@raphjd said in Liberal hysteria and 6 Jan 2020:

@bi4smooth

Umm, let's not forget that one of your BLM founder buddies was there inciting violence.

As the supreme expert in absolutely everything, you should know that 99% of the court cases about the last election had nothing to do with Trump.

In fact, as the supreme expert in absolutely everything, you would know that some of the lawsuits came from your fellow Dems. Tim Pool even had some on his show.

BTW, do you remember that you defended some of the Dems that sued in court to overturn their loss based on voter fraud? Yeah, you used some sort of liberal, extreme TDS to come up with some mental gymnastics to justify what they were doing.

Again with your revisionist history

• I'm neither a founder of, believer in, member of, nor a supporter of BLM - however, in your world (which isn't even close to the REAL world, IMHO), that I believe that one of their beefs is a valid beef means I'm fucking the founders and raising their children while they fight the good fight! I wish you would stop "taking my inventory" - I state my beliefs well enough, and at great length enough, that you don't need to re-interpret them!
• The court cases about the 2020 election were about (prepare to be shocked and amazed) the 2020 election, and supposed fraud therein. Trump's attorneys attempted to change the rules and results in hundreds of cases, and won only marginal victories (e.g.: already present monitors in some voting centers could stand a couple of feet closer than before the suit)... But in many (most... the vast majority) of these cases, the suit never even made it past the first evidentiary hearing! No judgement was made to the facts of the case, no jury was empaneled... because no facts were brought to the case! No evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing! Just baseless accusations!
• I don't fault Trump (or Democrats) for filing suits - I fault them for filing baseless suits based on nothing but hearsay and empty accusations. Those were a waste of time and taxpayer money! The suits brought that DID have evidence - on both sides - are all part of the process! The legitimate process of making sure the 2020 election was free & fair... which it was, in spite of the fact that Trump lost. (His loss is not evidence of fraud in and of itself!)
• BTW: I defended people on BOTH sides who brought lawsuits that had a basis in fact... they had a right to be heard, even if 90% of them (90% of the non-Trump) were ruled against! It was their right to try!

What you continue to miss is that election integrity isn't a zero-sum game! Every Republican vote cast wasn't "pure" and ever Democrat vote cast wasn't "fraudulent"... in the end, Republicans won most of the races they competed in... just not the Presidential one. And I'll repeat that I firmly believe it is because Trump made it about him personally instead of being about policy and results. Trump is not a likeable person to most people, as evidenced in the popularity contest that was substituted in for the Presidential election.

No mental gymnastics here - just a different "framework" about what is right vs. what is wrong - in my world people on both sides get to have their day in court IF they have evidence of wrong-doing. My "beef" is with the whiners and sore-losers who can't let it go even after the court rulings.

Build a bridge and get over it!

@jsl76 said in Teenage knife fights are no big deal, say liberals:

@bi4smooth said in Teenage knife fights are no big deal, say liberals:

Honestly, in today's policing, the answers here are a) and a)... and that is frightening!

I think that's a bit too blithe, though. You're acting as if a high-level principle is all we need. That's a dangerously naïve view. For example, if a cop encounters an enraged woman flashing a knife, what matters is the context of the individual situation. If the woman is standing alone in a parking lot and a half-dozen officers have encircled her and keep 10 paces of distance, there's zero need for lethal force. If a woman is five feet from another woman she's actively attacking -- as with the Bryant case -- and there's one officer approaching from a distance, that's a completely different calculation.

It's intellectually dishonest to suggest that a context-free one-sentence scenario requires a specific one-sentence outcome when you haven't made any accommodation whatsoever for the tactical situation.

And it's not as if the police have sole accountability here. In that litany of "say their name" people, most of them were lawfully detained for some reason, and the situation got out of hand when they resisted arrest. That's not to suggest that resisting arrest ought to be addressed by lethal force, but it is to acknowledge that police go into a job with a reason to want to protect themselves. In 2018, law enforcement as a profession had a annual fatality rate of 13.7 per 100,000 workers -- the 16th most dangerous profession in the United States (see: https://www.usatoday.com/picture-gallery/money/2020/01/24/25-most-dangerous-jobs-in-america/41041127/). And that's with all the SWAT teams, body armor, and overwhelming responses. What do you think is the most likely outcome if U.S. cops act like British constables? Like it or not, the evidence is strongly suggestive that low socioeconomic status correlates strongly with criminal behavior and with resistance to apprehension. You can't just focus on the "supply" side of the argument (police violence) without accounting for the "demand" side (criminality with specific U.S. characteristics that don't easily map to other advanced countries).

So... let me get this right... it's OK in your world to shoot first and ask questions later if the person under suspicion is poor?

Look, I get it - I have a nephew in law enforcement. Believe it or not, there are plenty of officers who agree that they are under-trained, and often trained in the wrong ways.

And I'm not some "defund the police" guy... Contrary to your opinion otherwise, what's needed in America today is EXACTLY a change in the high level principles that apply to our police! And they need MORE funding, not less... but more funding for training... training in policing that focuses on DE-escalation, not escalate-and-take-control!

Many police jurisdictions have a motto akin to "To Protect and To Serve" imprinted on the sides of their vehicles... these mottos are not new - they date from the 1940s and 1950s.... when the image of a policeman was not so easily confused with that of a warrior.

Policing is a dangerous job... but sometimes (and more and more often recently), the danger (and the escalation of a bad situation) comes as much from the police as from the perpetrators. That doesn't mean there aren't violent offenders out there that need a strong response! The issue isn't all-of-one and none-of-the-other...

The system as-is is BROKEN ... not just for the communities tired of living in fear of the police (or tired of using tax dollars to pay-off multi-million-dollar judgements against local police)... it also isn't working for the men and women in uniform!

But, little tweaks aren't going to solve the problem either! We need a fundamental change in the approach to policing... it's taken decades to evolve to the policing we have today, and I doubt the public will have the patience to wait so long for it to "swing back"...

Regardless of the pace of change, we need find a way to return to police as protectors and walk back from police as enforcers.

@raphjd said in Teenage knife fights are no big deal, say liberals:

No matter what the cop did in this situation, liberals would have demonized him.

It's the way of the modern world.

A black cop repeatedly tazes a handcuffed black homeowner and liberals ignore it because they can't racialize it.

A black cop guns down an unarmed white teen who was no threat and liberals don't care because only black lives matter that can be racialized.

73yo white woman with dementia is brutalized by police, getting her arm broken and shoulder dislocated, liberals don't care about that either because she has the wrong skin color.

More than twice as many (both armed and unarmed) whites, than blacks, were killed by cops last year, by the narrative is that blacks are being hunted down.

I do wish you'd just stop the fantasy and start each sentence with "What about"....

We (@js76) and I weren't talking about race-based policing, we were talking about militarized policing!

What about inflation? Are we going to have to start paying higher taxes to pay for the new police anti-terrorist weapons? Won't that cost jobs? What about college education? Won't the higher taxes make that more expensive, too? What about all the kids being taken into foster care? Shouldn't their parent's have to pay?

@raphjd said in Teenage knife fights are no big deal, say liberals:

Anyone who hasn't seen the video from the police cams and neighbor's CCTV really has no business telling us what's what.

Only a liar or an idiot would say that this conversation would be the same if it was a black cop who shot a knife-wielding white girl. Hell, this wouldn't even make the news.

I do love how little value liberals put on the girl in the pink's life.

Hell, no one is complaining about the guy doing a football kick to the girl on the ground's head.

Unlike you nasty liberals, I'm glad the cop saved the girl in the pink.

OMG - what a LIST OF false and misleading assertions here!

It's not an either-or equation!

• Why couldn't the cop have saved them both?
• Was a fatality a necessary component of this call?

It's not like the cop arrived and had a split-second decision to make: which one do I kill?

The question (the right question) is whether police misuse of deadly force (some force, and some lethal force, is necessary in policing - no doubt!) is out-of-control in the US today.

The liberal media are just the messengers here... are they biased? Maybe! But that doesn't mean the facts that they're reporting are false!

When the lunatic runs through the theater shouting FIRE, it's not a crime if there really IS a fire! (Neither does the fact that there really is a fire detract that he's a lunatic - the fact is, he's just a messenger!)

@eobox91103 said in BootieJizz is a fraud:

@lololulu19 said in BootieJizz is a fraud:

@eobox91103 Raph is probably the only admin who would NOT ban you. If I was an admin, you would be "Gone With The Wind" and frankly my dear.. I don't give a damn!

Can't tolerate a different opinion? Sounds like arrested development to me.

By the way.. since you supposedly love facts.. there is actual video of BootieJizz packing his tricycle into an SUV.

There was no video in the posting, but you're probably pointing to one that was taken outside the West Wing of the White House, as Buttigieg's bicycle was being unpacked before he got on it to ride back to the DoT office.

Yes, I do care about facts. They are important, and much better than mindless conspiracy theories.

When facts don't meet your chosen narrative, they're "fake"...

Once again:

• listens to facts, challenges (and changes) conclusions and positions based on facts = SCIENTIST (Note: I am a card-carrying Computer Scientist - or at least my 2 degrees say so!)
• will not listen to facts unless they support your already-held conclusions and positions - regardless of how many sources provide proof otherwise = IDEOLOGUE

@raphjd said in Where is the Conservative Outrage?:

@bi4smooth

Europe, excluding the former Soviet Bloc. That better?

You have the mental illness of extreme TDS. You would rather have a freak like Honest Joe, despite how much of a POS he is.

NOPE, I get my news from many sources.

But you said you don't watch TV to get your news. I find it strange how you know everything about Tucker, but nothing about the scandals from your side's media. It's like how you know everything QAnon says, but you don't know the lies your own side has been proven to have said.

How would you know what conservatives believe?

You repeatedly claim I've said hateful things about Tucker Carlson... I don't watch the man, I don't mention him in this forum...

You do!

I know what Conservatives believe because, pre-Trump I was a bona-fide Conservative... I'm the FIRST to admit that, under the influence of Trump, I'm re-considering that label ... I may have to go straight "Libertarian"... but I'm not ready to give up on Republican yet... I'm certain there *will be a Republican Party once Trump kicks it and there is an actual grave for people to piss on...

@jsl76 said in Liberals love "whataboutisms" unless the other side does it:

Same logic goes for things like confirming SCOTUS nominees and nuking the filibusters -- a moral imperative when the Left is in power, and a Threat to Democracy when the Right does it.

Hypocrisy in Washington is as difficult to find as water in the Atlantic. But it is not the exclusive realm of Dems or Republicans...

@raphjd said in Liberals love "whataboutisms" unless the other side does it:

@bi4smooth

Trump only wanted people to treat him like they did other presidents.

They did not. He had about 15 times the leaks that other Presidents had.

96+% of the reporting about him was negative, even to the point that they lied about him at every turn.

The fact that you don't seem to know this proves to me that you are not a conservative.

@raphjd said in Liberals love "whataboutisms" unless the other side does it:

@bi4smooth

Trump only wanted people to treat him like they did other presidents.

They did not. He had about 15 times the leaks that other Presidents had.

96+% of the reporting about him was negative, even to the point that they lied about him at every turn.

The fact that you don't seem to know this proves to me that you are not a conservative.

Trump overall had more media coverage than any other President.
In his time, Obama had more media coverage than any other President.
In his time, Reagan had more media coverage than any other President.
In his time, Carter had more media coverage than any other President.

If you can't see the pattern... well, I don't suspect you will. But, Trump, unlike previous Presidents, didn't bristle at the coverage, he reveled in it! And he (as most people in Marketing know already) knew that there was a wide-line between "good" publicity and "bad" - and that nearly ALL publicity is good!

Being the butt of every late-night talk-show host's jokes wasn't new. Complaining about it - in the media - was new. (Other President's eviscerated by the "comedy circuit" date back to our origins... the first President to really "adjust" to it was, ironically, Richard Nixon - who appeared on a TV show (Laugh-In) that regularly lampooned him! (Sock-It-To-Me!)

And, quite honestly, it worked for Trump! All that media coverage made him one of the most polarizing people of our time! There are few people EVER in American History that have more people diametrically opposed in their opinions of him! You would be hard-pressed to find an American who didn't have strong views - pro or con - about Trump!

Contrary to your insistence otherwise, I do not hate Trump. I disavow his politics as autocratic and borderline fascist... and I think he was harmful to our democratic form of Government. But, I don't think he's evil (nor, is he a mastermind - more of a megalomaniac who came upon the Political Stage at an opportune [for him] time).

@raphjd said in Why try to suppress the Audit? If it's all good...:

@manhandler

Liberals want to stop the audit because they have plenty to hide.

It's not about Trump, but protecting future voter fraud so they can stay in power.

No one's trying to stop the audit. There are no court challenges, there are no protests. You're arguing against a straw man.

No one pretends that the outcome of this partisan effort wasn't known ahead of time. Only the details remain to be seen. The real question is: just how far off the deep-end will they go? The farther they go, the less credible their results will be... but if they don't go far enough there may not be lucrative add-on contracts (with other States?) to follow! They need a balance!

But I say again: the "real" audits were done by the elections professionals - who, in AZ, happen to be Republicans.

@raphjd said in Why try to suppress the Audit? If it's all good...:

@bi4smooth

You are a dishonest buffoon. You really are.

We already discussed several cases of long-term voter fraud by election officials or have you forgot?!

We had the woman election official in Wayne County MI admit to election fraud for every election, for over 20 years.

Broward County FL had over 3 decades of election fraud by their top election officials. Jeb Bush even had to appoint a replacement for one of them, only for this appointee (Brenda Snipes) to turn out to be the dirtiest of the lot. These assholes were extremely dirty and so were the people they hired.

We had that woman south of San Antonio who was openly paying for votes, with cash from the candidates. There was even a fake Republican multi-millionaire who wanted everyone to vote straight party line for Democrats. Project Veritas busted her.

We had that guy from Ilhan Omar's district buying ballots. Your beloved MSM said he didn't break the law because the anti-ballot harvesting law was "on hold", which was a total lie. They also ignored the fact that the guy filmed himself buying blank but signed ballots. Project Veritas busted this corruption too.

There was one county (can't remember which) where the Sheriff and his deputies illegally handled ballots that contained the Sheriff's election. People were even arrested for questioning this illegal practice. The Sheriff, despite being very unpopular, won by a wide margin.

We (you and I) have discussed these people and more here. I, and others, have posted about others that you may or may not have discussed, but I can't remember if you did or not.

Oh, and let's not forget the NJ district where the judge ruled the election was so fraudulent that the entire election had to be done over again, except for the President, because Biden won that district's vote. Biden won the vote for President, so that MUST mean it was a clean election, but every other position up for election on the very same ballot was an absolute fraud. Only a fucking brain-dead clown would believe that crackheaded shit. And YES, you defended this shit, so that is just another thing that proves you have absolutely no credibility.

There are kids cheating on their summer school tests today in the USA!
That doesn't mean the American Educational System is full of lying, cheating kids who are graduating as illiterate, math-phobic, science-disbelieving, morons (most do not aspire to your personal heights of feats in these areas)...

No one (no reasonable person) is claiming that every single vote was legit - only that the number of illegal votes that "made it through the cracks" were not enough to sway the election in any direction.

To be clear: I personally do not make this claim... the Elections Professionals - in EVERY STATE make this claim! The only people alleging massive, outcome-changing fraud are the Trumpites - and at EVERY TURN, when asked for proof the only tangible thing they had was: their infallible, God-Like, Donald Trump lost... and he couldn't lose!

Were there illegal votes? Sure - some malicious, some accidental (Florida - in our own inimitable way granted, removed, re-granted, and then re-removed the voting rights of convicted felons who had served their sentences... and so some of them were confused and voted when they shouldn't have. Some were even arrested (for new felonies - attempted vote fraud!) by over-jealous police... but, to a case, prosecutors recognized the confusion and refused to prosecute even one.)

The entire educational system is not brought to its knees because some 12 y/o figured out how to cheat on a test and not be caught... and our entire elections process is not invalidated because some individuals scattered about the country have claimed (true or not) that they beat the system.

Trump lost.

With or without illegal votes (and how Trumpian of you to assume that all of those illegal votes were against Trump!)

@manhandler said in Terrible News for the Vaxxed: by 2025:

@hubrys Nope, I've had about 20 vaccines in my life, and this one is not by definition, a vaccine. It's just not. It modifies the genes and is totally different. It's not what you think it is, and you think that way because trillion dollar drug companies told you so.

You moron. The mRNA vaccines do not change the genetic material in your body!

The mRNA is how they make the vaccine, not what it does to you!

The resulting mRNA material is specially designed to "teach" your immune system to recognize a very specific protein as an "intruder"... that protein isn't the virus itself, just one component of the virus... but, since your body's immune system is already "attuned" to that protein, when the virus DOES invade the body, the immune system is "ready and waiting'.

Indeed, one of the reasons the vaccine is injected deep into your muscle (usually in your arm) is to prevent it (the vaccine itself) from spreading all over your body... the pain most people feel in the muscle where it is injected is because that's where the immune response is, and part of that immune response is inflammation.

If they wanted it to "course throughout your body" it would be injected into your bloodstream - like antibiotics are when you get them via "IV" injection.

And if I'm going to be gone by 2025, and literally HALF the US population is as well, then you're going to need an awful lot of immigrants to come in and make all this shit work! LOL

As for the crackpot who made the projection that those who took the vaccines would be dead by 2025, well he made an incredibly stupid remark given that the vaccines made by Moderna & Pfizer - while both utilizing the mRNA technology - are different (target different proteins), and that they are wholly unrelated to the "traditional" vaccines made by Johnson & Johnson, or the Russians, or the Chinese, or the Australians, or the Indians... indeed many other countries developed their OWN vaccines - ALL of which would be different from each other.

I'll begin to worry when reviewed research shows there are problems.

In the meantime, I'm protected from COVID-19, and a whole lot of Trumpites in Red States are getting sick again!

@kekkaishi said in YouTube suspends Sky News Australia:

You need to go to Sky News Australia to get the truth about what's going on in the US. That is how much you cannot trust the US mainstream media. Even sometimes Fox News. Except for Tucker Carlson, he's a good guy

Don't you mean to say:

"You need to go to Sky News Australia to get the right spin on what's going on in the US...."

I mean, come on... "Fox News, except for Tucker Carlson..." really???

If there is only 1 reporter in all of the US media who is "getting it right", maybe your version of "what is right" is skewed?

Just a thought...

@raphjd said in Trust the science:

https://twitter.com/i/status/1421844426599641092

Biden on wearing masks

I think we should avoid ALL changed to "medical science" and go back to what we all KNOW works! It worked for CENTURIES before these yahoos started with their "scientific studies"

LEECHES!

We need to periodically bleed out the "bad blood" that accumulates in our bodies... not doing so allows the "bad blood" to accumulate, and after a while it'll just plain kill you!

To stay healthy, you need to see your dentist/pharmacist/physician regularly and be appropriately bled! It's the key to sustained good health!

This knowledge hasn't changed in CENTURIES! You cannot refute a policy that has worked for so long! Saying it isn't so is just bullshit science, because we've known all this time that this method works, and telling us to STOP is just the evil doctors and pharmaceutical companies trying to control us!

@serenity said in Trust the science:

@bi4smooth Prayers! They did well for centuries too. And if you died, at least you came in heaven, because you prayed

Absolutely!

For people who don't want SCIENCE (what with it's constantly CHANGING of what's right theory and what's wrong theory), there is always FAITH!

And as you point out, FAITH HEALING has a 100% success rate at sending souls to heaven! Yippy Skippy!

For me, though... and it's just a personal choice... I'll stick with the science...

@raphjd said in CDC now says Vaccinated are the ones spreading the new Delta variant.:

@bi4smooth

The CDC and NIH are purely political.

Fauci said that gain of function research was worth s few global pandemics. He lied before both Houses of Congress. Jim Jordan did a great job of showing the timeline of Fauci's flip-flops and lies.

I also find it completely strange that you claim to be a libertarian, who believes that everyone must act in unison (ie; Another Brick In The Wall video), at the whims of a POS liar.

The US banned gain of function research, so he paid to have it done by a 3rd party in China. We won't even go into the incestuous relationship Fauci had with Bill Gates and BG's Eco Health, when he funded them

The CDC and the NIH didn't USED TO BE political. They were made so by Trump because he (stupidly) thought that he could "overcome" science with politics. Dr. Faucci has led the NIAID at NIH for nearly 40 years, and only in the past 2 has his position ever been considered political.

Again, I ask you this: is it really reasonable to think that world leaders from around the globe are all conspiring against Trump Republicans by making up facts about deaths and COVID-19's impacts to their own countries?

If you truly believe this, then you must get dizzy when looking in the mirror, what with the entire world spinning about you and just you!

If I called you a LIAR every time you were simply wrong, you'd have booted me out of the forum long ago! Dr. Faucci hasn't LIED about COVID-19, he has been shown WRONG (quite a bit) in the past 2-years WRT COVID-19... but he's really the MOUTHPIECE of the NIH's NIAID... he's not doing the research HIMSELF!

For someone espousing Conservatism routinely, you sure have difficulty with RICH people: George Soros & Bill Gates are evil incarnate - yet no complaints about the Koch brothers spending their billions on Conservative causes!

If you believe in Capitalism, then you believe that rich people are entitled to spend their money how they see fit! Whether it's for Green shit, Liberal shit, Conservative shit... you made it, you get to decide how to spend it!

Mind you: just because I think they (all) have the right to spend their money they way they want to, doesn't mean I agree with any of them! Not even the Koch brothers! I DO think money plays too big a role in politics... but equally I don't have any idea how to get it out and keep it out!

Kinda like having anal sex: sometimes you're gonna get a little "dirty"... it's all part of the risks of the playground! (ewww, right?) If we want Capitalism, then we have to also have wealthy (and super-wealthy) capitalists! If we want Freedom, then we have to also have people we disagree with exhorting their freedom too!

@serenity said in Trust the science:

@bi4smooth I don't think that "science" change, but the results do, when we get smarter. And what is wrong about getting smarter. Some people have always had a problem with science, because it conflicts their world view. It has been that way for centuries.

Absolutely science changes... Heisenberg changed how we measure things. Newton changed our understanding of mass vs. weight (they are NOT the same). Hawking changed how we think of and measure time.

But separate from how science itself changes, the conclusions we make from scientific studies changes... especially when we base our conclusions on limited data... and we got that in spades with COVID-19: everyone was clamoring for answers, so the scientists gave them what they had: knowing the data was incomplete. And that made them wrong... wrong far more often than we like hearing that scientists are wrong!

There is an acronym often used in computer science: GIGO
Garbage in / Garbage out

When you have small sample sizes, your conclusions can be thrown off by the smallest of anomalies... but that is the beauty of science - we LEARN from our mistakes! We (scientists) challenge our assumptions and SEEK to prove our theories WRONG! (You can seldom prove a theory is valid, but you can often prove it wrong! The more people try - and fail - to prove a theory is wrong, the more accepted as "probably right" it becomes!

@raphjd said in Mayo Clinic says the vaccines CAN prevent you from getting C-19.:

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/mis-c-in-kids-covid-19/symptoms-causes/syc-20502550

Scroll down to PREVENTION

A vaccine can prevent you or your child from getting the COVID-19 virus.

Umm, I thought literally no one was saying this?!

So who is lying? (no pun intended)

It's just a language choice...
No vaccine prevents you from getting a virus - if someone with polio breathes on you, you'll get the polio virus. If you've been vaccinated, you won't get SICK from polio.

The same here: if you have been vaccinated and are exposed to COVID-19, you will get the virus inside you... it's not like the vaccine creates some invisible barrier around you! What won't happen tho is that you'll get sick and need hospitalization from the effects of the virus.

ALL vaccines do the same general thing: TEACH YOUR BODY to defend against the "bad thing" (virus, in this case). Your own immune system is still doing the ACTUAL work... the vaccine just gave your immune system a "cheat sheet"...

Kinda like how the Astros won the WS in 2017: when you generally know what pitch is coming ahead of time, it's a lot easier to hit the ball!
When your immune system already knows how to deal with COVID-19 (or Polio, or Chicken Pox, or Measles, etc), then it's much easier to "beat" the infection when it shows up.... but it no way ELIMINATES the infection COMPLETELY!

@raphjd said in 3rd Capitol Cop who responded to 6 Jan commits suicide:

According to some sites, he is the 4th to commit suicide.

I'm sorry, but making fun of 4 federal policemen who suffered from PTSD as a result of the Jan 6 insurrection by claiming that they "had dirt on Hillary" is abusive and disgusting.

These were patriots of the highest measure. And their experiences from Jan 6 were too much for them to bear.

• Yes, it's OK to ask if we need better psychological screening of Capitol Police Offices
• Yes, it's OK to ask if we (as a nation) need to improve our handling of psych issues as a whole
• No, it's NOT OK to use these people as political fodder for baseless conspiracy theories... that's just "in poor taste"

Have some human decency?

@raphjd said in 3rd Capitol Cop who responded to 6 Jan commits suicide:

@bi4smooth

Your ID is like crack or meth to a cop.

They aren't interested in helping you, they want to criminalize you.

They are either liars or idiots when it comes to ID laws, despite ID laws are the most common laws police use.

In all but 4 states, you do not have to identify unless you are lawfully arrested. Most cops will unlawfully arrest you for not IDing.

"You are being suspicious" is not a crime, no matter what the pigs claim.

There was a shooting of a young woman, where the police hid the body cam and other evidence for over 2 years. This is not a one-off or an accident. It's a constant problem.

The FBI is extremely dirty, as we saw with the Hillary and Trump cases. Not only that, they have Absolute Immunity and fully believe they are above and beyond the law. Their "Professional Standards" is a fucking joke. You can break someone's arm because you don't like that that person is engaged in lawful activities.

You can be dirty as fuck and the world knows it, but you can always get another job at another PD.

Arizona's Brady law, while a good concept, is useless because dirty cops don't always get put on it, even for the most blatantly dirty one, and "good" cops quite often get put on it in retaliation for whistleblowing.

Policing is the 3rd most common profession for psychopaths, after law and medical.

It's not hard to find evidence of bad cops. But there are also some GOOD cops
But, yes: if you want to find pedophiles, look for jobs that put the sicko's in charge of children!

• teachers
• coaches
• summer camp counselors
• priests (specifically, youth pastors)
• Scout leaders (Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, you name it)

That doesn't mean they're all pedophiles, just that the jobs are going to be attractive to pedophiles!

Lots of pyromaniacs become firemen - and some of them actually become fire-starters!

And the same goes for bullies and psychopaths: they're drawn to professions where they are given power and authority over others:

• Policing
• Security Guards
• Social workers

You get the point...

• There are GREAT teachers out there.. but there are some pedophiles out there too
• There are GREAT firemen out there... but some are SETTING the very files they fight
• There are GREAT policemen out there... but there are some abusers out there too

@up4 said in 3rd Capitol Cop who responded to 6 Jan commits suicide:

@raphjd That is very kind of you to say. But all my life's experience tells me otherwise. I'm one of those ungrateful angry gay misanthropes that still don't trust the state, the police, the people's majority or anyone pretending they have a say in how I live my life. Like you maybe, I don't know. But that anger almost killed me. I don't want to fit in anymore. I can't fit in anymore. I'm allergic to the city, to the very idea of being a citizen, of being in the world. I have to take medication to prevent my heart from litterally exploding when I'm exposed to the stupidity that drives the weaks' will to power. The best decision I ever made was to make a full Thoreau: run for my life to the woods as a hermit and only allow near me the very few men not afraid to think for themselves. Masturbation is a hermit's best friend in that it prevents him from giving his time and energy to the hordes of unworthy virgins that come begging for attention.

It is our loss - regardless of your point of view, you write well.