NEWS: Police Taser Man at Chuck E. Cheese

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
If you think the US is a fascist regime, you are not only way above top secret, you are so far out in left field that you're beyond the parking lot. Your fact twisting and paranoid delusional crusade is becoming way beyond irritating, it's nauseating.

Fascism: a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government

That is us, now - no mistaking the smell of it. They government tells us what to do under threat of punishment and they are hierarchical in structure. Am I missing something or are you suffering from a reality disconnect? How can I be more clear on this point? Delusional?? I think you're projecting.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
The lesson here is that when the police ask for your cooperation, cooperate. The whole matter could have been settled easily without resorting to violence and the police could have been free to go about their business, most of which is a lot more important that salad filching.

I disagree completely (are you surprised?) - The lesson here is: The whole matter could have been settled using civil means as suggested by other members. Write him a ticket for disorderly conduct, send him a court date for petty larceny. This was an enormous abuse of police power. Oh, and when the police ask for cooperation, you cooperate? Good for you. Last few times I cooperated, didn't work out too well for me. I think I like my chances better in this scenario:

"Sir, step away from the salad bar."
"Are you serious?"
"Are you mocking me? Step outside please sir."
"Just tell me what this is all about."
"Can I see your receipt please?"
"What? Where is this coming from? Are you, like, the salad police or something?"
"Are you giving me lip boy?"
"Man to man; you touch me again, we're gonna to tussle."

The cop can do what he pleases, the situation is in his hands. His decision will probably be the use of violence, immediate, brutal, motivated by hubris and an inflated ego. My response would be uncontrollable reflex in accordance with a law much older than Christianity, much older than language. Two and a half seconds later, we'll see who's cooperating with whom.

If I'm treated like a man, I will act like a man. Respect me and I respect you. Simple enough isn't it? Come at me like an animal, you get put down like one. It's just nature. The laws of nature are elegantly brutal, and if a confrontation between men gets removed to that level, consequences are inevitable. They've lost all fear of us, that makes them prideful and vain, soft, prone to displays of a pompous, reactionary nature; essentially a lizard that flaps its neck skin but has no venom.

We could have stayed in civilization and conversed like gentlemen, but no...
We could have identified common ground and discussed possible remedies for the problem...
But no, the government/cop/church/kingdom/corporation doesn't want the extra expense of civility. They will of course, receive exactly what they give. It's always been the way.

Why do you think people snipe at cops in the slums of every city? Why do you think people hate pigs (bad cops) so much? It's not because they're all friendly and cooperative and helpful and concerned. People hate pigs because pigs are not men. They act like animals with opposable thumbs and gunbelts.

There are many, many good cops who do a great job. Sadly, they go largely under-appreciated because of this sort of nonsense. They could make up the overwhelming majority of the police force if psychological screening and extensive training in crisis management were requirements to join the force. The good cops often become bad cops over time, because they get such an overwhelming amount of crap from thankless people who've had bad experiences with pigs in the past. Part of the burden of these self perpetuating snap decisions falls on the populace, obviously, but the populace has placed the police slightly above itself to facilitate enforcement of the laws, and so the populace can expect a greater degree of responsibility from those chosen to 'serve and protect.'

How did this incident serve or protect the restaurant? How did it serve or protect the customer? It served no citizen, and was therefore outside the boundaries set by the citizens for the police to follow. This is often the case, and it must never be tolerated. The police will serve US or be replaced. The politicians will serve US or be removed from office. Their own greed, bad judgement, and violent compulsions will lead them inexorably into the trapdoor labeled 'History.' Shortly thereafter a new puppet will be erected and the show will resume... I'm fine with the cyclic nature of the world, I actually think it's a marvel of efficiency and reliability/sustainability. Just don't presume you can tell me or anyone else not to play their part.

How many iterations come to pass depends entirely on how reasonable we're all willing to be.

I've got no problem with tazers, they're just a tool. I have a real problem with the sentiment you and others are fond of spouting, "obey authority because that's what you do!" Was that the heritage of this country? For someone who purports to care so much about it, you don't seem to have much respect for its traditions.

Disregard anything you might have heard previously, America was not founded through obedience.

[edit on 4-3-2005 by WyrdeOne]

Originally posted by dgtempe

Blessings from your White House

And this is for Soficrows initial statement's too as I had to go to work and didn't have the time:

Rodney King; Los Angeles, California; March 3, 1991

Kent State; May 4, 1970

The Draft Riots; New York City, New York; July 11-13, 1863

Japanese Internment 1941-1946

The Whiskey Rebellion; Western Pennsylvania; Summer-Fall 1794

Many, Many more examples could be brought up, but these are just freakin' glowing.

Can they all be placed on George W. Bush?

Anyway, most of the hypotheses LOUDLY professed that we are losing our democracy, are becoming like Germany in the 30's and 40's, there exists a Neo-Con conspiracy, are, and as intelligent as some of you are, seemingly intentionally ignorant to historical events much worse than anything that is currently happening civil liberties wise in the US today.

PistolPete
Are you in favor of cultural evolution?

I think Americans have been tricked into playing by the rules in a 'justice for some' society, duped by those same people tasked with protecting them.

Originally posted by dgtempe

Blessings from your White House

dgtempe could find a way to blame Bush for a rainy day! HAARP I guess!!!

Seriously, dg, you need to lose that one track mind mentality. George Bush had absolutely nothing to do with this...

I'd say if nothing else the White House set precedent for pre-emptive strikes. They encourage a culture of fear and obedience. They nurture psychopaths and ciminalize protest.

Next time you argue 'Bush has nothing to do with this', put a little thought into it guys...

Don't make it so easy!

Why be partisan, when you can be human?

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
PistolPete
Are you in favor of cultural evolution?

I think Americans have been tricked into playing by the rules in a 'justice for some' society, duped by those same people tasked with protecting them.

Exactly, and that's the point I'm trying to convey.

But lumping all of societies ills on Bush is just as dangerous as ignoring them all together. False, emotive arguments will do nothing to further cultural evolution.

It simply divides us.

Which is ideal for them.

Most of you griping about Bush now will rush to elect a Democrat next election. There's no difference. The people in charge have done terrible, awful things to American people prodiminently starting at around the time of the Civil War and then further magnified during the First and Second World Wars. You don't think there was a culture of fear in the past? McCarthyism and the "Red Scare"? The Espionage Act? Bleeding Kansas? The "scary" FEMA E.O.'s were penned decades ago, the Patriot ACT was originially written for the Clinton administration. Ad nauseum.

I'm glad people are waking up and smelling the crap, and it's not too little too late. But it will be when in four years both sides clamor to choose between two men that were members of the same freakin fraternity!

Edited to edit my edit.

[edit on (3/4/0505 by PistolPete]

PistolPete
I understand what you're saying now, thanks for clarifying.

I do agree that people are waking up, in huge numbers, for no apparent reason. Apparently some sort of threshold was reached where a large number of people simply couldn't take the surreal experience any more. I sort of thought for a while we were doomed, but then all of a sudden, for no apparent reason, everywhere I looked people were saying the same things I was. In RL, not fantasy internet world. LOL

I don't know what happens next. Change I imagine.

I agree with Pistol Pete as well. Right on Pete.

I lived through the Arthur MacDuffy riots in Miami. Arthur MacDuffy was not beaten like Rodney King he was beaten to death. In broad daylight in the street and the crime covered up by the police who were subsequently found not guilty of any wrong doing. The resulting riots killed something like 180 people black and white.

This is not a Republican or Democrat issue this is an American issue.

I have also lived in Aurora Colorado and can tell you that many Denver police are out of control and have been for decades. Not just a few bad cops there. Yes they NO DOUBT asked him to go outside so that they could arrest him for leaving without paying. This is not Bush's fault but he is not helping anything. Bush should be the manager of a Chucky Cheese in Aurora Co for this reason.

Yeah, no one listen to the police! All they want to do is hastle and/or beat you for no reason. If you want free salad, just go in and get it. We don't need rules or laws. It's a FREE country.

Wyred

I don't know what grocery store check-out counter dictionary you got your definition of fascism from, but here are some links to help set you straight.

www.google.com...

The origin and ideology of Fascism

Etymologically, the use of the word Fascism in modern Italian political history stretches back to the 1890s in the form of fasci, which were radical leftist political factions that proliferated in the decades before World War I. The adoption of this term by the Fascist Party reflected the previous involvement of a number of them in radical left politics. (See Fascio for more on this movement and its evolution.)

The Doctrine of Fascism was written by Giovanni Gentile, an idealist philosopher who served as the official philosopher of fascism. Mussolini signed the article and it was officially attributed to him. In it, Frenchmen Georges Sorel, Charles Peguy, and Hubert Lagardelle were invoked as the sources of fascism. Sorel's ideas concerning syndicalism and violence are much in evidence in this document. It also quotes from Joseph Renan who it says had "pre-fascist intuitions". Both Sorel and Peguy were influenced by the Frenchman Henri Bergson. Bergson rejected the scientism, mechanical evolution and materialism of Marxist ideology. Also, Bergson promoted an elan vital as an evolutionary process. Both of these elements of Bergson appear in fascism. Mussolini states that fascism negates the doctrine of scientific and Marxian socialism and the doctrine of historic materialism. Hubert Lagardelle, an authoritative syndicalist writer, was influenced by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon who, in turn, inspired anarchosyndicalism.

There were several strains of tradition influencing Mussolini. Sergio Panunzio, a major theoretician of fascism in the 1920s, had a syndicalist background, but his influence waned as the movement shed its old left wing elements. The fascist concept of corporatism and particularly its theories of class collaboration and economic and social relations are very similar to the model laid out by Pope Leo XIII's 1892 encyclical Rerum Novarum. This encyclical addressed politics as it had been transformed by the Industrial Revolution, and other changes in society that had occurred during the nineteenth century. The document criticized capitalism, complaining of the exploitation of the masses in industry. However, it also sharply criticized the socialist concept of class struggle, and the proposed socialist solution to exploitation (the elimination, or at least the limitation, of private property). Rerum Novarum called for strong governments to undertake a mission to protect their people from exploitation, while continuing to uphold private property and reject socialism. It also asked Catholics to apply principles of social justice in their own lives.

Seeking to find some principle to compete with and replace the Marxist doctrine of class struggle, Rerum Novarum urged social solidarity between the upper and lower classes, and endorsed nationalism as a way of preserving traditional morality, customs, and folkways. In doing so, Rerum Novarum proposed a kind of corporatism, the organization of political societies along industrial lines that resembled mediaeval guilds. A one-person, one-vote democracy was rejected in favor of representation by interest groups. This idea was to counteract the "subversive nature" of the doctrine of Karl Marx.

The themes and ideas developed in Rerum Novarum can also be found in the ideology of fascism as developed by Mussolini.

en.wikipedia.org...

Fascists particularly loathed the social theories of the French Revolution and its slogan: "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity."

*** Liberty from oppressive government intervention in the daily lives of its citizens, from illicit searches and seizures, from enforced religious values, from intimidation and arrest for dissenters; and liberty to cast a vote in a system in which the majority ruled but the minority retained certain inalienable rights.

*** Equality in the sense of civic equality, egalitarianism, the notion that while people differ, they all should stand equal in the eyes of the law.

*** Fraternity in the sense of the brotherhood of mankind. That all women and men, the old and the young, the infirm and the healthy, the rich and the poor, share a spark of humanity that must be cherished on a level above that of the law, and that binds us all together in a manner that continuously re-affirms and celebrates life.

This is what fascism as an ideology was reacting against_and its support came primarily from desperate people anxious and angry over their perception that their social and economic position was sinking and frustrated with the constant risk of chaos, uncertainty and inefficiency implicit in a modern democracy based on these principles. Fascism is the antithesis of democracy. We fought a war against it not half a century ago; millions perished as victims of fascism and champions of liberty.

www.remember.org...

There are many who point out, and rightfully so, that we teeter on the brink of fascism, but it is equally true that we teeter on the brink of communism, as well. Proponents of both systems exist, but the communists are inordinately represented on our college campuses and sadly, here at ATS. Ultimately, both systems are totalitarian in nature and it is only through vigilence, activism, and the protection of the Constitution that we avoid totalitarianism, in any form.

However, asserting that the US is a fascist state is irresponsible, at best, and ignorant, by any measure.

As to your accusation of projection, you may feel free to point out any of my posts that you feel demonstate this Freudian concept.

Mussolini once defined communism as government control of corporations and fascism as corporate control of government. It is possible to oppose fascism and not be a communist and vice versa. Here are some definitions of fascism that show it to be a RIGHT WING vice:


“Fascism is a form of totalitarianism in that it holds the State to be the highest value, to which all individuals must be completely loyal. Yet it is distinguishable from other forms of totalitarianism in its exultation of war and violence as a means of invigorating the state and the people. Its focus on nationalism means fascism may vary in detail from country to country, but always it brings war - against others and against the individual.
Mussolini's Italy invented it. It is derived from the Roman 'fasces', the bundle of sticks around an axe which represented the Roman Imperium and interestingly also adorns the United States Congress!”

1. A system of government characterized by extreme nationalism, violence, and the control of ideas: America
2. The right-wing movement in Europe between the World Wars.
3. Not a leftist movement. Do a little research on the times you fiends. The Popular Front was a leftist movement to counter the rise of fascism.
The corporate state in America can be compared to fascism. The corporations own the government that spews its nationalist, militarist propaganda with overtones of a "think like us or get the hell out" mentality while they themselves own and control all means of production and wealth.

www.urbandictionary.com...

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I don't know what grocery store check-out counter dictionary you got your definition of fascism from, but here are some links to help set you straight.

Nice, awesome reply. Because I know what words mean and don't have to link to a dictionary, you're superior? I can link to dictionaries, and so can you, what do you want, a medal? Anyone who doesn't know how to look words up online should have their internet privileges taken away; they're unqualified.

Thanks, you just spent all that time and proved what? Are you trying to make the 'point' that I was incorrect in my definition? I can see absolutely no difference in the end point between your post and mine. I could have posted the etymology, spoken on the tactics of Mussolini and how he's still used today as an example of an effective deceiver of the people, but I restricted my definition in the spirit of relevancy.

Did you even read and comprehend the post you made? You agree with me! Are you hung up on semantics? Honestly it looks like you didn't even read the definitions you posted for comparison. Did you just assume I was wrong?

Can someone else give an outside opinion here on what, if any, difference there is between my definition and Wiki's? Mine was obviously simpler, but it was most certainly not wrong.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott[/i
However, asserting that the US is a fascist state is irresponsible, at best, and ignorant, by any measure.

As to your accusation of projection, you may feel free to point out any of my posts that you feel demonstate this Freudian concept.

No..calling we're living in a democracy with no real choices, no separation of party controllers. That's not democracy. We're fed on fear and told to give up liberties. That's not Democracy either. I think you are looking at the world from a very 'unique' perspective, the particulars of which appear about as logical and well thought out, as timely and useful as an ass-hat.

As to the second part of your question. I already did point it out. In my last post. Once again, you're not paying attention.