Geeto67's Political Playground

[TTQ B4U]

English, please? you were talking about how my general statements applied to you, as if you were the only person to which some of this stuff was directed.

 

and you like to spin stuff as if I were to imply the world revolves around me. nice try even though it doesn't work that way. However, if in your mind it does, then so be it. You've been called out for applying a spin factor that even Bill O'Reilly would be proud of.

 

I think the thing you object to is that I don't always separate you from your latently racist white opinions. But then again they are your opinions.

 

you think but don't know....? here, I'll clarify it for you, I really don't care if you do or don't separate my opinions from your injection of spin-factor racism into things so as to make you feel better about yourself by continually trying to elevate yourself imposed pedestal. It's pretty apparent and clear so don't expect me to point it out every time. No need.

 

Also this "taking the lead" nonsense is flimsy - assuming I do the thing you are complaining about, so you doing it makes it ok? Do two wrongs suddenly make a right? Do three rights not make a left anymore? Are dogs and cats living together? oh wait...no, and again assuming you are just taking the lead - somehow you doing it is worse because you should know better.

 

assume you do, don't or deny it if it makes you feel better. it's still your lead but perhaps you're right, I've lowered myself to your level in order to have a conversation with you. shame on me.

 

Lets not forget this is a political discussion thread. I'm gladly admit I have very little tolerance for religious discussions of any kind in political discourse because I think it's general bad policy to let government policy to be dictated by religious agenda.

 

God Bless you for sticking to your convictions.

 

Plus I'm not even sure what's considered a "christian" opinion. You can be against legal abortion laws and not be christian, Christianity doesn't own a patent on shitty ideas. 1/2 of Christianity is Judaism or Islam anyway (that old testament thingy? yeah that's called the Tanakh in Judaism, and that new testament thingy? yeah that's 93 verses in the Quran) so if I have been crapping on a "christian" ideal I would by extension be shitting on Muslim or Jewish one as well. Are you sure I wasn't just being dismissive of a generally shitty idea that happens to be a part of "Christianity" and you want to make some religious discrimination case out of it? because I am pretty sure that's what's happening.

 

at the end of the day you shit on Christians here quite a bit but I've come to expect it. you're like that odd-ball white guy supporting a crowed of brown people that look at you like WTF are you doing in our protest.... but no Kerry, I'm most certainly not interested in getting into a Urinary Olympic Event with you over Jesus. Fuck, I'd ban myself from here if I did as the pain inflicted upon the world from your walls of preacher text would block out the sun and we'd all die.

 

Then why are we still talking about it and why do you keep bringing it up? Also why do you use it as a point to indicate my opinion is somehow inferior?

 

because you are a lawyer, your opinions sometimes do suck and you're right, we should just drop it and leave it at that.

 

Good because I am pretty sure I wouldn't vote for you.

 

thanks for clearing up any confusion on that matter

[Geeto67]

you're like that odd-ball white guy supporting a crowed of brown people that look at you like WTF are you doing in our protest.

 

Every time you start to make a decent case that you may not have an obvious racist outlook, you post something like this and hit the reset button. Come on man, even you has to realize sentences like these are just not a good look.

[TTQ B4U]

I'm sure it has all that good stuff like southern (white) pride once you conveniently ignore the 150+ years it was used as an outright symbol of oppression and racial hatred. thing is though - once it becomes associated with that, and it was intentionally associated with that, you can't really dis-associate.

 

I think the point is, these people aren't ignoring 150+ years of shit they don't believe in or accept nor ever applied to their flag or their lives. There are plenty that don't associate their southern pride and the flag they fly with racism regardless of what some other people may believe is so.

Would you be this tolerant or understanding of someone flying the nazi standard in front of their home? The Swastika was a good luck charm prior to the third Reich, but if you were walking down the street would you think that?

I would think it very weird and odd.

 

So your argument is they are stupid and have good intentions? and that makes them good people? Nobody is confused about the message the southern cross conveys, expecting people to give them the benefit of the doubt as to their character when they fly a symbol that is rightfully associated with bigotry is just asking too much of people.

My argument would be that before I call them stupid, I better understand what their view point is. As noted above they just don't agree with what others see in the flag in that it's a universal apply-to-all symbol of someone who is a deep south racist because they fly it. Does simply flying it make them bad people or perhaps should their actions and views on racism perhaps be a better baseline to be used before casting that stone? Is it really too much to ask for people to perhaps not label them? Isn't that kinda what so many are saying about others?

 

So what are people who completely disregard the hostile message toward a particular race that their actions convey?

what they are is just what we all are, human beings just like those casting the stone/flag of racism so easily. Perhaps those so quick to judge should seek their viewpoint and understanding of what the flag means to them. you know, practice the tolerance of others and seek to understand before judging others.

 

I mean think about it, really think - to them the collective opinion of a race of people as to the message being conveyed by the flag which is specific to that racial characteristic is less important than the display of "southern heritage". What do you call that when you treat another race as lesser just because of their race? I'm pretty sure the word is racist, but you tell me.

collective opinions? last I checked no one race in this country should be collectively getting together to dictate the behaviors or beliefs of another person. Sounds like bullying to me.

[TTQ B4U]

Every time you start to make a decent case that you may not have an obvious racist outlook, you post something like this and hit the reset button. Come on man, even you has to realize sentences like these are just not a good look.

 

you like that....I tee'd that up for you purposely Even if I'm 73.5% serious.

[Geeto67]

I think the point is, these people aren't ignoring 150+ years of shit they don't believe in or accept nor ever applied to their flag or their lives. There are plenty that don't associate their southern pride and the flag they fly with racism regardless of what some other people may believe is so.

 

It's very hard to say they don't believe in it when they fly it's fery intentional symbol. And let's be clear if they are celebrating southern pride, then they are celebrating that their ancestors believed in it because again - very intentional symbol of bigotry.

 

Geographic pride is not directly linked to racisim, but you bet your ass that flag is. There are a million other ways to show southern pride than to display a standard used to cause fear and intimidation in a race of people.

 

I would think it very weird and odd.

 

mediocre dodge.

 

collective opinions? last I checked no one race in this country should be collectively getting together to dictate the behaviors or beliefs of another person. Sounds like bullying to me.

 

The Germans have a word for it - geist. It means spirit. Volksgeist is the spirit of the people (or world), zeitgeist is the spirit of the age. Nobody is making any official deceleration in meetings to...whatever...some things and just collectively understood because of the history of the thing. In the zeitgeist and volksgeist that symbol will always be associated with bigotry by nearly everyone. I think you probably understand it best as common sense. It's funny that you give a pass to people who fly an intentional symbol of hate and bullying that is common sense to get a reaction from people of a certain race get a pass where their feelings must be understood, but those whom the symbol was used against aren't afforded the same luxury. Why? because they are white? Because their southern heritage is more important than the harm it causes others?

 

 

you didn't answer my question: is flying a confederate flag a smart choice? In your span of choices where does it rank? below public urination at a st paddy's day parade?

 

you like that....I tee'd that up for you purposely Even if I'm 73.5% serious.

 

The fact that you are even 1% serious is unsettling.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_traitor

[TTQ B4U]

It's very hard to say they don't believe in it when they fly it's fery intentional symbol. And let's be clear if they are celebrating southern pride, then they are celebrating that their ancestors believed in it because again - very intentional symbol of bigotry.

 

disagree. I've met them and don't see racism in them. these are people who I've even specifically asked about it and have not at all come back with racism in their response nor did I see any evidence in their interactions while staying there. YMMV but then I would also say that just like you're accusing them, that they are in turn a victim of your own biased opinion that doesn't take into account them as individuals. And the people of the US wonder why we are divided?

 

There are a million other ways to show southern pride than to display a standard used to cause fear and intimidation in a race of people.

doesn't change the fact of who they are as individuals or how they treat others day to day.

mediocre dodge.

not a dodge; I really would think that it would be odd and perhaps way outside what I'd expect on my street but then I wouldn't likely jump to conclusions without inquiring. I mean, you might not go up to them and ask WTF but I would. If for no other reason than to figure out what their deal is.

 

I think you probably understand it best as common sense.

so it's common sense to label people as racist without understanding them as individuals? got it. so why not take it further and call everyone in the deep south small towns of America Racists fucks. Oh wait.....

 

It's funny that you give a pass to people who fly an intentional symbol of hate and bullying that is common sense to get a reaction from people of a certain race get a pass where their feelings must be understood,

maybe because they don't see it as a symbol of hate. again, cite whatever you want, there wouldn't be an argument the other way if so many people who were racists felt it was a symbol of hate....instead they would just collectively say they are indeed racists and not give a shit. last I checked, people who don't like blacks enough to fly a flag to mark their belief aren't usually too bashful about stating their views.

 

but those whom the symbol was used against aren't afforded the same luxury. Why?

not being afforded the same luxury? are you fucking kidding me? this is 2018 where they are so well understood it's fucking joke that it's now politically correct to hate on whites?

 

because they are white? Because their southern heritage is more important than the harm it causes others?

how about just because they are people? why do you inject race or religion or faith or or country of origin, etc. such bullshit into things all the time? how about because there are people who actually do have a sense of southern pride that doesn't equate to meaning they want to hang blacks from trees or go around using N word?

 

you didn't answer my question: is flying a confederate flag a smart choice?

that's a great questions that would be best answered by the person doing it as IMO would depend on the context of who they are and the reasoning behind such a choice. I'm glad you think it would be easy for me to answer, but I don't come from the south so I can't answer nor do I feel it's my place to exhibit southern pride. I won't lie, I don't like all blacks. I don't like all whites or Asians either. That doesn't make me a racist.

 

The fact that you are even 1% serious is unsettling.

it's more than 1% true for lots of people even the ones marching in such situations. I think Forest Gump contained a scene/parody on it.

[CRed05]

The fact that you are even 1% serious is unsettling.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_traitor

 

It's my understanding that this is the worst insult you can get as a black American from another black American.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncle_Tom#Epithet

[CRed05]

....a wall a text to rival some of Geeto's finest...

 

I don't think a racist will go through this much trouble to say that they're not a racist. If I were a racist, I'm pretty sure I'd just come out and say, yeah, I'm a racist, and then get on my horse and ride off into the sunset to the klan meeting.

[Geeto67]

It's my understanding that this is the worst insult you can get as a black American from another black American.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncle_Tom#Epithet

 

It's all part of the concept of the "politics of respectability". When you hear people like Tim say that immigrants need to assimilate to our culture that is what he is saying - rather than accept the cultural difference that is brought in as part of the American experience it sets up the idea that the majority experience IS the American experience and since we are not going to accept your differences you have to accept ours.

 

It walks a fine line because every community should police itself (in addition to real police) with respect to societal ills like crime and poverty, but where it becomes despicable is when it blames inherent racial problems built into the system by decades of discrimination on the actions of the group instead of the actions of agents of the system; i.e. it's black people's fault that the police are more likely to kill black people than white people in an police stop, and the black community not the police need to do something about it.

 

I don't think a racist will go through this much trouble to say that they're not a racist. If I were a racist, I'm pretty sure I'd just come out and say, yeah, I'm a racist, and then get on my horse and ride off into the sunset to the klan meeting.

 

How long have you lived in America?

 

what did Queen Gertrude in Hamlet say? oh yeah...."The lady doth protest too much, methinks"

 

The fallout of Jim Crow in America is "sneaky" racism. Being faced with laws that banned overt racism, those looking to maintain their southern heritage ...er...I mean way of life resorted to disparate impact laws: laws that on their face seemed unbiased but due to the circumstances and environment had sever affects against a particular race. Then as time passed those who enacted those laws taught future generations that if it isn't on it's face racist, it's not. So then we get to now where we have people who say "it's black people's fault they do poorer on tests culturally, because everyone gets the same test" when in reality those tests were written with inherent bias originally specifically to disadvantage black people and then have been refined over the years to hide it.

 

I've said this many times about Tim: I think he means well, and legitimately doesn't think he is, but he buys into a lot of seemingly inert things that have really ugly history and subtext just below the surface.

[TTQ B4U]

immigrants need to assimilate to our culture that is what he is saying - rather than accept the cultural difference that is brought in as part of the American experience it sets up the idea that the majority experience IS the American experience and since we are not going to accept your differences you have to accept ours.

 

no actually Kerry, to be an American means they are willing to show their commitment to the United States as a country (we aren't a new version of theirs or a country without borders) and they are to have a loyalty to our Constitution. They don't get to come here, shit on all that we are including ignoring our laws (we are a country of laws aren't we?) and then demand we accept them.

 

(i.e. it's black people's fault that the police are more likely to kill black people than white people in an police stop).

yeah....because we all know our actions and behaviors both before we are stopped and during the police stop have little to no impact on how we are treated.

[Geeto67]

no actually Kerry, to be an American means they are willing to show their commitment to the United States as a country (we aren't a new version of theirs or a country without borders) and they are to have a loyalty to our Constitution. They don't get to come here, shit on all that we are including ignoring our laws (we are a country of laws aren't we?) and then demand we accept them.

 

yeah....because we all know our actions and behaviors both before we are stopped and during the police stop have little to no impact on how we are treated.

 

point proven.

[CRed05]

It's all part of the concept of the "politics of respectability". When you hear people like Tim say that immigrants need to assimilate to our culture that is what he is saying - rather than accept the cultural difference that is brought in as part of the American experience it sets up the idea that the majority experience IS the American experience and since we are not going to accept your differences you have to accept ours.

 

 

So I would agree with both you and Tim. Come to the States with your culture (good culture, we don't want your crazy/bad shit), but you need to be able to swim with the stream as well. Work ethic and public behavior is very different culture to culture. I'm sure you guys have had the pleasure of dealing with DMV employees...shits a stroll through the park. Try renewing your South African passport in 2016. Forget the rigmarole of jumping line to line and getting wrong or no information, almost 2 years later, I still don't have it. Things sometimes just move slower over there, we call it African time. You'd fucking pull your hair out if we started adopting that culture here.

 

It walks a fine line because every community should police itself (in addition to real police) with respect to societal ills like crime and poverty, but where it becomes despicable is when it blames inherent racial problems built into the system by decades of discrimination on the actions of the group instead of the actions of agents of the system; i.e. it's black people's fault that the police are more likely to kill black people than white people in an police stop, and the black community not the police need to do something about it.

 

 

This country has more opportunities than most to get yourself out of poverty (especially as a minority) and there are plenty of examples to prove it. You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make them drink.

 

Just like in South Africa, where everything has been done to economically lift up the majority through BEE, lowering standards in school - You only need to know 20% to pass, white people are STILL being blamed for poverty, unemployment and simply that all black people aren't rich. Now they want to take land from white people because everything else has failed.

 

How long have you lived in America?

 

17 years, 16 in SA.

 

what did Queen Gertrude in Hamlet say? oh yeah...."The lady doth protest too much, methinks"

 

I've said this many times about Tim: I think he means well, and legitimately doesn't think he is, but he buys into a lot of seemingly inert things that have really ugly history and subtext just below the surface.

 

Maybe Tim just doesn't see the world through rose tinted glasses. I'll tell you, the tint on mine is starting to fade.

[Geeto67]

So I would agree with both you and Tim. Come to the States with your culture (good culture, we don't want your crazy/bad shit), but you need to be able to swim with the stream as well. Work ethic and public behavior is very different culture to culture. I'm sure you guys have had the pleasure of dealing with DMV employees...shits a stroll through the park. Try renewing your South African passport in 2016. Forget the rigmarole of jumping line to line and getting wrong or no information, almost 2 years later, I still don't have it. Things sometimes just move slower over there, we call it African time. You'd fucking pull your hair out if we started adopting that culture here.

 

This is a completely fair point in theory, but usually when you see this logic in practice it extends to things like clothes, language, customs, holidays, etc... stuff beyond the boundaries of the law. Examples like the virgin cleansing myth is def beyond the boundaries of the law and it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect the community to police itself (as well as work with LEOs) with respect to it not being accepted. Nobody is expecting jobs to alter work ethic standards to accommodate a cultural difference (religious/cultural holidays are not work ethic). There also seems to be in practice this application of stereotypes (just read any number of Tim's missives on somali's here in Cbus) to groups of people whole cloth.

 

The line is pretty clearly drawn along the criminal laws and industry customs, but for many who push respectability politics as a solution in lieu of legislation the line is too low, and most of their demands are too discriminatory to be passed as law anyway.

 

This country has more opportunities than most to get yourself out of poverty (especially as a minority) and there are plenty of examples to prove it. You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make them drink.

 

true, but there are other places that have more opportunities than here. Also, for a country that strives for equality there is a pretty clear disproportionate success results drawn along race lines regardless of national origin, culture, economic standing, etc. What's wrong with...you know...actually looking to improve based on the ideal we actual hold out to the world? There are still laws on the books that keep the tendrils of Jim Crow alive and we need to keep working to undue the harm that they continue to do.

 

Just like in South Africa, where everything has been done to economically lift up the majority through BEE, lowering standards in school - You only need to know 20% to pass, white people are STILL being blamed for poverty, unemployment and simply that all black people aren't rich. Now they want to take land from white people because everything else has failed.

 

I am not a fan of lowering standards, those are band aid fixes at best. In most cases the systems need a new approach and an overhaul (but how do you get the money to do that with an administration that wants to cut programs not spend for new ones?). A lot of this work has to happen at the local level too, but you need people willing to acknowledge there is a problem in the system as well and you don't get that with someone playing politics of respectability.

 

white people are going to be blamed for poverty, et al for a long time. It takes generations to purge those effects. and it's not unwarranted, they did create whole laws and systems and schemes to keep black people in poverty under apartheid. Are you saying "STILL" like it is somehow unwarranted? because it isn't - this shit takes lifetimes to undo. 150 years in the US and we still haven't figured it out, SA has what? 30 years in? I'm surprised they moving as fast as they are.

 

 

Maybe Tim just doesn't see the world through rose tinted glasses. I'll tell you, the tint on mine is starting to fade.

 

Is it rose tinted? or just willful ignorance because it doesn't fit some narrative about macho-ness or personal responsibility or some other such nonsense? In the legal community the concept of the school to prison pipeline is a real problem that lawyers from both political backgrounds are trying to solve for, but outside that industry in the larger political sphere you have mainstream conservative politicians, pundits, and lobbyists still calling it a myth and a hoax. How do you expect to accomplish something in that environment? Furthermore, there are people that oppose it just because the ACLU and NAACP recognize it as an issue and those organizations are made up of "pussy liberals who want to put gayness in the water (and it turns the frogs gay)" so it must be bad or some part of the liberal agenda.

 

You hear Tim all the time say "its not that complex" or "you are making this complex" but that isn't taking the time to research and understand the facets of the problem - it's just ignoring the details to try and make the problem fit his moral relativism. And I get it, most people don't have time to learn about things that some people make whole careers out of studying - but if that's the case, then get out of the way of the people that actually do know the problem and are working on it and stop being the guy saying we don't need more research, or we don't need more understanding because guns are like cell phones or some other such nonsense.

Edited March 21, 2018 by Geeto67

[CRed05]

I am not a fan of lowering standards, those are band aid fixes at best. In most cases the systems need a new approach and an overhaul (but how do you get the money to do that with an administration that wants to cut programs not spend for new ones?). A lot of this work has to happen at the local level too, but you need people willing to acknowledge there is a problem in the system as well and you don't get that with someone playing politics of respectability.

 

white people are going to be blamed for poverty, et al for a long time. It takes generations to purge those effects. and it's not unwarranted, they did create whole laws and systems and schemes to keep black people in poverty under apartheid. Are you saying "STILL" like it is somehow unwarranted? because it isn't - this shit takes lifetimes to undo. 150 years in the US and we still haven't figured it out, SA has what? 30 years in? I'm surprised they moving as fast as they are.

 

Is it unwarranted? There certainly were wrongs that needed to be corrected, and for that there was the RDP, . Apartheid lasted for about 40 years, everything cannot be blamed on apartheid.

 

I think a lot of people also fail to realise what apartheid really was (at least intended to be originally). It was really almost identical to Israel, which is why Israel was one of South Africa's greatest allies at the time. Military equipment and atomic bombs were co-developed between the two. Shit, fruit from SA was sold internationally as coming from Israel because of trade sanctions against SA. So naturally now the new government is very anti-Israel, and now cutting diplomatic ties.

 

But homelands were created for different ethnic groups (based on their traditional locations), with basic infrastructure provided, for those groups to go and govern themselves and essentially create a nation for themselves. They failed to do so, so they wanted to come work in the white areas, which is when passes were required to do that. So then you saw things not unlike what happens in Israel, with terrorist attacks and bombs being planted, and a lot of black on black violence.

 

Clearly it didn't work, and it ended and the keys were handed over to the ANC and they fucked it up royally, dragging the entire country down with them all while continuing to blame it all on apartheid.

[Geeto67]

Apartheid is only the final incantation, SA was still part of the transatlantic slave trade and had slaves until 1833 when they became indentured workers, plus the Boers weren’t exactly keen on black rights. So really not 40 years you want to look at it historically. Comparatively speaking it is as if the US didn’t ban segregation until 1991 so in many ways the SA problem may be longer and worse than ours, which probably explains the violence.

 

It is not almost identical to Israel, but I can’t deny there aren’t similarities. The biggest difference though is that the West Bank and Gaza are not part of sovereign Israel and are governed by Hamas. That means Palestinians are not citizens of Israel. This is like saying the US is an apartheid state because of our immigration policies with Mexico. I am not going to defend some of Isarel’s Policies which are human rights violations, but it’s a little much to say they are identical to apartheid. Two good opposite numbers are the Jim Crow segregation laws that existed in the US from the late 1800’s till the 1960’s and the reservation policies the US has with the Indian Nations.

[TTQ B4U]

You hear Tim all the time say "its not that complex" or "you are making this complex" but that isn't taking the time to research and understand the facets of the problem - it's just ignoring the details to try and make the problem fit his moral relativism.

 

Kerry, you make everything complex and detailed. All lawyers do and anyone can if you give them enough budget and time which is why the groundhog day of these issues continue on. Welcome to politics.

 

You and the poor you support don't have to agree as there are tons of others that pass you all by doing it every day. The fact stands that no, racism and slavery is no longer the main cause of peoples problems. Their solution is pretty simple but the fact stands that they have to plan and execute on that plan. It's hard work and no, not all of them will do it. Immigrants and people everywhere crawl their ass out the shit holes they are in and make it every day despite all the complex difficult challenges you and many others are using as a crutch and in many cases use as an anchor to hold them back.

 

Is it rose tinted? or just willful ignorance because it doesn't fit some narrative about macho-ness or personal responsibility or some other such nonsense?

oh yeah....personal responsibility is such bullshit. heaven forbid anyone actually take responsibility for the role they play when interacting with law enforcement or making the choice to have kids. nonsense and completely just a myth of our fake narrative story. how silly are the rest of us in America for believing such dribble right? Look closely at the decline of fathers in the lives of the poor Kerry. Need we even go down that path and how single parent homes are not a good thing. Please...

 

In the legal community the concept of the school to prison pipeline is a real problem that lawyers from both political backgrounds are trying to solve for

you're right, people have been trying to solve for these problems for decades but at some point they will realize the solution doesn't lie with them but within the person they are trying to help. lawyers are good sales people Kerry but no sales person is going to overcome the objection of their customer, they have to get them to overcome their own objections. you'll figure it out at some point.

 

I suspect if you're a good parent that you likely have faced these challenges with your own kids or soon will. You can be the best parent in the world but unless you install the values in your kids and your kids grow up with the skill and will to make good choices it won't go smoothly. The choices they make which may not be the ones you wish for them will be what impact how their life turns out so be sure you prep them with a good base and stop brainwashing them that life is more about what happens to them vs what happens because of them.

 

Those lawyers you mention from both sides are like you in that they come across as if they have all the answers because they talk more than they listen. One would think that at some point they would realize that the clients they serve have more to do with the solution and success than they do. Perhaps they really haven't figured that out or is it purposeful? hmmm.

Edited March 22, 2018 by TTQ B4U

[CRed05]

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/379563-republicans-agree-to-clarify-that-cdc-can-research-gun-violence

 

Republican leaders have agreed to include a provision in the government funding package clarifying that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is not barred from conducting gun violence research under a 1996 amendment.

 

The omnibus will not repeal the so-called Dickey Amendment altogether, as Democrats had pushed for, according to a senior GOP source.

 

Republicans say the Dickey Amendment has never prohibited gun research in the first place.

 

I'll call this one the Kerry Amendment

 

Edit: After further reading, this gem is also being snuck into the omnibus package

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/02/cloud-act-dangerous-expansion-police-snooping-cross-border-data

 

The Clarifying Overseas Use of Data (CLOUD) Act expands American and foreign law enforcement’s ability to target and access people’s data across international borders in two ways. First, the bill creates an explicit provision for U.S. law enforcement (from a local police department to federal agents in Immigration and Customs Enforcement) to access “the contents of a wire or electronic communication and any record or other information” about a person regardless of where they live or where that information is located on the globe. In other words, U.S. police could compel a service provider—like Google, Facebook, or Snapchat—to hand over a user’s content and metadata, even if it is stored in a foreign country, without following that foreign country’s privacy laws..

 

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/03/new-backdoor-around-fourth-amendment-cloud-act

The CLOUD Act (S. 2383 and H.R. 4943) has two major components. First, it empowers U.S. law enforcement to grab data stored anywhere in the world, without following foreign data privacy rules. Second, it empowers the president to unilaterally enter executive agreements with any nation on earth, even known human rights abusers. Under such executive agreements, foreign law enforcement officials could grab data stored in the United States, directly from U.S. companies, without following U.S. privacy rules like the Fourth Amendment, so long as the foreign police are not targeting a U.S. person or a person in the United States.

Edited March 22, 2018 by kickass

[Geeto67]

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/379563-republicans-agree-to-clarify-that-cdc-can-research-gun-violence

 

 

 

I'll call this one the Kerry Amendment

 

It's a lame duck, but it is a start. The Dickey Amendment is kinda brilliant and kinda nefarious in how it works. It isn't written as a specific bar to research, it was in a spending bill after all, so what it does is say that any research that the CDC does can't be used for creating gun control laws. That means if the CDC does study gun violence, none of that research can be used for policy making. It neuters the effect of the research, why study something if you are barred from making changes based on the outcome? The practical effect is that the CDC zeroed out it's budget for research on gun violence and directed the funds toward studying traumatic brain injury.

 

restating that the CDC is not barred from studying gun control, but keeping in the provision that the research cannot be used for policy making really doesn't change the landscape other than to make the republican politicians look like they are slightly less in the pocket of the NRA. This was always a true statement - the CDC wasn't barred from law from doing the research, it was barred from using the research in a meaningful way, this new measure doesn't change anything.

 

cue Tim to tell us research in this area is evil and unnecessary.

[RedRocket1647545505]

It's a lame duck, but it is a start. The Dickey Amendment is kinda brilliant and kinda nefarious in how it works. It isn't written as a specific bar to research, it was in a spending bill after all, so what it does is say that any research that the CDC does can't be used for creating gun control laws. That means if the CDC does study gun violence, none of that research can be used for policy making. It neuters the effect of the research, why study something if you are barred from making changes based on the outcome? The practical effect is that the CDC zeroed out it's budget for research on gun violence and directed the funds toward studying traumatic brain injury.

 

restating that the CDC is not barred from studying gun control, but keeping in the provision that the research cannot be used for policy making really doesn't change the landscape other than to make the republican politicians look like they are slightly less in the pocket of the NRA. This was always a true statement - the CDC wasn't barred from law from doing the research, it was barred from using the research in a meaningful way, this new measure doesn't change anything.

 

cue Tim to tell us research in this area is evil and unnecessary.

 

Then why did Obama never commit to the research anyways, so he had some ammo (see what I did there...) to get it repealed? Seems to me he could have very easily directed the CDC to proceed with the research so he could then go to Congress and the Public with it's findings, like, "Look at all this data on gun violence!!! Now repeal the Dickey Amendment so we can pass some Common Sense/Meaningful/Progressive gun control!!!!!!"

 

Me thinks they know what the research would end up showing (fucking nothing), so they'd rather bitch about it and blame Conservatives and law abiding gun owners.

 

So basically, you've been mouthing off since you've been here that the Dickey Amendment was barring us from doing any research on gun violence (because of the big bad NRA :dumb: ) when in fact that isn't the case at all. They can do it, they just don't. Color me fucking surprised.

[Geeto67]

Then why did Obama never commit to the research anyways, so he had some ammo (see what I did there...) to get it repealed? Seems to me he could have very easily directed the CDC to proceed with the research so he could then go to Congress and the Public with it's findings, like, "Look at all this data on gun violence!!! Now repeal the Dickey Amendment so we can pass some Common Sense/Meaningful/Progressive gun control!!!!!!"

 

He did in the wake of the Sandy Hook. In fact he directed the CDC conduct research and provided funds outside the budget bill (thus circumventing the Dickey amendment) to conduct at least one study. The end result study was on Urban Firearm violence that published at the end of 2015. If you remember 2016, Obama was already locked horns with a republican majority congress that was committing to objecting to everything he proposed (I'm not exaggerating - that was the strategy, fight everything) and generally obstructing government. In the environment when he couldn't even get his supreme court nomination vetted a lot of things didn't get the attention they deserved.

 

If you want to read the report it's here:

http://dhss.delaware.gov/dhss/dms/files/cdcgunviolencereport10315.pdf

A lot of state and local governments have used this report to shape their approach to gun violence in their states - which is the real value of something like this - esp in the suggestions of programs for contributing factors.

 

But still this is ONE study, and a bunch of little children died before the climate was enough for Obama to get the support he needed to end run around the Dickey Amendment, with enough money to do one study. This issue should be studied every year until things improve - 1 ain't gonna cut it.

 

Also there was a call for repeal of the dickey amendment in 2015, called for by Obama and spearheaded by Nancy Pelosi. Since it is a congressional budget bill all Obama can do is find someone in Congress willing to try to make the change, and he didn't have a problem finding one. It did not pass because not a single republican would back it, even though 110 Democrats in the house backed it.

 

 

Me thinks they know what the research would end up showing (fucking nothing), so they'd rather bitch about it and blame Conservatives and law abiding gun owners.

 

nope you are wrong, see above. He did exactly what you are asking "why didn't he do", and he got stopped by partisan politics.

 

So basically, you've been mouthing off since you've been here that the Dickey Amendment was barring us from doing any research on gun violence (because of the big bad NRA :dumb: ) when in fact that isn't the case at all. They can do it, they just don't. Color me fucking surprised.

 

1 research project in 24 years? I'd say the dickey amendment is quite effective. You argument is literally premised on the fact that you were just ignorant to the democratic efforts to repeal the amendment. If they can do it so easily, then when they tried to do it why didn't they succeed? oh that's right because you don't know what you are talking about.

 

Not every study on gun violence is going to lead to gun control laws, and that's kind of the shame here. Some studies will identify areas that need more study and that isn't going to get done, and some areas may require other approaches as well. the NRA is so committed to preventing gun legislation of any kind that they are willing to stop any progress in this tracks even if it doesn't lead to gun control laws, because why take the risk. They just don't want to take the chance that they will be embarrassed again when scientific evidence proves one of their tenants and main marketing slogans false.

 

I get that the concept of the dickey amendment is not easily accessible to everyone. To fully understand the issue you have to have some knowledge on how government spending and budgeting works and how "misuse" of funds (like what would happen if CDC research was used for support of federal gun control laws) could cripple an organization. Plus it's kind of obscure and there isn't a whole lot of sexy in it. Plenty have reported on it, and there have been efforts to repeal it, and almost every major medical and science based organization has condemned it, but it just doesn't get traction with the mainstream because...well...understanding it's effects is complex.

Edited March 22, 2018 by Geeto67

[TTQ B4U]

cue Tim to tell us research in this area is evil and unnecessary.

 

What exactly do you think will be discovered should we spend money on this research?

[Geeto67]

What exactly do you think will be discovered should we spend money on this research?

 

you keep asking this question, and I keep answering it. It is getting tiring. It makes me realize you don't actually read anything I write but rather just skim for sentences that trigger you and then just launch off from there.

 

The point of social science research is to study an area and determine the root causes behind certain actions/outcomes. It doesn't start out with a traditional hypothesis like natural science studies, but rather a question.

 

So asking me what I think will be discovered is the wrong question to be asking, because you are asking me to guess at conclusions. Unlike you I am not looking for evidence to fit my conclusions, I would rather let the data lead me to the root cause and go from there. To that end, the more appropriate question is: "What questions am I looking to have answered?" so here are a few:

 

- How effective are our current policies? Are more shootings being prevented by current regulation? or is it making no difference? A subset of this is how effective is our enforcement of current policies across the board?

 

- What are the most common weapon elements of mass shooting? is there a connection? can regulation affect that?

 

- Child access in suicides and accidents is heavily studied, but in violent crime and mass shootings it isn't studied at all. What are the most common ways minors are getting access to weapons to use for violent crime?

 

- What factor do concealed carry laws play in all aspects of gun violence?

 

- are background checks effective in preventing mass shootings and accidents?

 

- do minimum age requirements have an effect?

 

- is there any value to the waiting period

 

I think you get the idea. The problem with not having a steady revenue stream for research isn't just in that the above questions aren't getting answered, it is that what little research is being done isn't complete, or sometimes so broad as to be easily picked apart by both sides.

 

now I know you are going to start in on your hatred of lawyers (why did you marry one again?) and how I am not answering your question, but changing the question and then answering my own, and to that I say fuck you. don't ask such stupid questions. We both know this old cross examination trick and you aren't even subtle about it.

[TTQ B4U]

you keep asking this question, and I keep answering it. It is getting tiring. It makes me realize you don't actually read anything I write but rather just skim for sentences that trigger you and then just launch off from there.

 

honestly our threads are just too damn long and I don't take notes. Perhaps if you cut out the sarcasm then cut out your holier than thow approach and know your audience and medium a little better aka an internet car forum not a master thesis you'll reduce your word count by 50% and more fucks will be given. Cliffs: Speak less, listen more and type with purpose.

 

The point of social science research is to study an area and determine the root causes behind certain actions/outcomes. It doesn't start out with a traditional hypothesis like natural science studies, but rather a question.

 

So asking me what I think will be discovered is the wrong question to be asking, because you are asking me to guess at conclusions. Unlike you I am not looking for evidence to fit my conclusions, I would rather let the data lead me to the root cause and go from there. To that end, the more appropriate question is: "What questions am I looking to have answered?" so here are a few:

what I'm driving to get to when spending money Kerry isn't just to garner more data that perhaps may support a theory we already know.

How effective are our current policies?

based on what measure? you've already clearly shown you don't believe they are effective because you're seeing deaths. thus your opinion and that of many are no, they are not effective. do we need a study that proves this? are we simply trying to spend money to garner data for the sake of data if what people want is change? why do that?

 

Are more shootings being prevented by current regulation? or is it making no difference?

Broad question really. More than what? What measure are you using to gauge a before and after and during what time frame? Are you looking to solve for suicides, accidents, murder, gang on gang, any particular demographics or just a huge paint brush of broad data that honestly we already have?

 

A subset of this is how effective is our enforcement of current policies across the board?

get specific please. what enforcement are you speaking of?

 

- What are the most common weapon elements of mass shooting? is there a connection? can regulation affect that?

Are you speaking of particular weapon types? We already know the answers and have the data and to your last point, sure, we can ban all semi auto pistols and effect a measurable change. isn't that where all the haters are looking to take us anyway? Would that even be viable or make sense given the numbers of lives balanced against the cost? I say no. until then, let's focus on scary guns that kill a few hundred people every year.

 

- Child access in suicides and accidents is heavily studied, but in violent crime and mass shootings it isn't studied at all. What are the most common ways minors are getting access to weapons to use for violent crime?

Suicides by gun are more a mental issue IMO so why worry about where the guns are coming from and why not spend money on fixing the real problem which is within the mental health arena not the gun arena. If it's a gun or a pill does it matter or wouldn't the real issue be the mental state of the person? just not sure what you hope to gain that we don't already know. Mental issues and guns don't mix and guns need locked up and kept from sick people especially. We already know the link between mental health and background checks are weak.

 

- What factor do concealed carry laws play in all aspects of gun violence?

Not sure what you're expecting to gleam from this. You can talk about your data leading to something but I would rather spend money on what we're looking for vs simply fishing blindly in hopes of finding something.

 

- are background checks effective in preventing mass shootings and accidents?

- do minimum age requirements have an effect?

- is there any value to the waiting period

sounds like good money after data just simply for the sake of data.

 

now I know you are going to start in on your hatred of lawyers (why did you marry one again?) and how I am not answering your question, but changing the question and then answering my own, and to that I say fuck you.

I didn't marry a lawyer, I married a college student while I was one as well. In terms of questions being asked I'd say you are the one with some pretty wasteful ones. I get that you like to flaunt social science research BS but I prefer to put money where it's better spent vs just trying to garner data in which most of it we already have. Let's list out the direct detailed questions you seek and spend money where the answers to them need more data. It's not complicated Kerry so stop trying to make it out as if it is.

 

Start at the end-game on either side of the extreme, work your way inward and find that happy median place. Starting place is what we have today and end game for the pussy's in life are no guns at all. We know something is going to give, so let's go and not go broke or continue to make excuses.

 

We both know this old cross examination trick and you aren't even subtle about it.

You're a lawyer and don't like cross examinations and questions....odd.

[Geeto67]

honestly our threads are just too damn long and I don't take notes. Perhaps if you cut out the sarcasm then cut out your holier than thow approach and know your audience and medium a little better aka an internet car forum not a master thesis you'll reduce your word count by 50% and more fucks will be given. Cliffs: Speak less, listen more and type with purpose.

 

Tim, they hated your long winded posts long before I ever got here. All I did was give you an excuse to write more. This conversation is mostly for us, embrace it.

 

you've already clearly shown you don't believe they are effective because you're seeing deaths.

 

I've not said this anywhere, nor have I implied it. There are always going to be some deaths, the question is are we at the lowest number we can possibly be at. You say yes (your "Cost of freedom" mantra), I say no (my "we can always improve" mantra).

 

 

thus your opinion and that of many are no, they are not effective.

again, your opinion not mine. I don't know if they are effective or not.

 

do we need a study that proves this?

 

yes, because that is the difference between speculation and fact. or "your best guess" vs "actual evidence" if you prefer.

 

are we simply trying to spend money to garner data for the sake of data if what people want is change? why do that?

that's where we are now, nobody is spending money because it won't do any good because the dickey amendment prevents the research from being used. One of the universal arguments on both sides against most gun control laws is that they are woefully uninformed. This will solve that problem - when we look at the problems of mass shootings, violent crime with a fire arm, et al we can actually make smart decisions and legislation and some of it may not even be gun laws. The gun violence conversation in this country is just plain stupid on both sides - having information and research will solve that problem.

 

Broad question really. More than what? What measure are you using to gauge a before and after and during what time frame?

that's a question for the researcher setting up the study, they determine the parameters.

 

Are you looking to solve for suicides, accidents, murder, gang on gang, any particular demographics or just a huge paint brush of broad data that honestly we already have?

 

I want detailed information on it all. I don't want broad strokes and I don't want detail for just one demographic.

 

get specific please. what enforcement are you speaking of?

 

enforcement within the industry itself (background checks), enforcement within the community, anywhere there is a regulation surronding access already in place, can we look at it and see how effective enforcement is around it?

 

Are you speaking of particular weapon types?

common factors in general. Types, access, etc...

 

We already know the answers and have the data and to your last point, sure, we can ban all semi auto pistols and effect a measurable change. isn't that where all the haters are looking to take us anyway? Would that even be viable or make sense given the numbers of lives balanced against the cost? I say no. until then, let's focus on scary guns that kill a few hundred people every year.

 

Is a ban on "scary" guns even the right approach though. That is what data will tell us.

 

Suicides by gun are more a mental issue IMO so why worry about where the guns are coming from and why not spend money on fixing the real problem which is within the mental health arena not the gun arena. If it's a gun or a pill does it matter or wouldn't the real issue be the mental state of the person? just not sure what you hope to gain that we don't already know. Mental issues and guns don't mix and guns need locked up and kept from sick people especially. We already know the link between mental health and background checks are weak.

 

you keep saying these problems are a one kind of thing, and really they are not, they are a mental health issue and a gun control issue. What is so wrong about understanding both sides of the problem so the changes we make are specific to addressing the needs of that situation in the most efficient way possible. It just may not be feasible to fix this only working from one side of the problem and research might just tell us that - until then insisting we need to fix only one element that we don't know if it is fixable or not is disingenuous. I've pointed out that the dickey amendment handicaps the study of it from the mental illness side in a severe way, so your argument here is null and void.

 

You can talk about your data leading to something but I would rather spend money on what we're looking for vs simply fishing blindly in hopes of finding something.

Root cause analysis is not blindly fishing. It's a very specific process that starts at an outcome and looks at all the contributing factors. You work in large corporation don't you? this shouldn't even be something you are confused about, it's a standard of any large company's audit department.

 

sounds like good money after data just simply for the sake of data.

If you don't value data and don't understand how it can improve than you will never see it as anything but. I can't help you there other than to say your blind devotion to 2a (and no other amendment) is keeping you from having an enlightened position on this.

 

 

I get that you like to flaunt social science research BS but I prefer to put money where it's better spent vs just trying to garner data in which most of it we already have.

no you just don't want any form of gun control and claiming that it is a waste of money is just one tactic you think invalidates the argument for making some progress here.

 

 

 

Let's list out the direct detailed questions you seek and spend money where the answers to them need more data. It's not complicated Kerry so stop trying to make it out as if it is.

The government has experts for this, I just want them to be empowered and financially backed to actually study this instead of twiddling their thumbs while the rest of us talks about how stupid the last assualt weapons ban was.

 

 

Start at the end-game on either side of the extreme, work your way inward and find that happy median place. Starting place is what we have today and end game for the pussy's in life are no guns at all. We know something is going to give, so let's go and not go broke or continue to make excuses.

 

I'd rather look at it not from the end game of some extreme side, but from the most reasonable and prudent course that will get us to a happy medium in the middle. Everyone can agree that some gun control measures are drafted more from the heart than the head - well let's fix the intelligence problem around the conversation.

 

let's be clear about what I am saying here: I'm not asking for a ban, I'm not even advocating for gun control, I am saying that let's collectively get smarter about what the problems really are (not just your bullshit conjecture) and make smart decisions as to how to address them. Only someone who doesn't want any progress made would take issue with that.

[Geeto67]

just read this:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/02/upshot/what-should-government-study-gun-research-funding.html

 

It's worthwhile. Unfortunately because it is the new york times you'll probably dismiss it as some pussy rag pushing a liberal agenda rather than give it a fair shake.