Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Rand Paul, Ted Cruz weigh in on Ferguson
Author Message
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,843
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3211
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #41
RE: Rand Paul, Ted Cruz weigh in on Ferguson
(08-16-2014 11:14 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  I like his drug stance. On Civil rights, he stated he would have voted against it.

But not because he is opposed to the objective of equal opportunity, which is what you are trying incorrectly to equate it to, but rather because he believes that there are other better ways to attain it.
08-16-2014 11:17 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fitbud Offline
Banned

Posts: 30,983
Joined: Dec 2011
I Root For: PAC 12
Location:
Post: #42
Re: RE: Rand Paul, Ted Cruz weigh in on Ferguson
(08-16-2014 11:17 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(08-16-2014 11:14 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  I like his drug stance. On Civil rights, he stated he would have voted against it.

But not because he is opposed to the objective of equal opportunity, which is what you are trying incorrectly to equate it to, but rather because he believes that there are other better ways to attain it.

Voting against something because you disagree with a small portion of it is a cop out. It's the excuse politians frequently use when they oppose something.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App
08-16-2014 11:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,843
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3211
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #43
RE: Rand Paul, Ted Cruz weigh in on Ferguson
(08-16-2014 11:55 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  
(08-16-2014 11:17 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(08-16-2014 11:14 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  I like his drug stance. On Civil rights, he stated he would have voted against it.
But not because he is opposed to the objective of equal opportunity, which is what you are trying incorrectly to equate it to, but rather because he believes that there are other better ways to attain it.
Voting against something because you disagree with a small portion of it is a cop out. It's the excuse politians frequently use when they oppose something.

Depends on how significant you deem the part you disagree with to be.
08-16-2014 11:59 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fitbud Offline
Banned

Posts: 30,983
Joined: Dec 2011
I Root For: PAC 12
Location:
Post: #44
Re: RE: Rand Paul, Ted Cruz weigh in on Ferguson
(08-16-2014 11:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(08-16-2014 11:55 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  
(08-16-2014 11:17 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(08-16-2014 11:14 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  I like his drug stance. On Civil rights, he stated he would have voted against it.
But not because he is opposed to the objective of equal opportunity, which is what you are trying incorrectly to equate it to, but rather because he believes that there are other better ways to attain it.
Voting against something because you disagree with a small portion of it is a cop out. It's the excuse politians frequently use when they oppose something.

Depends on how significant you deem the part you disagree with to be.

Bingo

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App
08-16-2014 12:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fo Shizzle Offline
Pragmatic Classical Liberal
*

Posts: 42,023
Joined: Dec 2006
Reputation: 1206
I Root For: ECU PIRATES
Location: North Carolina

Balance of Power Contest
Post: #45
RE: Rand Paul, Ted Cruz weigh in on Ferguson
(08-16-2014 12:08 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  
(08-16-2014 11:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(08-16-2014 11:55 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  
(08-16-2014 11:17 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(08-16-2014 11:14 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  I like his drug stance. On Civil rights, he stated he would have voted against it.
But not because he is opposed to the objective of equal opportunity, which is what you are trying incorrectly to equate it to, but rather because he believes that there are other better ways to attain it.
Voting against something because you disagree with a small portion of it is a cop out. It's the excuse politians frequently use when they oppose something.

Depends on how significant you deem the part you disagree with to be.

Bingo

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

It is absurd to submit that Rand does not fully support civil rights.
08-16-2014 01:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,843
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3211
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #46
RE: Rand Paul, Ted Cruz weigh in on Ferguson
(08-16-2014 01:54 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  
(08-16-2014 12:08 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  
(08-16-2014 11:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(08-16-2014 11:55 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  
(08-16-2014 11:17 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  But not because he is opposed to the objective of equal opportunity, which is what you are trying incorrectly to equate it to, but rather because he believes that there are other better ways to attain it.
Voting against something because you disagree with a small portion of it is a cop out. It's the excuse politians frequently use when they oppose something.

Depends on how significant you deem the part you disagree with to be.

Bingo

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

It is absurd to submit that Rand does not fully support civil rights.

Rand would probably in fact do more to advance the cause of civil rights than anyone else potentially in the 2016 field. Because he would do things like modify the drug laws that would actually have substantive impact, instead of just things that feel good.
08-16-2014 02:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JMUDunk Offline
Rootin' fer Dukes, bud
*

Posts: 29,650
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 1731
I Root For: Freedom
Location: Shmocation
Post: #47
RE: Rand Paul, Ted Cruz weigh in on Ferguson
(08-15-2014 07:30 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  
(08-15-2014 04:44 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  
(08-15-2014 03:50 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  By no means am I defending the rioters, and I don't think that Rand Paul is as well. The rioters should be punished, as appropriate. My problem with the situation is the militarization of the police and the force they used. I simply don't want to live in a police state, and I find this as a form of corruption and tyranny brought to our streets by Obama. When I did my oath to join the Navy, I agreed to defend our nation from foreign and domestic enemies. By the day I'm thinking more and more that the Department of Homeland Security and these police forces are becoming domestic enemies. Our country's cities been squashing riots for decades now and didn't need quasi-army divisions to end them. We shouldn't have to use this kind of force today.

I get your point 100% and tend to agree. I think we can go way over board in allowing "civilian" law enforcement to take over freebie military equipment. None, or very little of that stuff is designed to be used in some town of 21,000 people with a couple dozen looters stealing nikes and hohos.

BUT, it's a double edged sword. I also remember the absolute schitstorm that LA police Chief Gates (I was doing some work for them at the time, so paid attention) caught when he didn't respond with either overwhelming or adequate force in the aftermath of the Rodney King verdict. That went on for days, cost in the billions and a lot of people were casualties that could have perhaps been prevented. He caught holy hell over being ill-prepared, some if it probably legitimately.

Soooo, lesson learned correct? A short couple of years later we have the pending verdict in the OJ trial. Emotions are high and tensions are running as well. Gates sets about a plan to avoid a repeat of 92 (?) if the verdict is the expected "Guilty". mobilizes or announces plans to mobilize huge numbers of Cops, a military-style "containment" plan or however you'd phrase that and various contingencies for Fire, Rescue, whatever else.

He's widely, roundly, and loudly called a racist.

Why? Because he wants to avoid a repeat of the rioting and looting and burning of LA, yet again, that they hadn't even recovered from. Now people want to question why he would assume all these Black family types would cause trouble.

It's a no-win. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. What if this schit the other night had spun terribly, terribly out of control? And it was the local cops from a town of 21k trying to handle it all? Then you have the opposite problem.

so, yea, I guess "balance" is the key. Now who, without divine intervention, knows what the helll that balance may be? No one.

Admittedly, I was far too young to know what kind of response Gates had planned. Was he planning on using military vehicles, police dressed in fatigues armed with automatic rifles? Not being a wise ass, just asking. I can't see how this sh*t from the other night was spun out of control, barring the images taken were actually US troops set for battle on foreign soil. The only thing I really question is if the cops had their badges in the open or not. I'd much rather prefer a governor of a given state to call in the National Guard, if sh*t got out of control. Using those means, people like myself wouldn't be questioning what the police are really up to. Just going down the slippery slope, one must ask if citizens will be detained in camps when sh*t would hit the fan? Now I'm not trying to sound like an Alex Jones on this issue either.

There needs to be better communication between police and the communities that they serve. I can't totally pin the lack of communication on just the police either when considering that people in the hood have a no snitch policy until crime effects one of their family members. Then on the flip side, cops need to get to know the citizens they protect and serve better. Knowing that Johnny is a crackhead and Jimmy is a heroin dealer is not knowing the citizens. Rather than sitting in an alley watching kids play basketball, play a game or two with the teens. These towns themselves should have a flag football tourney, basketball, or hell even a soccer tourney. Fact of the matter is, to prevent situations, like a Ferguson or wherever, there needs to be trust between the communities and police, and the police and the communities. A lot of these cops are simply men that are working a job... and simply, we need more than people that just wants to collect a paycheck and go home.

I couldn't tell you exactly what the plans were either, just that it was to be a much larger "presence" than RK, and using whatever stuff they had back then. And I agree, this psuedo-"domestic army" OR as zerO himself pushed for a "civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as our Military is a frightening thought. For anyone I would think, or hope.

When I said spun out of control, to address the second bolded area above, I meant what would have happened if the situation in Ferfguson had spun out of control, BIG TIME, the night of all the looting and burning of stuff? If that had gone waaay off the tracks and there was no adequate police presence at that time to quell things, Ala Rodney King in 92. That spunout of control, not "spin room" spun out of control...03-lmfao Spin room on the brain, much? haha

For the remainder, I mostly agree with you. Community policing is always the best way of gong about things, ahem, winning hearts and minds. But, it seems to becoming harder and harder as we see the further balkanization of our society(ies).

IMO we've never been further apart. Never would have guessed that years ago, but too many only seeking their own self interests in all areas of this joint. Divide and conquer, no one wants to work together any more. 04-cheers
(This post was last modified: 08-16-2014 03:21 PM by JMUDunk.)
08-16-2014 03:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fitbud Offline
Banned

Posts: 30,983
Joined: Dec 2011
I Root For: PAC 12
Location:
Post: #48
Re: RE: Rand Paul, Ted Cruz weigh in on Ferguson
(08-16-2014 02:54 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(08-16-2014 01:54 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  
(08-16-2014 12:08 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  
(08-16-2014 11:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(08-16-2014 11:55 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Voting against something because you disagree with a small portion of it is a cop out. It's the excuse politians frequently use when they oppose something.

Depends on how significant you deem the part you disagree with to be.

Bingo

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

It is absurd to submit that Rand does not fully support civil rights.

Rand would probably in fact do more to advance the cause of civil rights than anyone else potentially in the 2016 field. Because he would do things like modify the drug laws that would actually have substantive impact, instead of just things that feel good.

Now that is a fair argument.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App
08-16-2014 03:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fo Shizzle Offline
Pragmatic Classical Liberal
*

Posts: 42,023
Joined: Dec 2006
Reputation: 1206
I Root For: ECU PIRATES
Location: North Carolina

Balance of Power Contest
Post: #49
RE: Rand Paul, Ted Cruz weigh in on Ferguson
(08-16-2014 03:23 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  
(08-16-2014 02:54 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(08-16-2014 01:54 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  
(08-16-2014 12:08 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  
(08-16-2014 11:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Depends on how significant you deem the part you disagree with to be.

Bingo

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

It is absurd to submit that Rand does not fully support civil rights.


Rand would probably in fact do more to advance the cause of civil rights than anyone else potentially in the 2016 field. Because he would do things like modify the drug laws that would actually have substantive impact, instead of just things that feel good.

Now that is a fair argument.

Rand has walked a more conservative line than his father. Let's not think though that the apple has fallen that far away from the tree. I believe a lot of it is simply a careful strategy. He saw how his father was demonized by the core of the GOP during his runs for POTUS. He is doing everything he can not to give them that angle on him. I believe Rand is much more Libertarian than he lets on. THIS is why Okie hates and fears him.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App
08-16-2014 03:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.