comments by bob2356

bob2356   befriend (0)   ignore (4)   Sat, 28 May 2016, 2:42am PDT   Like   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 1

NuttBoxer says

One line I do see repeated often by cops today is they shot because they felt threatened. This justification of their life over a citizens is used in cases where there was no threat, or they could have chosen to subdue the subject with minimal risk. The shift from protect and serve to bully and abuse has been going on for some time, but it has never been more pronounced than it is today.

The problem is police forces are becoming more military. Police are supposed to be basically social workers dealing with drunks and dysfunctional families most of the time, not special ops teams. Swat teams, military trainers, military equipment, military tactics, etc. are the norm now. I worked in a really tough jersey shore summer resort in the late 60's and early 70's. I knew most of the cops and saw lots of arrests. The cops didn't pull out their guns first thing, they waded in, arrested people and sometimes clunked a few heads together. If you watch old versions of cops from the late 80's the police were a lot less aggressive and less likely to confront people with guns. Starting in the 90's the military style of policing really took off. It's a lot more exciting and fun to be rambo than sheriff taylor mayberry rfd. Now the first thing that happens in far too many situations is guns come out first before it is even clear what is going on. Many states require a swat team for all felony arrests. A lot of these arrests used to be handled with a cop walking up and knocking on the door. It's hard to justify the increased aggression levels. It was much more dangerous to be a cop in the 70's than today. Yet another disastrous legacy of the war on drugs.

bob2356   befriend (0)   ignore (4)   Sat, 28 May 2016, 2:02am PDT   Like   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 2

HydroCabron says

bob2356 says

I don't find these to be a traits I desire for the leader of the free world. I'm not sure how the hillary apologists manage to convince themselves they are.

In November, I will be voting for a candidate whom I consider something from the middle layers of a septic tank. I'd hardly call that being an apologist, but make yourself a straw voodoo doll of me, if it helps.

I will hold my nose and do this, because the alternative is a candidate from a cask of plutonium waste buried deep beneath the septic tank.

If you are failing to strongly condemn hillary actions of deliberately and with much planning stretching the laws to the breaking point to avoid accountability that is expected of any public official as being totally unacceptable then yes you are an apologist. The na,na johnny did it too 8 year old on the playground response doesn't mitigate the fact that as secretary of state she was a public official, doing public business, paid by public funds which means that according to the law of the land she was responsible for making sure that ALL of the records were in the public domain for public scrutiny. Not making sure they were hidden on a server in a closet in her house and hoping she didn't get caught. Then having the arrogance to say I'll pick and choose which ones I think the public should have. I find it very hard to believe that after 50 years of involvement in public service hillary didn't know what was expected of her.

I am not really sure which of the candidates is more dishonest and dangerous. I think hillary is possibly more scarey than trump. GWB managed to destabilize the entire mid east which will take 50 years to fix if ever. I'm not sure hillary wouldn't destabilize the entire planet. She has unlimited ego combined with poor judgement while being the biggest and most aggressive neocon out there. Her mindset is very uncomfortably close to the domino theory idiots of the 50's who couldn't understand the difference between the rise in communism and the fall of colonialism or why it mattered leading the US into many bad situations including the vietnam war. I wouldn't be surprised to see trump recycle the goldwater daisy ad which would be a really ironic twist. On the other hand no one has a clue what trump thinks since it depends on what day it is and who he is talking to.

bob2356   befriend (0)   ignore (4)   Sat, 28 May 2016, 1:25am PDT   Like (1)   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 3

HydroCabron says

But why is it suddenly a problem when a Democrat does it? Internalized GOP hate-spew much?

Your attitude is one of the biggest problems with the American political system today. No one can be objective, it's us against them rah, rah, rah go team. You obviously missed my many posts about GWB/darth cheney which were considerably less kind than anything I've said about hillary. No it's not GOP hate-spew, I hate-spew against people who deserve it no matter what their political affiliation.

bob2356   befriend (0)   ignore (4)   Fri, 27 May 2016, 6:25am PDT   Like (1)   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 4

HydroCabron says

Seriously: this site and this whole nation are both infested with morons who believe that the e-mail server places Clinton in the same class as Nixon,

It does, it's about being dishonest, egotistical, paranoid, and avoiding accountability. Setting up her email server was a very carefully planned end run around the FOI act and the federal records act while being very sure that everything was technically legal by the finest of hair splitting. A lot of thought went into it. I also think all the excuses and explanations were also worked out well before hand, just in case it blew up in her face. The long series of constantly morphing technically true explanations were just way too artfully worded for maximum political effect to be off the cuff.

HIllary has no regard for any law she considers inconvenient to her exercise of power without being accountable and her sense of entitlement to do whatever she pleases, believing fervently that hillary always knows best what the little people (defined as everyone other than hillary) need. She is very good at avoiding actually complying those laws while staying legal. Nixon just wasn't as good as clinton (no one is as good as clinton) at keeping on the barely legal side of the law is the only difference.

I don't find these to be a traits I desire for the leader of the free world. I'm not sure how the hillary apologists manage to convince themselves they are.

bob2356   befriend (0)   ignore (4)   Fri, 27 May 2016, 3:58am PDT   Like   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 5

zzyzzx says

bob2356 says

They did know. They also thought the insurance mandate would drive millions of under 40's that would require almost no health care into buying policies and provide a windfall far in excess of the cost of covering existing conditions. That didn't happen, many young healthy people are opting for the tax penalty. Which makes the economics of ACA unsustainabl

They should have known that was going to happen as well.

Why? On paper it all looked good, the numbers worked fine. Otherwise why would health insurance companies have spent huge amounts lobbying for ACA? The problem is people didn't do what the insurance companies, politicians, and lobbyists expected them to do.

bob2356   befriend (0)   ignore (4)   Thu, 26 May 2016, 9:42am PDT   Like (1)   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 6

Strategist says

bob2356 says

Do you suppose the WSJ has a set schedule for recycling this stupidity or do they just do it on a random basis whenever they need some filler?

What's stupid about this?

Because no one can ever find the overseas buyers pouring money in. The percentage of overseas buyers has been about the same for decades. Just the usual real estate shill and WSJ (the same thing pretty much) bullshit recycled year after year.

bob2356   befriend (0)   ignore (4)   Wed, 25 May 2016, 6:54pm PDT   Like (2)   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 7

tovarichpeter says

Chinese pouring money into U.S. real estate

Do you suppose the WSJ has a set schedule for recycling this stupidity or do they just do it on a random basis whenever they need some filler?

bob2356   befriend (0)   ignore (4)   Wed, 25 May 2016, 6:49pm PDT   Like   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 8

P N Dr Lo R says

The usual response of a Marxist. The Russian revolution destroyed the capitalists, the most productive people in Russia, and plundered their businesses, leaving an uneducated peasantry to starve under collectivization. Just imagine what private property and a lack of corruption could have accomplished!

The capitalists caused the revolution. The capitalists in russia before the revolution were french and british brought in by Sergei Witte the minister of finance. The workers were literally starving and living in some of the worst slums ever seen. The horrible living conditions, even worse working conditions, and poverty of the industrial workers was one of the biggest factors making the revolution possible. This was the radicals recruiting ground.

bob2356   befriend (0)   ignore (4)   Mon, 23 May 2016, 1:24pm PDT   Like   Dislike (1)     Share   Quote   Comment 9

zzyzzx says

“witness after witness after witness” asserted that they were given voter registrations prior to the 2012 election and sent to states without voter identification laws.

Upon receiving the instruction, Livingston explained, they were informed that unless they “show up and vote the democratic [sic] ticket, they would be arrested and deported.”

I read on the internet that witness after witness said the moon is made of green cheese.

bob2356   befriend (0)   ignore (4)   Mon, 23 May 2016, 12:50pm PDT   Like   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 10

tatupu70 says

Xanthidae says

I count 3, 3, 2. thus proving 6th grade literacy has gone to hell ever since the teachers unionized...

fyi--Mother Jones is two words.

Apparently it has gone really to hell. The man with crabs didn't even have to use the fingers on the other hand and still got it wrong.

bob2356   befriend (0)   ignore (4)   Sun, 22 May 2016, 10:11pm PDT   Like   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 11

thunderlips11 says

$20B one time is nothing in a $4T/year budget, especially when we've paid for various wars and interventions without a blink.

$20B isn't even the starting bid. Anyone that believes that number is a fool. Again, why spend dime 1? Start enforcing the laws against employers until there a no jobs for illegals, they will leave. Dope isn't coming across the border in 4x4's, it's coming through border checkpoints in tractor trailers. A wall will have zero effect on drug trafficking. You've got your head stuck up the wrong end of the camel.

bob2356   befriend (0)   ignore (4)   Sun, 22 May 2016, 10:04pm PDT   Like   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 12

Ironman says

What happened, did your subscriptions to Mother Jones, ThinkProgress and Salon expire?

Sorry you are confused, a permanent condition, about other people's reading habits, but I don't even know what 2 of the 3 are and have never even read a single issue of any of them. Unlike you I actually graduated 6th grade and am not limited to publications that only use words with 2 syllables or less.

Is being a loser something people like you have to train for or does it come naturally? I always wanted to know and while I have the worlds foremost expert on the subject available I thought I would ask.

bob2356   befriend (0)   ignore (4)   Sun, 22 May 2016, 9:24am PDT   Like (2)   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 13

John Bailo says

, it has to be "octane boosted" to be usable in modern cars. What is octane boosting -- it's adding more Hydrogen which is the reason why the US already has an existing hydrogen network of pipelines!

Bullshit. The octane numbers are obtained by blending different levels of cracked hydrocarbon chains. Specifically heptane(7 carbon chains hence hept) and isooctane(8 carbon chains hence oct). Octane is the percentage of isooctane, 91 octane is 91% isooctane and 9% heptane. Octane isn't boosted, it's lowered. No one adds hydrogen. There is what is called hydrocracking to process heavy crude. But hydrogen is used as part of the catalytic process and is recycled back, not added into the finished distillate. There aren't that many hydrocrackers around. There is less than 1000 miles of hydrogen pipeline in the US, hardly a network.

John Bailo says

All that we are now doing is removing the middle man -- taking the H of the C-H -- and using it directly as an electricity source. And even now they have built artificial leaves...membranes that let sunlight directly remove H2 from H20 in a catalytic process resembling photosynthesis.

So far none of this is even remotely makes economic sense. It takes more energy to produce hydrogen than hydrogen contains, hardly removing the middleman. Caltech's artificial leaves are barely a science project and uses rare metals to create minuscule amounts of hydrogen at high cost. This is decades away from any type of application, even if it turns out that it makes economic sense to do.

bob2356   befriend (0)   ignore (4)   Fri, 20 May 2016, 9:52pm PDT   Like   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 14

thunderlips11 says

It's impossible to build a wall along the flat semi-arid plains flanking the Rio Grande - have you seen the terrain? And it would take such advanced technology.

It's not like the Great Wall is almost double the length of the entire US-Mexican border - of actual wall, not just defensive positions and fortified places.

It's not like the great wall prevented centuries of invaders from going through the great wall like shit through a goose. Trumps great wall won't fare any better.

bob2356   befriend (0)   ignore (4)   Fri, 20 May 2016, 9:45pm PDT   Like (1)   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 15

A good article in today's NYTimes about this very subject. showing what the reality is for building a wall. Of course there is the problem of the NYTimes being written on a 6th grade reading level which means the trump and wall supporters will find it far beyond their intellectual capacity and reading ability, gaining no knowledge or insight from their attempts to comprehend anything not written on a fox news level.

bob2356   befriend (0)   ignore (4)   Thu, 19 May 2016, 5:04am PDT   Like   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 16

tatupu70 says

I agree--as long as the blacks, Micks, Chinamen, Pollocks, etc. know their place, things run swell.

You forgot the krauts, wops, and catholics.

bob2356   befriend (0)   ignore (4)   Wed, 18 May 2016, 2:06pm PDT   Like (1)   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 17

Rew says

For clarity, I was referring to Europe, as in the previous context of our discussion. But, you believe these countries listed are examples of drug policy we should follow? Aren't these countries too culturally, politically, and economically different from the US to be a close enough comparison of what policy implementation effects would be for the US?

My conversations were about countries, not europe. You keep saying legalizing or decriminalizing will be the end of the world and everyone keeps pointing out wasn't the end of the world anywhere else. You are aware that drugs were perfectly legal for 150 years and the republic didn't fail weren't you?

The societal costs of legalization can't be anywhere near the disaster the war on drugs has been. Why don't you open your eyes and look at the huge societal costs of the war on drugs. Prohibition created organized crime, the war on drugs turned organized crime into a gigantic multinational phenomenon with almost unlimited power and money. Over 50 billion a year spent on the drug war by the US alone. US intervention and policies have been a disaster in latin america. Our policy and strategies have empowered organized criminals, corrupted governments, stimulated violence, assaulted the environment and created tens of thousands of refugees all across latin america. In the US police forces have been militarized across the country and are no longer trusted by the citizens. Huge swaths of the cites are no go zones. A large number of civil rights have been stripped away. Anything you own can be taken away on the say so of a cop with no recourse at all. You then have to prove you weren't committing a crime to get it back. Minorities are marginalized and distrusted. Blacks are arrested up to 50 times more for drugs even though usage rates are the same as whites. Half a million people are in prison on drug charges. A large percentage of minorities are now ex cons. A single drug offence, including marijuana possession, means you cannot get education financial aid, public housing, food stamps, etc.. Huge numbers of people have to submit to urine testing without cause. This is somehow better than going back to legal drugs or at least legal pot? I don't think so. Where is your concern for the irreparable societal damage done by the war on drugs?

bob2356   befriend (0)   ignore (4)   Wed, 18 May 2016, 8:46am PDT   Like   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 18

MMR says

it can be argued that Clinton didn't do the job right in 1993 itself when there was a car bomb at the WTC.

Actually that's not quite correct. We had bin laden literally in special op's gun sights in sudan. The special ops guys wanted to kill him, Clinton wanted to kill him, but the JCS and senior generals kept scotching the operation because no one wanted to do anything that would affect their career if it went wrong. Instead of having boots on the ground pop bin laden, the generals decided to send cruise missiles instead and ended up missed bin laden. I'll have to look through my books to see which one has the story.

bob2356   befriend (0)   ignore (4)   Tue, 17 May 2016, 9:48pm PDT   Like (1)   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 19

Rew says

bob2356 says

Other countries have legalized or decriminalized without big social programs other than just regular addiction treatment that existed already and the use rates just don't change much.

The trick is they already had well funded programs in place and they expanded on them in preparation for the impact legalization would have. For a nation our size we spend something like a paltry 28 billion on addiction treatment, and likely because of that, we have some of the highest total drug use and addiction rates in the world (if not the highest by sheer population affected/drug users). As far as innovative or aggressive, Europe in general, hands down blows away what we have for drug abuse treatment.

Columbia, Argentina, Uruguay,Brazil, Ecuador, Jamaica, Mexico, Peru, Ukraine, Bangladesh, Iran, Costa RIca, Greenland, North Korea already had well funded addiction programs in place and expanded them in preparation for decriminalization/legalization? Wow, who knew that? Learn something new every day. You are a virtual fountain of knowledge that absolutely no one else has.

bob2356   befriend (0)   ignore (4)   Mon, 16 May 2016, 1:32pm PDT   Like (1)   Dislike (2)     Share   Quote   Comment 20

Ironman says

Here, pot boy, I'll post it here AGAIN, since you're so reading impaired:

This isn't a plan, it's a recycling of the same tired meaningless debunked claptrap that been going around for years. It's only a plan to someone as clueless and uninformed as you.

home   top   share   link sharer   users   register   best comments   about   source code  

#housing   #investing   #politics   #economics   #humor  
please recommend to your friends