What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Thread (5 Viewers)

No clue what to think about the garbage disposal situation.  It certainly doesn’t make her dumb.  More likely that either A) she really never had one, in which case people are making crude jokes because of her socioeconomic background, or B) she was lying and pretending to be dirt-floor-poor.   If it’s “A”, shame on folks.  If it’s “B”, shame on her.
As described at the time, in some parts of the country garbage disposals aren’t all that common.  The first time I lived in a home with a garbage disposal was as an adult and I didn’t grow up dirt poor.  

 
The FDR thing seems like she was modestly misinformed paired with being a bit too loose with her words.  It’s a nuanced topic, and people have chosen to ignore the nuance.  
 

No clue what to think about the garbage disposal situation.  It certainly doesn’t make her dumb.  More likely that either A) she really never had one, in which case people are making crude jokes because of her socioeconomic background, or B) she was lying and pretending to be dirt-floor-poor.   If it’s “A”, shame on folks.  If it’s “B”, shame on her.
She had probably heard that the GOP changed the Constitution as a response to his 4 terms, and may have wrongfully assumed it was while he was still in office, rather than after the fact (doesn't mean she still shouldn't have taken the time to look it up before speaking).

 
As described at the time, in some parts of the country garbage disposals aren’t all that common.  The first time I lived in a home with a garbage disposal was as an adult and I didn’t grow up dirt poor.  
Yeah, we didn’t have one until I was in late high school.  And we weren’t dirt poor either.  But it seems like AOC likes to position herself a particular way.  Again, I have no idea what the truth is, and I’m not the one who started this discussion.

 
Very few Democrats in Congress or the Senate have called for "defunding the police" that I can think of - it has mostly been on the local level, in city counsels in places like Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Denver, or Portland.
Think harder...

Defunding police means defunding police,” the congresswoman (AOC) said in a statement. 

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/505307-ocasio-cortez-dismisses-proposed-1b-cut-defunding-police-means-defunding

https://www.newsweek.com/aoc-says-nypds-1-billion-budget-cut-doesnt-go-far-enough-defund-police-1514523

 
When asked what defunding the police looks like, the congresswoman's response over social media went viral earlier this month.

"It looks like a suburb. Affluent white communities already live in a world where they choose to fund youth, health, housing, etc more than they fund police," she wrote on Instagram. "The communities have lower crime rates not because they have more police, but bc they have more resources to support healthy society in a way that reduces crime."

 
When asked what defunding the police looks like, the congresswoman's response over social media went viral earlier this month.

"It looks like a suburb. Affluent white communities already live in a world where they choose to fund youth, health, housing, etc more than they fund police," she wrote on Instagram. "The communities have lower crime rates not because they have more police, but bc they have more resources to support healthy society in a way that reduces crime."
What's this supposed to prove?

 
It seems like folks are trying to figure out what AOC meant by "Defund the police".  Why not just look to what she said?
Lol. She literally said in a written statement that she doesn't need anyone to interpret for her. "Defunding means defunding" is a direct quote.

So either a) AOC doesn't know how to use a dictionary or b) a whole lot of people trying to come to her defense because they know defunding is a stupid idea and they don't want her held accountable for advocating it. 

 
This is a good example of how things can be better.

Someone said, "Very few Democrats in Congress or the Senate have called for "defunding the police" that I can think of - it has mostly been on the local level, in city counsels in places like Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Denver, or Portland."

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has clearly called for it. Ilhan Omar has called for the police to be "dismantled". 

We can say that without the snarky "think harder". And yes, I get it was snarky in response to other snarky posts. Rinse and repeat. 

And actually, the subject can be good. Omar explained in more detail some of the things she is thinking. 

So this puts us at a fork in the road for the conversation. 

On one path, we double down defending and deflecting the statement "Very few Democrats in Congress or the Senate have called for "defunding the police" that I can think of - it has mostly been on the local level, in city counsels in places like Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Denver, or Portland." That will likely go predictably,

On the other path, we say, "My bad. Obviously some Democrats have called for it. Let's talk about what defunding might really mean and look more into that".  Not defend or deflect or try to change the divert the subject. That's a much better path in my opinion.

But it's a harder path as deflecting / defending / refusing to admit wrong is more likely for many people. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lol. She literally said in a written statement that she doesn't need anyone to interpret for her. "Defunding means defunding" is a direct quote.

So either a) AOC doesn't know how to use a dictionary or b) a whole lot of people trying to come to her defense because they know defunding is a stupid idea and they don't want her held accountable for advocating it. 
But she did explain it - and instead of actually debating the policy she supports, you’re intentionally misrepresenting that because the reality is not nearly as radical and you want it to appear.   

 
This is a good example of how things can be better.

Someone said, "Very few Democrats in Congress or the Senate have called for "defunding the police" that I can think of - it has mostly been on the local level, in city counsels in places like Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Denver, or Portland."

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has clearly called for it. Ilhan Omar has called for the police to be "dismantled". 

We can say that without the snarky "think harder". And yes, I get it was snarky in response to other snarky posts. Rinse and repeat. 

And actually, the subject can be good. Omar explained in more detail some of the things she is thinking. 

So this puts us at a fork in the road for the conversation. 

On one path, we double down defending and deflecting the statement "Very few Democrats in Congress or the Senate have called for "defunding the police" that I can think of - it has mostly been on the local level, in city counsels in places like Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Denver, or Portland." That will likely go predictably,

On the other path, we say, "My bad. Obviously some Democrats have called for it. Let's talk about what defunding might really mean and look more into that".  Not defend or deflect or try to change the divert the subject. That's a much better path in my opinion.

But it's a harder path as deflecting / defending / refusing to admit wrong is more likely for many people. 
Agree 100% Joe.  To my knowledge, 2 of the ~ 280 Democratic members of Congress have called for “defunding the police”.  It’s important to understand that context before any discussion, IMO. Then we can move on to discussing what those 2 Democrats consider defunding, because as AOC made clear, she wants policing in the inner cities to look more like policing in the suburbs.  

 
This is a good example of how things can be better.

Someone said, "Very few Democrats in Congress or the Senate have called for "defunding the police" that I can think of - it has mostly been on the local level, in city counsels in places like Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Denver, or Portland."

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has clearly called for it. Ilhan Omar has called for the police to be "dismantled". 

We can say that without the snarky "think harder". And yes, I get it was snarky in response to other snarky posts. Rinse and repeat. 

And actually, the subject can be good. Omar explained in more detail some of the things she is thinking. 

So this puts us at a fork in the road for the conversation. 

On one path, we double down defending and deflecting the statement "Very few Democrats in Congress or the Senate have called for "defunding the police" that I can think of - it has mostly been on the local level, in city counsels in places like Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Denver, or Portland." That will likely go predictably,

On the other path, we say, "My bad. Obviously some Democrats have called for it. Let's talk about what defunding might really mean and look more into that".  Not defend or deflect or try to change the divert the subject. That's a much better path in my opinion.

But it's a harder path as deflecting / defending / refusing to admit wrong is more likely for many people. 
Been the same since Day 1. 😉

As always, appreciate the effort to promote real dialogue on topics Joe.

 
But she did explain it - and instead of actually debating the policy she supports, you’re intentionally misrepresenting that because the reality is not nearly as radical and you want it to appear.   
I am not intentionally misrepresenting anything, nor did AOC explain how her policy would work. She basically just took a thinly veiled shot at white people in the suburbs.

AOC and the other "defunders" literally want to divest existing resources from the police budget. Which according to the dictionary means "rid oneself of something that one no longer wants or requires...."

The defund "policy" is to then take those existing police resources and immediately re-direct them towards other social services.

So please explain...how do laws get enforced and crime reduced...in already high-crime areas...with an emasculated police budget...during the magical transition period between high-crime district and leafy green suburb?

 
And just to be clear...I understand that not all Democrats are in favor of the literal "defund the police" policy as it has been proposed by various city councils. Or that to many Democrats "defund the police" actually means something different than what the words say.

But to claim AOC is not in favor of the literal version is contrary to her actual written statements. 

 
What I think is super interesting / ironic on this is I truly think it's a problem with messaging. Because the opportunity is there. 

When I talk to my conservative friends, they are ALL IN on reforming police. They're not overly friendly to unions. They too realize the reality there are some bad cops out there and want them gone. They have teenage sons and realize teen boys (of any color) do dumb things that likely could have them in a dangerous situation with the police and they want a reasonable cop in the field. They are often fiscally conservative and realize we don't need to spend money on armored vehicles for a suburban neighborhood. And on it goes.

My point is I think this could be a topic where both sides have an interest in doing something here. It won't be exactly what either side wants. But that's how it always goes. 

 
So please explain...how do laws get enforced and crime reduced...in already high-crime areas...with an emasculated police budget...
Right now police officers do a lot of stuff that isn’t enforcing the law or catching criminals.  For example, dealing with mental health emergencies. AOC thinks that we should have social workers and mental health professionals doing much of that work.  Taking a lot of that stuff away from police departments would, in theory, allow them to focus their attention and resources even more towards enforcing the law and catching bad guys.  They could do a better job at these tasks, even with less total money, if they didn’t have to do all that other stuff.  

 
What I think is super interesting / ironic on this is I truly think it's a problem with messaging. Because the opportunity is there. 

When I talk to my conservative friends, they are ALL IN on reforming police. They're not overly friendly to unions. They too realize the reality there are some bad cops out there and want them gone. They have teenage sons and realize teen boys (of any color) do dumb things that likely could have them in a dangerous situation with the police and they want a reasonable cop in the field. They are often fiscally conservative and realize we don't need to spend money on armored vehicles for a suburban neighborhood. And on it goes.

My point is I think this could be a topic where both sides have an interest in doing something here. It won't be exactly what either side wants. But that's how it always goes. 
Totally agree.  The catch phrase “defund the police” might be the dumbest marketing since Chevy tried to sell the Nova (“doesn’t go”) in Mexico.

 
But she did explain it - and instead of actually debating the policy she supports, you’re intentionally misrepresenting that because the reality is not nearly as radical and you want it to appear.   


It's the job of a professional politician to keep their message and platform clear and simple to get their message across.

If a politician needs a bushel full of articles or clarifications or justifications later to explain their position, then they failed at getting the message across. That's on them. Part of a politician's job is also to get their platform out while limiting the avenues of attack by their opposition.

In the third Presidential Debate, it would be easy to say Joe Biden was going to universally eliminate all oil and gas jobs immediately. But in context, that's not true. However he left himself exposed to attack to the point where even the moderator ( clearly biased to the left ) tried to protect him and divert the subject away and Biden STILL chose to double down and walk into a trap.

Stephen Covey basics - First seek to understand, then be understood.

Some lefty will immediately say Twitter or platforms as such have massive limits to provide context. Well that's part of the game is it not? AOC uses social media to drive her image, brand and campaign, so she can't have it both ways. She can't use the social media to her benefit and advantage ( She's a digital native and other DNC/RNC dinosaurs are not) and then complain later about their limitations to her platform.

The "AOC is being taken out of context" doesn't fly. It's HER JOB to not put herself in a position to be attacked out of context. It's HER JOB to keep her message simple and clear that doesn't need updates to reframe her miscues and mistakes.

If you have to watch a movie twice to understand it, the question becomes if the director and writers did a good enough job telling the story. It's really that simple. You aren't entitled to having someone watch the movie twice. Politicians get a very very very limited window to get their message out and might have only one opportunity to engage a moderate or undecided in their favor.

"No, no, no! This is what AOC really meant if you look much much deeper and cross reference 28 things she's said across these 9 platforms in 8 months!"

If that's the case, the message failed. AOC didn't do her job. And this would be true for anyone. McConnell, Gaetz, Graham, Pence, Pelosi, Newsom, Lightfoot, Wheeler, Durkan, all of them.

Here's the real problem with "Defund The Police", the left dominates, and I mean DOMINATES and controls the MSM, Big Tech, social media, Hollywood and essentially most of the education system in the country. It's really easy at that point to have an echo chamber or a bizarre corrupted "Mutual Admiration Society" where this small very loud group keeps telling each other they are awesome and so smart and their messaging is so beautiful. But when that's not most of the American public sees it, they seem surprised when they get run over in the voting booth. Bill Simmons has covered this a few times, that it's hard for a sports pundit to understand the average fan when one becomes part of the rich/elite/famous establishment and you ONLY INTERACT with people like this on a daily basis.

If AOC needs a ton of context to explain herself that are days, months, weeks and even years later, the message failed.

This is where Mark Burnett helped Donald Trump. You can love or hate Trump, but the MESSENGING IS SIMPLE. Drain the swamp. Crooked Hillary. MSM are liars. Warren is Pocohontas. Sleepy Joe Biden in his basement.

It's a condescending position to have people say, "Well you didn't understand the real message!" when the politician in place didn't keep it simple and keep it effective. Don't blame others when you don't do your job or don't do it right. It's that condescension that drove so many minority voters from the DNC. Lots of liberals do a horrible job of winning hearts and minds. Do your job right and you won't have to spend so much time telling people what they don't understand.

Most of the time when AOC talks, she's a walking movie that needs to be watched twice to understand. That's a failure in storytelling and not a failure on the part of the American public at large.

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
Right now police officers do a lot of stuff that isn’t enforcing the law or catching criminals.  For example, dealing with mental health emergencies. AOC thinks that we should have social workers and mental health professionals doing much of that work.  Taking a lot of that stuff away from police departments would, in theory, allow them to focus their attention and resources even more towards enforcing the law and catching bad guys.  They could do a better job at these tasks, even with less total money, if they didn’t have to do all that other stuff.  
I've worked in the public sector. There is no such thing as "doing a better job with less total money."

In theory, Obamacare was supposed to lower health care costs and premiums. In reality, costs have gone up 50% and my individual premium has tripled with a 5x deductible.

Improving public safety by defunding the police is not addition by subtraction. It is a mirage.

 
I've worked in the public sector. There is no such thing as "doing a better job with less total money."

In theory, Obamacare was supposed to lower health care costs and premiums. In reality, costs have gone up 50% and my individual premium has tripled with a 5x deductible.

Improving public safety by defunding the police is not addition by subtraction. It is a mirage.
:goodposting:

I simply can't comprehend how this stuff gets by the American people.   

 
Last edited by a moderator:
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
Right now police officers do a lot of stuff that isn’t enforcing the law or catching criminals.  For example, dealing with mental health emergencies. AOC thinks that we should have social workers and mental health professionals doing much of that work.  Taking a lot of that stuff away from police departments would, in theory, allow them to focus their attention and resources even more towards enforcing the law and catching bad guys.  They could do a better job at these tasks, even with less total money, if they didn’t have to do all that other stuff.  
This is not a horrible idea.  I think having police officers better equipped to handle mental health crises might be the way.  I know plenty of police officers who are really solid folks.  They deal with a lot of BS and do a good job dealing with said BS, for the most part.

 
I've worked in the public sector. There is no such thing as "doing a better job with less total money."

In theory, Obamacare was supposed to lower health care costs and premiums. In reality, costs have gone up 50% and my individual premium has tripled with a 5x deductible.

Improving public safety by defunding the police is not addition by subtraction. It is a mirage.
As others have mentioned, its incredibly easy to get the concept. Its the messaging that sucks.

If we take.away 50% of police responsibilities that don’t match their skillset and instead leave that to people much more suited to these tasks, we have reduced the funding of the police, but they can do a much better result with the lets say 50% of their job they are better suited to. 

No money has been cut at all given all the tasks involved, its just been allocated in a better way.

I mean why don’t we task police with firefighting and paramedic work as well? They would give their all, but they aren’t suited to these tasks. Throwing things under the umbrella of police work that they shouldnt be doing is a chronic failure across the board. 

 
Joe Bryant said:
When I talk to my conservative friends, they are ALL IN on reforming police. They're not overly friendly to unions. They too realize the reality there are some bad cops out there and want them gone.
I'm glad to hear this and I would welcome conservative support for police reform, but my recent experience has been the opposite.  I've noticed that some of our student conservative groups have become more overtly pro-police just in the past few months.  I've also noticed more conservatives breaking out the "thin blue line" flag as a means of identifying themselves as being on the side of police. 

I know that these are just dueling anecdotes -- just that my experience in my little neck of the woods has been different.  

 
Joe Bryant said:
This is a good example of how things can be better.

Someone said, "Very few Democrats in Congress or the Senate have called for "defunding the police" that I can think of - it has mostly been on the local level, in city counsels in places like Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Denver, or Portland."

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has clearly called for it. Ilhan Omar has called for the police to be "dismantled". 

We can say that without the snarky "think harder". And yes, I get it was snarky in response to other snarky posts. Rinse and repeat. 

And actually, the subject can be good. Omar explained in more detail some of the things she is thinking. 

So this puts us at a fork in the road for the conversation. 

On one path, we double down defending and deflecting the statement "Very few Democrats in Congress or the Senate have called for "defunding the police" that I can think of - it has mostly been on the local level, in city counsels in places like Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Denver, or Portland." That will likely go predictably,

On the other path, we say, "My bad. Obviously some Democrats have called for it. Let's talk about what defunding might really mean and look more into that".  Not defend or deflect or try to change the divert the subject. That's a much better path in my opinion.

But it's a harder path as deflecting / defending / refusing to admit wrong is more likely for many people. 
It is politics.  Look who has said it and how correlates with protests in their districts chanting "defund the police"  They are pandering to their base voters.  Even if they back off they got the message out that we hear you and agree.

Omar said it and now they are actually adding more police in Minneapolis due to skyrocketing violent crime.

Really wish AOC who type out her tweet and then let it sit there for 24 hours and research what she is saying before hitting the send button. Something Trump should have learned as well but both are too thin skinned and just fire off tweets.

 
I've worked in the public sector. There is no such thing as "doing a better job with less total money."

In theory, Obamacare was supposed to lower health care costs and premiums. In reality, costs have gone up 50% and my individual premium has tripled with a 5x deductible.

Improving public safety by defunding the police is not addition by subtraction. It is a mirage.
I don't think anyone at all is saying "less total money" in the aggregate (or if anyone has actually said that, I missed it)

I think they are generally saying reallocate the same total money. Or perhaps some are saying spend more money in total (with higher taxes), but the percentage for police should be less and the percentage for things that would help the police / take things off their plate (such as mental health professionals, social services) would be more. 

 
GordonGekko said:
It's the job of a professional politician to keep their message and platform clear and simple to get their message across.
That should be their job, but in this case I think the lack of clarity is on purpose. They use the phrase defund the police to please their far left supporters. They give detailed explanations to make moderates feel better and be able to argue that there is nuance. 

Or they dont know what defund means. So dumb or devious are really the only choices here. 

 
That should be their job, but in this case I think the lack of clarity is on purpose. They use the phrase defund the police to please their far left supporters. They give detailed explanations to make moderates feel better and be able to argue that there is nuance. 

Or they dont know what defund means. So dumb or devious are really the only choices here. 


Very logical. Covers all the bases and lines up with Democrats needing to appeal to multiple diverse interests to not lose votes.

I'd personally call it dumb AND devious.  Since the detailed explanations didn't resonate, the end result was plain dumb while the original intent by the DNC was devious.  Sticking with the mantra costs them future elections. Backtracking on the mantra looks weak, helping to cause them to lose future elections.

Go woke, lose your seat.

 
I'm glad to hear this and I would welcome conservative support for police reform, but my recent experience has been the opposite.  I've noticed that some of our student conservative groups have become more overtly pro-police just in the past few months.  I've also noticed more conservatives breaking out the "thin blue line" flag as a means of identifying themselves as being on the side of police. 

I know that these are just dueling anecdotes -- just that my experience in my little neck of the woods has been different.  
Thanks. I should clarify too. I think it's very possible to be Pro Police and on the side of Police and also be very much in favor of Police Reform. That's definitely what these guys are. I would say I am too. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Improving public safety by defunding the police is not addition by subtraction. It is a mirage.
I'm curious if you feel the same way about education. Is it a mirage to say that taking money away from public schools and putting it elsewhere can't lead to better education?

 
Thanks. I should clarify too. I think it's very possible to be Pro Police and on the side of Police and also be very much in favor of Police Reform. That's definitely what these guys are. I would say I am too. 
I've been saying this for years and for some reason it seems to irritate both sides. I support police AND hold them to high standards.

But police reform requires . . . funding.

 
I'd be very interested to hear an example.
A couple off the top of my head.

Let's say that, today, police are the first responders for criminal activity, mental health issues, and nuisance issues (e.g. complaint about homeless person wandering a suburban neighborhood).  Let's say that the reform changes things such that the first responders for the latter two are changed to social workers instead of police.  The funding for police could be decreased, as they are now responsible for far fewer calls.

Let's say that we change police pensions such that overtime during the last N years of service is no longer counted towards pension calculations.  Pension funding would be drastically decreased.  I suspect that would more than offset (by orders of magnitude) the increase in funding required to hire additional police to compensate for the decreased overtime that existing police would be willing to perform.

 
An easy example: not providing police departments with military equipment such as tanks does not require funding.
Easy example? Fact check = false.

Police leaders have defended the program, arguing that military-style equipment -- which departments receive for free -- can save the lives of officers facing dangers like mass shootings, or help protect them if protests turn violent.

The 1033 program was instituted in 1997 under the Clinton administration amid pressure to bolster police forces’ ability to fight the war on drugs. It transfers the military’s extra or outdated gear to state and local authorities who apply for it, who are responsible only for the cost of shipping.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/17/politics/protests-police-reform-military-supplies-invs/index.html

https://www.marketplace.org/2020/06/12/police-departments-1033-military-equipment-weapons/

 
Easy example? Fact check = false.

Police leaders have defended the program, arguing that military-style equipment -- which departments receive for free -- can save the lives of officers facing dangers like mass shootings, or help protect them if protests turn violent.

The 1033 program was instituted in 1997 under the Clinton administration amid pressure to bolster police forces’ ability to fight the war on drugs. It transfers the military’s extra or outdated gear to state and local authorities who apply for it, who are responsible only for the cost of shipping.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/17/politics/protests-police-reform-military-supplies-invs/index.html

https://www.marketplace.org/2020/06/12/police-departments-1033-military-equipment-weapons/
MT is still correct.  It doesn't require any funding for police departments not to receive this sort of stuff.  We would be better off throwing old tanks into the Atlantic ocean than giving them to local police.

 
MT is still correct.  It doesn't require any funding for police departments not to receive this sort of stuff.  We would be better off throwing old tanks into the Atlantic ocean than giving them to local police.
Oh geez. The claim was blatantly false.

But anything to defend your buddies I guess...

 
Oh geez. The claim was blatantly false.

But anything to defend your buddies I guess...
By your own link, the claim was NOT false.  The departments are required to pay for shipping.  Beyond the initial outlay, the departments are also subsequently responsible for upkeep and maintenance on that equipment, among other ongoing costs.

 
Oh geez. The claim was blatantly false.

But anything to defend your buddies I guess...
I actually have direct personal experience on this point, as I have personally not been given a tank. So I know what I'm talking about. I can tell you that not having been given a tank has caused me to incur no out-of-pocket expenses whatsoever.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Easy example? Fact check = false.

Police leaders have defended the program, arguing that military-style equipment -- which departments receive for free -- can save the lives of officers facing dangers like mass shootings, or help protect them if protests turn violent.

The 1033 program was instituted in 1997 under the Clinton administration amid pressure to bolster police forces’ ability to fight the war on drugs. It transfers the military’s extra or outdated gear to state and local authorities who apply for it, who are responsible only for the cost of shipping.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/17/politics/protests-police-reform-military-supplies-invs/index.html

https://www.marketplace.org/2020/06/12/police-departments-1033-military-equipment-weapons/
I have another crazy idea...

 
I actually have direct personal experience on this point, as I have personally not been given a tank. So I know what I'm talking about. I can tell you that not having been given a tank has caused me no out-of-pocket expenses whatsoever.
It is also obvious you had zero clue whatsoever what the actual costs were of police procuring military equipment before you posted your "easy example." 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If we're all going to use hyperbole and tanks as an extreme example, then so will I. I'll just say that when social workers are getting killed by thugs, loons, or ghouls that social workers' lives will matter, too.  

Hyperbole enough for everybody? 

 
My point is this: You're all concentrating on the utile function of domestic tanks and wherefrom they're funded. It's an extreme example that probably should not have been proffered as proof of anything, pro or con, in the first place. 

It's in the spirit of the truism that bad facts make bad law. 

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top