What's new

Tough Day To Be In Law Enforcement



Imagine your family member being publically executed and then having the president, who your family more than likely dislikes and is disgusted by, uses your dead family member's name in a speech and implies they're looking down from heaven thinking it's a great day for him and a great day for everybody.

Imagine it because it's one family's reality right now.


It's not a great day for George Floyd or anyone else, Mr. President.
 
I mean, the video he shared was pretty head scratching. You might roll your eyes at it but I'll just roll mine at you.

*anxiously awaiting Thriller to call me a Shapiro fan boy and alt right because I shared the tweet which was probably the first thing I've seen from the guy in 2020.*

Did you mean that the question the interviewer offered was head-scratchingly bad, or that the interviewee brushed past the stupidity in a head-scratchingly effective retort?

Feel free to roll your eyes. If you think that interviewer asked an important and legitimate question, you're only showing that you really don't understand the proposals.
 
They should pay for everything. They take the biggest cut of the pie.

They aren't going to survive the Google Age without transitioning into 100% tyranny. And many of those cops that you want to keep armed won't survive, either.

When the information was slower, the myth was easier to sustain. No longer the case.

So I get the "logic" you buy, I just wish I could help you see the problem with it.

"Corporations" are people. I mean someone owns them, and for most of our large corporations, a lot of people have their retirement invested in them. Sure there are the few individual investors with relatively large share holdings.

And, at least since the 70's, the trending mode of thought in corporate management has been heavily weighted towards "Shareholder Value", meaning they do stuff to pump the value of the shares, try to keep the stock price high..... as opposed to use sound long-term management strategies. Short term vision is one of our national weaknesses, compared.... say...., to Chinese management strategies which often show a longer-term emphasis. We fail to invest much in R&D, and instead focus on political influence to secure cartel scale dominance in business. We run competitors.... little upstart endeavors, outta town using government regulations they just can "buy" out, like the larger corporates do regularly.

Unless you actually have nothing, and no job..... or even if you have a government job.... you can't just take down our corporations without being self-destructive.

The logic that makes "Corporations" a kind of "other" you could really consider an enemy, doesn't even hold for welfare recipients. Why? Because it's the WalMarts and Targets and other big box stores where you get your cheap slave-labor imported goods.... you know.... the stuff Americans used to make and sell at more expensive prices. The WalMarts ran out all the local producers and retailers, and now they are the folks who lobby for the Dems, for the politicians on every side of our political dog & pony show, to keep the unwashed masses flush with spending cash to drop off at their stores.

The equation boils down to this. The Bigs want you to have just enough to spend to keep their business profitable. They are willing to milk the American public and squeeze out a survival rate "guaranteed income", sucked outta mostly the small business/middle class/government employee class, while they know how to avoid being taxed so much themselves.

The whole system is gonna fail eventually, maybe fairly soon. Smartass hotshot politicians cluck "The problem with socialism is sooner or later you run outta other peoples' money."

The clear solution to it all is not to just damn the corporates and business impossible, not to have the state just operate all the business, but to get the government out of business.

People set up businesses or corporations to enable operations they don't want to have in their own name legally because it exposes them to personal risk. And business/corporations enable a number of methods for investment or borrowing which gives people a possibility of participating somehow in the profit. Those are good things. They enable us to function in better ways, more efficient ways.

It would be better if we could eliminate the "special" channels of disproportionate influence the truly wealthy folks use to buy out our government officials and feather their own nests, so to speak. That would require stuff like laws, and ethics, against influence peddling that could just give ordinary people a fair say in their government.

I think to do that, we have to have an open economic playing field..... with justice, liberty, equality..... **** like that. Idealistic **** maybe, but if we can't manage to create and enforce laws that make it real, we just can't expect anyone to really have any rights. It all goes to "Arrogance of Power". I guess it's the same thing as the "Golden Rule" perversion which maintains "Them's that's got the gold make the rules". I call that corruption.

Funny thing about all that..... damnable thing about all that..... is just that if we don't believe in, and maintain higher ethics in our own conduct.... if people don't themselves hold principles like that in their own affairs.... we can hardly hope our government will.

Taxing the Corporations, and buying into the guaranteed income idea, won't change any of that.

In fact, it is simply turning ourselves in to the government camps, or reservations, like the Plains Indians did, for a future of starvation on the government dole, with no rights to access opportunity or resources..

If we want opportunity, and access to the resources of this world, little folks need cops to enforce the laws that give them the rights.
 
Stay south, we do not need your gun nutheads here in Canada.

Might be the time is about right to liberate Canada. I understand Canada has a sort of Wild West that is more Texas than Texas. Subjects of 'Er Majesty, The Queen my eye. Haven't you got the guts to become citizens with actual rights.

Subjects is another word for Slave.
 
Can't say I like this but this is outrageously reckless. Looting is one thing but these looters were acting like animals. Was this part of some organized group. Where were the police when this happened? Instead they pick on peaceful protesters and unarmed persons they can bully with impunity because they know they have qualified immunity.

There is a difference between police who actually are good, and those who go over to the go-along side. Nobody can deny the sort of "brotherhood" that compels a kind of cohesion within a police force, which causes them to shift towards the view that they are themselves a kind of "us" against others whom they see as "them". I don't think we can ever have better police force unless we have a society that highly values conscience, and respects individual rights. That requires management that does not grant the kind of immunity you refer to. That requires something like the teachings of Jesus, which really puts the individual in charge of himself. Personal conscience, personal values.

The organized violence is a determined, managed sort that is intended by the financiers to take down actual Constitutional, people-based governance, and to replace it with Fascism. This is the Mt. Suribachi of the idea of human rights.

The louder a mob shouts "Justice", the less you can hope for it.
 
Did you mean that the question the interviewer offered was head-scratchingly bad, or that the interviewee brushed past the stupidity in a head-scratchingly effective retort?

Feel free to roll your eyes. If you think that interviewer asked an important and legitimate question, you're only showing that you really don't understand the proposals.

How many games will the Patriots win this year?
 
Did you mean that the question the interviewer offered was head-scratchingly bad, or that the interviewee brushed past the stupidity in a head-scratchingly effective retort?

Feel free to roll your eyes. If you think that interviewer asked an important and legitimate question, you're only showing that you really don't understand the proposals.

I measure ideological blinders by the resistance given to information.

If you can't manage to understand a Ben Shapiro and cogitate enough to respond, you have perhaps just given up on doing your own thinking.

So I followed your conversation back to the Trump retweet of Ben Shapiro. I know a lot of conservatives don't really like Big Ben, but he gets time on some local stations, and he talks "smart".

But how can you or anyone really deny the lunacy of the dismissive comment about how a person being looted needs police action to defend her property or her life. It's not "white privilege". It's human rights.

If you can't see that, Brow, you've turned in your mind. I mean.... you have checked your mind in at some agency desk, and turned it over for the duration, and you are now just a canary repeating what you are told, or mesmerized perhaps, to say.

OK.

So the idea of "Arrogance of Power" applies practically to anyone who can disregard law or human rights of others with impunity. That's the definition of it.

If you think that's OK, you are yourself that sort. The rub is, if you win your political campaign here, you will not actually be the one who has power when the dust settles. Useful idiots, tools.... like yourself..... are the ones who will be rounded up when the deed is done, outta "just" consideration.... I mean pathological reflexive fear in the mind of those whom you are following, that you could exercise the same political skills to take them down.

That is the way it always turns out with socialism/communism/whateverism that uses lawlessness like this to take power.

Power always rests on the sufferance/tolerance/acceptance of the compliant populace who for whatever reason accepts the rule. If you take common cause with violent proceedings to change things, you will still have to accept actual suppression of your rights/privileges/hopes/wishes.... by lawless violence.

The idea of Arrogance of Power is exemplified by a Hillary who can on National News admit to a felony and laugh at it, because she owns the stooge Comey somehow, or has indisputable power through her usefulness to her important managers. The fact that her "base", I mean her donor class "base"/management, would not object to her display, is a clear claim to Power, beyond the law.

The very way Power in its raw form is demonstrated requires the exhibition of force above the law. It is a way to message the populace that they have no course of action that can be effective..

And this is exactly what "The Resistance" has been since Hillary lost the election.
 
Last edited:
Well if cities can come up with a better solution to crime control than a police force, then go ahead and dismantle the police force at that point. But don't dismantle the police force and replace it with nothing. Right now the 4th most common cause of death for black males (of all ages) is homicide, and a very high percentage of those perpetrators (have to look up the exact figure) are other black males. Minority communities will suffer as much or more than others if cops are taken off the street.

Yes, police need to behave professionally--and clearly they haven't been, but one reason that black people are disproportionately the victims of police abuse is because a disproportionately high percentage of violent crime takes place in predominantly black neighborhoods. That's where a high percentage of police have been getting sent to investigate violent crime. It's a reality that needs to be factored into the conversation.

From what I understand its not really disbanding police, not cutting all funding, its having police do police work, then spreading out the leftover budget to go towards mental health workers, job services, etc ....to combat the real issues. Let the cops arrest dangerous criminals, not have them do that, and therapy, and welfare checks, and so on and so forth.
 
From what I understand its not really disbanding police, not cutting all funding, its having police do police work, then spreading out the leftover budget to go towards mental health workers, job services, etc ....to combat the real issues. Let the cops arrest dangerous criminals, not have them do that, and therapy, and welfare checks, and so on and so forth.
That, plus wholesale replacement of police departments which have undesirable (or even criminal) track records.
 
From what I understand its not really disbanding police, not cutting all funding, its having police do police work, then spreading out the leftover budget to go towards mental health workers, job services, etc ....to combat the real issues. Let the cops arrest dangerous criminals, not have them do that, and therapy, and welfare checks, and so on and so forth.

I think the organized deployment of this talking point comes from an intent to fundamentally transform law enforcement into something that can be politically managed in a way that cuts out all the constitutional sorts of law/legal proceedings. It looks easier to manage, but the purpose is not for people to have input or better protection or better actual rights. The purpose is effective enforcement of compliance to political requirements.

People in UN meetups have been talking about this for decades. I think Henry Kissinger said that the UN objectives could never be enforced so long as law enforcement personnel viewed themselves as part of the community. So the idea went around to how can it be ever arranged for law enforcement people to feel "different". Some said they could be isolated by mere cohesive internal culture that displaced community identities. Some said people have to be divided so there is no "cohesive community", but just a lot of minorities that can be manipulated. Then some said they could just hire mercenary outsiders to do the work.

Yes, kiddies, this is your UN at its finest. And Sir Henry Kissinger was so loved by the Queen, she made him "special", and today he is one of them..... one of the elite Brit establishment.

What the well-informed mayor said about ordinary citizens speaking from "a position of privilege" was actually true, but she meant it to inform the person expecting law officers to protect her rights that she was delusional to imagine she still had any, and that is why no police would be sent.

The new order of the day is the open exhibition of Power, the perfect "Arrogance of Power".
 
I totally get and understand why cops aren't the best solution to call on mental issues.

That said, I have some questions maybe someone can answer. To me, every cop call or stop is unpredictable. Let's say, someone calls 911 (or whatever it would be) because someone is having a mental or psychological problem and so we sent mental health care workers. When the mental health care workers show up, the person who called for help is dead and the person with the problems kills the workers. What then? Is this unrealistic to think or maybe I'm missing something.

To me, the police need more training on how to de-escalate situations and the biggest criminal is our "justice system."

The time people serve for non violent **** is ludicrous. We sentence people who aren't murderers, rapists, molesters to a sickening amount of time. Taking years of someone's life isn't the answer, rehabilitation is.

If our justice system was more forgiving and realistic, those being arrested probably wouldn't escalate the situation because they feel like they have nothing to lose.
 
Back
Top