patrick.net

Pigs, I guess this is why the crowds are so mad-they endure this everyday.

Blurtman says

Ferguson police mistakenly arrested an innocent man before viciously beating him so bad he was taken to hospital and then charged for bleeding on THEIR uniforms'

Henry Davis, 52, was arrested in Ferguson, Missouri, on September 20, 2009

Police had mistaken him for a man of the same name with an outstanding warrant

Davis claims police realized their mistake but still locked him up

He was allegedly beaten by a group of four officers

He was held for several days before being charged with four counts of property damage

Did he sue? If I was in a ghetto I would wish something like this would happen to me. It would be like winning the lottery.

man arrested for not turning over cell phone to cops.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPiVYKJVySc

Maryland thugs/police/DA tried to convict a man for having a helmet cam that recorded an interaction with a cop. He faced upto 5 years for having a helmet cam.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNcDGqzAB30

The criminal cops who committed these crimes should have their arms and legs amputated so that they can no longer commit harm. The judge who obstructed justice and protected them should have the same done to him.

lostand confused says

Maryland thugs/police/DA tried to convict a man for having a helmet cam that recorded an interaction with a cop. He faced upto 5 years for having a helmet cam.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNcDGqzAB30

First Amendment right. Supreme Court has upheld this right.

http://www.courtroomstrategy.com/2012/11/supreme-court-upholds-legality-of-videotaping-police/

He should sue for millions. The state will cave and beg to settle.

The Police Malevolent Association should be paying the tab.

Unions have no place in the modern society. Collective bargaining is a form of collusion.

Peter P says

Unions have no place in the modern society. Collective bargaining is a form of collusion.

Unions are needed now more than ever. Labor has lost its leverage and bargaining power--that's why corporate profits are through the roof.

Corporate profits are through the roof because of low interest rate and high productivity.

If labor is overprotected further then workers will be replaced by robots at a higher rate. The market is always fair, so long as the regulators remain impartial.

Peter P says

Corporate profits are through the roof because of low interest rate and high productivity.

If labor is overprotected further then workers will be replaced by robots at a higher rate. The market is always fair, so long as the regulators remain impartial.

Nope--it's mainly due to low wages.

The market doesn't care about fair--fair is irrelevant. It's completely subjective.

It's true that there isn't much we can do about automation, which is why we very quickly need to develop a way to redistribute wealth.

tatupu70 says

The market doesn't care about fair--fair is irrelevant. It's completely subjective.

It's true that there isn't much we can do about automation, which is why we very quickly need to develop a way to redistribute wealth.

The market has no prejudice. A dollar from you is the same as a dollar from me. It is 100% fair until people start projecting false ideals like "economic justice."

Wealth inequality has benefits and pitfalls. Automation can shield us from some of the bad effects. Robots can help fight crime.

Our goal should be total growth. A higher tide has the potential to lift all boats, if all skippers are doing their jobs.

A global cap-and-trade child-birth permit system will solve overpopulation and poverty in the long run.

Child-birth is one of the few areas that need global regulations. Without it, future population growth will always happen in the poorest, least-educated areas and/or families. Imagine that future.

Peter P says

The market has no prejudice. A dollar from you is the same as a dollar from me. It is 100% fair until people start projecting false ideals like "economic justice."

No prejudice does not mean fair.

Peter P says

Wealth inequality has benefits and pitfalls. Automation can shield us from some of the bad effects. Robots can help fight crime.

Large wealth inequality has no benefits. Automation cannot shield us from anything--it increases inequality.

Peter P says

Our goal should be total growth. A higher tide has the potential to lift all boats, if all skippers are doing their jobs.

Total growth cannot be sustained in the face of large inequality. Hasn't history taught you that?

Wealth inequality creates economic incentives at the cost of higher crime rates. Automation can be used to fight crime and maintain stability.

That said, a society should strive for opportunity equality.

Peter P says

Wealth inequality creates economic incentives at the cost of higher crime rates.

Large wealth inequality creates a small, entrenched upper class, and a very large entrenched lower class. It reduces demand and kills an economy. There is nothing good that comes from such a situation.

tatupu70 says

Peter P says

Wealth inequality creates economic incentives at the cost of higher crime rates.

Large wealth inequality creates a small, entrenched upper class, and a very large entrenched lower class. It reduces demand and kills an economy. There is nothing good that comes from such a situation.

This is why opportunity equality is important.

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

Dan8267 says

The criminal cops who committed these crimes should have their arms and legs amputated so that they can no longer commit harm. The judge who obstructed justice and protected them should have the same done to him.

And then what do you do with the disembodied limbs?

Extra credit for creative answers!

Beat Kim Jung-un to death with them!

The upper class is no longer entrenched. Large businesses can be upsurped by small startups.

I say abolish inheritance tax but severely restrict the use of trusts. Rich kids should be tempted to spend every of their dollars at the earliest opportunity. This is how wealth should be "redistributed." :-)

Peter P says

This is why opportunity equality is important.

Money = opportunity in a free market. It's impossible to have equal opportunity when you have large wealth disparity

Peter P says

The upper class is no longer entrenched. Large businesses can be upsurped by small startups.

lol---as Microsoft is usurped, Bill Gates seems to be doing just fine.

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

Dan8267 says

The criminal cops who committed these crimes should have their arms and legs amputated so that they can no longer commit harm. The judge who obstructed justice and protected them should have the same done to him.

And then what do you do with the disembodied limbs?

Extra credit for creative answers!

Sell them as trophies to hang in the living room.

Peter P says

I say abolish inheritance tax but severely restrict the use of trusts. Rich kids should be tempted to spend every of their dollars at the earliest opportunity. This is how wealth should be "redistributed." :-)

Why would trusts be necessary if you have no inheritance taxes?

tatupu70 says

Peter P says

This is why opportunity equality is important.

Money = opportunity in a free market. It's impossible to have equal opportunity when you have large wealth disparity

Larry Page and Larry Ellison. Both were not born rich.

Gengis Khan, the greatest person ever walked on earth, was dealt a terrible hand.

Money equals opportunity only in an overly-regulated world.

tatupu70 says

Peter P says

I say abolish inheritance tax but severely restrict the use of trusts. Rich kids should be tempted to spend every of their dollars at the earliest opportunity. This is how wealth should be "redistributed." :-)

Why would trusts be necessary if you have no inheritance taxes?

To keep money in the family by imposing restrictions on the use of funds.

tatupu70 says

Peter P says

The upper class is no longer entrenched. Large businesses can be upsurped by small startups.

lol---as Microsoft is usurped, Bill Gates seems to be doing just fine.

So what? Why do you hate success?

I used to admire Bill Gates when he was in the conquest mode.

tatupu70 says

Peter P says

This is why opportunity equality is important.

Money = opportunity in a free market. It's impossible to have equal opportunity when you have large wealth disparity

Bill Gates made it. So did Warren Buffett, Obama, Steve Jobs, and the thousands more. We also have 10 million millionaires. They all have one thing in common....they took the opportunity given to them.

Peter P says

Larry Page and Larry Ellison. Both were not born rich.

Gengis Khan, the greatest person ever walked on earth, was dealt a terrible hand.

Money equals opportunity only in an overly-regulated world.

Wonderful. You come up with 3 exceptions. Yes, it is not impossible to be successful if you are born poor. But the odds are very much against you.

You cannot argue that in a free market, someone born in East St. Louis has the same opportunity as someone born in Palo Alto.

Peter P says

To keep money in the family by imposing restrictions on the use of funds.

lol--nobody creates a trust to keep money in a family by stopping people from spending it. Other than minors. Do you think that's a big problem that needs fixed--allowing minors to spend freely?

tatupu70 says

Do you think that's a big problem that needs fixed--allowing minors to spend freely?

Yes. :-)

More business activities.

Peter P says

tatupu70 says

Peter P says

The upper class is no longer entrenched. Large businesses can be upsurped by small startups.

lol---as Microsoft is usurped, Bill Gates seems to be doing just fine.

So what? Why do you hate success?

I used to admire Bill Gates when he was in the conquest mode.

Ah yes, back to the usual argument. Hating success. I love success. And a healthy economy allows many, many, more people to be successful.

Less wealth disparity encourages success!

Strategist says

Bill Gates made it. So did Warren Buffett, Obama, Steve Jobs, and the thousands more. We also have 10 million millionaires. They all have one thing in common....they took the opportunity given to them.

Come on--enough with the bogus arguments. There are always exceptions. That does not disprove the rule. There is most definitely a correlation between success and family wealth.

Rather than change the subject--do you guys think someone born into poverty has the same opportunity as someone born into upper middle class?

Since you think opportunity is the most important variable--answer me that.

tatupu70 says

Strategist says

Bill Gates made it. So did Warren Buffett, Obama, Steve Jobs, and the thousands more. We also have 10 million millionaires. They all have one thing in common....they took the opportunity given to them.

Come on--enough with the bogus arguments. There are always exceptions. That does not disprove the rule. There is most definitely a correlation between success and family wealth.

tatupu70 says

Rather than change the subject--do you guys think someone born into poverty has the same opportunity as someone born into upper middle class?

Since you think opportunity is the most important variable--answer me that.

I would agree they have less opportunity especially if they are inner city residents. Inner cities are like quick sand, not many manage to get out unless they have NBA skills.
I just can't figure out why it is so difficult for them to get out of the inner cities.

tatupu70 says

Rather than change the subject--do you guys think someone born into poverty has the same opportunity as someone born into upper middle class?

Since you think opportunity is the most important variable--answer me that.

They have different types of opportunities. Those born rich are not necessarily motivated.

It is easier for the kids to attain mediocrity if the parents are middle class.

Middle class should not be a goal.

The real danger in life is not failing. The worst thing that can happen to a person is aiming too low and then achieving the goal.

The mind is powerful. The best opportunities come to those who are open minded. We all have emotional baggage. The key is to let go and to embrace.

tatupu70 says

Strategist says

Bill Gates made it. So did Warren Buffett, Obama, Steve Jobs, and the thousands more. We also have 10 million millionaires. They all have one thing in common....they took the opportunity given to them.

Come on--enough with the bogus arguments. There are always exceptions. That does not disprove the rule. There is most definitely a correlation between success and family wealth.

The majority of Forbes 400 are self-made.

Strategist says

I just can't figure out why it is so difficult for them to get out of the inner cities.

Is that sarcasm?

Peter P says

They have different types of opportunities. Those born rich are not necessarily motivated.

It is easier for the kids to attain mediocrity if the parents are middle class.

Middle class should not be a goal.

The real danger in life is not failing. The worst thing that can happen to a person is aiming too low and then achieving the goal.

Does "different" opportunities = fewer opportunities?

Motivation is not an opportunity and is irrelevant.

So, let's try again--do you agree that being born into poverty provides less opportunity than being born into upper middle class, for example?