“I think the sign was in poor taste, but I take issue with this notion that as soon as someone claims something is "offensive, traumatic, and triggering" it must be the final say and the end of the debate. That is not how an open society works, much less any form of debate.”
“It only matters if you're looking to blame an entire group of people for the actions of a lone sociopath. I'm not looking to pin this on the LGBT community, rather just opining that the news contributor wasn't the only person that got the same impression from his videos.
Now, I'm sure you want to get back to the narrative that the "manosphere" is to blame and must be put down. Oh and that some PhD needs her professional licenses revoked due to offering an opinion.”
“Yea because that's the new American way, right? Don't agree with someone else's opinion? Sign this petition and let's cause them to lose their livelihood. I guess tolerance is reserved for only those you agree with. Stalin would be proud.”
“In all fairness, myself and others I know all thought he gave off a very effeminate vibe, and all of us wondered aloud if he was repressing homosexual feelings. One way or the other it shouldn't matter, as this boils down to a deeply ill sociopath unleashing violence toward others.
Yet, I know the idea of him possibly being homosexual would complicate the current narrative that "privileged heterosexual male" expectation for sex with females is what caused this. We wouldn't want to get in the way of the agenda machine. #AgendaFirst”
TeeGeeCee on May 27, 2014 at 14:33:34
“In all fairness, myself and others I know all thought he gave off a very middle eastern vibe, and all of us wondered aloud if he was secretly a muslim terrorist...
See what I did there? Without any real insight or information I made a judgement call that has no foundation in fact. Hmm, I wonder if I'll get booked on Fox News as an expert on terrorism.
“Actually, I have a 16 year old son who I have joint custody of and spend time with on a weekly basis. When you live in a society with laws then it is entirely appropriate to have an opinion on the scope and structure of those laws, especially when they deal with destroying a life. Btw, producing funds to support a child is a huge part of raising one, though certainly not the only part.”
“I appreciate your point, but I am still highly skeptical of government ability, or desire, to reasonably price consumption and/or access. Look at the bridges, though not a utility, they still are governed by quasi-public entities, but the tolls are now close to $15 for a round trip and the infrastructure itself is in absolute disrepair. I just see the same thing happening with the internet infrastructure if it is socialized to that degree.”
Gmasters on Apr 30, 2014 at 17:02:30
“The problem with Bridge & Highway Tolls is that the Politicians who "oversee" them have been using them as a slush fund for Years.
Years back, the citizens of the City of Jacksonville Florida got totally fed up with that practice and passed a Ballot Initiative that forbid using Toll Money for Any Purpose except paying down the Bonds that had been used to finance building the roads and bridges in the first place. And requiring a New Vote to issue any New bonds.
Within just a couple years, the Bonds were paid off and the toll authority was able to be disbanded. All the toll booths and "Administrators" were removed.”
NHblue89 on Apr 25, 2014 at 12:51:01
“Thats due to lack of investment on the governments part NOT a mismanagement of funds. Public utilities vastly outperform their private counterparts, look at what happened in Cleveland in the 80's/90's. Why is that? Private companies have the bottom line to worry about, public has service to worry about. You can sacrifice service to make the bottom line meet, but thats not what we should be paying for.”
wanderer12 on Apr 24, 2014 at 22:58:27
“I would posit the tolls are up and infrastructure is in disrepair not because government is bad but because people have been convinced that you can maintain things without taxes and that rich people should get big tax breaks. The Peterson mantra is we have debt issue. The reality is we have a revenue issue that has led to many things including a debt issue. A group of people and businesses are getting a free ride.”
“No thx. If we start letting government tax this as a utility, we'll all be paying double or triple what we do now (I need only look at my Con-Ed bill to know this will be the case). The real problem here is that these are either monopolies or very low competition markets due to franchise rights. So either regulate it so as to prevent favoritism for particular traffic or greatly open up the markets to spur on more competition.”
wgsecrest on Apr 26, 2014 at 21:43:55
“Private enterprises simply can't be trusted - period!”
Thaddeus Jude on Apr 25, 2014 at 13:36:03
“My power bill is pretty low and actually has been kept in check by the PSC in my state. The companies ask for great increases every year and are rarely granted any increase at all.”
wanderer12 on Apr 24, 2014 at 20:54:29
“The idea of a utility is that rates are monitored and managed. ConEd has always been expensive due to the large base it has to supply power to. I grew up on LI. Market mechanisms do not always work. What you propose has been tried with electricity and it has been a dismal failure.”
“I'm all for people making smart decisions about birth control and not having children they aren't in a good position to care for or afford, but I'm also for responsibility. Men are already held to this standard, as much as you might not want to hear it, but it's apparently heresy to suggest that women should be held to that same legal responsibility.
Let me ask you, when was the last time you complained that a man was dragged to court and put into poverty to pay for a child he did not want? I doubt you ever have, nor should you, yet you somehow think that women should be granted some extra consideration on that same issue of being forced to live with the consequences of their actions (i.e., consensual sex).”
CS Parish on Mar 31, 2014 at 12:04:31
“I married a man with a child ,and I assisted in paying 14 years of child support for her. So you are preaching to the choir, since obviously women have to "pay" for support, the same as any man. And if in your mind, you equate producing money to the actual responsibility of raising a child, I would guess that you don't have any children. How about you just live your life, mind your own business, and answer to your own conscience and I'll do exactly the same. That way, we both basically get our constitutional rights and I don't have to live to your expectations.”
“Hmmm "no deep compunctions against taking a human life"... So then how do we explain ancient laws against murder? You know, the ones men decreed long before women were generally allowed to have a say in the matter.
Furthermore, try as you might, you can't get away from my original point that a vasectomy in no way destroys a life. When the government tells women they can or can't have a tubal ligation, your point about vasectomies will become valid, and I'll be the first one standing in line to protest alongside you.
Lastly, as to your comment about owning the definition of what it is to be human, I'd say nature decided on that one long before you and I. Last I checked, the product of human procreation is more humans, not goats or cows or cats. Ah but this "thing" is not viable! Yea well, neither is a newborn if someone doesn't care for it, but I don't advocate ripping off their limbs either.”
CS Parish on Mar 27, 2014 at 19:47:58
“Men can make all the law they want to (obviously without the input of women), but that certainly hasn't stopped them from committing murder on a mass scale. I'll spare you the examples. You also totally ignored the point I made with the mandatory vasectomy and changed it meaning. When you aren't free to govern your own body, and the law decides how you procreate, it violates every tenet of the Constitution. Hence, the double standard exists as men are not subject to these restrictions. I also strongly object to the "Pro Birth" stance, which I believe is what you are advocating. You don't care, in any way what happens to that mother and child after it is born, as long as you yourself are morally satisfied. How cold is that? Until I stop hearing about cutting education and entitlements for these unfortunates, I'm never going to be convinced. It a case of putting your money where your mouth is, and I see no specific performance.”
“The responsibility should be when both parties decide to have sex, not once someone is pregnant with a child. We rightly lock men into that responsibility the moment they ejaculate, but somehow it's a horrendous notion to assert that women should be held to that same standard of responsibility.”
“Well, when a man's "private reproductive decisions" involve terminating a human life, I'll be happy to agree with you.”
CS Parish on Mar 27, 2014 at 16:01:08
“Didn't think you would agree, wouldn't want your toes tread on, would you? It slays me when people like you think you own the definition of what it is to be human, and when "life" is viable. Keep your balance, you might fall off your pedestal. And from my observations of human history, men have never had any deep compunctions against taking a human life. But when it involves women, suddenly it is objectionable.”
“I think what you read on the ACLU site was about being stopped for questioning, which is somewhat different than being charged. Those are known as 'Terry Stops,' or in NYC as Stop, Question & Frisk. That involves reasonable suspicion, while being charged means the officer claims to have probable cause and is actually initiating a criminal or civil process against you.
I also understand your point about driving not being perfectly analogous, but the general point is that you have to identify yourself when being charged with an offense, whether verbally or through ID depends on state and local policy. Otherwise, as you noted, they can, and usually will, hold you until they identify you.”
Jason Blevins on Feb 23, 2014 at 17:09:19
“They made the distrinction. If you're absolutely certain you're being arrested on false pretenses (which is a dangerous guessing game), they encourage you to give your name and basic ID info and that's it. But they do not say it's required. However, it's mentioned as Texas having laws stating otherwise.
Ultimately, you make your life harder if you don't comply, unless a cop is extremely out of line that he'll be reprimanded or embarrassed wasting anyone's time on this.”
“Once a police officer tells you that you are being charged with an offense you must identify yourself. If a cop pulled you over for speeding and you refused to identify yourself then you'd have the same issue. Even if you're arrested for a crime, and invoke your right to remain silent, you still must give pedigree information such as your name, date of birth, etc.”
Jason Blevins on Feb 23, 2014 at 14:26:28
“Thanks or the clarification. That's what I thought, but the analogy of traffic violations are different, in my opinion, since you have to be licensed to operate a vehicle and thus you must submit ID upon request.
I just looked this up on the ACLU page, and it's actually determined in part by which state you are in. Some states you are not require to identify yourself if stopped, however this does not mean they cannot arrest you and hold you while they attempt to make an ID or, depending on the crime, hold you until trial.”
“In NYS, it's called disorderly conduct, and most states have similar laws. I'm not sure if she was charged with that as it seems the main issue was that she had no id and then refused to give her name. If a cop tells you they are issuing you a summons then you're obligated to identify yourself, if you have no id then at the very least you need to verbally provide that information. The alternative is that they will bring you into a police station to attempt to identify you through means such as fingerprinting.”
“Look, I'm the first to decry the militarization of our police departments, and the abrupt nature of many police officers, but this woman appears to have been in the wrong. First of all, no where in that video did I see her being thrown to the ground. Second, if you don't have id and refuse to give your name then how are they going to issue you a ticket? Of course they're going to then take you to the station so they can fingerprint you or otherwise identify you. Lastly, she screamed like she was being beaten, when all they did was place her in the police car. This doesn't appear to be a case of the police being in the wrong.”
sfirx426 on Feb 23, 2014 at 02:18:09
“I agree. There is real police abuse out there, no need to make this an example. This is no where near abusive.”
“As a former police officer, I saw first hand the push to militarize the police. They have become the new standing army, and I think tying permissions and restrictions of civilian weapons to that of the police would work for both sides. So while I understand that micro-stamping isn't a big issue for police weapons, binding restrictions to both police and civilians would act as a check. If the police believe so strongly in the necessity of a restriction on particular weapons, or on the implementation of certain safety & accountability measures, then they should be willing to abide by those restrictions too.
You want a high capacity magazine restriction? Fine, place it on the police too.
Outlaw certain ammunition? Sure, just ban the police from using it too.
Ban AR-15s? OK, but the police can't possess them either.
Obviously, even if you banned the police from carrying any weapon on-duty, you couldn't do that to civilians, but on degrees of other restrictions, a 1:1 relationship would work very well.”
“In all honesty, the standard should be: if the police can use it then so can civilians. That would roll back this absurd militarization of the police, and also protect people's rights since the police won't allow themselves to go unarmed.
And in the reverse, if it's a restriction you want to place on civilians, then place it on cops at the same time.”
Davey Williams on Feb 15, 2014 at 15:15:45
“In terms of the current technology required in CA, microstamping, police weapons are exempt for the following reasons:
1. The weapons currently requiring micro stamping (semi automatic) aren't used by the police.
2. Current guidelines require police reports and oversight investigations every time a police weapon is discharged. We don't have secret, unsolvable police firearm discharges, so there hasn't been a need yet to require their classification of guns to require microstamping.
I can't speak for other states, but our police departments here operate pretty transparently. Recently we had an illegitimate shooting (no deaths) in Los Angeles County. Residents are split on whether probation or termination is the appropriate reaction, but overall are satisfied with the investigation and release of information.
The future of the technology, if successful as currently required, would be to implement it on additional weapons and increase the data imprinted on bullets and casings (time/location fired, etc). California voters would probably support adding this to police firearms if they agreed with the cost/benefit to do so. Traditionally, voters here are tough on crime and also hold our police to very high standards.”
“New York has had draconian gun laws for many decades, including the era when this city was an absolute war zone, so I don't believe your analysis on that point holds up. However, I can respect that you simply have a different opinion that you try to present well, so I suppose the best we can say for now is that, like many things, the Supreme Court will eventually have the final word on this.”
quick-k on Feb 14, 2014 at 13:02:27
“NY has some of the most progressive laws of any state for guns. They are tied for 5th with RI this year their over all average is better for a number of years,CT, MA,NJ and HI are the only better ones http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000. The justices understand the fine line they tread. These states are the benchmarks that safe and sane gun laws will begin to be built on.”
“Actually, there's a very strong likelihood that this will stand in the long run. This particular decision might not survive an en banc rehearing in the 9th circuit, but there's a better than average chance that the US Supreme court will decide the overall issue much the same way this opinion did.”
“Sex, for many people, is a critical part of a relationship, especially if it's monogamous, so I can't blame this woman for declining to get married if it was an issue for her. I feel bad for this guy getting rejected in a public place like this, but that's more of a critique about some female expectations in our society (big display, huge ring, expensive weddings, etc) that would even lead one to think it's a good idea to propose in such a public way.”
“"May issue" states are not regulating so much as the are prohibiting, and that's a huge difference. They are generally saying that you need a reason above and beyond the average person in order to get a permit. In NYC, that means you transport large amounts of money, you sell diamonds, you're a celebrity, etc.
Speech can be regulated too as too time, place, and manner... but that doesn't mean a state can say that you need a reason above and beyond the average person in order to have a protest permit.”
quick-k on Feb 14, 2014 at 12:17:04
“Gun laws are a public health and safety issue. NY has one of the lowest deaths per capita in the country because of their gun laws on the books. Critically for public health and safety, Scalia acknowledged in Heller that like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.Carry concealed users rights end where the publics health and safety begin.And he is the most far leaning right on this issue. That is how the court is looking at these cases. It is why they didn't take NY or MD and if CA goes there,SCOTUS will support the sates right to regulate.”
“I don't think most people would mind, so long as it only happens if/when you pull the trigger. However, I still think most on the far left will still have their panties in a knot over people being allowed to carry a weapon. This decision is perhaps the best thing I've read in ages, well crafted and point on. It's like a roadmap for the Supreme Court, and it's upset the vast majority of HuffingtonPost users, which is just icing on the cake.”