Truck Drivers Say They Won’t Deliver To Cities with Defunded Police Departments

a reply to: Toinski

I don't know what a proper answer is to you, so....?

originally posted by: Identified
a reply to: Toinski

I don't know what a proper answer is to you, so....?

LoL.

I've been reading your answers and not in any way you gave a answer to any of my question(s).

If you think you did, please direct me to your so called post(s) where you gave a proper answer. Which also addresses my questions. You can't I suspect, but you haven't done that also. That makes me wonder.

So come on, we are both adults here (but I don't know for sure if you are an adult). Please point me out to your post in this thread where you already answered the questions I have. Thank you.

Kind regards,

T

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Because almost without exception just about every protest turns into a riot?

originally posted by: ketsuko
Because almost without exception just about every protest turns into a riot?

Does it? I'm not buying your overly hyperbolic numbers. There have been tons of protests in New Jersey and we haven't had one riot. Peddle your made up bull to someone dumb enough to believe it.

a reply to: scraedtosleep

If they had plans for what they want to replace the police with Minneapolis wouldn't need an exploratory commission to start developing a plan to replace them.

You are aware that city council voted to abolish their police dept. already within one year. So, yeah, they did it without any plan at all because now they're in the stages of trying to figure out what that's going to look like.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Sorry, but I don't sympathize with the aims of rioters.

They lost me when they started destroying their own neighborhoods.

We were all angry over what happened to George Floyd, but they've gone way beyond that now. And I'm out. They want to sit down and talk, then fine, but I'm not going to be lectured, and I'm not kneeling over racism, and I'm not scrapping the police.

a reply to: Toinski

I have given answers whether you think they are "proper" or not is not my concern.

I have no idea what your other questions were to other people and I have no interest in going back and seeing what they were so I can answer you "properly."

I was giving you a courtesy after you responded to a completely different post that I had ignored you. Now you have your response.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Identified
I'm amazed at the amount of fear coming from folks who claim not only are they conservative but also claim they are suspicious of the govt. Being this a conspiracy site and all.

Yeah, this.

Here's a chance to potentially eliminate a public union that hampers holding its members accountable in many cases and go with a better model, but the alleged small government 'Conservatives' immediately resist due to emotional reasons. I say do the same with all public unions, get rid of them and put something with more public accountability in their place.

I don't think it's that change won't be accepted, it's the knee jerk reaction change that some don't like. A few asshole pasty face liberals decide to tear down a statue in the dark of night, and the MSM cheers it, then it becomes the norm, and it happens all over as if it's now how we do things.

A group of folks scream "DEFUND THE POLICE", while half of them are trying to explain why that doesn't mean what it says, the other half is claiming it means just that, and none of it has been thought out or planned. When your company went public, did all the decisions to do that happen in a day or two, or was there some kind of planning for all of it? If so, then why? Is planning important?

a reply to: network dude

The issue is that there are still many resistant to even having a dialogue after what the majority of people can agree was an unacceptable situation with Floyd.

You either opt to be part of the process or you get left behind, that's the way it goes. I would think that there are plenty of intelligent people on both sides that they could come up with a mutually agreed upon solution to the problem but once again it's all political bickering and the citizenry suffers.

originally posted by: ketsuko
Sorry, but I don't sympathize with the aims of rioters.

Neither do I and neither am I disingenuous enough to equate protesting with riots. That's your issue, you immediately discount the message because you hyperbolically associate legal and Constitutionally protected protesting with rioting in every case even though you know that it isn't the case.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: ketsuko
Sorry, but I don't sympathize with the aims of rioters.

Neither do I and neither am I disingenuous enough to equate protesting with riots. That's your issue, you immediately discount the message because you hyperbolically associate legal and Constitutionally protected protesting with rioting in every case even though you know that it isn't the case.

I’ll hyperbolically call that a truth bomb — consistent with my *Gen Xer ‘wokeness’.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

that's just it. this one event had everyone on the same side. Everyone. And it got sidetracked with all the riots and idiot behavior.

This is an opportunity to enact real change. But if that change is going to be mob rules dictating what happens on the fly, I'm going to oppose it out of caution. I'd hope most with any common sense would do the same. You need a plan. You don't need nutters who are worked up into a frenzy making the calls. Where I come from, that's call "stupid".

Hell, the group screaming "defund the police" can't agree with what that actually means. I'd take that as a good indication that some dialog is needed before we jump to step 3 (profit) (underpants gnome reference)

a reply to: network dude

knee jerk reaction change 

Folks are acting like a child who has suddenly been grounded after mom told him numerous times to stop his behavior and even after she counted to 3.

originally posted by: network dude
that's just it. this one event had everyone on the same side. Everyone. And it got sidetracked with all the riots and idiot behavior.

Which bad actors shouldn't be part of the process like we shouldn't be lumping the law abiding people in with as well.

Hell, the group screaming "defund the police" can't agree with what that actually means. I'd take that as a good indication that some dialog is needed before we jump to step 3 (profit) (underpants gnome reference)

There are some workable models out in the real world already. I think they can start with those and improve on them.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Peaceful protest is a Right, until it infringes on another persons Right's.

Blocking a road is infringing on other Rights. Blocking a business from operating or people from getting to work or doing their work is infringing. Shutting down a business district is infringing. Taking over public park and not allowing anyone who wants to, to use it is infringing.

Blocking roads can have deadly consequences in fact if an emergency vehicle can't get through.

Bringing it back to truckers. They have the right to use the roads for legal purpose, unobstructed and without any fear. People blocking roads are in fact violating everyone elses Rights. The only reason it's being allowed is to prevent riots and retaliation, because often protesters think their Rights are more important than other peoples Rights.

I fully support lawful protest and the reason for it. Or I did for the first few days. The point was made and it's time for people to return to normal and let the results of the protests work themselves out. Some places, like here where I live in a city of 300,000, the protests have caused zero problems, because the protesters respected other peoples Rights and are not seeking special treatment outside the law.

a reply to: Blaine91555

No where have I said I support lawlessness. People have a right to protest and to protest as long as they want legally.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I didn't discount the issue. I discount that one side of it has serious aims where it's concerned.

originally posted by: ketsuko
I didn't discount the issue.

You did, and you also fabricated details to support your discounting.

a reply to: Blaine91555

Blocking roads can have deadly consequences in fact if an emergency vehicle can't get through.

You want risk to truckers? Look what happened to the guy who came around the curve into a blocked Interstate and got pulled out of his can and beaten. He was immediately smeared for a white supremacist trying to run protesters down by a member of Congress who Tweeted he had white nationalist stuff plastered all over his truck when later examination of things showed he was trying to brake and not hit people who shouldn't have been where they were in the normal course of things and he had no reason to really expect them there. He wasn't the only motorist caught by it either; he was just the only one in a truck who couldn't stop easily.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Please. I bow to your superior knowledge. I didn't start an entire thread to discuss the issue.

And you wouldn't have any knowledge of it because you certainly weren't there.