Discussion about hot topics trending today

[SoulReaver]

They already do operate under those rules. If a police officer is found to have deliberately acted outside the law in a situation where an officer kills someone, they face criminal prosecution which includes the loss of their pension/etc.

Or do you want to hold them to those penalties for honest mistakes/accidents?
You let me know when you're walking on water, eh?

so when a commoner makes an error that costs another's life it's reckless endangerment/involuntary manslaughter/w/e but when someone from God-vernment makes an error then it's a "honest mistake"?
hellofa wide scope for the definition of 'Sanctity of Life' you usually uphold so eagerly. lol

[Annoyed]

You have to have a police force in order to deal with criminals.
Criminals are frequently prone to violence, often lethal and sometimes against police.
Therefore, police have to be armed.
Police are human, and as such will make mistakes.

Which one of those facts can you snap your fingers and change?

[Gatefan1976]

You have to have a police force in order to deal with criminals.

You need police to uphold the laws we agree to live with, yes.

Criminals are frequently prone to violence, often lethal and sometimes against police.

No, it is only "often lethal" in the US, in most other places it is "occasionally lethal"
Would you care to guess why?

Therefore, police have to be armed.

Sure.

Police are human, and as such will make mistakes.

Unloading 7+ rounds into a person is not an "accident", nor a "mistake", it's being trigger happy.
(oh, I am sure they are all high, or on PCP, or something to justify it, cause PCP is easily available............)

Which one of those facts can you snap your fingers and change?

Guns?

[Annoyed]

You can take guns away from the people who will obey gun laws. You cannot take them away from the criminals.

[SoulReaver]

You have to have a police force in order to deal with criminals.
Criminals are frequently prone to violence, often lethal and sometimes against police.
Therefore, police have to be armed.
Police are human, and as such will make mistakes.

Which one of those facts can you snap your fingers and change?

humans will make mistakes but apparently the gravity of the mistake depends on caste

I proposed a very easy to implement & effective solution but since Godvernment is sacred it was unacceptable to you

[Annoyed]

A while back, you may recall me making the argument that no matter who you try to levy a tax on, it is the little guy that ends up paying for it.

Here is a perfect example.
It seems that the state of Connecticut wanted to use GE corporation as it's cash cow.
So, GE just paid the tax, the state got the $ and everyone lived happily forever, right ?

Wrong.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016...e-ge-move.html

Seems that GE has decided to pack up and move its headquarters to a more business friendly state, Massachusetts. Problem solved. For GE, that is.

General Electric’s big move to Boston this summer could mean much more than leaving an empty corporate campus behind.

Residents and small business owners in the tony town of Fairfield, Conn. – home to GE’s global headquarters for more than four decades – are bracing themselves for the collateral damage after the company announced last month it would be moving to Massachusetts and taking 800 jobs, millions in grants and opportunities for expansion with them.

But that’s not even the half of it.

The trickle-down devastation triggered by GE’s move is predicted to spare no sector. The real estate market is expected to suffer as residents pick up and leave for better job prospects. Small businesses and infrastructure projects also could start to see setbacks in the near future, as the high taxes blamed in part for GE's move remain.

This is what the liberals who want to tax the shiznit out of corporations and anyone else who make their own living can't seem to understand. If you squeeze the golden goose too hard, you will kill it.

Corporate GE will continue along happily in their new home, it's executives will just buy new mansions in Massachusetts and they will go on happily,

Who pays? The working stiffs in the town that GE left as a result of the state tax policies.

[Annoyed]

humans will make mistakes but apparently the gravity of the mistake depends on caste

I proposed a very easy to implement & effective solution but since Godvernment is sacred it was unacceptable to you

It also depends on the intent of the person making the "mistake"
Some thug who shoots somebody in a robbery attempt or some other criminal endeavor gone sour doesn't deserve the same consideration as someone who is charged with enforcing the law making a mistake in a split second decision.

[SoulReaver]

It also depends on the intent of the person making the "mistake"
Some thug who shoots somebody in a robbery attempt or some other criminal endeavor gone sour doesn't deserve the same consideration as someone who is charged with enforcing the law making a mistake in a split second decision.

how about a commoner making a mistake in a split second decision?

[garhkal]

A while back, you may recall me making the argument that no matter who you try to levy a tax on, it is the little guy that ends up paying for it.

Here is a perfect example.
It seems that the state of Connecticut wanted to use GE corporation as it's cash cow.
So, GE just paid the tax, the state got the $ and everyone lived happily forever, right ?

Wrong.
..snip..
This is what the liberals who want to tax the shiznit out of corporations and anyone else who make their own living can't seem to understand. If you squeeze the golden goose too hard, you will kill it.

Corporate GE will continue along happily in their new home, it's executives will just buy new mansions in Massachusetts and they will go on happily,

Who pays? The working stiffs in the town that GE left as a result of the state tax policies.

Just like when i lived in the UK, and saw plenty of people who owned lots of money, moving Overseas including their banking, to avoid paying the high as heck income taxes/vat.

[Gatefan1976]

You can take guns away from the people who will obey gun laws. You cannot take them away from the criminals.

Not so long as you do not enforce the poor laws you have already, no.
As for not taking them away from criminals, have you noticed just how many gun crimes are committed with -legal- guns?.
Also, we have relatively few deaths by guns, and what few there are, are committed by criminals. That's not just here, it's practically every country with strict gun laws.
I hate to tell you dude, but the evidence supports the fact that controlling (not banning) guns -works-.

[Gatefan1976]

A while back, you may recall me making the argument that no matter who you try to levy a tax on, it is the little guy that ends up paying for it.

Here is a perfect example.
It seems that the state of Connecticut wanted to use GE corporation as it's cash cow.
So, GE just paid the tax, the state got the $ and everyone lived happily forever, right ?

Wrong.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016...e-ge-move.html

Seems that GE has decided to pack up and move its headquarters to a more business friendly state, Massachusetts. Problem solved. For GE, that is.



This is what the liberals who want to tax the shiznit out of corporations and anyone else who make their own living can't seem to understand. If you squeeze the golden goose too hard, you will kill it.

Corporate GE will continue along happily in their new home, it's executives will just buy new mansions in Massachusetts and they will go on happily,

Who pays? The working stiffs in the town that GE left as a result of the state tax policies.

That is an example of corporate greed, and using existing loopholes. Do you think GE would move anywhere inside America if no matter where they went, the laws were the same?

[Annoyed]

That is an example of corporate greed, and using existing loopholes. Do you think GE would move anywhere inside America if no matter where they went, the laws were the same?

How would you do that? Each state is an independent taxing jurisdiction, with the authority to levy taxes in that state only.
Or do you want to strip states of their right to levy taxes as they see fit?

And if the entire US is hostile, they can easily move outside the US, too.

[Gatefan1976]

How would you do that? Each state is an independent taxing jurisdiction, with the authority to levy taxes in that state only.

Yes, I am aware of that.

Or do you want to strip states of their right to levy taxes as they see fit?

No, but being, umm, what's the word........United in their dealings with corporations would be possible.

And if the entire US is hostile, they can easily move outside the US, too.

Getting a corporation to pay it's taxes is not hostile. How's about the Federal government says "stop moving around to avoid your taxes, or we will cancel all your fat military contracts"
Numbers:
http://www.militaryindustrialcomplex...ral%20Electric

[Falcon Horus]

may be <=> may not be
may be genetic <=> may not be genetic
may not be genetic <=> may be a choice

alles klar?

That's not implying a choice.

That's like saying all mammals have four legs so a an iguana is a mammal.

since that debate hasn't been resolved yet, I choose not to answer

Well, to some it isn't even a debate.
I wonder if conversion therapy works both ways...

now we're talking

I should have known...

Just like when i lived in the UK, and saw plenty of people who owned lots of money, moving Overseas including their banking, to avoid paying the high as heck income taxes/vat.

If I had a lot of money, like a LOT of money... I too would put it somewhere where I wouldn't have to pay a boatload of taxes on it.

[garhkal]

If I had a lot of money, like a LOT of money... I too would put it somewhere where I wouldn't have to pay a boatload of taxes on it.

I am sure most would.



Now onto another question. Over on the Mil times forum, some are bringing up Rubio and other GOP candidates statement that should women want in combat arms, they should then be required to sign up for the selective service. Over there on the mil times, some are saying that is wrong/sexist/showing how men are caving into the feminists etc..

How do you all think on it? Is it wrong to say if women want equal access in the military, they should have equal responsibility to the mil, which includes signing up for the select service??