I got blessed a lot today.

Crazy fucker. *quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by gwiz665.

This is a great example of the short sighted madness of American libertarianism. Denying important social services in order to save money in the short term will always end up costing exponentially more in the long.

^... did you watch the clip? How is that libertarianism? Because she wants to save money?

^Shhhh. Just nod your head at DFT and he'll soon give up and leave without inciting his statist violence to change our minds.

This policy actually makes a certain amount of sense, especially if also applied to car chases. Hot pursuit creates situations which have significant collateral damage risks, and are likely no more effective than safer options.

I would like to see some real numbers on crime and related damage/injury for jurisdictions which make officers depend on slow pursuit and blockade. I'm not convinced that they would be less successful doing that as opposed to getting all adrenaline rageed and getting themselves and others hurt.

>> ^gwiz665:
^... did you watch the clip? How is that libertarianism? Because she wants to save money?


She is cutting a social service to save money, seemingly ignorant of long term ramifications.

*dupeof=http://www.videosift.com/video/South-Carolina-Mayor-Forbids-Police-Foot-Chases

This video has been declared a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof declared by dystopianfuturetoday.

This reminds me of the argument over police brutality. I say we need more oversight and accountability to prevent it, blankfist says "we need less, not more" and won't elaborate on that. Good times.

This is less, not more! They should have put that limit on government power from the beginning: "no running!" Why, it would've meant nobody could catch runaway slaves, and we would've never had to have the civil war.

I mean sure, there would've been more crime, but it's a small price to pay for liberty...

Why isn't this libertarian? You seem to be saying that the fascist police departments should have the power to raise taxes just so they can chase people. That makes you violent, evil statists!

Saving money in itself is not libertarian, making a law that prevents the police from doing their jobs is not libertarian. Not looking at the long term ramifications is not libertarian either. This is just an idiot mayor with a foolish decree - not statist, not libertarian, republican or democrat - just stupid.

I agree that we need more oversight and accountability concerning police brutality too, I'm not an ideological libertarian in that sense.

Netrunner, don't troll. It's not nice and it doesn't suit you.

I bet a lot of officers get hurt arresting people, not to mention the cost of holding those people in jails.

Those sound like avoidable costs to me. =)

Long term ramifications oh no! Like ever outcome doesn't have some possible negative consequence.
I think she wants the officers to be more selective and flexible about who they risk their safety for.

If it's a psychotic killer of course there'll be a chase. But if her officers are being hospitalized after chasing down a teenage pothead..

Simple solution. Net guns and bolas.

>> ^gwiz665:
Netrunner, don't troll. It's not nice and it doesn't suit you.

Very cute.

You gave quite the response to my "trolling." Apparently I was making a point, and turning people's own demagogic rhetoric against them, not "trolling".

You even ultimately agreed with my point -- boiling down all arguments about government policy into an ideological tug of war about the "size" of government is asinine, and that "less government" can be just as monumentally bad as "more government".

Details matter. That's always been my position. I'm not for "big government", I'm for good government. I don't want government spying on me and torturing people. I do want government to try to clean up the mess that is the American health care system. I don't care about government run vs. private so much as I care about making it work for people in general.

I've been called lots of names for that position, even by people who should know better. I don't let it phase me, but I will gladly toss it back in the faces of the people who do it whenever I have the opportunity.

This was a good one. Troll.

>> ^NetRunner:
This reminds me of the argument over police brutality. I say we need more oversight and accountability to prevent it, blankfist says "we need less, not more" and won't elaborate on that. Good times.


You're trolling, good sir. Your lies have no place on here. I think I've explained myself quite effectively how asking the same system to create a system of oversight is a bad idea. Troll somewhere else, please.

Then, how do we catch the criminals then Mayor?

>> ^blankfist:
You're trolling, good sir. Your lies have no place on here. I think I've explained myself quite effectively how asking the same system to create a system of oversight is a bad idea. Troll somewhere else, please.


I'm trying to stay good-natured here, but calling someone a liar sounds a bit more like trolling than what I said.

It seems I accurately represented your position -- you're against oversight, and don't say what you'd do to address the issue.

In this case, we have more limits on government (no running), to cut back on government spending. All we need now is a local government type promising to use the savings to cut taxes, and we've got what sounds to be like the ultimate in a small-government legislative package.

It seems to me that objections to this as being stupid means taking a position counter to your prevailing ideological tilt -- a call to remove limits on government powers, and approve of the government spending more money, likely leading an increase in taxes. Presumably you would be in favor of that because it means empowering the government in order to achieve a social good (upholding the rule of law).

You put everything I support through a similar chain of logic, and come out the other end calling me violent, a statist, a socialist, a fascist, and just like Hitler.

Calling me a troll for holding up a mirror to that in a tongue in cheek way seems a bit uncalled for.

The beauty of ultra low IQ. Seriously, please go into politics. Please. It's the easiest career in the world.

gwiz, you are a the good>> ^gwiz665:
Saving money in itself is not libertarian, making a law that prevents the police from doing their jobs is not libertarian. Not looking at the long term ramifications is not libertarian either. This is just an idiot mayor with a foolish decree - not statist, not libertarian, republican or democrat - just stupid..


I was talking about American libertarianism, not international libertarianism.

Now, I might be wrong, but does this mean, that criminals can now commite crimes, at will, as long as they run away when the police say 'stop....or I'll get frustrated and stand here to say 'stop' again!'?

Is this major REALLY this retarded? Anyone have any idea which political party she is in? Or to tell citizens of that area to vote her out of office. Doesn't matter if this woman is republican or democrate (or any other party), this person clearly does not understand reality.

I was referring to the last bit of your comment, which seemed to me made only to want to agitate the Ron Paulites. If the only reason for your comment is to make people angry, that makes you a troll. I'm sure bf has used similar rhetoric, but that doesn't make it any less trolling.

"This is less, not more! They should have put that limit on government power from the beginning: "no running!" Why, it would've meant nobody could catch runaway slaves, and we would've never had to have the civil war.

I mean sure, there would've been more crime, but it's a small price to pay for liberty...

Why isn't this libertarian? You seem to be saying that the fascist police departments should have the power to raise taxes just so they can chase people. That makes you violent, evil statists!"

My non-troll-related answer was as much directed at dft, which characterized this as a clearly libertarian mayor, because it apparently was a libertarian act she did - I disagree with that.

I agree with most of what you say below though, apart from calling me a troll. I don't call you a troll for your views, just for that comment. But yeah, sorry if you felt slighted by it.

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^gwiz665:
Netrunner, don't troll. It's not nice and it doesn't suit you.

Very cute.
You gave quite the response to my "trolling." Apparently I was making a point, and turning people's own demagogic rhetoric against them, not "trolling".
You even ultimately agreed with my point -- boiling down all arguments about government policy into an ideological tug of war about the "size" of government is asinine, and that "less government" can be just as monumentally bad as "more government".
Details matter. That's always been my position. I'm not for "big government", I'm for good government. I don't want government spying on me and torturing people. I do want government to try to clean up the mess that is the American health care system. I don't care about government run vs. private so much as I care about making it work for people in general.
I've been called lots of names for that position, even by people who should know better. I don't let it phase me, but I will gladly toss it back in the faces of the people who do it whenever I have the opportunity.
This was a good one. Troll.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
gwiz, you are a the good>> ^gwiz665:
Saving money in itself is not libertarian, making a law that prevents the police from doing their jobs is not libertarian. Not looking at the long term ramifications is not libertarian either. This is just an idiot mayor with a foolish decree - not statist, not libertarian, republican or democrat - just stupid..

I was talking about American libertarianism, not international libertarianism.


I'm having some trouble making sense of that first pre-quote part. Still, I don't think this was an American Libertarianist action as such.. just a stupid one. Saving money is not a political act, it's just saving money... everyone wants to do that, some people are more short-sighted than others, this Mayor clearly is. That doesn't make her a Libertarian.

Heh, International libertarianism is usually called Liberalism, just to fuck with your head completely. I think it's only in the US that liberal means something completely different than what the word actually means (or rather, comes with a whole lot of added meaning).

>> ^chilaxe:
The beauty of ultra low IQ. Seriously, please go into politics. Please. It's the easiest career in the world.


May God bless you.

She's just cutting government waste so she can keep taxes low. That way private businesses can keep more of their money to deal with criminals on their own in the free market.

The American people do not want socialized law enforcement!

;-)

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by oritteropo.

jonny has fixed this video's dead embed code - no Power Points awarded because jonny's points are already fully charged.

*length=2:11

The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 2:11 - length declared by jonny.