What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Cops 4: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Cops 4: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

joecct said:
Protect the weak from the strong.
Click to expand...

I'm being serious here: I can't understand how if you understand and live by that phrase you can back the Republican party that has been active in the US for the last 30 years. From my perspective, since about 1978 that party has been a boot stamping on a human face. They are nothing but a club wielded by the strong against anything that gets in their way, most often, the weak. They make a charnal house and called it "freedom."
 
Last edited:
Re: Cops 4: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

Kepler said:
I'm being serious here: I can't understand how if you understand and live by that phrase you can back the Republican party that has been active in the US for the last 30 years. From my perspective, since about 1978 that party has been a boot stamping on a human face. They are nothing but a club wielded by the strong against anything that gets in their way, most often, the weak. They make a charnal house and called it "freedom."
Click to expand...

Agree. Those who say "protect the weak from the strong" and turn around and insist that the SCOTUS give legislatures time to come around to concepts as gender choice and equality are speaking out of both sides of their mouths. These same people usually use "strict construction" as nothing but cover from which they can emerge from time to time to advocate their own form of judicial legislation.
 
joecct said:
Serious. See followups.
Click to expand...

Even if pot is decriminalized in X and Z, it's still illegal federally and still illegal in Y. So yes.

When states decriminalize pot, a federal agent could still arrest everyone involved in the trade in that state. They just don't have the resources or the inclination to do so. And they can't force state cops to assist them with upholding federal laws.
 
Re: Cops 4: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

unofan said:
Even if pot is decriminalized in X and Z, it's still illegal federally and still illegal in Y. So yes.

When states decriminalize pot, a federal agent could still arrest everyone involved in the trade in that state.
Click to expand...

For interstate trade; but if somebody is growing his own in Oregon the feds can't arrest him. Correct?
 
Re: Cops 4: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

Kepler said:
For interstate trade; but if somebody is growing his own in Oregon the feds can't arrest him. Correct?
Click to expand...

Why not? (I'm forgetting the case name and a few of the details now, but here goes...) The feds were able to come down on a farmer who was growing legal crops for his own family's consumption, not taking them to market, and yet they were still able to get him on some violations because they said that his family not participating in the crop markets had an impact on interstate commerce.
 
Re: Cops 4: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

St. Clown said:
Why not? (I'm forgetting the case name and a few of the details now, but here goes...) The feds were able to come down on a farmer who was growing legal crops for his own family's consumption, not taking them to market, and yet they were still able to get him on some violations because they said that his family not participating in the crop markets had an impact on interstate commerce.
Click to expand...

That sounds like one of the ADM laws that agri-biz lobbies through Congress to force small holders to sell to them.

Even center-left jurists have said the elasticity of the Commerce Clause was abused in the 60s and 70s. Maybe this is an example of that? uno?
 
Kepler said:
For interstate trade; but if somebody is growing his own in Oregon the feds can't arrest him. Correct?
Click to expand...

Nope, because it's still a federal crime, and there are lots of case law behind federal criminal statutes being constitutional even where applied to something not in interstate commerce so long as it could effect interstate commerce.
 
Last edited:
Kepler said:
That sounds like one of the ADM laws that agri-biz lobbies through Congress to force small holders to sell to them.

Even center-left jurists have said the elasticity of the Commerce Clause was abused in the 60s and 70s. Maybe this is an example of that? uno?
Click to expand...

That case was from the Depression, so it predates ADM by a lot. I can't remember it's name at the moment either.
 
Kepler said:
I'm being serious here: I can't understand how if you understand and live by that phrase you can back the Republican party that has been active in the US for the last 30 years. From my perspective, since about 1978 that party has been a boot stamping on a human face. They are nothing but a club wielded by the strong against anything that gets in their way, most often, the weak. They make a charnal house and called it "freedom."
Click to expand...

I can try to live my life under those two principles. Hopefully if more people did, then weight of numbers would prevail.

It's not going to happen overnight - not even via judicial decree. :) But we (I) have to start somewhere.

Both parties crush the weak in favor of the strong. Creating dependencies is bad. Crushing confidence is horrible. But (guess where I'm going), I cannot and will not ever condone the weakest among us (guess who) being annihilated for convenience sake. One party makes it part of their core beliefs. Never can or will I support them as long as they support it.
 
joecct said:
I can try to live my life under those two principles. Hopefully if more people did, then weight of numbers would prevail.

It's not going to happen overnight - not even via judicial decree. :) But we (I) have to start somewhere.

Both parties crush the weak in favor of the strong. Creating dependencies is bad. Crushing confidence is horrible. But (guess where I'm going), I cannot and will not ever condone the weakest among us (guess who) being annihilated for convenience sake. One party makes it part of their core beliefs. Never can or will I support them as long as they support it.
Click to expand...

But I was told in the other thread that no one votes for conservatives because of abortion.
 
Re: Cops 4: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

joecct said:
I can try to live my life under those two principles. Hopefully if more people did, then weight of numbers would prevail.

It's not going to happen overnight - not even via judicial decree. :) But we (I) have to start somewhere.

Both parties crush the weak in favor of the strong. Creating dependencies is bad. Crushing confidence is horrible. But (guess where I'm going), I cannot and will not ever condone the weakest among us (guess who) being annihilated for convenience sake. One party makes it part of their core beliefs. Never can or will I support them as long as they support it.
Click to expand...

How do the dems crush the weak?
 
BassAle said:
Joe is a single issue voter: Abortion.

Doesn't matter how evil the Republicans are, as long as they are against a woman's right to control her body Joe is happy.
Click to expand...

All life is sacred from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death. Which, I freely admit, conflicts with capital punishment. However, pure evil must be eradicated and not allowed to grow. So that's how I split a moral hair.

I would be vehemently against any party that promoted or practiced genocide, regardless of how well they got the economy running. Surely we could agree on that?
 
Re: Cops 4: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

joecct said:
All life is sacred from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death. Which, I freely admit, conflicts with capital punishment. However, pure evil must be eradicated and not allowed to grow. So that's how I split a moral hair.

I would be vehemently against any party that promoted or practiced genocide, regardless of how well they got the economy running. Surely we could agree on that?
Click to expand...
Pure evil can be eradicated without the aid of capital punishment. And I don't know that I would want human beings determining what "pure evil" really is. Your evil may not be the same as most other people's evil. The only acceptable argument in favor of capital punishment is that a person believes there are some offenses one person can commit that cause them to forfeit the right to continue living. Why dress it up as something other than that by trying to sound noble?
 
Re: Cops 4: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

joecct said:
I would be vehemently against any party that promoted or practiced genocide, regardless of how well they got the economy running. Surely we could agree on that?
Click to expand...

sure.

I just don't buy that aborting a clump of cells without a brain is murder. At what point does an embryo become a 'person'? I don't really know, but I don't think anyone wants a late term abortion unless it is medically necessary. I don't think anyone likes abortion. I'd rather keep it legal, accessible, and safe, and get it done as early as possible. And I certainly believe it is none of my business. In a perfect world, it would only be necessary if the life of the mother is in danger. Unfortunately one group of people does not believe in comprehensive sex education and prefer sticking their head in the sand and pushing abstinence only education.



I don't think any life is sacred. We're animals, and no more special than any other in the grand scheme of the universe. I'm sure you don't have a problem eating a cheeseburger.
 
Last edited:
Re: Cops 4: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

joecct said:
All life is sacred from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death. Which, I freely admit, conflicts with capital punishment. However, pure evil must be eradicated and not allowed to grow. So that's how I split a moral hair.

I would be vehemently against any party that promoted or practiced genocide, regardless of how well they got the economy running. Surely we could agree on that?
Click to expand...

I can understand how you would be a one issue voter and back the Republicans given your stance on abortion. That's fine. I would expect you to also oppose abortion in cases of rape and incest to be morally consistent. That makes sense.

But I think you're "creating dependence" language is laughably partisan. That's what conservatives tell themselves to quiet their consciences. I believe that because you are a Christian you know that the Republican attitude towards helping "the least among us" is a moral abomination. Jesus never said "don't feed the hungry, you're only stifling their entrepreneurial spirit!" :rolleyes:
 
Re: Cops 4: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

BassAle said:
I don't think any life is sacred. We're animals, and no more special than any other in the grand scheme of the universe. I'm sure you don't have a problem eating a cheeseburger.
Click to expand...

I'm biased towards life. It does cool things like let balls roll between its legs to let Ray Knight score from second.

Human life takes precedence because (1) we're human and everybody loves their own farts and (2) so far humans are the only life we've found who has the ability to sign contracts with the Red Sox so years later they can let said ball roll between their legs. When we discover the Kzinti I'll rethink it. They look like they'd make good corner outfielders. And their woman are non-sentient which would appeal to Keith Hernandez.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top