57% support Arizona law..17% want it even tougher!

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Thank you for admitting profiling is used by law enforcement. Here's your problem; there are no 'suspects' when profiling is used to pull people over for bogus traffic violations. It is no longer a 'tool' to solve a crime. It becomes a hammer and an abuse of power. It is profiling seeded in bigotry and prejudice. The sole cause of the detainment is the age and skin color of the occupants. The searches that you say are supposed to be based on reasonable suspicion are predetermined. They will conduct a search and they use intimidation and threats to force that search. There is no justification other than intimidation and abuse of power that explains their show of force, 4-5 squad cars converging on a car pulled over for the making an illegal lane change or having a burned out turn signal.

Try to relax and breath into a paper bag pea brain...you're hyperventilating.

Also, you might want to stop ('cease and desist' for you law enforcement thugs) questioning my intelligence, because your inability to grasp this topic alone makes you look like a pea brain. But your 'intelligence' diatribes only creates more people rolling on the floor laughing at you buc-o... SMILE...

HAHA! Oh boy, this is gonna be a fun one. Ok, here goes.....

1- Yes. Profiling has been used by law enforcement for centuries. "Racial" profiling should never be used, and rarely is. But criminal profiling, using intell to outline possible suspects? Of course. You'd be dumb not to.

2- Traffic stops. Traffic stops are a major tool in solving other crimes. You are simply to ignorant of law enforcement to know that. And thats not an insult. Most people would assume the same, but any cop will tell you how many non-traffic crimes end up being solved through traffic stops. Finding stolen property during a stop, finding drugs which leads to a deal where the driver snitches on other crimes, finding a wanted person driving, etc, etc. You are simply not informed enough about cop work to know that.

NOW for the main event:

Point 1- When you are behind a car, you can't see the driver. Thus, his age and race are unknown. Unless you have Superman X-ray vision, which no cops do as far as I know. So that point is a dead issue.

Point 2- Again, you aren't informed enough about this so I will have to explain, but let me lay out a scenario for you: A bank on the East side gets robbed. Suspect flees in a silver Geo Metro and gets away. He had on a mask. Meanwhile, a poor, innocent liberal descendent of Gfgrn is driving around the South end in a silver Geo Metro, which a cop sees and stops because it MIGHT be the same car. Considering it may be, and it may be the armed robbery suspect, several backup officers arrive just in case the driver has a gun. They may search the car to be sure it's not him, and let him go. Meanwhile, Gfgrn is looking out the window whining about the abuse of power the cops are displaying.

Point 3- Lets say your quiet, liberal suburb has been victim to a rash of car break-ins, which by the way, is the current trend in crime: Dirtbags are going to quiet suburbs where people feel safe, and therefore don't lock their car doors, and they break in to 20-30 cars a night. Right now Ipods and GPS systems are the hottest items. Thats a nationwide trend. But, back to the point, the victims are pissed, and the cops need to solve it. The suspects have to do what to get to and from their crime? Drive. So, start pulling cars over and seeing whats going on. Document who you pulled, then a detective crosses those names with Pawn Shop lists, and sees if any of the drivers have pawned say 20 Ipods and 40 GPS systems in the past month. Inconvenience a few drivers? Yeah. Solve the crimes? Yes.

And finally, the minor tag light stuff you are whining about. As I said, traffic stops are the #1 most productive law enforcement tool when it comes to finding fugitives, stolen property, drugs, illegal weapons, etc, etc. Argue that if you wish, but you'll lose badly in my refute of it. So, lets say we have a drug dealer carrying 20 pounds of dope in a car. Or we have a guy who is wanted for murder driving cross-country to flee. Or a guy who just burglarized a home and stole 4 guns. Or a guy who kidnapped a child and is on the run...............

Those guys listed above, ARE NOT going to drive 35 mph over the speed limit. They aren't going to blow through red lights. They aren't going to pass people in medians. They aren't going to commit ANY major traffic offenses. They won't drive around with an tag expired 5 years. So, to catch them, what does a police dept need? Petty offenses. Pull 100 cars over for something petty, you'll issue 90 warnings, and find about 10 people related to or committing other more serious crimes.

I won't charge you tuition for this lesson, because like I said, most citizens who aren't cops or former-cops just don't know what the job entails. If cops policed how most citizens WISH they would, NO crimes would ever get solved, and the crime rate would skyrocket because it would be so damn easy to get away.

So next time you see cops "terrorizing and intimidating" a poor, defensless liberal teen, think to yourself:

- Did the teen drive recklessly or have dope on him when he shouldn't have?
- Is he driving a vehicle similar to one used to flee another crime?
- Is there a spree of crimes in the area and the cops are just trying to get lucky and find the suspect/property on a stop?

Because all 3 are far more likely a reason than what you think they are doing. And if you truly believe it's just the cops being assholes, then I have one final word for you:

YOU LIBERALS NEED TO STOP BEING SUCH F**KING IGNORANT DUMBASSES.

YOU can refuse a search under the 4th Amendment. If a cop asks for consent, then he likely has no probable cause to search, and you CAN say no. In fact, you can say YES, and halfway through the search, REMOVE consent and tell his ass "Stop, I want you to stop your consenstual search". And if you try the above and it doesn't work, SUE their asses and get rich.

I swear, to take the intellectual high ground all the time, you lefties sure are fu**ing stupid.

Hey, thanks for proving you are a fucking fascist. You can put a dress on it, high heels, lipstick and pearls...you just described a POLICE state.

The stops I see don't go by the book, when a person evokes his or her right, it is viewed as a direct confrontation...GUESS who wins asshole???

Grow up and use the little pea between your shoulders. You are as naive as they come...

 

[Bfgrn]

HAHA! Oh boy, this is gonna be a fun one. Ok, here goes.....

1- Yes. Profiling has been used by law enforcement for centuries. "Racial" profiling should never be used, and rarely is. But criminal profiling, using intell to outline possible suspects? Of course. You'd be dumb not to.

2- Traffic stops. Traffic stops are a major tool in solving other crimes. You are simply to ignorant of law enforcement to know that. And thats not an insult. Most people would assume the same, but any cop will tell you how many non-traffic crimes end up being solved through traffic stops. Finding stolen property during a stop, finding drugs which leads to a deal where the driver snitches on other crimes, finding a wanted person driving, etc, etc. You are simply not informed enough about cop work to know that.

NOW for the main event:

Point 1- When you are behind a car, you can't see the driver. Thus, his age and race are unknown. Unless you have Superman X-ray vision, which no cops do as far as I know. So that point is a dead issue.

Point 2- Again, you aren't informed enough about this so I will have to explain, but let me lay out a scenario for you: A bank on the East side gets robbed. Suspect flees in a silver Geo Metro and gets away. He had on a mask. Meanwhile, a poor, innocent liberal descendent of Gfgrn is driving around the South end in a silver Geo Metro, which a cop sees and stops because it MIGHT be the same car. Considering it may be, and it may be the armed robbery suspect, several backup officers arrive just in case the driver has a gun. They may search the car to be sure it's not him, and let him go. Meanwhile, Gfgrn is looking out the window whining about the abuse of power the cops are displaying.

Point 3- Lets say your quiet, liberal suburb has been victim to a rash of car break-ins, which by the way, is the current trend in crime: Dirtbags are going to quiet suburbs where people feel safe, and therefore don't lock their car doors, and they break in to 20-30 cars a night. Right now Ipods and GPS systems are the hottest items. Thats a nationwide trend. But, back to the point, the victims are pissed, and the cops need to solve it. The suspects have to do what to get to and from their crime? Drive. So, start pulling cars over and seeing whats going on. Document who you pulled, then a detective crosses those names with Pawn Shop lists, and sees if any of the drivers have pawned say 20 Ipods and 40 GPS systems in the past month. Inconvenience a few drivers? Yeah. Solve the crimes? Yes.

And finally, the minor tag light stuff you are whining about. As I said, traffic stops are the #1 most productive law enforcement tool when it comes to finding fugitives, stolen property, drugs, illegal weapons, etc, etc. Argue that if you wish, but you'll lose badly in my refute of it. So, lets say we have a drug dealer carrying 20 pounds of dope in a car. Or we have a guy who is wanted for murder driving cross-country to flee. Or a guy who just burglarized a home and stole 4 guns. Or a guy who kidnapped a child and is on the run...............

Those guys listed above, ARE NOT going to drive 35 mph over the speed limit. They aren't going to blow through red lights. They aren't going to pass people in medians. They aren't going to commit ANY major traffic offenses. They won't drive around with an tag expired 5 years. So, to catch them, what does a police dept need? Petty offenses. Pull 100 cars over for something petty, you'll issue 90 warnings, and find about 10 people related to or committing other more serious crimes.

I won't charge you tuition for this lesson, because like I said, most citizens who aren't cops or former-cops just don't know what the job entails. If cops policed how most citizens WISH they would, NO crimes would ever get solved, and the crime rate would skyrocket because it would be so damn easy to get away.

So next time you see cops "terrorizing and intimidating" a poor, defensless liberal teen, think to yourself:

- Did the teen drive recklessly or have dope on him when he shouldn't have?
- Is he driving a vehicle similar to one used to flee another crime?
- Is there a spree of crimes in the area and the cops are just trying to get lucky and find the suspect/property on a stop?

Because all 3 are far more likely a reason than what you think they are doing. And if you truly believe it's just the cops being assholes, then I have one final word for you:

YOU LIBERALS NEED TO STOP BEING SUCH F**KING IGNORANT DUMBASSES.

YOU can refuse a search under the 4th Amendment. If a cop asks for consent, then he likely has no probable cause to search, and you CAN say no. In fact, you can say YES, and halfway through the search, REMOVE consent and tell his ass "Stop, I want you to stop your consenstual search". And if you try the above and it doesn't work, SUE their asses and get rich.

I swear, to take the intellectual high ground all the time, you lefties sure are fu**ing stupid.

Hey, thanks for proving you are a fucking fascist. You can put a dress on it, high heels, lipstick and pearls...you just described a POLICE state.

The stops I see don't go by the book, when a person evokes his or her right, it is viewed as a direct confrontation...GUESS who wins asshole???

Grow up and use the little pea between your shoulders. You are as naive as they come...

http://pix.motivatedphotos.com/2009/9/24/633893710200591540-goodwinslaw.jpg

Hey pea brain, stick Godwin's law up your ass. It has become a hammer REAL fascists use...

Moron fascist buc-o just described in detail a POLICE state, where people can be arbitrarily stopped and detained without even committing a crime...what NEXT???

 

[bucs90]

[
Hey pea brain, stick Godwin's law up your ass. It has become a hammer REAL fascists use...

Moron fascist buc-o just described in detail a POLICE state, where people can be arbitrarily stopped and detained without even committing a crime...what NEXT???

[

Ah man, thats the best you can do? You FINALLY got your golden opportunity! All your hatred for police could finally come out on a real, live ex-cop. Well, on the internet, but you know what I mean, you could finally speak your mind!!!!

I see I extracted every drop of intellect you had to offer, and sadly, it wasn't much. It was fun, but kind of fun like beating up on a midget in a basketball game.

Whats NEXT is to correct you. I described people being stopped under the 4th amendment with reasonable suspicion or probable cause of a crime. A person cannot, ever, be stopped without that. PS, a broken tail-light is indeed a "crime" as it violates the traffic section of state criminal statutes.

Don't like it? Complain to the government. After all, YOUR BOYS, the liberals, are in office. I'm sure they'll change it.

You never did answer my questions though. Should we have a border? How many of the world's 6 billion can we let in? And last but not least, are you or are you not an anarchist?

You probably don't even know what that term is. Google it then get back at me old timer.

 

[bucs90]

Oh, and Bfgrn, for the record, the pictures you are showing above are of Nazi checkpoints. I've always been strongly against checkpoints of any kind except military bases. The courts have upheld them, but thats one area of police work I do disagree with.

And speaking of fascists and Nazis, you refer to the "right wing" a lot. Left wing icon and Supreme Court justice Ruth Ginsberg advocated the cleansing of the American population of unwanted persons: Ruth Ginsburg makes controversial comments on Roe

So in your rants, how about include the left wing, as she and FDR truly believe in some of what the Nazis did. FDR rounded up entire populations and jailed them just for looking Japanese.

 

[daveman]

No, I'm not a racist, closet or otherwise. I respect all cultures and believe in REAL freedom and liberty. People should be able to determine how THEY choose to live and not be coerced or forced to conform to others beliefs and traditions.

And, apparently, the law.

 

[bucs90]

​

No, I'm not a racist, closet or otherwise. I respect all cultures and believe in REAL freedom and liberty. People should be able to determine how THEY choose to live and not be coerced or forced to conform to others beliefs and traditions.

And, apparently, the law.

I suppose Bfgrn just doesnt believe in traffic or drug laws. I for one think people have the freedom to:

Drive down the road without getting hit by a teen going 100mph to look cool.
Drive home at night without trying to avoid cars with burned out tail lights.
Drive home without having to keep looking at the asshole tailgating you and wondering if he'll stop on time should you have to hit your brakes.
Drive home without worrying about getting cut off and run off the road by an aggressive driver on his cell phone.
Have dinner with your wife at a pub without wondering if the dude whose high on crack is gonna get pissed at your watch and try to fight you.
Go out in public and not worry about a drug addict robbing and possibly killing you b/c of his habit and withdrawls.
Go to sleep at night without worrying if an addict will break in to steal stuff to trade for dope.

And of course, let your 16 year old daughter go do all of the above and rest peacefully knowing in the unlikely event they occur to her, a stranger with a gun and badge will risk his life to bring her home safely.

Yeah, Bfgrn, we'd be far better off without cops, traffic laws or drug laws.

 

[daveman]

​

No, I'm not a racist, closet or otherwise. I respect all cultures and believe in REAL freedom and liberty. People should be able to determine how THEY choose to live and not be coerced or forced to conform to others beliefs and traditions.

And, apparently, the law.

I suppose Bfgrn just doesnt believe in traffic or drug laws. I for one think people have the freedom to:

Drive down the road without getting hit by a teen going 100mph to look cool.
Drive home at night without trying to avoid cars with burned out tail lights.
Drive home without having to keep looking at the asshole tailgating you and wondering if he'll stop on time should you have to hit your brakes.
Drive home without worrying about getting cut off and run off the road by an aggressive driver on his cell phone.
Have dinner with your wife at a pub without wondering if the dude whose high on crack is gonna get pissed at your watch and try to fight you.
Go out in public and not worry about a drug addict robbing and possibly killing you b/c of his habit and withdrawls.
Go to sleep at night without worrying if an addict will break in to steal stuff to trade for dope.

And of course, let your 16 year old daughter go do all of the above and rest peacefully knowing in the unlikely event they occur to her, a stranger with a gun and badge will risk his life to bring her home safely.

Yeah, Bfgrn, we'd be far better off without cops, traffic laws or drug laws.

You fascist!!

 

[bucs90]

​

And, apparently, the law.

I suppose Bfgrn just doesnt believe in traffic or drug laws. I for one think people have the freedom to:

Drive down the road without getting hit by a teen going 100mph to look cool.
Drive home at night without trying to avoid cars with burned out tail lights.
Drive home without having to keep looking at the asshole tailgating you and wondering if he'll stop on time should you have to hit your brakes.
Drive home without worrying about getting cut off and run off the road by an aggressive driver on his cell phone.
Have dinner with your wife at a pub without wondering if the dude whose high on crack is gonna get pissed at your watch and try to fight you.
Go out in public and not worry about a drug addict robbing and possibly killing you b/c of his habit and withdrawls.
Go to sleep at night without worrying if an addict will break in to steal stuff to trade for dope.

And of course, let your 16 year old daughter go do all of the above and rest peacefully knowing in the unlikely event they occur to her, a stranger with a gun and badge will risk his life to bring her home safely.

Yeah, Bfgrn, we'd be far better off without cops, traffic laws or drug laws.

You fascist!!

I know, right? I also believe as taxpayers we have the freedom to:

Not have to go find our own stolen car.
Not have to confront and arrest the guy that robbed me.
Not have to go track down the asshole who stole my daughter's Ipod birthday present.
Not have to hunt down and seek justice on the guy who murdered our friend.
Not have to teach our kids to carry and use a gun should a shooting break out at their school.

As taxpayers, I'm grateful strangers are willing to take that risk on our behalf.

We should be free to know that driving down the highway is gonna be fairly safe so long as we abide by the driving laws.
We should know that there won't be a car slam it's breaks on to make a sudden turn without signal, thus endangering our kid who may be driving behind that person.
We should be free to know that, should a driver go without tail lights and our child rear-ends their vehicle at night because it wasn't visible, the police will find that the tail-light requirment was not met and thus our child was not at fault.
We should be free to let our kids drive around knowing that reasonable rules have been set for safe travel and they are enforced.
We should be free to sip our coffee and watch TV as our 18 year old son goes out on a date, and not fear that he will be smashed into by a guy speeding, weaving in and out of traffic, fleeing a drug deal, and possibly carrying a gun to eliminate any witness.

And should that rare occassion occur, I should be free as a taxpayer to not have to take vigilante justice, and be safe knowing strangers will risk their safety to enforce the laws of our land so that we may enjoy the above freedoms and peace of mind.

But, then again, Bfgrn called me a fascist, so maybe it should just be a free for all on our roadways and society.

 

[Bfgrn]

​

I suppose Bfgrn just doesnt believe in traffic or drug laws. I for one think people have the freedom to:

Drive down the road without getting hit by a teen going 100mph to look cool.
Drive home at night without trying to avoid cars with burned out tail lights.
Drive home without having to keep looking at the asshole tailgating you and wondering if he'll stop on time should you have to hit your brakes.
Drive home without worrying about getting cut off and run off the road by an aggressive driver on his cell phone.
Have dinner with your wife at a pub without wondering if the dude whose high on crack is gonna get pissed at your watch and try to fight you.
Go out in public and not worry about a drug addict robbing and possibly killing you b/c of his habit and withdrawls.
Go to sleep at night without worrying if an addict will break in to steal stuff to trade for dope.

And of course, let your 16 year old daughter go do all of the above and rest peacefully knowing in the unlikely event they occur to her, a stranger with a gun and badge will risk his life to bring her home safely.

Yeah, Bfgrn, we'd be far better off without cops, traffic laws or drug laws.

You fascist!!

I know, right? I also believe as taxpayers we have the freedom to:

Not have to go find our own stolen car.
Not have to confront and arrest the guy that robbed me.
Not have to go track down the asshole who stole my daughter's Ipod birthday present.
Not have to hunt down and seek justice on the guy who murdered our friend.
Not have to teach our kids to carry and use a gun should a shooting break out at their school.

As taxpayers, I'm grateful strangers are willing to take that risk on our behalf.

We should be free to know that driving down the highway is gonna be fairly safe so long as we abide by the driving laws.
We should know that there won't be a car slam it's breaks on to make a sudden turn without signal, thus endangering our kid who may be driving behind that person.
We should be free to know that, should a driver go without tail lights and our child rear-ends their vehicle at night because it wasn't visible, the police will find that the tail-light requirment was not met and thus our child was not at fault.
We should be free to let our kids drive around knowing that reasonable rules have been set for safe travel and they are enforced.
We should be free to sip our coffee and watch TV as our 18 year old son goes out on a date, and not fear that he will be smashed into by a guy speeding, weaving in and out of traffic, fleeing a drug deal, and possibly carrying a gun to eliminate any witness.

And should that rare occassion occur, I should be free as a taxpayer to not have to take vigilante justice, and be safe knowing strangers will risk their safety to enforce the laws of our land so that we may enjoy the above freedoms and peace of mind.

But, then again, Bfgrn called me a fascist, so maybe it should just be a free for all on our roadways and society.

I love watching two pea brains try to create one brain cell...

Why is it you right wing morons always drag out the polarized argument...all or none, black or white? And, if it isn't ALL your way, then it's chicken little the sky is falling, end of society. It's total anarchy, chaos, dark & dire circumstances, death and destruction.

You claim you were a cop in Atlanta for 8 years, but you just stepped on your dick buc-o. NO ONE that was a cop would ever connect a crack head and a pub. If a crack head were spending any money on alcohol, which is unlikely, he or she wouldn't be plopping down $5 a drink. They would be drinking the cheapest bottle of alcohol they could get. If you and your wife go to a pub, the chances of a crack head BEING there and starting a fight with you are about as likely as a bolt of lighting hitting you. So your little 'I was a cop' charade is over.

But, let's go back to your pub...there is a much higher probability someone would start a fight with you in a pub. Why? Because that is where the most destructive drug in our society resides. Alcohol is by FAR the most destructive drug...again, any cop would know that after only a few gruesome alcohol related accident scenes. But hey, alcohol is 'macho' and 'virile'. You right wing pea brains never even 'think' or ponder if laws are just or if they have disastrous consequences. They are laws...end of story!

What I enjoy is watching you right wing morons self incriminate yourselves. Your little diatribes were not a description of or a window into my society without you to moderate it. You just painted in graphic detail all YOUR phobias, fears and revealed your disdain for 'others' and mankind.

I will share with you some words of wisdom, something you are bankrupt of...smile...

Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
Thomas Jefferson

Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny.
Edmund Burke

It is more dangerous that even a guilty person should be punished without the forms of law than that he should escape.
Thomas Jefferson

 

[bucs90]

You fascist!!

I know, right? I also believe as taxpayers we have the freedom to:

Not have to go find our own stolen car.
Not have to confront and arrest the guy that robbed me.
Not have to go track down the asshole who stole my daughter's Ipod birthday present.
Not have to hunt down and seek justice on the guy who murdered our friend.
Not have to teach our kids to carry and use a gun should a shooting break out at their school.

As taxpayers, I'm grateful strangers are willing to take that risk on our behalf.

We should be free to know that driving down the highway is gonna be fairly safe so long as we abide by the driving laws.
We should know that there won't be a car slam it's breaks on to make a sudden turn without signal, thus endangering our kid who may be driving behind that person.
We should be free to know that, should a driver go without tail lights and our child rear-ends their vehicle at night because it wasn't visible, the police will find that the tail-light requirment was not met and thus our child was not at fault.
We should be free to let our kids drive around knowing that reasonable rules have been set for safe travel and they are enforced.
We should be free to sip our coffee and watch TV as our 18 year old son goes out on a date, and not fear that he will be smashed into by a guy speeding, weaving in and out of traffic, fleeing a drug deal, and possibly carrying a gun to eliminate any witness.

And should that rare occassion occur, I should be free as a taxpayer to not have to take vigilante justice, and be safe knowing strangers will risk their safety to enforce the laws of our land so that we may enjoy the above freedoms and peace of mind.

But, then again, Bfgrn called me a fascist, so maybe it should just be a free for all on our roadways and society.

I love watching two pea brains try to create one brain cell...

Why is it you right wing morons always drag out the polarized argument...all or none, black or white? And, if it isn't ALL your way, then it's chicken little the sky is falling, end of society. It's total anarchy, chaos, dark & dire circumstances, death and destruction.

You claim you were a cop in Atlanta for 8 years, but you just stepped on your dick buc-o. NO ONE that was a cop would ever connect a crack head and a pub. If a crack head were spending any money on alcohol, which is unlikely, he or she wouldn't be plopping down $5 a drink. They would be drinking the cheapest bottle of alcohol they could get. If you and your wife go to a pub, the chances of a crack head BEING there and starting a fight with you are about as likely as a bolt of lighting hitting you. So your little 'I was a cop' charade is over.

But, let's go back to your pub...there is a much higher probability someone would start a fight with you in a pub. Why? Because that is where the most destructive drug in our society resides. Alcohol is by FAR the most destructive drug...again, any cop would know that after only a few gruesome alcohol related accident scenes. But hey, alcohol is 'macho' and 'virile'. You right wing pea brains never even 'think' or ponder if laws are just or if they have disastrous consequences. They are laws...end of story!

What I enjoy is watching you right wing morons self incriminate yourselves. Your little diatribes were not a description of or a window into my society without you to moderate it. You just painted in graphic detail all YOUR phobias, fears and revealed your disdain for 'others' and mankind.

I will share with you some words of wisdom, something you are bankrupt of...smile...

Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
Thomas Jefferson

Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny.
Edmund Burke

It is more dangerous that even a guilty person should be punished without the forms of law than that he should escape.
Thomas Jefferson

Oh sweet, you responded! I know you're gonna grow tired of being mocked and made fun of eventually, but for now, the fun continues! Yay!

Ok, lets get started......

First with an easy one. So you think I'm lying about being an ex-cop. Hmmmm. Lie about having worked as a lowly city employee, overworked, underpaid, amongst millions of others doing the same job. I'd rather lie about being a Navy SEAL or something. But you don't believe I was a cop. Oh MY GOD NO! How will I ever sleep?

Anyhoo....moving on....

Next you are arguing that I can't be an ex-cop, because a cop would know crackheads don't go to pubs/bars. Hmmmm. So you're gonna argue drug users.......wouldn't be in a bar. You seriously gonna stick with that? Because it's 100% known amongst law enforcement that some areas of the highest concentration of drug presence and drug users are in bars, pubs, nightclubs. X, powder, crack, heroine, pcp, speed, acid, shrooms, weed, etc, etc, it's all there.

But, please, stick with your statement that crackhead would not be found in a pub/bar. It makes you look smart

Next, you argue alcohol is the most abused and most dangerous drug. Actually, I agree. It is. Prohibition was tried and failed. So how do we reasonably regulate this drug's abuse? No drunk driving, no walking in the road drunk, no open containers in vehicles, no use under 21, etc, etc. I will add, however, the damage alcohol causes has the highest correlation to the user's psychology and temperment......whereas harder drugs like heroine and crack will fuck up just about anyone regardless of their personality or temperment. Anyway, I don't really grasp your point with the alcohol thing. Yeah, it's overly abused. No shit.

Next, your quote: "Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone"

If Liberalism is indeed that, the following would occur:

- Purchasing personal health insurance would be voluntary. Liberals just made it mandatory.
- Giving to charity would be abundant and voluntary. Liberals force it through welfare legislation.
- Trans fats, sodas, salt, etc, would not be banned in liberal cities like New York. The liberals do want to ban those things, cuz they dont' trust the folks to eat right.
- Praying in school and government buildings would be OK, as liberals would trust that the religious expression is harmless. They don't. Liberals try to ban it all.

I could go on and on about big government liberal restrictions, taking away freedoms.

But, the bottom line is this: Through my analysis skills, I got you pegged. I have your profile nearly perfected.

- You are an anarchist who believes in absolutely no government and no police.
- You are an aging hipster who has had bad run-ins with the police.
- You work or worked in labor, likely construction or agriculture.
- You have kids that you love, but get themselves into trouble.

Pretty close so far?