apple0154
MEOW
Your general attitude against social policies.
The Rise of the Police State and the Absence of Mass Opposition???
- Thread starter signalmankenneth
- Start date
Your general attitude against social policies.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
so now being against social policies makes one a liar in your estimation?
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
there is actual liability STY. very little, but it does exist. and i agree, that this aspect of our police system is not perfect and is in fact horrible. the idea of absolute immunity has taken on a very ugly strain on our judicial system. believe it or not....the wheels of justice are turning the around on this, or so i've read.
that said...that one aspect alone, does not give rise to the claim our nation lives under a police state.
i would like the cite for this.
need context. being arrested doesn't always mean an actual crime occurred. probable cause.....
ever see the 'fifth element'? i consider that a police state. if you want an actual definition from webster that we can debate...here it is:
: a political unit characterized by repressive governmental control of political, economic, and social life usually by an arbitrary exercise of power by police and especially secret police in place of regular operation of administrative and judicial organs of the government according to publicly known legal procedures
that simply does not exist here. like i said above....the police is not perfect, and as such, there is no doubt some element that exhibits such behavior. however, in my view, until that element controls the entire police force, including the military, our government is not a police state.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
cite one...you just expressed amazement the other day that i supported the extensions on unemployment.
i'm being serious apple....name one "attitude" supposedly "against" social policies that make you believe what i say is not true.
this should be fun. hold on....i'm going to get an apple and peanut butter.
apple0154
MEOW
I was talking about government misconduct or, more precisely, why the government doesn't put the citizen's interests first. In other words rather than monitor what the government does for the people many folks would rather just forget about the government. They don't want the government doing things for the people and as long as the government doesn't directly interfere with them they couldn't care less what the government does.
apple0154
MEOW
apple0154
MEOW
Apple and peanut butter? Are you ill? Pregnant?
As for social policies I was thinking along the lines of ObamaCare.
j-mac
Verified User
So if you consider Obamacare to be social engineering, then explain how it is that is even remotely what the founders of this nation envisioned?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
an arrest is an assault on the liberties of an individual. probably cause should have a brightly defined line that should never be crossed or broken, and when it is, liability should be heavy
TSA? DHS? FBI? DEA? ATF? add in all the elements of the war on terror, and you don't see a secret police force?
apple0154
MEOW
Social engineering? Helping people is social engineering?
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
blasphemy shall know your name for all your life. peanut butter is the nectar of the lords of all realms of apples.
seriously, you've never had peanut butter on an apple slice? it is like celery, without the salty taste and a nice hint of sweet apple nectar. try it. just a little bite....if you like peanut butter and apples, you will love this.
as to obamacare. i would like to point out the fact that i have repeatedly said:
the program is wrong -- because it is an unnecessary waste of adding another government program and another bureaucratic monolith to a system rife programs and monoliths. i have always stood for expanding medicaid to all ages. from day one.
so
when are you going to send me that $1000 i need to feed my family apple?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
How did you arrive at that conclusion?
This should be good.
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...ence-of-Mass-Opposition&p=1047430#post1047430
yurt asked you what he posts that make you not believe him and you said his general attitude towards social policies.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
so you're now implying that those select groups and individuals who don't believe the federal government should have social programs are apathetic? therefore the government doesn't do it's job?
apple0154
MEOW
Well, I'm not prepared to feed you for a month but I can help. However, I'm sure you understand there are unethical folks on line so send a private message explaining your situation and how you arrived there. Loss of job? Family illness?
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
i do struggle with this one. probable cause has had many elastic meanings. i value your opinion, tell me, what standard would you give a police force in this nation or state, to protect the citizens? or would you even have a police force?
secret is just one element STY.
let me ask you this:
if we lived under a total police state, how is it, you are allowed to post your opinions and own your guns?
apple0154
MEOW
He said he was against ObamaCare but for expanding Medicaid. Considering Medicaid was not expanded ObamaCare is the next best thing.
I don't recall specifics except to say I had the impression he usually agrees with the folks who are against social programs or expanded government. We are currently attempting to clear this up.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
you're no fun apple.
but you know what...i believe you would help someone in need.
as would i. and as i have. your post earlier was about absolutes, i don't think it is about absolutes. the democrat message alone is not perfect, neither is the gop message, neither is any independent message i've seen. i'm thankful we have a mix of liberal and conservative ideas in this country. and that those ideas are not radical.
that is what pissed me off about obama and his h/c bill. he made it about him and his pride. imagine if he made it about expanding an already existing program, to include all ages. clean the program up. streamline it etc. no...it had to be a "new" bill. would the pubs have gone for it? most likely not. but, it would have been a much easier sell to the american people. obama fucked up big time on this. can you imagine selling the american people on simply expanding medicare, putting in a clause about prior conditions....much easier sell than spending years trying to convince people of an entire new system.
apple0154
MEOW
People who don't believe in social programs are not going to be concerned if the government is not diligent about them. I think that should be obvious.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
to be honest....i'm most likely to blame. i post in argumentative or socratic method and i've learned from a poster here (liberal) that i give off the impression of supporting something, merely by asking questions and being argumentative. it was PM, so i will reveal nothing more.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
There'd be a sheriff, maybe one deputy. but in my ideal world, the township would be deputized to help enforce peace and order. as to a standard of probable cause, it would have to be a clearer standard than what we have now.
this isn't a binary world, where it has to be totally one way or totally another. even elements of a police state should be stamped out with vigor, so hard that the mere thought of it's return should make cops nauseous.
another example, why would a city of 20,000 people let the city council and mayor equip a SWAT team with an armored personnel carrier? or a college university?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/16/police-tank-purchase-new-hampshire_n_1279983.html
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/03/1105732/-UC-Berkeley-Purchases-Armored-Personnel-Carrier