|
|
Post by Darren Dirt on Jun 20, 2006 16:16:28 GMT -5
Terrorcrats: All amygdala, but no heart.  |
|
|
|
Post by sagas4 on Jun 21, 2006 16:06:23 GMT -5
I was doing some research on another subject and came across this. Thought it was interesting. Is the system beginning to eat itself alive? Notice it was initially a guard, and thereafter he is "the gunman" but the FBI and Justice Department investigators, continue being [*voice of authority on*] "FBI" and "Justice Department Investigators" [/*voice of authority off*] Hmmm. . . .  Oh and was also thinking. It's no longer marijuana or a "controlled substance" the redefinition and negative associations implied with the word "pot" must be complete now . . . . Start looking for revised dictionaries folks.  |
|
|
|
Post by NonEntity on Jun 21, 2006 17:23:11 GMT -5
I luv it when they get to eat their own pie!
- NonE
|
|
|
|
Post by Darren Dirt on Jun 22, 2006 15:10:51 GMT -5
From "that other forum I waste my time on"... forums.righteouswrath.com/index.php/topic,3587.msg22920.html#msg22920On the subject of cops the anti-social behaviour of the cops towards young Edmonton Oilers fans during the last few weeks of post-game celebrations... ...sadly, Thorin (the guy who months ago I thought might actual be open to true liberty) misses the point -- maybe those young 'uns realize that uniform is "just" a uniform, and maybe also the cops know they realize it  - - - ^ the above was his most recent comment ; see also this posting : (and of course, my hopefully-helpful response right after) - - - ( linked from above: Obey or Else: A Sober View of the Drunk Tank By Michael Scholar, Jr. "Last night, I was arrested by the Edmonton Police for taking a picture. I guess it wasn't a picture they wanted me to take... I work with police officers at the Justice Institute of B.C. They hire actors for their training scenarios where we play bad guys, witnesses and victims for their benefit. I'm accustomed to the uniform and the force behind them. I know how they are trained to communicate because I help train them. They are taught to be clear and to avoid unnecessary confrontations. But tonight they were seeking them out, in order to establish control. Obey or else." |
|
|
|
Post by Darren Dirt on Jun 22, 2006 23:31:04 GMT -5
CTV (national network) news story including video footage of the police thuggery: www.youtube.com/v/qwT2Gzv1KmULast week, during one of the nights they made "400 arrests" -- reading the above ("Obey or Else") you understand how that high a # took place. ... notice in the video the now-familiar police mantra being chanted by the mindless terrorcrats in uniform: "KEEP MOVING..." (why officer?) SMACK! [pulls out the wrist ties] YOU DIDN'T COMPLY!)  - - - Sadly, folks like the commenter "kewbonium" just don't get it and probably blame rape victims saying "look at the way she dressed..." www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwT2Gzv1KmU&eurl= |
|
|
|
Post by Darren Dirt on Jun 23, 2006 9:33:34 GMT -5
"The Road to Guantanamo" -- a new documentary, showing how far coercive anti-social terrorcrats will go when nobody speaks out and shines a light on the evil (i.e. the natural extension of the police thuggery described above) www.imdb.com/title/tt0468094/The Road to Guantanamo [limited] Director: Michael Winterbottom Mat Whitecross Stars: Riz Ahmed, Farhad Harun, Arfan Usman (Full Cast) Studio: Roadside Attractions The Plot: Four friends, all of them British Muslims, are accused of working for Al Quaeda and imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. THE BUZZ: Co-directors Michael Winterbottom and Mat Whitecross tell the story of four boys who were jailed by American intelligence for two years ... until they were released without charge. In what promises to be one of the most incisive critiques of post-9/11 America to date. Winterbottom's In This World would be a good primer for this film. Check the official site for the uncensored poster ... |
|
|
|
Post by NonEntity on Jun 23, 2006 9:55:04 GMT -5
I'm accustomed to the uniform and the force behind them. I know how they are trained to communicate because I help train them. Hmm. Seems like maybe "just deserts," huh?! - NonE |
|
|
|
Post by Darren Dirt on Jun 23, 2006 10:18:13 GMT -5
I'm accustomed to the uniform and the force behind them. I know how they are trained to communicate because I help train them. Hmm. Seems like maybe "just deserts," huh?! - NonE Dude, I know you're being sarcastic, but if you've read the whole story linked above, and watched the video after, you'll realize what a blessing it is to have such an experienced journalist guy (who obviously thinks the police do a "good" job most of the time -- naive yes, but "asking for it", I don't think so) who documented in such fine detail the horros of "a typical night when the non-accountable police were rounding up innocent folks". Yes he apparently "trains" police, but he trains them in COMMUNICATING -- presumably hoping to teach them how to not fall into the thuggery bullying pattern of behaviour we AiLL here know about from all the stories (or even first hand experience). I'm also guessing the intention of his training is especially for how to deal with dangerous, violent people in a way that doesn't escalate matters, reducing the chance that physical force will need to come into play. He notes that the cops he dealt with and witnessed were doing everything TO escalate matters, and the verbiage used "obey" and "compliant" revealed even to him how anti-social and anti-life the cops' behaviour and attitude were. So just cuz he's a believer in "peace officers", or "law enforcement", or whatever, that's no reason to dismiss or mock the valuable account we have been graciously given. The Edmonton area has been my home all my life, 33 years... and never did I think I would be reading stories like the above, stories that are identical (even worse) than the accounts of police brutality during anti-war or anti-globalist protests, or the Republican National Convention a few years ago, etc. Since when did it become the norm to use plastic ties instead of handcuffs, to round up folks like -- and treat them like -- mindless cattle... 400 people "arrested" but only a handful are actually "charged"? It's like down in the U.S., the "state" removing folks from the non-"Free Speech Zones", faking an arrest just as an excuse to remove them from the area the PTB don't want them in... Since when did the "state" get to decide where people can choose to gather, using as an excuse "public safety" which they have no duty to worry about anyway... |
|
|
|
Post by NonEntity on Jun 23, 2006 10:39:43 GMT -5
You're right, Darren, I've not yet watched the show. And yet... the slippery slope theory seems to apply.
You said, "Since when did the "state" get to decide where people can choose to gather..."
Uh, err, uh... isn't that the DEFINITION of the state?!?!?
Clarity of vision. Sorry. I have to stand by my sentiments. If you support thuggery then you get all the thuggery you deserve.
If this fellow wants to improve the world he can educate PEOPLE, not thugs.
Perhaps this will be a wakeup call. I'm not suggesting that he doesn't believe in his good intentions, but lots of people who vote to support the drug war actually believe that they are doing something wonderful. That they have created one of the largest destructive forces for civilization since (well, lets not get into areas that are forbidden in this board), that does not mean that they deserve a free ride on the fantasy express.
The road to hell is paved...
- NonE
|
|
|
|
Post by Darren Dirt on Jun 23, 2006 11:48:43 GMT -5
Hmm, I see what you're saying. But I still am disappointed, and disagree. If an individualist-anarchist had written the exact same news story above, it would have been just as insightful, just as beneficial in exposing the thuggery nature of the "law enforcement officers" (previously called "peace officers" but they don't even try to pretend anymore). Whether or not the victim suffering at the hands of anti-social terrorcrats believes that those terrorcrats "usually do a good job" or are "necessary to maintain order" is not the point -- he shared with us a painful account of his own personal suffering. Personally, the optimist within me hopes that his firsthand experiences make him realize it wasn't just "a few bad apples", nor a "lack of communication training". But that's a side issue, that's not the point. Further, isn't your "goes around comes around" thinking, fairly applied, also going to mean that we could we say the same kind of thing about that Military Police guy coming back from Iraq, who was shot by the cop when he was totally complying with the cop's orders? Is that fair? Anyway, after this post I'll drop this issue (to be clear, I'm not attackign you personally, I just am very surprised at your initial reaction). Personally I try to look at statists as human beings, mistaken in their political beliefs, but humans nonetheless. I try to avoid pointing and chortling "ha, ha!" when the Big Gun of the State ends up being pointed or fired at those who don't see it for the load of coercive B.S. that it factually is... After all, "there but the grace of Spooner/Stevens/Rothbard/Rand" go I..." Isn't our job as the "awakened" to educate, to gracefully and patiently teach those still "asleep" -- not just by communicating ideas, but to demonstrate by our life-example? Do you think this guy would be open to your attempts to speak about voluntaryism, if he knew your initial response to his first-hand account of being mistreated by the thugs that at the present time he believes are "necessary"?  |
|
|
|
Post by NonEntity on Jun 23, 2006 12:31:46 GMT -5
Damn Darren,
I'm really getting my comeuppance lately, aren't I? You are right of course about it being really petty to chortle at others getting their just deserts. It is not very generous of me at all. I wonder what that means. I guess maybe that I'm feeling particularly vulnerable right now. That's probably part of it. ... I am feeling mixed here.
On the one hand, I agree with you whole-heartedly regarding the fact that he, like I, is just a fallible human, learning as he goes along. On the other hand I am pleased to see the feed-back-loop functioning and correcting the poor behavior and choices that lead to this world being such a mess. "Jesus" supposedly said to turn the other cheek, but then that hasn't worked out really well either. Hmm. I actually AM pleased when I hear that hired killers get eliminated, just as when I hear that vicious dogs get put down after ripping the faces off little children. Hmm. This is a biggie.
We have discussed the idea of self-defense being acceptable violence. Some have said that they believe that NO violence is acceptable, even in self-defense. Others disagree and say that it is acceptable. I personally do not believe that retribution is valuable. Not to the perpetrator nor the victim, not to anyone. RestiTUTION, yes, but not retribution. So I guess my glee, in the post that you took offence at, is that perhaps this fellow is having the hard truth of reality slammed into his view of the world, and that another supporter of violence may be beginning to understand the reality of his position.
Or maybe I'm just being a jerk and enjoying his suffering for it's own sake. I'm not sure.
As it is, I've still not read the story so I'm simply commenting on what I read in your post above.
I'm reminded of the concept of an "enabler" in the alcoholic world. I view the idea of feeling sorry for this fellow akin to enabling an alcoholic by allowing him not to hit rock bottom. You don't do the person any favors by shielding him from his bad choices. (This still doesn't excuse my apparent glee, however.)
- NonE
|
|
|
|
Post by NonEntity on Jun 23, 2006 13:22:23 GMT -5
Now, having read the story and watched the pretty news person show us the video, I have more comments.
First. It seems that this is not without precedence. There was significant property damage in a prior incident, so the police are acting with the benefit of hindsight.
Second. It does appear that people were told to stay away.
Third. Anyone who does not recognize that there is a mob dynamic which goes on and changes a group of individual actors into a massive uncontrollable piece of organic maelstrom is just rejecting reality. This applies as much to the cops as it does to the crowds.
Considering all of the above, what else would you expect?
I can make this suggestion (OH NO, NOT THIS!!!): Rules of Private Property would have clarified the situation greatly, from BOTH perspectives. The crowd members would have probably been under more clearly enunciated rules of conduct, and the cops would also probably be more responsible, personally, for their behavior.
This is not to say that some insanity would not have gone on, but my experience with HUGE crowds at Disney World, for instance, is that the profit motive tends to keep all issues pretty well in balance. It is in the interests of Disney for people to have a good time. They have NO interest in being hard-asses unless it is pretty much required. ?When you are there you are well aware that it is THEIR property and THEIR rules and you are a paying customer, not an owner with rights. You DO have the right to leave. You DON'T have the right to act any damned way you please on "YOUR" streets, because they are NOT your streets.
I hesitate to mention that other thread... but this is about conflict resolution, and if there are no clear understandings, agreements, regarding who has what rights, then conflict is ensured. How that conflict can be resolved is another issue. Obviously there was some insanity on BOTH sides of the issue in this particular case. I really can't find a lot of fault in any particular place. What I DO see is that the structure of the situation is at fault for creating an environment where the relationships between the parties was VERY unclear and so expectations were not held within reasonable bounds.
If everyone feels that he has a right to everything... Well, there ya are!
- NonE
|
|
|
|
Post by Darren Dirt on Jun 23, 2006 13:58:56 GMT -5
Thanks for being honest, and admitting that you hadn't yet read the story itself, and after reading it sharing your mixed feelings. Personally, I'm not sure of the sequence of events -- that video I believe was AFTER the event recorded in the written account, I THINK -- I may be wrong. Either way, yes, I personally knew to "stay away" from Whyte Ave. because I knew the antisocial hired thugs in uniform would likely be picking anybody up and possibly causing them physical harm, just because of the "mob" environment. But the guy was a photographer, taking some shots, and once the cop decided it wouldn't be a good idea to be "in pictures" that's when the bully came out (we AiLL here know that bully is extremely close to the surface always waiting for a weak excuse to come out; most people don't know that). I am glad this photog was in a paddy wagon with a handful of others, mostly who were either drunk and did no harm to anyone, or who were sober and did no harm to anyone... and to see and hear firsthand how the cops deal with people -- by treating them as non-people. Notice that last couple of sentences -- very revealing: Almost a quote from Hopper in A Bug's Life. There are WAY more of "us" than there are of "them". "dangerous" for who? But we have to be careful that "we" don't give "them" more excuses to justify their claim that we "NEED" them. PS: Sorry to hear you're in a funk, lately, NonE. I apologize if my emotional reaction made things worse for you. I wonder, myself, how I feel in my conscience, when "bad things happen to those who do bad things". Training cops to be peaceful is certainly not the same as being a homicidal cop, but it is an "enabling" role, for sure. To a greater degree than, say, when I unquestionably pay the 7% tax on a chocolate bar, instead of letting the shop owner know that I believe he is morally wrong for not taking a stand. It's all degrees. :-\ ...a lot to think about this weekend. I'm taking a break; see you wise and caring folks on Monday!  |
|
ayanrand
Full Member
"Freedom! Forever!"
Posts: 192
|
Post by ayanrand on Jun 23, 2006 19:14:44 GMT -5
"By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America..." Silly me, I thought the "CONstitution" was just a "G@$ D$#@$ piece of paper"?! www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/06/20060623-10.htmlExecutive Order: Protecting the Property Rights of the American People By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and to strengthen the rights of the American people against the taking of their private property, it is hereby ordered as follows: Section 1. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to protect the rights of Americans to their private property, including by limiting the taking of private property by the Federal Government to situations in which the taking is for public use, with just compensation, and for the purpose of benefiting the general public and not merely for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken. Sec. 2. Implementation. (a) The Attorney General shall: (i) issue instructions to the heads of departments and agencies to implement the policy set forth in section 1 of this order; and (ii) monitor takings by departments and agencies for compliance with the policy set forth in section 1 of this order. (b) Heads of departments and agencies shall, to the extent permitted by law: (i) comply with instructions issued under subsection (a)(i); and (ii) provide to the Attorney General such information as the Attorney General determines necessary to carry out subsection (a)(ii). Sec. 3. Specific Exclusions. Nothing in this order shall be construed to prohibit a taking of private property by the Federal Government, that otherwise complies with applicable law, for the purpose of: (a) public ownership or exclusive use of the property by the public, such as for a public medical facility, roadway, park, forest, governmental office building, or military reservation; (b) projects designated for public, common carrier, public transportation, or public utility use, including those for which a fee is assessed, that serve the general public and are subject to regulation by a governmental entity; c) conveying the property to a nongovernmental entity, such as a telecommunications or transportation common carrier, that makes the property available for use by the general public as of right; (d) preventing or mitigating a harmful use of land that constitutes a threat to public health, safety, or the environment; (e) acquiring abandoned property; (f) quieting title to real property; (g) acquiring ownership or use by a public utility; (h) facilitating the disposal or exchange of Federal property; or (i) meeting military, law enforcement, public safety, public transportation, or public health emergencies. Sec. 4. General Provisions. (a) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations. (b) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: (i) authority granted by law to a department or agency or the head thereof; or (ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budget, administrative, or legislative proposals. (c) This order shall be implemented in a manner consistent with Executive Order 12630 of March 15, 1988. (d) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity against the United States, its departments, agencies, entities, officers, employees, or agents, or any other person. GEORGE W. BUSH THE WHITE HOUSE, June 23, 2006. |
|
|
|
Post by sagas4 on Jun 24, 2006 2:44:12 GMT -5
NonE, Darren,
This issue you're discussing . . .
It's reminding me of the caller from the June 17th show. If you haven't listened to that yet it's a good one. Jeff from New Mexico 12:35 in to hour 2. Verbally tearing down all "high paid" people who actually provide services people are willing to pay for voluntarily.
(Paraphrase here) Cops are laudable, and do provide a good service if they are enforcing high taxation on corporations, helping the weak. etc. etc. /
He said something about some guaranteed annual income thing? I was listening casually while doing something else and didn't fully comprehend what he was saying at first until Marc started to break it down. SAP-OS-B-PAT-BOAG (should any product or service be provided at the barrel of a gun).
Jeff, "uhhh . . . I think it's necessary because ahh, . . "
Marc : Ok, ok, let me stop you right there, You think it's ok to kill people in order to provide a service?
Jeff, "yi...if they don't care about weak or poor people . .."
After this point Jeff attempts to get Marc on his side and buy him off at the same time by trying to change the conversation and directly relate and personalize a benefit to Marc's family about the BENEFITS accruing because of killing people to provide services. (We'll he didn't say that but it is descriptive of the logic I see in the conversation)
Yikes! I don't know if I should feel sorry because answers like the ones given to Marc's questions points to some serious psychological issues, or be terrified of the actions *any* one can do when in "a mental state" . . . (pun intended) . . . .
and *actually* think that is socially acceptable behavior.
|
|
