snafu

Hey! We f***ing get it. Thank God you found the “Marxist in your mind” and alerted us. You can turn off the “Marxist alarm” now.

Very talking-points-bot like.

Thank you for bringing these tweets to this board. I hate the way twitter is formatted to require “many tweets” to say what needs to be said. That’s one of the many reasons I don’t inhabit twitter.

Youre getting over your skis a bit there.

No. He killed two people. We know who shot the gun. This isn’t a mystery story. Go back to posting tweets and nonsense memes, I’d like to keep scrolling past them without paying much attention. I almost wonder why you’re such a bot. Almost, but I don’t care. Don’t bother answering.

Two people. You should get it right if you’re going to be outraged.

No.

Angry Kemp... I live in a State with Police, not a Police State. You stated “why wasn’t he tackled by the cops?” He was. Didn’t stop him. You asked why wasn’t he “tased”. He was. Kept going. You asked those things as though they are acceptable alternatives to shooting. I agree with you. However, there were tried, and they failed to subdue the guy. Do you know what happened next? It doesn’t seem so. You seem ignorant of the actual facts. And you appear to think every cop-suspect situation is the same. And you appear to believe that cops shouldn’t act actual humans — they aren’t permitted to eff up. I was just pointing out that you got your facts wrong and assumed that the cop just took out his gun and shot the guy without any events leading up to the incident. Yes, I agree that seven shots is excessive. I also believe that the guy should have been a lot more compliant and it would have never escalated to the point it did. If you don’t agree with that, then (in your own words) you’re either stupid or evil.

Just so you have your facts straight, he fought with the cops and was tased. Then he went to his car to apparently retrieve something. Do you know this already, or are you arguing something without knowing what happened?

By “stake” I mean to say that the result of voting will have an inevitable impact on people’s lives — whether they vote or not. The “state” is a compact and one may actively participate or opt not to. At this point, it is universal and trying to remove it altogether is not an option. Ugh! I’ve been saving that retort for future reference. Now I’ve got to come up with something original.

Maybe the dog is thinking of ways to kill you.

Can they make one for my dog?

I’m not going to ascribe motivation on people. I just believe that more is better when it comes to voting. Do I want voters to be serious? Of course. And everyone has a stake in the cost of the results whether they choose to vote or not; whether they’re eligible to vote, or not. I’ve been disagreeing with Tasker this whole thread and he’s treated me admirably.

That’s not what you said earlier. You said that freeloaders vote to keep the freeloading-enablers in office. I’d say that’s a pretty good understanding of the workings of government, and I’d say they do have a stake in its success — the way they see success. Get the people to fit the system. Don’t alter the system to fit an elitist attitude, or at least an attitude that isn’t consistent with yours. There’s already a remedy to deal with cheats: investigate them and enforce the laws of restitution and imprisonment. Or, alternatively, take out social programs and most taxes. I deny.

You’re talking about two different things. One is that you propose to exclude burdensome individuals from voting. The other is that you bring up people who voluntarily exclude themselves from voting. Big difference.

Exclusion is oppression.

You and I are going to have to disagree on this, which is fine by me. I see the representative democracy we live in as a contract among people. Not every agreement is perfectly representative of any single contracting person’s voice or conscience. As long as the end result is less repression and more freedom, I’m okay with that. Government isn’t necessarily instituted by the corrupt, but more often than not, it is co-opted by the corrupt, and regular people let it happen. I think that’s a problem as much as you think it is a problem. It isn’t a failure of how the system is set up, it is a failing of people as a collective group to participate, buy in, keep the contract alive, and accept the minority voices. The forest should never shrink, like government should never grow. I’m sure we agree on that. Axes shouldn’t go around selling themselves as parts of trees, that’s a failing of both the axe for being false, and of the trees for being lazy. As for your 1/6th issue, it seems that in order for our representative democracy to work better it needs to allow more voices, not fewer — and that’s why I deny the original premise. I want to say that it seems as though you see each individual as so unique that a system in which compromise is necessary stifles each person’s true, pure voice and therefore oppresses everyone. If what I take from your post is true, then I believe you’re failing to see that individuals can and do have common morals and goals for they way they want to live their lives. There exist (mainly) common social mores. Why not exploit those when forming and maintaining a government? As I said, in a pure sense, that’s the way a republic should work. The commonalities are few enough to keep government small, if people don’t allow it to over-expand.

Like a VAT? When you cut off people from the vote because they’re shiftless, you need a “social credit score system” like they have instituted in Communist China. No thanks. People don’t contribute for a myriad of reasons. Just because they don’t doesn’t mean they don’t have other moral values which do contribute to society. Cutting them out is the antithesis of inclusion.

Affirm. Our country isn’t anything like that now and never will be. And for that reason I still deny the premise contained in your thread title.

The elected officials in a Republic are ostensibly there to serve the citizens who elected them. That's the seutp of a Republic. If the officials get too despotic, then the masses answer back by electing someone else. In a pure sense -- I deny. Who gets to say where the "freeloader cutoff line" is? That's despotic in its own way. For this reason, I deny.

Justice should prevail. My out-of-town point was sort of a sidebar, but you've got to realize that this kid's poor decision led him to have to defend himself and two people are dead because of it, justified or not. I know it doesn't erase self-defense (though admittedly, I haven't watched the video).

Nobody should feel the need to pour into the area from out of town -- whether they want to loot and burn, or they want to defend utter strangers' property. Things would be much easier to handle.

If the kid did something unjustified, he should do time. The violent "protesters/rioters" should also be forced to sit it out for a long time. I realize Kenosha is close to the state line, but I'm not sure why he decided to go to a riot scene Wisconsin from Illinois in the first place -- not really good judgment there.

^^^ HAHA^^^ That's my profile on the "Old guy / young chick" dating site!!

People say that to my wife all the time!