Ahem;
No. I said the high bar for amendments - the requirement that Congress and a majority of voters in 3/4ths of the states approve them - is deliberately undemocratic. It would be more democratic to allow a simple majority to amend the Constitution. So you’re claiming I said the exact opposite of what I wrote. And my entire point was that democracy can be used to subvert liberty, so maybe you failed to follow my argument. Are you very dumb, or a liar?
Then your intent was unclear from your phrasing, which implied that it would be undemocratic to take a course of action requiring such a high bar. I apologize.
Well, of course it can.
So you would like democracy to be used to subvert liberty?
No, I’m saying that it can do so if the people will it. Saying that something is possible does not mean it is desireable.
I could be alone in this, but one day I’d really like to see a thread on any police/law/government-related topic that isn’t completely shit up with an avalanche of Smapti-turds.
I almost forget what fresh air smells like.
Tell it to this guy:
And? Democracy is about carrying out the will of the people. Democracy means that the people get what they want, not necessarily that I get what I want. If the people overwhelmingly want to do something I disagree with, that doesn’t mean I get to veto it or declare it impossible simply because I don’t desire it to happen. An undesirable product of the democratic process is still a product of the democratic process.
And you admitted the democratic process can trample liberty. On the positive side, I think we figured out what your mantra is.
And you agreed with that assertion, so if we agree, why are we fighting?
You spent a couple of pages rejecting the idea or at least downplaying it even though it’s a fundamental concept in our system of government. The people who founded the USA were really not interested in the kind of democracy you are touting because they had a fairly low opinion of the public. And your catchphrase “the will of the people” is really more the kind of thing a populist dictator would say.
Deflector shields up! What’s your post per fap rate in this thread? You’re bound to be raw by now.
I’m beginning to think he has no knowledge beyond what his 7th grade history teacher taught last year and some Super Cop’s are Awesome forum. There’s absolutely no way he’s older than 14.
Yes. I started to read grude’s most recent anti-police screed and I was completely gobsmacked that he didn’t show up until the ungodly late post of #23. Of course, then no time was wasted and it quickly became all about him. So, I just shipped because truly, what’s the point? No one can be that obtuse and not be trolling, so the only thing I’d’ve undoubtedly gained from that thread was myself a warning.
It just sucks that these idiots with their pet causes (like anything about guns) renders these discussions pretty much useless for everyone else. And sane.
Yeah you are criticizing her, while saying nothing about the law-breaking cops.
No, she was told she’d been accused of being a prostitute. Most women are offended when they are called whores.
And? Maybe he trusted the cops to act appropriately and she did not. Maybe he was ignorant of his civil liberties and she wasn’t. Maybe he has a timid, submissive personality, and maybe she is more feisty.
And maybe, as someone who has enjoyed white male privilege all of his life, he assumed he’d be given benefit of the doubt and wouldn’t be prejudged as a criminal based on his record, even if he had multiple priors. And maybe, as a black woman, she assumed that she wouldn’t be given any benefit of the doubt and would needlessly be opening herself up to persecution if she submitted to their demands, even if the only thing on her record was a shoplifting charge from the 12th grade.
Ultimately, none of this matters. You’re essentially arguing that the only time it makes sense to exercise one’s rights is when doing so doesn’t get in the way of the police. I would argue that that’s exactly when we should assert our rights, otherwise there is little point to them being enshrined in constitutional law. They’ll just be courtesies or guidelines, not rights.
Folks want to protest the government and exercise their right to assemble and practice free speech? In your world, all a cop has to do is ask them to leave, and the crowd is somehow obligated to comply lest they subject themselves to a can of government-issued intimidation. This is the same kind of shit that conservatives said during the Civil Rights movement.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
I’m sorry if this has been addressed before–and the thread’s mighty long already–but the thread title says husband and the news reports I’ve seen say boyfriend. Not that it matters to the actual issues in play here; I’m just curious: are the couple in question married?
Interesting link. According to the TMZ poll -
***Who’s the Bad Guy?
Actress - 89%
Cops - 11%
Total Votes: 156,325 ***
Read more: 'Django Unchained' Actress -- Cops: After Car Sex She Pulls Race, Fame Card (POLICE AUDIO)
Also, according to the same article -
*Daniele Watts had just left CBS studios in the San Fernando Valley around 2 PM Thursday. She says she was making out with her BF, but we’ve learned witnesses from the nearby Art Directors Guild office building told cops they were watching her and her BF have full-on sex in the passenger seat WITH THE DOOR OPEN!
The eyewitnesses said the guy was sitting in the seat, she was straddling him and it was for everyone to see. One eyewitness told cops they cleaned themselves up afterward with a tissue.*
If the eyewitness(es) are willing to testify in court, it doesn’t look good for Watts as a person but it will be a big boost for her Hollyweird career.
Smapti: In what types of situations would you limit police authority even if their sincere aim was to protect society at large? Please describe some laws, if any, you would enact to restrict police powers in those situations.
Did any of these witnesses get a photo or video?
If 90% of the American people supported amending the Constitution to enslave the other 10%, you would argue that would be “democratic”?
Thanks Bricker. 
It would be democratic - which is a major reason why a pure, unrestrained democracy is a very bad idea. A pure, unrestrained democracy is just a formalized version of mob rule, which is exactly why we have things like constitutional rights in the first place. Like any other ideal democracy doesn’t work well when taken to its purest extreme.