It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

So You Hate Cops

page: 11
23
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
No it doesn't. It shows that YOU view the word as a military term only and were not aware of its diverse meaning.


Definitions can and do change over time, I wish I had my older dictionary handy.

Anyways, colloquially speaking, we all know that the term civilian has been reserved for the military until fairly recently.




posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin

Originally posted by jsobecky
Really, until you post some stats and sources, this part of the discussion can go nowhere, imo.

Quit pretending like you will change your mind even when provided with stats. We all know that the US prison population is at a record high. You want stats, ask truth or someone else who cares enough.

Chill out, phoenix. I know about our prison population. I know about stupid marihuana laws. I know about the fact that the justice you receive depends directly upon how fat your wallet is. But when I hear the US being compared to the former USSR, I ask questions.

We throw people into prison. They threw them into concentration camps. Those numbers didn't show up as part of their prison stats. That's where your statement was misleading, and why I questioned it.




It matters because if you knew London, or any other major metropolitan area for that matter, then you would know that they are not that much different in terms of public surveillance. Sure, we might not have reached that level yet, but we are well on our way. If you lived in a major US city, you would know this as well.

The overwhelming majority of public surveillance done in the US is via private security.





Well then, maybe you should move to a better neighborhood. And I'm not going to sit here and supply you with examples of the good that choppers do, because I think you already know what they are.



No, maybe the pigs should not fly military hardware over civilian areas! A wacky concept, I know. Besides, it has nothing to do with moving to a "better neighborhood", the pigs fly over beverly hills and hollywood now. Soon there won't be any neighborhoods to move to get away from it, except out in the sticks. I am sure that's when people like you will care.

People like me? What's up with you all of a sudden?

We may have a difference of opinion in the use of choppers. I say, they can cut down the danger in a hi-speed chase by letting the cops back off, and radioing ahead. Other cases come to mind.

They aren't up there just to keep an eye on us. It's way too expensive for them to do that. They are called in for specific situations.

And I would rather have them, and never need them, than the other way around.

But that's a difference in opinion between you and me. That makes for good debate. No need to take it personal.

Unless I said something to you that you took personally. Then, bring that up.



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by truthseeka
And, it's not that civilian is insulting. It's that it shows the militarization of the American police, heralding the coming of the American police state.


No it doesn't. It shows that YOU view the word as a military term only and were not aware of its diverse meaning.

I agree a police state is coming, but just because you misunderstood the word's meaning doesn't mean anything about the upcoming police state. That's going to happen whether we're considered "civilians" or not.




I think the both of you are nuts. What is with this "upcoming police state"? You folks are a little too paranoid, imo.

As for the word "civilian" being part of the "militarization of the American police", you can't be serious. Do you think they got a memo from Rummy last year instructing them to insert the word "civilian" into their vocabulary? "Step VUN uf our Grandt Plan! Next, ve vill zend in ze choppers and ze dogs!":shk:

Jeezus, get a grip!



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
But when I hear the US being compared to the former USSR, I ask questions.

We throw people into prison. They threw them into concentration camps. Those numbers didn't show up as part of their prison stats. That's where your statement was misleading, and why I questioned it.


Valid point about their prison stats. From what I gather though we have matched them in terms of the number of people in prison according to the official stats. Regardless, there's no need to talk of the past, the US is the current leader in the number of people incarcerated. Can we at least agree on that?





The overwhelming majority of public surveillance done in the US is via private security.

Of course,the government is just now catching up, nice way to avoid the point though. The cameras on the streets, at intersections, and along the freeways, in all major metropolitan cities is not the private sector.






We may have a difference of opinion in the use of choppers. I say, they can cut down the danger in a hi-speed chase by letting the cops back off, and radioing ahead. Other cases come to mind.

That would be a great idea, only problem is, they never do that, which is why we have so many high speed chases. What they do use choppers for is to infra-red houses, target specific neighborhoods, and other uses that do nothing than lower the quality of life for our cities.


They aren't up there just to keep an eye on us. It's way too expensive for them to do that. They are called in for specific situations.

I would believe that if they were not equipped with high powered cameras, Infra-red vision, etc, etc.


And I would rather have them, and never need them, than the other way around.

Those who would exchange liberty for security deserve neither .



But that's a difference in opinion between you and me. That makes for good debate. No need to take it personal.

Sorry, I know I come off as abrasive sometimes, hell most times, just imagine what I am like in person.


Seriously, I didn't take anything personally, and didn't mean anything personal by what I said either.

[edit on 11-3-2007 by phoenixhasrisin]



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin
Valid point about their prison stats. From what I gather though we have matched them in terms of the number of people in prison according to the official stats. Regardless, there's no need to talk of the past, the US is the current leader in the number of people incarcerated. Can we at least agree on that?

Yes, we're the leader. But the question is, why? And even so, is being the leader necessarily a bad thing?






The overwhelming majority of public surveillance done in the US is via private security.


Of course,the government is just now catching up, nice way to avoid the point though. The cameras on the streets, at intersections, and along the freeways, in all major metropolitan cities is not the private sector.

I'm not avoiding the point. The cameras you mention are multi-purpose, including traffic control (and to bust you if you run a red light). I don't know of any that are used to randomly monitor foot traffic.

Regardless, it is not against the law to monitor foot traffic, if they chose to do so. You could do the same with a camcorder, if you wanted to. You have no guarantee of privacy when you are in public.






We may have a difference of opinion in the use of choppers. I say, they can cut down the danger in a hi-speed chase by letting the cops back off, and radioing ahead. Other cases come to mind.


That would be a great idea, only problem is, they never do that, which is why we have so many high speed chases. What they do use choppers for is to infra-red houses, target specific neighborhoods, and other uses that do nothing than lower the quality of life for our cities.

A guy carjacks somebody, takes off, manages to elude police, and then decides to dump the car and make a run for it.

Are you saying that a chopper with a spotlight should not be used to track him?


And I would rather have them, and never need them, than the other way around.


Those who would exchange liberty for security deserve neither .


And what liberty have I surrendered?



Sorry, I know I come off as abrasive sometimes, hell most times, just imagine what I am like in person.


Seriously, I didn't take anything personally, and didn't mean anything personal by what I said either.

[edit on 11-3-2007 by phoenixhasrisin]

Me too. Forget about it.



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
I think the both of you are nuts. What is with this "upcoming police state"? You folks are a little too paranoid, imo.

As for the word "civilian" being part of the "militarization of the American police", you can't be serious. Do you think they got a memo from Rummy last year instructing them to insert the word "civilian" into their vocabulary? "Step VUN uf our Grandt Plan! Next, ve vill zend in ze choppers and ze dogs!":shk:

Jeezus, get a grip!


And I think you're brainwashed, but that's neither here nor there.

Perhaps a look at the Patriot Acts will cause you to POSSIBLY entertain the idea of an American police state. Or, maybe the questionnaire given to military personnel about whether or not they would confiscate guns from American citizens was just for spits and giggles?

Hell, maybe the ACTUAL gun grabbing that went on in the wake of Katrina in New Orleans was just for spits and giggles, too?

Feel free to go back to sleep now.



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
Hell, maybe the ACTUAL gun grabbing that went on in the wake of Katrina in New Orleans was just for spits and giggles, too?

Feel free to go back to sleep now.

That was the decision of Ray Nagin, Mayor of NOLA to confiscate the guns.

And guess who got that decision overturned right quick? The NRA, of which I am a proud card-carrying member.

Feel free to respond when you wake up from your dream land. And have another glass of that Purple Paranoia Kool-Aid that has been fed to you.



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
That was the decision of Ray Nagin, Mayor of NOLA to confiscate the guns.

And guess who got that decision overturned right quick? The NRA, of which I am a proud card-carrying member.

Feel free to respond when you wake up from your dream land. And have another glass of that Purple Paranoia Kool-Aid that has been fed to you.


Assuming you're even right (BIG assumption there
), what does whoever ordered it have to do with the events that took place?

People DID have pigs come and take their guns. This ACTUALLY happened. More importantly, I see you have NOTHING TO SAY about the Patriot Acts, as they pertain to the impending American police state. Gee whillickers, wonder why that is?


Your Kool-Aid comment gave me a LOT of insight into you, becky. The fact that you are a fan of Bill O'Reilly says it ALL!




posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
Here's something for ya, semp.





BEYOND shocking.

So, we see how great the pigs have it. Not ONE of the pigs who beat up their wifes had a THING done to them for punishment. No suspension, no prosecution, no prison time, NOTHING. A lot of them are still working for the LAPD, beating up suspects (and their wifes still), no doubt. And Mullally did a month and a half at Club Fed for exposing the wife beating pigs. Wow...:shk:

So, in a way, semp, you're right that the pigs won't be threatening women with violence. They'll just crack their heads without any threats, and their buddies in blue will cover for them.





[edit on 11-3-2007 by truthseeka]


And strangely...

Only one member has ACTUALLY, not in a study, not quoted from a book, but in REAL LIFE, threatened a woman with violence ON HERE...

That would be you...

There are studies that are examined all the time in CASA, in which it is shown that most woman beaters, (YOU?) are incapable of standing up to their own comparisons to other men. (ME) As such they feel emasculated and compensate for that with threats to those they know they can control... hmmmmmmm

All the studies in the world will never take away your cowardly threat to a female member.. For that is a recorded fact, not a study.

Semper



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
Assuming you're even right (BIG assumption there
), what does whoever ordered it have to do with the events that took place?

Because he was the alleged boss (but actually he was just another dumbass). They had to follow his orders.


People DID have pigs come and take their guns. This ACTUALLY happened. More importantly, I see you have NOTHING TO SAY about the Patriot Acts, as they pertain to the impending American police state. Gee whillickers, wonder why that is?


Because you don't know enough about the Patriot Act for me to discuss it with you,ceec. You're just a repository of one-liners, is all.


Your Kool-Aid comment gave me a LOT of insight into you, becky. The fact that you are a fan of Bill O'Reilly says it ALL!

You're showing your lack of knowledge once agan, ceec. That term predates the O'Reilly Factor by years. Try Jonestown.



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
And strangely...

Only one member has ACTUALLY, not in a study, not quoted from a book, but in REAL LIFE, threatened a woman with violence ON HERE...


Of course, books, and ESPECIALLY studies, NEVER reflect real life events.




There are studies that are examined all the time in CASA, in which it is shown that most woman beaters, (YOU?) are incapable of standing up to their own comparisons to other men. (ME) As such they feel emasculated and compensate for that with threats to those they know they can control... hmmmmmmm


And the studies I cited show that YOU, a police officer, are TWO TO FOUR TIMES AS LIKELY to beat your wife than me, a member of the general public.

The studies also showed that YOU, a police officer, will be prosecuted less than HALF as often as ME, a citizen, for beating your wife.

The studies also showed that YOU, a police officer, would be counseled if you beat your wife, while I, a citizen, would be locked up, prosecuted, and punished for the same crime.



All the studies in the world will never take away your cowardly threat to a female member.. For that is a recorded fact, not a stduy.


And, as we have established, studies do NOT reflect facts. Gotcha.

Tell me, semp; did I hit FF? Did I track her down online, go to her house, and bitch slap her?

And, how many other female ATS members has Truthseeka, woman beater extraordinaire, bitch slapped, much less threatened?

Compare this to the number of pigs who DO beat their wifes, with impunity, and work the beat (literally) every day.



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Because he was the alleged boss (but actually he was just another dumbass). They had to follow his orders.


SOOOO...

If pigs are ordered to take people's guns, they HAVE to follow their orders, as you've established, right? Do tell how that is not an ominous sign of the American police state.



Because you don't know enough about the Patriot Act for me to discuss it with you,ceec. You're just a repository of one-liners, is all.


Wow. I gotta give you props for that dodge. You actually showed some creativity, becky. Don't worry; your ducking of this question tells me all I need to know (btw, I made a thread about citizens (read, non-terrorists) charged with the Patriot Act a while back...
)


You're showing your lack of knowledge once agan, ceec. That term predates the O'Reilly Factor by years. Try Jonestown.


It doesn't matter if this is a reference to Jim Jones (BAAALLIN!
). O'Reilly has made the Kool-Aid reference popular today, with his shots at people who disagree with him.



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 03:10 PM
link   
Wasn't one enough for you?

Are you looking for other women on here to threaten?

I freely admit I am a PIG, you have freely and of your own accord admitted to threatening women....

hmmmmmmm

Semper



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka

Originally posted by jsobecky
Because he was the alleged boss (but actually he was just another dumbass). They had to follow his orders.


SOOOO...

If pigs are ordered to take people's guns, they HAVE to follow their orders, as you've established, right? Do tell how that is not an ominous sign of the American police state.

Do tell how this ties the police into the military.





Because you don't know enough about the Patriot Act for me to discuss it with you,ceec. You're just a repository of one-liners, is all.



Wow. I gotta give you props for that dodge. You actually showed some creativity, becky. Don't worry; your ducking of this question tells me all I need to know (btw, I made a thread about citizens (read, non-terrorists) charged with the Patriot Act a while back...
)

Wow! You did? I'm impressed! You must be in the TOP 3 PERCENTILE, at least!




You're showing your lack of knowledge once agan, ceec. That term predates the O'Reilly Factor by years. Try Jonestown.



It doesn't matter if this is a reference to Jim Jones (BAAALLIN!
). O'Reilly has made the Kool-Aid reference popular today, with his shots at people who disagree with him.

Is that a fact? I'll have to take your word for it, since you're obviously such a big fan of his.



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
Wasn't one enough for you?

Are you looking for other women on here to threaten?

I freely admit I am a PIG, you have freely and of your own accord admitted to threatening women....

hmmmmmmm

Semper


Stop LYING!

Amidst this hoopla, I've been forgetting one crucial thing:

I NEVER threatened FF!

I said something to the tune of "I would bitch slap you for talking about my kids." Compare this to "I'm going to bitch slap you for talking about my kids."

It's like someone saying "I would turn the Middle East into a glass crater if I was President Bush," compared to "I'm going to turn the Middle East into a glass crater."

Note the difference. Also, note the MUCH higher tendency among police to beat their wives compared to the general population.

And, if you admit to being a pig, bully for you!



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Do tell how this ties the police into the military.


I already did. See the post about the questionnaire given to military personnel.



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
I said something to the tune of "I would bitch slap you for talking about my kids." Compare this to "I'm going to bitch slap you for talking about my kids."


He's the exact quote:


Originally posted by truthseeka
Imply something like that again and I'll...well, I don't know you, but if I met you, I would bitch slap you.


This is for an incorrect assumption, mind you...



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 03:40 PM
link   
ceec

You keep trying to bust Semper's chops by talking about domestic violence by profession.

Want to talk domestic violence by race? Hmmm?


Black and Hispanic women, especially black women in more affluent neighborhoods, are over-represented in police-reported domestic violence information compiled by the Rhode Island Department of Health, according to a new analysis published in the journal Public Health Reports.
Four Brown University researchers found that although black and Hispanic women comprised 6 percent of the state's 1990 population, they represented more than 17 percent of victims in police reports documenting domestic violence and sexual assault.

www.scienceblog.com...



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by truthseeka
I said something to the tune of "I would bitch slap you for talking about my kids." Compare this to "I'm going to bitch slap you for talking about my kids."


He's the exact quote:


Originally posted by truthseeka
Imply something like that again and I'll...well, I don't know you, but if I met you, I would bitch slap you.


This is for an incorrect assumption, mind you...


Do show where I said "FF, I'm going to bitch slap you" in that quote. I can't see it from here; looks pretty similar to what I said in this thread.



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka

Originally posted by jsobecky
Do tell how this ties the police into the military.


I already did. See the post about the questionnaire given to military personnel.

That's top down. I want bottom up.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join