The US and Canada are very different. In contrast, every European country has a problem among their Muslim immigrant population with high-crime and low academic scores.

Witness, for example, the famously high rate of Muslim car-burnings across France, same as the recent violence in Sweden.


The best way to create a liberal utopia is to prevent liberals from importing millions of high-crime, low-academic-score foreigners who will be a problem for hundreds of years to come. Witness, for example, the US' intractable problems with its own sub-populations, who don't improve academically in later generations.

In contrast, importing impoverished East Asians increases the nation's average IQ, and lowers the average crime rate. That just goes to show that immigration decisions should be data-based, instead of trying to hide the downsides of our past decisions.


Thanks for the conversation

Whatever stats they have for Norwegians reforming after a stint in prison are temporary.

Scandinavia's gang-rape and street crime rates have already skyrocketed.

It's only a matter of time before they realize the people they've been importing who have low academic scores and high crime rates have a different ideology and much worse prison reform stats.

per legalzoom:
A stop is justified if the suspect is exhibiting any combination of the following behaviors:

1. Appears not to fit the time or place.
2. Matches the description on a "Wanted" flyer.
3. Acts strangely, or is emotional, angry, fearful, or intoxicated.
4. Loitering, or looking for something.
5. Running away or engaging in furtive movements.
6. Present in a crime scene area.
7. Present in a high-crime area (not sufficient by itself or with loitering).

I would assume #3 would be the legal justification in this case. Someone calls and says that a suspicious looking man with a gun is walking down the street and when the officer approaches him he is acting defensive and is obviously emotional as you can hear in the video, the officer has reasonable suspicion at that point for a stop. The guy saying "I don't consent to search" does not protect him from being frisked if the cop has reasonable suspicion for a stop. It also does not stop the officer from holding onto his weapon while they are conversing.

That is how a Democrat would view it. As an independent I see culpability with both major political parties. Democrats are to blame for high crime rates in these economically depressed areas, because they are the engineers and enablers of the system which keeps poor people poor and robs them of ambition. Without an economically disadvantaged and undereducated class of voters, Democrats would have a much lower voter base.

Most of the crime committed is not done for survival. Most crime is a result of a gang culture. Gang cultures are the result of lack of education, disparity in the justice system, hopelessness, collapse of family units (which results in the need of place to belong), lack of employment prospects, etc. Both parties are at fault for not properly addressing the underlying causes of crime.

Republicans have the right idea in trying to limit social welfare programs. The problem is that they are looking at it from the standpoint of dealing with those who are collecting benefits. The problem needs to be addressed in altering the mindset and futures of the youth with a result to be seen in a generation and not a presidential term. It has taken generations of Democrat sponsored social philanthropy through a massive benefits sytem to get us to this point. It will take at least a generation to begin to get out of it.

You'd be shocked to find how many places have railroad tracks buried beneath them or in their parking lots.

They are a PITA to remove, so people just build right over them and you'll never guess they were there until you hit one and find out it's going to cost you a lot more to do the work because they are such a pain to remove.

And if you decide you want to hook up to the railroad system, they charge you an outrageous amount to come and repair/certify the tracks you want to start using.


I am not sure if they have restrictions on removing them and that's why people just bury them or if it's because it's just easy to bury them than try to remove and take them to be melted/landfilled/whatever.



But yes it's depressing to see railroad tracks all over the place like that and in disrepair. Just like it bugs me to see old and architecturally interesting or unique buildings left to rot or sitting empty because the whole neighborhood around it slowly turned into a ghost town or shit hole high crime spot. While the building that's no more than a tin shed is being used and sitting right next to it making the older building look even more out of time.

Let's see...

A bunch of students were invited to a seminar that described as being about "bullying". They are instead exposed to anti-religious bigotry and sexual innuendo. Rather than sit and listen to insults directed at their belief system, they decided to leave. As they leave, the speaker taunts them further and uses profanities. Oh - yeah - that's not bullying. :eyeroll: This guy is a class-A hypocrite and a jack@$$.

Let's change the parameters slightly. A bunch of journalism students are invited to a speech about Community Service, and the speaker is an Iraq War veteran who starts calling the Koran a bunch of bullcrap, and talking about how much he likes to dress up his lover in a burqa (wink wink). 100 or so Muslim students are offended and get up to leave, and the guy calls the audience's attention to them and starts calling them a bunch of pansy-@$$ cowards. Ha ha ha. Still "not bullying"?

I feel sorry for the kids, but frankly I hope this slimeball keeps doing stuff like this. It proves to everyone (except for the radical, leftist fringe lunatic crowd) just what a sleaze he is. He's a bigot just as bad as the bigots he claims to condemn. He isn't against bigotry and hate. He's just against any bigotry and hate of which he hasn't personally approved. That makes him a demagogue, and his audience is simply other bigots... Bigots like this...

"Can we just hurry up and make it a high crime to be religious already?"

Classic anti-religious hate and bigotry on parade. Savage of course is constantly going around fomenting such sad, unfortunate, hate-filled suckers. Amazing that these same zealots can mourn the difficulty of achieving a 'peaceful society', and yet fail to see that the primary reason for all this violence is staring at them every time they look in the mirror.

Stupid bitch at 1:24 with a cross between her mammaries walking out crying because the basis for her entire life was being threatened.

Can we just hurry up and make it a high crime to be religious already? Fuck those closed-minded elitist assholes.

I met this guy not long ago who calls himself "Preacha Paul"--look him up on Youtube. He told me he found God while in prison and he needed his salvation. He said he didn't used to believe in god but in the same sentence says he used to "hate god," which means he did believe there was a god, he just didn't like him, maybe because he hated himself. Oh, did I mention he's a registered sex offender? Yeah, this slightly overweight white guy raps about the bible and bullshit like gays are going to hell because they're sinners, etc. Come on, really? You're one to talk. You're a fucking criminal, and you think god hates "his children" simply because of who they choose to be with? Go to hell--if there is one.

>> ^chilaxe:

>> ^Porksandwich:
@chilaxe
Not much I can argue there. You are there and I am not. But no major problems as the US is facing all across the nation is as simple as one problem or solution. So I find it hard to believe that California's only issue is immigration. And Im not denying that great influxes of people have lots of impact, but it's going to be a problem whether it's immigration or population growth.

Cognitive complexity is the master trait for success in complex societies, so when you substantially reduce the average cognitive ability of a state, you increase all socially undesirable metrics.
This includes poor academic scores, income inequality, poor medical outcomes, poor financial management, high crime, and poor child-rearing practices.
For example, basic things like parents taking their children to the dentist has plummeted here, even though it's free for lower-income people.


Of course, this constant insistence that complex issues be wholly caused by one simple factor hardly illustrates any cognitive complexity on your behalf. Nothing in this world, especially when it comes to social issues, is as simple as you're making this out to be.

>> ^Porksandwich:

@chilaxe
Not much I can argue there. You are there and I am not. But no major problems as the US is facing all across the nation is as simple as one problem or solution. So I find it hard to believe that California's only issue is immigration. And Im not denying that great influxes of people have lots of impact, but it's going to be a problem whether it's immigration or population growth.


Cognitive complexity is the master trait for success in complex societies, so when you substantially reduce the average cognitive ability of a state, you increase all socially undesirable metrics.

This includes poor academic scores, income inequality, poor medical outcomes, poor financial management, high crime, and poor child-rearing practices.

For example, basic things like parents taking their children to the dentist has plummeted here, even though it's free for lower-income people.

@longde

#2a. Yeah, if the good of our society is important, awarding immigration slots based on who will likely contribute most to society seems reasonable. Yes, immigration slots given to Nigerians who will be great contributors to society is good.

#2b. Instead of assigning quotas to particular countries, would you be in favor of doing it as intelligently as possible, using customary scientific practices like anonimizing the data to remove any biases on the part of scientists, so that the slots are given to individuals who will contribute most to society, regardless of their country of origin?



#3. In response to:

a) this is broken down by race, a physical characteristic, not sub-culture,
b) I strongly disagree that income equals productivity.
c)I guess you could count crime as a "cost"; but it's not by a longshot the only one. BTW, those aren't crime rates, those are arrest rates. conviction rates would reflect crime; arrest rates reflect who the cops harrass more.
d) you start with race, and try to create some correlation with some nebulous undefined "culture", whose defining characteristic is that is it tied to race.
e) So, what should I do with this chart? Should I adjust my immigration policy, my hiring, and my school admissions policy? Again, seems to go against this pure meritocracy you're always crowing about.

a) Ethnicity correlates with sub-culture, but you can use whichever word you prefer.
b) Everybody wants more prosperity, even if you don't. They have bills to pay etc. Poverty isn't good, and causes many problems.
c) The US' high crime rates and high prison population (bankrupting states' budgets) are a substantial cost, and are reflective of other social trends (low education rates, etc). Arrest rates correlate with conviction rates.
d) See a).
e) Awarding immigration slots based on how much they'll contribute relative to costs they'll generate seems like a reasonable meritocratic policy. The best solution is awarding slots based on data about that individual, but absent that data, we can scientifically predict greater contributions from Asian Americans than from average Americans.

At $1,870 a pop there is no way in hell they will slack off. Fighting high crime is a lower priority because it does not generate revenue. Walk away from a meter to get some change for even 30 seconds and parking enforcement is Johnny-On-The-Spot.

Come home to a ransacked house and your lucky if the cops show up within an hour.>> ^VoodooV:

Here's the problem though. You know damned well that at some point, they'll slack off on enforcing the law again since mis-using a handicapped spot isn't exactly high crime and we'll go back to square one again.

It's great that they are finally enforcing the law.

At the same time though. I kinda wish they'd just abolish handicapped parking all together.

We hear it all the time, handicapped people are able to do everything non-handicapped people can do. They obviously can get around enough to get into their cars and go everywhere else. mobility technology is improving every day. So why is that distance from the store entrance to the handicapped lots so sacred?

And even if you can convince me that handicapped parking is still necessary. You have to acknowledge that SOME DAY mobility technology is going to advance to the point that special parking spots are no longer necessary. And once you give a perk to someone, it's harder than hell to take it back, necessary or not.

Here's the problem though. You know damned well that at some point, they'll slack off on enforcing the law again since mis-using a handicapped spot isn't exactly high crime and we'll go back to square one again.

Thanks a lot for your comment. Your perspective as a former officer really brings something worthwhile to the discussion, and you stating your position as such really changed how I considered your comments. I'm a bit of an admittedly gullible person, so your assessment of the guy's story changed my perspective of the situation significantly. Your assessment of the officer's actions really shed a lot of light on the subject as well.

I feel that most of the people who try to leave 'cop-hate' comments on the sift try to boast more than they actually understand about proper law enforcement practices. Some of these people are merely 'anti-establishment,' and the mature ones recognize that law enforcement will inevitably exist the way that it does. But others just go nuts about getting upset about these videos, to the point of righteously emotionally masturbating.

Please continue lending your assessment on these kinds of videos, as I think they expand my world a bit. I'm sure there are others on here who feel similarly =).

>> ^RittWitt:

Speaking as a former LEO, not only does the primary officer grossly overreact to the situation (though I would tell you that unless you've been in his shoes, it's not fair to pass judgement), there is a serious officer safety here. Consent issues aside, there is absolutely no reason the secondary officer should have searched that vehicle with the driver still inside.
I don't believe the driver's story for a second. It seems pretty clear that he's in a high-crime area, and is involving himself with a known pimp and prostitute. However, that situation has little to do with the arresting officer's actions. My primary outrage here is that this pair of officers put themselves in a position, either through poor training or complacency, to provoke a potentially lethal situation had the suspect intended it. Then, instead of recognizing that the failure to identify the firearm was on their hands, the officer reacted out of rage (and probably a bit of justified fear at how close he and his partner could have been to a lethal force situation) by lashing out at a largely cooperative suspect.

Well, if this was indeed a high crime area i can somewhat understand the officer for getting worked up.
All the more astonishing that these policemen weren't properly trained to handle such a situation in a professional manner though.

Speaking as a former LEO, not only does the primary officer grossly overreact to the situation (though I would tell you that unless you've been in his shoes, it's not fair to pass judgement), there is a serious officer safety here. Consent issues aside, there is absolutely *no* reason the secondary officer should have searched that vehicle with the driver still inside.

I don't believe the driver's story for a second. It seems pretty clear that he's in a high-crime area, and is involving himself with a known pimp and prostitute. However, that situation has little to do with the arresting officer's actions. My primary outrage here is that this pair of officers put themselves in a position, either through poor training or complacency, to provoke a potentially lethal situation had the suspect intended it. Then, instead of recognizing that the failure to identify the firearm was on their hands, the officer reacted out of rage (and probably a bit of justified fear at how close he and his partner could have been to a lethal force situation) by lashing out at a largely cooperative suspect.