Author Topic: P/R side chat thread, v. I am not a number I am a free man  (Read 95702 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20419
  • Bad Craziness
Re: P/R side chat thread, v. I am not a number I am a free man
« Reply #1575 on: March 09, 2018, 01:56:40 PM »
That's the pharma-bro douche-waffle?
What, don't you recognize him?
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Online jingle.boy

  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 23842
  • Gender: Male
  • The changing of the worrd is inevitabre!!!
Re: P/R side chat thread, v. I am not a number I am a free man
« Reply #1576 on: March 09, 2018, 02:14:59 PM »
Haven't been paying attention to the case, and it's not getting hardly any media coverage up here.
Can you imagine some alien race comes to a large nebula they've never seen before, and it just turns out it's the Federation's dumping ground for space-smile?
And TAC can suck it  :biggrin:, this is heavy in all the right places.  :tup

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20419
  • Bad Craziness
Re: P/R side chat thread, v. I am not a number I am a free man
« Reply #1577 on: March 09, 2018, 02:25:02 PM »
Hell, I didn't even know the case was happening, much less that he'd been convicted. I just remember a guy who goes out of his way to be America's biggest asshole. This dude really got off on making everybody angry. That's what makes this so gratifying.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 409
  • Gender: Female
Re: P/R side chat thread, v. I am not a number I am a free man
« Reply #1578 on: March 09, 2018, 02:54:34 PM »
That's the pharma-bro douche-waffle?
What, don't you recognize him?


Today mothers everywhere be like, "Happy Belated International Women's Day!"   :metal

Seriously, this guy is as ugly on the inside as he is on the outside. 

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 19989
  • Gender: Male
Re: P/R side chat thread, v. I am not a number I am a free man
« Reply #1579 on: March 12, 2018, 12:30:13 PM »
That's the pharma-bro douche-waffle?
What, don't you recognize him?


Today mothers everywhere be like, "Happy Belated International Women's Day!"   :metal

Seriously, this guy is as ugly on the inside as he is on the outside.

He sometimes reminds me of this guy from Brooklyn 99, but he's nowhere near as funny or likable. 


Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12588
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: P/R side chat thread, v. I am not a number I am a free man
« Reply #1580 on: March 13, 2018, 08:39:12 AM »
???  He doesn't look anything like Andy Samberg.  ???

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20419
  • Bad Craziness
Re: P/R side chat thread, v. I am not a number I am a free man
« Reply #1581 on: April 04, 2018, 10:46:27 AM »
I snipped this from the Trump thread because it's off topic, but philosophically it is something that's been very much on my mind of late.

Thanks for that, Stadler.  I see now that I've been equating infractions and misdemeanors.  Learn something new every day.

So it must be that illegal immigrants aren't afforded the same legal rights after arrest as citizens because if illegal entry is a misdemeanor, it doesn't seem to be unusual to be kept in detention centers for over a year.
Well, they should be.  There are certain rights that are afforded only to citizens - right to vote springs to mind - but generally the protections of the Constitution DO extend to illegal immigrants.  Whether they are enforced - as el Barto is pointing out - is another matter altogether.
Nominally the protections of the Constitution apply to illegal immigrants. However, if the current evolution of law offers up exceptions, makes it impossible to know if, when and how they're being applied, and removes any recourse for the person affected, do they really apply?

The reason I've been thinking about this is because of how it relates to police shootings. At a statutory level the police can't just shoot anybody they want for any reason they want. It's a crime and we put them on trial. Yet if the law has (d)evolved to a point that the burden of proof makes an acquittal a near certainty, is it actually illegal? I've argued with my brother about this, as he'll say with complete certainty that it's legal for the police to execute citizens. The sensible part of me is bothered by inflammatory rhetoric, and the logical part of me understands that it's not actually correct at a statutory level. Yet I have a problem when the practical upshot of it is that they can and do without repercussions.

So I guess the upshot of this is whether legality is a function of what the law says, or the way the law is administered?
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12588
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: P/R side chat thread, v. I am not a number I am a free man
« Reply #1582 on: April 05, 2018, 09:45:41 AM »
I snipped this from the Trump thread because it's off topic, but philosophically it is something that's been very much on my mind of late.

Thanks for that, Stadler.  I see now that I've been equating infractions and misdemeanors.  Learn something new every day.

So it must be that illegal immigrants aren't afforded the same legal rights after arrest as citizens because if illegal entry is a misdemeanor, it doesn't seem to be unusual to be kept in detention centers for over a year.
Well, they should be.  There are certain rights that are afforded only to citizens - right to vote springs to mind - but generally the protections of the Constitution DO extend to illegal immigrants.  Whether they are enforced - as el Barto is pointing out - is another matter altogether.
Nominally the protections of the Constitution apply to illegal immigrants. However, if the current evolution of law offers up exceptions, makes it impossible to know if, when and how they're being applied, and removes any recourse for the person affected, do they really apply?

The reason I've been thinking about this is because of how it relates to police shootings. At a statutory level the police can't just shoot anybody they want for any reason they want. It's a crime and we put them on trial. Yet if the law has (d)evolved to a point that the burden of proof makes an acquittal a near certainty, is it actually illegal? I've argued with my brother about this, as he'll say with complete certainty that it's legal for the police to execute citizens. The sensible part of me is bothered by inflammatory rhetoric, and the logical part of me understands that it's not actually correct at a statutory level. Yet I have a problem when the practical upshot of it is that they can and do without repercussions.

So I guess the upshot of this is whether legality is a function of what the law says, or the way the law is administered?

I've been thinking about this a lot since you posted it.  I think it's an important thought and goes to the way our system works.   I've made no bones that I am a process guy, and I stand by that.  Not because it's "my way" or "I agree with it", but because it provides an objective standard.  You may not like that standard, but it is what it is, and we all know it going in.  That's what laws do.   We're not necessarily supposed to "like" them, just understand them and accept them as the standard to be used when we adjudicate disputes between two people/entities. 

I think in your example, it's really down to what you mean by "legality".   If you mean "constitutionally", it's the way the law is written.  In certain cases, the courts might use the way the law is administered as part of that analysis, but it's not determinative, and they are not required to.   We've talked about this before, I think, when discussing Scalia; the "administration" becomes a way for the court to revise their thinking without having a real substantive rationale for doing so. 

I understand the broadness of the interpretations and I understand the issues that that raises.  What will likely happen is that it won't go to a court, and "change" will happen the way the process should work.  Some legislator somewhere will take umbrage from a cop claiming for the nth time that the Pez dispenser "looked like a gun" and that he "feared for his life", and promote legislation to close that loophole.  It's not going to be easy, though, because at the end of the day, no one will say it out loud, but I believe the thinking is, if we radically change that standard, in order to keep our cops relatively safe, we will have to make a shit ton of other changes that we aren't prepared to do.   

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20419
  • Bad Craziness
Re: P/R side chat thread, v. I am not a number I am a free man
« Reply #1583 on: April 05, 2018, 10:50:37 AM »
Well, your answer is completely unsatisfying.  :lol

Not because it isn't clear, or isn't reasonable. It's unsatisfying because the process you rely upon is flawed the same way as the problem I've raised. I don't see any difference between "No. You're not allowed to do that. Although we have no means of stopping you or punishing you if you do." and "Sure, the mechanism is in place to address this concern and that's the way to deal with it, although the practical reality is that it isn't going to happen in a million years."

I'll also throw out that I've never seen the SCOTUS give any consideration into the practical application of a law. In fact they tend to steer very clear of it. "The law says what it says. Potential, even obvious abuses, aren't our concern." Quite frankly, that's a big part of the reason we're in the situation we're in. Graham, the decision at hand, is a fine example.

I guess at a larger level this is just frustrating to me because the nature of the system we've created has degraded to a point where it has become less and less repairable. We're seeing an increase in cases where there's very clearly a problem, but there are so many underlying facets, rules, decisions, that it becomes impossible to unravel the issues to address what's broken. In a completely unrelated case I posted a while back an excerpt from a federal judge's ruling that describes the problem we're increasingly facing.

Quote from: Colleen McMahon
The Alice-in-Wonderland nature of this pronouncement is not lost on me; but after careful and extensive consideration, I find myself stuck in a paradoxical situation in which I cannot solve a problem because of contradictory constraints and rules—a veritable Catch-22. I can find no way around the thicket of laws and procedures that effectively allow the Executive Branch of our Government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws, while keeping the reasons for their conclusions a secret.

What are we supposed to do when the process becomes unworkable, and the flaws continue to manifest themselves?
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 19989
  • Gender: Male
Re: P/R side chat thread, v. I am not a number I am a free man
« Reply #1584 on: April 10, 2018, 12:48:00 PM »
Anyone watching Zuckerberg's testimony right now?

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12588
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: P/R side chat thread, v. I am not a number I am a free man
« Reply #1585 on: April 10, 2018, 02:28:22 PM »
Yup.

There are a lot of Senators that don't know the first thing about tech.  :)

Oh and the attractive dark haired girl photo bombing his every word needs to put some eye-drops in.  Her blinking is almost distracting.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2018, 02:37:51 PM by Stadler »

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12588
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: P/R side chat thread, v. I am not a number I am a free man
« Reply #1586 on: April 10, 2018, 03:32:04 PM »
Well, your answer is completely unsatisfying.  :lol

Not because it isn't clear, or isn't reasonable. It's unsatisfying because the process you rely upon is flawed the same way as the problem I've raised. I don't see any difference between "No. You're not allowed to do that. Although we have no means of stopping you or punishing you if you do." and "Sure, the mechanism is in place to address this concern and that's the way to deal with it, although the practical reality is that it isn't going to happen in a million years."

I'll also throw out that I've never seen the SCOTUS give any consideration into the practical application of a law. In fact they tend to steer very clear of it. "The law says what it says. Potential, even obvious abuses, aren't our concern." Quite frankly, that's a big part of the reason we're in the situation we're in. Graham, the decision at hand, is a fine example.

I guess at a larger level this is just frustrating to me because the nature of the system we've created has degraded to a point where it has become less and less repairable. We're seeing an increase in cases where there's very clearly a problem, but there are so many underlying facets, rules, decisions, that it becomes impossible to unravel the issues to address what's broken. In a completely unrelated case I posted a while back an excerpt from a federal judge's ruling that describes the problem we're increasingly facing.

I'm sorry for the delay in responding; I forget this is here and not below.

I'm struggling to understand where you think this has gone off the rails. I don't want to assume, because it IS a complex situation. But that the court doesn't apply to the real world is supposed to be a GOOD thing, in that it leaves that to the people who's job it is to do so (Congress).   Is your beef more properly with Congress?   I go both ways about Congress; part of me thinks they're (it's) corrupt and broken, but part of me realizes IT'S not corrupt and broken, WE are.    With very few exceptions, I'm increasingly of the opinion that we don't WANT answers.  We don't WANT solutions.  We want LEVERAGE. 

I'm off topic now, but for all the "love" and "inclusiveness" that we supposedly have - talking about our "journey" and "centering ourselves" and blah blah fucking blah, but there's an awful lot of hate in an awful lot of people that claim to simply want "peace and love".  We've reduced ourselves to one big giant zero-sum game, and life doesn't work that way, unfortunately (well, from my point of view, fortunately). 

Quote
Quote from: Colleen McMahon
The Alice-in-Wonderland nature of this pronouncement is not lost on me; but after careful and extensive consideration, I find myself stuck in a paradoxical situation in which I cannot solve a problem because of contradictory constraints and rules—a veritable Catch-22. I can find no way around the thicket of laws and procedures that effectively allow the Executive Branch of our Government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws, while keeping the reasons for their conclusions a secret.

What are we supposed to do when the process becomes unworkable, and the flaws continue to manifest themselves?

Not a joke: find people that are willing to re-learn the system so that it is workable.  I don't know if you're familiar or not, but this is a part of my theory on the pendulum. 

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20419
  • Bad Craziness
Re: P/R side chat thread, v. I am not a number I am a free man
« Reply #1587 on: April 11, 2018, 09:39:53 AM »
Well, your answer is completely unsatisfying.  :lol

Not because it isn't clear, or isn't reasonable. It's unsatisfying because the process you rely upon is flawed the same way as the problem I've raised. I don't see any difference between "No. You're not allowed to do that. Although we have no means of stopping you or punishing you if you do." and "Sure, the mechanism is in place to address this concern and that's the way to deal with it, although the practical reality is that it isn't going to happen in a million years."

I'll also throw out that I've never seen the SCOTUS give any consideration into the practical application of a law. In fact they tend to steer very clear of it. "The law says what it says. Potential, even obvious abuses, aren't our concern." Quite frankly, that's a big part of the reason we're in the situation we're in. Graham, the decision at hand, is a fine example.

I guess at a larger level this is just frustrating to me because the nature of the system we've created has degraded to a point where it has become less and less repairable. We're seeing an increase in cases where there's very clearly a problem, but there are so many underlying facets, rules, decisions, that it becomes impossible to unravel the issues to address what's broken. In a completely unrelated case I posted a while back an excerpt from a federal judge's ruling that describes the problem we're increasingly facing.

I'm sorry for the delay in responding; I forget this is here and not below.

I'm struggling to understand where you think this has gone off the rails. I don't want to assume, because it IS a complex situation. But that the court doesn't apply to the real world is supposed to be a GOOD thing, in that it leaves that to the people who's job it is to do so (Congress).  Is your beef more properly with Congress?   I go both ways about Congress; part of me thinks they're (it's) corrupt and broken, but part of me realizes IT'S not corrupt and broken, WE are.    With very few exceptions, I'm increasingly of the opinion that we don't WANT answers.  We don't WANT solutions.  We want LEVERAGE. 

I'm off topic now, but for all the "love" and "inclusiveness" that we supposedly have - talking about our "journey" and "centering ourselves" and blah blah fucking blah, but there's an awful lot of hate in an awful lot of people that claim to simply want "peace and love".  We've reduced ourselves to one big giant zero-sum game, and life doesn't work that way, unfortunately (well, from my point of view, fortunately). 

Quote
Quote from: Colleen McMahon
The Alice-in-Wonderland nature of this pronouncement is not lost on me; but after careful and extensive consideration, I find myself stuck in a paradoxical situation in which I cannot solve a problem because of contradictory constraints and rules—a veritable Catch-22. I can find no way around the thicket of laws and procedures that effectively allow the Executive Branch of our Government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws, while keeping the reasons for their conclusions a secret.

What are we supposed to do when the process becomes unworkable, and the flaws continue to manifest themselves?

Not a joke: find people that are willing to re-learn the system so that it is workable.  I don't know if you're familiar or not, but this is a part of my theory on the pendulum.
My beef is with the entire system that has evolved over the last 250 years. That includes Congress, We the People, the judiciary, the president and his appointees, and the rules and regs that all of the above have created over the years. I've always used a computer as the analogy for what we've become. Every few years you end up having to reinstall Windows (or in the modern version, factory reset). It starts out fast and effective. Over time you're installing and uninstalling stuff. You're accumulating unneeded garbage. You're tweaking this and unknowingly buggering that. Eventually it just becomes slow and corrupt. I think this is what has happened to the framework of our political system.

In this case, I just have very little faith that anything can be done to resolve the situation within the framework we've created. It is effectively legal for a cop to shoot anybody he wants. Congress has no reason to change anything, as the attempt would be politically ugly. In the old days it'd be "he's soft on crime." The modern version would be "he want's thugs and criminals to rape your children!" The courts have consistently yielded to the police, so it's nearly impossible to convict them, or to sue them. Moreover, even oversight has become a relic, as that lack of oversight is very beneficial to the executive and the legislature for myriad reasons.

As I said, it's a general frustration on my part that we've reached the point we have, and the solution is simply to wait for the situation to fix itself, despite that being a highly improbable scenario.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12588
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: P/R side chat thread, v. I am not a number I am a free man
« Reply #1588 on: April 11, 2018, 12:20:58 PM »
Full disclosure, you're going a little broader than I was; I was referring mainly to the court system, and suggesting that perhaps the solution lay beyond.   If you're talking more broadly, I'm actually with you.    Whether you call it the "pendulum theory" or the "windows theory", we're really just talking about the mechanism for the same thing:  a dysfunctional system that has it's priorities and incentives pointed in the wrong direction.   

I'm not sure what the answer is either, but something has to change and change soon.   It's not a matter of "sides" or "parties" any more.  Neither side has all the answers, only some of them, and none of them can be implemented to their fullest without at least some compromise and participation by the other side, and getting that is about as hard as getting humility from Derek Sherinian. 

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20419
  • Bad Craziness
Re: P/R side chat thread, v. I am not a number I am a free man
« Reply #1589 on: April 11, 2018, 12:38:20 PM »
Full disclosure, you're going a little broader than I was; I was referring mainly to the court system, and suggesting that perhaps the solution lay beyond.   If you're talking more broadly, I'm actually with you.    Whether you call it the "pendulum theory" or the "windows theory", we're really just talking about the mechanism for the same thing:  a dysfunctional system that has it's priorities and incentives pointed in the wrong direction.   

I'm not sure what the answer is either, but something has to change and change soon.   It's not a matter of "sides" or "parties" any more.  Neither side has all the answers, only some of them, and none of them can be implemented to their fullest without at least some compromise and participation by the other side, and getting that is about as hard as getting humility from Derek Sherinian.
A pendulum swings back, though. It balances itself out until it runs out of energy and stalls in the middle. Windows never gets better. It's in a constant state of decay until it just won't run anymore. Then you reinstall or buy a newer version. I'd like to think that the current system of government we play in will start to swing back, but I just can't see it. It only seems to become more and more entrenched in its dysfunction. And unfortunately, despite the fact that everybody knows that the country is dysfunctional, nobody will ever go along with a reboot. We're still the greatest nation on Earth, and all of the problem are the result of the other side. The problem is with them, not the system.

Yeah, part of my problem is frustration on the big, philosophical nature of all of this. Part of it is the reality that we're seeing breakdowns in the system, police shootings are my case in point, and we're not seeing any sort of possible correction. We're seeing things that both make the problem worse and also make it increasingly difficult to resolve.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Lucien

  • James 5:1-5
  • Posts: 4618
  • Gender: Male
    • my music
Re: P/R side chat thread, v. I am not a number I am a free man
« Reply #1590 on: April 12, 2018, 02:02:18 AM »
Full disclosure, you're going a little broader than I was; I was referring mainly to the court system, and suggesting that perhaps the solution lay beyond.   If you're talking more broadly, I'm actually with you.    Whether you call it the "pendulum theory" or the "windows theory", we're really just talking about the mechanism for the same thing:  a dysfunctional system that has it's priorities and incentives pointed in the wrong direction.   

I'm not sure what the answer is either, but something has to change and change soon.   It's not a matter of "sides" or "parties" any more.  Neither side has all the answers, only some of them, and none of them can be implemented to their fullest without at least some compromise and participation by the other side, and getting that is about as hard as getting humility from Derek Sherinian.
A pendulum swings back, though. It balances itself out until it runs out of energy and stalls in the middle. Windows never gets better. It's in a constant state of decay until it just won't run anymore. Then you reinstall or buy a newer version. I'd like to think that the current system of government we play in will start to swing back, but I just can't see it. It only seems to become more and more entrenched in its dysfunction. And unfortunately, despite the fact that everybody knows that the country is dysfunctional, nobody will ever go along with a reboot. We're still the greatest nation on Earth, and all of the problem are the result of the other side. The problem is with them, not the system.

Yeah, part of my problem is frustration on the big, philosophical nature of all of this. Part of it is the reality that we're seeing breakdowns in the system, police shootings are my case in point, and we're not seeing any sort of possible correction. We're seeing things that both make the problem worse and also make it increasingly difficult to resolve.

And the people who do advocate for massive change get shot down as not being "realistic". They get told "human nature doesn't work that way", or, my favorite, just getting called "commie fuck" because you think the means of production should be used to give humanity their needs instead of for profiting off their needs.
"Kind of a stupid game, isn't it?" - Calvin

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12588
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: P/R side chat thread, v. I am not a number I am a free man
« Reply #1591 on: April 12, 2018, 08:41:12 AM »
Full disclosure, you're going a little broader than I was; I was referring mainly to the court system, and suggesting that perhaps the solution lay beyond.   If you're talking more broadly, I'm actually with you.    Whether you call it the "pendulum theory" or the "windows theory", we're really just talking about the mechanism for the same thing:  a dysfunctional system that has it's priorities and incentives pointed in the wrong direction.   

I'm not sure what the answer is either, but something has to change and change soon.   It's not a matter of "sides" or "parties" any more.  Neither side has all the answers, only some of them, and none of them can be implemented to their fullest without at least some compromise and participation by the other side, and getting that is about as hard as getting humility from Derek Sherinian.
A pendulum swings back, though. It balances itself out until it runs out of energy and stalls in the middle. Windows never gets better. It's in a constant state of decay until it just won't run anymore. Then you reinstall or buy a newer version. I'd like to think that the current system of government we play in will start to swing back, but I just can't see it. It only seems to become more and more entrenched in its dysfunction. And unfortunately, despite the fact that everybody knows that the country is dysfunctional, nobody will ever go along with a reboot. We're still the greatest nation on Earth, and all of the problem are the result of the other side. The problem is with them, not the system.

Yeah, part of my problem is frustration on the big, philosophical nature of all of this. Part of it is the reality that we're seeing breakdowns in the system, police shootings are my case in point, and we're not seeing any sort of possible correction. We're seeing things that both make the problem worse and also make it increasingly difficult to resolve.

And the people who do advocate for massive change get shot down as not being "realistic". They get told "human nature doesn't work that way", or, my favorite, just getting called "commie fuck" because you think the means of production should be used to give humanity their needs instead of for profiting off their needs.

But you recognize that you shifted the game in mid stream, right?   Asking for "massive change" then drilling down to one very specific - and very debatable - solution is flawed from the get-go.   

I'm one of the first to use the "human nature" argument - and I'm sure you know that - but that's about the SPECIFIC change, not the call for change generally.  I'm very much for changing how we interact with the system we have, but I can't say I'm for complete revolution.   I think the system put in place by our Founding Fathers CAN solve this, but it is going to take effort on behalf of the people that are tasked with interacting with the system.    I fully believe that the system we have isn't SUPPOSED to work fluidly with someone like Trump (or Clinton, for that matter) as President. 

TL;DR:  I don't at all think that we need "communism" in order to fix the slightly - relatively speaking - off-kilter delineation of rights under the Constitution and legislative framework of our country. 

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20419
  • Bad Craziness
Re: P/R side chat thread, v. I am not a number I am a free man
« Reply #1592 on: April 24, 2018, 12:36:12 PM »
Here's an idea. Instead of mandatory minimums for dopers, howabout mandatory maximums for elected officials?
http://www.star-telegram.com/news/politics-government/election/article209641279.html
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 17884
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: P/R side chat thread, v. I am not a number I am a free man
« Reply #1593 on: April 24, 2018, 02:20:21 PM »
Here's an idea. Instead of mandatory minimums for dopers, howabout mandatory maximums for elected officials?
http://www.star-telegram.com/news/politics-government/election/article209641279.html

Sounds good but how do you get an elected official to agree to that  :lol

Offline Podaar

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5995
  • Gender: Male
  • Looks like Fish, tastes like chicken
Re: P/R side chat thread, v. I am not a number I am a free man
« Reply #1594 on: June 21, 2018, 12:48:00 PM »
Back in 2006, it was recommended to me that I read John W. Deans book Conservatives Without Conscience, which I did. In the book he frequently cited research done by Bob Altmeyer, a professor and researcher at the University of Manitoba, on authoritarianism. Not in the sense of a political system but as a psychological phenomenon. So I looked the guy up.

What I found was that he'd written a book that summarizes his decades of research in a style that is easy to read for us non-researchers called The Authoritarians. It was fascinating at the time and I really enjoyed it. The last few days, while reading the "Trump 100 Days thread", I've been thinking about that book again (not the John Dean book).

Anyway, it's free for download if anyone is interested.