LawTalkers
Page 30 of 126 « First 202829 30 31324080 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)
-   Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying. (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=880)

Adder 07-17-2017 01:59 PM
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 508839)
It's more just another in long continuum of degraded political acts. Here are just a few recent ones (in no order):

LBJ accusing his opponent of being a pigfucker to win a seat;
Joe Kennedy attempting to steal the vote in Chicago;
Hoover's political use of the FBI;
Nixon's enemies' list;
Watergate;
Iran/Contra;
Allende overthrow;
Propping up stooges (the Shah) to racists/bigots (Saudi Arabia) around the globe;
WMD lie;
Bush's ads about McCain's children in 2000;
Clinton's racist dog whistles about Obama in 2008;
Clinton executing a mentally retarded man to look tough on crime for political purposes;
Holder's war on journalists;
Obama Admin's "interesting" use of the internal rev service;
FL Secretary of State working for Bush interests in 2000 election recount;
Willie Horton;
HRC's "superpredator" nod to the tough on crime bigots;
HRC flipping on the bankruptcy reform act (and just about everything else if it'd get her votes);
Bush's and Obama's expansion of domestic surveillance;
Bailout '08;
The Holder Doctrine
I'm starting to seriously wonder about your mental health. The level of disorganized thinking required to not be able to see distinctions among these things is pretty scary.

Quote:
Trump's meeting with Russians is uniquely awful why?
Because it involves compromising the administration to a foreign power. And solely for political gain.

Some of those things are dirty politics. Some of them are international meddling. None of them are selling out to a foreign power (whether intentionally or not).

Quote:
It stands apart from the long list of despicable behaviors we've shrugged off as "just politics" in what huge regard?
You're aware that Nixon resigned in the face of impeachment for one of the things on your list, right (among other things)? And that there was an extensive investigation, including quite a few Congressional hearings, about another?

Quote:
isn't this Stupid Watergate more expected, predictable even, than surprising?
What does that have to do with anything? If it's predictable it's not a problem?

But I'm sorry, I do think it's surprising that (1) a candidate for president would seek out illegal help from a foreign power and (2) that his party would bend itself so far to dismiss it.

Okay, the latter part is less surprising than the former, but still.

Tyrone Slothrop 07-17-2017 02:10 PM
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 508839)
Moral judgment, particularly in this arena, is too fuzzy to hold any meaningful value.

This Stupid Watergate/Russia Debacle is an ocean away from the sort of thing that compelled Joseph Welch to take a moral stand against Joe McCarthy. It's more just another in long continuum of degraded political acts. Here are just a few recent ones (in no order):

LBJ accusing his opponent of being a pigfucker to win a seat;
Joe Kennedy attempting to steal the vote in Chicago;
Hoover's political use of the FBI;
Nixon's enemies' list;
Watergate;
Iran/Contra;
Allende overthrow;
Propping up stooges (the Shah) to racists/bigots (Saudi Arabia) around the globe;
WMD lie;
Bush's ads about McCain's children in 2000;
Clinton's racist dog whistles about Obama in 2008;
Clinton executing a mentally retarded man to look tough on crime for political purposes;
Holder's war on journalists;
Obama Admin's "interesting" use of the internal rev service;
FL Secretary of State working for Bush interests in 2000 election recount;
Willie Horton;
HRC's "superpredator" nod to the tough on crime bigots;
HRC flipping on the bankruptcy reform act (and just about everything else if it'd get her votes);
Bush's and Obama's expansion of domestic surveillance;
Bailout '08;
The Holder Doctrine

This could go on forever, but the obvious point is, Trump's meeting with Russians is uniquely awful why? It stands apart from the long list of despicable behaviors we've shrugged off as "just politics" in what huge regard?

Look, I understand this is a board of lawyers. Nobody concedes shit, and this will be attacked with a dozen arguments. Russkigate will be distinguished from every conceivable angle.

But step back, take off the advocate hat, put away the lawyer-think for a second and consider - from 10,000 feet, assessed in the context of our deeply corrupted and morally degraded system - isn't this Stupid Watergate more expected, predictable even, than surprising? We've been pushing the envelope (or searching a nadir) for a long time now.

Trump isn't a change agent or a throwback. He's what happens in a situation like the one we've got.
That's the best you've got?

sebastian_dangerfield 07-17-2017 03:21 PM
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 508841)
That's the best you've got?
We lied to the UN (and the world) about weapons of mass destruction to initiate a war against a sovereign nation. We've spied on our own citizens for more than a decade (that can be proven).

Those two alone so outweigh the act of seeking intel from an often hostile foreign power, one has to ask:

This, America? This is what finally awakens you to the fact that the house is on fire? You're complacent fools on everything else, but when a lurid person half of you dislike acquires power, and you can "resist" something (in a binary fashion, that doesn't require you to consider much grey), now you're incensed?
Maybe this is the silver lining of the Trump Presidency: public re-engagement in civic matters. And it only took the election of a reality TV goon to get it done. Why couldn't we have elected Puck from the Real World back in '96?

Not Bob 07-17-2017 03:23 PM
Won't you please, please tell me what we've learned?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 508841)
That's the best you've got?
Sebby forgot an actual comparable event.

Nixon's collusion in October 1968 with agents of the Republic of China (Madame Chiang and Anna Chennault) to persuade South Vietnam to reject the tentative peace deal that the Johnson Administration had negotiated in Paris with North Vietnam and the Viet Cong to scuttle Humphrey's election. Just like in 2016, American intelligence found out about it, and a furious LBJ accused Nixon of treason. But he did nothing. Had news of Nixon's perfidy (and the thousands of American deaths/maybe millions of SE Asian deaths) he caused come out, he have actually died in prison. Politics as usual?

One could argue that the Federalist Party's use of the XYZ Affair (Tallyrand demanded bribes from American envoys to negotiate some issues between Revolutionary France and the US) to attack Thomas Jefferson is analogous, but Nixon's collusion with RoC and SVN agents to prevent a peace deal that would have elected HHH is pretty close to Trump.

Carry on.

Tyrone Slothrop 07-17-2017 03:50 PM
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 508842)
We lied to the UN (and the world) about weapons of mass destruction to initiate a war against a sovereign nation. We've spied on our own citizens for more than a decade (that can be proven).

Those two alone so outweigh the act of seeking intel from an often hostile foreign power, one has to ask:

This, America? This is what finally awakens you to the fact that the house is on fire? You're complacent fools on everything else, but when a lurid person half of you dislike acquires power, and you can "resist" something (in a binary fashion, that doesn't require you to consider much grey), now you're incensed?
Maybe this is the silver lining of the Trump Presidency: public re-engagement in civic matters. And it only took the election of a reality TV goon to get it done. Why couldn't we have elected Puck from the Real World back in '96?
You are just intellectually and morally lazy or indifferent.

Sure, other people have done other bad things. Apart from you, possibly, nobody here has been an apologist for all of them, so the notion that there's hypocrisy in outrage now is best directed either at yourself, or nobody.

And who is "incensed"? Nobody here. I was just reacting to what you said. I'm not incensed by it -- it was just kind of sloppy and pathetic. eta: Which is to say, I wouldn't have been surprised to see that sort of thing in a random comment somewhere else on the internet, but obviously you have more and better things to say when you bother to.

What do I find somewhat more interesting is your constant ability to spout DJT talking points without apparent awareness or acknowledgement that that's what you're doing.

Tyrone Slothrop 07-17-2017 03:52 PM
Re: Won't you please, please tell me what we've learned?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Bob (Post 508843)
Sebby forgot an actual comparable event.

Nixon's collusion in October 1968 with agents of the Republic of China (Madame Chiang and Anna Chennault) to persuade South Vietnam to reject the tentative peace deal that the Johnson Administration had negotiated in Paris with North Vietnam and the Viet Cong to scuttle Humphrey's election. Just like in 2016, American intelligence found out about it, and a furious LBJ accused Nixon of treason. But he did nothing. Had news of Nixon's perfidy (and the thousands of American deaths/maybe millions of SE Asian deaths) he caused come out, he have actually died in prison. Politics as usual?
I think there's some text missing from your quote. LBJ did not accuse Nixon of treason, at least not in public. Apropos of that:

Quote:
In 1968, Johnson and his team knew what Nixon was up to. They had wiretapped the South Vietnamese ambassador who was in touch with the campaign through a contact nicknamed The Dragon Lady. (Music promoter, Rod Goldstone is not the only exotic character in these tales). A couple days before the election, the Christian Science Monitor had the story of Nixon's behind the scenes work. Their correspondent in Saigon had come up with the reporting, but the paper needed the White House to confirm. (How quaint.)

Johnson, down on his ranch in Texas, held an emergency phone call with his Secretary of State and Defense. Should they confirm the report? They knew the story was true. They had the covert information. The president's men said it would be immoral to expose Nixon. "I do not believe that any president can make any use of interceptions or telephone taps in any way that would involve politics," said Secretary of State Dean Rusk. "The moment we cross over that divide, we're in a different kind of society."

Secretary of Defense Clark Clifford added his own reason: "I think that some elements of the story are so shocking in their nature that I'm wondering whether it would be good for the country to disclose the story and then possibly have [Nixon] elected. It could cast his whole administration under such doubt that I would think it would be inimical to our country's interests."

Clifford, who was a staunch Democrat (he helped orchestrated Truman's 1948 miracle comeback) was worried about the country more than defeating Nixon. The story never ran.
John Dickerson in The Atlantic

Not Bob 07-17-2017 04:24 PM
Re: Won't you please, please tell me what we've learned?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 508845)
I think there's some text missing from your quote. LBJ did not accuse Nixon of treason, at least not in public.
Exactly - LBJ did not make any public accusations. Thanks for the catch. And Nixon and his apologists denied it until long after the fact because they knew that what Nixon did was, if not treason, something pretty goddamned close to it.

And Sebby says that Bush has blood on his hands re Iraq? Over 19,000 American soldiers died in Vietnam *after* January 1969. Richard Nixon sacrificed them for nothing other than his desire to be president. Had proof of this come out before President Ford pardoned him, he would have died in jail.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 07-17-2017 06:27 PM
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 508842)
We lied to the UN (and the world) about weapons of mass destruction to initiate a war against a sovereign nation. We've spied on our own citizens for more than a decade (that can be proven).

Those two alone so outweigh the act of seeking intel from an often hostile foreign power, one has to ask:

This, America? This is what finally awakens you to the fact that the house is on fire? You're complacent fools on everything else, but when a lurid person half of you dislike acquires power, and you can "resist" something (in a binary fashion, that doesn't require you to consider much grey), now you're incensed?
Maybe this is the silver lining of the Trump Presidency: public re-engagement in civic matters. And it only took the election of a reality TV goon to get it done. Why couldn't we have elected Puck from the Real World back in '96?
More of a trump apologist every day. Who would have guessed?

Also, you forgot to mention Chappaquiddick.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 07-17-2017 06:32 PM
Re: Won't you please, please tell me what we've learned?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Bob (Post 508843)
Sebby forgot an actual comparable event.

Nixon's collusion in October 1968 with agents of the Republic of China (Madame Chiang and Anna Chennault) to persuade South Vietnam to reject the tentative peace deal that the Johnson Administration had negotiated in Paris with North Vietnam and the Viet Cong to scuttle Humphrey's election. Just like in 2016, American intelligence found out about it, and a furious LBJ accused Nixon of treason. But he did nothing. Had news of Nixon's perfidy (and the thousands of American deaths/maybe millions of SE Asian deaths) he caused come out, he have actually died in prison. Politics as usual?

One could argue that the Federalist Party's use of the XYZ Affair (Tallyrand demanded bribes from American envoys to negotiate some issues between Revolutionary France and the US) to attack Thomas Jefferson is analogous, but Nixon's collusion with RoC and SVN agents to prevent a peace deal that would have elected HHH is pretty close to Trump.

Carry on.
Indeed, these are your two events comparable to Putin's Puppet.

But the Russian Affair is just one of a myriad of sins Trump is committing. True, Nixon had some other pretty serious sins as well, but he took a few years to commit them. And being compared to Nixon is not exactly a way of praising someone.

Hank Chinaski 07-17-2017 07:19 PM
Re: Won't you please, please tell me what we've learned?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Bob (Post 508846)
Exactly - LBJ did not make any public accusations. Thanks for the catch. And Nixon and his apologists denied it until long after the fact because they knew that what Nixon did was, if not treason, something pretty goddamned close to it.

And Sebby says that Bush has blood on his hands re Iraq? Over 19,000 American soldiers died in Vietnam *after* January 1969. Richard Nixon sacrificed them for nothing other than his desire to be president. Had proof of this come out before President Ford pardoned him, he would have died in jail.
So LBJ and his intelligence services didn't make it public as it would be "inimical to our country?" Are you saying they were more patriotic than those running this Russian story?

sebastian_dangerfield 07-17-2017 07:29 PM
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 508847)
More of a trump apologist every day. Who would have guessed?

Also, you forgot to mention Chappaquiddick.
Don't forget Bubba. Had his back on l'affaire Lewinsky. And his insane impeachment.

sebastian_dangerfield 07-17-2017 07:37 PM
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 508844)
You are just intellectually and morally lazy or indifferent.

Sure, other people have done other bad things. Apart from you, possibly, nobody here has been an apologist for all of them, so the notion that there's hypocrisy in outrage now is best directed either at yourself, or nobody.

And who is "incensed"? Nobody here. I was just reacting to what you said. I'm not incensed by it -- it was just kind of sloppy and pathetic. eta: Which is to say, I wouldn't have been surprised to see that sort of thing in a random comment somewhere else on the internet, but obviously you have more and better things to say when you bother to.

What do I find somewhat more interesting is your constant ability to spout DJT talking points without apparent awareness or acknowledgement that that's what you're doing.
Your first two paragraphs are too dumb for reply.

Your third intentionally misses that I was addressing the whole of the US, not you, or this board.

On your last, everyone's entitled to a defense. Never trust a man who roots for a guilty verdict in a political prosecution. It's like going to a dog fight.

Not Bob 07-17-2017 08:32 PM
Re: Won't you please, please tell me what we've learned?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 508849)
So LBJ and his intelligence services didn't make it public as it would be "inimical to our country?" Are you saying they were more patriotic than those running this Russian story?
No. In fact, fuck no. I am deadly serious about this, Hank.

LBJ's instincts were right - he should have called Nixon out, and had him and his Old China friends arrested. Clark Clifford was dead wrong (not for the first time - see e.g. BCCI). Nixon's actions in October 1968 were what was "inimical to our country," as I suspect any American who lost a loved one in SE Asia between January 1969 and June 1973 would agree.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 07-17-2017 09:43 PM
Re: Won't you please, please tell me what we've learned?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Bob (Post 508861)
No. In fact, fuck no. I am deadly serious about this, Hank.

LBJ's instincts were right - he should have called Nixon out, and had him and his Old China friends arrested. Clark Clifford was dead wrong (not for the first time - see e.g. BCCI). Nixon's actions in October 1968 were what was "inimical to our country," as I suspect any American who lost a loved one in SE Asia between January 1969 and June 1973 would agree.
Pretty much anyone who was conscious during those years I expect....

ThurgreedMarshall 07-18-2017 11:23 AM
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 508844)
What do I find somewhat more interesting is your constant ability to spout DJT talking points without apparent awareness or acknowledgement that that's what you're doing.
Yeah. Sure. Trump shot Mueller in the face with a Dragunov rifle at close range multiple times. But how is that different from when Cheney did it to his friend with a shotgun? And think of all the Presidents who've sent kids to their deaths for purely political reasons. All of you and your blatant moral relativity amount to nothing more than pure left wing, tribal-induced hypocrisy. Would you not trade the lives of those who were sent to war in Iraq over a lie for Mueller's? His murder is just another in a long line of unnecessary deaths this country has perpetrated. You think our country's so innocent?

TM

Tyrone Slothrop 07-18-2017 11:47 AM
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 508859)
Your first two paragraphs are too dumb for reply.
I was trying to pitch my response to what you wrote, but I'm not sure I shot low enough.

Quote:
Your third intentionally misses that I was addressing the whole of the US, not you, or this board.
Do you do that at parties too? I bet that goes over well.

Quote:
On your last, everyone's entitled to a defense. Never trust a man who roots for a guilty verdict in a political prosecution. It's like going to a dog fight.
If you are consciously aware that you're defending Trump, at least that's something.

For me, politics is not like a dog fight, because it means something more than the spectacle who wins and who loses.

And now Trump is "entitled" to a defense? I thought all was fair in politics.

Tyrone Slothrop 07-18-2017 12:05 PM
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 
Chris Cillizza is on Reddit and it is teh awesome.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 07-18-2017 12:21 PM
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 508865)
What a thing of beauty.

Tyrone Slothrop 07-18-2017 12:58 PM
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 508866)
What a thing of beauty.
More Reddit fun: people explain why they ate at the Times Square Olive Garden.

Hank Chinaski 07-18-2017 01:36 PM
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 508867)
My fave troll of ppnyc was the first time the missus and I spent a month on the UWS, and I convinced her I was excited that Times Square had at least 60 restaurants so I can eat lunch AND dinner at a different restaurant each day! Even she had enough sense to tell me i was nuts.

SEC_Chick 07-18-2017 02:46 PM
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DFCSmR8UQAAAh6E.jpg

ThurgreedMarshall 07-18-2017 04:06 PM
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 508868)
My fave troll of ppnyc was the first time the missus and I spent a month on the UWS, and I convinced her I was excited that Times Square had at least 60 restaurants so I can eat lunch AND dinner at a different restaurant each day! Even she had enough sense to tell me i was nuts.
You're lying. That couldn't possibly be your favorite troll of ppnyc.

TM

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 07-18-2017 04:11 PM
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 508871)
You're lying. That couldn't possibly be your favorite troll of ppnyc.

TM
She's the one the i-banker hit on in starbucks, right?

Hank Chinaski 07-18-2017 04:19 PM
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 508872)
She's the one the i-banker hit on in starbucks, right?
Be polite. Thurgreed was in love with her hair.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 07-18-2017 05:08 PM
Re: Won't you please, please tell me what we've learned?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Bob (Post 508861)
No. In fact, fuck no. I am deadly serious about this, Hank.

LBJ's instincts were right - he should have called Nixon out, and had him and his Old China friends arrested. Clark Clifford was dead wrong (not for the first time - see e.g. BCCI). Nixon's actions in October 1968 were what was "inimical to our country," as I suspect any American who lost a loved one in SE Asia between January 1969 and June 1973 would agree.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhNrqc6yvTU

Hank Chinaski 07-18-2017 07:02 PM
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 508871)
You're lying. That couldn't possibly be your favorite troll of ppnyc.

TM
I meant when I trolled her. Mostly I just insulted her. I don't remember you trolling so much either. To me trolling implies some false level of sincerity, you know, like we do here with Ty?

ThurgreedMarshall 07-19-2017 10:50 AM
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 508884)
I meant when I trolled her. Mostly I just insulted her. I don't remember you trolling so much either. To me trolling implies some false level of sincerity, you know, like we do here with Ty?
Yes. I wasn't really being serious.

TM

Hank Chinaski 07-19-2017 11:38 AM
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 508885)
Yes. I wasn't really being serious.

TM
I miss her, she united us all.

SEC_Chick 07-19-2017 12:55 PM
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 
Just when I think Jeff Sessions cannot possibly suck more, the DOJ comes out with its new civil asset forfeiture policy.

Not Bob 07-19-2017 02:52 PM
Your new-caught sullen peoples/half devil and half child*
 
Sebby, read this from Fran Lebowitz** to help you understand what people mean when they use the phrase "white privilege."

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DE-yK8HU...jpg&name=large

Here's the tweet I got it from.


*Yes, I know that Rudyard was talking about colonialism and the Raj, but it fits.

**Like someone on Twitter said, seeing her name always reminds me of Fawn Lebowitz (of Emily Dickerson College).

ThurgreedMarshall 07-19-2017 03:07 PM
Civil Asset Forfeiture
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SEC_Chick (Post 508887)
Just when I think Jeff Sessions cannot possibly suck more, the DOJ comes out with its new civil asset forfeiture policy.
Someone needs to explain this to me. Who, besides law enforcement, thinks this bullshit law is okay? Libertarians sure as hell don't. Minorities don't (as they are the disproportionate targets). Liberals obviously don't. So, who the fuck does? Where is it getting the support?

Also, how the fuck is it that there is a legal concept in which a government actor can seize your property on the suspicion of it being involved in or acquired with the proceeds of a crime and then force the rightful owner to prove that it wasn't? How the fuck is this not a straight up government taking? Is it an exception?

And the legal fallacy that the target of the law is the property and not the person deprived of the property is legal bullshit that should have people picking up torches and pitchforks in anger. It's just absolutely ridiculous.

It makes sense to me that if the government can prove that property was gained with the proceeds of a crime for which the owner has been convicted (before seizing it, of course), then it makes sense that it can be confiscated, auctioned off, etc. But civil asset forfeiture is being used to fucking fund police departments all over the country. Clearly people in the small towns where it is so very popular would prefer to have the minorities driving through fund their police departments. I see that. But cops are well beyond victimizing just them and are abusing this shit all over the place.

I don't get it at all. It seems like a clear violation of the Fifth Amendment. The Supreme Court should have ended it years ago.

TM

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 07-19-2017 03:25 PM
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 508886)
I miss her, she united us all.
sort of the proto-trump.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 07-19-2017 03:26 PM
Re: Civil Asset Forfeiture
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 508889)
Someone needs to explain this to me. Who, besides law enforcement, thinks this bullshit law is okay? Libertarians sure as hell don't. Minorities don't (as they are the disproportionate targets). Liberals obviously don't. So, who the fuck does? Where is it getting the support?

Also, how the fuck is it that there is a legal concept in which a government actor can seize your property on the suspicion of it being involved in or acquired with the proceeds of a crime and then force the rightful owner to prove that it wasn't? How the fuck is this not a straight up government taking? Is it an exception?

And the legal fallacy that the target of the law is the property and not the person deprived of the property is legal bullshit that should have people picking up torches and pitchforks in anger. It's just absolutely ridiculous.

It makes sense to me that if the government can prove that property was gained with the proceeds of a crime for which the owner has been convicted (before seizing it, of course), then it makes sense that it can be confiscated, auctioned off, etc. But civil asset forfeiture is being used to fucking fund police departments all over the country. Clearly people in the small towns where it is so very popular would prefer to have the minorities driving through fund their police departments. I see that. But cops are well beyond victimizing just them and are abusing this shit all over the place.

I don't get it at all. It seems like a clear violation of the Fifth Amendment. The Supreme Court should have ended it years ago.

TM
Be quiet or they'll bulldoze your house.

It's coming. Really. Soon the Bronx will be though of as the West Bank by law enforcement.

SEC_Chick 07-19-2017 03:50 PM
Re: Civil Asset Forfeiture
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 508889)
Someone needs to explain this to me. Who, besides law enforcement, thinks this bullshit law is okay? Libertarians sure as hell don't. Minorities don't (as they are the disproportionate targets). Liberals obviously don't. So, who the fuck does? Where is it getting the support?

Also, how the fuck is it that there is a legal concept in which a government actor can seize your property on the suspicion of it being involved in or acquired with the proceeds of a crime and then force the rightful owner to prove that it wasn't? How the fuck is this not a straight up government taking? Is it an exception?

And the legal fallacy that the target of the law is the property and not the person deprived of the property is legal bullshit that should have people picking up torches and pitchforks in anger. It's just absolutely ridiculous.

It makes sense to me that if the government can prove that property was gained with the proceeds of a crime for which the owner has been convicted (before seizing it, of course), then it makes sense that it can be confiscated, auctioned off, etc. But civil asset forfeiture is being used to fucking fund police departments all over the country. Clearly people in the small towns where it is so very popular would prefer to have the minorities driving through fund their police departments. I see that. But cops are well beyond victimizing just them and are abusing this shit all over the place.

I don't get it at all. It seems like a clear violation of the Fifth Amendment. The Supreme Court should have ended it years ago.

TM
I don't disagree with you. I think Sessions is stuck in the 1980's and really, really, really, really, really wants to win the win the war on drugs this time.

Its crap like this that makes "Conservatism isn't racist, we just want less government" a laughingstock. But Sessions was pretty clear about his position in his confirmation hearings and the GOP thought it was okey dokey.

I used to identify as a conservative, rather than a Republican, but now that's been ruined too.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 07-19-2017 04:01 PM
Re: Civil Asset Forfeiture
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SEC_Chick (Post 508901)
I don't disagree with you. I think Sessions is stuck in the 1980's and really, really, really, really, really wants to win the win the war on drugs this time.

Its crap like this that makes "Conservatism isn't racist, we just want less government" a laughingstock. But Sessions was pretty clear about his position in his confirmation hearings and the GOP thought it was okey dokey.

I used to identify as a conservative, rather than a Republican, but now that's been ruined too.
Wait, conservatives want less government? Don't tell the military industrial complex.

Adder 07-19-2017 04:07 PM
Re: Civil Asset Forfeiture
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SEC_Chick (Post 508901)
I don't disagree with you. I think Sessions is stuck in the 1980's and really, really, really, really, really wants to win the win the war on drugs this time.
You're both correct and also wrong about which time period he's stuck in.

SEC_Chick 07-19-2017 04:09 PM
Re: Civil Asset Forfeiture
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder (Post 508903)
You're both correct and also wrong about which time period he's stuck in.
Typo.

Tyrone Slothrop 07-19-2017 04:20 PM
Re: Civil Asset Forfeiture
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SEC_Chick (Post 508901)
I don't disagree with you. I think Sessions is stuck in the 1980's and really, really, really, really, really wants to win the win the war on drugs this time.

Its crap like this that makes "Conservatism isn't racist, we just want less government" a laughingstock. But Sessions was pretty clear about his position in his confirmation hearings and the GOP thought it was okey dokey.

I used to identify as a conservative, rather than a Republican, but now that's been ruined too.
I think he's the kind of person who likes it when government reinforces traditional social hierarchies. He's not going to win the war on drugs, but he's into the fighting of it.

Hank Chinaski 07-19-2017 04:49 PM
Re: Civil Asset Forfeiture
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 508905)
I think he's the kind of person who likes it when government reinforces traditional social hierarchies. He's not going to win the war on drugs, but he's into the fighting of it.
Did you post this at 4:20 to be funny?

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 07-19-2017 04:50 PM
Re: Civil Asset Forfeiture
 
This is the America Red States Want:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DE-V3DWXUAAeJJo.jpg:large


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:03 PM.
Page 30 of 126 « First 202829 30 31324080 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Hosted By: URLJet.com