Josie the Outlaw: Message to Police

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Why would I post the links for you?

Because you're the one making the statement, "TND, Please inform yourself on Good Samaritan laws." That's why. Either prove me wrong with the "truth" established with facts, or withdraw your public "request" that I inform myself. It is obvious you are the one who needs to inform herself, as I said. The rest of your post is too snippy and obnoxious to bother with. You have gotten repeatedly off-topic, mentioning the "student hugs teacher" video which I made no reference to nor even acknowledged, but I will say the incident has no bearing whatsoever on the original subject of this thread. The kid who hugged the teacher should face the consequences, whether school discipline or legal action. What he did has nothing to do with "bad laws enforced by unthinking cops," which I remind you is why you started this thread in the first place.

I also have to point out that, in all our exchanges this afternoon, you have failed to once address the accusation that you and Josie in the original video are expecting cops to arbitrarily determine not to enforce drug laws. Everyone knows by now that is the underlying issue with you in posting Josie's whiny video, so why do you keep changing the subject instead of addressing it head-on? Is this how you get when someone proves you to be somewhat less in touch than others?

 

[poncho]

It should be pretty evident to everyone reading this thread by now that there is no amount of evidence that TND would except as "proof". Not when all he has to do is dismiss everything as nonsense and ridiculous liberal tripe or conspiracy theory that doesn't fit his progressive authoritarian paradigm.

The bottom line here folks is this, these United States were founded on the idea of individual liberty and having a limited constitutional government to protect our liberties. All the restrictions in the constitution are on the government not on the people. The proper role of our government is to protect our liberties, maintain an even playing field so monopolies don't take over the economy and drown out the little guys and defend the country from attack. And that's pretty much it.

But our friend TND would have us believe those constitutional restrictions on government are negotiable and disposable because he believes, evidently that the proper role of government is to control and manage us all according to what ever situation arises at any given time whether real or promulgated.

I have chosen to stand for liberty and limited constitutional government where as TND has chosen to stand for big intrusive government and ever increasing government control over our lives. That is the polar opposite of liberty.

Which do you prefer?

 

[Gina B]

The link I clicked on, which was on your post, originally gave me a link for a student being suspended for a hug. It doesn't anymore. Apparently you know the video I'm speaking of with the student...whether it was posted by mistake and fixed or wrongly linked originally, I do not know.

I wonder why people on this board and elsewhere were extremely willing to either go through the video in the opening post with a fine toothed comb and take a bold stand against it, or were so disgusted they couldn't even watch.
By all accounts, the person talking is not a threat to anyone reading.
What would happen if people paid the same attention to government? What if they were just as willing to be disgusted so as to throw out the entire concept over a beginning disagreement? What if they really went through it all so very carefully and found they just could not agree? The concept of Joe the regular citizen/Josie the outlaw isn't collecting your taxes. Josie isn't enforcing laws. Josie isn't getting into your healthcare. Josie doesn't decide if your money goes to abortions. Josie isn't involved in foreign policy. Josie doesn't make a profit if you and your friends end up in court paying costs for something crazy.

Why do people seem more threatened by Josie than by the government?

 

[poncho]

My guess is they've learned to love the chains that bind them. They're used to being controlled and manipulated now and have become conditioned to fear freedom more than they resent tyranny. That and the government school system has dumbed us all down to the point where we'll pretty much believe what "authority figures" and "experts" tell us over what our own eyes and ears are telling us. You already learned that little trick from TND though right?

Most people believe they are alone and powerless to make any difference other than voting for the lesser of two evils every so often so they clam up put their head down and hope that big brother won't notice them.

But he has noticed them already and is training his minions to treat them as if they were all potential threats in an occupation zone instead of citizens in a free and independent nation. The police are even looking more and more like domestic military units rather than the peace officers of the 1950's. Actually they are starting to resemble Nazi storm troopers complete with military fatigues, black face masks, German sub machine guns and helmets that look for all the world to be standard WWII German infantry helmets a "high and tight" military haircut, and combat boots. It's all meant to intimidate and instill fear. Say good bye to officer Friendly that instilled a sense of trust and personal safety and hello to the "enforcer" warrior cop extraordinaire pumped up on steroids locked and loaded and ready to show those puny pencil necked "civilians" who's boss!

Here's a pdf copy of the MIAC report used to train police if you care to read it. Most won't though. It's too much of a hassle and TND? Well he'll probably just deny it even exists and call me a conspiracy theorist for posting a link to it. There are several other police training "aids" just like it have been uncovered so this isn't just an "isolated incidence".

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]However, it is the following statement contained in the MIAC report that is particularly disturbing to yours truly. Under the heading "Political Paraphernalia," the report states, "Militia members most commonly associate with 3rd party political groups. It is not uncommon for militia members to display Constitutional [sic] Party, Campaign for Liberty, or Libertarian material. These members are usually supporters of former Presidential Candidate [sic]: Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr."[/FONT][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]The obvious inference of the above statement links Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and myself to potential dangerous "militia members." The broader implication is that the millions of people who supported Ron Paul, Bob Barr, or myself are likewise categorized as potential dangerous "militia members." This is a classic case of broad-brushed police profiling. Can you imagine the fallout of this preposterous report had the names Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Maxine Waters been used instead of the names Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr?[/FONT]​

 

[InTheLight]

She is basically saying that the rule of law does not need to be followed at all times because some laws have been created that "declare some activities to be arbitrarily illegal." And she says that "doing the right thing even if it means breaking the law.... makes you a hero."

She is leaving the judgment as to what is right and what is wrong not in the hands of the law, not in the word of God, but to each individual as they see fit.

This is the definition of anarchy.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

The link I clicked on, which was on your post, originally gave me a link for a student being suspended for a hug.

I don't what you clicked on, but it wasn't my link. My link is on you.tube, and I've clicked on it 15 times and not once did it give me the video you describe. It never did give anyone anything other than the video it now provides. Maybe you shouldn't medicate yourself quite so much? Just a thought.

Apparently you know the video I'm speaking of with the student...whether it was posted by mistake and fixed or wrongly linked originally, I do not know.

Yeah, it was on the news networks yesterday, the kid's 15 minutes of infamy. You could have clicked on that link anywhere, but it wasn't on this thread.

I wonder why people on this board and elsewhere were extremely willing to either go through the video in the opening post with a fine toothed comb and take a bold stand against it, or were so disgusted they couldn't even watch.

Could be because it is a whiny progressive who wants what she wants, when she wants it, at whatever cost to herself or others ...

... and you endorsed her thoughts.

I'd say that, in fact, is an excellent reason for the criticism your OP got.

By all accounts, the person talking is not a threat to anyone reading.

No one said she's a threat. She's a whiny progressive. And you are sounding an awful lot like her.

What would happen if people paid the same attention to government?

We do. But most of us are not whiny progressives.

Why do people seem more threatened by Josie than by the government?

No one's threatened by Josie. We're disgusted by her. She's a whiny progressive. Are you getting the message yet?

 

[Gina B]

She is leaving the judgment as to what is right and what is wrong not in the hands of the law, not in the word of God, but to each individual as they see fit.

This is the definition of anarchy.

It would be nice if we could have a country full of people willing to follow only the laws of our Father, but we don't. He himself said that if we followed HIS law, we would not need government, no human king.
But we don't, so we do.

That leaves us with humans making the laws. You speak of "the law" as if it is a separate entity from humans, saying she is leaving judgment not in the hands of the law, but to individuals.

I agree. That's exactly what is being said. When you disagree with the idea, have you considered that laws are made by people, and that people can be wrong and have ulterior motives for making certain laws or for how they choose to enforce them? (Whenever, and I do mean WHENEVER there is a cash incentive to stop criminals, more "criminals" will be found!) "The law" is not infallible, and individuals, even individuals who work in law enforcement, should have the freedom and clarity of mind, free from threat, to stand against any law or any order that goes against the constitution.

That was the concept of the message. While you may not agree with the idea that arresting someone on a non-violent marijuana offense is a waste of energy (and I can appreciate that) do you believe there are other situations going on in our country that violate our rights and, at the least, are strongly pushing the boundaries of our constitutional freedoms and are morally wrong? I do, and that's why I believe that asking police officers to ask themselves "How far am I willing to go?" is a good idea.

 

[InTheLight]

"The law" is not infallible, and individuals, even individuals who work in law enforcement, should have the freedom and clarity of mind, free from threat, to stand against any law or any order that goes against the constitution.

... Any law that goes against the Constitution--as interpreted by each individual. Yep, that's anarchy.

Do you believe there are other situations going on in our country that violate our rights and, at the least, are strongly pushing the boundaries of our constitutional freedoms and are morally wrong?

Yes, but it's not happening on a widespread basis. If individual police officers feel uncomfortable arresting people for certain offenses they may take whatever actions their conscience can live with, and they can face the consequences as well.

 

[poncho]

I don't what you clicked on, but it wasn't my link. My link is on you.tube, and I've clicked on it 15 times and not once did it give me the video you describe. It never did give anyone anything other than the video it now provides. Maybe you shouldn't medicate yourself quite so much? Just a thought.

Yeah, it was on the news networks yesterday, the kid's 15 minutes of infamy. You could have clicked on that link anywhere, but it wasn't on this thread.

Could be because it is a whiny progressive who wants what she wants, when she wants it, at whatever cost to herself or others ...

... and you endorsed her thoughts.

I'd say that, in fact, is an excellent reason for the criticism your OP got.


No one said she's a threat. She's a whiny progressive. And you are sounding an awful lot like her.

We do. But most of us are not whiny progressives.

No one's threatened by Josie. We're disgusted by her. She's a whiny progressive. Are you getting the message yet?

The only progressive in this thread is you. Progressives love big intrusive government just like you. Progressives want the government to control other peoples private lives just like you. Progressives get all nasty and insulting when people disagree with them just like you. Progressives want to shut debates down when they aren't getting their way just like you. Progressives will deny any evidence that doesn't fit their agenda just like you. Progressives will pay lip service to the constitution but have no problem when the politicians or authorities they favor walk all over it just like you. Progressives get disgusted whenever someone defends their liberties and states the obvious just like you. It's obvious we have a corrupt authoritarian government bent on becoming a totalitarian government and it sounds like you'd like nothing better. The thing about totalitarian governments though is that they are extremely paranoid and end up eating their own. It isn't going to keep you safe, it isn't going to make this a better world and it isn't going to throw you a big party for being part of the team.

But there is a bright spot in all this. Americans are sick and tired of control freaky progressives like you that pretend to be conservatives and all the little authoritarian control freaks like you in the republican party are scared to death of people in the GOP that have stayed with there conservative roots long after you and your type sold out and became democrats. That's why you have to keep attacking them and trying to discredit them. You're afraid of being exposed for the great pretenders you are. Too late people are catching on and rejecting your authoritarian message.

Let ya in on a little secret. Those of us who love liberty aren't going just lay down and let you and all the other big intrusive government control freaks take over. No matter how tough you talk or how many insults you hurl around when you don't get your way.

Obama has nothing on you when it comes to pretending to be something you are not. You're no more a conservative than Obama is a natural born citizen.

You are a progressive authoritarian control freak and you're gonna find less and less people that agree with you the more you keep talking and showing your disdain for the constitution and the founding principles of this nation.

 

[poncho]

She is basically saying that the rule of law does not need to be followed at all times because some laws have been created that "declare some activities to be arbitrarily illegal." And she says that "doing the right thing even if it means breaking the law.... makes you a hero."

She is leaving the judgment as to what is right and what is wrong not in the hands of the law, not in the word of God, but to each individual as they see fit.

This is the definition of anarchy.

Quick question. How many laws are there on the books right at this moment?

 

[InTheLight]

Quick question. How many laws are there on the books right at this moment?

Too many, and we don't need any more.

 

[poncho]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBiJB8YuDBQ

 

[poncho]

Police Beat Protesters at Anti-Police Brutality Vigil

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEgt0mIEyI0

Amber Lyon: Saving Our Rights in The Police State

Alex is joined via Skype by Amber Lyon to share her front-line experiences with Americans not afraid to stand up for the First Amendment.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/amber-lyon-saving-our-rights-in-the-police-state.html

Through out this thread we have seen how nasty and insulting TND gets when people disagree with him especially when it comes to those who question authority. The Rev would have us all believe those who speak out against the abuse of power we see among the police = "hating the police".

Where does this love of unaccountable power and big intrusive government come from? I don't know for sure but it most likely goes back to their progressive roots they adopted from their neo-conservative idols like Bill O' Reilly and William Krystal and Leo Strauss but it sure doesn't come from a love of liberty and respecting the rights of others to voice their opinions or confront abusive authority by exercising their first amendment rights without getting beat over the head with a billy club.

They defend this police tactic by trying to beat their opponents (those protesting abusive government power) over the heads with insults and slurs. I often wonder if they wouldn't love to crack some heads with a billy club to show their debate opponents who's boss. TND didn't have to disrespect Gina B in this thread. But he did. He used his words as a club to beat her up no differently than the "riot police" use wooden sticks and pepper spray on peaceful protesters. The use of force is all they understand, it's the only tool in their pouch and they love to use it. It's gives them a sense of "shared power" with the government authorities they have put on pedestals.

They talk about freedom and how great it is but when it comes to someone who actually goes out and attempts to use that freedom to protest against "authority figures" that abuse their power they blow a gasket. I don't know what that tells all of you but it tells me people like TND aren't what they claim to be.

When I got involved in "conservatism" back in the 1980's conservatives wanted a limited constitutional government and fiscal responsibility. Not so anymore. Now "conservatism" is all about defending failed big government policies and foreign interventions and propping them up indefinitely by funding them with ever increasing amounts of money we don't have that we have to borrow at interest from a private banking cartel which puts us ever further into debt and moving ever closer to totalitarian government so long as the policies are perceived as "republican" or "conservative".

In other words people like TND are frauds. They are not a conservative. They are big government authoritarians same as the democrats they're always complaining about.

Today we have authoritarians on the left and the right and they all agree that the state is god and freedom and individual liberty are radical extremist ideas from people "on the fringe" of society that must be stamped out to "keep us safe" from the threats and crisis the government and their corporate sponsors create.

It's time to wake up people. It's time to show these "great pretenders" the door.

 

[Gina B]

Too many, and we don't need any more.

How can there be too many laws if all of them are just?

 

[InTheLight]

How can there be too many laws if all of them are just?

You'll have to elaborate. The fact that a law is just does not mean it is needed. In other words, your linkage of "justness" of a law to its necessity does not follow.

Also, not all laws are just.

 

[poncho]

Father recalls watching son being shot, killed by LAPD officers

Bill Beaird wept Friday as he recalled watching live on television as Los Angeles police officers fatally shot his son at the end of a pursuit.

Sometime before the shooting, Beaird said, his son Brian had called to say that police were chasing him. Beaird said he urged his son to pull over. But Brian Beaird kept driving his Corvette at high rates of speed, eventually broadsiding another car Dec. 13 in downtown Los Angeles. The shooting was filmed from TV news helicopters.

The elder Beaird said he watched in shock as his 51-year-old son staggered out of the wrecked Corvette, briefly putting his arms in the air as he walked behind the vehicle to the passenger side, and police opened fire.

"They killed him," Bill Beaird said, tears welling in his eyes.

Three LAPD officers fired an estimated 22 times at Brian Beaird, who was unarmed. LAPD Chief Charlie Beck has put the officers on extended leave pending a final investigation, saying he was "very concerned" by the incident.

http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-corvette-shooting-20131221,0,4243760.story#axzz2o7lM1khl

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ug5KXzpbf9M#t=1520

 

[Gina B]

You'll have to elaborate. The fact that a law is just does not mean it is needed. In other words, your linkage of "justness" of a law to its necessity does not follow.

Also, not all laws are just.

Just trying to make sense of why you disagree with me. If they're not all just, then it is logical that unjust laws get enforced.
So I don't see why you'd disagree that the time may come in the future where unjust laws will be put into place, and in fact, we have some now, and it's a good idea for law enforcement to take inventory of their morals and consider how willing they are to enforce unjust laws.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding somewhere. Or perhaps you believe that yes, they're unjust, but we should put up with them in peace - kind of a pacifist type of view? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, just trying to figure out exactly what your viewpoint is and taking a guess. I suppose you could always make it easier and just tell me. LOL

 

[poncho]

"The law in all it's majestic equality forbids the rich as well as the poor from stealing bread and sleeping under bridges" Author Unknown

You can't understand TND's reasoning because you are a "whiny progressive anarchist" Gina. That makes him right and you wrong.

Besides it's the only explanation most of these fake conservatives can come up with. That would also explain why it's their main debate tactic. :smilewinkgrin:

ITL? I think he knows something is wrong but he can't bring himself to admit that we live under a corporatist authoritarian government yet. I believe he's trying for all he's worth to hang onto to the idea that "it can never happen here" because we're the "exceptional nation".

 

[InTheLight]

Just trying to make sense of why you disagree with me. If they're not all just, then it is logical that unjust laws get enforced.
So I don't see why you'd disagree that the time may come in the future where unjust laws will be put into place, and in fact, we have some now, and it's a good idea for law enforcement to take inventory of their morals and consider how willing they are to enforce unjust laws.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding somewhere. Or perhaps you believe that yes, they're unjust, but we should put up with them in peace - kind of a pacifist type of view? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, just trying to figure out exactly what your viewpoint is and taking a guess. I suppose you could always make it easier and just tell me. LOL

I suppose you could read my posts again.