1 - 10 Next
In response to:

Cheap Politicians

FriscoLawyer Wrote: Sep 10, 2014 6:12 PM
This makes altogether too much sense, and therefore will fall on deaf ears.
We have gone from restricting speech that is dangerous (screaming "fire" in a crowded theater) to defining "danger" as anytime anyone is in any way offended. If we got rid of "offended observer standing" in court, you would see about a 99% reduction in this nonsense. But, of course, the courts will not do that because the courts are the impetus for almost every social ill we have.And it's not just the liberal judges, either. All of them feel they "know best" when it comes to any topic whatsoever, and position themselves as little gods to dole out what they perceive to be justice. Most of the time it is just nonsense. Study "qualified immunity" sometime if you want to see why our judicial system is in serious need of complete overhaul.
In response to:

Militarization of Police II

FriscoLawyer Wrote: Aug 30, 2014 10:44 AM
Mag, you also nailed it.
In response to:

Militarization of Police II

FriscoLawyer Wrote: Aug 30, 2014 10:40 AM
Chip, Please research the history of the National Guard. You will find that it is designed to offer a military presence, on a short-term basis, when the governor decides it is needed. It then withdraws so the populace is not subjected to a standing army living among them. You would have fit in perfectly in Nazi Germany; you make the exact same arguments that were made then to justify the Gestapo. "It can't happen here" is the cry of those right before they are shoved into cattle cars and hauled off. You and your ilk better wake the f**k up before it's too late.
In response to:

Militarization of Police II

FriscoLawyer Wrote: Aug 30, 2014 10:37 AM
You nailed it, Rod.
In response to:

Militarization of Police II

FriscoLawyer Wrote: Aug 30, 2014 10:35 AM
How it is, exactly, that our police protected us just fine for almost 200 years without military-grade equipment? What changed? If you say "the criminals became better armed," you prove your ignorance of history. The "war" metaphor for the country's drug problem, made famous by Ronald Reagan, was the impetus for arming our police to the hilt. Words make a difference. There is no "war" on drugs, it is a social problem that needs to be addressed, and drug dealers are not enemy combatants but suspects who should be brought to justice. It's the fault of we, the people, who allow this to happen that is the cause. You better wake up before the gestapo knocks on YOUR door.
In response to:

Militarization of Police II

FriscoLawyer Wrote: Aug 30, 2014 10:28 AM
The goal of police is to bring suspects to the justice system for trial. The goal of the military is to kill people and break things. And when you have fun toys, given to you by the military and you are told you "should" use them, then you sure want to use them, right? When the police use the weapons and tactics of special forces military troops to do their jobs of bringing suspects to justice, they cross the line. There were about 80,000 SWAT raids of private residences in the U.S. last year (over 3.000 of them wrong-door raids; think about that a minute), more than 95% of which were to serve search warrants for drugs. What ever happened to controlled buys? Laying siege to a suspected drug house and getting the occupants to come out with their hands up? What happened is: it is nowhere near as much fun to do police work the way it is meant to be done as it is to dress up and play soldier. The argument that towns of 2,500 people need a SWAT team because the criminals are so heavily armed is laughable and moronic. These teams proliferate because cops want something fun to do, not because these tactics are necessary to carry out the role of civilian police. BTW, about 99% of these weekend warrior cops wouldn't last 10 minutes in SEAL training or any other genuine special forces group. They are just immature little boys literally "playing soldier" and in the process, turning "suspects" (innocent until proved guilty in a court of law, right? WRONG!) into enemy combatants whom they feel entitled to terrorize, assault, and subject to combat-like conditions. Which would be bad enough if they were properly trained, but they aren't, so they are merely endangering the populace for their own personal kicks. It's pathetic and has to end.
The entire idea of calling blacks "African Americans" is designed to point out, emphasize, and perpetuate our differences, not bring us together. Words matter. And those of MLK ring out, begging us to get past race as a defining characteristic. But that's never going to happen until we become, again, just plain oil' Ameicans, who happen to look different from each other.
Well, history sucks, doesn't it? That icon of conservatism, Ronald Reagan, started the giving of "surplus" military gear to police departments to fight "the war on drugs." It escalated under both Bushes, and is now a multi-billion dollar business, complete with lobbyists and captive Congressmen. It will not be easy to roll back, that's for sure.
Your comments fall on the deaf ears of those just looking for any excuse to loot and pillage. I'll bet $10 that at least half of the rioters don't even know the name of the guy who got shot. It's unimportant. What's important is that there's free stuff in them there stores, let's go get it! But to call them animals is incorrect. No animals act this way. Ever.
1 - 10 Next