Jump to content

The Congressman is back yo


congressman

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, SocialD said:

 

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.  Don't trespass, break down doors, shatter windows and hop barricades clearly meant to keep you out and you likely won't get shot...easy as that.  Hard to feel sorry for someone like this.  

That's fine. As long as a country we agree that in every instance when an unarmed black person is killed for resisting arrest that they were playing a stupid game and won a stupid prize. I don't believe we really think that though. 

 

 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, FLEA said:

That's fine. As long as a country we agree that in every instance when an unarmed black person is killed for resisting arrest that they were playing a stupid game and won a stupid prize. I don't believe we really think that though. 

 

 

Agreed.  Consistent application of principals = legitimate rule of law.  

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, tac airlifter said:

Agreed.  Consistent application of principals = legitimate rule of law.  

Yes. Political hypocrisy is a symptom of extremism and tells me someone isnt interested in a just, equal society, they are interested in exploiting those values to achieve their political utopia, which fundamentally, is a dystopia for many others. 

I don't necessarily uphold Ashley Babbit as a wonderful person. But just as we had to exercise ourself to see passed George Floyd's criminality to recognize him as a human being, we need to do the same thing with her. 

Justice is about ensuring just ends are met, even if they are ends that as a society make us uncomfortable. 

Edited by FLEA
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, FLEA said:

That's fine. As long as a country we agree that in every instance when an unarmed black person is killed for resisting arrest that they were playing a stupid game and won a stupid prize.

 

I'm 100% onboard with that.  Resisting arrest is generally not going to end well for you and I really don't have much sympathy if things go wrong for you.  Should you be shot for simply resisting arrest...no, but if you start to make moves that could be construed as reaching for their taser/gun or even a potential weapon on you, you 100% just won a stupid prize. 

 

My Guard base if littered with cops/troopers who would rather stay out on orders then go back to their police jobs.  Most of the ones I talked to have said they're not going back and many of their friends are searching for jobs elsewhere.  Great dudes/dudettes who say it's just not worth it anymore.  They all say the same thing, you're one edited video aways from losing your job, going to prison or ending up in a pine box.  We just had a Sheriff deputy shot on a routine stop in my area last night...I have to wonder if any of this cause him to hesitate, just for a second, that may have nearly cost him his life.   

 

4 hours ago, FLEA said:

I don't believe we really think that though. 

 

Maybe not the mainstream ne (err...) entertainment media who just want to stir up discontent.  This "we" certainly is there. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, FLEA said:

That's fine. As long as a country we agree that in every instance when an unarmed black person is killed for resisting arrest that they were playing a stupid game and won a stupid prize. I don't believe we really think that though. 

 

 

False equivalence is a logical fallacy.

She was not resisting arrest.

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just want to add my .02 regarding the Ashley Bobbit part of the discussion.  I'm in law enforcement (fed - Immigration) and like many others have gone on orders to get away from work (for a variety of reasons).  

As far as Bobbit and "resisting arrest", we'd have to know what the Capitol Police Use of Force rules are for deadly force.  At my agency, there's no way we could have fired at her -- to put it in very generic terms that don't spill any details regarding our UoF policies, we can only use force that is equivalent to what's being used against us or another.  If she wasn't armed, she wasn't a threat that needed to be dealt with using deadly force (i.e. firearms).  The caveat is that they (Capital Police) may have different policies for protecting members of Congress.  So, unless we know that, we're all speculating to some degree. 

I'll also throw in something else about law enforcement and immigration in general.  During the Trump admin we were sending people to the SW Border for rotations to enforce US Law (Title 8 primarily).  These were involuntary TDY's, and although many weren't excited about forced TDY's, at least we doing what we're trained to do (law enforcement).  There are TDY's again under the current Admin, but these are simply to assist in processing aliens and then releasing them with a Notice to Appear (NTA) before EOIR at a later date.  They're released into interior and almost none ever show for their court date.  This is a deliberate decision by policy makers and ultimately the President himself.  None of us can understand it.  The border was quite secure until 18 months ago.  Now it's wide open.  A friend working at an airport for another immigration agency said he doesn't know why they bother processing pax or looking for bad guys.  He said if anyone really wanted to harm us (like the 9/11 hijackers), it's easier for them to just go to Mexico and cross our southern border.  At that point we wouldn't even have a record of their arrival and they'd have free reign within the country.

  • Like 2
  • Sad 4
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Loach said:

I just want to add my .02 regarding the Ashley Bobbit part of the discussion.  I'm in law enforcement (fed - Immigration) and like many others have gone on orders to get away from work (for a variety of reasons).  

As far as Bobbit and "resisting arrest", we'd have to know what the Capitol Police Use of Force rules are for deadly force.  At my agency, there's no way we could have fired at her -- to put it in very generic terms that don't spill any details regarding our UoF policies, we can only use force that is equivalent to what's being used against us or another.  If she wasn't armed, she wasn't a threat that needed to be dealt with using deadly force (i.e. firearms).  The caveat is that they (Capital Police) may have different policies for protecting members of Congress.  So, unless we know that, we're all speculating to some degree. 

 

Good to hear from a fed Le. The Capitol Police use of force can't be too different from other feds. The Capitol Police are a bunch of fucking boobs. They have a budget bigger than the Dallas PD, but they have to protect Nancy so they need that. Oh and after 1/6 the budget was increased.

I guess I should walk back my statement that she was murdered. Can anybody here say how she crossed the threshold where use of deadly force was authorized? She was playing a stupid game and deserved a stupid prize. But she didn't deserve that prize. 

When this first hit the news I wondered if it was an AD or ND.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Loach said:

I just want to add my .02 regarding the Ashley Bobbit part of the discussion.  I'm in law enforcement (fed - Immigration) and like many others have gone on orders to get away from work (for a variety of reasons).  

As far as Bobbit and "resisting arrest", we'd have to know what the Capitol Police Use of Force rules are for deadly force.  At my agency, there's no way we could have fired at her -- to put it in very generic terms that don't spill any details regarding our UoF policies, we can only use force that is equivalent to what's being used against us or another.  If she wasn't armed, she wasn't a threat that needed to be dealt with using deadly force (i.e. firearms).  The caveat is that they (Capital Police) may have different policies for protecting members of Congress.  So, unless we know that, we're all speculating to some degree. 

I'll also throw in something else about law enforcement and immigration in general.  During the Trump admin we were sending people to the SW Border for rotations to enforce US Law (Title 8 primarily).  These were involuntary TDY's, and although many weren't excited about forced TDY's, at least we doing what we're trained to do (law enforcement).  There are TDY's again under the current Admin, but these are simply to assist in processing aliens and then releasing them with a Notice to Appear (NTA) before EOIR at a later date.  They're released into interior and almost none ever show for their court date.  This is a deliberate decision by policy makers and ultimately the President himself.  None of us can understand it.  The border was quite secure until 18 months ago.  Now it's wide open.  A friend working at an airport for another immigration agency said he doesn't know why they bother processing pax or looking for bad guys.  He said if anyone really wanted to harm us (like the 9/11 hijackers), it's easier for them to just go to Mexico and cross our southern border.  At that point we wouldn't even have a record of their arrival and they'd have free reign within the country.

Belongs in the WTF thread, but hey man at least no more mean tweets right!?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 7/13/2022 at 6:39 PM, torqued said:

 

Only cowards act that way to people that they know can’t fight back. It’s like taunting an animal at the zoo from behind the glass. Knobs like that certainly aren’t walking down the sidewalk telling off normal people.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Majestik Møøse said:

Only cowards act that way to people that they know can’t fight back. It’s like taunting an animal at the zoo from behind the glass. Knobs like that certainly aren’t walking down the sidewalk telling off normal people.

It's probably not good for political discourse, but Alex's video where he tells AOC she's his favorite big booty Latina is pretty funny. 

  • Haha 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, pawnman said:

It's probably not good for political discourse, but Alex's video where he tells AOC she's his favorite big booty Latina is pretty funny. 

It’s really not, it’s harassment. This guy is a prick who would get free facial reconstructive surgery if he talked like that in a setting where the subjects could respond appropriately.

Life pro-tip: don’t make your job filming videos of yourself harassing other people! Work a shift, buy a house, raise a family, die peacefully of old age with a reputation for being a good person.

Brain worms indeed.

Edited by nsplayr
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, nsplayr said:

It’s really not, it’s harassment. This guy is a prick who would get free facial reconstructive surgery if he talked like that in a setting where the subjects could respond appropriately.

Life pro-tip: don’t make your job filming videos of yourself harassing other people! Work a shift, buy a house, raise a family, die peacefully of old age with a reputation for being a good person.

Brain worms indeed.

Wait…I thought the left called this “protesting”?  It’s now called harassment?

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, nsplayr said:

It’s really not, it’s harassment. This guy is a prick who would get free facial reconstructive surgery if he talked like that in a setting where the subjects could respond appropriately.

Life pro-tip: don’t make your job filming videos of yourself harassing other people! Work a shift, buy a house, raise a family, die peacefully of old age with a reputation for being a good person.

Brain worms indeed.

She set the rules. 

"Protesting should make you uncomfortable".

"Don't give them a moment of peace".

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, pawnman said:

She set the rules. 

"Protesting should make you uncomfortable".

"Don't give them a moment of peace".

 

"If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside; this is based on the principle that every positive has its negative."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/16/2022 at 3:21 PM, pawnman said:

It's probably not good for political discourse, but Alex's video where he tells AOC she's his favorite big booty Latina is pretty funny. 

I guess we have to ask ourselves if there is a difference between a protest and sexual harassment? And if sexual harassment, construed as protest, is protected under the first amendment, what other types of behaviour can protesters engage in, along the lines of that video? 

 

Because it seemed like he wasn't actually protesting anything in particular? Or was the clip I saw too short, and his political argument was made earlier in the video?

 

--------------

EDIT: To put it another way, if someone did that to your wife, for example, would you think that person was protesting your wife's politics? 

Edited by Random Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Random Guy said:

I guess we have to ask ourselves if there is a difference between a protest and sexual harassment? And if sexual harassment, construed as protest, is protected under the first amendment, what other types of behaviour can protesters engage in, along the lines of that video? 

 

Because it seemed like he wasn't actually protesting anything in particular? Or was the clip I saw too short, and his political argument was made earlier in the video?

 

--------------

EDIT: To put it another way, if someone did that to your wife, for example, would you think that person was protesting your wife's politics? 

Well, my wife isn't a public figure, so there is that.

Alex didn't go to AOC's home and didn't threaten her.  As opposed to some of the protests she has supported.  Was it all political? No, not really.  He did call her dumb...is that a political argument? Because if it isn't, then a lot of Trump's critics should be making apologies as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Random Guy said:

EDIT: To put it another way, if someone did that to your wife, for example, would you think that person was protesting your wife's politics? 

So is this a protest or harassment?  I’ve got plenty more other examples btw.

image.thumb.jpeg.654194c6a3aae697cf35f255230e13e7.jpeg

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, HeloDude said:

So is this a protest or harassment?  I’ve got plenty more other examples btw.

image.thumb.jpeg.654194c6a3aae697cf35f255230e13e7.jpeg

 

One of the great ironies of pictures like this: protestor screams in face of representative of the institution, while simultaneously relying on the restraint of the institutional representative. 

It wasn't that long ago that protestors relied on the lack of restraint to make their point.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, in the context of my statement about sexual harassment, if the woman in the face of the [police] official was saying:

"Look at his sexy booty, look at that fat booty. Your my favorite big-ass Latino." 

It would 1) yes, still be considered sexual harassment, and 2) the non-symmetric dynamic between men and women might lead the male officer to 'not really care about it'. 

 

He didn't go to her home, he went to her work, and sexually harassed her at work. Meanwhile, calling someone dumb (incompetent) is surely valid political discourse of a very low level. An official pursuing poor policy due to incompetence, for example. Right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should make your point more clear.

How would you summarize the justifiable legal argument for a sexual harassment case against Alex?

If you can't, then you're confusing just being offended with an actual legal transgression.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, torqued said:

You should make your point more clear.

How would you summarize the justifiable legal argument for a sexual harassment case against Alex?

If you can't, then you're confusing just being offended with an actual legal transgression.

Are you a lawyer, because I am not. If you are, how is harassment treated at law currently in the US (DC) area?

 

As a citizen I can say that if his behavior does not constitute harassment which affords legal consequences, I support Congress passing laws which would provide that outcome. Certainly I think replacing the political figure he's speaking to with our wives we can agree nothing he said is related to our wives' politics in any way, but rather is purely sexual in nature. 

 

Edit: I suppose as a society we should simply demand better discourse. We can communicate better than this, can we not? And if you pass beyond discourse to violence, then take up proper violence. But shouting sexually at someone as a form of soft-intimidation is an unnecessary middle ground we shouldn't dwell in. Talk properly or fight I say.

Edited by Random Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Random Guy said:

Are you a lawyer, because I am not. If you are, how is harassment treated at law currently in the US (DC) area?

 

As a citizen I can say that if his behavior does not constitute harassment which affords legal consequences, I support Congress passing laws which would provide that outcome. Certainly I think replacing the political figure he's speaking to with our wives we can agree nothing he said is related to our wives' politics in any way, but rather is purely sexual in nature. 

 

Edit: I suppose as a society we should simply demand better discourse. We can communicate better than this, can we not? And if you pass beyond discourse to violence, then take up proper violence. But shouting sexually at someone as a form of soft-intimidation is an unnecessary middle ground we shouldn't dwell in. Talk properly or fight I say.

Bro you arent going to find many sympathizer here. The democrats changed the rules for civility, not the other way around. Once they normalized threats, riots, police attacks, sequestering government buildings, burning cars, etc.... harassments, even sexual in nature, became completely fair game. You may not like it, but that's what our civilization has become. If AOC feels "uncomfortable" than she can step down. But I recall her saying that protest should make people feel "uncomfortable." 

 

Edit: to clarify, I don't personally condone any of this. However, it has become the reality of the US, that political supremacy is now earned through civil unrest and civil disobedience, not through civil discourse. 

Edited by FLEA
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...