minnesmoker
Well-Known Member
And, which party is that? I'm quite certain that "Gun Control" and removing the right to vote and own firearms once convicted of a felony has bilateral support.
Taxes-An Unconstitutional Form of THEFT!!!
- Thread starter NorthofEngland
- Start date
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Dont think fear of being labled "soft on crime" has anything to do with that?
Ever heard of the Willie Horton ads?
Read this
http://prospect.org/article/when-everyone-wanted-be-tough-crime
minnesmoker
Well-Known Member
The why is not relevant to me. I don't care what their motives are in stripping rights that are guaranteed as our birthrights. The WHAT and the WHO are things that matter. Who: bilateral support for removing Constitutionally enumerated rights. The what: The removal of those rights, with bilateral backing.
Tough on Crime, Stop the violence, et. al., are just excuses.
Just like "protecting everyone's right" is just an excuse for subversion of free speech. And, "protecting our nation from terrorists" is the current excuse for stripping our rights to be free in from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from unreasonable or intrusive government snooping.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Moving the goal posts?
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
First world problems.
minnesmoker
Well-Known Member
How so? Am I not consistent in my statement of belief? I'm not the one that declared (as a foreign citizen, living on foreign lands) that taxation is unconstitutional and theft. I'm the person that said this country is founded on fuck you attitude, granted rights, and is now stripping them away, through guise, deception, terrorism, and for the "betterment of the people." How is my saying the WHY is irrelevant to the actual outcome in any way "moving the goal posts?" I would aver that, having been shown that the base premise of your argument is indefensible, you are the one moving the goal post, or trying to switch the actual game. I did previously give examples of others' rights being trampled historically, but those examples in no wise conflict with the argument I set forth in the message that you quoted. I gave historical evidence that this country is not based on compassion in the prior, and the reason that "why" doesn't matter in the latter.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i saw a united states forest service fire truck on the interstate highway three days ago.
was i just hallucinating that? because i'm nobody's uneducated idiot.
thank you for promptly explaining the existence of this massive fire department operated entirely under the purview of the federal government.
and may god bless your tiny, shrimp like genitalia.
I'd rather be shot...
[video=youtube;htqbE9mNLZ0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htqbE9mNLZ0&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/video]
At least here the cops aren't the only ones that can shoot a crazy mother fucker in the middle of doing something crazy.
I would venture a guess as many or more lived are saved by guns than taken with them.
Pinworm
Well-Known Member
[video=youtube;GZKJwdJRbCo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZKJwdJRbCo[/video]
Here's a vid (scene at the end) where a driver (with a pregnant passenger) is hit with over 140 shots. Many of which hit houses in the direct area. He was driving drunk, wouldn't stop for their facist beatdown, and "just happened to be black"...
Guys, fire, police, education, roads and much much more are areas where the states, not the federal govt, has traditionally funded and regulated.
Here is the rub. The federal government liked to hold a carat and a stick. Example.
The legal drinking age used to be 18 or 19 in most states, not too long ago.
Eisenhower built the interstate.
So then the federal government was in the road business. They dabbled a little before, but the vast majority of influence came from local and state.
The federal government relied on the states to maintain the interstates. They gave them money.
Once the states got dependent on this money, the fed said that if you want to keep getting it, you states have to make yur drinking age 21.
Police, fire, education and roads all get federal funding and control to some extent, and some more than others.
education probably has the most government funding and control, it has been growing.
But, for a long time, states and localities provided and regulated the schools, police, roads, and fire departments.
But when the fed gives money, it comes with strings.
Here is the rub. The federal government liked to hold a carat and a stick. Example.
The legal drinking age used to be 18 or 19 in most states, not too long ago.
Eisenhower built the interstate.
So then the federal government was in the road business. They dabbled a little before, but the vast majority of influence came from local and state.
The federal government relied on the states to maintain the interstates. They gave them money.
Once the states got dependent on this money, the fed said that if you want to keep getting it, you states have to make yur drinking age 21.
Police, fire, education and roads all get federal funding and control to some extent, and some more than others.
education probably has the most government funding and control, it has been growing.
But, for a long time, states and localities provided and regulated the schools, police, roads, and fire departments.
But when the fed gives money, it comes with strings.
I agree with you, police are out of control. More state and local politicians need to be targeted for retrubution, with their families. The police are just pawns, with the only ones deserving of retaliation being the higher ranking amongst them. But the average cop on the street is just doing as he is told, and his removal will do nothing.
You say fuck the police, I say assassinate their bosses.
Pinworm
Well-Known Member
[h=2]Definition of confab (n)[/h]Bing Dictionary
- con·fab
- [ kón fàb ]
- talk: a chat or casual discussion
- gathering of people: a gathering of people for discussion or decision-making
- talk about something: to have a chat or discussion about something
There are two kinds of cops. Kind one, usually young, eager to take their gun and badge and exert their control over their fellow citizens.
Around here we actually have a lot of good ol' boys just doing a job. I have been pulled over and caught with weed and high power pain pills not rx'd to me. Cop pretends not to see it because he knows I didn't (yes buck, theft wasn't common practice for me, until late in addiction, shortly before I got help) commit a crime to get my shit. It would do no one no good to take my stuff and send me to jail.
There is something to be said for southern small town cops, unless your black and from out of town. But that ain't my problem.
So no, I would not entertain killing all cops.or even any cops. They are too well armed and wear body armor.
Killing a family member of someone jn state or local government who was responsible for their persecution of folks who like to explore their consciousness, then sending letters stating "the enemies you chose in your war on drugs is tired of not fighting back."
That's the general idea.
I don't have enough balls to kill. Just not me. But many do. I encourage those folks to consider that they have been declared against. Does one not have a right to fight back in a war?
Around here we actually have a lot of good ol' boys just doing a job. I have been pulled over and caught with weed and high power pain pills not rx'd to me. Cop pretends not to see it because he knows I didn't (yes buck, theft wasn't common practice for me, until late in addiction, shortly before I got help) commit a crime to get my shit. It would do no one no good to take my stuff and send me to jail.
There is something to be said for southern small town cops, unless your black and from out of town. But that ain't my problem.
So no, I would not entertain killing all cops.or even any cops. They are too well armed and wear body armor.
Killing a family member of someone jn state or local government who was responsible for their persecution of folks who like to explore their consciousness, then sending letters stating "the enemies you chose in your war on drugs is tired of not fighting back."
That's the general idea.
I don't have enough balls to kill. Just not me. But many do. I encourage those folks to consider that they have been declared against. Does one not have a right to fight back in a war?
Pinworm
Well-Known Member
Everyone has a right to fight for their beliefs. But being brutally beaten, and fucked with for no reason is a problem that is rampant in any police organization. Being singled out, and fucked with for no reason is something that's extremely hard to ignore. In almost every experience I've ever had with police, they have been overbearing, violent, and willing to take shit to extreme levels of unnecessary drama.
I feel like they are just the BIGGEST gang out there. They have the communities cash, they have the weapons, armor, uniforms. They treat people like fucking trash, and they want us to respect their "authority" over us, because they took a 2 week seminar, and a 32 page test. Fuck this shit. Fuck the police.
I have found my experience with cops to be uncommon. My parents are well known, respected, and relatively wealthy. Not bragging, just the way it is.
Now, I went off to college, and I found out that wealthy in a small town was not wealth. I didn't get to go on 4 awesome vacations a year like some of my frat brothers did. Panama city for a week was all I could expect. Rich fuckers from Nashville and Atlanta made me feel inferior. Haha. Not really. Just kind of a reality check.
Now, I went off to college, and I found out that wealthy in a small town was not wealth. I didn't get to go on 4 awesome vacations a year like some of my frat brothers did. Panama city for a week was all I could expect. Rich fuckers from Nashville and Atlanta made me feel inferior. Haha. Not really. Just kind of a reality check.