Well, there you go, it’s the jews. I still can’t figure out why he quotes a text plagiarized from a writing which had nothing to do with jews. And, it’s fascinating that he relies heavily on material so widely regarded by Nazis and Islamists. Anyways, I won’t hijack the thread further. Just find it amusing.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well, there you go, it’s the jews. I still can’t figure out why he quotes a text plagiarized from a writing which had nothing to do with jews. And, it’s fascinating that he relies heavily on material so widely regarded by Nazis and Islamists. Anyways, I won’t hijack the thread further. Just find it amusing.[/quote]
That scum-supping troglodyte quotes the Protocols, because, well, it marks him as a complete and risible ignoramus.
You see, Friend Sloth, it is not enough to be a belligerent bigot who occupies himself with cut-and-paste theories of mother-rejected cretins. No, he must put it on display with the vetting offered by…my word! “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” the true mark of syphilitic mind, if that is what we must call the luetic sponge-like excretion in his cranial vault.
I won’t hijack this thread either. I just try to be helpful now and then.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well, there you go, it’s the jews. I still can’t figure out why he quotes a text plagiarized from a writing which had nothing to do with jews. And, it’s fascinating that he relies heavily on material so widely regarded by Nazis and Islamists. Anyways, I won’t hijack the thread further. Just find it amusing.[/quote]
Do you even know what “plagiarized” means? The wackiest thing is that YOU and half the US think there is a global Islamofascist conspiracy to convert the world to Islam… and WHO continues to pound that into your heads…
David Horowitz Freedom Center will be organizing Islamo-Fascism Awareness Weeks
http://www.terrorismawareness.org/islamo-fascism-awareness-week/49/a-students-guide-to-hosting-islamo-fascism-awareness-week/
Here’s the thing, this fictional “war on terror” (and by proxy, the police state) is top to bottom JEWISH, period… end of story. If you would like to argue this point, you WILL lose. This is not an anti-Semitic rant, its just a fact.
So the Protocols have no basis in reality? Then shouldn’t you be directing your disgust at the Jews in power who perpetuate all the Jewish stereotypes by doing and saying the EXACT things that are written in the Protocols…?
[“We will have a world government whether you like it or not. The only question is whether that government will be achieved by conquest or consent.”
Banker Paul Warburg (founder of the Federal Reserve), February 17, 1950, testifing before the U.S. Senate
“Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful. This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government.”
–Henry Kissinger speaking at Evian, France, May 21, 1992]
[i]"By such measure we shall obtain the power of destroying little by little, step by step, all that at the outset when we enter on our rights, we are compelled to introduce into the constitutions of States to prepare for the transition to an imperceptible abolition of every kind of constitution, and then the time is come to turn every form of government into OUR DESPOTISM.
The recognition of our despot may also come before the destruction of the constitution; the moment for this recognition will come when the peoples, utterly wearied by the irregularities and incompetence - a matter which we shall arrange for - of their rulers, will clamor: “Away with them and give us one king over all the earth who will unite us and annihilate the causes of disorders - frontiers, nationalities, religions, State debts - who will give us peace and quiet which we cannot find under our rulers and representatives.”[/i]
–PROTOCOL No. 10
JINSA Brings Together Israeli Counter-Terror Experts and U.S. Police Officers
http://www.jinsa.org/articles/articles.html/function/view/categoryid/2168/documentid/2702/history/3,2359,2166,2168,2702
US Law Enforcement Heading for Israel for Advanced Homeland Security Training
Somehow I’m betting YOU’LL never be tased… one more thing… what is “Jewish Law”?
Jewish Law Comes to D.C.
The Jewish Week
12/06/2002
What does the Talmud have to say about legal and moral controversies in modern America?
Plenty, according to the creators of the new Washington-based National Institute for Judaic Law, which opened with a lavish Supreme Court dinner last month…
“It will be an eye opener for judges, scholars and law students,” he told The Jewish Week. “Before you know where you’re going, you have to know where you came from. And Jewish law is the basis of our legal system in America.”
Gurary said that the idea for the institute came in an exchange of letters in which Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the most conservative Justices, expressed his “fascination with Jewish law…”
http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/jlsa/jewish_law_dc.htm
“What does the Talmud have to say about legal and moral controversies in modern America?.. And Jewish law is the basis of our legal system in America”
Hmmmm? And you were so worried about the Koran…
[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Well, there you go, it’s the jews. I still can’t figure out why he quotes a text plagiarized from a writing which had nothing to do with jews. And, it’s fascinating that he relies heavily on material so widely regarded by Nazis and Islamists. Anyways, I won’t hijack the thread further. Just find it amusing.
Do you even know what “plagiarized” means?[/b][/quote]
Oh yes, of course I do. And it was. Whole sections are damn near word for word lifted from a publication directed at Napolean the III. Lots and lots of sections…And this publication predates the Protocols by a couple dozen years.
[quote]
The wackiest thing is that YOU and half the US think there is a global Islamofascist conspiracy to convert the world to Islam… and WHO continues to pound that into your heads…[/quote]
Err, the Islamists say this on videotape…Now, of course I don’t think they a have a chance in hell. But, they will continue to kill lots of people. You do pay attention to the Islamists in the Philippines, Somalia, Indonesia, India, Spain, etc. etc.? And the funneling of money from Islamic nations into seperatist groups and militias attempting to impose Islamic law (somalia)? Oh, and they had a big win in the Philippines, no? Or, am I confused and those are really jewish philippinos, and Jews in Somalia, Sudan, etc.? Are those jewish Russians framing muslims? Come on…
Well, being that the stereotypes are of Napolean III actually…And, are the christians and atheists that do and say things similar to what is written in the Protocols perpetuating Jewish stereotypes?! In short, the Protocols fit, because you look at the world through blinders. You see what fits, and discard anything else.
Yawn. Yeah, because there weren’t, and aren’t, any influential christian/agnostic/atheists supporters of an international governing body, with an international force. Are you kidding? Don’t bother. I know, I know, jews somehow corrupted them, or they have jew blood somewhere in their family tree.
Ok…so US law enforcement crosstrains with counterparts in other nations…um, ok? This isn’t new, and is definitely not exclusive to Israel. You weren’t aware of this?
I’m pretty confident I won’t be tased, but I have a feeling you were making an implication that I’ve missed.
[quote]
Jewish Law Comes to D.C.
The Jewish Week
12/06/2002
What does the Talmud have to say about legal and moral controversies in modern America?
Plenty, according to the creators of the new Washington-based National Institute for Judaic Law, which opened with a lavish Supreme Court dinner last month…
“It will be an eye opener for judges, scholars and law students,” he told The Jewish Week. “Before you know where you’re going, you have to know where you came from. And Jewish law is the basis of our legal system in America.”
Gurary said that the idea for the institute came in an exchange of letters in which Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the most conservative Justices, expressed his “fascination with Jewish law…”
http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/jlsa/jewish_law_dc.htm
“What does the Talmud have to say about legal and moral controversies in modern America?.. And Jewish law is the basis of our legal system in America”
Hmmmm? And you were so worried about the Koran…[/quote]
You’ve honestly never heard of “founded on Judaic/Christian principles?” US christians, not just jews, often say the same thing. Is it true or not? Or was the nation founded on generalized deistic principles, instead? What does it matter? It’s a long held view, right or wrong. So some jews want to look at where or how jewish law may have influenced our own. Christians most definitely do this. The idea that the US and our laws are founded on Judaic and/or christian laws and principles isn’t even close to being a new idea. Or for that matter, many Western nations.
Ok, I’m honestly done contributing to this thread hijack. I’m feeling a bit guilty for replying, again.
“How would you react if you were waylaid by an armed and bellicose stranger who has the means to kill you and your family and the power to get away with the crime…?”
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
“How would you react if you were waylaid by an armed and bellicose stranger who has the means to kill you and your family and the power to get away with the crime…?”
[/quote]
It’s not a crime to refuse signing a parking ticket. The cop was completely unproffensional and escalated this situation. Had he done this to me I’d see what, if any, charges I could bring against him. But it doesn’t make me want tasers pulled.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
But it doesn’t make me want tasers pulled.[/quote]
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22814674-23109,00.html
[quote]lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
But it doesn’t make me want tasers pulled.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22814674-23109,00.html [/quote]
Guns also kill, but I don’t want them pulled from cops either. Baton’s and mace cause pain, and can contribute to deaths (asphyxiation in the back seat of a cop car). Just came up on a large violent man whacked out on PCP? Good luck with that mace and asp. And when those fail, and the cop is getting his ass kicked, he will probably shoot and kill that perp out of fear for his own life. That’s if he still has control of his own firearm at that point. A taser, while not always effective either, will do a better job. This campaign against tasers will cost more lives.
Edit, lixy:
After reading this story again, is this a prank? Are they serious? Torture because it causes pain? So it’s torture for a women to taser a would be rapist? For that matter, it’s torture to mace him? They both cause pain. So the targeted victim is torturing the rapist? But back to law enforcemnt. If he even uses mace, he’s still causing pain. That’s torture?! According to what’s presented here, even the use of mace is torture.
Taser guns are not torture. How they are used might be. The video above, sure. But, the beat cop losing a fight on the side of the road to a POTENTIAL cop killer? You better hope he has a taser. Otherwise, there’s a good chance that he or the perp will end up dead. Sorry, but the UN just gets dumber and dumber.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Edit, lixy:
After reading this story again, is this a prank? Are they serious? [/quote]
Well, it’s a Murdoch paper, so I would take it with the usual grain of salt.
That would be a different setting. If you shoot someone trying to kill you, it’s not murder. Same with your rapist and taser case.
Those are two different scenarios. Is a college kid asking a tough question to a politician in an auditorium a POTENTIAL cop killer? Is the guy who didn’t sign the speeding ticket a POTENTIAL cop killer? Technically, you could argue that everybody with hands and access to a solid object could bludgeon a cop to death (or even with his bare fists). The line has to be drawn somewhere, and while I agree that cops should have means to protect themselves and the public, the wave of abuses revealed recently would scare me if I was in the US. With all those post-9/11 laws, it’s much easier to justify use of violence, invasion of privacy, and other crap. I don’t like the idea of cops tasering kids smoking pot, nor cops tasering people because “they didn’t follow instructions”.
Cops in Sweden are rarely armed. It’s only normal that abuse is a rarity here.
Yeah, we know. The organization didn’t think bombing and invading Iraq was such a good idea. I mean, what were they thinking? Iraq was clearly a POTENTIAL nest for terrorists as demonstrated in the last four years.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Those are two different scenarios. Is a college kid asking a tough question to a politician in an auditorium a POTENTIAL cop killer? Is the guy who didn’t sign the speeding ticket a POTENTIAL cop killer? Technically, you could argue that everybody with hands and access to a solid object could bludgeon a cop to death (or even with his bare fists). The line has to be drawn somewhere, and while I agree that cops should have means to protect themselves and the public, the wave of abuses revealed recently would scare me if I was in the US. With all those post-9/11 laws, it’s much easier to justify use of violence, invasion of privacy, and other crap. I don’t like the idea of cops tasering kids smoking pot, nor cops tasering people because “they didn’t follow instructions”.
[/quote]
But you’re arguing scenarios. Tasered for not signing a ticket? Wrong. Tasered because the raving addict is in the process of beating a police officer? Correct. And in the last scenario a cop could use the gun, arguing that he was in fear of his life had he been incapacitated. But, some cop with a taser may opt to try one more option, and taser the man, sparing his life.
It’s not the taser. It’s how they’re used that can be wrong.
Two different countries, two very different sets of criminal cultures. If somehow one could transplant Sweden’s unarmed police force in place of our own, they’d hop on the next flight out, quit, or arm themselves. Not going to work here.
[quote]
Sorry, but the UN just gets dumber and dumber.
Yeah, we know. The organization didn’t think bombing and invading Iraq was such a good idea. I mean, what were they thinking? Iraq was clearly a POTENTIAL nest for terrorists as demonstrated in the last four years.[/quote]
Oh my, the number of ways I could demonstrate what a failed, corrupt, biased, and hijacked organization the UN has evolved into. But, that’s another topic. I will just say that any organization claiming the taser is a form of torture, regardless of it’s use, has gone off the deep end. An arm bar, wrist lock (goose neck), baton strikes, etc. are all torture then, as they rely on pain compliace. Unfortunately, these require the ability to physically apply such techniques to a suspect 60 .lbs heavier and geeked on on meth. Whereas the taser may work (though not even it is always effective) becuase of the loss of normal skeletal muscle control.
Those trying to get the use of the taser pulled are shooting themselves in the foot. It will cost more lives than it saves. You folks will shoe horn more police into opting for dealdly force (guns are more likely to kill) when that mace and baton fails to stop a violent suspect.
P.S. I could say that anyone who got themselves Tasered, was playing with fire and got burned.
"…police heroism in the face of lethal violence is entirely unsuited as a symbol of routine police work. Most police officers – ‘most’ in this case being a term that leaves the smallest quantum imaginable as a remainder – will serve out their careers without being exposed to anything resembling the mortal danger faced by the brave NYPD officers who died on 9-11.
That’s because police work simply isn’t that dangerous."
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
"…police heroism in the face of lethal violence is entirely unsuited as a symbol of routine police work. Most police officers – ‘most’ in this case being a term that leaves the smallest quantum imaginable as a remainder – will serve out their careers without being exposed to anything resembling the mortal danger faced by the brave NYPD officers who died on 9-11.
That’s because police work simply isn’t that dangerous."
[/quote]
So according to whats written…police work is not dangerous because most officers will not be faced with the dangers of those that died during 9-11?? LOL. I believe that police work is not the most dangerous of professions…but that alone does not merit saying “police work SIMPLY isn’t that dangerous.”
Is idiocy more dangerous than police work? This thread(and thread starter) has proven so.
[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
Is idiocy more dangerous than police work? This thread(and thread starter) has proven so.
[/quote]
The thread I posted also states that the police are not legally bound to protect anyone. Do you refute that claim as well?
Though I agree with your analysis I do believe tyranny is more dangerous than anything. That is the route this country is taking with the help of a brutally armed police-state that is not legally bound to protect anyone. That, to me, is not going to pan out well.
Police work isn’t that dangerous? Tell that to Philadelphia cops, where 4 have died over the past couple months, serving the public.
I’m not saying it’s common to get into gun fights, but it’s definitely one of the most dangerous professions.
And one more thing. Anyone who blames laws for junkies is RETARDED. The laws are meant to protect people from doing something that is bad for them. If one is not smart enough to not smoke crack or shoot heroin, one becomes a crack or heroin addict.
And if all the prohibition laws were scrapped, we’d have even more junkies out there.
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
And if all the prohibition laws were scrapped, we’d have even more junkies out there.
[/quote]
Ha! You actually think the police prevent drug use?
Sorry to inform you but the junkies never got that memo.
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
The laws are meant to protect people from doing something that is bad for them.
[/quote]
I allready have a mother, but thank you.
As in no, thank you very much.
Freedom, means the freedom to fuck up, otherwise you are as free as your nanny allows you to be.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Is idiocy more dangerous than police work? This thread(and thread starter) has proven so.
The thread I posted also states that the police are not legally bound to protect anyone. Do you refute that claim as well?
Though I agree with your analysis I do believe tyranny is more dangerous than anything. That is the route this country is taking with the help of a brutally armed police-state that is not legally bound to protect anyone. That, to me, is not going to pan out well.[/quote]
…
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Is idiocy more dangerous than police work? This thread(and thread starter) has proven so.
The thread I posted also states that the police are not legally bound to protect anyone. Do you refute that claim as well?
Though I agree with your analysis I do believe tyranny is more dangerous than anything. That is the route this country is taking with the help of a brutally armed police-state that is not legally bound to protect anyone. That, to me, is not going to pan out well.[/quote]
That route is also helped by those who fight against laws that are in place for a reason. Oh,and police are legally bound to take reasonable action within their powers.
I don’t know if its been mentioned(it should have),but the term peace officers describes more than just detectives and patrol officers…think about that,too if you want to talk about who’s legally bound to protect anyone.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
LankyMofo wrote:
And if all the prohibition laws were scrapped, we’d have even more junkies out there.
Ha! You actually think the police prevent drug use?
Sorry to inform you but the junkies never got that memo.[/quote]
Police can’t prevent drug use…thats a no brainer…BUT:
No prohibition+no consequences(beyond the obvious)= More junkies…plain and simple.
Like you said…freedom to fuck up 
Also…control would still come from somewhere…we would still have drug dealers(duh)…murders,kidnappings,extortion,etc…all those lovely things associated with the “drug world”