Khross wrote:
Actually, on this matter, we've been through this enough I know how it pans out: you have a whole myriad of "personal expertise" reasons as to why every link we provide on the matter is wrong.
Yes, and I cite what the relevant laws and principles are when discussing it; I don't just say "I have expertise".
Almost every link you pprovide of misconduct is, at the very least, questionable as to what actually occurred.
Quote:
Unfortunately, people's distrust of law enforcement in the United States is growing; our law enforcement agencies are becoming more militarized; and our governments are continually demonstrating more willingness to ignore the Constitution and statutory protections of citizens' rights -- see the Boston Marathon.
Except that they are not. See the Boston Marathon? That's a prime example. We got nothing more than a video of a search, and an assumption that random "innocent" familes were being pulled from their homes without warrants - assumptions for which no support whatsoever was given. That's hilarious; if they were simply searching random houses they'd still be looking for the guy.
People's distrust is not growing, overall. The government is not more willing to ignore constitutional protections, and in point of fact you don't even understand the Constitution well enough to claim that. What you mean is that the government is ignoring the way
you think the Constitution should work. As for the police becoming more militarized, that amounts to trivial concerns about helmets and body armor. If anything, the military has become far more like law enforcement over the last 10 years due to the need to act like it in Iraq, and the endless attempts to make war into a matter of legalities.
Quote:
You have a very rose colored opinion of law enforcement agents, agencies, and practices in this country. Mine might very well be biased against them in general, but my bias is admitted. You simply think you have no biases regarding the matter, and that's a huge problem for other contributors to these forums.
No, your bias is not admitted. In point of fact, you simply treat your own viewpoints as fact and dismiss opposing ones as biased, or what the **** ever. You don't do it just on this issue or just to me, either.
Quote:
Incidentally, the only person in this thread demonstrating that there's no point in discussing things is you.
No, you!
Actually, no, that would be you Khross. You're pretty much never willing to discuss anything with anyone anymore, and you've always got an excuse.
Here's a clue: You don't decide who is and is not willing to discuss things, who is biased, or who is or is not being intellectually honest. You don't know. You're not in a position to tell anyone. Stop brining that **** up and talk about the issues. Otherwise, you're just wasting time and engaging in the "No, YOU!" that you did above.
Quote:
1. Pointing that you have a bias towards law enforcement agents, agencies, and practices is not starting a majority dogpile. In fact, since you seem to have no contextual memory, I'll simply remind that you Foamy, Michael, Yourself, and a few other posters find my dislike of LEOs unwarranted and near "racist." I'm fine with you guy's thinking as much. It doesn't bother me.
Yes, you are trying to start a dogpile. You know perfectly well that you can just sit there and agree with Coro and a few other people making snarky one-liners and say "Well it's just DE's bias! our position is ironclad and requires no defense!" which is essentially what your discussion amounts to anymore. If you're going to go back and claim I do the same it's because that's what's happened here in general and it's not worth wasting a lot time responding differently to people that think posting pig pictures, one liners about bacon, or facepalm photos ins an argument.
Quote:
2. You really don't understand what the word fringe means, so I'm going to be kind here. My viewpoints and positions are not fringe viewpoints unless you're reading government propaganda. Self-sufficiency was not a fringe viewpoint until Obama took office. The notion of individual autonomy was not a fringe viewpoint until Obama took office. The notion that a man should be entitled to the fruits of his labors was not a fringe viewpoint until the 20th Century. My positions are not isolated and confined to the periphery of human experience. They aren't fringe ...
Yes, I do understand it, and by trying to say "unless you read government propaganda" you are both poisoning the well and begging the question. Not surprising.
As for this "fruits of his labors" you're simply oversimplifying your own views to make them sound better, and guess what? The beginning of the 20th Century was over 200 years ago. That viw that a "man was entitled to the fruits of his own labors" was responsible for the creation of the ICC in response to claims of farmers that railroads were charging too much to haul goods to market, as if merely growing the produce gave it all of its value, and transporting it to where it was needed did not. That created one of the most asinine federal bureaucracies in the history of this country which we only rid ourselves of late in the 20th Century. It is not that simple.
Your positions are fringe, and your understanding of history is not as great as you pretend. Maybe your education, and reading is, but your understanding is lacking. "Entitled to the fruits of his labors" is a way to ignore the labors of others.
Quote:
My economic positions aren't fringe, but that leads to other discussions you guys really don't want to have. My economic positions are contrary to current government policy and practice. Well, I suppose sound fiscal behavior is a fringe idea in political economy.
I've never disagreed with you on your suppositions regarding the overall state of the economy. The only thing I take issue with is your attempts to turn Social Security into a "Ponzi Scheme", which it is not. It does not mathematically work the same way. I don't disagree with you that it's unsustainable and foolish, but it isn't a ponzi scheme, and by saying so you're overstating your case.
Quote:
3. Your opinion of anything law enforcement is unduly positive and defensive, and your posting history confirms as much. So, please, don't try to make this about me and my posts. Your ad hominems and attempted credibility sabotage aren't going to work. You're defending your own bias by attempting to marginalize my credibility. The irony of you, a law enforcement agent, doing as such pretty much invalidates your opinions in this thread. You are attempting to abuse your position of authority to marginalize an opinion you dislike.
Your positons regarding law enforcement are unduely aggressive, and negative. Your posting history confirms that you simply scream "bias" at everything I say as if it were a counterargument. As for ad homs, your complaints about my bias are exactly that, and your "credibility" was shot the time Talya quoted the dictionary at you and you started huffing and puffing about "well there's actually a body of knowledge about that word blah blah blah" despite your propensity for quoting it yourself. Your credibility is utterly shot, and your comments about how me doing something "as a law enforcement agent" pretty much establish that all you have is appeal to motive.
Oh, by the way, you don't decide what makes me credible or not "as a law enforcement agent". You don't "invalidate opinions". The fact that you think you can say either of those things only confirms your own enormous ego and intellectual conceit. I'm not using any position of authority at all; you are trying to portray me using my experience and knowledge as using authority.
The only one here using authority is you - you are pretending to authority you don't have, something you've always done on this board. The fact is that you have none, and every time you get called out talking out of your ***, you make one of these long posts where you think you're putting people in their place or something. You're not - because you can't.
Quote:
So, let's look at my opinion again ...
"You have a very rose-colored opinion of law enforcement agents, agencies, and practices in this country."
In other words ...
"Your opinion of law enforcement agents, agencies, and practices in this country is far more optimistic than reality."
If that's your opinion, that's your opinion, but you simply don't know what reality is. You claim your bias is "admitted", but then you say this? that's amazing. Pretty much everything you're accusing me of, you're doing yourself, in spades.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
