THIS must end in America!

[SmarterthanYou]

Conservative means different things in different conexts, if you're talking politics.

this is still has nothing to do with authoritarianism, which is really more of a management and implmentation style, more than it is an ideology.

and it REALLY has nothing to do with a transitive verb, no matter how hard the pea brained Bfgrn tries to make it so.

 

[Bfgrn]

Conservative means different things in different conexts, if you're talking politics.

this is still has nothing to do with authoritarianism, which is really more of a management and implmentation style, more than it is an ideology.

1989
Soviet Conservatives Try to Turn Back the Clock on Gorbachev's Policies

Russian conservatives, uneasy with the liberalization of Soviet society under Mikhail S. Gorbachev, have seized on the country's experiment in more democratic elections as a chance to fight for a return to more authoritarian ways.

While many candidates and voters say they view the elections to the new Congress of Deputies as a way to further the candor and freedoms allowed by the Soviet leader, conservatives in this city and around the country were boasting last week that they had already succeeded in blocking the nomination of several prominent people regarded as liberals.

''You see the work of our hand,'' said Pavel G. Ivanov, a retired truck driver, gloating at the defeat of Vitaly A. Korotich, a magazine editor despised by conservatives as the exemplar of the new permissiveness. ''And you will see it more.''

A Disparate Alliance
The conservatives are a disparate alliance, including xenophobic fringe groups, like Pamyat, as well as large numbers of less extreme nationalists who yearn for what they see as the simple values of Old Russia and the Orthodox church.

Nikita F. Zherbin, head of the Leningrad chapter of Pamyat, delighted in the fact that Mr. Korotich had been forced off the ballot in Moscow's Sverdlovsk region, and described this as the first successful step in the conservative campaign to use the elections as a vehicle for its political ideas. 'I Am a Stalinist'

''We brought our case to the people, and the outcome speaks for us,'' said Mr. Zherbin, whose group regards the liberalization of Soviet society as a conspiracy by Jews, Masons and Westernizers.

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/02/27/world/soviet-conservatives-try-to-turn-back-the-clock-on-gorbachev-s-policies.html?pagewanted=1

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

If you are serious, you're an UN American fucking DICK HEAD...

The "gotcha" camera was a surveillance camera pea brain...

If someone breaks the law and needs warrants arrest, a police officer has the right to use necessary force...he has NO right to beat that person...NONE

THAT police officer is the one that deserves to be locked up for a LONG time

I am serious, and I am an American. Actually, I am probably MORE American than most of you European "occupiers" of my nation! (1/8 Cherokee) Dickhead? Meh, I been called worse.

I don't know what kinda camera it was, I haven't even watched the video, don't care to. This is a matter of principle more than anything else. A video snippet of an incident, doesn't tell us much of anything. If there is no audio (again, I don't know, I am assuming), there is nothing but a visual, and we can all draw our own conclusions and speculate what may or may not have been said between the officer and perp.

Now, let me ask you pinheads, have you ever encountered a person hyped up on crack cocaine? (not including yourself) Not only are they erratically unpredictable and unreasonable, they are also seemingly invincible to force. In order to subdue such a person, it may require what would otherwise be viewed as "excessive" force. Again, I don't know the circumstances here, but you don't either! You are making a judgment based purely on the fact that one person is a law enforcement officer, and the other person appears to be disadvantaged by the officer. On that basis alone, and without anything more than a video snippet, you have condemned the officer.

If someone is the victim of police brutality, there is a nation full of shiester lawyers and pinhead liberal judges, take it to court! Allow the officer to have his day in court, to present witness testimony, to give his/her statement, to have the preponderance of the evidence considered by a jury of his peers. THAT is how we prosecute people in America, not the same way as we pick the American Idol! THAT's what HAS to stop in America, in my opinion!

 

[SmarterthanYou]

You are making a judgment based purely on the fact that one person is a law enforcement officer, and the other person appears to be disadvantaged by the officer. On that basis alone, and without anything more than a video snippet, you have condemned the officer.

it's quite easy to do that, considering the video shows zero physical threats to either officer before male officer begins physical force. It doesn't matter what was said because it's still perfectly legal to tell a police officer to fuck off or go to hell.

If someone is the victim of police brutality, there is a nation full of shiester lawyers and pinhead liberal judges, take it to court! Allow the officer to have his day in court, to present witness testimony, to give his/her statement, to have the preponderance of the evidence considered by a jury of his peers. THAT is how we prosecute people in America, not the same way as we pick the American Idol! THAT's what HAS to stop in America, in my opinion!

Here in America, we're endowed with the right of self preservation.....defense of self. One does not need to be submissive in the face of physical violence, even at the hands of a government agent. I've posted a dozen court cases that bear this out in the past, do I need to post them again?

 

[Bfgrn]

I am serious, and I am an American. Actually, I am probably MORE American than most of you European "occupiers" of my nation! (1/8 Cherokee) Dickhead? Meh, I been called worse.

I don't know what kinda camera it was, I haven't even watched the video, don't care to. This is a matter of principle more than anything else. A video snippet of an incident, doesn't tell us much of anything. If there is no audio (again, I don't know, I am assuming), there is nothing but a visual, and we can all draw our own conclusions and speculate what may or may not have been said between the officer and perp.

Now, let me ask you pinheads, have you ever encountered a person hyped up on crack cocaine? (not including yourself) Not only are they erratically unpredictable and unreasonable, they are also seemingly invincible to force. In order to subdue such a person, it may require what would otherwise be viewed as "excessive" force. Again, I don't know the circumstances here, but you don't either! You are making a judgment based purely on the fact that one person is a law enforcement officer, and the other person appears to be disadvantaged by the officer. On that basis alone, and without anything more than a video snippet, you have condemned the officer.

If someone is the victim of police brutality, there is a nation full of shiester lawyers and pinhead liberal judges, take it to court! Allow the officer to have his day in court, to present witness testimony, to give his/her statement, to have the preponderance of the evidence considered by a jury of his peers. THAT is how we prosecute people in America, not the same way as we pick the American Idol! THAT's what HAS to stop in America, in my opinion!

You are as UN American as it gets DICK HEAD...

The officer threw the suspect to the ground, the man was lying face down with no sign of resistance or struggle...the officer took his club and treated the man like a pinata...repeatedly beating him...

You conveniently refuse to watch the video..that way you can stick to your right wing pea brain dogma and extreme statism...

 

[Kamala Trump]

1989
Soviet Conservatives Try to Turn Back the Clock on Gorbachev's Policies

Russian conservatives, uneasy with the liberalization of Soviet society under Mikhail S. Gorbachev, have seized on the country's experiment in more democratic elections as a chance to fight for a return to more authoritarian ways.

While many candidates and voters say they view the elections to the new Congress of Deputies as a way to further the candor and freedoms allowed by the Soviet leader, conservatives in this city and around the country were boasting last week that they had already succeeded in blocking the nomination of several prominent people regarded as liberals.

''You see the work of our hand,'' said Pavel G. Ivanov, a retired truck driver, gloating at the defeat of Vitaly A. Korotich, a magazine editor despised by conservatives as the exemplar of the new permissiveness. ''And you will see it more.''

A Disparate Alliance
The conservatives are a disparate alliance, including xenophobic fringe groups, like Pamyat, as well as large numbers of less extreme nationalists who yearn for what they see as the simple values of Old Russia and the Orthodox church.

Nikita F. Zherbin, head of the Leningrad chapter of Pamyat, delighted in the fact that Mr. Korotich had been forced off the ballot in Moscow's Sverdlovsk region, and described this as the first successful step in the conservative campaign to use the elections as a vehicle for its political ideas. 'I Am a Stalinist'

''We brought our case to the people, and the outcome speaks for us,'' said Mr. Zherbin, whose group regards the liberalization of Soviet society as a conspiracy by Jews, Masons and Westernizers.

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/02/27/world/soviet-conservatives-try-to-turn-back-the-clock-on-gorbachev-s-policies.html?pagewanted=1

So he views authoritarianism as part of his national heritage. I guess it can be a value, if you value it as such.

But there is is still authoritarianism on all part of the political spectrum.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

it's quite easy to do that, considering the video shows zero physical threats to either officer before male officer begins physical force. It doesn't matter what was said because it's still perfectly legal to tell a police officer to fuck off or go to hell.

Here in America, we're endowed with the right of self preservation.....defense of self. One does not need to be submissive in the face of physical violence, even at the hands of a government agent. I've posted a dozen court cases that bear this out in the past, do I need to post them again?

Here in America, we are also endowed with the constitutional right to a fair and impartial trial by a jury, not a bunch of pinheads watching a 30 second video clip without audio or explanation. I have no idea what happened, or if the officer was in the wrong, but by god he deserves a fucking trial by a jury of his piers, he deserves a chance to face his accusers and answer the charges! No one should EVER be prosecuted in the court of public opinion, especially based on a 30 second video clip by a bunch of pinheads who don't know the first thing about the circumstances. That is just not American.

You are as UN American as it gets DICK HEAD...

The officer threw the suspect to the ground, the man was lying face down with no sign of resistance or struggle...the officer took his club and treated the man like a pinata...repeatedly beating him...

You conveniently refuse to watch the video..that way you can stick to your right wing pea brain dogma and extreme statism...

I don't "conveniently" refuse, I refuse because it is irrelevant. Regardless of what the video may show, the man deserves to have his day in court. I reserve my opinion on the matter until he does. If a jury watches the video, listens to the testimony, weighs the evidence, and finds him guilty of police brutality, I will condemn his actions and advocate he be punished accordingly. UNTIL that happens, I think it is patently unfair to cast judgments and make determinations on his guilt OR innocence. Is that clear?

You can continue to call me every name in the book for this, I have thick skin, it doesn't bother me. My opinion is, it's just as wrong for you people to judge the cop based on the video, as it is to excuse the cop because he is a cop. Sorry, it's just how I feel about it, and I felt the same way about Rodney King, and all the other 'incriminating' videos which have followed. I am not 'excusing' the cops, I am saying it is NOT our place to judge, that is why we have courts and juries.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Here in America, we are also endowed with the constitutional right to a fair and impartial trial by a jury, not a bunch of pinheads watching a 30 second video clip without audio or explanation. I have no idea what happened, or if the officer was in the wrong, but by god he deserves a fucking trial by a jury of his piers, he deserves a chance to face his accusers and answer the charges! No one should EVER be prosecuted in the court of public opinion, especially based on a 30 second video clip by a bunch of pinheads who don't know the first thing about the circumstances. That is just not American.

and with the current process, i'm sure that if he's not exonerated by his agency, then he will be receiving that fair trial, unless the prosecutor decides that there just wasn't enough evidence to guarantee a conviction.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

and with the current process, i'm sure that if he's not exonerated by his agency, then he will be receiving that fair trial, unless the prosecutor decides that there just wasn't enough evidence to guarantee a conviction.

And if that is the case, so be it! That's how our system works. I would surmise, if the video is as incriminating as the pinheads are claiming, that in itself would be enough 'evidence' to at least try the case. I'm just sick and tired of pinheads doing the job of a judge and jury, based on their emotive reaction to some obscure video clip, and nothing more! Give the man a trial! Let him have the opportunity to cross-examine, present his case, explain the circumstances, and present HIS evidence! If he is guilty, fry him, but damn, at least give him his constitutional right to a fair and impartial trial!

 

[Bfgrn]

Here in America, we are also endowed with the constitutional right to a fair and impartial trial by a jury, not a bunch of pinheads watching a 30 second video clip without audio or explanation. I have no idea what happened, or if the officer was in the wrong, but by god he deserves a fucking trial by a jury of his piers, he deserves a chance to face his accusers and answer the charges! No one should EVER be prosecuted in the court of public opinion, especially based on a 30 second video clip by a bunch of pinheads who don't know the first thing about the circumstances. That is just not American.



I don't "conveniently" refuse, I refuse because it is irrelevant. Regardless of what the video may show, the man deserves to have his day in court. I reserve my opinion on the matter until he does. If a jury watches the video, listens to the testimony, weighs the evidence, and finds him guilty of police brutality, I will condemn his actions and advocate he be punished accordingly. UNTIL that happens, I think it is patently unfair to cast judgments and make determinations on his guilt OR innocence. Is that clear?

You can continue to call me every name in the book for this, I have thick skin, it doesn't bother me. My opinion is, it's just as wrong for you people to judge the cop based on the video, as it is to excuse the cop because he is a cop. Sorry, it's just how I feel about it, and I felt the same way about Rodney King, and all the other 'incriminating' videos which have followed. I am not 'excusing' the cops, I am saying it is NOT our place to judge, that is why we have courts and juries.

You have a thick head to match...When a person is in a fully prone and submissive position, there isn't ANYTHING a suspect can SAY that would justify repeated clubbing to the back and legs of the suspect...NONE

IF there was an unseen problem with this suspect, then the officers partner wouldn't have just stood by and watched...

This type of violence happens too often...police departments need to do a better job of weeding out these thugs with badges...

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You have a thick head to match...When a person is in a fully prone and submissive position, there isn't ANYTHING a suspect can SAY that would justify repeated clubbing to the back and legs of the suspect...NONE

IF there was an unseen problem with this suspect, then the officers partner wouldn't have just stood by and watched...

This type of violence happens too often...police departments need to do a better job of weeding out these thugs with badges...

Like I said, I have no idea of what happened, or why. You are making a determination and judgment based on a video clip and nothing more. Is that a fair and impartial way to judge and convict people? If the situation were the other way around, and it was the cop being beaten, you would probably be arguing the guy didn't know he was being videoed, so he should be let go! Or... since the video is all over the internet, it is inadmissible as evidence... It's how your liberal anti-authority brain works, you are a fucking moron.

Cops have a difficult job, they literally put their lives on the line, and have a target on their back, to serve and protect the public and ensure our safety. I am almost certain this cop didn't wake up that morning and decide he was going to go out and violate someone's civil rights. I'm almost positive this wasn't his reason for becoming a police officer. I believe we should give these guys every benefit of the doubt when doing their job, and if one of them crosses the line, prosecute them for it, but don't deny them the right to a fair and impartial trial by jury, EVERY American deserves that, whether they are "guilty" or not.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

to serve and protect the public and ensure our safety.

No. that may have BEEN their job years ago, but now they are armed government enforcers. nothing more.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

No. that may have BEEN their job years ago, but now they are armed government enforcers. nothing more.

Well, that is a matter of subjective opinion. Do you wish to live in a society without law enforcement? I sure as hell don't! My guess is, you haven't ever been in a situation where you had to depend on these guys to come to your rescue or aid. What if you were in such a predicament, and you called the cops, only to be told... nah, don't think we'll respond... don't want to risk violating someones rights... sorry! That is EXACTLY where your are pushing it to in America. Cops are already under enormous pressure... they have to make split-second life or death decisions all the time, and they can't EVER be wrong. To be wrong just once, might cost them their job, their freedom, or even their life. Does YOUR job have that kind of pressure? Didn't think so!

 

[ib1yysguy]

This is hilarious, Dixie.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Well, that is a matter of subjective opinion. Do you wish to live in a society without law enforcement? I sure as hell don't! My guess is, you haven't ever been in a situation where you had to depend on these guys to come to your rescue or aid. What if you were in such a predicament, and you called the cops, only to be told... nah, don't think we'll respond... don't want to risk violating someones rights... sorry! That is EXACTLY where your are pushing it to in America. Cops are already under enormous pressure... they have to make split-second life or death decisions all the time, and they can't EVER be wrong. To be wrong just once, might cost them their job, their freedom, or even their life. Does YOUR job have that kind of pressure? Didn't think so!

Here's the problem with Law Enforcements image today. There are bad cops. really bad cops. one need only look at chicago for dozens of examples. Now, I also know that there are good cops, but the reason people include these good cops in with the bad is because they do next to nothing to weed the bad ones out early and permanently. That isn't always their fault. Young cops especially. They are pretty much told by their superiors to shut the fuck up. Because of their bad apples and the superiors that cover it up, they are going to be included. Sucks for them, but that's the way it is.

Now, as for never having to be in situations where I needed a cop? I was once when I lived in Illinois. Forced, by law, to be defenseless against an armed individual who happened to conveniently ignore the laws I obeyed. I don't do that anymore. Cops are also not liable for not protecting you, but you knew this, right? I'll give most cops the benefit of the doubt, so long as all evidence shows that they acted within reasonable human limits. There are other cases, on video or audio, that are so blatantly and obviously criminal that benefit of the doubt doesn't even come in to play. We read about them every week. I could literally post dozens of episodes just from this year about them.

I have done a job with that enormous amount of pressure though, a job where dozens of lives were quite literally under my direction. To be wrong just once could have ended those lives, so yes, I do understand that kind of pressure. Just because I'm not a police officer, does not make me incapable of knowing whats right and wrong.

 

[Bfgrn]

Like I said, I have no idea of what happened, or why. You are making a determination and judgment based on a video clip and nothing more. Is that a fair and impartial way to judge and convict people? If the situation were the other way around, and it was the cop being beaten, you would probably be arguing the guy didn't know he was being videoed, so he should be let go! Or... since the video is all over the internet, it is inadmissible as evidence... It's how your liberal anti-authority brain works, you are a fucking moron.

Cops have a difficult job, they literally put their lives on the line, and have a target on their back, to serve and protect the public and ensure our safety. I am almost certain this cop didn't wake up that morning and decide he was going to go out and violate someone's civil rights. I'm almost positive this wasn't his reason for becoming a police officer. I believe we should give these guys every benefit of the doubt when doing their job, and if one of them crosses the line, prosecute them for it, but don't deny them the right to a fair and impartial trial by jury, EVERY American deserves that, whether they are "guilty" or not.

First of all...you don't speak for me... if a police officer were the victim, I would not defend the perpetrator...

Cops do have a difficult job, and an officer like this thug is no friend to decent peace officers...morons like this only make citizens MORE likely to attack policeman

I fully support the officer getting a fair trial...but he will probably get a public reprimand, time off, a pat on the back and a wink from fellow thug type officers...that's HOW your right wing statist pea brain works

 

[SmarterthanYou]

If one really wants to know the sole reason that LEOs are despised, one only need read about Lon Horiuchi.

 

[ib1yysguy]

You guys are wasting your time.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Here's the problem with Law Enforcements image today. There are bad cops. really bad cops. one need only look at chicago for dozens of examples. Now, I also know that there are good cops, but the reason people include these good cops in with the bad is because they do next to nothing to weed the bad ones out early and permanently. That isn't always their fault. Young cops especially. They are pretty much told by their superiors to shut the fuck up. Because of their bad apples and the superiors that cover it up, they are going to be included. Sucks for them, but that's the way it is.

Now, as for never having to be in situations where I needed a cop? I was once when I lived in Illinois. Forced, by law, to be defenseless against an armed individual who happened to conveniently ignore the laws I obeyed. I don't do that anymore. Cops are also not liable for not protecting you, but you knew this, right? I'll give most cops the benefit of the doubt, so long as all evidence shows that they acted within reasonable human limits. There are other cases, on video or audio, that are so blatantly and obviously criminal that benefit of the doubt doesn't even come in to play. We read about them every week. I could literally post dozens of episodes just from this year about them.

I have done a job with that enormous amount of pressure though, a job where dozens of lives were quite literally under my direction. To be wrong just once could have ended those lives, so yes, I do understand that kind of pressure. Just because I'm not a police officer, does not make me incapable of knowing whats right and wrong.

But it's not the place of "good cops" to "weed out" bad cops! That is the responsibility of the agency and/or the courts. I agree, a lot of cops are assholes with a complex, but that doesn't give us the right to cast judgment on them based on a video clip, that's how we judge American Idol, that's how we determine who makes it to the next round of Survivor, this is not some fucked up reality show, this is real life. Let the system work the way it is designed to work, and the "bad cops" will be dealt with in due course.

First of all...you don't speak for me... if a police officer were the victim, I would not defend the perpetrator...

Cops do have a difficult job, and an officer like this thug is no friend to decent peace officers...morons like this only make citizens MORE likely to attack policeman

I fully support the officer getting a fair trial...but he will probably get a public reprimand, time off, a pat on the back and a wink from fellow thug type officers...that's HOW your right wing statist pea brain works

I never claimed to speak for you, but you don't speak for me either! If you fully support the cop getting a fair trial, shut your yap and wait for the officer's trial! Don't automatically "convict" him based on what you interpreted from a video snippet. That's the only point I have made this entire thread. I am not "advocating" what the cop did, I am not "defending" his actions, I am merely saying we don't know the full story, we haven't heard the explanation from the cop, he hasn't had his day in court. In America, you are supposed to be INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY, so let that be the case here! If he is guilty, punish him to the fullest extent of the law, and then some... just to discourage others in the future... I have no problem with that! What I have a problem with, is pinheads passing judgment and convicting this guy without giving him a fair chance to respond. NO ONE deserves that, not even a pinhead like you!

 

[SmarterthanYou]

But it's not the place of "good cops" to "weed out" bad cops! That is the responsibility of the agency and/or the courts. I agree, a lot of cops are assholes with a complex, but that doesn't give us the right to cast judgment on them based on a video clip, that's how we judge American Idol, that's how we determine who makes it to the next round of Survivor, this is not some fucked up reality show, this is real life. Let the system work the way it is designed to work, and the "bad cops" will be dealt with in due course.

then why isn't it working? we still have bad cops in chicago, nyc, and detroit.

I am not "advocating" what the cop did, I am not "defending" his actions, I am merely saying we don't know the full story, we haven't heard the explanation from the cop, he hasn't had his day in court. In America, you are supposed to be INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY, so let that be the case here!

as a follow up to this issue, the cop (with his lawyer standing beside him and his superior officer behind him) has said he stands by his actions. no reason for those actions as in any words or actions by the person he beat, but he stands by them. This cop won't see the inside of a courtroom is my guess.