LOL. Great comment. Perfect.

In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
...right because you have to be married to have a kid

>> ^blankfist:
NetRunner had nothing to do with his party's racist founder, so it wouldn't be fair to blame NetRunner, right?
In order to make amends the people directly victimized and the people directly responsible for victimizing them would need to be held accountable. But, they're all dead.


It's true, I had nothing to do with Jefferson's orders to remove many of the Native Americans in the Louisiana Purchase, or his owning slaves, or any of that stuff.

But it doesn't mean that the damage done to Native Americans ended when the people who perpetrated genocide died. It doesn't mean that there isn't an obligation for the culture that descended from the one that perpetrated the wrongdoing has no moral imperative to attempt to make some sort of effort to make restitution to the descendants of the culture that was so savaged.

Maybe if there was never a transfer of wealth or the benefits thereof from parent to child, your idea would make sense. In that scenario, the slate truly would be wiped clean when one generation gives way to the next. That's not how things work, though.

Damage like that tends to stick. It can last for generations, especially if racial discrimination places limits on your opportunities across a long span of time.

btw, here is the 10th amendment

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

And yet more random stuff:

"As of August 2009, 37 states have introduced resolutions in support of "state sovereignty" under the 10th Amendment. In seven states the resolutions passed (Alaska, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Tennessee).
Further, two states (Montana and Tennessee) have passed specific legislation exempting residents from certain federal firearms regulations, while Arizona has a proposed constitutional amendment (to be voted on in 2010) which would nullify a national health care system from operating in the state"

Well, representational democracy also covers constitutional republic. You still have elected officials that represents the people in a democratic process. Constitutional republic is a sub-set of representational democracy. Incidentally, we have a Constitutional Monarchy in Denmark.

Right now I can't see a reasonable alternative to a republic/democracy the way it exists now; It's all just facets of the same thing. Sure I would love to see a lot of cleaning up within it, lord knows that the laws are in need of an overhaul and have been for 200 years.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Most Republicans tend to cite the Constitution more so than Libertarians - a lot of Libertarians argue against social contracts, etc. Though, I do like that document a great deal, which is largely because I have a tedious interest in U.S. History, the French Enlightenment that shaped the U.S. government, and the philosophies behind reason vs. passion in human government.

I don't who you're talking about when you say the solution "we've" used is a representational Democracy, unless you mean Denmark's Parliamentary Democracy. In the U.S. we have a Constitutional Republic. Democracy is 51% taking the rights away from 49%.

You're correct to praise the Framers of this country. I'd say they're a bit more than just smart people, as the ideas of reason based protective governance was quite brilliant. But, they certainly were flawed and human. My personal favorite, Thomas Jefferson, rallied for slavery to be abolished in his younger political years, but by the late 1790s he spoke very little of it, and his plantation life showed him as contradictory to any practical belief of freedom for slaves. This was more because he didn't think it was practical over him not believing in it.

His ideas of emancipation wasn't for the blacks to mingle with the whites. He believed in segregation and thought a lot of it had to do with the natural difference between the races and also because he was sure the black slaves, once freed, would rise up and fight the whites until one race wiped out the other.

I don't think we've ever had a great president. Ever. Washington signed into law the Fugitive Slave Act which made assisting the escape of slaves a Federal crime. John Adams signed into law the Alien and Sedition Act which infringed greatly on freedom of speech. Jefferson, as president, was responsible for the Louisiana Purchase which double the size of government overnight even though he ran on a smaller government ticket that opposed the Federalists. Jackson. Lincoln. Not a one.

Except Taft. He believed the president's powers should only be as much as given to him by the Constitution. Nothing more. He is remembered as lazy and fat, which is unfair.

Most Republicans tend to cite the Constitution more so than Libertarians - a lot of Libertarians argue against social contracts, etc. Though, I do like that document a great deal, which is largely because I have a tedious interest in U.S. History, the French Enlightenment that shaped the U.S. government, and the philosophies behind reason vs. passion in human government.

I don't who you're talking about when you say the solution "we've" used is a representational Democracy, unless you mean Denmark's Parliamentary Democracy. In the U.S. we have a Constitutional Republic. Democracy is 51% taking the rights away from 49%.

You're correct to praise the Framers of this country. I'd say they're a bit more than just smart people, as the ideas of reason based protective governance was quite brilliant. But, they certainly were flawed and human. My personal favorite, Thomas Jefferson, rallied for slavery to be abolished in his younger political years, but by the late 1790s he spoke very little of it, and his plantation life showed him as contradictory to any practical belief of freedom for slaves. This was more because he didn't think it was practical over him not believing in it.

His ideas of emancipation wasn't for the blacks to mingle with the whites. He believed in segregation and thought a lot of it had to do with the natural difference between the races and also because he was sure the black slaves, once freed, would rise up and fight the whites until one race wiped out the other.

I don't think we've ever had a great president. Ever. Washington signed into law the Fugitive Slave Act which made assisting the escape of slaves a Federal crime. John Adams signed into law the Alien and Sedition Act which infringed greatly on freedom of speech. Jefferson, as president, was responsible for the Louisiana Purchase which double the size of government overnight even though he ran on a smaller government ticket that opposed the Federalists. Jackson. Lincoln. Not a one.

Except Taft. He believed the president's powers should only be as much as given to him by the Constitution. Nothing more. He is remembered as lazy and fat, which is unfair.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Oh that I can agree with. The bureaucracy of a government is immense and stupefying. And politicians see themselves as gods among men, who don't really have time for the "rabble" until election time, where babies are kissed and interns are hidden. I would like to see some other form of leadership, but anything over a certain size just can't be organized of individual autonomous parts and the solution we've used so far is representational democracy. I don't like it as such, as people should be able to "reason" any laws a regulations by themselves, but people are vastly different in what they see as "proper", so we make real written laws to be able to "live with our neighbors" and have a common codex to adhere to.

I think there is a distinction to be made between the law and government.

While we're speaking of government/religion, I find it hilarious that most conservative republicans and libertarians too, for that matter, adhere to the constitution as if its a holy text. The founding fathers were not Jesuses, they were only smart people. And we've evolved since then, which is why the constitution also must be able to change and not be the end-all solution.

Winstonfield, the scope of the damage and need WAS known ahead of time. By now everyone knows of the Aug. 28th National Weather Service bulletin with its dramatic wording:

...DEVASTATING DAMAGE EXPECTED...

.HURRICANE KATRINA...A MOST POWERFUL HURRICANE WITH UNPRECEDENTED
STRENGTH...RIVALING THE INTENSITY OF HURRICANE CAMILLE OF 1969.

MOST OF THE AREA WILL BE UNINHABITABLE FOR WEEKS...PERHAPS LONGER. AT
LEAST ONE HALF OF WELL CONSTRUCTED HOMES WILL HAVE ROOF AND WALL
FAILURE. ALL GABLED ROOFS WILL FAIL...LEAVING THOSE HOMES SEVERELY
DAMAGED OR DESTROYED.

THE MAJORITY OF INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS WILL BECOME NON FUNCTIONAL.
PARTIAL TO COMPLETE WALL AND ROOF FAILURE IS EXPECTED. ALL WOOD
FRAMED LOW RISING APARTMENT BUILDINGS WILL BE DESTROYED. CONCRETE
BLOCK LOW RISE APARTMENTS WILL SUSTAIN MAJOR DAMAGE...INCLUDING SOME
WALL AND ROOF FAILURE.

HIGH RISE OFFICE AND APARTMENT BUILDINGS WILL SWAY DANGEROUSLY...A
FEW TO THE POINT OF TOTAL COLLAPSE. ALL WINDOWS WILL BLOW OUT.

Furthermore, Bush's emergency declaration did not include any of Louisiana's coastal parishes. The freaking coastal parishes. Jeez, you'd think they want to include those when a freaking hurricane strikes. FEMA chief Michael Brown ("Brownie") lied in his testimony to Congress when he said that Governor Blanco never included those parishes in her request for aid, when she had in fact requested aid for "all the southeastern parishes including the New Orleans Metropolitan area and the mid state Interstate I-49 corridor and northern parishes along the I-20 corridor that are accepting [evacuated citizens]." She made the request on Aug. 27th, two days before Katrina hit.

You yourself state that "No other FEMA effort in a long time needed even a tenth of what New Orleans needed." In other words, Katrina was a crisis of epic proportions. Yet you also claim that disaster relief is primarily a state and local function. So if Katrina was a monster even for the Feds, then how do you expect state and local resources to be able to respond to this epic disaster? That is why we have the federal response, because local resources are easily overwhelmed in crises such as these. And that's how FEMA under Bush failed, because of the shitty response by a shitty boss appointed by a shitty President.

Yes, there is blame to go around, but because of the magnitude of the event it was primarily the Feds' job to take care of things, and they didn't. You don't get to rewrite history like Michael Brown tried to do in order to protect the legacy of your neocon quack of a President.

OK. I did "learn more". Patients United Now was launched by a conservative group called American for Prosperity.

From wiki:
In 2003, an internal rift between Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE) and its affiliated Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation led to a split in which the latter organization was renamed as a separate organization, called Americans for Prosperity.

Its foundation's chair and founder is David Koch of Koch Industries, which runs oil refining and pipeline companies. Another Americans for Prosperity Foundation board member is Richard Fink, a Koch executive who serves as a director of the refining subsidiary. Fink helps control AFP's purse strings. He is president of the Koch-affiliated Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation, which gave AFP's foundation $2.2 million from 2005-06, according to the Foundation Center.

On February 27, 2009, in collaboration with others, the organization sponsored a Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas and Washington, D.C. Tea party protest.

AFP aims to promote a sound economic policy that supports business and regulatory restraint by government, according to its literature. This organization leans conservative. AFP opposed the $787 billion stimulus package for economic recovery.

The organization has chapters in 22 of the 50 states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

Americans for Prosperity is led by Tim Phillips, who was a former partner with Ralph Reed's Century Strategies. That organization became well-known when it was revealed in a Senate investigation that convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff was laundering money through Century Strategies and Americans for Tax Reform to oppose legislation that his Indian tribe clients wanted to defeat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_for_Prosperity#Patients_United_Now

HEAVY emphasis on the LIES channel!

The article says:

"Her arrest came two days after her political adviser in Louisiana, Brian Welsh, said his parked 1996 Audi may have been blown up by someone on July 23 outside his apartment in an upscale downtown area of New Orleans."

http://www.abc26.com/news/politics/wgno-news-stormy072909-story,0,1185717.story

These two are the ones behind the workout video I was in - Reshape the Nation. It was filmed in their house. Cool stuff. Look for me as Louisiana in MG's hideous PT shorts.

Your video, Louisiana Police Choke Man to Death for Drugs in His Mouth, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

>> ^gorillaman:
What the video absolutely does not show is the cop trying to protect the man's health or help him in any way. He wanted the evidence. Those of you deliberately misinterpreting blah blah blah....


If all he wanted was the evidence, he would have let him swallow it and retrieved it later. Your interpretation of what this video shows makes no sense. Who would you want tortured and killed if this guy killed someone you cared about on the road?

Tags for this video have been changed from 'louisiana, police state, choke, death, drugs, deputy, sheriff, adam stogner' to 'louisiana, police state, choke, death, drugs, deputy, sheriff, adam stogner, murder' - edited by kulpims

>> ^Creature
"Stogner died from severe coronary artery disease, an enlarged heart, and a fracture of the hyoid bone in his neck"
As I said before, if you're so angry as to wish death as a punishment for disobedience and a victemless crime go get counseling. Its unhealthy, and quite frankly disturbing.

>> ^Mikus_Aurelius: That's a little overboard. I haven't heard anyone wishing death on anyone. I'm not a doctor, but I imagine that small fractures are a frequent consequence of resisting arrest. This guy just happens to be the unlucky dude whose condition and the exact nature of his injuries lead to his death.


read what creature wrote, again - it's in bold, hard to miss. the cop broke this guy's neck. now that's what I'd call overboard, no matter what.
so much inconsiderate bs, I just had to upvote and join the legion of douche, who think "resisting arrest" is a legitimate excuse to kill people

>> ^TheSofaKing:
Should have let this scrote swallow the drugs and die of an O.D. What an asshole this cop is for trying to A) stop him from swallowing the narcotics and thus putting his life at risk, and B) trying to subdue a criminal resisting a lawful arrest, so that oh I don't know.. he could get him medical attention for the unknown quantity of narcotics he just ingested?
What's next? You gonna blame the cop for all the hoagies and pork chops this guy ate that caused the "severe coronary artery disease" he had? This shitbag has nobody to blame but himself for the way his life ended.


This comes back to the age old "Nanny-State" debate. If the guy wants to swallow drugs and kill himself so be it. Why should anyone interfere with that?

I agree the cop should TRY to stop it, but if after 30 seconds the guy is still refusing not to swallow then just let him do it otherwise you risk hurting him just as much if not more so than whatever drugs.

The police take a dangerous route here assuming that this guy didn't have the drugs in a balloon or some sort of baggie that would allow them to pass through his system safely.

Also they broke bone in his neck doing this, that is just ridiculous.

^ This was fact

This is opinion: This more or less boils down to them wanting the ability to have evidence to prosecute against him, not saving this guys life.