Guns are the new toilet paper.

Here we go again. Just got this via text:

Oakland PD: Advisory" from Oakland Police Department CA : Nixle


http://nixle.us/C3XCQ

calbear93 said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

Matthew Patel said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

Where's the protest march to bring attention to the killing of Bernell Trammell, a black man who committed the crime of favoring Trump over Biden? I haven't seen any marches in his name. It's interesting how the protesters pick their enemy of the moment. Look at it for what it is. The thugs are opportunists who have found a way to act out against society during a time they believe they can get away with it. They don't give a rip about anyone. They're angry at their own failings and have found a convenient outlet. Nobody who's breaking stuff at 3AM has a real life.

---

It's so funny how you see things written in the RWNJ rags that all of these so-called independent thinkers read and you know that soon, the same exact tripe you read somewhere else will eventually make it to a RWNJ near you.

Is LMK5 particularly knowledgeable about black men in Milwaukee who get killed? Of course he isn't. He's as unknowledgeable about that as any other number of subjects he speaks on. But he's been told what to believe by his "information" sources and now he has something to be outraged about.

---

Show me the protests against the carnage in Chicago. Show me the marches showing support for Bernell Trammell. Show me the protests against rising crime in NYC.

---

Maybe conservative groups should try organizing those. If their positions are popular enough they should have no trouble attracting crowds.

---

Well, people like LMK5 are not pretending to be the white savior for the minorities. And whether something is popular (relatively) does not mean it is worthwhile. The protesters who are still protesting to this day two months after the incident are not adding incremental value, especially in the middle of a pandemic.

---

Okay, but so what? LMK5 was not making an argument against the efficacy of the protests there, in fact his point entirely rests upon the idea that protests ARE effective and WHY don't these liberals protest these things that conservatives care about? Only why would they? Can't people who care about those issues also organize their own demonstrations? What's stopping them?

(This leaving aside Unit2's entirely logical point that protests against police violence are protests against the government and actions taken in its name, while street violence by private citizens is not something that can be protested in the same fashion.)

Or is this exchange really just about trying to catch liberals being hypocritical and not actually about solving social issues?

---

For me, it was just the sheer stupidity of white woke crowd still vandalizing buildings two months after George Floyd, thinking that there are still people who have not made up their mind and will be influenced by another burning of buildings. I don't even view them as protesters like I did with those who understandably rose up in anger demanding change soon after George Floyd. These hooligans don't really care about George Floyd or inner city violence. They just want to burn **** up under the pretense of social justice.

---

Again: there are people who legitimately want to protest for the cause and there are those who want to wreck stuff. IMO the latter group is much smaller but gets much more outsized coverage.

However, my expectation is that the latter group will also fall away naturally if there is no more instigation from authorities. Early results from Portland after the feds left are encouraging.

---

I don't see a lot of legitimate protesting late in July.

---

So what would be "legitimate protesting" to you? Do you think every individual that attends these protests is burning things? If they aren't doing that then they are engaging in legitimate protest. You might not agree with their cause, but it's perfectly legal to do so.

I get the sense from you guys that you think our cities are literally burning down right now. They're not. These are largely isolated events that don't affect most of the population.

---

You and I either have different tolerance for harm brought to others by these vandals or we are living in a different world. What is going on in Seattle and Portland are not protesters who are trying to raise awareness. Who, after two months, are not aware? What is the purpose? What would cause you to be concerned for the people living in Seattle and Portland or the business owners? Actual burning of every building? How about those buildings and stores they are actually burning down and defacing? What percentage is acceptable to you? And how do you explain to the residents and store owners that this is just the price of getting the message out to people who have been in a coma for the last two months and have not heard about the cause? This is where you and I part ways on what we accept as just legitimate protest versus mayhem by criminals.

---

I see an interesting analogue here (to me anyway) between the highlighted viewpoint you're espousing and how GOP politics on the state and national levels have gone over the past 2+ decades (and yes, I'm only framing this back to the 90's because that's the earliest I could reasonably be expected to have any understanding of politics at all). Granted, this is going to be an over-generalization because I'm sure there are multiple individual examples of poor Democratic governance leading to valid calls for a change of leadership, but I still think the following thesis holds on a broad level.

Long story short:
1) GOP in power: policies and behaviors that have deleterious effects on domestic economics and society or foreign standing (e.g., Gingrich's novel no-holds-barred approach to compromise with both Democrats and his own party, Bush's Iraq War and Katrina response not to mention stewardship over the Great Recession)
2) Voters are upset, seek new leadership
3) Democrats come into power: attempt to fix the broken effects of both previous GOP leadership and longstanding structural flaws (e.g., Obama going out of his way to seek out compromise with the GOP in his first two years, implementing the ACA, setting new clean energy standards)
4) Voters slowly forget why they were upset with the GOP in the first place while current GOP distance themselves from previous regime and lie about reasons for anger in the first place: deep, long-lasting change simply cannot be done in the span of two years but people are impatient and fickle, so voters are now angry at Democrats for not accomplishing enough
5) GOP comes back into power: cycle starts anew

The reason I find this to be analogous to what you're saying here is that you're essentially promoting Step 4 in your highlighted statement above, if not necessarily the underlying process. Sustained awareness, in my opinion, is crucial for maintaining the political will to actually institute changes that strike at the heart of deeply institutionalized societal shortcomings. Sustained awareness helps make it clear that the issue at hand is not simply a flavor of the month, that there is in fact a legitimate grievance that needs to be addressed. And, sustained awareness helps keep it in people's minds lest they quickly forget what everything was all about. Unfortunately, sustained awareness is extraordinarily hard, because it requires exactly what these protesters (let's be honest, many of those people in the streets of Portland and Seattle are indeed there with legitimate grievances) have been doing for two months, which is to take the time out just about every single day to make their voices heard. Frankly, it shocks me that they've been able to sustain it this long but more power to them. But when I say that you're essentially promoting Step 4, it's because it seems to me that if these protesters were to have simply gone home after, say, Week 3 or 4, are we really to believe that there would be any incentive left for anyone in government to implement change? Do we really think people writ large who are not directly involved in the protests are going to remember what everything was about?

Personally, I think the answers are a clear no and no. In that vein, discouraging these sustained protests simply gives an excuse for those in power (GOP and Democrat, if we're being fully honest), to ignore all the hard-fought progress so far, minimal as it may yet be. So my very unnecessarily long-winded thesis is, I find all this analogous to my above outline on GOP politics because there appears to be a strong correlation between those who would identify with GOP/conservative viewpoints and those who would question why protests are still going on. And the effect I foresee if people were to just shut it down and go home at this point would be akin to how, most recently, American voters ushered in the Tea Party with a full-scale rebuke of Democrats after Democrats couldn't keep voters reminded of just how bad the previous GOP leadership had been.

---

I guess i don't see your pattern.

This is the pattern that I see. The average person keeps expecting one party to have the answer when neither party is really listening to the average person.

The common man, after 8 yeas of one party running the White House, sees that things are not noticeably better than it was 8 years ago. In addition, the party in charge fights most of the wars on social matters, that while important, do not really impact the day to day life of the common man. If anything, the common man, being generally center or slightly center right sees the party in charge (whether Republican or Democrat) fight these social wars beyond where the common man's comfort level lies while making no meaningful change to the economic situation.

Then the party in charge is voted out, and the next party is voted in. It is not that the Republicans are bad and the Democrats are good. It is that both are bad. The common man thinks there is hope with the new party. They even buy into the swing on the social issues to the other side since they were fed up with overplay by the prior party. Then they notice that nothing that really matters to them has changed. The new party fights the same social wars but to the other extreme. Then the common man gets tired of this party and swings to the other party.

There will always be extremes on both sides who will vote one way no matter what. The fact that, short of someone like Trump being elected as an extreme overreaction to the patter described above where his ineptitude now aligns more people than usual, this continuous hope that any of the candidates from the other party will make any difference is folly. Most of the positive changes have come from outside forces, such as the tech innovation or global economic rise, and not from any meaningful difference between either party.

And your comment that the riots are going on two months after George Floyd because America needs constant reminder is confusing. With that argument, when, if ever, should the rioting stop? If America needs continuous reminder, should the looting ever stop?

---

You and I likely have at least some diametrically opposing beliefs that make any explicit agreement on who or what is "good" or "bad" near impossible, so let me say up front that it probably doesn't make sense for purposes of this analogy for us to get into the weeds of Republican vs. Democrat policies. With that said, I actually fundamentally agree with many of your assertions, if not necessarily how we should react to them, so I'll go one by one through several statements I agree with and how I might be interpreting them differently.

"The common man, after 8 yeas of one party running the White House, sees that things are not noticeably better than it was 8 years ago. In addition, the party in charge fights most of the wars on social matters, that while important, do not really impact the day to day life of the common man."

• Over the course of even 8 years, people don't often see significant change in their lives over the course of even 8 years that doesn't arise out of some proactive behavior on their own part (e.g., getting trained in a newer growing field, hitting it big on a startup idea). That's because the vast majority of governmental actions (lumping in legislation, executive orders, and judicial rulings here) that significantly impact a person's life in the near future are inherently geared toward specific subsets of people who are most likely distinct minorities among the population. Just off the top of my head, I'm thinking of issues like gay marriage (you can now get married right away) and tax cuts that go predominantly toward the wealthy (it took at most a year for the effects of the 2018 TCJA to become readily apparent). So while the majority of people may be happy for or resentful of these subsets of people, they themselves aren't really impacted. This means that the only governmental actions that could ultimately make things noticeably better for the general population are actions that take time to percolate within society and the government infrastructure before the full benefits manifest. As such, it should hold that the actual standard by which we should judge an administration are those policies whose benefits were meant to be optimized several years down the line. Frankly, I don't even think my conclusion here is particularly controversial. Unfortunately, human nature has shown us time and time again that people are, as I said previously, impatient and fickle, so it's also proven nearly impossible to get the average person to think on that long-term scale. Hence, why the party with a two-term president almost always faces built-in headwinds in the following election(s).

"If anything, the common man, being generally center or slightly center right sees the party in charge (whether Republican or Democrat) fight these social wars beyond where the common man's comfort level lies while making no meaningful change to the economic situation."

• Despite continued proclamations, by politicos and people who presumably have more expertise than I do, that this country is veering more liberal, I still tend to believe that the average person is indeed conservative at heart, insofar as they are hesitant to enact major changes short of an utterly untenable life situation. In relation to the above, this explains why politicians are naturally hesitant to enact any major legislation or issue any major orders (let's ignore the increased politicization of the courts for the moment) that would create such major change. Coupled with the near guarantee that they will not receive credit for those actions, there remains almost no incentive to actually pursue those actions, as needed as many will proclaim them to be.

"It is not that the Republicans are bad and the Democrats are good. It is that both are bad. The common man thinks there is hope with the new party. They even buy into the swing on the social issues to the other side since they were fed up with overplay by the prior party. Then they notice that nothing that really matters to them has changed. The new party fights the same social wars but to the other extreme. Then the common man gets tired of this party and swings to the other party."

• This is where I think you and I come to a head with regards to the soundness of my analogy. I can agree that both Republicans and Democrats are bad insofar as their overt actions while in power have not created much benefit for the common person. Where it looks like we disagree is the why. From my perspective, when you look at the major government actions that Republicans and Democrats have taken over the past 3-4 decades that are designed for late-blooming but long-lasting impact, it is the Democrat actions that have been predominantly designed for what I consider to be long-lasting positive impact while the Republican actions have been predominantly designed for long-lasting negative impact. Full disclosure, I am also automatically discounting any actions taken that were generally supported by both parties such as the 1994 crime bill that President Clinton and now Joe Biden are retroactively receiving a great deal of criticism for, because I find it disingenuous for anyone to claim party superiority over an issue just because one side happened to have the actual power to implement it into law.
• I acknowledge that I'm leaving myself open to a "weeds" discussion here despite saying I didn't want to engage in one, but out of convenience I go back to the examples I gave above of policies with short-term impact for specific subsets of the population. Anyone who isn't a bigot should agree that the long-term impact of legalizing gay marriage is a net positive for society. At the same time, I think even supporters of the 2018 TCJA would agree that the bill for that tax cut is going to come due within the next decade and it is going to be extraordinarily painful to deal with. Another example of what I consider to be a "good" long-term objective was the clean-air standards and push to minimize greenhouse gases by the Obama administration. By contrast, another example of what I consider to be a "bad" long-term objective was the issue brought forth in Shelby that enabled a Republican-majority Supreme Court to strike down key provisions of the Voting Rights Act.

I'll stop on this particular topic for now, because I suspect there is a lot that could be argued in the above, but that is the gist of my analogy. While the perception of both parties is that neither does anything worthwhile in the 4-8 years they're in power (because of course, perception is reality), one of those parties is much more frequently looking out for the long-term interests of the population and society than the other. Where the Republican party vastly dominates the Democrat party is in messaging, and I posit here that the Democrats are intrinsically at a disadvantage because it is also much more difficult to explain long-term plans in a two-line slogan, which is how Republicans in recent years have been able to turn public opinion against Democrats so quickly despite the enactment of fundamentally beneficial legislation such as the ACA. That distinct messaging disadvantage is where Democrats have failed repeatedly to maintain awareness of the long-term benefits of their governing priorities.

As far as the George Floyd protests go, I want to first switch the premise back to protests and not rioting as you just did. I said that the protests have inherent value in keeping awareness of the issue of police brutality at the forefront of people's minds. The protests should stop once material changes have been enacted. As for the rioting and looting, that should have ended weeks ago once the immediacy of the emotional tensions died down. But really, how many cities are actually seeing that still going on? Portland, in my opinion, is an aberration that has been inflamed by the actions of the federal government itself.

Oh boy. Another tl;dr'er

I couldn't agree more with the author (and I suppose, by association, the poster) that Breitbart's progeny are the cultural warriors that will save the Republic. The Breitbart website is my go to source when I want the unadulterated Truth.

The American Thinker:

" The magazine has been described as a conservative blog.[5][6] Right Wing Watch points out that American Thinker has published an excessively complimentary piece on a white nationalist, claimed women ruined public discourse by complaining about rape, and asserted that rainbow-colored Doritos are a "gateway snack to introduce children to the joys of homosexuality."[7] The site has published falsehoods about climate change.[8]

A column in the American Thinker caused stir over a California plan to require programmable thermostats which could be controlled by officials in the event of power supply difficulties."

Wikipedia

AunBear89 said:

---

What a clown. Post more stupid stuff so we can all laugh some more at you, goofus.

---

bearister said:

---

The American Thinker:

" The magazine has been described as a conservative blog.[5][6] Right Wing Watch points out that American Thinker has published an excessively complimentary piece on a white nationalist, claimed women ruined public discourse by complaining about rape, and asserted that rainbow-colored Doritos are a "gateway snack to introduce children to the joys of homosexuality."[7] The site has published falsehoods about climate change.[8]

A column in the American Thinker caused stir over a California plan to require programmable thermostats which could be controlled by officials in the event of power supply difficulties."

Wikipedia

---

If kelly09 shared an opinion piece, it's very likely it's from one of these places.

Matthew Patel said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

3) Democrats come into power: attempt to fix the broken effects of both previous GOP leadership and longstanding structural flaws (e.g., Obama going out of his way to seek out compromise with the GOP in his first two years, implementing the ACA, setting new clean energy standards)

---

That there are 6 people who think that the Democratic Party is a force for good just goes to show how stupid those 6 people are. calbear93 has it right. Both parties are bad.

Minority groups understand this better than anyone.

---

I don't see things so black and white as you, nor do a great number of people who smarter and more observant than me. Just because the two parties haven't taken steps to the degree or at the speed that you believe or wish they had doesn't automatically mean that they don't actually want to get to a point of betterment. I've laid out my reasons for why I believe that Democrats don't go as far as they can or should in helping the underserved which don't have anything to do with not actually wanting to help. For that matter, there are plenty of Republicans even today who would probably go much further in helping people as well if they weren't so cowed into walking in lockstep with party leadership (again, thank Gingrich for introducing that concept 20-odd years ago).

Crime in Chicago this weekend.

https://abc7chicago.com/chicago-crime-shootings-weekend-violence-murders/6348346/

32 shot, 9 fatally so far in weekend violence, including boy, teen.

What kind of sick f&ck gets excited about violent deaths? You can hardly contain your excitement as you root for tragic news so you can tell yourself that you "owned the libs."

Sad little sicko.

36 of top 50 cities see double-digit rise in homicides

A Wall Street Journal analysis of crime statistics among the nation's 50 largest cities found that reported homicides were up 24% so far this year, to 3,612," senior writer Jon Hilsenrath reports (subscription).

"Chicago, the worst-hit, has tallied more than one of every eight homicides."
Why it's happening, per The Journal: "Institutions that keep city communities safe have been destabilized by lockdown and protests against police. Lockdowns and recession also mean tensions are running high and streets have been emptied of eyes and ears. ... Some attribute the rise to an increase in gang violence."

The context: "The murder rate is still low compared with previous decades, and other types of serious crime [including robbery] have dropped in the past few months." Axios

There's kelly again. He thinks calling a man "she" is a blistering insult.

Way to show your true colors. Typical Republican - just another scared white incel, terrified of change, and spewing hatred at anyone that doesn't look and think like you.

kelly09 said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

AunBear89 said:

---

What kind of sick f&ck gets excited about violent deaths? You can hardly contain your excitement as you root for tragic news so you can tell yourself that you "owned the libs."

Sad little sicko.

---

thank goodness you held back. you showed some restraint by not busting out your usual pedophile, homophobic slurs.

---

Aunbear, if nothing else, is consistent. Excessively nasty. She never adds civility to any issue.

---

So much ****ing litter from that idiot who has never added a single substantive post. I have him on ignore but his stupidity still shows up when quoted. It is mind blowing how someone that vapid got into UC Berkeley. Please someone point me to one intelligent, insightful post he has ever made. Please.

JeffBear07 said:

---

Matthew Patel said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

3) Democrats come into power: attempt to fix the broken effects of both previous GOP leadership and longstanding structural flaws (e.g., Obama going out of his way to seek out compromise with the GOP in his first two years, implementing the ACA, setting new clean energy standards)

---

That there are 6 people who think that the Democratic Party is a force for good just goes to show how stupid those 6 people are. calbear93 has it right. Both parties are bad.

Minority groups understand this better than anyone.

---

I don't see things so black and white as you, nor do a great number of people who smarter and more observant than me. Just because the two parties haven't taken steps to the degree or at the speed that you believe or wish they had doesn't automatically mean that they don't actually want to get to a point of betterment. I've laid out my reasons for why I believe that Democrats don't go as far as they can or should in helping the underserved which don't have anything to do with not actually wanting to help. For that matter, there are plenty of Republicans even today who would probably go much further in helping people as well if they weren't so cowed into walking in lockstep with party leadership (again, thank Gingrich for introducing that concept 20-odd years ago).

---

I think where I disagree with you, as you may understand, is your your implication (or maybe it was just my incorrect inference) that those who promote conservative fiscal policy (if that even exists anymore) do not care about long-term interest of the country. In fact, I think those who are promoting conservative fiscal policy do care. It is easy and expedient to say, let's just spend and spend on the backs of the future generation. That seems to be the easy thing to do.

As for social wars, as I mentioned, most Americans want decent, moderate social policies and do not want significant changes. The extremes who don't care about others but their special interest groups are the ones who promote division, and I honestly am sick and tired of the social wars fought between the extremes on both sides.

calbear93 said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

Matthew Patel said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

3) Democrats come into power: attempt to fix the broken effects of both previous GOP leadership and longstanding structural flaws (e.g., Obama going out of his way to seek out compromise with the GOP in his first two years, implementing the ACA, setting new clean energy standards)

---

That there are 6 people who think that the Democratic Party is a force for good just goes to show how stupid those 6 people are. calbear93 has it right. Both parties are bad.

Minority groups understand this better than anyone.

---

I don't see things so black and white as you, nor do a great number of people who smarter and more observant than me. Just because the two parties haven't taken steps to the degree or at the speed that you believe or wish they had doesn't automatically mean that they don't actually want to get to a point of betterment. I've laid out my reasons for why I believe that Democrats don't go as far as they can or should in helping the underserved which don't have anything to do with not actually wanting to help. For that matter, there are plenty of Republicans even today who would probably go much further in helping people as well if they weren't so cowed into walking in lockstep with party leadership (again, thank Gingrich for introducing that concept 20-odd years ago).

---

I think where I disagree with you, as you may understand, is your your implication (or maybe it was just my incorrect inference) that those who promote conservative fiscal policy (if that even exists anymore) do not care about long-term interest of the country. In fact, I think those who are promoting conservative fiscal policy do care. It is easy and expedient to say, let's just spend and spend on the backs of the future generation. That seems to be the easy thing to do.

---

I think his argument is less that conservative fiscal policy is against the long-term interest of the country and more that current Republican Party policy is against it (which, as you note, is often not very fiscally conservative).

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

Matthew Patel said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

3) Democrats come into power: attempt to fix the broken effects of both previous GOP leadership and longstanding structural flaws (e.g., Obama going out of his way to seek out compromise with the GOP in his first two years, implementing the ACA, setting new clean energy standards)

---

That there are 6 people who think that the Democratic Party is a force for good just goes to show how stupid those 6 people are. calbear93 has it right. Both parties are bad.

Minority groups understand this better than anyone.

---

I don't see things so black and white as you, nor do a great number of people who smarter and more observant than me. Just because the two parties haven't taken steps to the degree or at the speed that you believe or wish they had doesn't automatically mean that they don't actually want to get to a point of betterment. I've laid out my reasons for why I believe that Democrats don't go as far as they can or should in helping the underserved which don't have anything to do with not actually wanting to help. For that matter, there are plenty of Republicans even today who would probably go much further in helping people as well if they weren't so cowed into walking in lockstep with party leadership (again, thank Gingrich for introducing that concept 20-odd years ago).

---

I think where I disagree with you, as you may understand, is your your implication (or maybe it was just my incorrect inference) that those who promote conservative fiscal policy (if that even exists anymore) do not care about long-term interest of the country. In fact, I think those who are promoting conservative fiscal policy do care. It is easy and expedient to say, let's just spend and spend on the backs of the future generation. That seems to be the easy thing to do.

---

I think his argument is less that conservative fiscal policy is against the long-term interest of the country and more that current Republican Party policy is against it (which, as you note, is often not very fiscally conservative).

---

I honestly don't know what the current Republican Party's purpose is other than to shelter Trump from his own idiocy. I am talking about at least the platform of the Republican party in more recent history, irrespective of whether they have been carrying those out.

calbear93 said:

---

kelly09 said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

AunBear89 said:

---

What kind of sick f&ck gets excited about violent deaths? You can hardly contain your excitement as you root for tragic news so you can tell yourself that you "owned the libs."

Sad little sicko.

---

thank goodness you held back. you showed some restraint by not busting out your usual pedophile, homophobic slurs.

---

Aunbear, if nothing else, is consistent. Excessively nasty. She never adds civility to any issue.

---

So much ****ing litter from that idiot who has never added a single substantive post. I have him on ignore but his stupidity still shows up when quoted. It is mind blowing how someone that vapid got into UC Berkeley. Please someone point me to one intelligent, insightful post he has ever made. Please.

---

How did I get into UC Berkeley. Well, right out of HS in 1960. To your point, my vapidity along with being overwhelmed by the Cal experience led me to flunking out. My GPA was less than 1.0 after three semesters.
Fooled around for a while and got drafted into the US Army. Hated it but got some direction. Out in 64'. Three years
at CCSF and working full time. I had a 4.0 after taking 52 units and was readmitted. Sorry that you think I'm an idiot. As for Aunbear, I believed him to be a woman. I apologize to women everywhere. And Cal 93, go eff yourself.

BTW 1968 was a big year for *****s like you and Aunbear on campus. So was 69'.

Reading comprehension fail. Another pinhead Republican voter!

Wow! Shockingly stupid post, even for an undereducated fool like you.

If your crying about crime now just wait until 20-40 million people are homeless.

kelly09 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

kelly09 said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

AunBear89 said:

---

What kind of sick f&ck gets excited about violent deaths? You can hardly contain your excitement as you root for tragic news so you can tell yourself that you "owned the libs."

Sad little sicko.

---

thank goodness you held back. you showed some restraint by not busting out your usual pedophile, homophobic slurs.

---

Aunbear, if nothing else, is consistent. Excessively nasty. She never adds civility to any issue.

---

So much ****ing litter from that idiot who has never added a single substantive post. I have him on ignore but his stupidity still shows up when quoted. It is mind blowing how someone that vapid got into UC Berkeley. Please someone point me to one intelligent, insightful post he has ever made. Please.

---

How did I get into UC Berkeley. Well, right out of HS in 1960. To your point, my vapidity along with being overwhelmed by the Cal experience led me to flunking out. My GPA was less than 1.0 after three semesters.
Fooled around for a while and got drafted into the US Army. Hated it but got some direction. Out in 64'. Three years
at CCSF and working full time. I had a 4.0 after taking 52 units and was readmitted. Sorry that you think I'm an idiot. As for Aunbear, I believed him to be a woman. I apologize to women everywhere. And Cal 93, go eff yourself.

BTW 1968 was a big year for *****s like you and Aunbear on campus. So was 69'.

---

We are all Cal Bears. Seems like you have an interesting story, and I hope you continue to post.

kelly09 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

kelly09 said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

AunBear89 said:

---

What kind of sick f&ck gets excited about violent deaths? You can hardly contain your excitement as you root for tragic news so you can tell yourself that you "owned the libs."

Sad little sicko.

---

thank goodness you held back. you showed some restraint by not busting out your usual pedophile, homophobic slurs.

---

Aunbear, if nothing else, is consistent. Excessively nasty. She never adds civility to any issue.

---

So much ****ing litter from that idiot who has never added a single substantive post. I have him on ignore but his stupidity still shows up when quoted. It is mind blowing how someone that vapid got into UC Berkeley. Please someone point me to one intelligent, insightful post he has ever made. Please.

---

How did I get into UC Berkeley. Well, right out of HS in 1960. To your point, my vapidity along with being overwhelmed by the Cal experience led me to flunking out. My GPA was less than 1.0 after three semesters.
Fooled around for a while and got drafted into the US Army. Hated it but got some direction. Out in 64'. Three years
at CCSF and working full time. I had a 4.0 after taking 52 units and was readmitted. Sorry that you think I'm an idiot. As for Aunbear, I believed him to be a woman. I apologize to women everywhere. And Cal 93, go eff yourself.

BTW 1968 was a big year for *****s like you and Aunbear on campus. So was 69'.

---

That comment was not addressed to you. I was agreeing with you. It was about Aunbear troll I have on ignore but see because he gets quoted by those like you who feel the need to respond to that troll. I have seen your posts that are substantive, whether I agree with you.

I have yet to see a substantive post from that Aunbear troll.

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

Matthew Patel said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

3) Democrats come into power: attempt to fix the broken effects of both previous GOP leadership and longstanding structural flaws (e.g., Obama going out of his way to seek out compromise with the GOP in his first two years, implementing the ACA, setting new clean energy standards)

---

That there are 6 people who think that the Democratic Party is a force for good just goes to show how stupid those 6 people are. calbear93 has it right. Both parties are bad.

Minority groups understand this better than anyone.

---

I don't see things so black and white as you, nor do a great number of people who smarter and more observant than me. Just because the two parties haven't taken steps to the degree or at the speed that you believe or wish they had doesn't automatically mean that they don't actually want to get to a point of betterment. I've laid out my reasons for why I believe that Democrats don't go as far as they can or should in helping the underserved which don't have anything to do with not actually wanting to help. For that matter, there are plenty of Republicans even today who would probably go much further in helping people as well if they weren't so cowed into walking in lockstep with party leadership (again, thank Gingrich for introducing that concept 20-odd years ago).

---

I think where I disagree with you, as you may understand, is your your implication (or maybe it was just my incorrect inference) that those who promote conservative fiscal policy (if that even exists anymore) do not care about long-term interest of the country. In fact, I think those who are promoting conservative fiscal policy do care. It is easy and expedient to say, let's just spend and spend on the backs of the future generation. That seems to be the easy thing to do.

---

I think his argument is less that conservative fiscal policy is against the long-term interest of the country and more that current Republican Party policy is against it (which, as you note, is often not very fiscally conservative).

---

I honestly don't know what the current Republican Party's purpose is other than to shelter Trump from his own idiocy. I am talking about at least the platform of the Republican party in more recent history, irrespective of whether they have been carrying those out.

---

Sycasey has me correct, though I would also argue that at least some of the building blocks for the current Republican party started coming into being around the time of Gingrich in the 90's. That doesn't mean individual conservatives such as yourself changed your underlying principles, but the Republican party itself was already starting to move away from pure conservative policy well before Trump.

Personally, I actually think that we need both "liberal" and "conservative" policy as part of a revolving cycle. Liberals, such as you might call them, usher in changes to the social or economic order based on new understanding of how they affect people's lives. Conservatives, such as you might call them, then act as a control on more progressive policies from overwhelming the average person (because the average person is naturally hesitant when it comes to any substantive change no matter its benefits) while allowing that average person to adjust and become self-sustaining within the new societal paradigm. Both parts have their value in a smooth-functioning society. The problem, of course, with the current Republican and conservative movement is that they've given up any semblance of applying conservatism for the common good, relying on fear and emotions to get their way instead of grounded and data-based policy proposals. Bringing this back to the topic of this thread, I feel we are seeing that same reliance on fear and emotions to warp impressions of the supposed crime wave in the U.S. and specifically at the protests that have been going on since George Floyd.

JeffBear07 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

Matthew Patel said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

3) Democrats come into power: attempt to fix the broken effects of both previous GOP leadership and longstanding structural flaws (e.g., Obama going out of his way to seek out compromise with the GOP in his first two years, implementing the ACA, setting new clean energy standards)

---

That there are 6 people who think that the Democratic Party is a force for good just goes to show how stupid those 6 people are. calbear93 has it right. Both parties are bad.

Minority groups understand this better than anyone.

---

I don't see things so black and white as you, nor do a great number of people who smarter and more observant than me. Just because the two parties haven't taken steps to the degree or at the speed that you believe or wish they had doesn't automatically mean that they don't actually want to get to a point of betterment. I've laid out my reasons for why I believe that Democrats don't go as far as they can or should in helping the underserved which don't have anything to do with not actually wanting to help. For that matter, there are plenty of Republicans even today who would probably go much further in helping people as well if they weren't so cowed into walking in lockstep with party leadership (again, thank Gingrich for introducing that concept 20-odd years ago).

---

I think where I disagree with you, as you may understand, is your your implication (or maybe it was just my incorrect inference) that those who promote conservative fiscal policy (if that even exists anymore) do not care about long-term interest of the country. In fact, I think those who are promoting conservative fiscal policy do care. It is easy and expedient to say, let's just spend and spend on the backs of the future generation. That seems to be the easy thing to do.

---

I think his argument is less that conservative fiscal policy is against the long-term interest of the country and more that current Republican Party policy is against it (which, as you note, is often not very fiscally conservative).

---

I honestly don't know what the current Republican Party's purpose is other than to shelter Trump from his own idiocy. I am talking about at least the platform of the Republican party in more recent history, irrespective of whether they have been carrying those out.

---

Sycasey has me correct, though I would also argue that at least some of the building blocks for the current Republican party started coming into being around the time of Gingrich in the 90's. That doesn't mean individual conservatives such as yourself changed your underlying principles, but the Republican party itself was already starting to move away from pure conservative policy well before Trump.

Personally, I actually think that we need both "liberal" and "conservative" policy as part of a revolving cycle. Liberals, such as you might call them, usher in changes to the social or economic order based on new understanding of how they affect people's lives. Conservatives, such as you might call them, then act as a control on more progressive policies from overwhelming the average person (because the average person is naturally hesitant when it comes to any substantive change no matter its benefits) while allowing that average person to adjust and become self-sustaining within the new societal paradigm. Both parts have their value in a smooth-functioning society. The problem, of course, with the current Republican and conservative movement is that they've given up any semblance of applying conservatism for the common good, relying on fear and emotions to get their way instead of grounded and data-based policy proposals. Bringing this back to the topic of this thread, I feel we are seeing that same reliance on fear and emotions to warp impressions of the supposed crime wave in the U.S. and specifically at the protests that have been going on since George Floyd.

---

To try to find pure origination of the monstrosity that is the current Republican party is a fool's errand.

For example, it was the Democrats who most opposed illegal immigrants until recently: Here are the samples from the Democratic party's platforms:

1980:

We will oppose any legislation designed to allow workers into the country to undercut U.S. wages and working conditions, and which would re-establish the bracero program of the past.


1984:

The Democratic Party will support economic development programs so as to aid nations in reducing migration from their countries, and thereby reduce the flow of economic refugees to the U.S. and other parts of the world.


Very little on immigration until 1996

1996:

Today's Democratic Party also believes we must remain a nation of laws. We cannot tolerate illegal immigration and we must stop it. For years before Bill Clinton became President, Washington talked tough but failed to act. In 1992, our borders might as well not have existed. The border was under-patrolled, and what patrols there were, were under-equipped. Drugs flowed freely. Illegal immigration was rampant. Criminal immigrants, deported after committing crimes in America, returned the very next day to commit crimes again.

President Clinton is making our border a place where the law is respected and drugs and illegal immigrants are turned away. We have increased the Border Patrol by over 40 percent; in El Paso, our Border Patrol agents are so close together they can see each other. Last year alone, the Clinton Administration removed thousands of illegal workers from jobs across the country. Just since January of 1995, we have arrested more than 1,700 criminal aliens and prosecuted them on federal felony charges because they returned to America after having been deported.


2000:

We must punish employers who engage in a pattern and practice of recruiting undocumented workers in order to intimidate and exploit them, and provide strengthened protections for immigrant workers, including whistleblower protections. Doing so enhances conditions for everyone in the workplace. We believe that any increases in H1-B visas must be temporary, must address only genuine shortages of highly skilled workers, and mist include worker protections. They must also be accompanied by other immigration fairness measures and by increased fees to train American workers for high skill jobs. The Democratic Party is committed to assuring an adequate, predictable supply of agricultural labor while protecting American farm workers who are among the poorest and more vulnerable in our society. We reject calls for guest worker programs that lead to exploitation, and instead call for adjusting the status of immigrants with deep roots in the country. We should have equitable asylum policies that treat people the same whether they have fled violence from the Right and Left. And we support restoration of basic due process protections and essential benefits for legal immigrants, so that immigrants are no longer subject to deportation for minor offenses, often committed decades ago without opportunity for any judicial review, and are eligible to receive safety net services supported by their tax dollars.

2008:

We cannot continue to allow people to enter the United States undetected, undocumented, and unchecked. The American people are a welcoming and generous people, but those who enter our country's borders illegally, and those who employ them, disrespect the rule of the law. We need to secure our borders, and support additional personnel, infrastructure, and technology on the border and at our ports of entry. We need additional Customs and Border Protection agents equipped with better technology and real-time intelligence. We need to dismantle human smuggling organizations, combating the crime associated with this trade. We also need to do more to promote economic development in migrant-sending nations, to reduce incentives to come to the United States illegally. And we need to crack down on employers who hire undocumented immigrants.

dajo9 said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

Matthew Patel said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

3) Democrats come into power: attempt to fix the broken effects of both previous GOP leadership and longstanding structural flaws (e.g., Obama going out of his way to seek out compromise with the GOP in his first two years, implementing the ACA, setting new clean energy standards)

---

That there are 6 people who think that the Democratic Party is a force for good just goes to show how stupid those 6 people are. calbear93 has it right. Both parties are bad.

Minority groups understand this better than anyone.

---

I don't see things so black and white as you, nor do a great number of people who smarter and more observant than me. Just because the two parties haven't taken steps to the degree or at the speed that you believe or wish they had doesn't automatically mean that they don't actually want to get to a point of betterment. I've laid out my reasons for why I believe that Democrats don't go as far as they can or should in helping the underserved which don't have anything to do with not actually wanting to help. For that matter, there are plenty of Republicans even today who would probably go much further in helping people as well if they weren't so cowed into walking in lockstep with party leadership (again, thank Gingrich for introducing that concept 20-odd years ago).

---

I think where I disagree with you, as you may understand, is your your implication (or maybe it was just my incorrect inference) that those who promote conservative fiscal policy (if that even exists anymore) do not care about long-term interest of the country. In fact, I think those who are promoting conservative fiscal policy do care. It is easy and expedient to say, let's just spend and spend on the backs of the future generation. That seems to be the easy thing to do.

---

I think his argument is less that conservative fiscal policy is against the long-term interest of the country and more that current Republican Party policy is against it (which, as you note, is often not very fiscally conservative).

---

I honestly don't know what the current Republican Party's purpose is other than to shelter Trump from his own idiocy. I am talking about at least the platform of the Republican party in more recent history, irrespective of whether they have been carrying those out.

---

Sycasey has me correct, though I would also argue that at least some of the building blocks for the current Republican party started coming into being around the time of Gingrich in the 90's. That doesn't mean individual conservatives such as yourself changed your underlying principles, but the Republican party itself was already starting to move away from pure conservative policy well before Trump.

Personally, I actually think that we need both "liberal" and "conservative" policy as part of a revolving cycle. Liberals, such as you might call them, usher in changes to the social or economic order based on new understanding of how they affect people's lives. Conservatives, such as you might call them, then act as a control on more progressive policies from overwhelming the average person (because the average person is naturally hesitant when it comes to any substantive change no matter its benefits) while allowing that average person to adjust and become self-sustaining within the new societal paradigm. Both parts have their value in a smooth-functioning society. The problem, of course, with the current Republican and conservative movement is that they've given up any semblance of applying conservatism for the common good, relying on fear and emotions to get their way instead of grounded and data-based policy proposals. Bringing this back to the topic of this thread, I feel we are seeing that same reliance on fear and emotions to warp impressions of the supposed crime wave in the U.S. and specifically at the protests that have been going on since George Floyd.

---

I believe that you are what you do. It's no good to say the party with a "conservative" political platform hasn't been acting conservatively. Every self described conservative I know voted for Reagan, GWB, Romney, and some Trump. All these self-described conservative politicians have supported huge deficits and have had huge support from conservatives. Conservatism means huge fiscal deficits. You are what you do.

---

You can talk about it theoretically though. Like, in theory it would be good to have an era of one kind of liberalism and then one of a complementary kind of conservatism as Jeff describes.

But yes, in America in practice we now have a "conservative" party that refuses to advance the ball at all, and then a "liberal" party that is kind of trying to do both things at once and is less effective than they should be as a result.