We're talking past each other.
The actions of the police whether they be right or wrong neither justifies nor adds sympathy to people setting grocery stores on fire and shit. People are saying that the looting is a triggered response to systematic oppression, but that's incorrect. Organized protesting with a clearly articulated message is a triggered response to systemic oppression. Looting and destroying peoples' property is taking advantage of chaos, and does nothing but shit on opportunities for a constructive dialogue.
Originally posted by TzeentchAll you have to do to become a civilian is to be born. I think the requirements to become a PEACE officer are a little more exclusive. I agree that there is a cycle but I wouldn't call it silly because somebody is getting rich off of it. The police and the civilians are victimized in the cycle, while some fatcat encourages reporting that will stir things up just to boost ratings.
If civilians are acting like criminals why would you expect the police to act like saints?It's kind of a silly cycle. That people are too stupid to realize the consequences of their actions doesn't justify them.
Originally posted by Tzeentch
We're talking past each other.The actions of the police whether they be right or wrong neither justifies nor adds sympathy to people setting grocery stores on fire and shit. People are saying that the looting is a triggered response to systematic oppression, but that's incorrect. Organized protesting with a clearly articulated message is a triggered response to systemic oppression. Looting and destroying peoples' property is taking advantage of chaos, and does nothing but shit on opportunities for a constructive dialogue.
Of course it's taking advantage. I don't what so ever agree with with looting and violence. But I think there is a lot more going on behind the scenes in west Baltimore. Violence and drugs and police trying to keep up with this leads to a lot of issues and frustration.
Killing this man in custody is a major issue. No such thing as Judge Dredd
Originally posted by The MISTERlol, this thread is getting dangerously close to a conspiracy thread.
All you have to do to become a civilian is to be born. I think the requirements to become a PEACE officer are a little more exclusive. I agree that there is a cycle but I wouldn't call it silly because somebody is getting rich off of it. The police and the civilians are victimized in the cycle, while some fatcat encourages reporting that will stir things up just to boost ratings.
Originally posted by Henry_PymWhat's really funny is that the media will openly blame the media for stirring things up! Remember the Trayvon Martin media fiasco? Nobody believes that Al Sharpton cares about much more than grabbing the media spotlight by whatever means necessary but he still boosted some ratings regardless and made somebody more money. Whoever made that money would be crazy not to encourage their reporters to report everything that the man says. I'm actually surprised about how little those instigators (him and Jesse) have had to say recently. Not that I want to hear what they have to say.
lol, this thread is getting dangerously close to a conspiracy thread.
Originally posted by Mindset
Why do people act like the founding fathers were omniscient?
Better question is why some people on this forum are so arrogant to think that they know what's better for our country than the founding fathers did? They experienced first hand how government having too much power corrupted it. Giving the central government increased power would multiply our problems tenfold. It's already corrupt enough. We sure don't want to make it worse.
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Did you forget that the framers of the constitution wanted to limit the powers of the central government. So what you are saying is:"The founders and framers of the constitution wanted it this way, but hey they had no clue what they are doing, and we need more power to the central government, even though this was exactly what they were afraid of."
Where did you get the idea that a ll powerful central government was a great thing even though they were very specific in limiting their powers in the beginning?
Let's make a list of things the Founding Fathers believed in:
A gold backed currency (no longer economically viable)
Slavery
Extremely limited male suffrage and no women's suffrage
Avoiding permanent alliances (most likely this would have included keeping America from joining (of founding for that matter) the United Nations, which would mean we'd still be in the pre-WW2 era where nations are constantly conquering each other)
On the issue of the Native Americans, it's very difficult to nail down the founders' original policy, as there was no unified policy, but even the most enlightened among them probably envisioned quietly assimilating/breeding the Natives out of existence.
And on the issue at hand, the power of the central government, most of the founders originally had such a fear of centralized authority that they created a government unable to govern (read up on the Articles of Confederation), and they had to dial back on this to ensure a cohesive country, so they were misguided there as well.
Back to the present, I challenge you to propose a credible alternative to increased federal oversight to stamp out local police corruption. Or do you really believe that these police are abusing their power because a liberal is in the White House?
Originally posted by Star428
Better question is why some people on this forum are so arrogant to think that they know what's better for our country than the founding fathers did? They experienced first hand how government having too much power corrupted it. Giving the central government increased power would multiply our problems tenfold. It's already corrupt enough. We sure don't want to make it worse.
Originally posted by Star428That's not a better question.
Better question is why some people on this forum are so arrogant to think that they know what's better for our country than the founding fathers did? They experienced first hand how government having too much power corrupted it. Giving the central government increased power would multiply our problems tenfold. It's already corrupt enough. We sure don't want to make it worse.
Also, we have the advantage of not living ~250 years in the past. If you think the founding fathers wouldn't have different views now than they did in the 1700's, I don't know what to tell you.
Anyway, OV is smarter than all of those bozos combined, you jabroni.
Originally posted by Mindset
That's not a better question.Also, we have the advantage of not living ~250 years in the past. If you think the founding fathers wouldn't have different views now than they did in the 1700's, I don't know what to tell you.
Anyway, OV is smarter than all of those bozos combined, you jabroni.
I don't think there's a single other industrialized country in the world (except maybe Russia or China) where there a large segment of the society earnestly believes that their historical leaders who lived in the time before electric communications and antibiotics would somehow be able to not only run their modern nation, but do a better job than the current leaders.
Originally posted by Mindset
That's not a better question.
Oh, it most certainly is and I question any American's loyalty who says otherwise. I'm just glad that people like u and socialists like OV have no say in deciding the matter. Fortunately, there are still many true Americans left who treat the Constitution with the respect it deserves as a binding document for all-time. 🙂
TR is a strange president. On the one hand he did more than any other president in history to make America the world power it is today (he also basically laid the groundwork for the National Park service, government regulation of business, and social welfare programs), yet on the other hand he was literally batshit insane and once threatened to go to war with a South American country because two drunk US marines had gotten arrested there for starting a barroom brawl.