The Left looks at America and sees intolerance, bigotry, xenophobia--and fails to see that it is the most fair and free society in history.
The U. S. military has done far more for global peace than have peace activists.
Without America people around the world would suffer from far more tyranny, enslavement, and genocide.
I have to say you are both right on this one. We do stick on nose in places it doesn't belong and cause problems Ricardo, there is no doubting that. But on the flip side can you imagine what happens if we don't chip in on WW1 & 2 (which we did not start at all)? How would the middle east look if we didn't have people there?
I still say we bring every single troop back home and let the world fend for themselves for awhile, see what happens. And lets be honest Ricardo, religion is the biggest barrier to peace the world has ever known. More people have been killed in the name of religion than anything else in history.
So people will get things from somewhere. They are going to buy them whether an American company sells them or someone else. Why shouldn't an American accept that money? If Israel wants to fight Palistine and vice versa, if they both call American company and say we want 10,000 of your product, why wouldn't that company sell that?
It's not like those countries wouldn't have been in a war just because American companies said no to selling to them right? Your post seem to read as though you're saying if America didn't sell products to other countries there would be world peace and nobody would ever fight. I know you don't believe that so just thinking your post aren't coming out right.
No doubt we stick on nose in places it doesn't belong way to often. I've said many times I'm ready to bring every soldier, tank, plane and boat back to the US and let the rest of the world handle their own business.
Well that's what happens when you are the big dog. It's not our fault we are bigger and stronger than everyone else. And not our fault other countries are so busy fighting that they don't care they are buying from same buyers. Other countries are basically watching home shopping network & buying the crap they see lol
America is the most religiously diverse and accepting nation in human history.
That is our only real problem RR, too much religions that people can argue over.
The First Amendment and free speech are now considered the enemy on college campuses.
The Ku Klux Klan was formed by southern Democrats to keep African Americans and Republicans out of political power.
What about it R1cardo please enlighten.
There is no better nation for minorities than the United States. And yet the Progressive Left calls America racist.
Depends if you want to settle for a certain lifestyle or make your own lifestyle.
Racism is a problem, i agree. But it's not an excuse
So you are calling all of those minorities liars when they say it is not an excuse?
Morgan Freeman was born in 1937, do you think he faced racial discrimination growing up? Do you think he works in an industry that has always treated minorities equally? Would you consider him to be a successful person?
I'm well aware of the difference in types of evidence. Does this change the fact that they are all types of evidence?
Please point to me one single statistic that proves a black person can not succeed in the United States solely due to racism in 2017?
It can be used as an excuse for why it's harder at times, I can understand that. But I spent 30 minutes on google and have found no statistic that proves it blocks a minority from being successful.
In my opinion racism is a problem because you should never hate anyone simply because of something they can't control. Nobody can control the color of their skin anymore than their height.
It is a problem because there are people in this world who are that stupid and will treat people differently based on it. There are people in every industry in the world who treat people differently based on their skin color & that's a problem in my opinion.
The bright side is that the number of people who do that is getting smaller and smaller I think. Will it ever be cured, no it will never be cured. But I feel very confident in saying today it's the best it's ever been and my hope is I can say that every year.
Seems kind of like a win / win either way there Ricardo :).
I didn't find it in google because I was looking for an excuse why someone can't succeed. Since you have stated it's possible to succeed despite discrimination, that proves my point right there.
I actually agreed that discrimination can make it more difficult to be successful. But there is a large difference between being more difficult and being the sole reason you aren't successful.
To me, when I hear someone say I can't get out of this horrible life because of racism, I feel like that's like me saying I can't be in the NBA because I'm short.
Simple, bring a very very large needle :)!
People who equate Michael Brown to racism show their ignorance of the case and they only care about race. They don't want justice, they just want justice when it suits their cause. Name 1 way in which the Brown case specifically had any thing to do with racism?
I think Philando case should have been guilty. Unfortunately I wasn't one of those 12 jurors. Hard to say it's all due to racism considering 2 black people on the jury voted not guilty too. I don't get it.
1) what proof do you have that officer Wilson is racist?
2) Brown was a wanted for physically assaulting and robbing a convenience store, thus the officer was doing his job by stopping Brown.
3) Show me evidence that Officer Wilson thought Brown was a "demon"?
4) Brown instigated the violence.
5) Brown continued his pursuit even after officer Wilson did his job and used non-lethal force. Shooting to wound is non-lethal force.
So again I ask, outside of a poor attempt to force evidence to prove your predetermined assumption, how was the Brown case racist in any way?
Lmao, man and I thought RR reached & ignored reality to prove his religion. He's got nothing on you Ricardo, well done! Very well done!
Clearly we won't agree on Brown, so call that agree to disagree and move on before we beat the dead horse some more.
What we can agree on is the cops getting off for PC & the guy in South Carolina are BS and they should be in jail. What amazes me about the PC is there were 2 black people on the jury and they voted not guilty as well.
Course this case pretty much guaranteed Colin Kap won't be in the NFL again with his dumb tweet comparing all cops to slave retrievers. Even people who were on his side are now bailing. His tweet was actually fine, it was the picture he added for no reason that ruined it.
So are you saying all cops are racist slave patrolers?
I'm just trying to make sure everyone reading this fully understands you Ricardo, are you saying that all cops are slave patrollers? That all cops fit this description which you stated above:
Modern cops are just rebranded slave patrols. They're job is to intimidate, kidnap, imprison and kill black people. Since the formal end of slavery all they've done is change their name and expand their scope to include all brown people and poor white people.
So when you stated all cops are slave patrollers you were incorrect. Just as when Kap said it he was incorrect and not speaking the truth as you claimed.
You aren't one of those conspiracy guys who thinks police in the united states was created to stop slaves are you?
And you stated "modern cops". You never specified anyone specifically, so by simply stating cops you where at best implying all cops. It's why I asked for clarification on that with the next post. You then changed that to Some, which Kap has not.
And the reader thought you meant all, which again is why I asked for clarification so to not assume.
You need to read up on history of police in the United States, not just Mississippi.
Actually I did type it pretty fast, busy night. Of course I assumed when you simply said cops and not some cops, or the bad cops, or anything exclusive. But again that's why I asked if that's what you meant because I also assume you are far to intelligent to say all of anything involving people is the same.
Kap said the exact same thing you did. He posted a picture of police officer badge next to slave patrol badge. His post again was not exclusive in regards to who he was talking about. Thus it came off as if to say all cops.
I stated his actual words: "A system that perpetuall condones the killing of people, without consequence, doesn't need to be revised, it needs to be dismantled" wasn't horrible. It's dumb to say you should get rid of all cops, because well that's just dumb. But the rest was fine, calling on the system not the people. But then the picture is what was too much.
I would tell him if he wants to fix the system to come up with actual real life solutions, not get rid of the police all together.
I do love the use of Bill Clintonesque, that was very good work!
There are times that the "I was afraid for my life" and "disobeying officers" are perfectly reasonable reasons. Now this is not true in every case, see the PC one we just had. Even if the cop says the guy didn't follow orders directly to take his hand away, the video clearly shows a calm man who was doing as he is supposed too. So no, the "follow orders" defense doesn't work at all. Just as the scared for my life doesn't, just cause the guy has a gun in his area doesn't make him scary.
What's funny is cops use those reasons thousands of times a day 100% correctly in other cases. Some involve death, some involve physical altercations, some are quick and get straight to handcuffs before it escalades. Of course you never hear of any of these because it doesn't fit the script.
Does anyone think that PC was the only black person pulled over that day in this country? Yet can anyone here name another person or heard of a single story from that night besides PC? Yet we know there were hundreds of thousands of police on duty that day, multiple interactions with each of them, yet we want to completely dismantle the police system because of 1 case we saw on the news? Or cause of 20 or whatever infinitely small amount we've seen over the last 4 or 5 years? Now bad stops happen and there are dirty cops out there. This will always be because no human is perfect and thus no human created system is perfect. Now hopefully, like racism, we can tweek here and there to get better so it's better next year than it is this year and so on. But it will never be perfect.
If people really want to know what part of the system is broke, it's the part where hardly anyone wants to be in it. Very few want to be jurors. When was the last time you heard someone excited and pumped to get jury duty? Myself personally, I think it would be cool to see the system work. But then again, I can't be away from work for a week or more. I can't afford to give up week of pay to make $25 on jury. Now there will be people who in the same way lie to get on a jury specifically to help the case. I would guarantee at least one of the jurors for the PC case was racist and lied about it during questioning solely to get the cop off. There was a juror in the OJ case who lied about his past and wasn't until after it was found out he was in the black panther and wanted to help a black man.
Then cops, we've been over how horribly of a job that is and why it's very few who want it. The only part of the system that gets the best of the best in terms of applicants and people who desire the position is lawyers and judges. Why? Because those are the jobs that pay the best. Pay cops and jurors a substantially larger salary and you'd get far better applicants and thus far better service.
Just like any other business, the more you pay the happier the employees and the more willing work harder they are.
Exactly what is my head in the sand about specifically?
Not sure what point of any of those post are. I've played golf in plenty of storms, been swimming and take showers all time. Exactly for reason odds are very small. I mean it would make me a hypocrite if I said I was scared of lighting then go driving to Columbia.
How many college graduates do you know who want to pay those student loans back making 25k a year in one of the worse jobs in this country?
I agree the scared excuse has been horrible in some of these cases. PC & SC for sure. I'm all for stricter punishments when cops screw up. Zero tolerance.
Im not a fan of unions period so I'm all for getting rid of cop union. Sounds like great idea to me.
Being a cop is million times worse than teacher. Worse hours, worse customers, life threatening at times and you are hated by every customer you have. That's not even in the same discussion of bad jobs.
How many people do you know who truly desire to be a cop? I know there are those special people who truly want to be a cop to help people and be good cops no matter the pay or whatever. But that number is a fraction of the openings for police. So if you aren't truly dedicated to be a cop, why would you do it? Especially if you are well qualified for other jobs that pay much more for better hours & better work environment?
I'd rather work for the sewer department (Yes they get paid more & have better hours to crawl through crap).
Agree with all of that Smart Dog.
Since I'm not a jelly bean fan no I wouldn't take either. Now we talking some awesome rib eye steaks, hand Then over!!
One of these days you'll come up with a realistic scenario to fix a problem. Not just an over reaction extreme solution that is impossible. Not that it's a bad idea, it's just impossible so why waste time on it?
Lots of things are impossible Ricardo.
What's funny about your post is it sounds like you are saying a black man not being shot is rare. When really, an unarmed black man doing everything right getting shot is exceptionally rare.
I use it in terms of odds of happening to any black person on a daily basis. Compared to driving down the road or walking down the street. Things people do every day and nobody freaks out or is "scared" yet they die those ways at a far great rate than by cop. Yet people act like this is some epidemic that is mowing down black people. The statistics prove that extreme overreaction is incorrect.
Actually there are laws in every state that says it is illegal for all people to beat, kidnap, torture or kill people without special circumstances. So that is fake outrage since the statement is factually incorrect.
It's clearly an issue for you Ricardo, so what is the solution? And I'm talking reality solution, not fire all cops today and start over.
How do you get jury to find cops guilty? How do you break cop unions that protect them? How do you convince good cops to talk more? How do you stop bad cops in the first place? How do you get better people to apply so you choke out bad cops?
You honestly think if you just take away their guns (which is unrealistic) would stop dirtbags from becoming cops? You think Harvard guys are going to go ahead and start signing up for $23k a year jobs now?
The only real solution is to dramatically increase cop pay, dramataically increase cop budgets for continued education and get rid of lethal weapons. You gun idea with special gun units works just fine for me as well.
Now the problem comes, where are you going to get the money to pay for all this?
Lmao, ok all of which you'd have to turn around and just fill those spots. That's not extra money. Not like that is going to happen anyway. Come on Ricardo, you have what you perceive as a real problem, so why are you so against coming up with real life solutions?
You completely ignored the fact that the entry level pay you mentioned is so low your hiring pool is very limited. Thus you will just be replacing the people who left with the exact same level of people.
Where did the more money come for better training, because they already receive that training but you say it's not good enough. So will take much more money to get much better training.
So you want to train cops like dogs and you think that will attract a better quality of applicants?
So hundreds of billions will be made up simply by lack of law suits?
You mean these military guys you just said before kill just as many civilians in foreign countries? You think they all come back model citizens who don't like guns?
To bad your dog can't enforce rules, all they can do is bark or attack. Kind of things you hate cops for lol.
You seem to act like nobody would ever sue cops again, that's just wrong. Even if all the cops are good guys and you weeded out every single racist and bad cop out there, they are all still human and mistakes would still happen. So there would still be lawsuits, not as many I agree, but they wouldn't disappear. And how much money do police around the country spend on lawsuits total in a year? I would seriously doubt it even reaches 1 billion, let alone the multiple billion it would take to drastically increase salaries and drastically increase the training that would give you the best applicants and cops available.
Military guys understand follow orders. If commander officer is a bad cop than they will follow his orders or at best not rat on him because you don't do that in the military. Besides, you do know all the times American soldiers have been accused of not following engagements * murdering civilians right? There are bad military people just like their are bad cops. I do agree I'd rather give military guy a good job when he gets back, but lets not pretend that they are all perfect people either and that solves the problem.
So as I said, all he does is bark and attack are his only ways to enforce your rules. He also is a blind robot who can't think for himself and judge each interaction based on it's own the way a cop has too. You say nobody comes in your without permission, what if you have a heartache and EMT are trying to get in. You aren't there to tell your dog it's ok so he enforces your rule and doesn't let them in?
So, you are saying here "If you call the cops they'll show up and make the situation worse. Period." that this goes for any and all times you call a cop?
So if someone murdered your wife you wouldn't call the cops? If someone broke into your house you wouldn't call the cops, you'd just say well good job crooks and go on down the road?
You are so far off base Ricardo it's quite laughable. If we did what you wanted, you may as well just get rid of laws and let everyone loose. Because there would be nobody to stop anyone from doing anything. Especially if you are a big dude, what is there to be afraid of if only defense is guy carrying a note pad? Course I don't know, maybe that's what you are trying to get at being a large man yourself, you get to rule.
Even if all you say was 100% true, which clearly there are very little facts in what you say (cops don't stop crimes, water isn't wet either right?), all that means is worse case scenario police are a necessary evil. And that's absolute worse case scenario, which it is not even close to that bad.
In this day of social media and where it's cool to blame cops for everything, there is massive over reaction and fear mongering over nothing.
You say your family's safety isn't worth the risk of calling police, yet you put your family in a car every day where their risk of safety is far greater. You see where using the "risk of safety" is a very hypocritical argument there Ricardo? Kind of like RR saying God is moral while then saying things he condoned are immoral. It can't work both ways at the same time.
So you know for 100% fact that cops will never find your stuff? I mean if your wife is killed there is no way the cops would ever find the killer?
So you think it's safer to not inform the police than to simply let burglers know that you have a free house to steal from? Take all your stuff, then when you get new stuff, come get it again because we know he won't do anything about it.
So actually now you've turned your house into an easy target for criminals. So how is that reducing any risk?
"No situation that starts with calling the cops benefits me in any way". So if you child is killed or kidnap you wouldn't call the cops because that wouldn't help the situation at all. Good to know.
Why did you call the cops 10 years ago? Did cops just now start beating and killing black people according to this opinion?
Oh my bad Ricardo, I thought you meant when you got robbed 10 years ago you called & got nothing back so that's how you knew you wouldn't get anything back. I misread it, my bad!!
And when they took the money and killed your kid, you'd just chalk it up to stuff happens and go on down the road?
Must of society never has to deal with the cops so it's not a big deal. I myself have never dealt with them minus when I was speeding or picked out to be drunk incorrectly. The odds of my home being robbed or any other act happening to me that would require a call to authorities are pretty low so I'm not to worried about the police whether I have the fantasy they'd hurt me or not.
I was only pulled over for being suspected of being drunk once. Was leaving large event, and cops picked the wrong guy unfortunately for them. It took 10 minutes to run id and do quick sobriety check and I was on the road. The 2 cops where very professional and I understood exactly what they were thinking. In no way did I consider it harassment of any kind. I would be willing to bet at least 70% of the cars leaving that place would have been drunk drivers, so I understand them pulling people over. I just happened to be one of the 30%.
Other than that one time, I have never had to deal with the cops for anything other than something I was doing illegally (speeding tickets). Oh strike that, have been in car wreck and of course had police there for a report. Which glad I did because the person tried to say it was my fault on insurance, but luckily I had the police report to prove it was not my fault. Saved me lot of money.
Bad penny is an appropriate moniker BFG.
I was going 3 mph over the speed limit at the time. I know this because I looked down when the lights came on because I didn't think I was going that fast. So technically yes he did have a reason to pull me over, I was speeding. Now he never once attempted to give me a speeding ticket nor have I ever been pulled over for going anything less than 5 mph over the limit. But it was legal justification.
Yes I'm sure it was all the cops faults and those kids never did anything illegal in their lives. Prison is 99.9% innocent people too, just ask them. Not saying they were all drunk, but as I said it's not hard to find a law to pull someone over for no matter what the real reason is. Hustlers & DQ are on Odell with 25 mph speed limit, it's hard to go only 25. If you are going 26 they can legally pull you over for speeding. If in their opinion you are swerving, they can pull you over and it's perfectly legal. Now I was in college, and yes cops love camping outside college bars at closing because they KNOW there are many dumb college kids who leave drunk. You don't have to be a profiler there, that is just common sense. When I was in college I hated it and was ticked because it made everyone scared. Now as a grown adult I'm darn glad they did it, because we never would have had a sober driver if we didn't have that expectation of a cop being ready for us. Find me a college kid who says they love being the DD and happily volunteer, I'll show you a darn good future politician or lawyer with that ability to lie ha-ha.
I do agree on the cab or uber type deal in town. It would help people if that service was available. Sounds like a good way for a group of freshman or sophmores at Valley to make some money.
You know I wish Newell and Obryan would have been fired the day after. Those two are poor police officers who should be held accountable. What they did was dumb, and then lying about it is what is actually worse.
But really, potentially lethal encounters? Can you name the last time a cop killed someone in Marshall? I wouldn't call the guy that Newell shot at "innocent" either, using the term pretty loosely although that was completely ignorant cop work. But to act like there is any potential for lethal encounter in Marshall for an innocent person pulled over who has done nothing illegal is just an opinion with literally no statistics to back you up.
By your same standard than Newell & Obryan are themselves innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So still want to stick to your hard stance on that definition of "innocent"?
Considering all the laws that allow an officer to pull someone over, I would be willing to bet my house that less than .000000001% of people pulled over are pulled over for being 100% innocent of every single charge in the book that allow an officer to pull you over. They can easily use something as small as appeared to be swirving as an excuse. So I'd bet you've never been pulled over for doing nothing illegal either.
I was part of a police fishing expedition. What's your point? I have no problem with them because as I've stated 100 times in the past, I'm perfectly fine dealing with the authorities. It does not interfere with any of my rights and only cost me 10 or 15 minutes of my time. Not big deal to me.
The video also shows the guy was resisting arrest and attempting assault of an officer with the driving. Doesn't change fact cops had no reason to shoot and 1000 times less reason to lie about it. But also shows the guy was not some innocent citizen.
Considering I've never walked around with a rifle I'd say I'm neither. One reason I'm ok with cops is I don't purposely put myself in situations where I would be in a conflict with them.
I would prefer those people doing that video would do better as to avoid any questions of the test. Anytime you do an experiment you want to keep the variables as constant as you can. All they told us was that both people are in areas of Oregon that it's legal to openly carry a fire arm. Well does that mean same city? Same area in that same city? The cops were in different uniforms making me think one was sheriff, one was city? They did use the same weapon which is good but everything else was different, even the guys clothes.
I'm not saying one way or another what the video shows. All I'm saying is it was a poorly run experiment because there are too many different variables that leave it wide open to interpretation. A good test removes interpretation by removing variables.
Again the video did not give us the variables we need to make a sound judgment based on all the facts. You are reading into what you want to see because it fits your agenda. That's a biased judgment, not a sound one. I'm telling you I don't read anything into it because I don't know what the variables & facts are to base a judgment on. My only judgment is that it was a flawed experiment.
Calling him an unhinged racist is without validation. Do you even know the guys name to have done a background check to see if that is a warranted statement?
The man was not taken to jail, was not assaulted, was not abused, was not robbed and was released with no issue. Which according to you should be nothing less than a miracle since he was a black man dealing with police.
Which reminds me, I'm glad not all black people share your idea to never call the police under any circumstance because they will most likely kill or injure you. Thankfully a black person did call the cops to report a stolen car with their child in it. The cops found that child and saved her life. I guess that family thought having a child alive was better than having a child dead just so they could brag about how they don't need cops.
I enjoyed all three of those articles, very informative. I look forward to the follow up study based on what was said to the officers as well. The 2nd amendment does apply to black people as it does with everyone, legally speaking of course. I do agree completely that cops don't handle people with guns the right way at all time. Course from there point of view it's a hard thing to do at the same time. Someone carrying a gun can point or shoot that gun in a very short period of time, an officer should be vigilant and prepared for that at all times. They should also be vigilant and prepared for that not to happen at all times as well. It's a tough juggling act but one cops should be good at.
I believe cops should be trained better. I believe they should be paid better in order to get a more qualified applicant to apply. There are 100% for sure things we can do to make cops better.
On the flip side, I really wish people would start taking responsibility for themselves and working on changing perceptions and stereotypes and stop complaining about them. It's like a black person being mad at a fried chicken and watermelon stereotype joke, while sitting there eating fried chicken and eating watermelon. It's why I love listening to Chris Rock or Jamie Foxx tell white stereotype jokes because I fit half of them and I think it's hilarious. I don't get mad at it, how can I get mad when it's the truth?
In terms of police, take Worley St in Columbia MO. Around town it's well known as the most dangerous street in Columbia. From Clinkscales all the way to College, it is not uncommon to hear gun fire and you do not go there after dark. Douglas Park on the corner of Worley & Providence is known as Gang Park. Ask anyone who lived in Columbia for any period of time what the worst part of Columbia is they'll tell you Worley St. I worked on Worley St for a few years, I drove up and down it multiple times a day.
A person being stopped on Worley will not get the same treatment as someone pulled over in a neighborhood with a much safer reputation. The perceptions of the area and the odds of criminal activity are far different. A person wearing all Cardinals gear in the middle of campus for example, could have a completely different meaning than someone wearing all cardinals gear in a park nicknamed "Gang Park".
Now for a completely innocent person in that area who just likes the Cardinals, that isn't fair. He most likely will get stopped more times than the guy on campus. If that person complained I would simply tell them I understand your frustration, but maybe you should check your surroundings as well. Maybe you should talk to the guys in the neighborhood who create the perception that red is a gang color. Maybe you should talk to the guys who shoot up the neighborhood regularly about creating the perception that it's a violent neighborhood. Or maybe you should cut back on the Cardinals gear so you distinguish yourself from those perceptions.
Yes cops could be better. But people could be better too, and to ignore that fact means you don't really care about the problem as whole. You are the guy who complains to their wife to quit running out of gas. But you just blame her because she doesn't fill up enough without even acknowledging the tank has a hole in it. Yes it's true your wife could pay attention to the gauge and fill it up before it runs out. That is 100% fact. But at the same time, you ignore that if you fixed the hole in the tank it wouldn't be as hard for your wife to keep gas in it. You just say the hole doesn't matter if she'd just keep filling it.
First, the cops are not your help or servants. Just because they are paid with tax payer money that doesn't make them your servant. Is that is how you justify calling them a servant than make sure to add people on welfare to that servant list too.
I agree 100% all cops should have body cameras and trackers and cars up for search. Absolutely fine with all of that.
The facts of past cases do not backup your opinion unfortunately. You are welcome to your opinion all you want, just as RR is welcome to his belief the bible is 100% true. Assertions are fine, but that doesn't mean they are factually correct.
It is an assault if you pulled a gun on me, you are 100% correct. It is not an assault if a cop does it in a justified time as that is part of the job. If someone has a gun, it is justified for the cop to pull his gun. Sorry if you don't like that but that is how the law works. If you really don't agree with it, I suggest you get a job in politics and put forth bills to change the law.
1) I looked up the word servant, the 2nd definition is a person employed in the service of a government. So I agree you are correct. Now call the next cop you see boy and have him shine your shoes and make dinner and let me know how that works out for you ha-ha.
2) It's not a crime because it's part of the cops job, they are allowed to pull a gun if they feel it is necessary. You can debate how that cop should feel, but that is a case by case basis as not all cases are the same.
A pointed gun is a greater threat than balled fist, agree. Cops are allowed to do things normal citizens can not in order for them to do their job. If I tried to handcuff you against your will I'd be arrested and charged with assault. It's actually in police procedure to handcuff people even if they don't want it. That's not assault (it can be if it's not following procedure or justified). If I took you and locked you in a room in my house, that is kidnapping. There are laws that demand a police officer do the same thing, it's not kidnapping. So yeah BP, cops are allowed to do things a normal citizen on the street can not do, it's called doing their job and are necessary things in order to enforce the laws of the country.
Once again you are miss-using the English language BP. If I go on property that isn't mine, that's called trespassing. If the person who owns that property goes on the same land it's not called trespassing. If I yell & give your kid a little smack on the wrist for being a crybaby in Walmart that's child abuse, if I do the same thing to my kid it's not child abuse.
If a cop arrest someone for suspicion of committing a crime, it's not kidnapping. If a cop writes a ticket for breaking a law it's called the punishment for the crime not extortion. If you would like to take away the fine punishments, what would be your replacement punishment? Cops are supposed to be intimidating by definition. I mean if no crook was scared of a the cops to prevent them from breaking the law, then why have laws or cops in the first place? Besides, it's not illegal to be intimidating anyway. Assault, well that goes back once again it's not called that when it's following procedures and is part of the law. If I threaten to spank the crap out of your kid, that's assault. If I threaten to spank the crap out of my kid, that's not assault.
I'm not sure why you think the idea of terms not meaning the same thing only effects the police?
I honestly have never heard the term petro dollar and no clue what conspiracy you have for the federal reserve. I open to new things though so I'd be happy to hear about it.
Wow Oldschool. You wrote:
"I honestly have never heard the term petro dollar and no clue what conspiracy you have for the federal reserve. I open to new things though so I'd be happy to hear about it."
I'm speechless. You hold court on so many things and now you admit to not knowing such basic content.
Looking forward to the Bad penny's view on this but also educate yourself on your own.
I do remember created equal. I also remember they meant as long as you were a white man who owned land. If you recall the men who wrote those words did not believe people of color or woman were equal. We had to come back later and add to the document in order to actually put equality into the law.
If I spank my kid that is not assault. Now if I use weapons or injure my child yes that is assault. But slapping their hand for something or giving them a quick smack to the butt is called parenting.
I'm assuming you are one of those parents who thinks coddling and participation ribbons are good for kids?
I can't believe I have to explain to you how The World works BP. You don't even remember how racist & sexist the founding fathers were. Created equal lmao.
Whenever you can find a time that the people ran this country more than politicians you let me know.
I never claim to be an expert on things JB. I enjoy learning new things, despite our disagreement, I've learned a lot of new stuff from BP.
Have no problem rubbing my dogs nose in his mistakes or giving him thump on the nose when he's not listening. Do I punch him or beat him, no I never would.
Do I beat my kids to bruises and things. No I never would. If my kid throws a fit about bed do I give him 1 swat to the butt to get him moving, yes I do. Do I smack his hand when he reaches for the hot stove, yes I do. Do I put him over my lap and spank him multiple times, no I don't. Have I ever left a mark of any kind, no I haven't. Which is better than my parents and grandparents were.
Do I think how I raise my kid is best way I can, yes I do. Sometimes talking works. Sometimes swift punishment works. It d3pends on the crime.
How does what work with woman?
Whatever you say BP.
Just out of pure curiosity what do you consider "beating" a child? Any touching at all? Of is there a minimum level of acceptable touching that isn't to the "beating" level? Or is even the lightest touch on the same level as stoning? Always enjoy seeing others level on these type of things as it's always different for everyone you ask it seems.
Good to know.
"I wonder where kids learn to victimize the weak and vulnerable"-- Bad penny
Ya think, the "right" to murder babies in the womb, has anything to do with it?
Woman have the rights to their bodies over the rights of a parasite.
They job maybe serve and protect, but if everyone was able to do what you just said BP then how are they doing their job? So I rob your house, they show up I just tell them go away and they do it right? Seems kind of pointless to have them around if they have no power to actually enforce the laws as their job description says.
I was talking to the literal term of parasite that survives by feeding off a biological host and can't survive without that host.
In terms of a societal parasite, I don't actually believe I am one. I don't receive wellfare at this time or WIC. I do receive Medicaid for my kid but we pay a premium for that as well.
They very well may. But it's also not a parasite in the same terms I was using biologically speaking. If you take Medicaid away everyone in my family can love easily without it. And frankly if those who make the call want to take it away that's fine.
Never owned a Cadillac in my life, own two vehicles completely paid off & pushing 200k miles. I'm not a car person, long as gets from A to B I'm good.
I didn't mean get rid of it completely, i meant if want to kick me off that's fine. I'm not 1 to give away money. I've been paying into it for long time so if they want to give me some back I'm cool with it. If they don't, that's fine too.
You mean the 130 year old work of art? Honestly don't care who it's a portrait of its a work of art that deserves preservation. Hard to argue the man's place in history from Arrow Rock who was a governor and dad was governor. Lots of people fought for the confederacy. You speak of rebellion and being a traitor to the US all rhe time so not sure why you would have an issue with a fellow rebel?
So you are comparing a random general in the civil war to creator of the KKK and Hitler?
Andrew Jackson was a miserable human by your standards, yet he has portraits & statues all over and schools named after him.
I don't care if they want to replace it with another portrait of historical art piece. But it's a piece of art that is ok to preserve and should hang somewhere. Can't erase or ignore history IMO.
So no photos of supporters. So that means all the founding fathers as well correct? So no pictures of Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, etc.?
I busing paid protesters in to promote violence ok? Is it ok for the governor of a state to tell police to stand down while violence happens? Who should be responsible for the murder that happened?
Evidently the man that drove the car was attacked by the paid protesters and probably feared for his life and was trying to get away from them.
It's the man's fault that the murder happened. Even if running away you drive down an obviously packed street at full speed into other cars you have a purpose. So yes he did it on purpose thus it is his fault.
Now did extending circumstances help assist in the building of the circumstances, that's always possible. But the murder stands purely on that man.
I'm ok with telling cops to stand down. I say that when its black lives matter burning down buildings or white supremacist starting fights. I do find it funny people bash the white supremacist for being violent and what not (which they where) yet act like burning buildings and what not by black lives matter is just them venting and aren't their fault. If you want equality than lets be equal with things. Ferguson, Baltimore have been more destructive than what happened in Virginia. None of them are good or smart in anyway, and all should be slammed as such.
Obama could have stopped it but refused. He actually promoted it. He is also responsible for ISIS being the threat it is today.
Come on oldschool17 get your info from a reliable source.
When did I say anything about Obama to need a reliable source RR? Also, there are no reliable sources in today's media RR, don't be nieve. Every news outlet has an agenda for one side or the other. Now you may lean one way so you like what your side reports, but it doesn't make it any less bias.
I'm not an Obama fan at all, but he couldn't have gotten rid of Isis anymore than Bush could have gotten rid of Al Quida. Both are still up and running just fine and they will be as long as they want to be. Personally I say if we just left them alone and let their own countries handle them and stay out of their business we'd be in a lot better shape. We leave them alone, they leave us alone. If they want to bomb France, that's France's problem.
Now if after we leave them alone they choose to come to the US and bomb something, ok then we take care of business in an equal manner.
oldschool17 we know that all you claim is wrong. Why do you stick with it?
How do you know what anything I just said is incorrect RR? Wouldn't be the first time I was wrong, just ask my wife. But show me the evidence that proves what you say I'm wrong about is actually incorrect. If you do that I have no problem admitting I got something wrong, wouldn't be the first time or the last time I'm sure.
Posting a comment requires free registration: