fear the most, terrorist or our government.

[N3rday]

Definitely the government.

Do you realize how many democratically elected leaders we have overthrown to be replaced by our own military dictators?
We have always been about OUR money FIRST. Bin Laden is an example.

We have been trading with all the 60 something Bin Ladens for years, and we know that they have in the past, and probably will in the future, house terrorists. 'Dubya' is just too financially dependent on the rich Saudis and their oil to give a crap about anyone's freedom, or even their lives. We knew he didn't have any weapons of mass destruction. We wanted oil, we took it, and now Haliberton is swimming in pools of it.
Which, by the way, should be illegal. The Spoils System is unconstitutional.

Oh, and by the way, Gore really did win Florida. Really. Many of his votes were discounted by a system that matched criminal records. The system threw out thousands of blacks who hadn't commited a felony, but whose names or birth dates were similar to those who had.

I'm not saying I have a preference for Gore, I just don't like Bush. We need our rights back. 1st and 2nd amendments have really been tossed around recently. People misinterpret really simple laws to say really complex things, i.e. the "National Guard" crap the antis are running with. ALL of the bill of rights applies to individuals, and that includes the 2nd.

Now you got me sounding like a liberal. jeez

We just need an honest president. One who will look at facts before he decides an issue.
"oh, look! The AW ban had no effect on crime? Well what is it there for? cancel it!"
We need a gun-toting president who gives tax cuts to the middle and poor classes, not the rich.

 

[manwithoutahome]

N3rday,

Not to hit a nerve here, but you do understand the electorial system don't you?

It's not the "popular vote" that gets a person in.

It's called the electorial college, which is a batch of folk we don't know, in each state, that makes the vote that counts.

They have the opinion of looking at how the people voted and vote accordingly, or they may make their own decision.

We don't elect presidents, they do.

So Gore may have won the "people vote" (even if votes were cast out) but he didn't win the electorial vote, and that's the only vote that counts.


M

 

[MicroBalrog]

Because the gov might do something like raid the wrong house, they would ban all raids to thrwart the druggies,

"Stop taking drugs or I'll shoot!" doesn't sound too moral to me.

 

[Maimaktes]

The government, of course. I don't even have to think about it.

The *only* reason the September 11 hijackers were able to succeed as much as they did was because *the government* had already violated the heck out of ordinary, honest, *American* travelers' 4th and 2nd (and probably 5th) Amendment rights.

We disarmed, herded, tagged, tracked serfs *are* the government?! LOL!

We disarmed, herded, tagged, tracked serfs can *control* the government?! What a joke!

We still enjoy freedom in this country, as proved by the fact that we can still (for the moment) post frank comments on a message board without a bunch of guys with MP-5s in ski masks or Darth Vader costumes kicking in our doors and throwing in grenades?! ROTFLMAO!!

Think about all the freedom you still enjoy the next time you get pulled over on the side of the road for whatever reason by some LEO who feels fully justified in pointing a Glock at your head, and even pulling the trigger multiple times, if you say "No" or just ignore him and turn your back on him when he wants you to grovel on your knees or belly in the mud, for *nothing*, or if you refuse to hand over the pistol he already knows you have a permit to *legally* carry to "check to see if it's stolen."

Of course he's justified, because he "wants to go home to his family at the end of the shift." Well, gee, maybe we mere mortals and commoners would like to go home to *our* families at the end of our journeys too! Maybe we're really not all scumbags and dirtbags and subhumans just because we're not paid by the government to carry guns and to accost and confront people in the most belligerent, provocative manner possible. Maybe we're just your fellow Americans trying to get to work, or home from work, or home from the store, or from the shooting range.

This will be a free country again when you and I and the next guy -- even if he's unshaven, unwashed, unemployed, has long hair, and drives an old car with one headlight out -- have the full, free *exercise* of *all* our rights -- *not* privileges -- *all* the time, in deed not just in word, and in fact, not just in theory, and definitely not just when the police and those who cut their checks find it convenient or safe *for them* and for their paychecks and pensions.

This country was not established for the convenience and safety of the police. In fact, at the time, the Redcoats were the police.

"Misrule breeds rebellion."

Believe it.

Maimaktes

 

[N3rday]

The point I wanted to make was that Gore actually got the popular vote in Florida, though it was given to Bush because the recount was stopped before we could get a true count.

 

[brownie0486]

MicroBalrog:

Ever seen a crack baby born to a crackhead in a ward where the tab is picked up for their medical bills by our tax dollars?

Ever seen what drugs cause desperate people to do to others? How about what the dealers will do to anyone who gets in their way [ like innocent civilians ].

Ever seen what effect drugs have on crime within the communities? Ever had your house broken into by a crackhead looking for goods to pawn for the next fix?

These are not crimes against people? Law abiding people?


Maimaktes stated "Think about all the freedom you still enjoy the next time you get pulled over on the side of the road for whatever reason by some LEO who feels fully justified in pointing a Glock at your head, and even pulling the trigger multiple times, if you say "No"

Show me one case where that has happened, I want actual documented proof, not your hypotheticals to further your mindset and justify your reasoning. The way you speak it sounds like the cops are out there shooting people in the head while behind the wheel on the roads here in the US on a regular basis. Of course we know thats not true so why would I take anything you have stated above as the truth. More rantings with no documentation, makes one want to question their motives in even mentioning it doesn't it?

And oh yes, about the quote. "the next time you get pulled over on the side of the road for whatever reason"

Are you suggestiong there is never a reason for LE's to pull their duty weapons at traffic stops? I sure hope not as that would again show your neivity as to what they are actually doing on the roads.

I've yanked mine a few times, bank robbery suspects, cars matching the description in the right area in the right timeframe. I suppose I should have thrown caution to the wind and approached the vehicle of three adult males like they were little old ladies from Pasadena according to you right? Where do you people come up with this stuff? Totally illogical in nature. Now let me ask you a question.

You are put into the same scenario of a traffic stop of a vehicle involved in an armed robbery. You're gonna do what when you approach the vehicle? Ask them if they are the ones who just robbed the bank and to please give it back? Relying on them to be decent uman beigns and not blast the crap out of you? You won't survive very long on the streets that way I suspect.


mercedesrules: Thats correct sir. Mistakes are made daily, I suspect you make mistakes yourself quite often enough to not be calling the kettle black as well. That innocents are mistakenly raided, shot is regretable, but because a mistake may be made certainly doesn't negate the fact the criminals have to be taken down. I can see others points as noted, it's you who seems to think the cops are the only people to make mistakes in this world. Their mistakes can and do result at times in innocents being injured. To then make statements that it was done with malice or should not be done at all because mistakes can and will happen borders on ?

You could be involved in a car accident, I hope that means you won't put yourself in a car, after all, it's happened to others and can be avoided entirley right?

There nothing immoral about making a mistake. I would suggest if thats the case we are all immoral, including yourself. Care to comment about your perfect lifestyle where you have never once been wrong or mistaken? I'd certainly like to hear this one.

Holier than though? Is that it?

Brownie

 

[seeker_two]

There nothing immoral about making a mistake. I would suggest if thats the case we are all immoral, including yourself. Care to comment about your perfect lifestyle where you have never once been wrong or mistaken? I'd certainly like to hear this one.

If you have not taken every precaution to prevent a mistake from happening (checking your pistol's chamber, knowing what's downrange, rereading the warrant to confirm the address, etc.), then it becomes a moral issue...

...especially when you plead innocence for yourself and your organization in your "mistake". Or claiming that your "mistake" wasn't a mistake at all--just law & policy.

I'm not perfect. I'm not always right. But I'm not a duck, either. But I don't have to be perfect, right, or a migratory waterfowl to know what each one looks like. And what you're spouting doesn't hold water compared to that.

 

[mercedesrules]

(brownie0486)Ever seen a crack baby born to a crackhead in a ward where the tab is picked up for their medical bills by our tax dollars?

The evils of socialism, not drugs.

Ever seen what drugs cause desperate people to do to others? How about what the dealers will do to anyone who gets in their way [ like innocent civilians ].

Ever seen what effect drugs have on crime within the communities? Ever had your house broken into by a crackhead looking for goods to pawn for the next fix?
These are not crimes against people? Law abiding people?

The evils of the war on drugs, not drugs, themselves.

mercedesrules: Thats correct sir. Mistakes are made daily, I suspect you make mistakes yourself quite often enough to not be calling the kettle black as well. That innocents are mistakenly raided, shot is regretable, but because a mistake may be made certainly doesn't negate the fact the criminals have to be taken down.

The crux here, brownie, is that I am against the war on drugs and all that it entails and causes: the surprise entries, the corruption, the high prices for drugs, the resulting burglaries and robberies, the tremendous costs, the draconian penalties and the loss of liberty. I just don't think that any collateral damage is justified to capture potheads (or any other peaceful drug user). The violence is all due to the "war".

I can see others points as noted, it's you who seems to think the cops are the only people to make mistakes in this world. Their mistakes can and do result at times in innocents being injured. To then make statements that it was done with malice or should not be done at all because mistakes can and will happen borders on ?

The war on drugs "should not be done at all".

You could be involved in a car accident, I hope that means you won't put yourself in a car, after all, it's happened to others and can be avoided entirley right?

Driving my car has a benefit I weigh against the potential for cost. The war on drugs has no such benefit.

There nothing immoral about making a mistake. I would suggest if thats the case we are all immoral, including yourself. Care to comment about your perfect lifestyle where you have never once been wrong or mistaken? I'd certainly like to hear this one.

Holier than though? Is that it?

I don't consider forceful-entry raids with casualties as "mistakes"; I consider them home-invasion attacks. Collateral damage during a drug raid is no more excusable than the bombing of Hiroshima.

Sure, I make mistakes. That's why I don't go around armed trying to enforce my code of private behavior on others by force.

MR

 

[brownie0486]

mercedesrules:

Mentioning Hiroshima, now I understand your mindset behind your thinking.

No basis in reality.

Thanks for the discussion.

Brownie

 

[Maimaktes]

Well, Brownie, it is almost too obvious to point out that all these social ills caused by drugs are happening now, under drug prohibition.

How desperate would people be to get drugs if the drugs were legal and cheap? What would drug dealers be willing to do to anyone in their way if the drugs were legal and thus no longer commanded a vastly inflated "street value"? Who'd fight big, bloody turf wars over something that wasn't profitable anymore, because the bottom had fallen out of its price?

*Documented* proof of bad police shootings. Hmm, that won't be easy to come by. Nearly all police shootings, even of completely unarmed, non-resisting (or only "passively" resisting) citizens are found justifiable. I know of a few highly questionable ones since about 1988 in my geographical area, but I didn't save the newspaper clippings, and they aren't on the Internet, and I don't have anything like total recall, so I can't cite you chapter and verse, or give you all the names and agencies involved, or the dates. Having less than perfect recall, and lacking a lot of linkable information at my fingertips is not quite the same thing as being a liar, however.

At *this* link

http://www.sierratimes.com/03/whackstack.php

can be found quite a number of police shootings, many of which are at least "questionable." Not all that many of them involve parked motorists shot in the head, but a good many seem to involve people who were shot for little more than being uncooperative, or just not compliant enough fast enough. Some of the casualties weren't even shot with firearms, but were done in by various other methods. (Asphyxiation seemed to be popular.)

The most egregious case I've heard of recently is unfortunately *not* on this list. It involved a man shot in the back and being, not killed but merely paralyzed for life from the chest down, as he walked (not ran) away from a cop shouting threats and pointing a gun after him.

The cop said the guy made a "furtive movement" (which turned out to be sticking his hands in his pants pockets as he walked away -- lots of people walk around with their hands in their pockets most of the time, especially in cold weather), and the Grand Jury refused to indict. This appeared to be mainly because the paralyzed guy actually was a minor street level drug dealer with drugs in his possession at the time he was shot in the back as he walked away, ignoring the cop, and thus committing "contempt of cop." Unfortunately, I cannot recall for certain even what state this occurred in (except that it was a western state), let alone the city, or the names of anyone involved.

Here are two links to a story that was prominent about a year ago. It does involve a traffic stop and a headshot, though not to a human being:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/09/police.kill.dog/

http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2003/01/26/story334568.asp


Some of the stories to be found at this link are instructive as well.

http://keepandbeararms.com/default.asp


"Misrule breeds rebellion."

Maimaktes

 

[brownie0486]

Actually there are plenty of bad police shooting stories to be had. These, however involve individuals actions against another, not the dept policy or status quo likely right?

Plenty of cops being repremanded, jailed for misfeasance. In the papers all the time actually. That doesn't make it an everyday occurence in this contry like some would have us believe.

Whether actions are taken against these people for misfeasance, negligence or a capital crime is not the issue really. They are individual crimes by individuals.

To then post you are in fear of the gov over terrs because of someones criminal actions which have no basis in a discussion about the threat of either in general terms seems odd.

The "gov" encompasses many entities. To then cite various individual illegal or wrongfull actions by individuals as the "gov" and react with paranoia about the boogeyman is out to get them mentalities like it is the accepted norm and status quo of the larger body it's comprised of is not accurate or correct. The fear of such which that makes one pick the gov as more dangerous to them over the terrs does not have a factual basis.

The gov, or boogeyman isn't laying in wait for you at your doorstep or at every turn. Take the number of times mistakes and intentional wrongdoing have occured, even the ones if you like where it was questionable so we don't get anyone thinking the numbers were scewered, and divide that into the number of people in this country it could potential happen to. I think you'll find the percentage would be so small as to be laughable at the thought it's number could make so many people pick the wrong real threat to their safety.

Edited to add: I just did some calculating to look at the numbers that could be used on both end of the scale. If 50,000 people had been killed by one who governs 300,000,000, the percentage would be .00002% of the total population. If 2,500 had been killed unjustly by the misdeeds of the gov total the percentage would be .00001%. And thats if the gov killed that many every year. Think those figures are realistic year in and year out? I'll have to be shown that thankyou before I consider the gov more of a threat to me than the terrs.

The percentage of calculated as if it happened every year. Take any number of years, say 20-50 yrs and the percentages will go down from there when extrapolated out as to how many percentage wise have been so wronged/killed by the gov over a few lifetimes.

These percentages do not support your paranoia of gov folks.

Brownie

 

[seeker_two]

The gov, or boogeyman isn't laying in wait for you at your doorstep or at every turn. Take the number of times mistakes and intentional wrongdoing have occured, even the ones if you like where it was questionable so we don't get anyone thinking the numbers were scewered, and divide that into the number of people in this country it could potential happen to. I think you'll find the percentage would be so small as to be laughable at the thought it's number could make so many people pick the wrong real threat to their safety.

Edited to add: I just did some calculating to look at the numbers that could be used on both end of the scale. If 50,000 people had been killed by one who governs 300,000,000, the percentage would be .00002% of the total population. If 2,500 had been killed unjustly by the misdeeds of the gov total the percentage would be .00001%. And thats if the gov killed that many every year. Think those figures are realistic year in and year out? I'll have to be shown that thankyou before I consider the gov more of a threat to me than the terrs.

And, just because it's such a small statistic, that makes it OK to ignore?

Whether actions are taken against these people for misfeasance, negligence or a capital crime is not the issue really. They are individual crimes by individuals.

Individuals who wear the badge & take the orders of a government who looks the other way (remember the Waco "investigation"?). I guess those ATF agents were also "individuals" too?...

These percentages do not support your paranoia of gov folks.

No. We have people like Bush, Ashcroft, & the other Patriot Act supporters to do that for us...:banghead:

 

[brownie0486]

And you think the Dems are better? Or is it just the politician de jure of the day you are not happy with.

Yes, I think the numbers in percentages is insignificant, don't you? Certainly not worth the paranoia people seem to share here about the boggeyman coming to get them in the middle of the night. I didn't say ignore it, just that one has let his paranoia run rampant unnecessarily about the issues at hand.

If anyone thinks the percentages are worth the paranoia stated here by some I would have to guess they will not get behind the wheel of car as the potential percentages of death by one are much greater.

Better chance of being hit by lightening, hope all you folks have your talismans working overtime when you step outside daily.

I don't see the paranoia, until the numbers support the paranoia, I'll look to the terrs not the gov as the dangerous ones and be realistic in my logical conclusion that the terrs are the more dangerous ones.

I'm still waiting-----------------------------

Brownie

 

[mercedesrules]

mercedesrules:

Mentioning Hiroshima, now I understand your mindset behind your thinking.

No basis in reality.

Thanks for the discussion.

Brownie

You're welcome, but this post proves my points, not yours.

MR

 

[TallPine]

I don't see the paranoia

I don't see any paranoia either. Someone asked a question as to which was the greater threat, terrorists or government? Most of us say govt; you say terrorists - are you paranoid of terrorists ...?

The chance of being killed by a drunk driver is hundreds of times greater than being killed by a terrorist. Neither is very likely. At least, not very many people have chosen to quit driving or riding in a car.

What is very likely is that given an incremental increase in control and corresponding decrease in civil liberties, a (our) government will eventually become a totalitarian dictatorship. Not this year, not next year, maybe not even ten years from now, but at the current rate almost certainly within 50 years. Generate enough paranoia about terrorists, and we (not I, but most) will vote it in. The Germans did it - are we smarter than they?

I probably won't have to worry about it, but I don't even won't to think about what kind of life my grandchildren might have. Probably, they will just become accustomed to it, being born into it, and it won't bother them all that much.

But what would Thomas Jefferson say about the current state of government in the USA ...?

 

[brownie0486]

mercedesrules:

Yes, it proves your point, you are a paranoid with no basis in reality.

I see no one who has answered the gov is the more dangerous of the two give any real evidence in significant numbers that their worries are founded in significant facts which warrant the paranoia and "grandstanding" here with others who are as quick to decry the govs actions in anything.

Hiroshima, they got what they deserved. And in the end it saved millions of lives by dropping them on two cities. If you were up on history you'd know that the japanese were never going to surrender, they had the populace set in their minds that the US would torture everyone of them and they were ready to fight to the death, every last one of them for the homeland which would have happened. That would have cost more Americans lives in the tens of thousands. It was the lesser of two evils and considering we were attacked first and they drew blood first, they got exactly what they deserved.

Oh, and then we helped them rebuild their country so they are what they are today instead of what they could have been [ the 51st state ].

Brownie

 

[seeker_two]

Yes, I think the numbers in percentages is insignificant, don't you? Certainly not worth the paranoia people seem to share here about the boggeyman coming to get them in the middle of the night. I didn't say ignore it, just that one has let his paranoia run rampant unnecessarily about the issues at hand.

Yes, it proves your point, you are a paranoid with no basis in reality.

And if you're willing to choose "a little bit of tyrrany" over "no tyrrany at all", I worry about YOUR concept of RIGHTS and FREEDOM.

And that's something pretty scary to see in a "peace officer"...

 

[Kaylee]

and that's about enough of that. Take it to PMs gentlemen.