 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 05:51:59 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
>> Bingo. It's for my blood pressure. Historically, the things that Warp
>> writes in threads like this do nothing but wind me up, because I think
>> is arguments are ultimately stupid and pointless. I've tried a number
>> of times to have the debates, and the end result is the same: My blood
>> pressure goes up, I get angry, and nothing is achieved.
>
>> Since it happens on a number of topics, there's no point in reading
>> anything he writes, because historically what he's written has made me
>> angry more often than not because he comes across as completely
>> ignorant and unwilling to listen to reason.
>
> You talk like this would be a common thing, yet I can't even remember
> the last time you, or anybody else, had such a tantrum.
Yes, please, do keep using inflammatory language. It's so *you*.
> Then, when someone asks about it, you engage in personal attacks and
> belittling comments, and you make it clear that you won't be reading any
> possible responses.
You call it a "personal attack". I call it stating my perception of
facts. You won't listen to reason, and instead start comparing the TSA
to the Stasi, and when I say that's not reasonable, you double down on
the ignorance and being unreasonable.
> Yes, quite a mature thing to do, especially since I have in no way
> attacked or insulted you personally.
Oh, yes, just winding people up is *so* mature, Warp.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 06:06:06 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> That being said, to use a better anology.. the US has become about as
>> much of a police state, given the revelations of the NSA, and a lot of
>> other crap going on, as.. say.. An Oreo is a kind of "soft cookie". Its
>> both, at once, depressingly inaccurate, and a tad too close to
>> plausible, given the right.. environmental conditions.
>
> Before Jim got his tantrum, he kind of missed my point.
Meh, you think that was a tantrum - it was just me saying "you're
unreasonable and I'm not going to engage with you any more in this
discussion because you piss me off because you refuse to listen to what
I'm saying and resort to hyperbole and being unreasonable, and I don't
have time for this."
But let's try this again and see if you can understand what I'm saying
and respond to it in a reasonable manner rather than Godwining the
discussion.
> It's not the individual actions, or their frequency, that give a vibe of
> a police-state-like system, it's the fact that they mostly can do it
> with impunity. Most of the abuses go unpunished, either because the
> authorities are unwilling to investigate or, in the worst case, because
> nothing illegal was actually done.
Give us some statistics that *prove* that most of the abuses go
unpunished, Warp. Because I live here, and I hear about abuses like
this, but they *do* get punished. But that's not newsworthy, so it's not
reported in the media on a wide scale.
For example, here in Salt Lake City, we had a cop who was responsible for
killing the guy who started shooting up a mall about a mile from where I
live a few years ago. Our neighbor was actually there when it happened.
This guy was regarded as a hero, because he stopped this murderer from
killing more innocent people.
A couple months later, he was arrested for abusing his position as a
police officer. He is no longer on the force, and as I recall, he may
even have ended up serving time for his offense.
> For example, as far as I understand (and please correct me if I'm
> wrong),
> but at least in some states it's actually completely legal for police
> officers to lie to suspects, and this is regularly abused eg. by traffic
> cops to try to make drivers incriminate themselves (often of traffic
> violations or other crimes they haven't actually committed.)
It is legal, but it's not as common as you seem to think. I've actually
asked cops (and have cops in my family) about this, and they have told me
that while they are allowed to mislead a suspect, they rarely have to do
it.
It's funny that you use traffic stops as an example, because for most
cops, traffic stops are a nuisance - they have to do paperwork for each
stop, regardless of whether a ticket is issued or not. So unless there's
another reason - or a clear violation of traffic laws - they'd rather not
stop someone. For example, on a stretch of I-80 in Nebraska, there's a
*lot* of drug trafficking that goes on. After dark, the highway patrol
pulls people with out of state license plates over for incredibly minor
infractions (I've been stopped two or three times on that stretch myself
for things like failing to signal for 150 feet before changing lanes, or
drifting out of my lane for a moment on a fairly winding section of
freeway).
The purpose of the stops isn't to cite for the failure to signal long
enough, but for the cop to get a chance to see if the car smells like
pot. Apparently these drug runners are kinda stupid, and are often
high. Pulling the motorist over lets them smell the inside of the car
(when the window opens), and if it smells like weed, then they have
probable cause for a search.
That's not *lying* per se, it's using the law to its full potential to
crack down on drug trafficking. It's apparently very effective.
> Time and again you can read stories about a cop abusing or injuring
> someone, or otherwise going well beyond the limits of what the situation
> had required, and get no penalty for it. Often it's not even
> investigated at all. In the most publicized cases it might get
> investigated, but even then no punishment is enacted, or the punishment
> is really light.
>
> It's not the acts themselves per se, it's the reaction of the government
> to them.
You seem to think this is a daily or frequent occurrence here. I'm
trying to tell you that it's not - it does happen, sure, and it needs to
be dealt with, but you make it sound like every other cop is doing this,
and that simply isn't true. It's a rare occurrence, and it ends up in
the news *because* it's rare.
Do you now understand?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 02.01.2014 13:11, schrieb Warp:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>> I think that you go a bit too far saying that America is a Police State.
>> You say that it has a high level of abuse and corruption. But that
>> doesn't make it a Police State.
>
> "It's not the individual actions, or their frequency, that give a vibe
> of a police-state-like system."
>
> Please read what I wrote. I said that the US feels *like* a police state,
> and the reason was not the *frequency* of the abuse, but the *reaction*
> of the government and officials to it.
Maybe there's a disagreement here about the definition of the term
"police state"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 07:11:40 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Please read what I wrote. I said that the US feels *like* a police
> state,
You said:
> Or how about doing what every other western country is doing, *and not
> being such a police state?*
Emphasis added.
Try reading what *you* wrote, and maybe you'll understand why you piss
people off so much.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> > Yes, quite a mature thing to do, especially since I have in no way
> > attacked or insulted you personally.
> Oh, yes, just winding people up is *so* mature, Warp.
Do you even realize how childish a "no, you are!" comeback is?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 07:11:40 -0500, Warp wrote:
> > Please read what I wrote. I said that the US feels *like* a police
> > state,
> You said:
> > Or how about doing what every other western country is doing, *and not
> > being such a police state?*
> Emphasis added.
> Try reading what *you* wrote, and maybe you'll understand why you piss
> people off so much.
Of course take a sentence and ignore all the explanations that came later.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 03 Jan 2014 04:34:32 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> > Yes, quite a mature thing to do, especially since I have in no way
>> > attacked or insulted you personally.
>
>> Oh, yes, just winding people up is *so* mature, Warp.
>
> Do you even realize how childish a "no, you are!" comeback is?
Probably about as immature as acting the way you do.
And you wonder why I put you in the twit filter. :smh:
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 03 Jan 2014 04:35:35 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 07:11:40 -0500, Warp wrote:
>
>> > Please read what I wrote. I said that the US feels *like* a police
>> > state,
>
>> You said:
>
>> > Or how about doing what every other western country is doing, *and
>> > not being such a police state?*
>
>> Emphasis added.
>
>> Try reading what *you* wrote, and maybe you'll understand why you piss
>> people off so much.
>
> Of course take a sentence and ignore all the explanations that came
> later.
That is the statement that I was reacting to. You compared the state of
affairs in US to the Stasi, effectively Godwinning the discussion - you
clearly don't get your information from actually being here, yet you
insist that those of us who *live* here are wrong.
So yes, I read what you wrote, and I reacted to it. And you got all pissy
about my reaction, and I decided not to play any more, and then you
started getting personal.
Now, if you *want* to have a reasonable discussion, don't just write
opinions, listen to what people are saying to you and acknowledge that
you don't understand the entire picture because you only see what's
reported in the news, and that's a skewed way to build a picture of
*anything*.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 03 Jan 2014 13:37:47 -0500, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Jan 2014 04:34:32 -0500, Warp wrote:
>
>> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>> > Yes, quite a mature thing to do, especially since I have in no way
>>> > attacked or insulted you personally.
>>
>>> Oh, yes, just winding people up is *so* mature, Warp.
>>
>> Do you even realize how childish a "no, you are!" comeback is?
>
> Probably about as immature as acting the way you do.
>
> And you wonder why I put you in the twit filter. :smh:
And reading that now, I'm absolutely fucking embarrassed that I let you
drag me down to your level.
You've just re-confirmed to me that you are a toxic personality who
doesn't deserve an audience, and you're not worth my time. I'd also
suggest to the others who are getting wound up by your ignorance that
you're not worth their time either - but they obviously get to make that
decision.
Don't bother replying to me - ever again.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Jan 2014 13:37:47 -0500, Jim Henderson wrote:
> > On Fri, 03 Jan 2014 04:34:32 -0500, Warp wrote:
> >
> >> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> >>> > Yes, quite a mature thing to do, especially since I have in no way
> >>> > attacked or insulted you personally.
> >>
> >>> Oh, yes, just winding people up is *so* mature, Warp.
> >>
> >> Do you even realize how childish a "no, you are!" comeback is?
> >
> > Probably about as immature as acting the way you do.
> >
> > And you wonder why I put you in the twit filter. :smh:
> And reading that now, I'm absolutely fucking embarrassed that I let you
> drag me down to your level.
Well, it requires a certain kind of mentality to throw "no, you are!"
comebacks.
> Don't bother replying to me - ever again.
Do whatever you want, I'll do whatever I want.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
