The hero warrior cop is ready to get roided up, rape, and drink and drive - Page 160 - Miata Turbo Forum -Boost cars, acquire cats.

Welcome to Miataturbo.net   Members
 


Current Events, News, Politics Keep the politics here.

Reply
 
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-07-2014, 11:20 PM   #3181
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
 
Joe Perez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 24,681
Total Cats: 1,576
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Braineack View Post
Are you actually positing that they don't?
I asked whether or not you were asserting that they did. You didn't answer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Braineack View Post
This is america. Are you suggesting that criminals, thugs, and the homeless are not american citizens with inalienable rights and equal protection under the law?
First off, it's America, with a capital A.

Second, I don't have to suggest it, it's pretty well established in both the modern criminal and civil law systems. And this goes not just here, but in most "western" nations with systems of government and ideals of civil liberty comparable to (and often more effectively implemented and protected than) our own.

I'd go one step further and suggest that those who refuse to contribute to their society ought to be purged from it, but this is the "let's bash the police" thread, not the "let's discuss the pros and cons of eugenics" thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Braineack View Post
just because of your prejustices against anyone that doesn't have blonde hair and blue eyes...
I realize that we've never actually met in person, but based on my last name, what color might you guess my hair and eyes are?




Quote:
Originally Posted by dieselmiata View Post
Are you claiming that I should not have the same rights / protections / civil liberties as other citizens because I was convicted of reckless driving 10 years ago?
I am pointing out the fairly obvious fact that if you habitually and persistently engage in criminal and antisocial behavior, you forfeit certain protections and liberties.

People who are in prison, for instance, are by definition deprived of liberty. (Look up the definition of "liberty" in the dictionary. It pretty much means the opposite of being locked up.)

Or are you saying that it's completely wrong to put people in prison?




Quote:
Originally Posted by Davezorz View Post
I thought it was an oddly ambiguous comment from Joe, he is normally exceptionally specific in his posts.
I find that it is often a most effective means of communicating an idea to posit a question rather than to make a statement.
Joe Perez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2014, 03:54 AM   #3182
Junior Member
 
Craig66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 283
Total Cats: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Perez View Post


But, in all seriousness (and not related to the specific post above), are we actually positing that criminals, thugs and the homeless have the same rights / protections / civil liberties as citizens?
Would that be convicted homeless or merely accused?
Craig66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2014, 06:59 AM   #3183
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
 
Joe Perez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 24,681
Total Cats: 1,576
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig66 View Post
Would that be convicted homeless or merely accused?
While there are some jurisdictions within the US which criminalize the act of homelessness, this is entirely tangential, and to fixate upon it is to miss the larger point; If a person is serially and habitually unproductive and a drain upon society's resources, then that person has not earned the same privileges and protections as a citizen.

If you want to sleep under a bridge and panhandle all day, then that's fine and I won't try to stop you. But don't expect the same treatment otherwise as everyone else who is making a contribution to the society in which they live. This is entirely consistent with the Marxist-Anarchist philosophy which Scott et. al., espouse in the matter.
Joe Perez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2014, 01:12 PM   #3184
Junior Member
 
Craig66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 283
Total Cats: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Perez View Post
While there are some jurisdictions within the US which criminalize the act of homelessness, this is entirely tangential, and to fixate upon it is to miss the larger point; If a person is serially and habitually unproductive and a drain upon society's resources, then that person has not earned the same privileges and protections as a citizen.

If you want to sleep under a bridge and panhandle all day, then that's fine and I won't try to stop you. But don't expect the same treatment otherwise as everyone else who is making a contribution to the society in which they live. This is entirely consistent with the Marxist-Anarchist philosophy which Scott et. al., espouse in the matter.
You would have it that The Bill of Rights is privilege that is earned?
Fixate?
I don't want to sleep under a bridge and do not know that the people who sleep where they can find actually want that lifestyle.
Since you seem to be one of the folks who figure that the homeless have no right to be anywhere, what do you propose to be done with them? Maybe they could be punished until the become smarter and sane and well adjusted?

Do you judge criminals as one and all pretty much the same and as undeserving?

LOL - I have pointed out to the Christians that Jesus was homeless and advocated that his followers could be as well. They just get mad at me.
Christians have a strange doublethink on the issue though.
Craig66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2014, 02:06 PM   #3185
Boost Czar

iTrader: (60)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 70,179
Total Cats: 1,402
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Perez View Post
If you want to sleep under a bridge and panhandle all day, then that's fine and I won't try to stop you. But don't expect the same treatment otherwise as everyone else who is making a contribution to the society in which they live. This is entirely consistent with the Marxist-Anarchist philosophy which Scott et. al., espouse in the matter.
While we have never met in person, If you've ever read any of my posts, would you ever think I'd ever support anything marxist?

Quote:
While there are some jurisdictions within the US which criminalize the act of homelessness, this is entirely tangential, and to fixate upon it is to miss the larger point; If a person is serially and habitually unproductive and a drain upon society's resources, then that person has not earned the same privileges and protections as a citizen.
obamacare.

Last edited by Braineack; 10-08-2014 at 02:25 PM.
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2014, 03:41 PM   #3186
Destroyer of Inconel
iTrader: (37)
 
EO2K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: In ur driveway, abusin' ur WPA
Posts: 8,767
Total Cats: 752
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by z31maniac View Post
Just to be pedantic, that would be a convicted FELON.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Davezorz View Post
not true for gun rights, off the top of my head:
Being convicted of a misdemeanor that has a maximum sentence of more than 1 year in prison
Any kind of misdemeanor domestic violence conviction.
That is why those specific questions are on the ATF form 4473.
Just to be more pedantic, this is true at the STATE level depending on the STATE. For California, Felony conviction = no guns, no voting.

In fact, when people ask me if I'm registered to vote or if I can sign their petition, I tell them no. When they ask why, I tell them convicted felon. Then I give them the crazy eye.
EO2K is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2014, 03:52 PM   #3187
Boost Czar

iTrader: (60)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 70,179
Total Cats: 1,402
Default

I tell people im a republican...that typically stops them.
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2014, 10:54 PM   #3188
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
 
Joe Perez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 24,681
Total Cats: 1,576
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig66 View Post
You would have it that The Bill of Rights is privilege that is earned?
Well, there are two ways to look at that question.


One would be to say that of course the undesirables can still have due process, trial by jury, etc., prior to their exclusion.


Another would be to point out that at the time that the US Bill of Rights was written (1789-1791), its provisions were understood by the authors to apply only to citizens, which was mostly read as consisting of free white adult males. All other persons (women, slaves, children) were exempt from its protections.

So in that regard, all we really need to do is return to a more traditionalist interpretation, in which those individuals unfit to function as citizens are relieved of the burden of citizenship. Think Starship Troopers (yes, the movie was awful. But they managed to keep that bit of social commentary mostly intact.)

There are certainly valid objections to such an interpretation (Civil Rights Act of 1866, 13th, 14th & 19th Amendments, etc), however that's what SCOTUS is for.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig66 View Post
Since you seem to be one of the folks who figure that the homeless have no right to be anywhere, what do you propose to be done with them? Maybe they could be punished until the become smarter and sane and well adjusted?
No, centuries of attempted rehabilitation have proven the futility of attempting to correct the behavior of those persons genuinely unfit to function as member of society, whether by punitive measures or by "rehabilitation."

This idea, that broken people can and should be fixed, is a fairly modern concept. Throughout most of human history, various forums of what can best be described as social Darwanism have dictated that those unfit to participate in society be removed from it. In the earliest of days, they might have been slaughtered outright, or left to die of starvation. Later, in the 1600s, "Transportation" arose as a more "humane" method of dealing with undesireables, wherein they were simply shipped somewhere else. (American colonies, Australia, Ceti Alpha V, etc.)

Of course, today pretty much everywhere that we can reasonably stick people is either full or protected by international convention. So, realistically speaking, what can you do with someone who habitually refuses to work, obey the laws, etc? You can feed 'em a never-ending stream of social services, but that doesn't accomplish much. You pretty much just have to kill 'em.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig66 View Post
Do you judge criminals as one and all pretty much the same and as undeserving?
No.

Do you judge all cars as one and pretty much the same?

For the purpose of this discussion, there are two basic classes of criminal; those who habitually and remorselessly offend, and those who do not. The latter can continue to enjoy the criminal justice system as it exists today, the former must be dealt with more efficiently. This philosophy worked well enough to get us from apes, through nomadic hunter-gatherer society, into and out of agrarianism, and finally to modern civilization as we know it today. It's only been within the past couple of hundred years that we, as a group, have decided that it's better to deliberately weaken our society by cultivating failed and detrimental members of it rather than allowing them to fall by the wayside as the strong and productive pass on their traits to the next generation.
Joe Perez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2014, 03:22 AM   #3189
Junior Member
 
Craig66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 283
Total Cats: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EO2K View Post
Just to be more pedantic, this is true at the STATE level depending on the STATE. For California, Felony conviction = no guns, no voting.

In fact, when people ask me if I'm registered to vote or if I can sign their petition, I tell them no. When they ask why, I tell them convicted felon. Then I give them the crazy eye.
California restores voting rights.
https://www.aclunc.org/vote

Keeps me out of jury duty though.
Craig66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2014, 03:33 AM   #3190
Junior Member
 
Craig66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 283
Total Cats: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Perez View Post
Well, there are two ways to look at that question.


One would be to say that of course the undesirables can still have due process, trial by jury, etc., prior to their exclusion.


Another would be to point out that at the time that the US Bill of Rights was written (1789-1791), its provisions were understood by the authors to apply only to citizens, which was mostly read as consisting of free white adult males. All other persons (women, slaves, children) were exempt from its protections.

So in that regard, all we really need to do is return to a more traditionalist interpretation, in which those individuals unfit to function as citizens are relieved of the burden of citizenship. Think Starship Troopers (yes, the movie was awful. But they managed to keep that bit of social commentary mostly intact.)

There are certainly valid objections to such an interpretation (Civil Rights Act of 1866, 13th, 14th & 19th Amendments, etc), however that's what SCOTUS is for.




No, centuries of attempted rehabilitation have proven the futility of attempting to correct the behavior of those persons genuinely unfit to function as member of society, whether by punitive measures or by "rehabilitation."

This idea, that broken people can and should be fixed, is a fairly modern concept. Throughout most of human history, various forums of what can best be described as social Darwanism have dictated that those unfit to participate in society be removed from it. In the earliest of days, they might have been slaughtered outright, or left to die of starvation. Later, in the 1600s, "Transportation" arose as a more "humane" method of dealing with undesireables, wherein they were simply shipped somewhere else. (American colonies, Australia, Ceti Alpha V, etc.)

Of course, today pretty much everywhere that we can reasonably stick people is either full or protected by international convention. So, realistically speaking, what can you do with someone who habitually refuses to work, obey the laws, etc? You can feed 'em a never-ending stream of social services, but that doesn't accomplish much. You pretty much just have to kill 'em.




No.

Do you judge all cars as one and pretty much the same?

For the purpose of this discussion, there are two basic classes of criminal; those who habitually and remorselessly offend, and those who do not. The latter can continue to enjoy the criminal justice system as it exists today, the former must be dealt with more efficiently. This philosophy worked well enough to get us from apes, through nomadic hunter-gatherer society, into and out of agrarianism, and finally to modern civilization as we know it today. It's only been within the past couple of hundred years that we, as a group, have decided that it's better to deliberately weaken our society by cultivating failed and detrimental members of it rather than allowing them to fall by the wayside as the strong and productive pass on their traits to the next generation.
Every time I see those arguments of return to some glorious past it does not sound so much like original notions of the founding father but as some approach to a form of fascism.
Killing witches was part of advancement that brought us to where we are today, too.
You people make me tired.
Craig66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2014, 09:24 AM   #3191
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Baton Rouge
Posts: 696
Total Cats: 17
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Perez View Post
Well, there are two ways to look at that question.


One would be to say that of course the undesirables can still have due process, trial by jury, etc., prior to their exclusion.


Another would be to point out that at the time that the US Bill of Rights was written (1789-1791), its provisions were understood by the authors to apply only to citizens, which was mostly read as consisting of free white adult males. All other persons (women, slaves, children) were exempt from its protections.

So in that regard, all we really need to do is return to a more traditionalist interpretation, in which those individuals unfit to function as citizens are relieved of the burden of citizenship. Think Starship Troopers (yes, the movie was awful. But they managed to keep that bit of social commentary mostly intact.)

i didnt read all of you guys comments, or the rest of the post, BUT

in the context you speak of, citizens were also the taxpayers in most cases (land owners). IE they 'had a dog in that hunt' when it came to federal budget. While I dont suggest we go back to blacks and wimmen not being able to vote....we do need a system where everyone pays taxes that is not the income tax. I think it would be the beginning to solving lots of problems in our country.
golftdibrad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2014, 09:31 AM   #3192
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,017
Total Cats: 42
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by golftdibrad View Post
i didnt read all of you guys comments, or the rest of the post, BUT

in the context you speak of, citizens were also the taxpayers in most cases (land owners). IE they 'had a dog in that hunt' when it came to federal budget. While I dont suggest we go back to blacks and wimmen not being able to vote....we do need a system where everyone pays taxes that is not the income tax. I think it would be the beginning to solving lots of problems in our country.
home - FairTax.org
z31maniac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2014, 10:54 AM   #3193
Boost Czar

iTrader: (60)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 70,179
Total Cats: 1,402
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by golftdibrad View Post
i didnt read all of you guys comments, or the rest of the post, BUT

in the context you speak of, citizens were also the taxpayers in most cases (land owners). IE they 'had a dog in that hunt' when it came to federal budget. While I dont suggest we go back to blacks and wimmen not being able to vote....we do need a system where everyone pays taxes that is not the income tax. I think it would be the beginning to solving lots of problems in our country.
what would paying taxes solve?
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2014, 11:12 AM   #3194
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Baton Rouge
Posts: 696
Total Cats: 17
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Braineack View Post
what would paying taxes solve?
the feedback loop for size of gov. if broken. most dont care cause they dont see it everyday.
golftdibrad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2014, 01:36 PM   #3195
Boost Czar

iTrader: (60)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 70,179
Total Cats: 1,402
Default

if those same people actually starting paying in, they'll just want even MORE.
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2014, 02:22 PM   #3196
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,337
Total Cats: 43
Default

I'm all in favor of golftdibrad paying more taxes so that I can pay less. I already pay for a least two people a month to get preventative care for free. Horay for equality.
Enginerd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2014, 02:26 PM   #3197
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Baton Rouge
Posts: 696
Total Cats: 17
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enginerd View Post
I'm all in favor of golftdibrad paying more taxes so that I can pay less. I already pay for a least two people a month to get preventative care for free. Horay for equality.
HA. no. 50% of my income is taken for taxes when its all said and done.

see the fairtax.org link.
golftdibrad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2014, 03:13 PM   #3198
Boost Czar

iTrader: (60)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 70,179
Total Cats: 1,402
Default

back on topic:

BBC News - White woman defends black man from US police

Quote:
Two Washington Metro Police officers - both black - were responding to a household burglary alarm in a posh District of Columbia neighbourhood and encountered a 64-year-old black man carrying two bags. When they questioned him, they say he became "loud and boisterous". They ordered him to the ground.

At that point, a local resident - a middle-aged white woman named Jody Westby - came out from her house and confronted the police.

She instructed her housekeeper to record the events. She said she knew the man - a local worker - and that the police had no right to detain him. She told the officers that she was a lawyer and, upon learning the address of the burglary report, that they weren't even on the right street.

She grabbed the detained man's hand and said she was leaving, telling the police to "please leave our neighbourhood".

The officer reluctantly let Ms Westby and the man go.

As she walked away, Ms Westby said: "Just because he's black doesn't mean he's here to rob a house. He works for us. He's been in this neighbourhood for 30 years."

Yates writes that the situation likely would have been much different if the incident had occurred in a less affluent neighbourhood or Ms Westby hadn't been white.

I find it interesting that taking people's money is a way to buy freedoms and also a punishment for a crime.
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2014, 03:14 PM   #3199
Sadfab Union President
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Kansas
Posts: 2,690
Total Cats: 114
Default

I nailed a deer in my Miata last night, doesn't sound too nuts, but I hit it smack dab in the middle of the city.



Up against the rail in the right lane, snuck up on me and I had nowhere to go so I punted the poor thing. He made it to the left turn lane, some nice people blocked the road so he wouldn't get creamed again. Those are KU dorms on the hill there, part of campus to the right.

The cops came, drug him to the side of the road, and "dispatched" him. He was unarmed, and couldn't even really move to fight back

When will the riots start? I need to steal a new fender.

Attached Thumbnails
The hero warrior cop is ready to get roided up, rape, and drink and drive-deer_zps08f28577.png   The hero warrior cop is ready to get roided up, rape, and drink and drive-img_20141009_102840_zpsc8b2d5a6.jpg  
deezums is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2014, 10:16 PM   #3200
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
 
Joe Perez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 24,681
Total Cats: 1,576
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig66 View Post
Every time I see those arguments of return to some glorious past it does not sound so much like original notions of the founding father but as some approach to a form of fascism.
Killing witches was part of advancement that brought us to where we are today, too.
You people make me tired.
Who said anything about pining for a return to the glorious past? You asked a specific question about a 220 year old document, and I responded in a way that provided the proper historical context for understanding it.

Don't complain when someone gives you a straight, on-topic answer.
Joe Perez is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Hello Everybody! (See Dr. Nick) NicDrilling Meet and Greet 16 01-26-2016 12:00 PM
White smoke help :( Minosum DIY Turbo Discussion 5 11-18-2015 01:18 AM
OE Toyota capacitor for COPS el maestro DIY Turbo Discussion 6 11-16-2015 11:01 PM
Greeting from yet another newb mazdarotty Meet and Greet 1 11-15-2015 09:54 AM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:53 AM.