I have no problem with it. If they are indiscriminately picking up random people, then I do have a problem.

As far as camos without name tags and unmarked vehicles, I really don't ave a problem, per se. Officers in uniform traveling in marked police cars are going to attract mob attention, whereas traveling incognito may be a much more effective technique to apprehend criminals without inciting violence.

If you are a perp, and you get picked up in a way that does not harm you, then I don't see your grounds for complaining that the method was not in accordance with your expectations. LEOs in unmarked police cars make stops all the time, and non-uniformed plainclothes LEOs make arrests all the time.

I feel like that first theory doesn’t comport with what happened for two reasons:
1) the guy in the video appears to have very little identifying markings visible, especially no facial features
2) the guy wasn’t even technically arrested because the federal agents didn’t have anything to charge him with. If they were truly looking for a specific individual, why let the individual they were looking for go?

As for 1 you are correct. If one who commited a crime is described as 'male all black clothing facial covering possible app. 5 ft 9 180 lbs' that would be more than sufficient for being detained.

In this respect you are making a distinction that hzs zero importance in the most germane point.

Look to the bolded for why I made the statement I did. See the comment about facial recognition software, which wouldn't be relevant in this instance. Therefore my comment is very germane.

Quote:As for #2 the reason for detainment is to give LE a limited opportunity, with proper ptobable cause, to hold someone while further investigation occurs. This detention may or may not include interrogation of the suspect.

Your response 2 kind of jumps the shark with the purpose detention, and the corresponding safeguards when compared with a 'stop'.

In many cases the popo arent doing a lookout for a specific person; they are looking for people fitting a description.

With no offense intended, there are specific differences, responsibilities, and safeguards associated with each of a stop, a detention, and arrest.

The press in this case obviously has zero notion of that. And nor do many non-legal people. In many instances those issues can be critical and a actually determinative.

But this isn't really germane to Owl#s comment, which was focused on the specificity of the potential perpetrator who was identified as having committed a crime.

"If they are grabbing vandalism perps that they have identified off security cameras or otherwise, then I have no problem with it. If they are indiscriminately picking up random people, then I do have a problem."

Clearly, this person was not identified off security cameras because they lack sufficient identifiable markings to be identified clearly.

Based on Owl#s' text, he's talking about clearly identifying a person and apprehending them. You're talking about casting a wide net and not looking for a specific person.

Precisely. You are overlooking (and #s did not note) the more general and still equally lawful and proper rationale for a detention.

Kudos to your negation of #s theory. Still doesnt negate a very possible rationale here.

An 'identification' for purposes of a detention need not be solely by explicit facial id as it must for an arrest. The rationale for a stop is even more lax than that for a detention --- mainly due to fact that if it is a stop one can simply ignore or walk away from the police with zero repercussion or use of force.

One problem with this entire discussion (and the reporting on it in general) is the lack of insight, rationale, and very obvious allowances and limits associated with each of a syop, a detention, and arrest. Not faulting you for that lack, there really is no reason for you to know that.

But the basics are all within this thread. They dont jive with the media notation, but the media is utter crap in their ability in this regard. Just saying.

I think Lad is putting too much emphasis on my facial recognition comment. That's obviously just one way of identifying perps.

My point is more that these appear to be focused apprehensions. I the videos I've seen, there are obviously several people (including somebody to make the video) standing around, and the officers go directly to one of them and apprehend him or her. They pretty obviously know whom they want. That's not willy-nilly, it's focused. How they picked that person out, I do not know. Facial recognition might be one way, or there might be others.