@joedirt

I think both I and Mr. Greenwald understand what a corporation is. Let me describe it in another way from you, even though I don't think your description is wrong. Is it a free collection of citizens arranged for a specific end. For instance, the ACLU is a corporation. Are we going to start staying that only certain groups of freely gathered citizens are allowed protection under the law? Are we going to start writing different sections of laws for different factions of people? I can honestly say this is the WORST idea we could have to amend the constitution in this way. This is the same kind of logic that denies voting rights to minorities, and to women, or to Catholics. Specifically limiting certain groups participation is censorship of the worst kind, it is also forbidden by the constitution, see Article I, Section 9.

And @dystopianfuturetoday, if money isn't speech, then isn't there no problem? I mean, no "group" has vocal cords persay, but factions are things we all are a part of. How is a political faction, or a family faction, or a business faction, or a religion faction any different? The ALCU isn't that much different than IBM computers, or the Church of Christ in the way the carry out their actions. They are groups of freely gathered people with common aim to achieve certain goals, and as such, have a right to freely petition the government in the affairs that concern them collectively. I don't see how collective spending is any more of less evil that individual spending. If you aren't free to petition the government as a certain faction because some other faction has successfully lobbied your legal pacification, then far have we fallen from what was supposed to be the thrust of the 10th federalist paper.

Not to say that I don't support some form of campaign finance reform of sorts, but I do not agree with the legal notion of denying people the ability to do with what they own they like; spare it harm someone else, because some other group doesn't like you...it is horrible and reeks of the worst kind of oppression.

Believe me Mr Dirt, I find all those subsidy and bail outs abominable, just as I found those terrorists on 911. But I will not permit anyone to pass a new sort of patriot act against the rich that really is attacking us all in the end. I say this not as a rich man, but one whom exists in poverty.

(crap, misclick on the upvote, sorry dirt )

I've been a strong supporter of the ACLU for a long, long time.
Their completely misguided support of the SCOTUS Citizen United decision is wrong (and I've written to tell them so)--but the ACLU is still a strong force for the ultimate good of the country.

The first video features a white woman in a crowd of white people. She singles out a lone black woman and then proceeds to bully and berate her. She makes it clear that these attacks are done in the name of her country and the white race, which is a cruel way to insinuate that she has the approval of the rest of her countrymen and fellow white people on that tram.

>>> That's a pretty bold assumption on your part. You believe she thought the orwellian serfs would back her up somehow? She is surrounded by Black people on that train--including one that could choke her or cut her throat from behind--and for good measure, there's a woman wearing a burqa in the background. It is more likely she had some mental disability, putting her kid in danger.

Thankfully someone stepped in and called this woman's bluff, which served to change the tenor of this exchange from a tense game of intimidation to a lone racist babbling nut.

The guy in the second video BEGINS his exchange as a lone racists babbling nut. He is a single black man in a crowd of white people.

He shouts out terrible things that he obviously has no intention or ability to carry out. No one takes him seriously. There is no bullying and no tension. People are laughing at him.

>>> Watch it again. There are other Black people on the train. And the nut's targets are not laughing. At all.

>>> Once again, you're making assumptions of questionable merit. First, you can't tell the level of someone's combat experience merely by sight, and if he's truly crazy he'll be immensely strong. Second, he's holding a glass bottle. He could've just as easily struck the woman to his left, with or without breaking the bottle first.

>>> Trying to summon up stormfront as a scary demon is laughable. Compare their ranks, which I assume aren't close to a few thousand, to the budgets and memberships of the NAACP, ACLU and Southern Poverty Law Center.

You may believe you're "calling me out" and that's fine, you have every right to speak up. Individuals and group behaviors we can debate all day. However, the elephant in the room, with his buttocks spread across both videos, is the fact the French nutball was not condemned--by anyone--for his antics and there were no police looking for him after the fact.

You can be against intolerance or indifferent to it, but not selectively intolerant.












>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Let me break this down.
The first video features a white woman in a crowd of white people. She singles out a lone black woman and then proceeds to bully and berate her. She makes it clear that these attacks are done in the name of her country and the white race, which is a cruel way to insinuate that she has the approval of the rest of her countrymen and fellow white people on that tram. Thankfully someone stepped in and called this woman's bluff, which served to change the tenor of this exchange from a tense game of intimidation to a lone racist babbling nut.
The guy in the second video BEGINS his exchange as a lone racists babbling nut. He is a single black man in a crowd of white people. He shouts out terrible things that he obviously has no intention or ability to carry out. No one takes him seriously. There is no bullying and no tension. People are laughing at him.
Context matters. If I say 'I'm going to kill you' in a dark alley with a gun pointed to your head, it means something very different than if I say it after you accidentally spill coffee on my new shirt.
The above video has been bouncing around the hate cesspools of the internet - like Stormfront - in an attempt to show parity between these two very different events; parity between an empowered bully and a powerless fool.
Now you could have framed this as 'hey look at this crazy drunk racist guy, what an idiot' and you would have had no problems, but that's not how you chose to frame it, and as a result, this post didn't go that well for you. I'd rather not have to call you out like this. It's obviously upsetting to you. But when racial issues that resonate with the Stormfront crowd also resonate with you, you might have problems. Sort yourself out.

@quantumushroom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
not only the canucks, my dear troll.

@luxury_pie

I'm ashamed that the ACLU made up 'hate crime' laws out of thin air; more so that it was Jews (in this case, liberal Jews) behind it. I don't know if they got their cue from more repressive regimes or we gave them the 'bright' idea.

I don't have as much respect for a country that still stops BOOKS at the border (no 1st Amendment). If Canada can't handle unpopular speech, just wait until the muslims start arriving en masse.

Oh, and you lefters are getting slack. Only -2 for these comments? It should be -4, minimum!

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I'm going to argue it in a different way and see if it changes your opinion.

I believe the war is maintained not for our safety, not for other nations safety, not to catch terrorists, not to prevent anything, but to directly funnel money into corporate pockets and in turn the very same people who support the war going on via donations and lobbyists.

Now, these same people are more than willing to cut benefits of teachers, government unions, and also seem to keep bringing up social security/medicare/medicaid. Plus the other myriad of programs they want to cut or eliminate........or PRIVATIZE, which is their word for turning public facilities to private gains that the government still has to pay for but has a company squatting over taking profits off the top of everything.

Now, here's where my other argument comes in. What if the tax rate was high enough on every person in these little "money circle jerks" that they couldn't keep enough of it to make it worthwhile and still bribe/donate to people?

I mean look at the ForaTV top15 video right now where he says in the 50s people making over 200k were taxed at 91 percent, so that would basically mean that making 2 million today would be the cut off for the sub 91 percent rate.

It would mean that people getting bribed and making in excess of a million dollars would need more bribe money to get the same benefit. It would mean people doing the bribing would have less money to bribe with.

I mean let's put it this way:

If you were working a job making 100 grand a year. New tax law comes in and now they want to take 75% of earnings after 100 grand. It would effectively make it so that you earning more money at your job would result in almost no benefit to you, so now money is off the table as an effective bargaining tool to use with you. That leaves other things to take into consideration when the money can't really be factored in anymore, and for politicians the only other things I can imagine as bargaining tools would be giving them houses/cars/etc and offering them jobs after their political career.....where they would be limited by the tax rates on their earnings. It'd make me a lot less willing to be a dirtbag if I could only make 1 million dollars versus the 60 some odd million some of these CEOs are getting without the majority of it being taken in taxes.


>> ^blankfist:

>> ^messenger:
>> ^blankfist:
I'm still not sure why people think taxing income is okay. And I'm speaking about federal income tax, not state and local. I think in times like this when the country is running record deficits, it should cut spending instead of looking elsewhere for more money.

So you understand there's a deficit, and the only way to reduce it is increase income (taxes), and/or reduce spending (cuts). Take a look at where the spending cuts are going to come from, and then decide if you want those cuts to be made. Cronyism, imperialism, war and all those other things we both hate are what the government does for fun. Until a true statesman is elected, they're never going to be cut. So what will get cut instead? Things that actually benefit the people living in the country. I'm not American so I don't know what your federal government provides in that regard, but either you're glad those services exist and are happy to pay for them with your taxes, or you need to include them in the list of things you'd like to have cut.

This is the part I don't understand. Yes, there are services that are useful, but the majority of what they spend their money on are immoral things I disagree with that put our lives in jeopardy over here. Wars and occupation have made us less safe. I don't care that they spend some of the money on things I agree with. They spend the most of it on things I don't.
I voluntarily support the ACLU, but if they started drowning kittens, I'd most likely pull my money from them. This is the ideological discussion we should be having about government right now. They're spending more than we as the people can afford and yet both parties are refusing to cut defense spending.
If we cut a large portion of our defense spending (the portion that puts us in overseas entanglements) we might be able to balance the budget and cut income tax completely. Why aren't we having that discussion instead of being defeatists about what the government will cut? Because people in favor of raising taxes are scared that cutting income tax may lead to less entitlement programs, so they're willing to bomb people over it. That's why.

>> ^messenger:

>> ^blankfist:
I'm still not sure why people think taxing income is okay. And I'm speaking about federal income tax, not state and local. I think in times like this when the country is running record deficits, it should cut spending instead of looking elsewhere for more money.

So you understand there's a deficit, and the only way to reduce it is increase income (taxes), and/or reduce spending (cuts). Take a look at where the spending cuts are going to come from, and then decide if you want those cuts to be made. Cronyism, imperialism, war and all those other things we both hate are what the government does for fun. Until a true statesman is elected, they're never going to be cut. So what will get cut instead? Things that actually benefit the people living in the country. I'm not American so I don't know what your federal government provides in that regard, but either you're glad those services exist and are happy to pay for them with your taxes, or you need to include them in the list of things you'd like to have cut.


This is the part I don't understand. Yes, there are services that are useful, but the majority of what they spend their money on are immoral things I disagree with that put our lives in jeopardy over here. Wars and occupation have made us less safe. I don't care that they spend some of the money on things I agree with. They spend the most of it on things I don't.

I voluntarily support the ACLU, but if they started drowning kittens, I'd most likely pull my money from them. This is the ideological discussion we should be having about government right now. They're spending more than we as the people can afford and yet both parties are refusing to cut defense spending.

If we cut a large portion of our defense spending (the portion that puts us in overseas entanglements) we might be able to balance the budget and cut income tax completely. Why aren't we having that discussion instead of being defeatists about what the government will cut? Because people in favor of raising taxes are scared that cutting income tax may lead to less entitlement programs, so they're willing to bomb people over it. That's why.

The ACLU is the greatest conservative organization in the United States. Yep, they're conservative for those who know the traditional meaning of conservative.

YES!
I always support the ACLU--except their support of the Citizen's United ruling (I hope they come to their senses about that one soon).

Whenever you see the cops going after someone for photography whip out your cell phone. They can't get all of us.

>> ^marbles:

You’re trying to argue semantics now. Liberty is always going to be liberty;

No, this is what a philosophical argument is like. You take a concept everyone "knows" and thinks they understand, and then you try to test it with thought experiments and logic, to see if you can really come up with a rigorous definition for it.

The result is that people usually find out that the concept they were absolutely positively certain they understood is actually a lot more fuzzy and ill-defined than they originally thought.

Well, at least if they're open minded enough to actually set aside preconceptions and conceits, and try to apply some critical thinking to the topic...

>> ^marbles:
And like I previously mentioned, modern “conceptions” of liberty only serve to advance a statist agenda. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

Just FYI, "freedom is slavery" is exactly what this video is saying. "Property is freedom" translates to "Absolute authority over other people when they're on my property...is freedom".

As for ignorance is strength, you seem pretty ignorant of the philosophy of the left, and you seem to think this gives you some sort of strength. I guess it keeps your mind uncluttered with ideas you "know" are wrong, even though you don't know what they actually are...

>> ^marbles:
Re: What puts a check on a property owner's actions? And when is it legitimate to check a property owner's actions? Is it a short list (no damage to other people's property, no stealing, and no fraud), or is it a list too long to comprehensively state?
For there to be a crime, there has to be victim. There is a list called statutory laws. Statutes are supposed to be grounded in violations of natural rights.

Why should there have to be a victim? Who decides what natural rights are?

Personally my favorite natural right is the divine right of kings. My second favorite is primae noctis.

For some reason, the ACLU doesn't help me get those recognized in law, the statist fuckers. Always trying to keep me from exercising my freedom.

>> ^marbles:
Re: For example, should there be a legal constraint on racial discrimination?
Are you suggesting you can change the way people think, by making certain thoughts illegal?

I'm not talking about a thought crime, I'm talking about putting a sign in your store window saying "Whites only".

Would a law making that practice illegal be pro- or anti-liberty?

>> ^marbles:
Re: Again, this is an attempt to assert a definition that doesn't apply in the real world. I own my house. I also have a mortgage on it, so the bank has a level of authority over my house. I also have to pay property taxes on it, and follow the local laws. Yet it's still my property.
Which is to say, the definition of the word "property" doesn't include anything about it being property if and only if I'm the only one who gets any say of any kind about what's done with it.
You gave the bank authority over your house as a security on your mortgage. You also entered into an agreement with your city/county concerning taxes/laws and what services you would receive from the city/county. This is a property system that can be rife with fraud and corruption.


Honestly, this seems like a bit of progress. How did I enter into an agreement with the city/county? Is it only the city/county, or is it also the state/nation I entered into agreement with?

If that's how you explain away authority, then who is ever exercising authority? Not the city/county/state/federal government -- they're exercising their rights as property owners and signatories to a contract.

>> ^MarineGunrock:

Awwww..... FUCK that stupid "DING" sound. OMFG.


Agreed. It was *DING!* annoying, *DING!* pointless and *DING!* did I mention fucking annoying.

I like the concept of content producers agreeing to make more stuff in exchange for policy changes though. We could get another season of Firefly if they slash the military budget. Or Pink Floyd could reform if they repeal the patriot act. Or Simon Cowell could come back to American Idol if they get rid of the TSA... actually, fuck that. I'd rather be groped by a sweaty man at an airport than have more of that shit on tv.

It's even annoying some conservative republicans enough to join ACLU into suing the state.

Thanks for quoting me correctly. I appreciate it.

I'm not sure of your point, though. Illinois and Massachusetts, two states out of 50, have weird laws. The citizens of those states should protest to their legislators. ACLU should be called in and see if these laws are constitutional.

What do you want me to think?

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Remember, you said
>> ^bareboards2:
Love the cameras. Cameras and the internet are weaving a web of protection around each citizen.
Too cool, baby!

And before you said
>> ^bareboards2:
[edit] Allowing for hyperbole and "all" and "yearn" ....
1. Yes
2. Yes.
>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
@bareboards2
1 - Was all that stuff invented & perpetuated out of a sincere need to protect you?
2 - Do you sincerely believe that 95% of police wake up yearning to prevent every citizen, as much as possible, from being robbed or raped or murdered?
Those are simple questions you've refused to address so far.


Just in case you're still havin' trouble letting it all sink in..
>> ^bareboards2:
I said that I am glad that cops have cameras on their cars. Transparency.
I am glad that the internet is spreading the videos far and wide. Public empowerment.
This is how we protect ourselves.
Replay what Anna says at min 2:55 a few times
Hah. Kumquat?

>> ^Psychologic:

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
>> ^Psychologic:
>> ^blankfist:
I hope you have a great lawyer and deep pockets to sue the city or state.

If the free market won't handle it then I'm sure volunteerism will. =)

The free market and volunteerism actually does work. So many sharpshooting lawyers wait for this type of moment, hope for this type of moment that when it happens they orgasm...
So, even if your comment was sarcastic, you are more right than you could have guessed and you support Blankfist's line of reasoning =)

I wasn't being sarcastic, I was just surprised to see Blankfist imply a level of hopelessness in a legal battle against someone/something with greater resources than the victim. He has argued that volunteerism offers a level of protection to the poor that they may not be able to provide themselves.
In a free market society with no government there would still be inevitable civil litigation between entities of greatly differing levels of personal wealth, but I don't think I've ever seen him express such pessimism for the weaker party is such a world.


I think you misunderstand me. There's certainly a level of hopelessness when traversing our legal system. There's a huge disparity between taking care of one another (charity) and paying legal fees for trial lawyers reaching well into $20k to $150k per defendant.

The middle class and the poor are fucked when it comes to the "justice" system, unless you're one of the lucky few to get the ACLU, I4J or some group like that to take your case.

Let me ask you this, since you've obviously got an opinion on it, why is the public court system so expensive? Why is a trial by jury something that can often lead to bankruptcy for the defendant so they typically settle for a plea bargain?

http://videosift.com/video/SWAT-Team-Raids-House-at-6-AM-for-Student-Loan-Debt

Someone else posted this vid and killed it, had the text of the news article, including these declarative sentences:

"The Office of the Inspector General has a law enforcement branch of federal agents that carry out search warrants and investigations.

Stockton Police Department said it was asked by federal agents to provide one officer and one patrol car just for a police presence when carrying out the search warrant.

Stockton police did not participate in breaking Wright's door, handcuffing him, or searching his home."

So it was the feds. And it looks like the title to this vid is incorrect -- SWAT? What SWAT?

Now I AM outraged. What the hell? It's a civil matter, a financial matter. Are banks allowed to break down doors to collect debts? Then the federal government shouldn't be allowed to break down doors.

(And the guy still is entertaining -- and he needs to go to the feds for the apology and the new door, if that is really all he wants. Maybe the ACLU will get involved and help change procedures.)

The MTA Administrator was quick to respond, so at least that's a start. Also, the ACLU is losing patience, so the next time this happens, there will be a lawsuit. That's how things really change, when you hit them in the budget.

All in all, as much as I was pissed at the behavior of these officers, I think things are moving in the right direction.

Of course, I could be wrong. If a case like this gets to the supreme court, those fucktards could start taking away more rights. But I'm hopeful that won't happen.