danimal151@ wrote:
TOM,
How can someone, like yourself for example, see the details of this raid and say that the raid escaltes the situation? Don't you think that these folks, who had 3 weapons in the home LOADED, were just another murder waiting to happen? You don't keep loaded weapons unless you intend to use them. MIne's loaded bacuse I intend to use it in case of a home invassion. What about yours?
And don't you KNOW that most likely, when these folks went on a DEAL, that they carried said weapons with them? So just saying they could have been arrested outside the home does not insure an easy, safer bust.
Now for the silliest staement you made about the Branch Dividians.
That cult was not going to surender if the cops just knocked on the door and asked David to come out. They were armed to the teeth waiting for the oppertunity to kill. That is proven by the fact that DAvid Koresch was willing to burn the compund, himself and everyone else. And his followers joined him.
The only common denominator between that raid and the COKE bust was SWAT action.
Surley you can see that just because YOU call the dealers in the bust NON VIOENT, even you must be able to see they were armed with the intent to use the LOADED weapons.
How can someone, like yourself for example, see the details of this raid and say that the raid escaltes the situation? Don't you think that these folks, who had 3 weapons in the home LOADED, were just another murder waiting to happen? You don't keep loaded weapons unless you intend to use them. MIne's loaded bacuse I intend to use it in case of a home invassion. What about yours?
And don't you KNOW that most likely, when these folks went on a DEAL, that they carried said weapons with them? So just saying they could have been arrested outside the home does not insure an easy, safer bust.
Now for the silliest staement you made about the Branch Dividians.
That cult was not going to surender if the cops just knocked on the door and asked David to come out. They were armed to the teeth waiting for the oppertunity to kill. That is proven by the fact that DAvid Koresch was willing to burn the compund, himself and everyone else. And his followers joined him.
The only common denominator between that raid and the COKE bust was SWAT action.
Surley you can see that just because YOU call the dealers in the bust NON VIOENT, even you must be able to see they were armed with the intent to use the LOADED weapons.
13 August 2008 03:14:14
heidisgranny@ wrote:
right again TL
Danimal, how do you know thier INTENT? Abuse of power, and you are all for it, amazing.
Danimal, how do you know thier INTENT? Abuse of power, and you are all for it, amazing.
13 August 2008 08:58:45
wrote:
Tom, do you think if the officers were to knock on the door that people are just going open the door right up and say,"Good evenening officer, come on in, yes, here are the drugs, here are the weapons, and here are my hands, go ahead and cuff me"?
Believe it or not, I do agree with less government. But at the same time, their has to be law and order. Law enforcement IS a dangerous job, no matter how they do it. What do you suggest? They just let them go, and wait for the next person to get shot from a drug deal gone bad? Or wait for someone to overdose and die from those drugs? And yes, I saw your comment on that thread. Drugs DO bring death.
Believe it or not, I do agree with less government. But at the same time, their has to be law and order. Law enforcement IS a dangerous job, no matter how they do it. What do you suggest? They just let them go, and wait for the next person to get shot from a drug deal gone bad? Or wait for someone to overdose and die from those drugs? And yes, I saw your comment on that thread. Drugs DO bring death.
13 August 2008 10:01:38
Lucente wrote:
Danimal,
They certainly weren't carrying a shotgun on the streets while making drug sales. And, that they had loaded guns is proof that the police kicking in their door was a provocative action that increased the chance of violence. As you said, if someone invades your home, you are shooting them. Are you going to wait and ask to see a badge first? Of course not.
The PACE unit could have easily arrested these people on the street as they made their buys. At the most, they would have only had a handgun on them. And it would be very rare indeed if someone being arrested for selling drugs on the street to take a shot at a group of armed officers arresting him. It simply does not happen unless the guy is willing to commit suicide. When, for example, is the last time anyone has ever taken a shot at an LPD officer?
As far as Koresh, the guy walked into town, unarmed, every day. They could have simply arrested him. Why try to take someone in a heavily fortified position when you can take them out and about alone and unarmed?
~tjl~
They certainly weren't carrying a shotgun on the streets while making drug sales. And, that they had loaded guns is proof that the police kicking in their door was a provocative action that increased the chance of violence. As you said, if someone invades your home, you are shooting them. Are you going to wait and ask to see a badge first? Of course not.
The PACE unit could have easily arrested these people on the street as they made their buys. At the most, they would have only had a handgun on them. And it would be very rare indeed if someone being arrested for selling drugs on the street to take a shot at a group of armed officers arresting him. It simply does not happen unless the guy is willing to commit suicide. When, for example, is the last time anyone has ever taken a shot at an LPD officer?
As far as Koresh, the guy walked into town, unarmed, every day. They could have simply arrested him. Why try to take someone in a heavily fortified position when you can take them out and about alone and unarmed?
~tjl~
13 August 2008 12:44:49
Lucente wrote:
Grip,
Law enforcement is simply NOT THAT DANGEROUS. Much of the danger is created when the cops kick in doors dressed all in black. They intentionally put themselves in dangerous situations when less dangerous behavior could accomplish the same goals.
Let's see, arrest someone on the street as you make the buy, or kick in the doors to their home where they are more likely to have heavier weapons? Hmm. Seems the choice is clear. On the street, they are only likely to have a handgun. You tell me which is best.
I tell you now, someone kicks in my door, they are getting shot. I am not going to hold my fire on the off chance it is a cop on a police raid. I am protecting my home and family first.
~tjl~
Law enforcement is simply NOT THAT DANGEROUS. Much of the danger is created when the cops kick in doors dressed all in black. They intentionally put themselves in dangerous situations when less dangerous behavior could accomplish the same goals.
Let's see, arrest someone on the street as you make the buy, or kick in the doors to their home where they are more likely to have heavier weapons? Hmm. Seems the choice is clear. On the street, they are only likely to have a handgun. You tell me which is best.
I tell you now, someone kicks in my door, they are getting shot. I am not going to hold my fire on the off chance it is a cop on a police raid. I am protecting my home and family first.
~tjl~
13 August 2008 12:49:28
wrote:
Law enforcement is "not that dangerous"??? Wow, you realy do need to get a grip. On reality.
13 August 2008 13:41:10
Lucente wrote:
Grip,
It is called being informed. You should try it sometime. According to studies, farming and garbage collecting are more dangerous than police work. In fact, cop is not even in the top 10 of America's most dangerous jobs. Should we outfit farmers with military gear and let them treat citizens like the enemy?
When's the last time a Lima cop has been shot at? It's been decades since one was killed in the line of duty.
~tjl~
It is called being informed. You should try it sometime. According to studies, farming and garbage collecting are more dangerous than police work. In fact, cop is not even in the top 10 of America's most dangerous jobs. Should we outfit farmers with military gear and let them treat citizens like the enemy?
When's the last time a Lima cop has been shot at? It's been decades since one was killed in the line of duty.
~tjl~
13 August 2008 13:49:54
wrote:
If they arrest someone on the street, it creates more of a danger to the rest of the community. I am not sure why you can't see that.
As far as the danger level, tune in to the next episode of "Cops". Police are getting shot for simple traffic violations. Police are getting run over by other motorists. I personally know of one officer that was attacked while responding to a simple dispute over one persons children messing around with their neighbors shed. Unless you have been a part of law enforcement, do not presume to tell anyone that it is "not that dangerous".
I have seen some misinformed comments from you in the past, but this one is just plumb crazy.
As far as the danger level, tune in to the next episode of "Cops". Police are getting shot for simple traffic violations. Police are getting run over by other motorists. I personally know of one officer that was attacked while responding to a simple dispute over one persons children messing around with their neighbors shed. Unless you have been a part of law enforcement, do not presume to tell anyone that it is "not that dangerous".
I have seen some misinformed comments from you in the past, but this one is just plumb crazy.
13 August 2008 13:52:57
wrote:
LOL, I should try "being informed" sometime huh? What a joke. You act as if a drug raid is the only dangerous situation that a cop would face. And, you say that they create that situation themselves.
Your little scenario about putting farmers in military gear, is ridiculous. They have dangerous jobs because of the machinery that they use. Police have dangerous jobs because of outlaws.
You think the police treat citizens like the enemy? Again, your viewpoint amazes me. They treat OUTLAWS as the enemy. This is a simple concept. If one does not want to be treated as the "enemy", then do not BE the enemy.
Your little scenario about putting farmers in military gear, is ridiculous. They have dangerous jobs because of the machinery that they use. Police have dangerous jobs because of outlaws.
You think the police treat citizens like the enemy? Again, your viewpoint amazes me. They treat OUTLAWS as the enemy. This is a simple concept. If one does not want to be treated as the "enemy", then do not BE the enemy.
13 August 2008 14:00:42
Lucente wrote:
Grip,
And I have seen nothing but misinformed comments from you.
It is simply wrong to say that arresting someone on the street out in the open is more dangerous than kicking in their door in the middle of the night dressed in black. They are less likely to shoot a cop in the street while being arrested than they are when they are in their home and are being startled by a home invasion. Are you too dense to see that?
As far as the danger level goes, I am relying on statistics that show you are COMPLETELY wrong. It is dangerous, of course, but it is not THAT dangerous. More farmers and garbage men are killed every year on the job than cops. That is the truth. You can't dispute that despite your cop love.
And, of the cops that are killed, they are mostly killed during traffic duty or responding to domestic disputes or bar fights. They are not being killed by drug dealers.
So face it, your argument is baseless and lame and uninformed. Though I doubt it matters much to you and your weird cop love.
~tjl~
And I have seen nothing but misinformed comments from you.
It is simply wrong to say that arresting someone on the street out in the open is more dangerous than kicking in their door in the middle of the night dressed in black. They are less likely to shoot a cop in the street while being arrested than they are when they are in their home and are being startled by a home invasion. Are you too dense to see that?
As far as the danger level goes, I am relying on statistics that show you are COMPLETELY wrong. It is dangerous, of course, but it is not THAT dangerous. More farmers and garbage men are killed every year on the job than cops. That is the truth. You can't dispute that despite your cop love.
And, of the cops that are killed, they are mostly killed during traffic duty or responding to domestic disputes or bar fights. They are not being killed by drug dealers.
So face it, your argument is baseless and lame and uninformed. Though I doubt it matters much to you and your weird cop love.
~tjl~
13 August 2008 14:03:40
Lucente wrote:
Grip,
Spoken like someone who has never seen a cop. You really are naive. I have seen cops treat victims like the enemy. So don't tell me they don't do that.
Maybe you should get over your fear of life and actually leave your house once in awhile.
~tjl~
Spoken like someone who has never seen a cop. You really are naive. I have seen cops treat victims like the enemy. So don't tell me they don't do that.
Maybe you should get over your fear of life and actually leave your house once in awhile.
~tjl~
13 August 2008 14:05:08
danimal151@ wrote:
GRIP...dude, use some logic in your debate. Tom will eat you for lunch if you don't.
Tom. OK..Lima has what, 75 cops? And Allen county has how many deputies? Now count the garbage men and farmers. No wonder they have a higher injury/death rate huh?
And lets not forget thet Law inforcement has a high standard of training. Most farmers are trained on the fly by their fathers and grandfathers. Leading to all kinds of dangerous misinformation. Apple and oranges.
Oh and how do you know that those folks were not carrying a shotgun on the street. 15K in coke, and they go to make a sale...you think that shotgun was not in the frount seat?
Oh and this too. It has been decades since am officer here was shot and killed. Good training, and good equipment may be part of the reason, ya think?
Tom. OK..Lima has what, 75 cops? And Allen county has how many deputies? Now count the garbage men and farmers. No wonder they have a higher injury/death rate huh?
And lets not forget thet Law inforcement has a high standard of training. Most farmers are trained on the fly by their fathers and grandfathers. Leading to all kinds of dangerous misinformation. Apple and oranges.
Oh and how do you know that those folks were not carrying a shotgun on the street. 15K in coke, and they go to make a sale...you think that shotgun was not in the frount seat?
Oh and this too. It has been decades since am officer here was shot and killed. Good training, and good equipment may be part of the reason, ya think?
13 August 2008 16:09:12
Scant wrote:
Tom,
Alot of talk about home invasions, or a drug raid, from the police dept. You and others, and I have a loaded weapon in my home and will use it if someone breaks into my home. Is it police procedure now when the cops come in that they do not identify themseleves anymore, always thought they did. If I hear my door being torn off the hinges, I will be going for the gun, but will stop when I hear - This is the police get down, at that point I will lay my gun down, but if not, I am throwing lead. You said if your door is kicked in, they are getting shot, you are not going to hold your fire on the off chance it is a cop on a ploice raid. Do cops no longer identify who they are anymore, if thats the case I agree with you, but if not, you would be shotting anyway. You should indentify your target before you shot, like you say the, Sgt. should have. Please tell me TL you are going on the assumption that the invaders are not identifing themseleves.
Alot of talk about home invasions, or a drug raid, from the police dept. You and others, and I have a loaded weapon in my home and will use it if someone breaks into my home. Is it police procedure now when the cops come in that they do not identify themseleves anymore, always thought they did. If I hear my door being torn off the hinges, I will be going for the gun, but will stop when I hear - This is the police get down, at that point I will lay my gun down, but if not, I am throwing lead. You said if your door is kicked in, they are getting shot, you are not going to hold your fire on the off chance it is a cop on a ploice raid. Do cops no longer identify who they are anymore, if thats the case I agree with you, but if not, you would be shotting anyway. You should indentify your target before you shot, like you say the, Sgt. should have. Please tell me TL you are going on the assumption that the invaders are not identifing themseleves.
13 August 2008 19:27:08
bill543@ wrote:
Wow. I am really trying to follow the logic on this. You blog about a police raid in which drugs, guns and stolen property were recovered, not a single person was hurt and all suspects were captured. This is somehow an example of what's wrong with using a SWAT team? That's a lot like pointing to an airplane that safely lands at an airport and saying it's an example as to why it's dangerous to fly. It's a bait and switch argument that does nothing to advance your point of view.
Perhaps the most offensive example of this bait and switch approach you use, Tom, is when you claim law enforcement is not that dangerous. The study you cite in which farmers and garbage collectors are found to be in dangerous professions did not deal with the danger of a profession at all. It dealt with deaths on the job. In short, it listed the top ten jobs in which there were the most fatalities in a given year. Most of the jobs listed required the use of heavy equiptment and were performed by unskilled workers with minimal education. Thus, it is debatable whether the cause of death was from the danger of the job or from the ignorance of the worker. Moreover, just because a given profession has a high number of fatalities, that does not mean another profession is somehow not that dangerous. It is flat out wrong to hold that study as an example that proves police work is not that dangerous.
Tom, you are quick to berate cops for "dressing like nijas and acting macho," but when you make the statement that you're going to shoot first and ask questions later when someone kicks in your door, aren't you also letting your inner John Wayne take over? Hope nobody sees your house on fire at 3 AM and tries to get you and your family out.
Perhaps the most offensive example of this bait and switch approach you use, Tom, is when you claim law enforcement is not that dangerous. The study you cite in which farmers and garbage collectors are found to be in dangerous professions did not deal with the danger of a profession at all. It dealt with deaths on the job. In short, it listed the top ten jobs in which there were the most fatalities in a given year. Most of the jobs listed required the use of heavy equiptment and were performed by unskilled workers with minimal education. Thus, it is debatable whether the cause of death was from the danger of the job or from the ignorance of the worker. Moreover, just because a given profession has a high number of fatalities, that does not mean another profession is somehow not that dangerous. It is flat out wrong to hold that study as an example that proves police work is not that dangerous.
Tom, you are quick to berate cops for "dressing like nijas and acting macho," but when you make the statement that you're going to shoot first and ask questions later when someone kicks in your door, aren't you also letting your inner John Wayne take over? Hope nobody sees your house on fire at 3 AM and tries to get you and your family out.
13 August 2008 21:52:37
Susan wrote:
Hey Bill and Tom, wouldn't you think that the level of danger for police would be different depending where you work? For instance, being a cop in Cairo, Ohio would truly be "not that dangerous" as compared to being a cop in Cleveland. I think that one cannot legitimately make such a broad statement that being a police officer is "not that dangerous", when it will vary depending on the jurisdiction you cover all across the US. I guess my point is, you are both right.
p.s. Bill... "inner John Wayne"... love that!
p.s. Bill... "inner John Wayne"... love that!
13 August 2008 22:31:16
wrote:
After reading your articles Lucente, I have realized how much I can't stand TLN. I have cancelled my subsription on I'm done with it. All of the one sided stories, and non sense arguments. Just plain tired of it.
Have a nice day!
Have a nice day!
14 August 2008 08:25:51
danimal151@ wrote:
whoever that was above me.
Who cares if you cancel? This is a blog. Why take TLN to rask? So what if you dint agree. So what if you don't like it. I don't agree with TL very often either, but he has a right to say what he says. You have a right to rebut it. or hit the road. No one cares. I respect him for having an informed opinion, even if he is young and still a little whacked. He will grow into life as he see more of it. You however don't seem to be able to grow.
Who cares if you cancel? This is a blog. Why take TLN to rask? So what if you dint agree. So what if you don't like it. I don't agree with TL very often either, but he has a right to say what he says. You have a right to rebut it. or hit the road. No one cares. I respect him for having an informed opinion, even if he is young and still a little whacked. He will grow into life as he see more of it. You however don't seem to be able to grow.
14 August 2008 15:23:40
Susan wrote:
What happened to the names around here anyway? This morning, it was some guy named "Jim" that wrote that he was cancelling his subscription, now it's just "wrote". I noticed there are some other's names suddenly missing too.. strange.
Danimal, I agree, so what if he cancels. We all know he's going to keep reading the LN online anyway... people like that just can't help themselves.
What do you mean TL is "young"? Dude, he's gotta be pushing 60.
Danimal, I agree, so what if he cancels. We all know he's going to keep reading the LN online anyway... people like that just can't help themselves.
What do you mean TL is "young"? Dude, he's gotta be pushing 60.
14 August 2008 17:37:45
Scant wrote:
Susan,
HA HA, Thats a good way to get a responce from TL. good one girl.
HA HA, Thats a good way to get a responce from TL. good one girl.
14 August 2008 17:46:36
heidisgranny@ wrote:
Danimal says you will grow out of it Tom! See there is still hope for ya after all, btw, your right again on this one.
14 August 2008 19:01:20
danimal151@ wrote:
Dan, I am sure every time TL sees you say he is right about something, he stops dead in his tacks and rethinks it. You are the last person on here that he or anyone would want to be in agreement with. Your posts are lame, your ideas are lame.
15 August 2008 04:14:55
wayneskid1226 wrote:
I, for one, would much rather see the police raid a home to contain the situation than take the risk that someone in my family is an innocent bystander to a "public takedown". As for police work not being dangerous, think again. I pray every day that my brother and his fellow officers are safe, as are my daughter, nephew and sister-in-law, who are also in areas of law enforcement.
And, one other thing.....how do you know that the offenders didn't take the loaded shotgun with them on drug transactions? Did you do a ride-along?
Responsible gun owners take precautions to ensure that others in their home are safe from loaded weapons. So, I ask, were there trigger locks on the weapons seized?
And, one other thing.....how do you know that the offenders didn't take the loaded shotgun with them on drug transactions? Did you do a ride-along?
Responsible gun owners take precautions to ensure that others in their home are safe from loaded weapons. So, I ask, were there trigger locks on the weapons seized?
15 August 2008 07:20:55
m_i_6_agent@ wrote:
Tom,
I'll throw a comment, based upon a discussion in school, into this discussion about police officer deaths vs. farmer deaths.
If an officer gets hurt at work, his/her access to medical attention is almost immediate, be it by radio, or bystanders. Other officers, who have first responder training, will arrive shortly. However, if a farmer gets hurt, he/she is often out in a barn or field by him/herself. It may take hours before someone finds him/her, plus the distance an ambulance has to travel to get to the farmer and then to a medical facility.
Additionally, in comparing the "dangerousness" of the two occupations, one must consider the farmer's requirement to put in long hours around heavy machinery. Exhaustion is a major factor. Compare this to the the officer's major factor, acts of violence.
I don't have any data from the last two or three years. Farmers may have more death per capita than police officers, but officers are killed by another person, not a machine.
If you have access to data to the contrary, I'll look at it. Just don't call me a "cop lover" and move on. I have the highest respect for both vocations. Where would we be without either?
~ Q
I'll throw a comment, based upon a discussion in school, into this discussion about police officer deaths vs. farmer deaths.
If an officer gets hurt at work, his/her access to medical attention is almost immediate, be it by radio, or bystanders. Other officers, who have first responder training, will arrive shortly. However, if a farmer gets hurt, he/she is often out in a barn or field by him/herself. It may take hours before someone finds him/her, plus the distance an ambulance has to travel to get to the farmer and then to a medical facility.
Additionally, in comparing the "dangerousness" of the two occupations, one must consider the farmer's requirement to put in long hours around heavy machinery. Exhaustion is a major factor. Compare this to the the officer's major factor, acts of violence.
I don't have any data from the last two or three years. Farmers may have more death per capita than police officers, but officers are killed by another person, not a machine.
If you have access to data to the contrary, I'll look at it. Just don't call me a "cop lover" and move on. I have the highest respect for both vocations. Where would we be without either?
~ Q
15 August 2008 10:20:44
heidisgranny@ wrote:
as long as its someone elses family and kids, its alright with wayne?
15 August 2008 11:13:36
heidisgranny@ wrote:
more yak from the danimal, when I agree, I agree, PERIOD! Bet you ride the party line know matter what heh? BTW nanabooboo is the best you can do? Real mature and smart?
Im impressed. Actually my post were better than yours, so, looks like you need some help.
Ill bet Tom falls apart when you dont agree.
Im impressed. Actually my post were better than yours, so, looks like you need some help.
Ill bet Tom falls apart when you dont agree.
15 August 2008 14:14:59
heidisgranny@ wrote:
BTW bigmouth danimal, wheres your question? Where is your confusion? What is it you dont understand?
15 August 2008 14:16:35
Susan wrote:
Danimal, you are wasting your time arguing with "pops", I learned that one the hard way on the old forums some time ago. Your best bet is to let him keep on going until he self-destructs. 
15 August 2008 15:21:56
heidisgranny@ wrote:
fat chance sus. He isnt arguing, or debateing, just blabbing, big difference.
15 August 2008 15:50:29
danimal151@ wrote:
DAN...yak AKA pops...you were a moron before, and you still are...and we all agree with that...eh Susan? eh Happyg?
Dan, I have no questions for you because you have shown you cannot but a thought to gether in such a way that anyone can understand it. Your posts are never BETTER than mine, or anyone elses, beacuse you make no sense, have no original thoughts and only spew stupidity and hearsay. Yer an idiot, just face the facts and move on.
Dan, I have no questions for you because you have shown you cannot but a thought to gether in such a way that anyone can understand it. Your posts are never BETTER than mine, or anyone elses, beacuse you make no sense, have no original thoughts and only spew stupidity and hearsay. Yer an idiot, just face the facts and move on.
15 August 2008 19:23:30
TeeCee wrote:
Tom, dressed in black, like Ninja, does surprise and intimidation mean anything? I believe it gives the police the upper hand. Two hand guns and a shot gun, I see your point , why not stop by with a box of Girl Scout cookies an see if maybe they will just go ahead and invite you in!
Are you not going to be more paranoid and trigger happy if you are approached in your car than kicked back in your crib watching the tube? A lot of people would try to escape if they were in a car, how many innocent people could be injured or killed by a chase through town? How many more could be hit by stray bullets in the open?
After reading through all these posts I can see there are a lot of good ideas, and some pretty biased people here.
Dan, gotta agree with danimal, you do tend to lean toward the IDIOT side, ya know what I mean Vern?
Y'all Be Blessed, Ciao "T"
Are you not going to be more paranoid and trigger happy if you are approached in your car than kicked back in your crib watching the tube? A lot of people would try to escape if they were in a car, how many innocent people could be injured or killed by a chase through town? How many more could be hit by stray bullets in the open?
After reading through all these posts I can see there are a lot of good ideas, and some pretty biased people here.
Dan, gotta agree with danimal, you do tend to lean toward the IDIOT side, ya know what I mean Vern?
Y'all Be Blessed, Ciao "T"
15 August 2008 21:43:31
heidisgranny@ wrote:
Thats what I thought Danimal the mouth, has nothing to say but yak. Name calling is all you got? BTW I agreed with TL, and you cant handle it? So your post are just crap! Glad I could help Happy.
16 August 2008 10:27:06
danimal151@ wrote:
DAn...no ..but name calling is all you are worthy of. You never have any facts or statistics to back up your idiotic claims. Everyone here agrees with that. YES EVERYONE. So why do you bother? Just go on and play in the kiddie pool. Leave the real debate and ideas to people like the rest of us.
16 August 2008 13:34:37
blondie_k75@ wrote:
Mr. Lucente,
I read many of the posts and comments from others and yourself. How many are police officers? What experience or qualification do you have in law enforcement? It sounds like none. The people driving the cars stopped for traffic violations who kill officers are usually known violent criminals with a history of drug use or sales. I enjoy reading these argumentative blogs and articles, but lets use some practical experiences as references. Ride with LPD. Put on a SWAT vest and walk up a narrow set of stairs with your hands in your pockets while there is shooting going on. I have a pretty good feeling you would go the other way, even though you think when wearing a vest, a person is in fact bullet proof. Just remember, god forbid, when someone breaks into your house, you will want LPD and their military tactics. When someone you know, god forbid, gets raped, mugged, or shot, you will want LPD and their military tactics. You have probably never been the victim of drug related crime. Polce are there to protect and serve, not to die.
I read many of the posts and comments from others and yourself. How many are police officers? What experience or qualification do you have in law enforcement? It sounds like none. The people driving the cars stopped for traffic violations who kill officers are usually known violent criminals with a history of drug use or sales. I enjoy reading these argumentative blogs and articles, but lets use some practical experiences as references. Ride with LPD. Put on a SWAT vest and walk up a narrow set of stairs with your hands in your pockets while there is shooting going on. I have a pretty good feeling you would go the other way, even though you think when wearing a vest, a person is in fact bullet proof. Just remember, god forbid, when someone breaks into your house, you will want LPD and their military tactics. When someone you know, god forbid, gets raped, mugged, or shot, you will want LPD and their military tactics. You have probably never been the victim of drug related crime. Polce are there to protect and serve, not to die.
16 August 2008 18:58:16
wrote:
If someone made this point, I missed it, because I stopped following the bickering at some point. But doesn't it stand at least somewhat to reason that the reason more local police officers haven't been injured/killed BECAUSE they're actually able to employ body armor and bigger guns?
Also, the FBI would dispute the violent crime comment; if these folks were responsible for stealing the shotgun, burglary technically qualifies. And its presence, stolen or otherwise, is all the proof I need that the cops need to have at least similar strength in firepower for the raid. I certainly don't want them conducting raids with .22s against that kind of firepower - and they have no way of knowing just how much firepower is up there.
Also, the FBI would dispute the violent crime comment; if these folks were responsible for stealing the shotgun, burglary technically qualifies. And its presence, stolen or otherwise, is all the proof I need that the cops need to have at least similar strength in firepower for the raid. I certainly don't want them conducting raids with .22s against that kind of firepower - and they have no way of knowing just how much firepower is up there.
16 August 2008 23:19:45
HappyG wrote:
181 officers died in the line of duty in 2007, 68 from gun shots. From the article:
[quote]The number of officers shot and killed during 2007 was 68, which was a 31 percent increase over the 52 officers killed by gunfire during 2006. One of the main reasons for this increase was the high number of multiple-death shooting incidents in 2007. Six times last year more than one officer was fatally gunned down in the same incident. One of those multiple-death incidents occurred last April in charlotte (NC) when Police Officers Sean [unquote]
http://www.nleomf.com/TheMemorial/tributes/sacrifice2007.htm
[quote]The number of officers shot and killed during 2007 was 68, which was a 31 percent increase over the 52 officers killed by gunfire during 2006. One of the main reasons for this increase was the high number of multiple-death shooting incidents in 2007. Six times last year more than one officer was fatally gunned down in the same incident. One of those multiple-death incidents occurred last April in charlotte (NC) when Police Officers Sean [unquote]
http://www.nleomf.com/TheMemorial/tributes/sacrifice2007.htm
17 August 2008 09:38:45
danimal151@ wrote:
YEAH! I want the cops to have MORE powerful weapons than the thugs. Spend my tax $$$ on it? HELLYESS
17 August 2008 09:50:10
wrsteel@ wrote:
Aside from his service to this nation, for his words and his open and public stand regarding freedom, Mr. Lucente is an American Hero.
The interesting thing about a Libertarian is that he generally has more concern for other's civil rights than they apparently have for their own. In this case, to despise the author is to despise the Constitution. In this case, to despise the author's well reasoned opinions is to despise each and every one of the Founding Fathers of this nation and to ignore anything and everything they ever said or sacrificed or ever recorded for posterity. Mr. Lucente's comments wt to the use of militarized police force in America is in no way in any conflict with the well recorded opinions of those Heroic and Honorable and Courageous men who each were much more experienced, qualified and educated than most of you. You ignore their reasoned words as well ignoring as their experience with tyrants.
Your own arguments are specious. Your ignorance is abysmal. Your polemics weak and without foundation. Your dialectic is composed like that of a drunken man.You pose the arguments of frightened drunks, children and slaves. You defend not freedom, but slavery. You do not defend righteousness, but evil. You decry good behavior and defend abuses of your own liberties.
The ignorance displayed by most of these comments is tragic and will only lead to tragedy and to tyranny. It speaks of intellectual laziness as well as a dearth of curiosity and tells much about our modern efforts at education and childhood care and training.
You ignore The Constitution and you welcome tyranny and slavery. You are no longer Americans. You are slaves and children.
Stand up and acquit yourselves like men and women of courage and of honor. Stand for freedom, for liberty and defend it with your last breath...or commit your children and all future posterity to the tyrant and to the slave owner.
Sic Sempers Tyrannis
Warren Bonesteel
The interesting thing about a Libertarian is that he generally has more concern for other's civil rights than they apparently have for their own. In this case, to despise the author is to despise the Constitution. In this case, to despise the author's well reasoned opinions is to despise each and every one of the Founding Fathers of this nation and to ignore anything and everything they ever said or sacrificed or ever recorded for posterity. Mr. Lucente's comments wt to the use of militarized police force in America is in no way in any conflict with the well recorded opinions of those Heroic and Honorable and Courageous men who each were much more experienced, qualified and educated than most of you. You ignore their reasoned words as well ignoring as their experience with tyrants.
Your own arguments are specious. Your ignorance is abysmal. Your polemics weak and without foundation. Your dialectic is composed like that of a drunken man.You pose the arguments of frightened drunks, children and slaves. You defend not freedom, but slavery. You do not defend righteousness, but evil. You decry good behavior and defend abuses of your own liberties.
The ignorance displayed by most of these comments is tragic and will only lead to tragedy and to tyranny. It speaks of intellectual laziness as well as a dearth of curiosity and tells much about our modern efforts at education and childhood care and training.
You ignore The Constitution and you welcome tyranny and slavery. You are no longer Americans. You are slaves and children.
Stand up and acquit yourselves like men and women of courage and of honor. Stand for freedom, for liberty and defend it with your last breath...or commit your children and all future posterity to the tyrant and to the slave owner.
Sic Sempers Tyrannis
Warren Bonesteel
17 August 2008 18:15:37
danimal151@ wrote:
OMG...lol, what a screen name. And your babbleing is humorus, even if it is arogant and misguided. Polemics is a synonym for debate/argument. The word specious means plausible but not genuine. I assure you we are all genuine in our opinion. That you don't agree is tuff****. We are here for debate. You are here to play God and tell us we don't understand ourselves? Shutup. You can climb down off of the 25cent pony ride Mr. HIGH Horse. We do not ignore the constitution. Oh contrare' mon ami' We are just tired of our founding fathers words being twisted to fit the agenda of every sic-o moronic sub-culture for the skae of deprivity and self gratifacation.
don't bother to correct my spelling brainiac. The 1st amendment gives me the right to spell however I choose.
don't bother to correct my spelling brainiac. The 1st amendment gives me the right to spell however I choose.
17 August 2008 18:48:16
danimal151@ wrote:
PS...i think Warren Bonehead may be TOM L>>>> after a few to many brewskis.
17 August 2008 18:51:07
Lucente wrote:
Danimal,
I have the courage of my convictions and do not hide behind pseudonyms. That is more so after a few brewskis!
However, W. Bonesteel is dead on. Americans today are too willing to accept slavery in the name of safety or crime or some other boogieman invented by those who strive to control our lives.
Remember well the words of Patrick Henry, "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" Like Henry, I say emphatically no and that I would prefer death to compliantly living in a world without liberty.
~tjl~
I have the courage of my convictions and do not hide behind pseudonyms. That is more so after a few brewskis!
However, W. Bonesteel is dead on. Americans today are too willing to accept slavery in the name of safety or crime or some other boogieman invented by those who strive to control our lives.
Remember well the words of Patrick Henry, "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" Like Henry, I say emphatically no and that I would prefer death to compliantly living in a world without liberty.
~tjl~
17 August 2008 19:22:43
danimal151@ wrote:
HAHA....sorry TOM, I knew that wasn't you. Just having some fun.
And yes, "give me liberty or give me death" is in the foundation of freedom. However, do you really think that includes naked bimbo's stipping for cash from juiced up dudes that can't get a real woman to dance for them? I rest my case.
Now are you saying that I have no courage because I use my nickname?
Well for the record. Its Danny J. Sulkin. But I like the Danimal thing. It's a dummer thing.
And yes, "give me liberty or give me death" is in the foundation of freedom. However, do you really think that includes naked bimbo's stipping for cash from juiced up dudes that can't get a real woman to dance for them? I rest my case.
Now are you saying that I have no courage because I use my nickname?
Well for the record. Its Danny J. Sulkin. But I like the Danimal thing. It's a dummer thing.
17 August 2008 19:45:54
wrsteel@ wrote:
Actually, Warren Bonesteel is my name. The surname has been an American name since 1710. We've served this nation ever since. The benefits you enjoy and spit upon today were provided by myself, my family, and my ancestors.
Specious Arguments. Irrational polemics. The logic and reason of children, slaves and drunks.
I see that a couple of you have made my point for me by providing very specific examples of what I was talking about.
It's time to grow up, kids. A mature man or woman would offer an abject apology for the insult you've offered m my family. As children, you will instead seek to defend your boorish behaviors. Thus, proving my point, once again.
In Arkansas, a local city government has abrogated the authority of it's own governor and of the White House, the Supreme Court and of Congress to itself. By fiat, American citizens are not allowed on the street or allowed free movement. without proper papers.
This is not only tyranny, it is open rebellion against the United States of America and of all that so many of you claim to hold dear.
Specious Arguments. Irrational polemics. The logic and reason of children, slaves and drunks.
I see that a couple of you have made my point for me by providing very specific examples of what I was talking about.
It's time to grow up, kids. A mature man or woman would offer an abject apology for the insult you've offered m my family. As children, you will instead seek to defend your boorish behaviors. Thus, proving my point, once again.
In Arkansas, a local city government has abrogated the authority of it's own governor and of the White House, the Supreme Court and of Congress to itself. By fiat, American citizens are not allowed on the street or allowed free movement. without proper papers.
This is not only tyranny, it is open rebellion against the United States of America and of all that so many of you claim to hold dear.
17 August 2008 19:47:44
danimal151@ wrote:
And yes yes...look me up folks...been DUI'd a few times. But that was in the old days and I no longer partake in spirits....and you will see there was never a drug bust, or sexual crime or robbery or theft or wife beating or child abuse or etc. Thats why I know about addiction and thats why I answer my phone at any hour, if someone calls for help to stop drinking and / or addiction of anykind.
17 August 2008 19:51:42
danimal151@ wrote:
W. Bonesteel....so you the only one who ever served your country? WRONG! Lost a GreatGrandfather in WWI, my father was a gunner in WWII in the Pacific theater, two of my brothers were in Viet NAM. I too served for 10 years. Pack up you smugness and realize that we to have a right to express our opinions and feelings. If you don't like it, go somewhere that you can become the dictator and demand we think and act as you do. Your name calling and belittlement of these folks and myself only hampers your case, and makes you opinion worthless.
17 August 2008 19:58:18
Lucente wrote:
Danimal,
I did not mean to imply that using a nickname on a forum was a sign of cowardice. I only meant that I would never post under a fake name while also using my real name in an effort to hide my identity.
And yes, I do think the definition of liberty includes allowing bimbos (or hard-working young men and ladies trying to make a living) dancing naked on stage.
The idea of liberty and the importance of free speech (which includes expression) is that you can't restrict some. Freedom is hard because it demands that we allow speech or expression with which we disagree. The whole idea is that people can't stifle the views or expressions of others using the force of law.
As Jefferson said, freedom of speech "cannot be limited without being lost."
~tjl~
I did not mean to imply that using a nickname on a forum was a sign of cowardice. I only meant that I would never post under a fake name while also using my real name in an effort to hide my identity.
And yes, I do think the definition of liberty includes allowing bimbos (or hard-working young men and ladies trying to make a living) dancing naked on stage.
The idea of liberty and the importance of free speech (which includes expression) is that you can't restrict some. Freedom is hard because it demands that we allow speech or expression with which we disagree. The whole idea is that people can't stifle the views or expressions of others using the force of law.
As Jefferson said, freedom of speech "cannot be limited without being lost."
~tjl~
17 August 2008 20:05:01
wrsteel@ wrote:
I don't demand anything but that you stop and think as if you were men and women of reason and possessed of some small maturity.
You have yet to refute my statements, nor have you offered any proof of your own, even through the use of polemic, rhetoric or of logic.
Most of the commenters here have acted like children and have presented themselves as such, in mind, if not in body. I merely spoke in that regard of what was and remains readily apparent to any rational human being.
Without reason or logic, words and opinions represent merely the grunting of an animal. Here, I've read the words of children, of slaves, and of the supporters of absolute tyranny. No rational, logical or reasonable person can say otherwise.
Remember, Dano. A dry drunk is yet a drunk
You have yet to refute my statements, nor have you offered any proof of your own, even through the use of polemic, rhetoric or of logic.
Most of the commenters here have acted like children and have presented themselves as such, in mind, if not in body. I merely spoke in that regard of what was and remains readily apparent to any rational human being.
Without reason or logic, words and opinions represent merely the grunting of an animal. Here, I've read the words of children, of slaves, and of the supporters of absolute tyranny. No rational, logical or reasonable person can say otherwise.
Remember, Dano. A dry drunk is yet a drunk
17 August 2008 20:10:56
wrote:
No, Tom, the police aren't risking the lives. The drug dealers are. You should know the difference.
17 August 2008 21:10:16
Scant wrote:
W Bonesteel,
Aren't you the adult on here. You write very well and make some good arguments. You call everyone children and slaves, because we are not thinking as you would. You are no higher on the food chain as anyone else. You have sunk to the gutter with the others you call children with your low ball attempt to insult Daniaml with your comment, "Remember, Dano. A dry drunk is yet a drunk" What a petty comment, and it does not add to the debate. It does not take a whole lot to get to you does it? Please tell me Bonesteel, what is it like to be so much better than everyone. The last perfect man that lived died on a cross.
Aren't you the adult on here. You write very well and make some good arguments. You call everyone children and slaves, because we are not thinking as you would. You are no higher on the food chain as anyone else. You have sunk to the gutter with the others you call children with your low ball attempt to insult Daniaml with your comment, "Remember, Dano. A dry drunk is yet a drunk" What a petty comment, and it does not add to the debate. It does not take a whole lot to get to you does it? Please tell me Bonesteel, what is it like to be so much better than everyone. The last perfect man that lived died on a cross.
17 August 2008 21:56:26
eliepaige@ wrote:
W Bonesteel,
You are a refreshing change to this blog. I began to give up with this group, as the majority in this room have shunned my comments. What they have failed to realize is that they have been conditioned to respond to people like us as such. It's funny, a few months ago, I wouldn't have understood what your opening post meant. However, that was back when I was a "slave"....and didn't know it.
The truth will set you free!
Cheers,
You are a refreshing change to this blog. I began to give up with this group, as the majority in this room have shunned my comments. What they have failed to realize is that they have been conditioned to respond to people like us as such. It's funny, a few months ago, I wouldn't have understood what your opening post meant. However, that was back when I was a "slave"....and didn't know it.
The truth will set you free!
Cheers,
17 August 2008 23:06:32
wrsteel@ wrote:
Ah. So I am to keep my peace when all around me offer little else but insult? Holding others to an impossibly higher standard than you set for yourselves, aren't you? Self-justification? Rationalization? Post hoc ergo proctor hoc? A Relativistic Fallacy, perhaps? Hmm...possibly even a Genetic Fallacy. ...maybe even a red herring...
A man who claims to help other drunks does well to remember the creed by which he claims to help them? Does he not? It was no insult I offered, but a reminder.
As for the rest, it was and remains an apt description of the behaviors I've witnessed, here. No one has offered any proof of any kind that my description is incorrect. If the truth and the facts are insults, then yes! I have insulted you. If such open communication insults you, you have more problems than any disagreement over proper police procedure or Constitutional issues can reveal. Wait. Such a discussion has indeed revealed this problem among you, has it not? Thus, my assessment of your behaviors remains as given...and as being currently beyond reproach.
As for my use of words, that is simply because I am in possession of a working vocabulary...and I know how to make effective use of it. Once again, this is no problem of mine. Your comments regarding this reveal only your own lack. A mater of jealousy, perhaps? Envy? Once again, a red herring. in effect, you state that my vocabulary is reason to dismiss my argument. Again, an irrationa land immature statement on your parts.
A man who claims to help other drunks does well to remember the creed by which he claims to help them? Does he not? It was no insult I offered, but a reminder.
As for the rest, it was and remains an apt description of the behaviors I've witnessed, here. No one has offered any proof of any kind that my description is incorrect. If the truth and the facts are insults, then yes! I have insulted you. If such open communication insults you, you have more problems than any disagreement over proper police procedure or Constitutional issues can reveal. Wait. Such a discussion has indeed revealed this problem among you, has it not? Thus, my assessment of your behaviors remains as given...and as being currently beyond reproach.
As for my use of words, that is simply because I am in possession of a working vocabulary...and I know how to make effective use of it. Once again, this is no problem of mine. Your comments regarding this reveal only your own lack. A mater of jealousy, perhaps? Envy? Once again, a red herring. in effect, you state that my vocabulary is reason to dismiss my argument. Again, an irrationa land immature statement on your parts.
17 August 2008 23:08:08
Susan wrote:
Bonesteel, such arrogance turns my stomach. You have made several good points, it's a shame that they are lost in your self-righteous, holier than thou, love to hear yourself talk rambling.
I seriously doubt that Danimal NEEDED you to "remind" him of the creed. He seems to be doing very very well without your "help". Staying sober is no small feat, it is something to be proud of. I have to wonder why you felt the need to make the statement you did... perhaps your own insecurities... you know, people often degrade others in an effort to make themselves feel more important, smarter, prettier, more successful, etc... which is it with you?
I seriously doubt that Danimal NEEDED you to "remind" him of the creed. He seems to be doing very very well without your "help". Staying sober is no small feat, it is something to be proud of. I have to wonder why you felt the need to make the statement you did... perhaps your own insecurities... you know, people often degrade others in an effort to make themselves feel more important, smarter, prettier, more successful, etc... which is it with you?
18 August 2008 01:25:35
wrsteel@ wrote:
Have you actually read the Twelve steps? Which ones did Mr. Dan ignore in his responses to myself? Indeed, which has he ignored in his interactions with others?
My original points remain, thus far, un-refuted. You have offered no proofs or evidence to the contrary of my original propositions or of anything which has followed in my words to you.
Slavery or freedom? Childishness or maturity? Which do you choose by exposing your hearts, minds and souls for all to see?
"It will be said that the despot assures his subjects civil tranquillity. Granted; but what do they gain, if the wars his ambition brings down upon them, his insatiable avidity, and the vexatious conduct of his ministers press harder on them than their own dissensions would have done? What do they gain, if the very tranquillity they enjoy is one of their miseries? Tranquillity is found also in dungeons; but is that enough to make them desirable places to live in? The Greeks imprisoned in the cave of the Cyclops lived there very tranquilly, while they were awaiting their turn to be devoured."
- Thomas Paine. "The Rights of Man."
My original points remain, thus far, un-refuted. You have offered no proofs or evidence to the contrary of my original propositions or of anything which has followed in my words to you.
Slavery or freedom? Childishness or maturity? Which do you choose by exposing your hearts, minds and souls for all to see?
"It will be said that the despot assures his subjects civil tranquillity. Granted; but what do they gain, if the wars his ambition brings down upon them, his insatiable avidity, and the vexatious conduct of his ministers press harder on them than their own dissensions would have done? What do they gain, if the very tranquillity they enjoy is one of their miseries? Tranquillity is found also in dungeons; but is that enough to make them desirable places to live in? The Greeks imprisoned in the cave of the Cyclops lived there very tranquilly, while they were awaiting their turn to be devoured."
- Thomas Paine. "The Rights of Man."
18 August 2008 02:45:51
wrsteel@ wrote:
I do apologize. I offered the wrong attribution in the post just before this. The preceding quote was from Rousseau's "Social Contract" not from Thomas Paine.
18 August 2008 02:59:39
Susan wrote:
Bones, you can edit your comments by clicking at the bottom of your post on the word "edit". It would save you the embarrassment of having to write corrections in another posting, and would also enable you to correct your spelling and typographical errors before anyone else sees them (since it is obviously so important to you).
And by the way, the 12 Steps are not rules that are forced upon one by another. It is not for you to be his keeper or his warden. It is not for you to point out his imperfections. Few people in this world can honestly say they are 100% faithful to each of the 12 Steps, even those of us who have never battled an addiction.
It must be quite nice sitting so high up there on your pedestal, looking down upon us mere peasants. Thank goodness you've flown in to save the day. Your writing style here (you know, the one where you pretend you're better than everyone else flaunting your ability to use a thesaurus) is almost as nauseating as your fake hillbilly style you so overuse in your "Morning Coffee" writing.
And by the way, the 12 Steps are not rules that are forced upon one by another. It is not for you to be his keeper or his warden. It is not for you to point out his imperfections. Few people in this world can honestly say they are 100% faithful to each of the 12 Steps, even those of us who have never battled an addiction.
It must be quite nice sitting so high up there on your pedestal, looking down upon us mere peasants. Thank goodness you've flown in to save the day. Your writing style here (you know, the one where you pretend you're better than everyone else flaunting your ability to use a thesaurus) is almost as nauseating as your fake hillbilly style you so overuse in your "Morning Coffee" writing.
18 August 2008 03:11:10
danimal151@ wrote:
Boneless, No where in the 12 steps (and depending which 12 steps one reads) does it elude to me setting back and watching the world go by without interaction and opinion.Actually, they are all about "doing the right thing". From you banterings you seem to feel you are a power greater than myself, which I assure you, you are not.
That I and some others disagree with you, you decide to call us petty names and continue to throw insults. That in itself is childish.
And for your information, there is a light year between 'dry drunk' and sobriety. Although your writing style and use of the dictionary is interesting, it does little to further the fact that you are a selfritious popmas with no useful information or insight in a deabte driven forum. You just continue to throw stones. You don't have much to say on the subject, except for quotes from others. Beyond that, you just attack and bash everyone as slaves and children. You are the one with the real problem. You could use a little 12 step action yourself.
That I and some others disagree with you, you decide to call us petty names and continue to throw insults. That in itself is childish.
And for your information, there is a light year between 'dry drunk' and sobriety. Although your writing style and use of the dictionary is interesting, it does little to further the fact that you are a selfritious popmas with no useful information or insight in a deabte driven forum. You just continue to throw stones. You don't have much to say on the subject, except for quotes from others. Beyond that, you just attack and bash everyone as slaves and children. You are the one with the real problem. You could use a little 12 step action yourself.
18 August 2008 04:21:02
wrsteel@ wrote:
You have yet to offer any proofs or evidences contrary to my original assertions. Indeed, the more you defend yourselves, the more you support my original thesis.
Google: 'Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America.' by Radley Balko. A CATO Institute white paper.
and ask yourself why a small to an mayor has subverted his state constitution and the Constitution of the United States by unilaterally declaring martial law in the town he is supposed to protects and serve?
The American narrative the most of you support is not in any way different than that proposed by pre-WWII German citizens. It is not in any way different than that proposed by the Tories in pre-Revolutionary War American colonies.
You are blind to history, you are even taught to ignore ignore history... and you live in a permanent and personal state of developmental neoteny. Ny supporting state sanctions against your own freedoms and liberties, you've openly acknowledged that you prefer slavery to freedom. You've surrendered responsibility for yourselves and have given it to the state. You live in a state of self deceit while accusing others of crimes against the state, against good behavior and against the truth.
By this fact, revealed here by your own statements, you live in opposition to the principles by which you claim to live. Without truth, you have no sobriety. Without truth, you have no freedom.
"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell
Google: 'Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America.' by Radley Balko. A CATO Institute white paper.
and ask yourself why a small to an mayor has subverted his state constitution and the Constitution of the United States by unilaterally declaring martial law in the town he is supposed to protects and serve?
The American narrative the most of you support is not in any way different than that proposed by pre-WWII German citizens. It is not in any way different than that proposed by the Tories in pre-Revolutionary War American colonies.
You are blind to history, you are even taught to ignore ignore history... and you live in a permanent and personal state of developmental neoteny. Ny supporting state sanctions against your own freedoms and liberties, you've openly acknowledged that you prefer slavery to freedom. You've surrendered responsibility for yourselves and have given it to the state. You live in a state of self deceit while accusing others of crimes against the state, against good behavior and against the truth.
By this fact, revealed here by your own statements, you live in opposition to the principles by which you claim to live. Without truth, you have no sobriety. Without truth, you have no freedom.
"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell
18 August 2008 17:07:11
wrsteel@ wrote:
A follow up question.
You were calling each other names and making false accusations against one another long before I first posted here. Is that not the behavior of children, of the immature? Indeed, the evidence of your own comments on this thread remains for all to see that this is indeed true.
My question is this:
Were you lying when you called one another names...or were you telling the truth. If you were telling the truth then, you must be lying now. One or the other. By making your most recent assertions, you have openly admitted to lying at some point on this thread. Were you lying earlier...or do you all support one another's open falsehoods?
The behavior of children. Or as one ancient text has put it: Blown about by every wind of doctrine.
Is lying and supporting false accusations and engaging in name calling a part of the teaching of sobriety? Of freedom? Of personal responsibility? Of personal accountability?
You were calling each other names and making false accusations against one another long before I first posted here. Is that not the behavior of children, of the immature? Indeed, the evidence of your own comments on this thread remains for all to see that this is indeed true.
My question is this:
Were you lying when you called one another names...or were you telling the truth. If you were telling the truth then, you must be lying now. One or the other. By making your most recent assertions, you have openly admitted to lying at some point on this thread. Were you lying earlier...or do you all support one another's open falsehoods?
The behavior of children. Or as one ancient text has put it: Blown about by every wind of doctrine.
Is lying and supporting false accusations and engaging in name calling a part of the teaching of sobriety? Of freedom? Of personal responsibility? Of personal accountability?
18 August 2008 17:21:02
danimal151@ wrote:
Not reading anymore of you pompas ass ramblings is the best we can do. In what world do you live sir?...Or what country? Clearly you don't live here in the USA. Your distain for this country and its people are evident in you grandious halucination that your view is the only one. Pack it. We all have the same rights as you. We all have an opinion, and are entitled to it. OK bonehead? You get it yet skelitor? is your name calling, and accusitory attitude along with you ego a part of sobriety? Of responibility? Of accountability? NO, I think not. You get what you give my egotistical friend.
18 August 2008 17:56:45
wrsteel@ wrote:
"The spirit of the times may alter, will alter. Our rulers will become
corrupt, our people careless. A single zealot may commence persecutor, and
better men be his victims. It can never be too often repeated that the time
for fixing every essential right on a legal basis is while our rulers are
honest and ourselves united. From the conclusion of [their] war [for
independence, a nation begins] going down hill. It will not then be
necessary to resort every moment to the people for support. They will be
forgotten, therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will forget
themselves but in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of
uniting to effect a due respect for their rights. The shackles, therefore,
which shall not be knocked off at the conclusion of [that] war will remain
on [them] long, will be made heavier and heavier, till [their] rights shall
revive or expire in a convulsion." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia
Q.XVII, 1782
I've offered you references and resources, plus additional names and topics to research for yourselves.
Shall I offer white papers and peer-reviewed material wrt to social neoteny, as well? Neuroplasticity, perhaps?
All that you have done to try to refute my - ahem- ramblings is to deny their vali\dity w/o offering any rational reason for doing so, nor have you offered any evidence that can refute anything I've offered. Thus, is your own ignorance, intellectual laziness, dearth of curiosity and mental immaturity revealed.
see also:
The Online Liberty Library.
The Internet Classics Archive. especially Plato's "The Republic."
corrupt, our people careless. A single zealot may commence persecutor, and
better men be his victims. It can never be too often repeated that the time
for fixing every essential right on a legal basis is while our rulers are
honest and ourselves united. From the conclusion of [their] war [for
independence, a nation begins] going down hill. It will not then be
necessary to resort every moment to the people for support. They will be
forgotten, therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will forget
themselves but in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of
uniting to effect a due respect for their rights. The shackles, therefore,
which shall not be knocked off at the conclusion of [that] war will remain
on [them] long, will be made heavier and heavier, till [their] rights shall
revive or expire in a convulsion." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia
Q.XVII, 1782
I've offered you references and resources, plus additional names and topics to research for yourselves.
Shall I offer white papers and peer-reviewed material wrt to social neoteny, as well? Neuroplasticity, perhaps?
All that you have done to try to refute my - ahem- ramblings is to deny their vali\dity w/o offering any rational reason for doing so, nor have you offered any evidence that can refute anything I've offered. Thus, is your own ignorance, intellectual laziness, dearth of curiosity and mental immaturity revealed.
see also:
The Online Liberty Library.
The Internet Classics Archive. especially Plato's "The Republic."
18 August 2008 23:56:01
Susan wrote:
Bones, WHO are you addressing? You keep ordering someone to prove you wrong yet you never say who. If it is me that you are badgering for an answer, I have no interest in debating the issue with you. From my first post to you, I told you that you made several good points, so what would I want to prove you wrong for?
My issue with you is your delivery. You jump in here blasting away at everyone like you're on a personal mission to alienate the entire blog. You choose to write in a style that sounds like you are attempting to copy the writers you like to quote. You choose the most obscure vocabulary you can come up with in an obvious attempt to try and sound intelligent. You call names, you insult, you degrade... and then you scold everyone else for their "childishness". I have glanced at other samples of your writings, you appear to enjoy writing in several different styles...like it's some sort of a game to you.
My suggestion for you, if you would truly like to engage in meaningful honest dialogue here, would be to cut the act, stop playing games, stop trying to prove that you are so much smarter than everyone else, stop degrading everyone and stop acting like we should feel honored just to be in your presence. THEN, you might find someone actually interested in discussing your opinions.
My issue with you is your delivery. You jump in here blasting away at everyone like you're on a personal mission to alienate the entire blog. You choose to write in a style that sounds like you are attempting to copy the writers you like to quote. You choose the most obscure vocabulary you can come up with in an obvious attempt to try and sound intelligent. You call names, you insult, you degrade... and then you scold everyone else for their "childishness". I have glanced at other samples of your writings, you appear to enjoy writing in several different styles...like it's some sort of a game to you.
My suggestion for you, if you would truly like to engage in meaningful honest dialogue here, would be to cut the act, stop playing games, stop trying to prove that you are so much smarter than everyone else, stop degrading everyone and stop acting like we should feel honored just to be in your presence. THEN, you might find someone actually interested in discussing your opinions.
19 August 2008 02:43:23
danimal151@ wrote:
Susan,
Now that says it all don't it? You have jsut said what everyone else was thinking.
Least we not forget the people Bones quotes, and trys to emulate, come from a time when opiates and cocaln were the daily norm. From that era, most of the folks, our leaders included use drugs like that for many reasons, from pain relief to enjoyment. So we all need to remember some of their writings were drug induced ramblings just as Bones' must also be. To have the delussion of grandiure that he suffers from, he must be doped up.
Now that says it all don't it? You have jsut said what everyone else was thinking.
Least we not forget the people Bones quotes, and trys to emulate, come from a time when opiates and cocaln were the daily norm. From that era, most of the folks, our leaders included use drugs like that for many reasons, from pain relief to enjoyment. So we all need to remember some of their writings were drug induced ramblings just as Bones' must also be. To have the delussion of grandiure that he suffers from, he must be doped up.
19 August 2008 03:35:52
eliepaige@ wrote:
Danimal.
Please don't speak on my behalf. Susan did not just say what everyone else was thinking....maybe what you were thinking, but not me.
Thanks,
Eleanor
Please don't speak on my behalf. Susan did not just say what everyone else was thinking....maybe what you were thinking, but not me.
Thanks,
Eleanor
19 August 2008 09:20:16
Susan wrote:
Don't worry, Eleanor, I am not trying to speak for everyone. As I said a couple of times, I agreed with several of WB's comments. Very much of his comments actually. Just not the way he delivers it. It is condescending, condemning and overbearing. He appears to be a game player. If you google his name, you find several different things he's written. His "Morning Coffee" ezine is written as though he's a backwoods hillbilly (for lack of a better word) then in other comments he writes on several other people's blogs, he speaks in a normal down to earth tone. Then he comes here, and for some reason, feels that he has to dust off the thesaurus and try to sound like an 18th century scholar. He's not trying to make a point that everyone here can understand. He's trying show off and the more confusing he makes his writing, the more intelligent he thinks he sounds and the dumber he thinks everyone else is. I'm not sure whether he's trying to outdo Lucente or just speak over the heads of everyone else. Arrogance, pure and simple.
I'd truly like to see him start writing in his normal "voice" and drop all the acting so that the good points he was attempting to make would actually be understood and discussed.
I'd truly like to see him start writing in his normal "voice" and drop all the acting so that the good points he was attempting to make would actually be understood and discussed.
19 August 2008 10:06:26
hiedisgranny@ wrote:
Bones, been a pleasure reading, IMO, its all the time. names and lies, you are right.
But "they" say only other people do it, not "them"!
But "they" say only other people do it, not "them"!
19 August 2008 10:49:27
Scant wrote:
I checked out Bones on his web site, and wonder if he did not mention the "Morning Coffee" thing in his post to elicit some book sales for himself. He goes from sounding like a hillbilly to trying to sound like Thomas Jefferson, What gives Bones? Your intelligent Bones, so why not just come on here and debate, you could offer alot. Ouit Posing!
19 August 2008 15:06:51
danimal151@ wrote:
Oops...my bad Eleanor, I forgot you were a liberal.
Dan, from your past posts we all know you had no idea what you read when Bones posted.
susan, you said it again. This guy is no dummy. Bonesteel has made some fair analogys, but really has not addressed any single topic. And all the quotes? That tells nothing of what a person is or is not for. heck, we can all google wonderful quotes, cut and paste. Whats the point? Most are just snippets of a wider rangeing topic that have been snipped to fit into any given argument.
He likes to attack me because of my addiction, (inactive addiction that it is).
But he does not have a clue. For instance, he does not know that at age 8 (thats 1962)
I was at my grandparents house and had a bad cold. My grandfather gave me the old time remedy, whiskey and honey. First time I ever tasted whiskey, and had no idea what it was. But for some reason, I liked how I felt. When the grown ups went into the den to play cards, I figured if a little bit made me feel better, alot more whould make me feel even better. So I drank the whole jar of whiskey and honey. After a few minutes, I went into the living room and noticed things spinning. I still had no idea why. But I liked it. After a few talks with friends about it, I got the answer as to what caused the "GREAT FEELING". after that, I tryed to get anything from beer to Jack Danials whenever no one was looking. By age 14, I was an alcoholic. It was a long career, and I functioned all the way through it. With good jobs, promotions, Military service, (many awards and medals)managment positions. the works. Many other talents as well. But always found my way back to what started the whole thing. So he can make fun of me if he wishes. He cannot hurt me. My skin is much thicker than that. He does not seem to understand the whole thing, and he surley misread the 12 steps, IF in fact he has read them.
Scant, I am with you brother. Bones should quit posing! Much can be learned from anyone, when they are genuine and up-front. Can I get a hellyea?
Dan, from your past posts we all know you had no idea what you read when Bones posted.
susan, you said it again. This guy is no dummy. Bonesteel has made some fair analogys, but really has not addressed any single topic. And all the quotes? That tells nothing of what a person is or is not for. heck, we can all google wonderful quotes, cut and paste. Whats the point? Most are just snippets of a wider rangeing topic that have been snipped to fit into any given argument.
He likes to attack me because of my addiction, (inactive addiction that it is).
But he does not have a clue. For instance, he does not know that at age 8 (thats 1962)
I was at my grandparents house and had a bad cold. My grandfather gave me the old time remedy, whiskey and honey. First time I ever tasted whiskey, and had no idea what it was. But for some reason, I liked how I felt. When the grown ups went into the den to play cards, I figured if a little bit made me feel better, alot more whould make me feel even better. So I drank the whole jar of whiskey and honey. After a few minutes, I went into the living room and noticed things spinning. I still had no idea why. But I liked it. After a few talks with friends about it, I got the answer as to what caused the "GREAT FEELING". after that, I tryed to get anything from beer to Jack Danials whenever no one was looking. By age 14, I was an alcoholic. It was a long career, and I functioned all the way through it. With good jobs, promotions, Military service, (many awards and medals)managment positions. the works. Many other talents as well. But always found my way back to what started the whole thing. So he can make fun of me if he wishes. He cannot hurt me. My skin is much thicker than that. He does not seem to understand the whole thing, and he surley misread the 12 steps, IF in fact he has read them.
Scant, I am with you brother. Bones should quit posing! Much can be learned from anyone, when they are genuine and up-front. Can I get a hellyea?
19 August 2008 16:03:34
wrote:
Lucente -
Thanks a lot for this post. I agree wholeheartedly. I'm not in Lima right now, but can only hope you're not alone in your assessment of these kinds of raids. I've heard the arguments for raids being the safest means of apprehending "dangerous" criminals, but I'm so far unswayed.
Meanwhile, the traffic on your blog is fascinating...
Thanks a lot for this post. I agree wholeheartedly. I'm not in Lima right now, but can only hope you're not alone in your assessment of these kinds of raids. I've heard the arguments for raids being the safest means of apprehending "dangerous" criminals, but I'm so far unswayed.
Meanwhile, the traffic on your blog is fascinating...
19 August 2008 16:44:39
Scant wrote:
Thats what I am talking about Danimal. It takes real guts to open the door and reveal the skeletons in ones own closet. Bones hides behind a facade that is not real or genuine. I would like to debate him as long as he drops the act.
19 August 2008 17:01:07
eliepaige@ wrote:
Danimal,
Please do not make assumptions about me, especially since they are not true. Gheesh, an apology would suffice. So defensive you are!
Eleanor
Please do not make assumptions about me, especially since they are not true. Gheesh, an apology would suffice. So defensive you are!
Eleanor
19 August 2008 17:19:14
danimal151@ wrote:
Eleanor...defensive I am not...not with you anyway. Go buy a funnybone.You need to learn to chuckle at least. But you most surley are a liberal...right? Don't be ashamed, some of my best friends are liberals and libiralatarians...not to mention a libertarian or two.
19 August 2008 18:43:10
eliepaige@ wrote:
Funny how you push the blame off your self onto others. It's a pattern that I have seen quite often with you. So if I'm a liberal it's okay for you to speak on my behalf? All that I asked was for you not to speak for the group by pushing your feelings onto the group instead of yourself. That's what bothered me. Why couldn't you just say "oops, didn't mean for it to come across that way" or something along those lines? Instead, you say that you forgot that I am a liberal? How is that any form of intelligent debate? So let me get this right, you won't debate with Bone because of his use of big words, you won't debate with me because I am liberal (not by the way), so who will you debate with besides yourself?
So where can I buy this funnybone? I looked on ebay and coulnd't find one.
So where can I buy this funnybone? I looked on ebay and coulnd't find one.
19 August 2008 19:05:32
danimal151@ wrote:
LOL...I have a spare one. And a very dry sense of humor. but ok...If you say so....OOOOPS didn't mean for you to take it that way. I know already what you are gonna say...that there I go again...pushing it off on someone else...LOL
OK OK...didn't mean to sound as if I was speeking for everyone. God knows I would never pretend to speek for a woman...thats just asking for trouble...what with all their control issues and such.
How about I put a wink in every time I am just taking a stab for the heck of it. ...there ya go...a complete set...put em where you want them. (and NO that is not an chance for you to tell me where to put them) Now, should I put a coaster under my pepsi can? Or put the seat back down on the thrown? I already took the trash out. BTW, they are haveing an "extra skin" sale at the flea market this weekend. 
OK OK...didn't mean to sound as if I was speeking for everyone. God knows I would never pretend to speek for a woman...thats just asking for trouble...what with all their control issues and such.
How about I put a wink in every time I am just taking a stab for the heck of it. ...there ya go...a complete set...put em where you want them. (and NO that is not an chance for you to tell me where to put them) Now, should I put a coaster under my pepsi can? Or put the seat back down on the thrown? I already took the trash out. BTW, they are haveing an "extra skin" sale at the flea market this weekend.
19 August 2008 19:22:12
heidisgranny@ wrote:
eleanor,
the danimal wins most of the debates, with himself, hes smart, ya know!
the danimal wins most of the debates, with himself, hes smart, ya know!
19 August 2008 21:41:18
danimal151@ wrote:
In response to what Tom said way back on this thread...he said 'law enforcment is not that dangerous" here are the statistics.
Police and sheriffs patrol officers = 21.4 deaths per 100,000. Thats 10th highest, from a list of dangerous jobs. BUT...and here is the BIG BUT again.
In 2007 , 143 patrol officers were killed. That is the 3rd highest of the same ten jobs.
Only farmers and ranchers, 38.4 per 100,000/ 285 deaths
and drivers,sales workers and truck drivers: 26.2 per 100,000/ 908 deaths had a higher number of deaths. Now when we consider there are probably 1000 farmers per every cop...and 20,000 drivers per every cop...(just estimates...data could not be found) then law enforcment loks pretty damn dangerous after all eh?
Police and sheriffs patrol officers = 21.4 deaths per 100,000. Thats 10th highest, from a list of dangerous jobs. BUT...and here is the BIG BUT again.
In 2007 , 143 patrol officers were killed. That is the 3rd highest of the same ten jobs.
Only farmers and ranchers, 38.4 per 100,000/ 285 deaths
and drivers,sales workers and truck drivers: 26.2 per 100,000/ 908 deaths had a higher number of deaths. Now when we consider there are probably 1000 farmers per every cop...and 20,000 drivers per every cop...(just estimates...data could not be found) then law enforcment loks pretty damn dangerous after all eh?
20 August 2008 20:06:04
Lucente wrote:
danimal, et al..,:
You take my comments out of context. I never said police work was not dangerous. I pointed out that it is not so dangerous that you can use that as an excuse to violate people's civil rights, treat citizens as the enemy, or to militarize local police departments. And I also said that police make the job more dangerous by kicking in doors in the middle of the night where a drug dealer is likely to have heavy armament rather than arrest him on the street when they make the buy and are standing right next to him and where he will likely only have a handgun (hard to conceal a shotgun or other automatic weapons.) I also pointed out that more cops are killed on domestic violence and bar fight calls as well as routine traffic stops than are ever killed by drug dealers. Drug dealers are armed against other drug dealers, not cops. Most street-level thugs will surrender to cops rather than fight them. However, kick in a door dressed in black and most people, myself included, will fight. Just because you are shouting that you are a cop, does not mean I am going to believe you. I can cite many cases of drug dealers and robbers posing as cops and kicking in doors in the middle of the night. I will not take that chance.
Police kick in my door at their own risk.
I stand by my statement.
~tjl~
You take my comments out of context. I never said police work was not dangerous. I pointed out that it is not so dangerous that you can use that as an excuse to violate people's civil rights, treat citizens as the enemy, or to militarize local police departments. And I also said that police make the job more dangerous by kicking in doors in the middle of the night where a drug dealer is likely to have heavy armament rather than arrest him on the street when they make the buy and are standing right next to him and where he will likely only have a handgun (hard to conceal a shotgun or other automatic weapons.) I also pointed out that more cops are killed on domestic violence and bar fight calls as well as routine traffic stops than are ever killed by drug dealers. Drug dealers are armed against other drug dealers, not cops. Most street-level thugs will surrender to cops rather than fight them. However, kick in a door dressed in black and most people, myself included, will fight. Just because you are shouting that you are a cop, does not mean I am going to believe you. I can cite many cases of drug dealers and robbers posing as cops and kicking in doors in the middle of the night. I will not take that chance.
Police kick in my door at their own risk.
I stand by my statement.
~tjl~
20 August 2008 20:14:30
danimal151@ wrote:
Tom,
Yes, I will concede kickcing in doors in the middle of the night does raise the risk of a confrontation/fire fight. I assume that the thinking there is that if the perps are asleep, the rapid entry and flash-bang tactics give the cops the upper hand, MOST of the time.
I myself have never been tested in a real life raid in the middle of the night. We did however have a few training exersizes in the military wherein a few Sgt's would raid our barraks, or tents at random and even when I was wide awake and had my M16A1 at the ready, I was not able to to get the weapon to the and mount ant type of resistance before haveing the barrel of a gun stuffed in my face.
are there any statistcs that show the number of cops killed during raids as opposed to standard line of duty stuff?
By the way, that you 'stand by your statement is one of the things I like about you. Conviction is a very important element in advancing a debate.
Yes, I will concede kickcing in doors in the middle of the night does raise the risk of a confrontation/fire fight. I assume that the thinking there is that if the perps are asleep, the rapid entry and flash-bang tactics give the cops the upper hand, MOST of the time.
I myself have never been tested in a real life raid in the middle of the night. We did however have a few training exersizes in the military wherein a few Sgt's would raid our barraks, or tents at random and even when I was wide awake and had my M16A1 at the ready, I was not able to to get the weapon to the and mount ant type of resistance before haveing the barrel of a gun stuffed in my face.
are there any statistcs that show the number of cops killed during raids as opposed to standard line of duty stuff?
By the way, that you 'stand by your statement is one of the things I like about you. Conviction is a very important element in advancing a debate.
21 August 2008 03:34:27
anne_foose@ wrote:
Danimal Are you a friend of Bill W, it seems that you must be because your talking the program!! I might know you from the program at any rate I enjoy connection with people the that have similar problems that I have. Any how have a good day!!!!
16 September 2008 23:40:37
danimal wrote:
Anne!!
You have found me out!!!! That means you are smart!!!! It also means we have much in common. The 12 steps are hard to live 24 hours every day, and I guess I have become addicted to these blogs!!!!!!! Yes, Bill W. friend for 8 years now. You can email me if you like. danimal151@yahoo.com
You have found me out!!!! That means you are smart!!!! It also means we have much in common. The 12 steps are hard to live 24 hours every day, and I guess I have become addicted to these blogs!!!!!!! Yes, Bill W. friend for 8 years now. You can email me if you like. danimal151@yahoo.com
17 September 2008 03:17:14
Lima PD still risking lives to make drug arrests
Here is yet another example of a Police Department using military force against two residents because they were wanted on nonviolent drug offense. These kinds of raids endanger not only citizens, but also the police officers. Such raids escalate the situation and bring unneccesary violence on what should otherwise be a routine police procedure. People are arrested every day, but when drugs are involved, police departments, like Lima, are routinely resorting to military tactics just because they can. Such actions have not tactical value and are inherently dangerous for the cops and others.
Such force is not necessary and is, in fact, more dangerous than simply arresting those involved on the streets and then searching the residence with a proper search warrant. Had the feds followed that procedure at the Branch Davidian compound in 1993, more than 50 people would still be alive today, including a few law enforcement officers.
category | War on Drugs
author | Lucente