Discussion in 'Freedom of Expression' started by mongrel, Apr 2, 2012.
Pass the ammunition.
anyone who is strip searched should insert a glass eye in their butt hole and hold it there
that ought to freak them out
Don't defecate prior to protesting. That'll reduce the ardor of the police to do invasive searches, when they get a facefull of shite.
That normally comes out the other end of the protester!
Again, you come from a point of view where the police etc have fuck all to do except rape, falsely cause and drop butthurt on non entities. They are too busy sorting other crap that you or I don't have to see to waste time on this kind of playtime.
There is NO accountability NONE. These are cops we're talking about here.
That officer’s name, once again, is Shawn Miller. Two days before he committed what was very nearly an act of aggravated homicide against James Moore,he and his partner severely beat a pedestrian named Jason Graber, leaving him with a broken knee and a permanent disability.
who had dismissed Graber’s lawsuit last March, reversed his decision a few months later after it was demonstrated that the Denver PD and the municipal government had refused to turn over documents dealing with excessive force complaints – many of them filed against Shawn Miller, who remains on duty and has never faced disciplinary action of any kind.
Again, there are some 600+ million Americans, all going about their business every day, some of those will have interactions with cops, speeding tickets, you name it, there is a lot of crime in America, so every day there are a LOT of incidents involving cops and the public, and I mean a fucking LOT! Just because of the numbers involved and the numbers of cops required thare will be bad incidents and there will be bad cops, but just because you read of a few in "Oh my god!" newspapers and websites don't go thinking that the whole police force is out of control. Yes, there are bad cops and they need weeding out but tying their hands behind their backs ain't helping no one. You hardly ever hear of the good they do and the lives they save day in day out 365 24/7 so you vision of them is blinkered. If you keep pushing this us and them crap eventually you will put them In a position where they are of no use in policing the public and crime will run out of control. Get a grip guys!
One fun way to protest:
Now I know for certain that you are batshit crazy. 600+ Americans? In your dreams...
The US population is around 311 million+ as of the 2011 estimate, as for tourist numbers I doubt they are as high as 289 million every day:
View attachment 640px-US_International_Arrivals_1997-2007_chart.pn
NSA likes to make up his facts. It's easier that way.
The whole purpose of the U.S. Constitution was to tie the government's hands behind their backs. The Bill of Rights was added because the Founders were worried that that rope wasn't tight enough. And you want to give them a ton of slack just to feel "safe and secure"? Tell you what. You want safe and secure? Then move to Syria. You'll get all the "safety" and "security" you can possibly stomach and then some.
Millions of people went about their daily lives without being victimized by Saddam's thugs in Iraq, too. Doesn't change the fact that there were victims, period.
With no legal recourse, I might add.
And what few legal recourse we have/had in this country are fast slipping away day by day. But even once they're finally gone, well, millions of people will still go about their day to day lives without being victimized...so long as they see nothing and just move along.
TL;DR: your argument is invalid.
Damn, if only more white people were like Ozzy. It'd be a perfect world, then.
Ever been on the road? Most of those "allowed" to drive cars can't drive worth shit.
What did the U.S. Founders do?
Refused to do their country' (England's) bidding, got pissed over a 2% tea tax, said "fuck the redcoats!", and changed their society to suite them (which just so happened to have been better for everyone compared to what they had prior)....
I guess by your definition of selfish, Jefferson, etc., must've been the most selfish pricks in all of human history.
Actually, the personhood of corporations were established by the Supreme Court in 1866.
I love how people act like this shit is only been since Reagan. ROFLMAO!!!
Thread has become an example of how batshit crazy many Americans are so proves more control of them is needed!
I see that you have failed to address my concerns regarding the 4th amendment. I apologize for asking you to stoop so low as to respond to a simpleton such as myself.
Well maybe, just maybe, the world has moved on since the 4th amendment was written. Possibly, although unthinkable, those rights/laws whatever, are outdated and with the way the world now moves with high speed communications, travel etc the authorities need to be able to move fast to keep up with it.
If it has been better for everyone compared to what they had prior, why are you people talking about overthrowing them?
you're joking, right?
Why, because I dare to suggest laws etc written in an age where sanitation was only for the rich are possibly out of date in the modern world we live in? Why is that unthinkable? Criminals and everyone else on the planet has moved on since then, adapting or modifying such laws/rights is not unthinkable!
Next time provide DOX or STFU:
We're not all endowed with your massive fucking brains, obviously.
NSA is the apotheosis of public education, don't ya know.
So corporations were legally validated by SCOTUS in 1886 rather than 1866. It's still nothing to do with Reagan, or did you misread the date and think it said 1986?
I'll bet that's it.
Massive brains indeed...
Did it take the Americans 126 years to notice?
Ok shitforbrains and your sidekick Anderson, the bill of rights was written for white American males only, black or coloured people and women (oh, and the native indians) where excluded. So now, what version of the bill of rights do you want to vehemently protect? The original or the amended? Either way it was changed to suite a developing society!
I just love how consistent your bad manners are. And your logic.
As I said, the perfect example of public education.
Try answering the question rather than diverting attention and you may get more respect.
You're talking shit >>> ignore list
Your constant attempts to put people down by insulting their education is lame to say the least. Try another route.
Some people in this thread still don't seem to realize that the Supreme Court ruling has nothing to do with whether or not police can strip search you. It doesn't even have anything to do with whether or not police can strip search you after arresting you. The ruling dealt with whether or not a prison's need to conduct searches of all entering inmates created a reasonable need to impinge upon the 4th ammendment rights of those inmates. The court accepted the prison's argument that searches were required of all entering inmates to make the search effective. That's really what is at the heart of the matter here. Are those searches necessary for the prisons to effectively maintain a secure environment for prison employees and other inmates?
Are you asking me to assume that policing in the United States functions similar to policing in Iraq under Saddam Hussein? I think doing so would be rather silly and insulting to the people who suffered under Hussein's brutal regime. But beyond that, I see what you're saying about victimization. Even if victimization isn't something the majority experiences, it is still wrong. I agree. However I would point out that abuse and victimization are still very rare events when considered against day to day life. We certainly should not tolerate abuse and perhaps changes to laws are necessary to better hold police accountable. I don't disagree with any of that. Recall that I was talking to adhocrat who was saying that the existence of policing, and really any kind of state in general, is evil and unacceptable. My argument would be invalid if I were saying we shouldn't do anything to address and prevent abuse. However that isn't what I was saying.
ITT: Herro tries to use logic.
Awkward silence ensues.
Wrong again, Herro. You really do fail at comprehension.
I do wish that those who are arguing against me would address what I actually am saying, rather than their fantasy version. It would make life so much easier.
I don't oppose 'policing',
I oppose a monopoly on the use of violence.
Every function currently out there for LEO would exist in a free society, except of course the politicians. That job would not exist. Police, courts, judges, those would all exist. They just wouldn't be monopolies. Most people in our society already recognize monopolies as a bad thing so getting rid of a couple more monopolies isn't all that great of a stretch.
IOW, laws would not be handed down from on high but would be the natural laws we already follow, namely don't initiate force and keep your word. Nothing more is really needed.
Goalposts moved yet again
Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!