Hypocrisy in action...

[mlingley]

Ok.. I find this ironic more than anything.

In school and growing up I was always told that if your honest it would always be the best course of action. Honesty is the best policy. Your supposed to be rewarded for being truthful... right?

If you've every had an encounter with the law then you know that a police officer will lie his ass off in order to get you to give up your rights. To me this is hyporisy. Especially since we're supposed to look up to and respect the law. But how can you respect someone or something that lies and manipulates people. To me that isn't a very nice thing to do to someone.

[phoenix_fire]

Don't forget intimidation. Jerks.

[tinybear]

But we'll miss them if they go on strike.

[Osborn F Enready]

I won't.

Neither would any other self-respecting, armed, self-responsible American.

[Meliorative]

Yeah, seriously.. wouldn't miss them one bit.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I won't. Neither would any other self-respecting, armed, self-responsible American.

See, you just love to bait me Osborn. I respect myself and I am also responsible and yet, I would miss them if they went on strike. Why is it that you insist that only people who think like you have self respect or are responsible. That is very un-american. Some people would rather pursue knowledge and advance their minds than sit on their front porch with a sawed off shotgun looking for "lackbooted federal thugs" to shoot.

[Osborn F Enready]

Isbskins said: See, you just love to bait me Osborn.

I say:
No bait there, that was a well qualified and grounded statement of fact.

Isbskins said: I respect myself and I am also responsible and yet, I would miss them if they went on strike.

I say:
Are you armed? That was PART of the same sentence, which constitutes a complete thought.

Isbskins said: Why is it that you insist that only people who think like you have self respect or are responsible.

I say:
I didn't say that. Responsibility has to do with being able to be responsible for ones actions, as well as for ones own protection. All people have the right of that protection, and some choose to "waive" that right. That is their choice, but it DOES remove their OPTION of being SELF RESPONSIBLE for their own protection, which puts them as a LIABILITY in the case of the LUXURY of POLICE PROTECTION BEING REMOVED.

So, in THE true sense, ONLY ARMED citizens ARE responsible, since ONLY THEY have a means to react to government, OR enemy threat AGAINST THEIR RIGHTS as citizens.

Isbskins said: That is very un-american. Some people would rather pursue knowledge and advance their minds than sit on their front porch with a sawed off shotgun looking for "lackbooted federal thugs" to shoot

I say:
That is in no way, resembling what I said, implied or intended with my statement, thank you very much.

Since when does having an arm for protection mean you are FORCED by society, nature or any other means, to sit and wait for "jackbooted thugs" to come and present themselves as targets?

You may have "seen" a bait there, but it was only your own logic trying to unravel the illogical premises you have about firearms and their role in preserving, protecting and exercising individual liberty.

My city, my area, my friends and neigbors, as well as my family have LIVED THROUGH a police and fire strike in our city. The world didn't end, and crime wasn't OUT OF CONTROL! That is all your illusion.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: lsbskins1 See, you just love to bait me Osborn. I respect myself and I am also responsible and yet, I would miss them if they went on strike. Why is it that you insist that only people who think like you have self respect or are responsible. That is very un-american. Some people would rather pursue knowledge and advance their minds than sit on their front porch with a sawed off shotgun looking for "lackbooted federal thugs" to shoot.

Up to your old tricks I see.


Paint a picture out of the deep recesses of your dark imagination, and then attempt to link them to the opposition somehow, or attribute the points them by getting them to defend absurd positions you create.


Nice try. Very conducive of good debate.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I say: No bait there, that was a well qualified and grounded statement of fact. I say: Are you armed? That was PART of the same sentence, which constitutes a complete thought. I say: I didn't say that. Responsibility has to do with being able to be responsible for ones actions, as well as for ones own protection. All people have the right of that protection, and some choose to "waive" that right. That is their choice, but it DOES remove their OPTION of being SELF RESPONSIBLE for their own protection, which puts them as a LIABILITY in the case of the LUXURY of POLICE PROTECTION BEING REMOVED. So, in THE true sense, ONLY ARMED citizens ARE responsible, since ONLY THEY have a means to react to government, OR enemy threat AGAINST THEIR RIGHTS as citizens. I say: That is in no way, resembling what I said, implied or intended with my statement, thank you very much. Since when does having an arm for protection mean you are FORCED by society, nature or any other means, to sit and wait for "jackbooted thugs" to come and present themselves as targets? You may have "seen" a bait there, but it was only your own logic trying to unravel the illogical premises you have about firearms and their role in preserving, protecting and exercising individual liberty. My city, my area, my friends and neigbors, as well as my family have LIVED THROUGH a police and fire strike in our city. The world didn't end, and crime wasn't OUT OF CONTROL! That is all your illusion.

So, (in spite of what you imply) it is not only my immagination that led me to believe that you believe the only truely responsible citizens are armed citizens. That is what you meant. So Milton can kiss my tail. You also assume I would sit in my house, quaking in fear when and if the police went on strike. I would not. But, I have the brains to realize that a trained, professional police force is not inherently evil and my desire to have said force does not constitute an abdication of my civic duties. My rhetoric is no more over the top than yours. Do we have to have this same diversionary argument every time I post a response to you? We both use hyperbole and the taking of philosopical points to extemes to point out where we believe the other's logic fails. You do it when you claim I would be afraid to leave my house without police protection, I do it when I say you are on the porch with a sawed off shotgun. Tit for tat. I do not accuse you of trying to avoid the issue at hand when you do it. Why do you find it necessary to accuse me? Any way...

You know how you love capitalism. One of it's main tenenants is the idea of the division of labor. Specialization, you know, for efficiency. See how that can apply to firemen and teachers and policemen and line workers on the factory floor? A group of trained, specialized professionals, efficently accomplishing their own individual task within the greater capitalist society. You should go with that idea. It is one of the many capitalistic theories that I happen to believe make good sense. If you don't, you must hate capitalism and if you hate capitalism, you must hate AMERICA! What is wrong with you. See, I did it again. Used exageration for effect... think you can resond to the idea of it being reasonable to want a trained police force rather than blathering about how I accused you of hating America? We'll see.

[Osborn F Enready]

Isbskins said: So, (in spite of what you imply) it is not only my immagination that led me to believe that you believe the only truely responsible citizens are armed citizens. That is what you meant.

I say:
Do you or do you not accept that YOUR SAFETY is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY?

If YOUR safety is not YOUR responsibility, then whose is it? Is it even remotely possible in reality, for them to prevent crime 100% of the time? If the answer is no, they can not reasonably expect to argue to be able to supercede my right to protect myself, by an equal force that is unjustly projected at me. (as if my rights COULD be superceded.... LOL )

It is that simple.

Our system is based on individual responsibility. Your safety is YOUR responsibility, and YOU can trade it off to someone else AT YOUR OWN RISK if you choose, but I will not.

The police are there to investigate crime, and they have been shown some use in deterrence. They are not there to PREVENT crime.

Isbskins said: You also assume I would sit in my house, quaking in fear when and if the police went on strike. I would not.

I say:
Either way I would not care what YOU chose to do for YOURSELF.

Isbskins said: I do not accuse you of trying to avoid the issue at hand when you do it. Why do you find it necessary to accuse me?

I say:
Read the last two posts above I made in reply to you. You are avoiding the issue that personal safety can't be guaranteed by anyone, except yourself, and then the guarantee is only as good as your skill to be able to do so, and the ability to do so by having the means. Our systems law is built on that individual responsibility.

Isbskins said: You know how you love capitalism. One of it's main tenenants is the idea of the division of labor. Specialization, you know, for efficiency. See how that can apply to firemen and teachers and policemen and line workers on the factory floor? A group of trained, specialized professionals, efficently accomplishing their own individual task within the greater capitalist society. You should go with that idea. It is one of the many capitalistic theories that I happen to believe make good sense. If you don't, you must hate capitalism and if you hate capitalism, you must hate AMERICA! What is wrong with you. See, I did it again. Used exageration for effect... think you can resond to the idea of it being reasonable to want a trained police force rather than blathering about how I accused you of hating America? We'll see.

I say:
I dont want to play "lets de-rail the thread game" or get lost in analogies. Let's just address the one issue of personal, individual responsibility.

[Zhavric]

The moral of the story is don't run afoul of teh law.

[Osborn F Enready]

I think the clear moral of the story is "the people" control the law, and if they let it run "afoul" on its own, they may perish in again attempting to rectify it.

That is why law-making is supposed to be a long, drawn out process, and not the stroke of the Preidents pen.

Executive Order is the signal of clear tyranny.

[brien]

Quote by: mlingley Ok.. I find this ironic more than anything. In school and growing up I was always told that if your honest it would always be the best course of action. Honesty is the best policy. Your supposed to be rewarded for being truthful... right? If you've every had an encounter with the law then you know that a police officer will lie his ass off in order to get you to give up your rights. To me this is hyporisy. Especially since we're supposed to look up to and respect the law. But how can you respect someone or something that lies and manipulates people. To me that isn't a very nice thing to do to someone.

Bob Dylan sang: "The Cops don't need you and man they expect the same."

I stay out of their way and therefore, they stay out of mine.

As far as cops going on strike, first off, they aren't allowed to by law. Second, the only people who would perhaps miss them would be the lawyers.

Added in edit:

I live in an area that has too many State police and not enough crime. The police therefore tend to create criminals from otherwise law abiding people, like young men riding around in cars. They stop anyone under 30 years old and if they can't find a reasonable violation of the law, they will create one. Meanwhile, Hartford Connecticut, some 40 miles west, is one of the murder capitals of the USA. A week doesn't go by without young men shooting each other in the North end. Yet when Mayor Perez asked Gov Jodi Rell to beef up the patrols with the SP to help the city police, she refused to help.

Meanwhile, the "Troop D" guys in my area continue to create criminals out of ordinary citizens in eastern Connecticut. Wonderful.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: brien As far as cops going on strike, first off, they aren't allowed to by law. Second, the only people who would perhaps miss them would be the lawyers.

Hmmm, I don't know about that.


We had a Police strike in Toledo in the 80's. I don't remember all the details, but it lasted long enough to know no significant crime wave happened as a result. Most people just drove a little faster on the way to work.

Quote by: brien Added in edit: I live in an area that has too many State police and not enough crime. The police therefore tend to create criminals from otherwise law abiding people, like young men riding around in cars. They stop anyone under 30 years old and if they can't find a reasonable violation of the law, they will create one. Meanwhile, Hartford Connecticut, some 40 miles west, is one of the murder capitals of the USA. A week doesn't go by without young men shooting each other in the North end. Yet when Mayor Perez asked Gov Jodi Rell to beef up the patrols with the SP to help the city police, she refused to help. Meanwhile, the "Troop D" guys in my area continue to create criminals out of ordinary citizens in eastern Connecticut. Wonderful.

We have a certain amount Police created criminals here as well. Sometimes I think it's purely a fund raising tactic, other times I think they are creating a paper trail to "prove" that they "need" all these people doing those jobs. Either way, they seem like a larger threat to my everyday life than the "bad guys" they claim to be fighting. Bad guys I can fight, but the law, well...

[brien]

[quote=Milton Bradley]Hmmm, I don't know about that.


We had a Police strike in Toledo in the 80's. I don't remember all the details, but it lasted long enough to know no significant crime wave happened as a result. Most people just drove a little faster on the way to work.



Milton: So were the cops breaking any laws as happened in the garbage strike in NYC? I was under the impression that public servants that are tied to the "public safety", ie police and fireman, weren't allowed to strike but rather are subject to binding arbitration by a third party. Perhaps this policy is not as widely implemented as I thought.

I crusied around a bit, no pun intended, and couldn't come up with any background on this strike. Do you have any links?

In any event, the cops could strike all they wan't and I am sure not too many people would miss them.

[Osborn F Enready]

Brien, this is the only link I could find on it.

http://openweb.tvnews.vanderbilt.edu...-01-CBS-3.html

The strike was in 1979.

[brien]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Brien, this is the only link I could find on it. http://openweb.tvnews.vanderbilt.edu...-01-CBS-3.html The strike was in 1979.

Thanks OS. It is interesting that the cops were linked with other Municipal Workers. A good way for the Public Works Dept to get some action when they require it. No one is holding a candle to the City of Toledo, eh?

[Osborn F Enready]

Toledo is the biggest one horse town this side of Old Miss.

[brien]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Toledo is the biggest one horse town this side of Old Miss.

I remember driving through on my way back home to Vermont in the 80's and thinking, "wow, what a hole." Who lives here and how do they survive? "I was so much older then I am younger than that now" *

*Bob Dylan

[Osborn F Enready]

brien said: Who lives here and how do they survive?

I say:
Hell, I live here, and when I was cleaning windows professionally I wondered the exact same thing.

We have a ton of empty housing at the lower income levels, but the upper-income housing is doing fairly well. (currently there are over 60,000 house on the market in our area.) That is because most of the factory workers are being, or have been put out of work. All the upper income houses are the homes of refinery workers, doctors (Medical College of Ohio is here), bankers, construction company owners, and local fortune 500 companies executive staffs.

Our current governor Taft, in Ohio, has a long "family" link to the "development, and ratification of the 16th amendment" and the idea of income tax as we know it. As his family before him, he is also corrupt and working hard to suppress the working people of the state.