Absolutely Disgusting

reply to post by AgnosticX

I think that the community should select who becomes police officers, i think that might solve some problems. i mean the supposed to protect and serve the people, right? So why shouldn't the people be able to select them?

I agree with this. This is indeed a good idea. This should, in fact, bring down crime all together. You can't blame the cop because, like a politician, you elected him.

I wonder if you could have some public review or something in order to analyze each cop's past and welcom ehim into the community.

It seems reasonable.

The only risk is that any community could tectonically want powerful cops and as a response doom themselves.

Originally posted by AgnosticX
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic

 

yeah, i cussed a cop out once, and got charged with assault because of it. That was some *snip*.

The messed up part about that one is, if you preface whatever you say by "In my opinion..." it is legally no longer considered assault.

Rememeber that next time

[edit on 8/27/2008 by semperfortis]

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by AgnosticX

 

I think that the community should select who becomes police officers, i think that might solve some problems. i mean the supposed to protect and serve the people, right? So why shouldn't the people be able to select them?

I agree with this. This is indeed a good idea. This should, in fact, bring down crime all together. You can't blame the cop because, like a politician, you elected him.

I wonder if you could have some public review or something in order to analyze each cop's past and welcom ehim into the community.

It seems reasonable.

The only risk is that any community could tectonically want powerful cops and as a response doom themselves.

In theory, it's a good idea...until corporate money and lobbyists get involved....then we are right back here....

reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic


I have a name for your scenario. I call it paranoid paradox theory.

In theory, if no one resists unity and the unification of mankind, then there will be no incentive to steal rights. But paranoid people call wolf by saying unity IS for getting rid of freedom. Then they cause riots over the theft of freedoms that have yet to be stolen, which results in those rights BEING stolen because of the riots.

Thus, in a kind of paradox, paranoia of something that doesn't happen, makes it happen.

[edit on 27-8-2008 by Gorman91]

reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic


You are so sure corporations would sponse4r EVERY single police election in EVERY single town?

Doesn't that seem to have bankruptcy posted on your forehead?

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic

 

I have a name for your scenario. I call it paranoid paradox theory.

In theory, if no one resists unity and the unification of mankind, then there will be no incentive to steal rights. But paranoid people call would by saying uinity IS for getting rid of freedom. Then they cause riots over the theft of freedoms that have yet to be stolen, which results in those rights BEING stolen because of the riots.

Thus, in a kind of paradox, paranoia of something that doesn't happen, makes it happen.

Are you going to keep spewing rhetoric, or address the points that I've made. You can justify it any way you want, you are advocating the death of this country and the loss of inalienable human rights.

Bravo for you.

reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic


See how you cling to YOUR rhetoric? You've been lulled into believing anything involved with unifying all nations destroys freedoms.

If things continue to advance, there will be cameras everywhere. Nothing will occur without it being seen. Thus, all actions being seen by the masses will, out of fear, prevent those actions less desirable.

Technology will drive us to unity. The US doesn't need to exist anymore. It's constitution has been adopted onto the global scale. The world is moving, and America is being left behind because of it's paranoia of the new.

[edit on 27-8-2008 by Gorman91]

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic

 

You are so sure corporations would sponse4r EVERY single police election in EVERY single town?

Doesn't that seem to have bankruptcy posted on your forehead?

Never said that, dont put words in my mouth. But there is one thing I know for sure: EVERY SINGLE PERSON in a position of political power in this country has been funded by corporate money. Let me repeat: EVERY SINGLE ONE.

I guess the real question is, how are you so sure that they would NOT sponsor every single election?

And if you think sponsoring politics is a money losing venture for corporations, you know even less about this country than I gave you credit for.

the police force in any town is nothing but a sort of legal crime family they protect thier town but also shake it down and the shake is on!!!!

reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic


No. For big candidates there's money in it.

But for cops? What's he going to do to get the sponsor money? shot people into buying their product?

And so what? Why are you assuming all sponsors are for bad? Is it so insane to think maybe some use corruption for good? I can tell you that if I were rich I'd use corruption to sponsor certain candidates I'd see as defenders of rights.

Why is it evil cannot be used to fight bigger evils?

[edit on 27-8-2008 by Gorman91]

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic

 

See how you cling to YOUR rhetoric? You've been lulled into believing anything involved with unifying all nations destroys freedoms.

If things continue to advance, there will be cameras everywhere. Nothing will occur without it being seen. Thus, all actions being seen by the masses will, out of fear, prevent those actions less desirable.

Technology will drive us to unity. The US doesn't need to exist anymore. It's constitution has been adopted onto the global scale. The world is moving, and America is being left behind because of it's paranoia of the new.

[edit on 27-8-2008 by Gorman91]

You're theory is that if you are being watched, you will not commit crime. That is absolutely assinine. Statistics have proven that the biggest deterent of crime is lowering poverty. Tell me, How is being watched going to deter someone from stealing the meal they need for their kids?

As it is, we have now gone on for three pages and you have said nothing of any factual or logical backing. You have silly ideas of utopia, yet there has never been any proof in the history of mankind that we will ever live in a crime free society.

Unless you can come up with anything of consequence to say other than playing the silly little games of throwing what I say right back at me without actually addressing it, I am done with this.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic

 

No. For big candidates there's money in it.

But for cops? What's he going to do to get the sponsor money? shot people into buying their product?

And so what? Why are you assuming all sponsors are for bad? Is it so insane to think maybe some use corruption for good? I can tell you that if I were rich I'd use corruption to sponsor certain candidates I'd see as defenders of rights.

Why is it evil cannot be used to fight bigger evils?

[edit on 27-8-2008 by Gorman91]

Really, theres no profit in it for a company to have a few police officers that owe them HUGE favors? Cmon man, I dont even believe you are thinking before you type.

Evil begets evil my friend. Thats a lesson you should learn.

reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic


Poverty is an ENTIRELY different issue. If you want to lower poverty, make NAU, sell the continent's oil dirt cheap, use that money to research Hydro power, and then sell it to American car companies to make cars that use hydroelectric. Jobs will flood into the nation for factory jobs. and hysro refineries.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic

 

Poverty is an ENTIRELY different issue. If you want to lower poverty, make NAU, sell the continent's oil dirt cheap, use that money to research Hydro power, and then sell it to American car companies to make cars that use hydroelectric. Jobs will flood into the nation for factory jobs. and hysro refineries.

You still miss the point. Punishment does not deter crime (if thats the case, why have 1/3 of all american adults been in jail?), helping people get the basic necessities of life, does.

reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic


I like to disprove lessons. I enjoy going against tradition. Why is it one cannot get rich off using corruption for good.

I'll give you an example:

I like architecture. And there's been times I've thought up where I can go with it. Imagine this. Suppose I finally get into the public domain. Well here's where is starts. I will build houses cheaper, and better. Using that, I'll befriend my clients. They'll like me for my protection of their wealth. As I go up in popularity, I'll have richer friends. First thing I do is found my own construction company to build my own houses at ever cheaper rates, thus lower construction costs even more. I'll make friends with the labor unions of my workers, protecting their rights. Then I'll found a few small resource companies. My connections with labor unions mean I'll be able to get my companies into getting better workers. I'll use my monopoly now to lower my buildings ever lower. Then I'll be getting richer because lots of cheap homes = $$$. Then I'll go into paying labor unions to sponsor certain candidates I see as good. These men will then owe me their candidacy, so I'll own them. by controlling certain politicians, I get certain the ability to get certain construction sites by having power in the gov. Then I'll get richer, and so fund bigger candidates. Getting more control, I tell them to vote out or in certain laws that I see as bad. Then I'll go into the military. I'll use my resource and construction companies to build cheaper military hardware that does better in battle, thus winning hands in the military. Now I own small levels of military commands. Eventually, I get involved with foreign government, doing dictator mansions and others for cheap prices. Then I have contact with them. I begin founding worker union sin their nations. I therefor control their politicians in the aforementioned method. Now I own multiple national interests. Then I begin buying other things, growing in wealth, and using it to prevent certain laws that steal freedoms.

Eventually I'll own all the government. And therefor own what they do. I'll prevent any laws I see as bad, and, shall we say, make the people who suggest such laws disappear. Now I own the secret societies, because I make their leaders disappear. Soon, I simply own the world, force unification, and all with YOUR rights intact.




See, you can use evil for good.

reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic


1/3 have been in jail because America is bigger, and so harder to control.

You can't honestly expect a nation with multiple times bigger populations as the most crime free nations to easily control crime, can you? More people =more crime, which then creates more bad influences on people, thus creating more criminals.

reply to post by Gorman91


If you want me to read that whole jumbled mess you are going to have to learn the magical powers of your enter key.

That being said, I can make up hypotheticals all day long. Are you ever going to come with some facts and logic?

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic

 

1/3 have been in jail because America is bigger, and so harder to control.

You can't honestly expect a nation with multiple times bigger populations as the most crime free nations to easily control crime, can you? More people =more crime, which then creates more bad influences on people, thus creating more criminals.

Are you kidding? Look up crime vs. population. The united states has more crime per capita than any nation. And we are by no means the biggest. Try again.

Also, by your point of view, the fact that so many have been arrested should lower crime, not raise it. Why the double-back all of a sudden?

If you want to talk about bad influences, lets talk about a president that breaks laws with impunity while you want to enable it. That is a bad influence.

[edit on 8/27/2008 by cautiouslypessimistic]

reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic


I did. But you won't read it.

Evil isn't always bad evil. There's also good evil. Evil that's used to do good. There's no law that says you can't use evil for good.

reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic


Every president since FDR has broken laws. So please, don't go on that train.


Also, America has bigger populations then most low crime nations. So there's nothing against what you said. In fact, you prove my point.