Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Civil Wrongs

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post

    For some crimes in progress, it is perfectly acceptable for police to kill the person. If he is threatening the lives of others, the police are quite justified in killing him. The killer in Dallas was a good example. He was a threat to others and refused to surrender. He needed to be killed. The point is, if you don't want to put yourself in jeopardy, cooperate with the police. The same can be said for a mugging. If you want to stay alive, give the guy with the weapon your wallet and live another day. People who commit a crime and then try to fight the police when caught are putting themselves in jeopardy. They have to share the blame for their predicament.
    If those were the only times the police used firearms I might agree with you but when you have well publicised accounts of unarmed teenage girls in swimming costumes (so presumably unarmed unless you think they can hide something in a swimming costume) having a gun pointed at them and being forced face down onto the floor at gunpoint for the crime of having a drink in public then you may see why people have a problem with police tactics.

    Running from the police should not give that policeman the right to shoot someone in the back but that's what happens and the instances of the police drawing a firearm seems completely over the top. I'd be worried about the police if I thought that at any moment the police can draw on me and claim I'm being uncooperative and then start to escalate the situation just because I'm asking why he's drawn a gun because the officer can claim I'm being uncooperative.

    The police in many shootings also don't seem to call for medical attention right away when they do shoot someone which causes more deaths and more frustration.

    The argument that you should just do whatever the police want is just giving them a free hand to do whatever they like and is strange as it looks like you're advocating a police state and for someone who has such a fear of government that seems like an odd position to take.

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #77
      Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post

      If those were the only times the police used firearms I might agree with you but when you have well publicised accounts of unarmed teenage girls in swimming costumes (so presumably unarmed unless you think they can hide something in a swimming costume) having a gun pointed at them and being forced face down onto the floor at gunpoint for the crime of having a drink in public then you may see why people have a problem with police tactics.

      Running from the police should not give that policeman the right to shoot someone in the back but that's what happens and the instances of the police drawing a firearm seems completely over the top. I'd be worried about the police if I thought that at any moment the police can draw on me and claim I'm being uncooperative and then start to escalate the situation just because I'm asking why he's drawn a gun because the officer can claim I'm being uncooperative.

      The police in many shootings also don't seem to call for medical attention right away when they do shoot someone which causes more deaths and more frustration.

      The argument that you should just do whatever the police want is just giving them a free hand to do whatever they like and is strange as it looks like you're advocating a police state and for someone who has such a fear of government that seems like an odd position to take.
      Having a fear of our government and having a fear of policemen is totally different. I have had many encounters with different police officers and not one of them was in any way threatening. I was courteous and they were courteous in return. If you get in anyone's face who is armed, you are just an idiot asking for trouble. They have a job to do. Don't do something that gets them called and you will be fine. They stop many black people every day with no confrontation. Felons running from the police have done great harm to other innocent people trying to escape. Hostage situations, carjackings, and other dangerous situations arise when someone flees the police. Sit there, keep your mouth shut and you will have a good day.

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #78
        Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post

        Having a fear of our government and having a fear of policemen is totally different. I have had many encounters with different police officers and not one of them was in any way threatening. I was courteous and they were courteous in return. If you get in anyone's face who is armed, you are just an idiot asking for trouble. They have a job to do. Don't do something that gets them called and you will be fine. They stop many black people every day with no confrontation. Felons running from the police have done great harm to other innocent people trying to escape. Hostage situations, carjackings, and other dangerous situations arise when someone flees the police. Sit there, keep your mouth shut and you will have a good day.
        Have you ever considered that the police might respond differently to you than they do a black youth in the city?

        Assuming that someone running from the police is automatically going to take a hostage or go on some kind of homicidal rampage is also bloody stupid as they may be running for any number of reasons most of which don't require a deadly response and can be dealt with in a whole host of other ways.

        Your solution of just be nice and everything will be just dandy is completely missing the fact that many, many instances have occurred where people have complied fully with law enforcement and still been met with deadly force. You seriously seem to live in some kind of quaint dreamworld where the 1050's were a crime free wonderland and everyone today is a godless, drug using felon who deserves whatever punishment the police feel free to give out for the slightest infringement of any and all rules and you are some kind of saint sent to point out everyone's faults.

        Open your eyes and see what's going on in the country you claim to live in.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #79
          Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post

          Have you ever considered that the police might respond differently to you than they do a black youth in the city?

          Assuming that someone running from the police is automatically going to take a hostage or go on some kind of homicidal rampage is also bloody stupid as they may be running for any number of reasons most of which don't require a deadly response and can be dealt with in a whole host of other ways.

          Your solution of just be nice and everything will be just dandy is completely missing the fact that many, many instances have occurred where people have complied fully with law enforcement and still been met with deadly force. You seriously seem to live in some kind of quaint dreamworld where the 1050's were a crime free wonderland and everyone today is a godless, drug using felon who deserves whatever punishment the police feel free to give out for the slightest infringement of any and all rules and you are some kind of saint sent to point out everyone's faults.

          Open your eyes and see what's going on in the country you claim to live in.
          Give me a few instances where people have complied and been met with deadly force. That is an anomaly at best. And, how do you draw a distinction between a man who is fleeing and will take a hostage and one who is just running for his health?

          As to whether police respond differently to me than to black youth, that is probably true. However, that is not the fault of the police, it is the fault of the black community. Even Jesse Jackson says it pains him to hear footsteps behind him at night and feel relief when he turns around and sees a white face. That is a culture created by black people in this country. It is a culture of fear. People fear them and they fear each other.

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #80
            Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post

            Give me a few instances where people have complied and been met with deadly force. That is an anomaly at best. And, how do you draw a distinction between a man who is fleeing and will take a hostage and one who is just running for his health?

            As to whether police respond differently to me than to black youth, that is probably true. However, that is not the fault of the police, it is the fault of the black community. Even Jesse Jackson says it pains him to hear footsteps behind him at night and feel relief when he turns around and sees a white face. That is a culture created by black people in this country. It is a culture of fear. People fear them and they fear each other.
            You really are blind to what's causing much of the problems in your own country.
            Just this week we had a video of someone being shot and killed by the police while simply reaching for his drivers licence (after being asked to by an officer who seemed to be a raving lunatic) while siting in his car with his girlfriend and her child.

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #81
              Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post

              You really are blind to what's causing much of the problems in your own country.
              Just this week we had a video of someone being shot and killed by the police while simply reaching for his drivers licence (after being asked to by an officer who seemed to be a raving lunatic) while siting in his car with his girlfriend and her child.
              It was a black man. No one had anything to say about it at all until the Dallas shootings here on this forum.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #82
                That police officer probably has the same fate as the North (or South?) Carolina officer who shot a black guy who was reaching into his coat or shirt pocket to pull out his ID. The officer's defense, "I thought he was reaching for a weapon", isn't going to work. Especially when the citizen had just been asked by said officer to provide ID.

                The only thing that is certain is citizens die because a few police are poorly trained, fail to execute their training, are just plain victims of PTSD or otherwise don't have the disposition to be a police officer. Clearly it is a disservice to ignore those considerations when recruiting and monitoring police staff. First it fails the citizen who is abused by the rare police officer who cannot execute his duties, then the Republic based on law & order. Lastly, it fails the incompetent police officer who remains on the force, when he should have been selected out and counseled on a vocation that suits his abilities, instead of dealing poorly with violence and marking him for life. Too many so-called law & order types are even throwing cops under their political bus with this issue.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #83
                  Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
                  You really are blind to what's causing much of the problems in your own country.
                  Just this week we had a video of someone being shot and killed by the police while simply reaching for his drivers licence (after being asked to by an officer who seemed to be a raving lunatic) while siting in his car with his girlfriend and her child.
                  And how many times has the video come close to telling the whole story?

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                    That police officer probably has the same fate as the North (or South?) Carolina officer who shot a black guy who was reaching into his coat or shirt pocket to pull out his ID. The officer's defense, "I thought he was reaching for a weapon", isn't going to work. Especially when the citizen had just been asked by said officer to provide ID.

                    The only thing that is certain is citizens die because a few police are poorly trained, fail to execute their training, are just plain victims of PTSD or otherwise don't have the disposition to be a police officer. Clearly it is a disservice to ignore those considerations when recruiting and monitoring police staff. First it fails the citizen who is abused by the rare police officer who cannot execute his duties, then the Republic based on law & order. Lastly, it fails the incompetent police officer who remains on the force, when he should have been selected out and counseled on a vocation that suits his abilities, instead of dealing poorly with violence and marking him for life. Too many so-called law & order types are even throwing cops under their political bus with this issue.
                    It's funny. When Lavoi Finicum was stumbling around in the snow and appeared, to the FBI agent, to be reaching for a gun, he was shot repeatedly at close range and none of the libs or the Justice Department thought twice about it. Of course, he was white.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post

                      It's funny. When Lavoi Finicum was stumbling around in the snow and appeared, to the FBI agent, to be reaching for a gun, he was shot repeatedly at close range and none of the libs or the Justice Department thought twice about it. Of course, he was white.
                      Mr. Finicum had just failed to run a second roadblock after pulling away from the first one, challenged the law enforcement officers to shoot him, was known to carry a firearm, and reached into his pocket that contained a firearm just as he was being shot. His failure to dance gracefully on the snow covered ground is not relevant to the case.

                      But you point out a good comparison. If there are similar cases where the perp was black instead of white, it would be a public service of the press to point those out. The BLM should not waste their resources complaining about those cases.

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                        There is an old saying. Figures do not lie, but liars can figure. So, HOW in the world can the stats say that income for working people have been stagnant since the 1970s and yet Reagan looks so good? Which stats have liars involved?
                        I have often repeated your point with this statement: 67.5% of all statistics are fabricated.

                        I feel like writing, ‘Welcome to the conversation!’ – even though you and I have been discussing this general subject for weeks. Finally you are responding to the many facts and statistics I have presented on a logical level – rather than emotional.

                        There is one easy explanation how middle-class income can be stagnant for 50 years yet Reagan can still look good. They rose during the 16 years of Reagan and Clinton while dropping most of the other 34 years. No liars required.
                        Ave Mid-Class.png



                        Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                        You do remember what the tripling of energy costs did to this economy, right? Do you also remember that by the time Reagan got in, within a few years the industrialized economy had finally adjusted to the tripling of energy costs, and the gas shortages had finally stabilized? HOW would this affect our economy? We cycled out of something. And Reagan was the benefactor of that. So how much of this being beneficial to him, is then attributed to him? This is not a simple thing, is it? An economy is very complex, with an so many interrelationships.

                        Reagan will go down in history as the president who put us on the path of hollowing out America, and the collapse of the American empire. Of putting us on the path of crony capitalism and the corporate state, oligarchy. History will not have the view of him, that you do, nor of the presidents that came after him, that continued us on the Reagan path.
                        Even though Presidents are always attributed credit or blame for the status of our economy most of us do understand certain cycles are inevitable. FDR was not responsible for the mess handed to him. Either was Reagan or Obama. But FDR and Obama embraced big-government Keynesian solutions which in both cases extended and deepened the damage to the middle class.

                        FDR’s New Deal not only failed to pull our economy out of recession – but extended and deepened the misery turning a sharp recession into the Great Depression. Much of the reason middle-class gains were so great in the 50’s and 60’s was due to how far under FDR had pulled them through the 1930’s. Just like the barrels pulled under by a giant shark – once the potential of the US economy broke loose from the jaws of FDR incomes shot back up to the surface.

                        Obama’s stagnation continues to this day – because he religiously believes in a similar model. Trillions have been pulled out of the private sector and re-injected into the economy – minus increased government overhead - as his administration sees fit. Obama has taken manipulation of the markets and crony capitalism to a level FDR only dreamed of.

                        On the other hand we have experienced another vision. Supply side ‘Reaganomics’ resulted in 17 years of economic expansion only interrupted by a short 6-month recession in 1990-91.Completely overhauling the income tax code can never be underestimated. Dropping the top effective tax rate from 70% down to 28% and even more importantly – simplifying the system and eliminated the bulk of deductions – unleashed the American entrepreneurial spirit creating more ‘new’ rich people than any civilization in world history.

                        Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                        Liars can figure sir. In the 1970s, there were still much of American households that had only the father working, and so household median income was one employed family member. In the 1980s the number of wives who went into the workforce expanded, thereby driving up potentially household income. So, get outta town. Figures do not lie, but liars can figure, and IMO, that is going on with your stats. Why did you not catch it? Because it, on paper, makes Reagan look good? So perhaps you are comparing a one income household prior to the 80s with a two household income, of the 80s? I remember when wives started moving into the work force, for it happened in my own large, extended family. It seemed that one income no longer was enough, my wife went to work, my brothers wife went to work, my sister went to work, even my mother who had never worked outside the home, went to work. Yes, anecdotal, but you would see this across America, driven by necessity.

                        The FDR model will stand on its own, and the Reagan neoliberal model of today falls on its face. You must adopt denial to think otherwise. And of course, you do, not because of anything but a damned disconnected from reality, ideological belief. That is the truth here. You are in the group that Ike said had no place in America.
                        The first wave of women entering the workplace began in the late 60’s through the decade of the 70’s - so these household income numbers should have been rising long before Reagan was inaugurated.

                        Still, this would be a great discussion – deserving a thread of its own. What are the overall effects of women entering the workplace? Does the rate of divorce and single parent families even this out? Via the inevitable laws of supply and demand, did the influx of women in the workplace push down wages for everyone? What period of years was required to smooth out any statistics effected by the increased workforce and two-job families? I cannot pretend to know the answers to these questions.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by SupPackFan View Post
                          I have often repeated your point with this statement: 67.5% of all statistics are fabricated.

                          I feel like writing, ‘Welcome to the conversation!’ – even though you and I have been discussing this general subject for weeks. Finally you are responding to the many facts and statistics I have presented on a logical level – rather than emotional.

                          There is one easy explanation how middle-class income can be stagnant for 50 years yet Reagan can still look good. They rose during the 16 years of Reagan and Clinton while dropping most of the other 34 years. No liars required.
                          [ATTACH=CONFIG]n527362[/ATTACH]




                          Even though Presidents are always attributed credit or blame for the status of our economy most of us do understand certain cycles are inevitable. FDR was not responsible for the mess handed to him. Either was Reagan or Obama. But FDR and Obama embraced big-government Keynesian solutions which in both cases extended and deepened the damage to the middle class.

                          FDR’s New Deal not only failed to pull our economy out of recession – but extended and deepened the misery turning a sharp recession into the Great Depression. Much of the reason middle-class gains were so great in the 50’s and 60’s was due to how far under FDR had pulled them through the 1930’s. Just like the barrels pulled under by a giant shark – once the potential of the US economy broke loose from the jaws of FDR incomes shot back up to the surface.

                          Obama’s stagnation continues to this day – because he religiously believes in a similar model. Trillions have been pulled out of the private sector and re-injected into the economy – minus increased government overhead - as his administration sees fit. Obama has taken manipulation of the markets and crony capitalism to a level FDR only dreamed of.

                          On the other hand we have experienced another vision. Supply side ‘Reaganomics’ resulted in 17 years of economic expansion only interrupted by a short 6-month recession in 1990-91.Completely overhauling the income tax code can never be underestimated. Dropping the top effective tax rate from 70% down to 28% and even more importantly – simplifying the system and eliminated the bulk of deductions – unleashed the American entrepreneurial spirit creating more ‘new’ rich people than any civilization in world history.


                          The first wave of women entering the workplace began in the late 60’s through the decade of the 70’s - so these household income numbers should have been rising long before Reagan was inaugurated.

                          Still, this would be a great discussion – deserving a thread of its own. What are the overall effects of women entering the workplace? Does the rate of divorce and single parent families even this out? Via the inevitable laws of supply and demand, did the influx of women in the workplace push down wages for everyone? What period of years was required to smooth out any statistics effected by the increased workforce and two-job families? I cannot pretend to know the answers to these questions.
                          The huge influx of women into the workforce was a direct result of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) a small provision in that law required lenders to consider all household income when approving a mortgage loan. Up to that time, only one income was considered, that of the majority earner. That little clause caused a plethora of unintended consequences. Home prices doubled, interest rates shot through the roof, and women had to go to work if the family was to buy a home.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post

                            The thing is, I do not believe that the philosophy that Reagan embraced, was an intent on his part to make America for working people worse. He must have believed in what the thought, and that freeing up capitalists, the big ones, would actually benefit ALL americans. He must have thought that deregulating capitalism would work out even better than regulated capitalism, and not just for the people on top. And Reagan didn't do all of the adverse changes either, much of them came later under democrats, Clinton. But this was the path Reagan's economic beliefs put us on.

                            Banking could have been deregulated in specific areas, but what seems to have happened is that far too many regulations were removed, creating a system, which human nature could run in a much more free fashion, and this turned a sound banking system into casinos, with the house back up by the taxpayers. More so than the FDIC ever did. Banking used to serve main street much more and it hardly does that at all today, and exotic instruments, risky, of profit has allowed such great wealth to be created for banks. So, why should banks invest in America when they can make such great profits in derivatives, CDIs, and other instruments? The very purpose of a national banking system was changed by deregulation.

                            It also seems that a deregulated capitalism led to open borders free trade globalization, which is a flawed economic model if one wants an economy that serves to feed the greatest number of americans. We seem to have forgotten that the kind of economy a nation has can either help the greatest number or it can hurt a significant portion of people who must work for their bread. Deindustrializing any nation can never benefit people who must work for their bread. It is just nonsense to think like that. Nothing could replace industry, and once we allowed offshoring, even what could have taken up some of the slack created by deindustrialization would be offshored as well, which is what has happened. What looked good in theory, on paper, just like Marxism, never worked out. And all that happened is that even greater disparity in income was created and more demand for social safety net spending. And the American dream for so many younger people has been utterly destroyed. The kind of economy we have now is also creating great social unrest, and new social problems. Where will it end? I surely do not know, but I think it will be very serious and threatens the social fabric of America.

                            I think we must start making what we consume again, and go back to demand side economics. As we figure out what to do about this new age of robotics and potential AI, and what americans will do to earn a disposable income to buy what the robots make. And no one seems to be thinking about this much, in gov't. They will probably be blind sided by it. Pulling a Hillary Clinton, in her unsophistication.
                            Well, now we're getting somewhere. I want to point out that Reagan's model did not include all of the deregulations done after him. That is an assumption. Assuming that Reagan intended for deregulation of banks to continue regardless of future situations. And, not assuming that had Reagan remained in office, never got dementia, and never died, that in his model he would have pulled back on, or opposed certain deregulations made after him. Also an assumption that deregulating certain area's of banks would not have remained good and necessary, had we not driven industry out of America, and had not made "bad" trade deals. Or had the federal gov't not grown so large and powerful, empowering and threatening banks if they did not offer what gov't insisted on, "Unsustainable loans", his model may not have gone south.

                            Is it not a possibility that when something Reagan supported and got authorized for a purpose in his current time, he would have adjusted, slowed down, or retracted it, once the plan became obsolete or infact a problem?

                            Fact is, is that what Reagan did, did help America's economy. What happened after is not representative Reagan's direction, but those who branched off in said directions that harmed the US from day 1 of implemented. This on top of all of the other policies that made deregulation of banks harmful.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • #89
                              The same could be said of FDR's policies. It was the administrations that followed him that overloaded the gov't.

                              How about we cut to the chase. Politicians are not the best economists. They start the screwup by assuming the economists they consult are selected for their scientific accuracy. Politicians select economists when their views fit the political angle they are trying to pitch. Accuracy comes in second when it comes to policy.

                              Hence the "less is better" gov't. went to it's extreme, deregulating to the point of not sanctioning major players in the finance sector, even if those players were major (not the only) factors in bringing down the economy. The "more is better" gov't. faction did not consider whether the long term objective of reducing poverty had to depend on gov't. services, or if a mix between public and private sector programs would have worked better. Neither side yet considers an alternative which goes contrary to the establishment policies to minimize poverty. We are still left with Big Biz (which is outsourcing jobs) or Big Gov't. (which can't find new jobs that stimulate consumer spending).

                              מה מכילות החדשות?


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post

                                For some crimes in progress, it is perfectly acceptable for police to kill the person. If he is threatening the lives of others, the police are quite justified in killing him. The killer in Dallas was a good example. He was a threat to others and refused to surrender. He needed to be killed. The point is, if you don't want to put yourself in jeopardy, cooperate with the police. The same can be said for a mugging. If you want to stay alive, give the guy with the weapon your wallet and live another day. People who commit a crime and then try to fight the police when caught are putting themselves in jeopardy. They have to share the blame for their predicament.
                                Here are some interesting stats for NY. So is it race that makes it appear that blacks are treated more harshly or is it resisting arrest that leads to harsher punishment and deadly situations between police and black folk?

                                https://project.wnyc.org/resisting-race/#drugs

                                I'll also ask: because blacks statistically resist arrest more often is it not reasonable that police will be more prepared to defend themselves, more on alert anticipating problems, almost expecting a more violent interaction when engaging with a black person?

                                Not looking for a link, cause I don't think we need proof here, but wouldn't you say that men are charged with more serious crimes, more often than women. Are police in general more alert and prepared for a violent confrontation with men than women, keeping their weapons more often in mind during the engagement? Is it simply because there is a prejudice in this country against men, or is it because statistically there is less of a threat of violent interaction when police engage with women over men. So did men create this situation for themselves? Uh, YES!

                                מה מכילות החדשות?

                                Working...
                                X