A "divisive" t-shirt?

Posted by $ blarman 10 years, 4 months ago to News
32 comments | Share | Flag

All Comments

  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Why 6 mo's? You're on the gov't dole, you don't get to serve. Exceptions would be gov't pensions (and no double dipping) and military disability. I've made a similar proposal regarding the franchise to vote.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 10 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Amen. That was the primary ideal behind the Senate in the first place - it was the primary avenue of asset holders to influence public policy. That aspect got totally thrown out with the public election of senators.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Animal 10 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Who says it has to be optional? We're talking a Constitutional amendment, after all.

    Here's a caveat that might address your concern; limit it to a pool of net tax payers. If you're on any welfare program, you won't be called. Moochers would be excluded.

    Hell I've been advocating for years that if someone is on a public welfare program for more than, say, six months, they lose the franchise until they are self-sufficient again. No skin in the game, no vote.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Interesting proposal. And if the pay were the same as jury duty, we'd likely get the same type of people - those willing to give up whatever it is that they are doing to be sidelined on this duty.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 10 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I'll agree to the quibble with a quibble of my own: we SHOULD be a constitutional republic. When Senators began being publicly elected, however, and with most of the the Electoral College being run by majority vote, I would submit that in fact we are a representative democracy. That goes double now due to actions of the Executive Branch.

    If we were still a constitutional republic, we would already have impeached and convicted the sitting President.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You seem to misconstrue my comment (probably easy to do as I didn't spell it out explicitly).

    So here it is - Running the country should have nothing to do with government. The "country" is an aggregation of all the individual interactions of free people. Only when these people are able to interact without interference, governmental or otherwise - so long as their actions aren't causing harm to others - then they should be free to conduct them.
    What we have today is government dictating who, what, how, and even why and when private actions must be conducted, and now have even supplanted the individual and are conducting individual actions on behalf of the individual - against their wishes (see my post about the gov't re-enrolling people in O'care if they didn't do so themselves, and choosing the level of insurance that will be billed to them).

    I also agree with Timelord that we are not merely a representative democracy - that would lead to the tyranny of the majority. It is also why the break-down of the separation of powers as enshrined in the US Constitution is so dangerous. We don't even have the tyranny of the majority, but a simple tyranny of a tyrant.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Timelord 10 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Sorry blarman, but we're not a representative democracy, we're a constitutional republic. They are not the same, thanks be to Zeus.

    We are a constitutional republic because that is the only form of government that (should) guarantee the rights of the minority. It prevents the tyranny of 51%. Unfortunately, our constitutional republic has slipped a few cogs and doesn't run properly any more.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 10 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Uh, with all due respect, but no. We are a representative democracy for a reason - that the common person is an utter moron when it comes to management or leadership. We elect representatives to run things because the vast majority of individuals don't have either the intelligence or training to do so. Having a representative democracy also provides a layer of protection (sometimes thinner than desired) against mob rule, which was what led to the decline of Athens.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    NO!!!!!!!!!!!! "Running the country" is to be the role of the PEOPLE. That's what's wrong with how things are today.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 10 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "anyone who wants the job should never be allowed to hold it."

    I agree. Benjamin Franklin noted this in the Constitutional Convention debates.

    And I think you hit on a very good point: that the Office of the President of the United States has become too complicated. Why? Because running the country is supposed to be the job of CONGRESS, not the President! The President is supposed to be responsible for carrying out the wishes of Congress and leading the military. But our culture has gravitated to insist that now the President must be the Chief Diplomat - the purpose of the State Department, the chief Economist (Treasury), Chief Educator (Dept of Education), etc. We need the President to focus on a few things and do them right rather than bungling EVERYTHING.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ winterwind 10 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    There are all kinds of ways we can alter the way someone runs for President, but essentially, anyone who wants the job should never be allowed to hold it.
    I want the job of President of the U.S. to be so trivial that anyone can hold it - even if he's as dumb as a box of rocks. Mel Brooks' Governor in Blazing Saddles - even HE could be president. You can't tell me that most of the presidents, especially the ones in our lifetimes, are smarter than or are able to know more than the people in the Gulch. The difference is, the people who go after the job want it for all the wrong reasons.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by KCLiberty 10 years, 4 months ago
    Not illegal or deserving of punishment. But.....extremely TASTELESS. The message: Always submit to the cops no matter what. Total BS.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 10 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Good idea! Well, until we do this the first time and find out that the person chosen to serve has never held a job, never graduated from high school, etc.

    I think the bigger problem is in the way people run for office. It seems that the higher up the chain one goes, the more beholden to money one gets. I think I'd try to start with campaign finance reform first by restricting ALL donations for office to come from citizens living within the jurisdiction of the office.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Wow! You really take the 1st amendment very lightly. How could you conceivably think that a message to obey the law is a threat to your life?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • -1
    Posted by $ jdg 10 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The message of this shirt isn't a political view. It's a threat to our lives. That can and should be banned.

    If someone says "I can't breathe" and then dies in the hands of cops, they murdered him. Period.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Susanne 10 years, 4 months ago
    My ex used to get me these cool cop t-shirts that would (like this one) show up every so often for sale through his buds... Sure, the leftist anarchists would probably hate them, but they were usually pretty inoffensive... unless you were a gangbanger or thug.

    At least he's not selling NSA spy elves... now THAT's offensive!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by plusaf 10 years, 4 months ago
    He should ask the FTC about Restraint of Trade rights and then suggest that the complainers shove their 'sensitivity' where the T-shirt won't cover it.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ winterwind 10 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I'm with you, and our motto shall be
    "Cincinnatus was right! So was Washington!"
    I do love this idea, and propose it regularly [although probably not widely enough].
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 10 years, 4 months ago
    Both sides are wrong on this. The 1st Amendment means what it says. The article's ""Unfortunately, the divisive message ... that is being currently promoted through the sale of T-shirts bearing this message damages the goal of unity and further divides our community," they said in a statement."

    I don't like what the cop says on the t-shirt, but he has the right to say it and people that agree with him have the right to buy it.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 10 years, 4 months ago
    It is clear in my mind that 'death' is not the correct punishment for a man who is selling cigs illegally. (Selling cigarettes should not be a crime in the first place.) The police may be guilty of nothing more than fallibility, but something is definitely wrong here: either they kept the choke hold on waaaay long or they crushed his larynx. Either was an excessive response.

    Look at it this way: I drove home on Friday with one headlight out. If a CHP had pulled me over and told me that I was violated the law, I would have remonstrated with him. Should I have been choked to death for having argued back in such a case?

    I will quite accept, 'fallible' as a concluding argument on the side of the police. I will not accept, "Well done. Cookie."

    Jan
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by TroutPound 10 years, 4 months ago
    Now the truth is divisive, Adolf Hitler is alive and well in this country where the truth is divisive.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 10 years, 4 months ago
    I was once in Barthel's predicament (kinda). We published unauthorized biographies of Rock and Roll performers which were fully researched and told the unvarnished truth. We were immediately threatened by some of the groups and one in particular that is no longer around. These "New Kids" sued us in federal court and lost. We then put out a T-shirt with our new corporate motto, "Unauthorized An Proud Of It."
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Turfprint 10 years, 4 months ago
    I want to buy one just foe the h-ll of it. With all the interactions between police and violent criminals around the country every day, Al Sharpton and the main stream media can’t really find too much to fixate on. It’s all about politics, and Sharpton can stir-up enough followers that big companies like Sony are cow-towing to him.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 10 years, 4 months ago
    then the smirk which our leftist friends wear
    should be outlawed ... "What difference does it make,
    at this point?" she said, smirking beneath her frown. -- j

    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo