StrangeSox

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 28, 2011 -> 08:52 AM) Paternal like all of the other governmental regulatory bodies that require all of their compliance procedures to be taken place.... Oh like mandatory health care, tax returns, social security, EPA, etc, etc Right, that's at least along the same line (not sure about tax returns?). I don't support any and all regulations, and I don't support criminalized drug laws, and I really don't support unnecessary and expensive drug testing for government benefits. But I don't ideologically oppose paternal or paternal-like government actions, while conservatives generally do, or at least claim to. If you're going to make an argument in favor of such strong paternal actions, you can't turn around and criticize other programs or laws based on their paternal nature.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 28, 2011 -> 08:51 AM) Nobody seems to care when something like Dodd-Frank or SOX does that, why is this so different? Good point, drug testing every American citizen for...some reason...is analogous to banking regulations such that we don't get more Enrons and Lehman Brothers.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 28, 2011 -> 08:49 AM) I guess that means you never get to ask for regulations and rules for anything again. That doesn't really follow, while on the other hand you can't get much more paternal government than "drug test every single American"

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 28, 2011 -> 08:47 AM) lol @ the idea that those things aren't taking place already. You don't get to ever complain about a single thing along the lines of "nanny state" ever again. Anyway, these would be new invasions and new costs and new burdens, so your point here doesn't make any sense.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 28, 2011 -> 08:47 AM) I bet we save a factor of 10 times that. I bet cost analyses of these testing schemes show it's always a net loss.

I just don't get it. Why would anyone ever be in favor of drug testing the entire country, let alone a supposed small-government conservative?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 28, 2011 -> 08:18 AM) I'd have no problems with that. Why? Why are you in favor of massively increasing the penalities for drug usage, massively increasing government surveillance of your life and introducing massive costs to virtually every aspect of government?

Kinda like MLB closers.

He really is doing a fantastic job of trolling the Supreme Court/our political finance system. I thought his first NBA ad was poignant.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Oct 28, 2011 -> 08:06 AM) Do you feel the same way about the workplace urine tests that people with jobs that support such benefits are often required to take? I'm generally opposed to them but not for exactly the same reasons. There is a difference between government and private actions. I'd like to see some consistency from the pro-testing side, though. Pee tests for all government benefits and handouts, including mortgage and child tax deductions, SSI disbursements, etc.

Horrible invasion of privacy based on unfounded prejudices.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Oct 27, 2011 -> 04:13 PM) I don't know, I'm not an expert on such things. I'm sure many police would say yes in a situation such as that, though...otherwise they wouldn't be armed with such things. Police officers are armed with guns, but they don't fire at the first sign of resistance. Which really brings it back to the original point, these "less-lethal" or "less-than-lethal" weapons have, imo, become overly relied on by police forces, and not just for crowd control situations. Drawing out you gun is obviously a big step; pulling out your taser not nearly as much, even though the end result could be the same.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 27, 2011 -> 04:04 PM) At a high enough velocity to fracture an unarmored soldier's skull in multiple places. Do they know what he was hit by? I thought it was unclear if it was bean bag, canister or rubber bullet.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 27, 2011 -> 04:03 PM) Doing exactly that would be a great way for a new "Democratic" government to establish a level of trust with both the people and with the international community. Alternatively, sodomizing him with sharp instruments, as supposedly happened, would be a great way to draw international condemnation.

For the sake of argument, let's say two bottles are thrown at police in riot gear from an otherwise peaceful crowd not showing any signs of aggression. Is firing or throwing a dozen tear gas canisters into that crowd an appropriate response?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 27, 2011 -> 04:04 PM) Which is intended to disperse, not hit them. If you launch missiles into crowds, you will hit people with them. If you launch a metal canister with a chemical agent inside, it will be launched with a greater force than one can throw a bottle. There is no way you can claim that missiles that also disperse chemical agents are less force than missiles that do not.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 27, 2011 -> 03:13 PM) Absolutely it is. A missile (thrown object) is higher on the force scale than a chemical agent like CS. But even if they are the same, it still makes it a reasonable level of force. The chemical agent is delivered via missile.

The motivations and intentions of the crowd are important factors.

We can all agree that Canuck fans are the scum of the earth and deserve whatever they get.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 27, 2011 -> 01:14 PM) Actually, I'd say bottles being thrown from the crowd defintely justifies chemical response. In fact it is a lower level of force than is being exerted by the protestors in that scenario. Throwing bottles at police in riot gear is a higher use of force than launching chemical rounds into a largely peaceful group?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 27, 2011 -> 01:14 PM) You are the only one saying it is not possible. It is possible that some protesters threw bottles/other objects. It's more likely than an agent provocateur. The police response to the crowd is still a disproportionate use of force. It's also possible that this use of force was unprovoked. I don't think that can really be questioned given what really started getting media coverage of OWS, the unprovoked macing of protesters by NYPD.

Did that inflict "massive economic damage?"

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Oct 27, 2011 -> 01:06 PM) I'm not anti-cop. I'm just saying they can overreact. Not possible. (Yes, I know these were NG's)

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Oct 27, 2011 -> 01:04 PM) Aww... http://occupywallst.org/forum/occupy-oakla...protesters-wer/ Should we dismiss that, too? I mean, I'm sure MSNBC paid off a OWS protestor to rat themselves out. Thank you. Thrown bottles by a few people still doesn't justify the police response. Also the possibility of agent provocateurs, which we know were used at the Pittsburgh G-whatever protests a few years ago.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Oct 27, 2011 -> 01:02 PM) And then there's the rational among us who KNOW there are idiot tea party members at these rallies, spouting racist crap -- just like a few of the OWS people spouting anti-Jew rhetoric... AKA the vast minority amongst them. But be real...does that make all OWS protestors antisemitic? No. It doesn't. AFAIK the "antisemitic" stuff was coming from a single individual. That's a bit different from the tone and representative polling done on Tea Party ideologies. But, anyway, I was defending the TP in that post as non-violent.