|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Cleveland police officer takes the Fifth in Michael Brelo trial sparking heated debate
Watch as Cleveland police detective Michael Demchak invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination and the heated argument that ensued after he was called to the witness stand by the prosecution to testify in the trail of fellow office Michael Brelo. Brelo faces manslaughter charges in connection with the shooting deaths of Timothy Russell and Malissa Williams.
So this sets the stage for the officer who watched the other officer plant evidence (who knows what else) to not testify against his fellow officer... This is so pathetic. I hope they at least get a halfway competent prosecution in SC...
Video of Trial
|
On April 10 2015 13:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2015 12:31 Slaughter wrote:
Everything we eat is a GMO and we have been modifying our food since before civilization. If Monsanto wasn't such a prick corporation GMO's wouldn't have this much blowback imo. They aren't perfect, but a lot of what people don't like about Monsanto isn't actually true or is greatly exaggerated. People don't like that Monsanto will sue a farmer if their seeds blow into their fields, but Monsanto doesn't actually do that. I second this. The perception of pricks is distributed between these untruths, exaggerations, and the reactions to the lawsuit issue.
|
|
|
this thread should be labeled to contain gmo talk
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
anti gmo posters should be allowed to make note of their Organic status in signature field. since this is already allowed i see no reason for a thread level labeling
|
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez met privately in Panama on Thursday, in what was the highest-level meeting between the two governments since 1959.
The meeting took place just days ahead of an expected encounter between Presidents Barack Obama and Raul Castro at the Summit of the Americas in Panama, where the United States and Cuba will continue attempts to restore ties they abandoned more than 50 years ago.
In December, Obama and Castro announced their intention to restore diplomatic relations, beginning a painstaking process that has brought to the surface difficult issues that have long fed into the U.S.-Cuban estrangement.
The U.S. said Thursday’s meeting between Kerry and Rodriguez was lengthy and that the leaders agreed to keep working to address unresolved issues.
Washington is pushing Cuba to allow more freedom of movement for U.S. diplomats within Cuba, while Cuba wants relief from a sanctions regime that only Congress can fully lift.
In the days before this year's Summit of the Americas — the first to include Cuba — Obama and Castro sought to set a productive and optimistic tone for their highly anticipated encounter. While in Jamaica on Wednesday, Obama signaled that he would soon act to remove Cuba from the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism, eliminating a stigma that has been a source of friction for Havana.
During remarks in Kingston, Obama said the State Department had completed its review of the list and that he was waiting for a recommendation from his advisers.
"We don't want to be imprisoned by the past," Obama said. "When something doesn't work for 50 years, you don't just keep on doing it. You try something new."
Source
|
If your main argument is "Mosanto is not that bad", I guess that YOU WIN this argument !
Firms' goal is to make profit, period. There is nothing bad in that in itself, except most of the time profit suppose destroying competition and putting yourself in a monopole like situation. It is exactly what Mosanto has been doing : Mosanto is not bad, it's just a firm, and firms need control. That's the kind of thing theorician such as Samuelson all agreed upon, but today everybody has been greatly dumbed down.
|
On April 10 2015 23:59 WhiteDog wrote:
If your main argument is "Mosanto is not that bad", I guess that YOU WIN this argument !
Firms' goal is to make profit, period. There is nothing bad in that in itself, except most of the time profit suppose destroying competition and putting yourself in a monopole like situation. It is exactly what Mosanto has been doing : Mosanto is not bad, it's just a firm, and firms need control. That's the kind of thing theorician such as Samuelson all agreed upon, but today everybody has been greatly dumbed down.
So I've been defending Monsanto throughout this discussion, but you're absolutely right about them being a monopoly.
There's nothing wrong with GMO's, and most of the sleazy business practices that people accuse Monsanto of aren't true. But monopolies are unacceptable.
I'd be totally behind going after Monsanto on anti-trust law violations.
|
On April 10 2015 23:59 WhiteDog wrote:
If your main argument is "Mosanto is not that bad", I guess that YOU WIN this argument !
Firms' goal is to make profit, period. There is nothing bad in that in itself, except most of the time profit suppose destroying competition and putting yourself in a monopole like situation. It is exactly what Mosanto has been doing : Mosanto is not bad, it's just a firm, and firms need control. That's the kind of thing theorician such as Samuelson all agreed upon, but today everybody has been greatly dumbed down. I thought the whole French socialist perspective pushed the pursuit of profits to a dead-last goal, behind societal responsibility (welfare, community investment), fair prices, fair wages, and the like. The last honest socialist I talked to said the opposite: Firms' goal is not to make profits, end of story--and that motivation ought instead to rank last.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 11 2015 00:20 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2015 23:59 WhiteDog wrote:
If your main argument is "Mosanto is not that bad", I guess that YOU WIN this argument !
Firms' goal is to make profit, period. There is nothing bad in that in itself, except most of the time profit suppose destroying competition and putting yourself in a monopole like situation. It is exactly what Mosanto has been doing : Mosanto is not bad, it's just a firm, and firms need control. That's the kind of thing theorician such as Samuelson all agreed upon, but today everybody has been greatly dumbed down. So I've been defending Monsanto throughout this discussion, but you're absolutely right about them being a monopoly. There's nothing wrong with GMO's, and most of the sleazy business practices that people accuse Monsanto of aren't true. But monopolies are unacceptable. I'd be totally behind going after Monsanto on anti-trust law violations. monsanto is not a monopoly in the market, but GM industry is largely structured by IP.
|
On April 11 2015 00:58 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2015 23:59 WhiteDog wrote:
If your main argument is "Mosanto is not that bad", I guess that YOU WIN this argument !
Firms' goal is to make profit, period. There is nothing bad in that in itself, except most of the time profit suppose destroying competition and putting yourself in a monopole like situation. It is exactly what Mosanto has been doing : Mosanto is not bad, it's just a firm, and firms need control. That's the kind of thing theorician such as Samuelson all agreed upon, but today everybody has been greatly dumbed down. I thought the whole French socialist perspective pushed the pursuit of profits to a dead-last goal, behind societal responsibility (welfare, community investment), fair prices, fair wages, and the like. The last honest socialist I talked to said the opposite: Firms' goal is not to make profits, end of story--and that motivation ought instead to rank last.
For a socialist profit is not a problem I don't see where you actually believe anything like that ? For a socialist, the main question is the question of property and equality : in a society where the property right are well made (which mean collective for capital) the profits are always collective (and thus are a good thing).
So the problem is not that firms make profit, but that firms are owned by individuals.
|
The San Bernardino County, California, Sheriff's Office opened two investigations Thursday only hours after an NBC Los Angeles helicopter recorded deputies using a stun gun on a man on a stolen horse and then beating him repeatedly.
In the video, a sheriff's helicopter can be seen landing next to the man, who falls off the horse and is stunned by one of the deputies. Two deputies begin punching him in the head and kneeing him in the groin. Then, three others arrive and join in the pummeling, which lasts about two minutes.
source (video included in link)
Complacency is the enemy of progress. We cannot stand idle in the face of such overwhelming evil. We must make our voices heard.
|
On April 11 2015 03:06 always_winter wrote:Show nested quote + The San Bernardino County, California, Sheriff's Office opened two investigations Thursday only hours after an NBC Los Angeles helicopter recorded deputies using a stun gun on a man on a stolen horse and then beating him repeatedly.
In the video, a sheriff's helicopter can be seen landing next to the man, who falls off the horse and is stunned by one of the deputies. Two deputies begin punching him in the head and kneeing him in the groin. Then, three others arrive and join in the pummeling, which lasts about two minutes. source (video included in link) Complacency is the enemy of progress. We cannot stand idle in the face of such overwhelming evil. We must make our voices heard.
Having lived around san bernardino area for 4 years during college, I'm not fucking surprised.
|
imagine the riots if he wasnt white.
|
On April 11 2015 03:08 dAPhREAk wrote:
imagine the riots if he wasnt white.
nah, imagine the police response to the riot.
for people who've never lived in inland empire, the entire area is filled with redneck'd meth addicts.
|
I wonder when we're going to figure out that these incidents of brutality aren't outliers. There isn't one cop in that video, there's at least 5, and however many more come in later after the beating is done.
This is a systemic problem of law-enforcement using extreme, completely unnecessary, and completely aggressive violence against people. I've been of the opinion for years that there needs to be a real, broad, transparent agency to monitor our police departments (not internal affairs, each segmented from each other, each operating too much from within the departments they investigate), and that some of these departments (hello LAPD) simply need to be completely reconstructed from scratch, top to bottom. Fire them all, tear down the building even, because what these people do is that far beyond excusable.
And we've done a disservice to ourselves by focusing way too much on the racial issues when we see these incidents. This shouldn't be about race. It shouldn't even matter if a policeman is racist if he abides by rules of law and reasonable conduct. It'd just be an irrelevant personal view, as important as his politics. Racism only matters because our police feel like they can and should beat (and sometimes kill) defenseless people.
|
On April 11 2015 03:38 Leporello wrote:
I wonder when we're going to figure out that these incidents of brutality aren't outliers. There isn't one cop in that video, there's at least 5, and however many more come in later after the beating is done.
This is a systemic problem of law-enforcement using extreme, completely unnecessary, and completely aggressive violence against people. I've been of the opinion for years that there needs to be a real, broad, transparent agency to monitor our police departments (not internal affairs, each segmented from each other, each operating too much from within the departments they investigate), and that some of these departments (hello LAPD) simply need to be completely reconstructed from scratch, top to bottom. Fire them all, tear down the building even, because what these people do is that far beyond excusable.
And we've done a disservice to ourselves by focusing way too much on the racial issues when we see these incidents. This shouldn't be about race. It shouldn't even matter if a policeman is racist if he abides by rules of law and reasonable conduct. It'd just be an irrelevant personal view, as important as his politics. Racism only matters because our police feel like they can and should beat (and sometimes kill) defenseless people.
Absolutely. As a white male, I feel my black friends are more prone to experience this evil, although I agree the underlying issue is the excessive use of force which is not confined to racial boundaries. We CANNOT view these occurrences as outliers, we CANNOT hide behind indifference, we MUST make our voices heard and ignite the wheels of change which can bring the radical and comprehensive reform this nation and its people so richly deserve.
|
Motive doesn't matter to me. It doesn't matter why police brutalize people, the problem is that they do. It'd be just as bad if they beat and killed people just because they were in a bad mood, or didn't like the victim's hairstyle or whatever.
Finding a motive is important to prove guilt, but it doesn't make the crime any worse. You're just as dead if a cop shoots you for being black or because he had had a bad day.
|
On April 11 2015 04:21 Millitron wrote:
Motive doesn't matter to me. It doesn't matter why police brutalize people, the problem is that they do. It'd be just as bad if they beat and killed people just because they were in a bad mood, or didn't like the victim's hairstyle or whatever.
Finding a motive is important to prove guilt, but it doesn't make the crime any worse. You're just as dead if a cop shoots you for being black or because he had had a bad day.
This is a pretty stupid stance to take if what you actually want is to prevent the cops from shooting people dead in the first place.
Cops shooting people because they are racist has a different "cure"than cops shooting people because they are in bad moods. In the latter case, psychological treatment and ensuring better rest patterns could resolve the issue. In the former I have no clue how to treat racism except for education and time.
Of course, the short and mid-term solution is to take away their ability to use excess force (for instance, through greater oversight and stricter crackdowns on aggressive behaviour in cops), but if cops think it is somehow okay to shoot people in case of X, then it is a cultural problem, and that cultural root needs to be addressed.
|
On April 11 2015 03:38 Leporello wrote:
I wonder when we're going to figure out that these incidents of brutality aren't outliers. There isn't one cop in that video, there's at least 5, and however many more come in later after the beating is done.
This is a systemic problem of law-enforcement using extreme, completely unnecessary, and completely aggressive violence against people. I've been of the opinion for years that there needs to be a real, broad, transparent agency to monitor our police departments (not internal affairs, each segmented from each other, each operating too much from within the departments they investigate), and that some of these departments (hello LAPD) simply need to be completely reconstructed from scratch, top to bottom. Fire them all, tear down the building even, because what these people do is that far beyond excusable.
And we've done a disservice to ourselves by focusing way too much on the racial issues when we see these incidents. This shouldn't be about race. It shouldn't even matter if a policeman is racist if he abides by rules of law and reasonable conduct. It'd just be an irrelevant personal view, as important as his politics. Racism only matters because our police feel like they can and should beat (and sometimes kill) defenseless people.
The racism discussion is inevitable due to the pattern of events. On top of that, if the abuses are racially motivated, it gives greater ability for oversight/punishment/change due to the difference in federal/local laws and limitations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
