Patriotism? What do you think?

[BSM1]

Non-sequitur. Jesus was not a Zealot because they were using violence to try and achieve their end.

Which basically meant "Pay your taxes-- it's only money!".

Ya, especially a guy like Trump, but we can include his supporters.

If one can't see Jesus as a "protester", then they have little clue what the Gospel is about. He was trying to reform the status quo, and his turning the tables over at the Temple is just one example of his "protest". But his words demanding change went well beyond even that.

WTH was Jesus protesting, pray tell? And please spare us the money changer thingy. Most folks have no idea why the MC's were even there.

 

[shmogie]

If it was the law then illegal immigrants would likely be one of the most likely to adhere to the law to not draw attention to themselves.

I knew of one illegal who was very happy with the tradition. He couldn't believe how how friendly Americans were when he went to a ballgame, and they all rose and sang, Jose can you see ???

 

[dianaiad]

Any time you want to start, go for it.

Oh, I've done so. In return I'm called a white supremacist, a racist, a 'deplorable,' etc.

(shrug) Shoot, I even got told once that if I didn't rewrite a paper that the prof said expressed a conservative viewpoint in a communications class, that I would flunk the course. I wrote a new paper...and made it about the raid on the FLDS compound in Texas.

Then I turned in the original paper along with the professor's note to the administration. Nothing happened, of course: the professor was tenured. On the other hand, I got to use the original paper in another class and it received an "A" with a note for it's unbiased approach to newsgathering and commentary.

And yes, that professor was fully aware that I had written it originally for a previous class.

KF...I know i haven't been here for years and years, but really....do you think I would shy AWAY from doing this? I'm too old, I'm retired, My career isn't at risk, I don't fly anywhere so the government can't do anything to me; I don't have to be politically correct in order to pass classes, get and/or keep a job, or sing in the proper choirs.

I wish that were true of most of the people I know around here.

 

[Stevicus]

Absolute nonsense. "suspicious circumstances ?" The circumstances are only suspicious because people want it so.

The tenor of your post is pure bulls**t. I have known more Police Officers and interacted with more Police agencies than most Americans. I spent my years on the street doing the job, and your accusations are ludicrous.

Police are not "trained to shoot first", whatever that means. They are trained to recognize certain acts that result in an immediate threat to them or others. If I tell a subject 5 times to put his hands where I can see them and not move, and a hand suddenly comes down toward a pocket, the subject will be shot. I am not waiting to see what he pulls out of his pocket before I drop him, be it a pack of gum, or a gun.

Imagine a regular citizen doing that, and then you'll see a completely different reaction. Cops are the only ones given the benefit of the doubt. Anyone else tries to shoot someone just because they think he/she might be armed, and it's a completely different situation.

Constitutionally, cops aren't supposed to have any more rights or privileges than the average citizen. Only in police states are cops given "special rights" above that of ordinary citizens.

There was a guy pulled over by the Border Patrol a few years ago for "driving suspiciously" (yeah, like that's real "probable cause" right there). They opened his trunk and found a bag of weed, at which point the driver ran away on foot. They chose to pursue, and (according to the Border Patrol) the suspect made a slight turn, at which point they thought he had a gun, then shot him. The Sheriff's Department sent out some investigators, since it was county jurisdiction, and the Border Patrol agents got all defensive, saying "we're all cops here, why are you questioning us?"

They should be questioned just like any other citizen. The Constitution doesn't give cops any extra rights that ordinary citizens don't have. That's something that I do know, yet most cops (including yourself) don't seem to understand concepts like this.

I only personally know of one violent act of police violence fueled by race. That Officer was later shot by a WHITE guy on a domestic call.

I knew a guy with the PCSD who was pretty racist. His father was a top sergeant with TPD.

I'll concede that you have more experience and know more cops than I do, but still, it doesn't mean that I'm wrong in what I'm saying.

The "increased aggressiveness and militarization" of the Police.

Blame the society for this, not the Police. The Police react as need be to crimes, violence, attitudes etc. The new attitude of disobedience and violence, which has turned into a law hating ad violent culture.

Well, you can blame society for the crimes and violence, too, as long as we're blaming society here.

But if there's someone to blame here, perhaps it might be Reagan and his ilk who are/were obsessed with waging a war on drugs. It turns every routine traffic stop into a possible drug search, which lengthens the time and increases the possibility of some unfortunate confrontation. The cops needed the military style weapons because the drug gangs had more powerful weapons than the cops did.

Yes, we are a violent culture. I think we've always been that, in one form or another. But we've also been a country of laws, and that's where some of the friction between the police and the general public comes from. Not so much from enforcing laws related to people's rights and public order - such as laws against murder, robbery, assault, rape, burglary, etc. But when you have the anal-retentive, pettifogging Barney Fife types out there zealously enforcing piddly violations - mainly because they come with fines which the local government depends upon for revenue - that's where it begins.

That was a point which was raised about the Ferguson riots. The city government's revenue stream was mostly from fines for minor violations, which the cops were zealously enforcing and creating a great deal of friction and resentment within the community. Plus, the vast majority of police officers didn't even live in that community.

In my day a baton ad six shot revolver was adequate for protection. However, though guns were as available as today, armed suspects were few and far between. People generally obeyed instructions given.

Wouldn't that still be the case today, that armed suspects are few and far between? Most people in society are law-abiding. In fact, the violent crime rate is much lower now than it was during the massive crime waves of the 70s, 80s, and early 90s. Of course, there are all kinds of theories as to why the crime rate dropped. Perhaps some of it had to do with militarization of the police. Maybe it was also due to a higher incarceration rate and tougher enforcement such as "three strikes" laws. I've heard some say it was because abortion was legalized 20 years earlier, which meant that a lot of unwanted children who would have otherwise turned out to be criminals simply weren't born.

Today in some areas you know that a high percentage of people are carrying guns, you know that most will refuse to co operate, and you know some want to kill you.

Living in AZ, I have no doubt that a good many people around me on a daily basis are armed and even more have weapons at home.

In my day we didn't NEED a semi auto pistol with 18 rounds, or an M-16 in the trunk, or protective vests. These came into use because of the actions of citizens.

Which "citizens"? The even average gun-owning citizen won't be well-armed enough or trained enough to be able to take on the cops, nor would they even want to. Even the average low-life or vagrant probably wouldn't be much of a match, which is why the cops invariably win most of the gun battles they're involved in.

The reason why cops need all these weapons today is not because of the actions of "citizens," but because of organized crime. They started becoming powerful under Prohibition, but they were also skilled at bribing politicians, judges, police officers, etc. They also ostensibly brought about tougher, better trained, and better armed class of criminal. And from what I've read about the cartels and gangs like MS-13, these are not unlike hardened combat veterans. So, yes, I can see where cops would need extra protection and firepower against those criminals, but not the average citizen.

I don't know what you mean by "increased aggressiveness". If you mean more violent incidents involving the Police, it is because they are responding to increased violence in the community.

Instead of pontificating about something you seem to know little about, your time would be much better served if you did a few police ride alongs on the 1600 - 0000 hrs. shift, in the worst areas of Tucson, and see for yourself what occurs.

The statistics express clearly the actual facts.

In NY for example, this "aggression" resulted in a vastly lowered murder rate. Today under a "benevolent" mayor, the murder rate is climbing, why I wonder ?

I've been around the worst areas of Tucson. Never had any trouble. But that's because I know my own city. In other cities I'm not familiar with, I might be a bit more wary.

 

[Howard Is]

If people around you are not patriotic, do you feel safe that they have your back and the country's interests in mind should a crisis occur?

I’m not patriotic, but I’m the guy who sustained injuries trying to save a woman from a burning house. F U

 

[Twilight Hue]

I’m not patriotic, but I’m the guy who sustained injuries trying to save a woman from a burning house. F U

Admirable.

 

[Twilight Hue]

We are Constitutionally protected in our person amd property from unwarranted searches and seizures, and yet some bunghole expects us to submit to pre employement and random drug testing without probably cause or reasonable suspicion? That is us being stripped of our Fifth amendment rights so a corporate baffoon can micromanage our private lives. That has got to go.

I second that. There is too much unwanted intrusion from both govt and corporate. The sad part is people will eventually be used to the intrusion and consider such things as normal and acceptable. Many accept it already.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Personally, I have no time for patriotism. It is an artificial sentiment, and far too easily directed towards destructive purposes.

Like Saddam unifying Iraq?

 

[LuisDantas]

Like Saddam unifying Iraq?

Or the impeached one asking people to let go of their consciences, yes.

 

[gnomon]

You play a game for money. You want to take a knee when the National Anthem is being played...you can go live somewhere else.

I’ve heard one of the reasons is that one of the versus of the original “Star Spangled Banner” refers to slaves. Is that the only reason? How do you feet?

Construct a better question.

 

[McBell]

Let's make the analogy more fun.....
You're an actor on Broadway. (You have a fine voice, btw.)
Just before the play starts, while the orchestra is warming
up, you walk on stage with a WHITE POWER sign to
express dissing of white folk in the media.

And then you suffer the consequences for your actions.

 

[Revoltingest]

And then you suffer the consequences for your actions.

You're no fun.
That's the easy answer.
I'm looking for someone to argue that it's OK,
wrong, the same as the kneel, or different.

 

[McBell]

You're no fun.
That's the easy answer.
I'm looking for someone to argue that it's OK,
wrong, the same as the kneel, or different.

It is the same as the kneel in that there will be consequences for your actions.
The more radical the action, the more radical the consequences.

Are the two comparable?
IMO, no.

 

[Revoltingest]

It is the same as the kneel in that there will be consequences for your actions.
The more radical the action, the more radical the consequences.

Are the two comparable?
IMO, no.

Both are political statements.
The difference I see is whether one agrees or not.

 

[McBell]

Both are political statements.
The difference I see is whether one agrees or not.

Agrees with what, exactly?
The "reason" for the action, or that there is consequences for their actions?

 

[Revoltingest]

Agrees with what, exactly?
The "reason" for the action, or that there is consequences for their actions?

You're just no fun.

 

[McBell]

You're just no fun.

Seems to me that many, if not most, who are upset about Colin being fired is because they agree with the "reason" for his actions.
I have heard many flat out state he should not have negative consequences for his actions even though he knew before hand what those consequences where.
IMO, he tried calling a bluff only to find out it was not a bluff.

 

[Revoltingest]

Seems to me that many, if not most, who are upset about Colin being fired is because they agree with the "reason" for his actions.
I have heard many flat out state he should not have negative consequences for his actions even though he knew before hand what those consequences where.
IMO, he tried calling a bluff only to find out it was not a bluff.

Sounds reasonable to me (ie, you're no fun).

 

[McBell]

Sounds reasonable to me (ie, you're no fun).