An Epidemic of "Isolated Incidents"

Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 12:16 am

An interesting map of Botched Paramilitary Police Raids.

http://www.cato.org/raidmap/

Much of it a part of the "War on Drugs".

This one and the "War on Poverty" I would support "redeployment" on. Wink

Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 7:15 am

No Knock raids are stupid. They invite gunfire exchanges with honest citizens. If police don't identify themselves then how is any normal person to know the difference between a police officer and someone who just put on a mask and welds a gun on his or her property. The whole war on drugs is pointless, a useless load of bollox. Prohibition simply does not work. Reading these accounts made me sick. Waco made me sick. This is America?

Several of those raids appear to be simply to frame and acquire the legal property of honest citizens. The fact that we have a law on the books that gives all property and assets seized to the police without benefit of a trial is a blot on the constitution of this county and the so-called freedom we are supposed to have.

Thank you for posting this Saitou. A wake-up call indeed.

Thinker Joined: Nov 12, 2006 Posts: 423

Saitou wrote:

An interesting map of Botched Paramilitary Police Raids.

http://www.cato.org/raidmap/

Much of it a part of the "War on Drugs".

This one and the "War on Poverty" I would support "redeployment" on. Wink

Two totally different things. Fight poverty and you wouldn't need a war on drugs.

Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 2:22 am

...because then everyone could afford the good stuff? Shocked

seriously, what do you mean, SJC?

Thinker Joined: Nov 12, 2006 Posts: 423

Moloth wrote:

...because then everyone could afford the good stuff? Shocked

seriously, what do you mean, SJC?

Many turn to drugs/alcohol, or worse religion, because of hopelessness and despair. Poverty is a main cause of this. No, Saitou, this doesn't mean that we should let them "suckle at the tit of the state". All it means is that the state should provide for the basic necessaries for those who can't afford them.

Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:04 am

I wouldn't say that religion is worse than drugs and alcohol. Both things can be abused.

There are millions of people who live in poverty but don't make decisions that make their lives even worse. Someone who lives in poverty should do what they can to get out of it unless they are comfortable in poverty. If they have the opportunity to get out of poverty but do not make the effort the fault is their own. Of course this standard does not apply to children or the truly impaired.

The state can't provide for people anything without confiscating it from others. I can support the state helping those who can't help themselves but not just people who can't afford things because they are too lazy to work.

You should be working based on what I know of your disability. I often think you are such a strong supporter of socialism because you personally benefit and get so angry about people who criticize those who take rather than produce because you are a taker. If I were a taker I'd be ashamed if I didn't make an effort to support myself.

Thinker Joined: Nov 12, 2006 Posts: 423

Saitou wrote:

I wouldn't say that religion is worse than drugs and alcohol. Both things can be abused.

There are millions of people who live in poverty but don't make decisions that make their lives even worse. Someone who lives in poverty should do what they can to get out of it unless they are comfortable in poverty. If they have the opportunity to get out of poverty but do not make the effort the fault is their own. Of course this standard does not apply to children or the truly impaired.

They don't have the skills which is not their fault. It is really selfish to blame the poor for being poor. As I had said before, your attitude is "If they don't have bread then let them eat cake."

Quote:

The state can't provide for people anything without confiscating it from others. I can support the state helping those who can't help themselves but not just people who can't afford things because they are too lazy to work.

Also, as I've said, your problem is that you're afraid that people want your things.

Quote:

You should be working based on what I know of your disability. I often think you are such a strong supporter of socialism because you personally benefit and get so angry about people who criticize those who take rather than produce because you are a taker. If I were a taker I'd be ashamed if I didn't make an effort to support myself.

No, I support it because it involves human compassion and empathy. Things you seem to lack.

BTW, since you brought it up in order to throw it in my face, as I get older my disabilities are getting worse and worse. My health is in steady decline. One of which is my sight. When I have to read the screen I have to be at lease a couple inches away from it. I just found out that I also have some kidney damage as well. I'm constantly at my doctor's now. One which I wouldn't be able to afford under your kind of system since I wouldn't qualify for the proper insurance.

Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 1:16 pm

What about rich people who use illegal (and legal) drugs?

Its not just the poor that use them. People from every economic strata use them... the rich have coke and prescription drugs and the poor have crack and meth.

Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 2:24 pm

I'm middle class, so I use both classes' drugs Shocked

Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 3:18 pm

sjc wrote:

Quote:

The state can't provide for people anything without confiscating it from others. I can support the state helping those who can't help themselves but not just people who can't afford things because they are too lazy to work.

Also, as I've said, your problem is that you're afraid that people want your things.

He wants to keep the things he's earned, and you want someone to steal them. How exactly is he the greedy one here?

sjc wrote:

Quote:

You should be working based on what I know of your disability. I often think you are such a strong supporter of socialism because you personally benefit and get so angry about people who criticize those who take rather than produce because you are a taker. If I were a taker I'd be ashamed if I didn't make an effort to support myself.

No, I support it because it involves human compassion and empathy. Things you seem to lack.

Yes, if someone doesn't support your method of "helping" the poor, they don't want them helped at all. Rolling Eyes

It's almost as if you think that someone who doesn't want the government producing food doesn't want people to eat at all.

sjc wrote:

BTW, since you brought it up in order to throw it in my face, as I get older my disabilities are getting worse and worse.

Say, is their something about your illness that precludes logical thought and makes you constantly regurgitate Lou Dobbs' talking points?

Thinker Joined: Nov 12, 2006 Posts: 423

Moloth wrote:

What about rich people who use illegal (and legal) drugs?

Its not just the poor that use them. People from every economic strata use them... the rich have coke and prescription drugs and the poor have crack and meth.

You'll find more of the poor on drugs than rich, and just not because there are more poor people. I never said that this was the cause of all drug problems.

Thinker Joined: Nov 12, 2006 Posts: 423

offsprng46 wrote:

He wants to keep the things he's earned, and you want someone to steal them. How exactly is he the greedy one here?

No wonder the USA is in such a mess with an attitude like that.

Quote:

Yes, if someone doesn't support your method of "helping" the poor, they don't want them helped at all. Rolling Eyes

It's almost as if you think that someone who doesn't want the government producing food doesn't want people to eat at all.

One gets the impression that that is the case.

Quote:

Say, is their something about your illness that precludes logical thought and makes you constantly regurgitate Lou Dobbs' talking points?

Better Lou Dobbs than a flaming hypocrite like Rush Limbough. i.e. Michael J. Fox...... How low is someone who has to attack another through their disabilities?

One of the main reasons why the Republicans lost was because of their attitude toward the poor in America. People just had enough of that arrogance and policy of personal destruction of those who don't see it their way.

Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2006 12:05 am

sjc wrote:

Moloth wrote:

What about rich people who use illegal (and legal) drugs?

Its not just the poor that use them. People from every economic strata use them... the rich have coke and prescription drugs and the poor have crack and meth.

You'll find more of the poor on drugs than rich, and just not because there are more poor people. I never said that this was the cause of all drug problems.

can you define "drug problems"?
meaning, what is a drug "problem" and what is "okay" drug use?
Beer?
tobacco?
pot?
coke?
herion?
Meth?

what someone only uses them occasionally? is that okay? when is it "abuse"?

Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2006 12:33 am

sjc wrote:

offsprng46 wrote:

He wants to keep the things he's earned, and you want someone to steal them. How exactly is he the greedy one here?

No wonder the USA is in such a mess with an attitude like that.

Quote:

Yes, if someone doesn't support your method of "helping" the poor, they don't want them helped at all. Rolling Eyes

It's almost as if you think that someone who doesn't want the government producing food doesn't want people to eat at all.

One gets the impression that that is the case.

Quote:

Say, is their something about your illness that precludes logical thought and makes you constantly regurgitate Lou Dobbs' talking points?

Better Lou Dobbs than a flaming hypocrite like Rush Limbough. i.e. Michael J. Fox...... How low is someone who has to attack another through their disabilities?

One of the main reasons why the Republicans lost was because of their attitude toward the poor in America. People just had enough of that arrogance and policy of personal destruction of those who don't see it their way.

You should be KICKED RIGHT OUT of society if you want to keep everything you earned to the exclusion of wanting to help society by giving back to it out of compassion. There is truly something wrong with you, something broken, if you want to jsut keep everything you (supposedly) earned. In my mind, the sociopathic money-glutton should be stripped of all assets...for the betterment of all.

Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2006 12:59 am

sjc wrote:

They don't have the skills which is not their fault. It is really selfish to blame the poor for being poor. As I had said before, your attitude is "If they don't have bread then let them eat cake."

Who's fault is it that they don't have skills? There are many kinds of jobs people can do and college isn't the only way to acquire skills. The vast majority of my skills were learned by self instruction.

sjc wrote:

Also, as I've said, your problem is that you're afraid that people want your things.

I don't mind paying some taxes and I don't mind helping people out. What I do mind is paying people to sit on their asses and become dependant on the government. Why encourage people to not achieve and do for themselves?

sjc wrote:

No, I support it because it involves human compassion and empathy. Things you seem to lack.

The more I talk to strong advocates of socialism the more I'm convinced that these people are less compassionate themselves and more interested in not having to compete, getting something for nothing, not having to do hard work, and just envious of people who have more than themselves. If people want to be compassionate they can donate their time or money to help others quite easily.

sjc wrote:

BTW, since you brought it up in order to throw it in my face, as I get older my disabilities are getting worse and worse.

I'm not throwing your disabilities in your face but I am pointing out that you're a taker and not a producer. If you are going to claim I support my position because I want to keep my stuff (which I earned) then I can respond that you have your position because you benefit from a transferal of wealth to you from others (which they earned and you did not).

sjc wrote:

My health is in steady decline. One of which is my sight. When I have to read the screen I have to be at lease a couple inches away from it.

Same here if I don't wear my glasses.

sjc wrote:

I just found out that I also have some kidney damage as well. I'm constantly at my doctor's now. One which I wouldn't be able to afford under your kind of system since I wouldn't qualify for the proper insurance.

I live under my kind of system and I can afford health care for 4 people including myself.

So, your disabilities prevent you from working at a computer all day but not being at a computer all day? My mom's over 50, she's not in the best of health but she's trying to get her doctors to get her so she can go back to work. You on the other hand are probably the type who embraces their problems as a child might cling to a stuffed animal.

My country needs strong rugged individualist capitalist types and not weak socialist types to prosper. USA socialists and wimps please move to Canada.


Create an account	Home · Articles · Downloads · Video Library · Forums · Chat Room · aStore