"Oh NOEZ he must be crazy, we need the big fat men in bue to pwotect us fwom the terrorists" Let me get something straight, people in the U.S. and escalating in europe, want freedome, the freedom of choice, a freedom to have rights, you know, life not being decided by something or someone else. But police in most cases, is nothing other than government controlled "protection" to basically have control of your rights. There should be law and punishment but when you basically have an iron grip of what people do and can throw out random punishments at them it's close to a dictatorship. Allow me to explain further, who can carry guns at all times? Who can use "discretion" or "Probable cause" to infiltrate privacy, to record your phone, to even be authorized in some cases to shoot first and ask the questions later? I mean law enforcement in most cases is the very definition of taking away freedom. SO I PROPOSE a revamp of the law system, only thing that are a threat and are 90%+ credible deserve looking into, which means no false arrests on suspicion, they must have near 100% evidence to present in order to go to an arrest or to tap phones, and then, unless you can prove the contact are also in the crime/scam whatever, they also need 90% verification because taking out an innocents freedom to get one guy is not how this should be done. This, the feltsir system as I would call it, would prevent innocents being accused and charged without evidence, to focus on the main crime and be less distracted and be able to get them before they get away, to prevent false holdings, and etc. The current law enforcement system is a trick, no matter police, FBI, QNT, CIA, DEA, National Security, military, KIA, Secret Service, MB's, Swat etc etc. so.. . . Who else thinks the Law enforcement system should be changed? I think we should revamp it! FOR JUSTICE AND THE FIGHT FOR FREEDOM!
There is no absolute freedom. Freedom is granted by society/government anyway.LJS9502_basic
Freedom should not be given by the government in a free democracy though. They should have next to no grip-like control over what you do otherwise it's just an illusion. Back in the day when our grandparents were around, the government did not have as a monstrous grip as it has today.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]There is no absolute freedom. Freedom is granted by society/government anyway.Canon-Gatorade
Freedom should not be given by the government in a free democracy though. They should have next to no grip-like control over what you do otherwise it's just an illusion. Back in the day when our grandparents were around, the government did not have as a monstrous grip as it has today. There is no innate freedom.
[QUOTE="Canon-Gatorade"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]There is no absolute freedom. Freedom is granted by society/government anyway.LJS9502_basic
Freedom should not be given by the government in a free democracy though. They should have next to no grip-like control over what you do otherwise it's just an illusion. Back in the day when our grandparents were around, the government did not have as a monstrous grip as it has today. There is no innate freedom. I am talking freedom that at the very list lessens government control over things that they have no reason to in a democratic freedom society as this one. Which used to have less of this problem back in the day of our grandparents, so we KNOW it works.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]There is no absolute freedom. Freedom is granted by society/government anyway.Canon-Gatorade
Freedom should not be given by the government in a free democracy though. They should have next to no grip-like control over what you do otherwise it's just an illusion. Back in the day when our grandparents were around, the government did not have as a monstrous grip as it has today. Ah the days of freedom. When you couldn't buy a drink because it was banned. Or when you could be thrown in jail for not wanting to die in a horrific war. Or when you could make less money than what it cost to live at the nearest store which was conveniently owned by the same company you worked for leading you to be indebted to the company for your entire life.
[QUOTE="Canon-Gatorade"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Canon-Gatorade"] Freedom should not be given by the government in a free democracy though. They should have next to no grip-like control over what you do otherwise it's just an illusion. Back in the day when our grandparents were around, the government did not have as a monstrous grip as it has today. There is no innate freedom. I am talking freedom that at the very list lessens government control over things that they have no reason to in a democratic freedom society as this one. Which used to have less of this problem back in the day of our grandparents, so we KNOW it works. You don't understand the concept of freedom. There has to be some "thing" that grants it.
[QUOTE="Canon-Gatorade"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]There is no absolute freedom. Freedom is granted by society/government anyway.Ace6301
Freedom should not be given by the government in a free democracy though. They should have next to no grip-like control over what you do otherwise it's just an illusion. Back in the day when our grandparents were around, the government did not have as a monstrous grip as it has today. Ah the days of freedom. When you couldn't buy a drink because it was banned. Or when you could be thrown in jail for not wanting to die in a horrific war. Or when you could make less money than what it cost to live at the nearest store which was conveniently owned by the same company you worked for leading you to be indebted to the company for your entire life. How far back do you think I was talking about? Not near 150 years.
[QUOTE="Canon-Gatorade"][QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Canon-Gatorade"] Freedom should not be given by the government in a free democracy though. They should have next to no grip-like control over what you do otherwise it's just an illusion. Back in the day when our grandparents were around, the government did not have as a monstrous grip as it has today. Ah the days of freedom. When you couldn't buy a drink because it was banned. Or when you could be thrown in jail for not wanting to die in a horrific war. Or when you could make less money than what it cost to live at the nearest store which was conveniently owned by the same company you worked for leading you to be indebted to the company for your entire life. How far back do you think I was talking about? Not near 150 years.He wasn't either.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Canon-Gatorade"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] There is no innate freedom. I am talking freedom that at the very list lessens government control over things that they have no reason to in a democratic freedom society as this one. Which used to have less of this problem back in the day of our grandparents, so we KNOW it works. You don't understand the concept of freedom. There has to be some "thing" that grants it. Or the absence of something. Eitherway, granting or not, since the people run the government, and th epeople granted it, it should be as it is with no abusive interference do you not agree?
[QUOTE="Canon-Gatorade"][QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Canon-Gatorade"] Freedom should not be given by the government in a free democracy though. They should have next to no grip-like control over what you do otherwise it's just an illusion. Back in the day when our grandparents were around, the government did not have as a monstrous grip as it has today. Ah the days of freedom. When you couldn't buy a drink because it was banned. Or when you could be thrown in jail for not wanting to die in a horrific war. Or when you could make less money than what it cost to live at the nearest store which was conveniently owned by the same company you worked for leading you to be indebted to the company for your entire life. How far back do you think I was talking about? Not near 150 years. How far back are you talking because this stuff wasn't really that long ago, as you said when our grandparents were around.
[QUOTE="Canon-Gatorade"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Canon-Gatorade"] I am talking freedom that at the very list lessens government control over things that they have no reason to in a democratic freedom society as this one. Which used to have less of this problem back in the day of our grandparents, so we KNOW it works. You don't understand the concept of freedom. There has to be some "thing" that grants it. Or the absence of something. Eitherway, granting or not, since the people run the government, and th epeople granted it, it should be as it is with no abusive interference do you not agree? What?
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Canon-Gatorade"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] You don't understand the concept of freedom. There has to be some "thing" that grants it. Or the absence of something. Eitherway, granting or not, since the people run the government, and th epeople granted it, it should be as it is with no abusive interference do you not agree? What? Your excuse in defending the government is that it granted the freedom, and yet the government is also in the case of this country, the people that are in it, or at least that's what the idea is. Not too long ago, there was a more balanced law system, for quite some time now, the government had been takingaway basic freedome left and right.
[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Canon-Gatorade"][QUOTE="Ace6301"] Ah the days of freedom. When you couldn't buy a drink because it was banned. Or when you could be thrown in jail for not wanting to die in a horrific war. Or when you could make less money than what it cost to live at the nearest store which was conveniently owned by the same company you worked for leading you to be indebted to the company for your entire life. How far back do you think I was talking about? Not near 150 years. How far back are you talking because this stuff wasn't really that long ago, as you said when our grandparents were around. You were talking about prohibition though, that's not even the 1900's if I remember correctly.
[QUOTE="Canon-Gatorade"][QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Canon-Gatorade"] How far back do you think I was talking about? Not near 150 years. How far back are you talking because this stuff wasn't really that long ago, as you said when our grandparents were around. You were talking about prohibition though, that's not even the 1900's if I remember correctly. 1922 to 1933 in the US.
[QUOTE="Canon-Gatorade"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Canon-Gatorade"] Or the absence of something. Eitherway, granting or not, since the people run the government, and th epeople granted it, it should be as it is with no abusive interference do you not agree? What? Your excuse in defending the government is that it granted the freedom, and yet the government is also in the case of this country, the people that are in it, or at least that's what the idea is. Not too long ago, there was a more balanced law system, for quite some time now, the government had been takingaway basic freedome left and right.I'm not defending anything. But freedom has to come from somewhere. It doesn't exist on it's own.
If your freedom is so stifled, please go somewhere else where the big bad law enforcement has less "grip" on society... see how long you last. Send us a postcard if you're still around.
[QUOTE="Canon-Gatorade"][QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Canon-Gatorade"] How far back do you think I was talking about? Not near 150 years. How far back are you talking because this stuff wasn't really that long ago, as you said when our grandparents were around. You were talking about prohibition though, that's not even the 1900's if I remember correctly. Yes it was....
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Canon-Gatorade"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] What? Your excuse in defending the government is that it granted the freedom, and yet the government is also in the case of this country, the people that are in it, or at least that's what the idea is. Not too long ago, there was a more balanced law system, for quite some time now, the government had been takingaway basic freedome left and right.I'm not defending anything. But freedom has to come from somewhere. It doesn't exist on it's own. What does that have to do with the fact we used to have balanced freedom and now we are heading in the opposite direction? Should we not revamp?
[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Canon-Gatorade"][QUOTE="Ace6301"] How far back are you talking because this stuff wasn't really that long ago, as you said when our grandparents were around. You were talking about prohibition though, that's not even the 1900's if I remember correctly. 1922 to 1933 in the US. Actually our grandparents may have been born around that time so it looks like they were getting out of it. That era is what I am referring to if that helps.
[QUOTE="Canon-Gatorade"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Canon-Gatorade"] Your excuse in defending the government is that it granted the freedom, and yet the government is also in the case of this country, the people that are in it, or at least that's what the idea is. Not too long ago, there was a more balanced law system, for quite some time now, the government had been takingaway basic freedome left and right.I'm not defending anything. But freedom has to come from somewhere. It doesn't exist on it's own. What does that have to do with the fact we used to have balanced freedom and now we are heading in the opposite direction? Should we not revamp? When? Minorities and women didn't even have the right to vote back in the day. Is that the balanced freedom you of which you speak?
[QUOTE="Canon-Gatorade"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Canon-Gatorade"] Your excuse in defending the government is that it granted the freedom, and yet the government is also in the case of this country, the people that are in it, or at least that's what the idea is. Not too long ago, there was a more balanced law system, for quite some time now, the government had been takingaway basic freedome left and right.I'm not defending anything. But freedom has to come from somewhere. It doesn't exist on it's own. What does that have to do with the fact we used to have balanced freedom and now we are heading in the opposite direction? Should we not revamp? Hate to break it to you but the 90s were basically the most free period in the US and beyond stupid sh*t like the patriot act and TSA there's been changes toward the positive like gay marriage being made legal and a general consensus that drugs should be less restricted. You want the most free period of human history? You're living in it. It's also the least violent and healthiest.
I agree that the police force has become increasingly violent. Â There are countless stories of people being beaten and even killed by police officers all because the police were suspicious of something. Â The actual court system we have now seems to do an ok job of determining whether someone broke the law or not (although i disagree with the punishments for several of these, incluidng selling and posessing drugs).
The part that needs to be fixed is what happens before people are brought in front of a judge. Â
I agree that the police force has become increasingly violent. Â There are countless stories of people being beaten and even killed by police officers all because the police were suspicious of something. Â The actual court system we have now seems to do an ok job of determining whether someone broke the law or not (although i disagree with the punishments for several of these, incluidng selling and posessing drugs).
The part that needs to be fixed is what happens before people are brought in front of a judge. Â
hoola
I think it was worse not long ago. There is more community involvement and speaking against acts by the police than ever before in history.
I agree that the police force has become increasingly violent. Â There are countless stories of people being beaten and even killed by police officers all because the police were suspicious of something. Â The actual court system we have now seems to do an ok job of determining whether someone broke the law or not (although i disagree with the punishments for several of these, incluidng selling and posessing drugs).
The part that needs to be fixed is what happens before people are brought in front of a judge. Â
LJS9502_basic
I think it was worse not long ago. There is more community involvement and speaking against acts by the police than ever before in history. I'd imagine a lot of what is happening now was happening in the past. We just didn't have cameras in cellphones and things like youtube to share videos.
I agree that the police force has become increasingly violent. Â There are countless stories of people being beaten and even killed by police officers all because the police were suspicious of something. Â The actual court system we have now seems to do an ok job of determining whether someone broke the law or not (although i disagree with the punishments for several of these, incluidng selling and posessing drugs).
The part that needs to be fixed is what happens before people are brought in front of a judge. Â
Ace6301
I think it was worse not long ago. There is more community involvement and speaking against acts by the police than ever before in history. I'd imagine a lot of what is happening now was happening in the past. We just didn't have cameras in cellphones and things like youtube to share videos. And people were behind authority figures more.
[QUOTE="Canon-Gatorade"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I'm not defending anything. But freedom has to come from somewhere. It doesn't exist on it's own.LJS9502_basic
What does that have to do with the fact we used to have balanced freedom and now we are heading in the opposite direction? Should we not revamp? When? Minorities and women didn't even have the right to vote back in the day. Is that the balanced freedom you of which you speak? Women is irrelevant, Black people could vote back in the day, especially post prhibition which is the period I talked about, and rules for women depended on the state.
[QUOTE="Canon-Gatorade"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I'm not defending anything. But freedom has to come from somewhere. It doesn't exist on it's own.Ace6301
What does that have to do with the fact we used to have balanced freedom and now we are heading in the opposite direction? Should we not revamp? Hate to break it to you but the 90s were basically the most free period in the US and beyond stupid sh*t like the patriot act and TSA there's been changes toward the positive like gay marriage being made legal and a general consensus that drugs should be less restricted. You want the most free period of human history? You're living in it. It's also the least violent and healthiest. You just said ti was the 90's and now I am living in it? Also those things above could be positive or negative.
[QUOTE="Canon-Gatorade"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Canon-Gatorade"] What does that have to do with the fact we used to have balanced freedom and now we are heading in the opposite direction? Should we not revamp? When? Minorities and women didn't even have the right to vote back in the day. Is that the balanced freedom you of which you speak? Women is irrelevant, Black people could vote back in the day, especially post prhibition which is the period I talked about, and rules for women depended on the state.So you admit you were trolling and not interested in freedom.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Canon-Gatorade"] What does that have to do with the fact we used to have balanced freedom and now we are heading in the opposite direction? Should we not revamp?Canon-Gatorade
When? Minorities and women didn't even have the right to vote back in the day. Is that the balanced freedom you of which you speak? Women is irrelevant, Black people could vote back in the day, especially post prhibition which is the period I talked about, and rules for women depended on the state.
:roll:
Even if black people had the right to vote, they were still completely marginalized in much of the US, especially in the South.Â
I agree that the police force has become increasingly violent. Â There are countless stories of people being beaten and even killed by police officers all because the police were suspicious of something. Â The actual court system we have now seems to do an ok job of determining whether someone broke the law or not (although i disagree with the punishments for several of these, incluidng selling and posessing drugs).
The part that needs to be fixed is what happens before people are brought in front of a judge. Â
hoola
Yeah, like the fact they can suspect you and go through you and relative or friend etc. using tactics that also involve them based on nothing really there.
Do you even know what "probable cause" means?PannicAtack
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Canon-Gatorade"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] When? Minorities and women didn't even have the right to vote back in the day. Is that the balanced freedom you of which you speak? Women is irrelevant, Black people could vote back in the day, especially post prhibition which is the period I talked about, and rules for women depended on the state.So you admit you were trolling and not interested in freedom. What does states having different rules have to do with government control?
I agree that the police force has become increasingly violent. Â There are countless stories of people being beaten and even killed by police officers all because the police were suspicious of something. Â The actual court system we have now seems to do an ok job of determining whether someone broke the law or not (although i disagree with the punishments for several of these, incluidng selling and posessing drugs).
The part that needs to be fixed is what happens before people are brought in front of a judge. Â
Ace6301
I think it was worse not long ago. There is more community involvement and speaking against acts by the police than ever before in history. I'd imagine a lot of what is happening now was happening in the past. We just didn't have cameras in cellphones and things like youtube to share videos.
That could very well be true. Â The increase in violence from police could actually only be an increase in information of those acts of violence. Â But that doesn't mean there isn't a problem. Â
[QUOTE="Canon-Gatorade"] You just said ti was the 90's and now I am living in it? Also those things above could be positive or negative. In the US it was the 90s. In Canada it was prior to Harper getting a majority government. In some places right now is the most free time. Over all I'd say world wide freedom has improved since the 90s. Just not in North America.
That could very well be true. The increase in violence from police could actually only be an increase in information of those acts of violence. But that doesn't mean there isn't a problem.
hoola
Of course it's a problem. Unfortunately as it's a personal problem for the police that choose to do such acts it's difficult to prevent. We should stop with slap on the wrist punishments when officers do terrible things though which is probably the best way to go about it.
[QUOTE="Canon-Gatorade"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Canon-Gatorade"] Women is irrelevant, Black people could vote back in the day, especially post prhibition which is the period I talked about, and rules for women depended on the state.So you admit you were trolling and not interested in freedom. What does states having different rules have to do with government control? States? Who mentioned states? You just said it was irrelevant if over half the population was denied freedom.
[QUOTE="Canon-Gatorade"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Canon-Gatorade"] What does that have to do with the fact we used to have balanced freedom and now we are heading in the opposite direction? Should we not revamp?jimkabrhel
When? Minorities and women didn't even have the right to vote back in the day. Is that the balanced freedom you of which you speak? Women is irrelevant, Black people could vote back in the day, especially post prhibition which is the period I talked about, and rules for women depended on the state.
:roll:
Even if black people had the right to vote, they were still completely marginalized in much of the US, especially in the South.Â
Jim Crow didn't end until the 60s.
Which again is irrelevant because it was has nothing to do with government control, which for better or worse, did not intervene during that time.
[QUOTE="Canon-Gatorade"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]So you admit you were trolling and not interested in freedom.LJS9502_basic
What does states having different rules have to do with government control? States? Who mentioned states? You just said it was irrelevant if over half the population was denied freedom. How is it "denied" freedom if the Government did not deny it but the states did? Where is the relation?
[QUOTE="Canon-Gatorade"] Women is irrelevant, Black people could vote back in the day, especially post prhibition which is the period I talked about, and rules for women depended on the state.Canon-Gatorade
:roll:
Even if black people had the right to vote, they were still completely marginalized in much of the US, especially in the South.Â
Jim Crow didn't end until the 60s.
Which again is irrelevant because it was has nothing to do with government control, which for better or worse, did not intervene during that time. When you look at freedoms you don't just look at white males. You look at everything. The government isn't the only thing that can restrict your freedom.
[QUOTE="Canon-Gatorade"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Canon-Gatorade"] What does states having different rules have to do with government control? States? Who mentioned states? You just said it was irrelevant if over half the population was denied freedom. How is it "denied" freedom if the Government did not deny it but the states did? Where is the relation?One...states have a government. Two...federal law can and does supersede state laws.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Canon-Gatorade"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] States? Who mentioned states? You just said it was irrelevant if over half the population was denied freedom. How is it "denied" freedom if the Government did not deny it but the states did? Where is the relation?One...states have a government. Two...federal law can and does supersede state laws. States do have a government but that's clearly not the government that I am talking about or that "technically" runs the country. If the federal government did not intervene with what states did then it's not "denied". If we had that government from around the 40iesish till the 90's without the womens rights and discrimination it would have been pretty much the definition of freedom and less government control.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Canon-Gatorade"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] States? Who mentioned states? You just said it was irrelevant if over half the population was denied freedom. How is it "denied" freedom if the Government did not deny it but the states did? Where is the relation?One...states have a government. Two...federal law can and does supersede state laws. your a moron
[QUOTE="heeweesRus"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Canon-Gatorade"] How is it "denied" freedom if the Government did not deny it but the states did? Where is the relation?One...states have a government. Two...federal law can and does supersede state laws. your a moronI love the irony. What does that make you when you don't know the difference between your and you're?:lol:
[QUOTE="Canon-Gatorade"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Canon-Gatorade"] How is it "denied" freedom if the Government did not deny it but the states did? Where is the relation?One...states have a government. Two...federal law can and does supersede state laws. States do have a government but that's clearly not the government that I am talking about or that "technically" runs the country. If the federal government did not intervene with what states did then it's not "denied". If we had that government from around the 40iesish till the 90's without the womens rights and discrimination it would have been pretty much the definition of freedom and less government control.Government is government. Why are you making a distinction? Anyway if the feds had wanted to they could have changed voting much earlier. Like I said.....federal law supersedes state. Or didn't you understand that the first time? By allowing it...the feds were complicit.
Log in to comment