Collarchat.com

Join Our Community
Collarchat.com

Home  Login  Search 

RE: HATE CRIMES = thought policing?


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: HATE CRIMES = thought policing? Page: <<   < prev  18 19 [20] 21 22   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: HATE CRIMES = thought policing? - 7/13/2007 12:55:21 PM   
stef


Posts: 10215
Joined: 1/26/2004
Status: offline
As I already replied in post 291—that's a very good question, isn't it?

~stef

_____________________________

Welcome to PoliticSpace! If you came here expecting meaningful BDSM discussions, boy are you in the wrong place.

"Hypocrisy has consequences"

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 381
RE: HATE CRIMES = thought policing? - 7/13/2007 3:26:25 PM   
Alumbrado


Posts: 5560
Status: offline
quote:

stef:
The thread has taken several detours since this post but I wanted to revisit it because it begs the question:  If the police are not required by law or precedent to protect the citizens then what exactly is their job?
thompson



What does the Constitution say?

And if  the police are required to 'protect and serve', then why are there twice as many security employees as LEOs?




(in reply to stef)
Profile   Post #: 382
RE: HATE CRIMES = thought policing? - 7/13/2007 3:33:57 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

quote:

stef:
The thread has taken several detours since this post but I wanted to revisit it because it begs the question:  If the police are not required by law or precedent to protect the citizens then what exactly is their job?
thompson



What does the Constitution say?

And if  the police are required to 'protect and serve', then why are there twice as many security employees as LEOs?






Alumbrado:
The constitution by omission seems to leave police powers and duties to the purview of the state.  I have no idea what you mean by LEO.
thompson

(in reply to Alumbrado)
Profile   Post #: 383
RE: HATE CRIMES = thought policing? - 7/13/2007 3:56:58 PM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
If the police are not required by law or precedent to protect the citizens then what exactly is their job?
thompson


Is there a prise for this one?
and the survey said!
eating donuts!!!    LOL


_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 384
RE: HATE CRIMES = thought policing? - 7/13/2007 5:08:57 PM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


stef:
The thread has taken several detours since this post but I wanted to revisit it because it begs the question: If the police are not required by law or precedent to protect the citizens then what exactly is their job?
thompson


Enforcing the Status Quo.



_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 385
RE: HATE CRIMES = thought policing? - 7/13/2007 6:07:55 PM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


stef:
The thread has taken several detours since this post but I wanted to revisit it because it begs the question: If the police are not required by law or precedent to protect the citizens then what exactly is their job?
thompson


Enforcing the Status Quo.



The status quo want people to value private property above all else. The reason being that it means investors will continue to invest, safe in the knowledge that their investments will be free from intervention from anyone, wealth will be generated and the upper echelons of society will take the lion's share of this wealth in such an every man for himself culture that values private property above all else.

The status quo have no interest in taking your possessions away from you, including the police. Yeah, they're a pain in an individual's arse from time to time, but they exist to quell mass public protest, they do not exist to take your possessions. By and large, if you keep yourself to yourself, the police won't bother you. You join a public protest, and they'll make sure you don't become a serious threat to their power.

The odds are stacked in their favour, which means they can profit from a society that values private property and individulaism above all else. The status quo couldn't give a flying one about some bloke sat in his house with a bazooka. They don't want an individual's possessions. They can give people a house and a car and a television and new technology, but still take the lion's share of other peoples' labour. What they really want is a society at each other's throats, and they clean up. The proof is there for the taking.

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to farglebargle)
Profile   Post #: 386
RE: HATE CRIMES = thought policing? - 7/13/2007 6:24:41 PM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline
I would suggest that wherever you use the term "Private" you substitute "Corporate", and drop the entire notion of individualism.



_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 387
RE: HATE CRIMES = thought policing? - 7/13/2007 6:35:08 PM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

I would suggest that wherever you use the term "Private" you substitute "Corporate", and drop the entire notion of individualism.



You must be misunderstanding me. Large corporations thrive in an environment which is vehemently anti-interventionist i.e. where private property is valued above all else. Largely because they thrive on investment, and investment thrives on being exempt from intervention. Hence the comment that they will not challenge your property. They want you to feel secure, so you continue to invest, and generate wealth for those in a position to take the lion's share.

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to farglebargle)
Profile   Post #: 388
RE: HATE CRIMES = thought policing? - 7/13/2007 7:03:54 PM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline
"Corporate Property" is *not*, by definition "Private Property".

You and I can own "Private Property". Corporations own Corporate Assets. The difference being that the Corporation, when they incorporated, surrendered the Individual Private Owner's rights for Corporate Privileges.

So, the Lockeian imperative, Life, Liberty and Property, does not apply to them.

It is, of course, in the Corporate Interest to promote the confusion, and lack of clear distinction.



_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 389
RE: HATE CRIMES = thought policing? - 7/14/2007 2:22:10 AM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
There's theory and then there's practice.

In reality, big business thrives on investment, investment is maximised where the population believes their investments will be secure, this culture of secure investments is created by a general climate of protecting private property (i.e. everyone's - business and residential).

The result is big business thrives in this environment. This is why the government will protect private property, but will not protect other civil liberties. The two appear to be completely contradictory, but there's method in the madness:

a) Where the extent of your concerns is limited to your own private property, you are no threat to them.
b) A non-interventionist society will continue to invest in big business and further the wealth gap (from which the establishment takes the lion's share). See the current situation.

I absolutely guarantee you that the current status quo will never try and take anything away from you by force providing you don't engage in public protest. They don't need to as they have what they need. Plus, they can use propaganda techniques. You join a public protest, and this protest gathers momentum, and you're a serious player, then you will be watched, followed and they'll do what they need to do to curb your activities. They're not the slightest bit interested in private property.

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to farglebargle)
Profile   Post #: 390
RE: HATE CRIMES = thought policing? - 7/14/2007 6:59:49 AM   
Alumbrado


Posts: 5560
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Alumbrado:
The constitution by omission seems to leave police powers and duties to the purview of the state.  I have no idea what you mean by LEO.
thompson


Absolutely correct...10th amendment is where the police get their authority.

LEOs are law enforcement officers, often referred to as 'sworn' officers, to distinguish them from security guards, bodyguards private police, etc (those being the ones who are actually paid to protect and serve)..

And it is the 'sworn' part that provides the next clue as to the intended purpose of police/law enforcement agencies.

Police officers are not only employees of the state or municipality that pays them, they are sworn in before a judge as an authorized agent of the courts...the purpose being to allow them to function as an extension of the judiciary, by bringing the accused, and evidence before the court. (Notice that they do not  typically bring the accused before the Chief of Police, the Mayor, or City Council, even though those are in fact, their bosses).

The notion of the police as a rival gang that outguns the bad gangs is fueled by Elliot Ness' ambitions and too many G-man movies.  The concept of the police as an occupying army keeping the poor and minorities in place is of course, the Bull Connor legacy.

There is an uber wealthy enclave someplace, where the police let themselves in to feed and walk the dogs of the residents, thus joining Andy of Mayberry in promoting the image of police as servants of the 'right kind' of citizens..

And then of course, there is Chuck Norris....

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 391
RE: HATE CRIMES = thought policing? - 7/14/2007 7:43:30 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Alumbrado:
The constitution by omission seems to leave police powers and duties to the purview of the state.  I have no idea what you mean by LEO.
thompson


Absolutely correct...10th amendment is where the police get their authority.

LEOs are law enforcement officers, often referred to as 'sworn' officers, to distinguish them from security guards, bodyguards private police, etc (those being the ones who are actually paid to protect and serve)..

And it is the 'sworn' part that provides the next clue as to the intended purpose of police/law enforcement agencies.

Police officers are not only employees of the state or municipality that pays them, they are sworn in before a judge as an authorized agent of the courts...the purpose being to allow them to function as an extension of the judiciary, by bringing the accused, and evidence before the court. (Notice that they do not  typically bring the accused before the Chief of Police, the Mayor, or City Council, even though those are in fact, their bosses).

The notion of the police as a rival gang that outguns the bad gangs is fueled by Elliot Ness' ambitions and too many G-man movies.  The concept of the police as an occupying army keeping the poor and minorities in place is of course, the Bull Connor legacy.

There is an uber wealthy enclave someplace, where the police let themselves in to feed and walk the dogs of the residents, thus joining Andy of Mayberry in promoting the image of police as servants of the 'right kind' of citizens..

And then of course, there is Chuck Norris....


Alumbrado:
If the courts say that they are not here to protect me and I am not rich enough to have them walk my dog then it would seem to me that they are essentially revenue agents who seek to extract money from those whom they claim to protect and serve but which the courts say they have no statutory obligation to do.
thompson

(in reply to Alumbrado)
Profile   Post #: 392
RE: HATE CRIMES = thought policing? - 7/14/2007 8:40:19 PM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Alumbrado:
The constitution by omission seems to leave police powers and duties to the purview of the state.  I have no idea what you mean by LEO.
thompson


Absolutely correct...10th amendment is where the police get their authority.

LEOs are law enforcement officers, often referred to as 'sworn' officers, to distinguish them from security guards, bodyguards private police, etc (those being the ones who are actually paid to protect and serve)..

And it is the 'sworn' part that provides the next clue as to the intended purpose of police/law enforcement agencies.

Police officers are not only employees of the state or municipality that pays them, they are sworn in before a judge as an authorized agent of the courts...the purpose being to allow them to function as an extension of the judiciary, by bringing the accused, and evidence before the court. (Notice that they do not  typically bring the accused before the Chief of Police, the Mayor, or City Council, even though those are in fact, their bosses).

The notion of the police as a rival gang that outguns the bad gangs is fueled by Elliot Ness' ambitions and too many G-man movies.  The concept of the police as an occupying army keeping the poor and minorities in place is of course, the Bull Connor legacy.

There is an uber wealthy enclave someplace, where the police let themselves in to feed and walk the dogs of the residents, thus joining Andy of Mayberry in promoting the image of police as servants of the 'right kind' of citizens..

And then of course, there is Chuck Norris....


Alumbrado:
If the courts say that they are not here to protect me and I am not rich enough to have them walk my dog then it would seem to me that they are essentially revenue agents who seek to extract money from those whom they claim to protect and serve but which the courts say they have no statutory obligation to do.
thompson



false advertising too...  that is what we are suppozzzzzzzzed to have a militia for.


_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 393
RE: HATE CRIMES = thought policing? - 7/15/2007 6:20:03 AM   
Alumbrado


Posts: 5560
Status: offline
If you two keep on torturing logic and definitions like that, in an attempt to make reality fit TV shows, there is probably a job waiting for you at Abu Ghraib.



(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 394
RE: HATE CRIMES = thought policing? - 7/15/2007 8:13:03 AM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

If you two keep on torturing logic and definitions like that, in an attempt to make reality fit TV shows, there is probably a job waiting for you at Abu Ghraib.





Ok so you acquiese.


_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to Alumbrado)
Profile   Post #: 395
RE: HATE CRIMES = thought policing? - 7/15/2007 8:21:27 AM   
Owner59


Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Alumbrado:
The constitution by omission seems to leave police powers and duties to the purview of the state.  I have no idea what you mean by LEO.
thompson


Absolutely correct...10th amendment is where the police get their authority.

LEOs are law enforcement officers, often referred to as 'sworn' officers, to distinguish them from security guards, bodyguards private police, etc (those being the ones who are actually paid to protect and serve)..

And it is the 'sworn' part that provides the next clue as to the intended purpose of police/law enforcement agencies.

Police officers are not only employees of the state or municipality that pays them, they are sworn in before a judge as an authorized agent of the courts...the purpose being to allow them to function as an extension of the judiciary, by bringing the accused, and evidence before the court. (Notice that they do not  typically bring the accused before the Chief of Police, the Mayor, or City Council, even though those are in fact, their bosses).

The notion of the police as a rival gang that outguns the bad gangs is fueled by Elliot Ness' ambitions and too many G-man movies.  The concept of the police as an occupying army keeping the poor and minorities in place is of course, the Bull Connor legacy.

There is an uber wealthy enclave someplace, where the police let themselves in to feed and walk the dogs of the residents, thus joining Andy of Mayberry in promoting the image of police as servants of the 'right kind' of citizens..

And then of course, there is Chuck Norris....


Alumbrado:
If the courts say that they are not here to protect me and I am not rich enough to have them walk my dog then it would seem to me that they are essentially revenue agents who seek to extract money from those whom they claim to protect and serve but which the courts say they have no statutory obligation to do.
thompson



false advertising too...  that is what we are suppozzzzzzzzed to have a militia for.




Militia? hmm.

When you define "militia",do you mean the nuts out in the woods,who store food,guns and fantasize about fighting the US government(not what the Constitution was referring to,btw)?

Or are you referring to the US army and/or law enforcement in general?

Peace

(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 396
RE: HATE CRIMES = thought policing? - 7/15/2007 9:10:08 AM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

Militia? hmm.

When you define "militia",do you mean the nuts out in the woods,who store food,guns and fantasize about fighting the US government(not what the Constitution was referring to,btw)?

Or are you referring to the US army and/or law enforcement in general?

Peace



Ref: Blcks law dictionary 5th edition:

The militia belong to the states respectively, and are subject, both in their civil and military capacities, to the jurisdiction and laws of the state, except so far as these laws are controlled by acts of congress, constitutionally made.

For males, before they arrive at fourteen years they are said not to be of discretion; at that age they may consent to marriage and choose a guardian. Twenty-one years is full age for all private purposes, and the may then exercise their rights as citizens by voting for public officers; and are eligible to all offices, unless otherwise provided for in the constitution. At 25, a man may be elected a representative in Congress; at 30, a senator; and at 35, he may be chosen president of the United States. He is liable to serve in the militia from 18 to 45. inclusive, unless exempted for some particular reason.

The Constitution of the United States, Amendm. art. 2, declares, "that a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." In Kentucky, a statute " to prevent persons from wearing concealed arms," has been declared to be unconstitutional; 2 Litt. R. 90; while in Indiana a similar statute has been holden valid and constitutional. 3 Blackf. R. 229. Vide Story, Const.- 1889, 1890 Amer. Citizen, 176; 1 Tuck. Black. App. 300 Rawle on Const. 125.


No vessels of war were to be kept up by any state in time of peace, except deemed necessary by congress for its defence, or trade; nor any body of forces, except such as should be deemed requisite by congress to garrison its forts, and necessary for its defence. But every state was required always to keep up a well regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutred, and to be provided with suitable field-pieces, and tents, and arms, and amunition, and camp equipage. No state could engage in war without the consent of congress, unless actually invaded by enemies, or in danger of invasion by the Indians. Nor could any state grant commissions to any ships of war, nor letters of marque and reprisal, except after a declaration of war by congress, unless such state were infested by pirates, and then subject to the determination of congress. No state could prevent the removal of any property imported into any state to any other state, of which the owner was an inhabitant. And no imposition, duties, or restriction, could be laid by any state on the Property of the United States or of either of them.

The governor shall be elected for four years, by the qualified electors, at the time and place where they shall vote for representatives; and shall remain in office until a successor shall be chosen and qualified, and shall not be eligible to reelection until the expiration of four years thereafter. 30. His general powers are as follows: 1. He is commander-in-chief of the army, navy, and militia of the state.

Although congress have exercised the whole power of calling out the militia, yet they are not national militia, till employed in actual service; and they are not employed in actual service, till they arrive at the place of rendezvous. 5 Wheat. 1; Vide 1 Kent's Com. 262; 3 Story, Const. 1194 to 1210.








_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to Owner59)
Profile   Post #: 397
RE: HATE CRIMES = thought policing? - 7/15/2007 11:03:05 AM   
Alumbrado


Posts: 5560
Status: offline
Interesting planet you live on, RO.

Here on this one, the US age of majority is 18 not 21, and outdated dictionaries don't overrule the laws of the land,

Oh, yes, and it is a felony in the US for the military to be performing civilian law enforcement duties.

(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 398
RE: HATE CRIMES = thought policing? - 7/15/2007 11:39:43 AM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

Interesting planet you live on, RO.

Here on this one, the US age of majority is 18 not 21, and outdated dictionaries don't overrule the laws of the land,

Oh, yes, and it is a felony in the US for the military to be performing civilian law enforcement duties.



Wrong.

Any "law" as you put it that is in violation of the constitution is not lawfull and it is the duty of every american not to obey them.


Oh andi use and old law dictionary because it reflects the accurate meaning of the constitution not your revised and edited version.





< Message edited by Real0ne -- 7/15/2007 11:41:46 AM >


_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to Alumbrado)
Profile   Post #: 399
RE: HATE CRIMES = thought policing? - 7/17/2007 3:42:27 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

Interesting planet you live on, RO.

Here on this one, the US age of majority is 18 not 21, and outdated dictionaries don't overrule the laws of the land,
I would agree that one may vote and join the military at 18 but how about contracts and alcohol.  Yes I realize that a military enlistment is a contract but I am not sure that an 18 year old can enter into all contracts...like buying a house or a car...It could be a state to state thing but I have not researched it.  I wonder why it is one can join the military and get shot at but cannot sit down at a bar and buy a shot.


Oh, yes, and it is a felony in the US for the military to be performing civilian law enforcement duties.
I have heard this but that did not seem to matter at Kent state or Waco.  Then there is  the veterans march on Washington back in the thirties when MacArthur,Eisenhower and Patton chased American citizens out of Washington at bayonet point.
I guess the law is only as good as the government that enforces it.


< Message edited by thompsonx -- 7/17/2007 3:47:17 PM >

(in reply to Alumbrado)
Profile   Post #: 400
Page:   <<   < prev  18 19 [20] 21 22   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: HATE CRIMES = thought policing? Page: <<   < prev  18 19 [20] 21 22   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2024
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.273