Originally posted by Raoul
not all IRA are terrorists. nowadays, sure, you could argue it, but they weren't always like that, and its not every single member.
they're a terrorist organisation...if you're a member...you're a terrorist...not argue against is like saying that Osama Bin Laden isn't a terrorist because he personally hasn't killed anyone
nowadays they're just criminals...for the most part, anyway
and i'm not saying that this is exclusive to the Catholic side of the divide...it applies to the unionist opposite of the IRA...
Discussion restarted-
you can't triple stamp a double stamp Lloyd...you can't triple a stamp a double stamp
It's not acceptable whatsoever for someone to be able to go to jail or otherwise be in trouble with the law for being racist. Freedom of speech in the case of racism should be a white man's inalienable right as long as he doesn't try to carry out his beliefs with actual actions. We're not talking about pedophiles and zoophiles here. If you must arrest a white man for being racist, then you must arrest every single member of the Nation of Islam and every single Jew because their holy book claims that we "goyim" (meaning non-Jews, especially referring to whites) are inferior and not God's children. The fact that white people have gone to jail for being racist is the worst kind of politically correct liberal fascism and a total violation of the very most basic rights of a human being. It's perfectly natural and perfectly human to hate. It's not wrong just because it offends the completely insane, leftarded, moonbat oversensitivities of the world's most vulgarly spineless excuses for human beings.
Originally posted by Ahsoka Tano
After there 8 or 12 hour shift is over, they can be themselves again.
Oh, I'm so in awe of their long work day. In fact, I so repspect the verbal diarrhea I over heard in the book store the other day that I'm willing to donate money to the fraternal order of police. I listened to a guy on the other side of the aisle that said he was joining for the 10 grand sign-up bonus and how it was free and clear money because his living expenses were paid for by the government. (What most patriotic americans would call Socialism and hand-out loving communists) So, because his breakfast and dinner were on the K&W line we pay for as tax-payers, he should be allowed to bilk the government for money he likely won't earn; which would send your average Palin supporter into a tizzy. We've got hundreds of thousands of Americans who join the military for a free education or thousands of sign-up dollars being called real-America-loving patriots who are out on those oil feilds defending our freedom and standing up for Democracy and American ideals while actually only concerning themselves with their bank account and the "stupidity" of the one half of America ideals they resent and bash. It's just like a cop getting killed in the line of duty and everyone acts like a real American hero died for us when he really fell for an add line and signed up to serve himself. Just because a 22 year old was sent to his death doesn't mean he did so for your right to buy cheap gasoline and tube socks at Wal-Mart, much less the American way of life. Personally, I think the greatest disrespect we pay our service men and women is the assumption that they died for any one of us and not themselves. By claiming they're Americans that weren't looking out for themselves when they signed up for service is a lazy and unrealistic way of removing our own selfish, self-serving reality. They're just as selfish as any one of us are. We call them saviors and patriots and heroes so that we can assume some measure of that idology for ourselves, but we do it in the face of the reality that we're lazy ****s that don't do a damn thing because we didn't fall for the line of bullshit and benefits that were offered to those who did. If you sign up for a job that gives you substandard body armour, a gun and a helmet and end up getting killed, then you aren't a victim; you're fodder. I feel bad for every American mother who thinks they sacrificed their child to a war over money and oil and consoles herself with the idea that she offered up her child to the alter of freedom and democracy. I hope the weight of thedeath and their base, supperficial knowledge of American ideals get so heavy that the suffocate when they collapse on top of them.
Originally posted by jaden101
they're a terrorist organisation...if you're a member...you're a terrorist...not argue against is like saying that Osama Bin Laden isn't a terrorist because he personally hasn't killed anyonenowadays they're just criminals...for the most part, anyway
i'm just glad you're differentiating between past and present, is all...
In a country where freedom of speech is important, people should be allowed to support who they want.
After all if someone for some reason supports the BNP then its their view and it should be respected as long as they don´t let it influence their decisions. Just because some people think the country would be better without so many foreigners doesn´t make them racist, ie that they hate certain races.
There are Muslim officers as well, they want the whole world to turn to Islam, should they be banned for being part of this religion?
I don´t share the BNP´s or Islams ideas by the way, but freedom of speech is important imo.
Re: Should Police Officers Be Able To Join Racist Organisations?
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-GavOn their own time, police should have the right to join a racist group. However, any action deemed even slightly bigoted should be punishable as such and the membership taken as evidence against said police officer.
In the UK there has been controversy recently over the publication of the membership of the British Nationalist Party (a semi-neo nazi, racist group with quite a large representation in local government).Due to the publication of the member-list policy officers all over the country who's name was found on the list have been suspended pending review as it is currently illegal to be both a police officer and a member of the BNP...the logic being that it is impossible for someone to belong to a group with views incompatible to the duties of a police officer.
However, is it right- especially considering freedom of political choice etc- for this restriction to exist? (If it is right should it be extended to all public offices, like teachers?)
Originally posted by Taomon
On their own time, police should have the right to join a racist group. However, any action deemed even slightly bigoted should be punishable as such and the membership taken as evidence against said police officer.
I like this. In Nebraska a Patrol Trooper (or something like that) was involved in the KKK and was fired for it. The official reason (I think) was the clan affiliation, but he ticketed an african american shortly before he was fired.
The only danger I can see is that an officer would be afraid to do their job and uphold the law if the offender was of non-white descent.
Yes they should be allowed to join whatever organization they wish. Their superiors should also be allowed to fire them for it.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
no they should not, they should be impartial hands of the law. Being in such an organization would allow people to play the race card against the pd, and would possibly lead to police officers becoming biased.
But apparently police officers being racists isn't a problem for you?
Originally posted by NonSensi-Klown
No one can rant like DK can.
What makes my rants less effective is that the further into them I get the more spelling mistakes I make. By the time I've said all of it, I'm too lazy to go back and correct my mistrokes.
But, I think everyone should have as much to say. Even if it's on the other side of the arrgument.
Originally posted by Devil King
What makes my rants less effective is that the further into them I get the more spelling mistakes I make. By the time I've said all of it, I'm too lazy to go back and correct my mistrokes.
I've always thought it was because you stop hitting enter and the rant becomes a nearly unreadable block of text.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
In the UK there has been controversy recently over the publication of the membership of the British Nationalist Party (a semi-neo nazi, racist group with quite a large representation in local government).Due to the publication of the member-list policy officers all over the country who's name was found on the list have been suspended pending review as it is currently illegal to be both a police officer and a member of the BNP...the logic being that it is impossible for someone to belong to a group with views incompatible to the duties of a police officer.
However, is it right- especially considering freedom of political choice etc- for this restriction to exist? (If it is right should it be extended to all public offices, like teachers?)
Wouldn't this party be contrary to what it means to be an officer of the law? I mean Police Officers are supposed to have a neutral stance on any system of indoctrination.
Originally posted by Stoic
Wouldn't this party be contrary to what it means to be an officer of the law? I mean Police Officers are supposed to have a neutral stance on any system of indoctrination.
Ideally, that's nice. But realistically speaking it's improbable, at the least. Especially when reconciled with the reality that a large number of cops become law enforcement officials because they have small penises and need to feel like they're still in high school. Not that they don't do it for their country, of course.