Do you want to remove it again ......

... and of course, you always have your facts in order, and verify everything before you open your mouth. You have said as much manner times in the past.

"As for Republicans, they held the Senate"

So, the Repukes held the Senate did they? You may jus want to check that one again. And as far as the House goes, you gays lost ground ... oops, my bad, you guys that is.

Did Michigan really get the right-to-work laws forced upon them. Once again you may want to check the State of Michigan Constitutin regarding the powers vested solely in the Civil Service Commission. I am sure the people of Michigan will take real well to state employees being able to maintain collective bargining rights while everyone else is subjected to decreasing pay and "right-to-work" BS standards.

By the way, the only liberty and freedom offered by right to work laws are for the big business owners that can now slash worker pay and benefits in order to increase their bottom line.

As far as the Republican party not having a good leader, maybe you guys should have thought about that before all clamoring to get behind Romney. You still don't have a leader and you did yourselves even more damage by not compromising on a deal for the tax rates due to increase at the beginning of the year.

As far as you comment about Conservatism and the Republican Party not being the same, in part, you are correct. A great deal of Republicans claim to be conservative in order to gain the Republican vote and the backing of the GOP. Meanwhile, the Conservative movement has no other Party to cling to other than Republicans.

O

Hey, one of mine got hidden because I questioned the mental maturity of someone that said that I needed a vagina in order to post on this subject....

Yep this is getting rather thick. I was happy to see TYT give it a real report. Giving a voice to constant Bullshit has got to prevalent. My message to Current is take out the trash.

Two points about this...

(1)
I hope that if this was an issue with those specific officers and not the general law enforcement for the area that these women can and do sue those specific cops and not the entire region.

(2)
Hope they win.

No, I am not a troll, and the proof of that is my willingness to engage anyone in a rational and mature exchange. Trolls only want to provoke. If you look around, you will see that I have excellent civil exchanges with a number of people who identify themselves as "liberal." I prod and even tend to challange in order to get people to think and respond. It is difficult sometimes.

You say you are a conservative. On what do you base this?

Let's keep this away from personalizing and stick to concepts and ideas. Trolls do not do like ideas.

He fails to realise that being an ass-hat to everyone he deems a "Leftwinger" is his problem. Voting himself up and everybody else down. He is an able to be heard when he acts like an angry old man who hates more then he loves. Of course his icon picture does not help.....I'm just say'n. Voted up.

im a conservative in that I think taxation is theft and big government sucks at everything and is only a beauracracy that feeds upon itself. Power corrupts and even if its in good intentions government will use power to corrupt. I believe the constitution is a good starting point but is not the word of god or anything like that. I believe personal freedom overrides most everything. I think a man is king of his house. I think true libertarianism or a true conservative is the closest thing to an anarchic society. I only hope for anarchy because I know humans are not ready for it, until we get rid of greed and evil (which I know will never happen) will anarchy really work, but I think having something to strive for or hope for even if it never happens is a good thing. Kinda like the whole peace isn't the answer its the path. Well I think libertarianism is the path that leads to peaceful anarchy with then leads to who knows, the stars I guess.

just google judge Napolitano, hes my man

"I think taxation is theft and big government sucks at everything and is only a beauracracy that feeds upon itself."

So, does that mean that you are totally against taxation?

I agree with the latter part. The problem with today's government is mostly related to the managerial state that has been created. These bureaucracies actually have usurped judicial power and they are growing.

"Power corrupts and even if its in good intentions government will use power to corrupt."

Yes, our Founders warned us about that. "Factions" and all.

"I believe the constitution is a good starting point but is not the word of god or anything like that."

It is a bit much to use the expression "word of God." Our Constitution is the best yet devised, and I believe it was the social conservative, Russell Kirk who said (paraphrasing): "The Constitution is the best Conservative document yet written."

"I believe personal freedom overrides most everything. I think a man is king of his house."

With freedom comes responsibilities and duties. Without virtue, freedom will lose out. This is where I have some problems with Libertarians: It appears that most do not want to have any real guiding moral principles except for not harming others - person or property. Outside of that, anything goes. I would not live in a society like that. But I might be wrong in thinking about Libertarians that way.

"I think true libertarianism or a true conservative is the closest thing to an anarchic society. I only hope for anarchy because I know humans are not ready for it, until we get rid of greed and evil (which I know will never happen) will anarchy really work"

So, you are saying that anarchy will never work?

True. We will never be rid of greed and evil. This is an underlying draw of the Socialists and Communists, as a matter of fact, and Marx himself referred to this: The following is an integral part of their thinking, and we see it with Left-winger statements all of the time: Greed predominated among the wealthy (or, conversely, those who are greedy get rich). Therefore, according to Leftist thinking, if we get rid of the supposed SOURCE of greed - property and large wealth - we can pretty much rid society of this pernicious attribute. That is the implicit promise of Socialism: Redistribute wealth, share all property as equally as possible, and this evil greed problem will be solved.

When I see them ascribe to it, they look like children, but dangerous children, oblivious to reality but willing to march to the drum of tyrants.

yes, I am against all taxation.
we agree on constitution.
concerning your last paragraph.- is this why you feel ok with big government and taking away some peoples property and money and giving it to some other people. because you are afraid of loosing your freedom?
Everything governments do is supposed to "protect your freedom".

both sides think they must save themselves because the other side is soooo bad, and to save themselves what choice do they have but to use the government to do so

"yes, I am against all taxation."

A society really cannot function, except in the fantasies and visionary utopias of anarchists and extremist Libertarians. In reality, it ain't gonna work.

"we agree on constitution"

Great. There are taxing powers in there, please notice.
.
{concerning your last paragraph.- is this why you feel ok with big government and taking away some peoples property and money and giving it to some other people. because you are afraid of loosing your freedom?
Everything governments do is supposed to "protect your freedom".}

You have either distorted or misread. I referred to virtue, duties and responsibilities. Not taking property or money. But possibly you are taking the radical and extreme position that any taxation is theft, so you are viewing my statements from that perspective.

"both sides think they must save themselves because the other side is soooo bad, and to save themselves what choice do they have but to use the government to do so"

Evil exists. Bad people exist. I would hate to see only private bodyguards and no courts of law (which are paid for by taxes, by the way).

im saying anarchy is not a tool, it is far away from where we are today, liberty and freedom are the tools, the path, to anarchy or enlightenment or utopia whatever you want to strive for that's unattainable right now, I choose anarchy to strive for.

"The following is an integral part of their thinking, and we see it with Left-winger statements all of the time:" "Therefore, according to Leftist thinking"
SEE that's where you have listened to the trolls (the media). you think that normal people are actively seeking a dictatorship or are against everything you stand for. ITS NOT TRUE the "lefties" are not trying to destroy America they are simple doing what they think is right they are just being doubt into think (like the repubs) that they must use the government and their vote to get change and not seeing both sides just add the negatives of both sides never getting the positives that they want because government will never give you what you want it will only create more power for itself and create more beauracracy. The lefties don't think being rich is bad,they just think that the rich are rich because they havnt had as much TAKEN away from them as they have. so they pass laws to take money away from them then next year their taxes get raises so they get mad and raise taxes on the rich again. All the while the repubs are using government to TAKE away from this group and giving it to that group just like the democrats, each side think they must be doing the right thing because look at how bad that side is.

and don't even use the words socialism and communism and talking about wealth distributions. We do it here its called taxes and bailout and quanitative easing and so forth.

finally as I re read stuff I post I disagree with a lot I myself say :/ I mostly think everyone is ok I haven't met someone I really hate in a long time and don't like the way people treat eachother online. I preach the gospel of"I don't know and neither do you" my ideas and theories change by the second, I can see both sides of everything, and I mean everything,.. which is why I get so upset at how people so defend their position because it must be right and you are wrong not able to see everything and just except it as possible

"im saying anarchy is not a tool, it is far away from where we are today, liberty and freedom are the tools, the path, to anarchy or enlightenment or utopia whatever you want to strive for that's unattainable right now, I choose anarchy to strive for."

You mentioned that you know it is impossible. I would think striving for the impossible would only be frustrating. What I like about conservatism is that it accepts human nature and the human condition. As Thatcher said, "The facts of life are conservative."

I think that Conservatism appreciates the bounty and the liberties that we do have. It draws sustenance from history, culture and traditions. It keeps the wisdom of the past alive and well, and wants future generations to understand this. We remember who we are with conservatism, and this is one of the imminent dangers of Leftist: It has to destroy and revise the past in order to have its glorious (and impossible) utopian future.

"SEE that's where you have listened to the trolls (the media). you think that normal people are actively seeking a dictatorship or are against everything you stand for."

No. Actually I do not even get American TV, and I concluded this from observing, reading and reflecting on the legacy that today's Leftists have inherited. They will deny that they want a utopia, of course, but their legacy drives them in that direction. It is imperative in their inheritance. It is an inextricable part. This is why the Left-wingers can never simply "stop." Remember Buckley and why he created the National Review? It was to "sit athwart history, yelling STOP!"

The Left-wingers probably have good intentions, but it does not make them any less malevolent, pernicious and destructive. They participate, willy-nilly, in the dream. Their revolutions have failed, so they simply cannot advocate for that now. Rather, they are working incrementally. Any chance they get to have their "revolution," they will take. Right now, they are trying to turn the American public against the free market and those who have wealth, for example, because there is this opportunity. The Left-winger Communists in the 1930s saw an opportunity, too. Today's Leftists are no different.

"government will never give you what you want it will only create more power for itself and create more beauracracy."

Yes, that is a reality: People expect government to do what it simply CANNOT do.

"The lefties don't think being rich is bad,they just think that the rich are rich because they havnt had as much TAKEN away from them as they have."

Yes, the nescience of Left-wingers concerning economics is not only appalling, it is dangerous.

"I think that Conservatism appreciates the bounty and the liberties that we do have. It draws sustenance from history, culture and traditions. It keeps the wisdom of the past alive and well, and wants future generations to understand this" But you don't respect liberty and history you support jackbooted thugs and the military industry and the bailouts and the power and the establishment and repubs who clealy support corruption and give and take huge amount of money.
a little change of subject but how do you feel about gay marriage or war or drug war

" All the while the repubs are using government to TAKE away from this group and giving it to that group just like the democrats, each side think they must be doing the right thing because look at how bad that side is."

You made a mistake there. I never mention Republicans. I am a Conservative. Many people mistakenly conflate the two.

{finally as I re read stuff I post I disagree with a lot I myself say}

Seems that you are just "thinking out loud." Good way to work through your ideas!

" I can see both sides of everything, and I mean everything,.."

Two points, and I mean no disrespect:

1. You are actually insisting on YOUR way. You want people to be what you deem "open" and intensely dislike it when they seem to behave otherwise. I hope you realize that is as "dogmatic" as people who claim they are right. It is what you are really doing.

2. I, too, "understand" the Left-winger point of view. And that is PRECISELY why I know that they are destructive, malevolent, pernicious and wrong if we want to preserve our culture, Founding principles and future.

"you don't respect liberty"

Incorrect. Invalid. Insupportable.

"history you support jackbooted thugs"

Invalid. The radical anarchist is probably angry because I am questioning his statements and present other opinions and ideas. The anarchist will probably regress to the statements about "troll" which, like that one, excuses one from thought or analysis.

"and the military industry and the bailouts and the power and the establishment and repubs...."

The radical Libertarian has not read the very clear and sapient post and continues to conflate the Republican Party with his sophomoric of "conservatism" which he refuses to subject to any discussion.

"how do you feel about gay marriage or war or drug war"

I had some hopes, but it appears that one cannot have a rational discussion. I perceive that if I do not meet some of your expectations, you will revert to name-calling again. So why bother to answer?

Tell me, please: How are the police to check people whom they have suspicions are engaging in criminal activity? Do you think that there is any possibility that there are patterns (i.e., profiles)?

Why would you not co-operate with the police who are trying to do their job? Why would you be vulgar and obscene with them? Do you not think that YOUR behavior has an effect on the behavior of others?

I get what youre saying, but I dont voluntarily go to places like Iraq and Afghanistan every other year to come home and get everything out of my car thrown on the street because the cops want to possibly get lucky by illegally raiding my vehicle.

move to a shitty neighborhood and get to know how it feels to be treated like sht. And why are you defending a blatant disregard to personal freedom and the constitution, not very conservative of you.

Ok, don't answer the question. Deflect.

"move to a shitty neighborhood and get to know how it feels to be treated like sht."

I have lived in such neighborhoods. I lived in a place where most of the people were on welfare. If one holds one's head high, comports himself well, and respects others, the police will rarely bother one.

"why are you defending a blatant disregard to personal freedom and the constitution, not very conservative of you."

I am not referring to the Texas incident, of course, but to the other where the police check "suspicious" people routinely. This is important to preserve the public peace and safety. That is a conservative value, of course. The ACLU would say otherwise, but they are anti-American.

Actually, that was a pretty good answer. Nobody should have to go through that kind of crap, especially a vet (even if I tend to disagree with him). Unless he was driving a specific car that matched a model reported or known to be used for trafficking drugs or unless the police had a warrant to search his vehicle, he was well within his rights to tell them that he would not consent to any search of his vehicle, or to piss off depending on how he wanted to phrase it.

By the way Mishie, this thread is not about the police who used questionable profiling in order to harass Oppressed1, it is about the police in Texas who sexually harassed and/or molested women they pulled over because those women littered.

+"Nobody should have to go through that kind of crap, especially a vet "

The police do not generally ask if one is a veteran. I have been pulled over for various things and never asked. I was once subjected to a strip-down search, including the “bend over” command, and I was never asked if I were a veteran, and I never even thought of saying that I was.

{Unless he was driving a specific car that matched a model reported or known to be used for trafficking drugs or unless the police had a warrant to search his vehicle, he was well within his rights to tell them that he would not consent to any search of his vehicle, or to piss off depending on how he wanted to phrase it.}

I suppose "technically," one could do that. But if one has manners, decency, morals and respect for established authority, one will cooperate and even thank the person. I was pulled over for a routine drunk check. The officer was very polite and even apologetic. I kept telling him, "no, I thank YOU for protecting the public." In fact, I often wave or greet policemen on the street. I want them to know that many people appreciate them and that such people far outnumber the Left-winger who look for problems and look for ways to discredit and give problems to these guardians of our civilization.

If it can be substantiated that police are sexually harrassing women, then they should be punished. Nobody ever questions that, of course.

"I was once subjected to a strip-down search, including the 'bend over' command, and I was never asked if I were a veteran, and I never even thought of saying that I was."

Wow, did they perform this search on the side of the road in view of passing vehicles?

"I suppose 'technically,' one could do that. But if one has manners, decency, morals and respect for established authority, one will cooperate and even thank the person."

Yeah, that's a two way street, no pun regarding anal cavities intended. If a police officer wants to receive respect, they need to give respect. That doesn't mean that they have to baby whoever they pull over, but unless they have proof that you did something or unless they have specific circumstantial evidence that implies you did something, they should not be pulling you over.

"I was pulled over for a routine drunk check. The officer was very polite and even apologetic. I kept telling him, 'no, I thank YOU for protecting the public.' In fact, I often wave or greet policemen on the street."

That's nice and all. I'm going to assume that the officer actually explained that it was a routine drunk check that police perform around areas that have had problems with people driving drunk and you were either pulled over at random or because you were showing signs that could be easily read as signs of driving intoxicated (things like driving well below the speed limit, which people tend to do at night if they are trying to find an address and don't know the area). That's a bit different from being pulled over in the manner Opressed1 described.

"I want them to know that many people appreciate them and that such people far outnumber the Left-winger who look for problems and look for ways to discredit and give problems to these guardians of our civilization."

I thank police officers when they do a good job, which is more often than not in my experience; however, there are definitely assholes who join the force because it is the one customer service job where the customer is always wrong, and police like that are the issue of this discussion.

"If it can be substantiated that police are sexually harrassing women, then they should be punished. Nobody ever questions that, of course."

A cavity search... for littering with a cigarette butt... on an open road as other cars pass by is really flirting with the line of what is sexual harassment if it is not sexual harassment, and it is not by any means flirting with that line casually.

"Wow, did they perform this search on the side of the road in view of passing vehicles?"

I was referring to your statement about a "veteran," and you respond with that.

"that's a two way street, no pun regarding anal cavities intended. If a police officer wants to receive respect, they need to give respect."

Exactly. That is all I have been trying to emphasize here (and on other thread attacking police).

"unless they have proof that you did something or unless they have specific circumstantial evidence that implies you did something, they should not be pulling you over. "

I respectivefully disagree. For example, I have been randomly pulled over for drunk driving checks. I actually appreciate it because I know that they are trying to keep such people off the roads and it makes driving safer.

" I'm going to assume that the officer actually explained that it was a routine drunk check that police perform around areas that have had problems with people driving drunk and you were either pulled over at random or because you were showing signs that could be easily read as signs of driving intoxicated"

No need for all that. The policeman said it was a routine check, or that they are doing random checks, and that was it. That is enough, of course. No problem. They are doing their duty.

"I thank police officers when they do a good job, which is more often than not in my experience"

My experience, my wife's experience, my other relatives' experiences, and my friends' experiences are all relatively similar. I actually have been roughhoused by police when I was in my late teens. But it did not turn me against them, of course. Once, I was caught with a switchblade. The cop pulled me in a back room and started screaming at me, telling me I could go to prison, etc. I was about 16. I looked carefully at him and could tell that he was actually faking it. Trying to frighten me, shake me up. I just humbled myself a bit, used "sir," said I was sorry, etc. He did not even call my parents. Can you imagine if I "copped an atitude," a "FU" stance with tone and body language? I was wrong and I showed respect. I do not see why people have to look at the police as "the enemy" when they are not.

"I suppose "technically," one could do that. But if one has manners, decency, morals and respect for established authority, one will cooperate and even thank the person."

Practice what you preachand accept that the conservative ideology was defeated in the latest election! Accept that our current President was elected by a majority despite the bitter fight conservative put up trying to rig the election.

Try for once in your life to see things from both sides instead of the "tunnel vision" you tend to see everything through. This country was actually founded on "compromise", not rigid ideology and the flat-out refusal to listen or hear any other thought than your own.

Earlier you wrote that you "had enough of this thread." Interesting.

{the conservative ideology was defeated in the latest election!}

Two essential points:

1. Left-wingers always conflate Conservatism and the Republican Party. That is invalid.

2. As for Republicans, they held the Senate, and there are about 30 governors. Michigan got the right-to-work laws for liberty and freedom, Scott Walker won the callback quite easily, Michelle Bachmann stayed in office, etc. The Republican Party did not have a good leader, and there are still too many minions around Obummer.

"Exactly. That is all I have been trying to emphasize here (and on other thread attacking police)."

Then stop acting like treating police like shit is a Liberal problem. Yes, there are plenty of Liberals who think all cops are pigs and thusly treat them all like shit... There are also plenty of Conservatives who do the exact same thing. I've seen Rednecks and God fearing United States citizens who praise the Conservative agenda like it is the second coming of Jesus and treat a police officer like shit because they got pulled over going 80mph in a 55mph zone when the officer did nothing to deserve such a reaction, and I've seen Conservative reactions like that a LOT more often in situations where they are caught breaking the law, be it minor or major, than I have seen Liberals reacting like that when caught breaking the law. I've also seen a LOT more Liberals treat cops like pigs at protests than I have seen Conservatives treat cops like pigs at protests. There is not a political alignment which treats police more like shit than another, the main difference is what situation people tend to treat cops like shit.

"I respectivefully disagree. For example, I have been randomly pulled over for drunk driving checks"

I hope you realize that being pulled over randomly for drunk driving checks is not the same as being pulled over and having police tell you that they want to search your car for drugs because you are of a different ethnicity or race than the immediate area that you are in.

"Once, I was caught with a switchblade. The cop pulled me in a back room and started screaming at me, telling me I could go to prison, etc. I was about 16. I looked carefully at him and could tell that he was actually faking it. Trying to frighten me, shake me up. I just humbled myself a bit, used 'sir,' said I was sorry, etc. He did not even call my parents. Can you imagine if I 'copped an atitude,' a FU' stance with tone and body language?"

You had an illegal knife and he caught you with it. Though copping an attitude or a "fuck you" stance would have been inappropriate, screaming at you for being a teenager and having a switchblade was a dumb fucking thing for him to do. You didn't react badly to that as a teenager, but a lot of teenagers do. In most states, having a switchblade or an illegal knife is a misdemeanor, sure you could have spent a few months in jail or the juvenile system, but you wouldn't have been going to prison for having a switchblade.

Anyways, depending on what state you were living in, you should have been carrying something legal, like a USMC Ka-BAR in Oregon and California. I've been carrying one on my hip nearly everywhere I go, exceptions include schools, airports, hospitals and government buildings, since I was 13, and I have not gotten any flak, ever... from a police officer about having a 7 inch fixed blade on my hip.

"Then stop acting like treating police like shit is a Liberal problem."

It is, and it is not to be contentious. I do not capitulate on this.

"praise the Conservative agenda like it is the second coming of Jesus"

A perverse insistence that I eschew on moral, ethical and rational grounds.

"Rednecks and God fearing United States citizens"

Please define your terms.

"they got pulled over going 80mph in a 55mph zone when the officer did nothing to deserve such a reaction"

The officer did nothing to deserve it? Then why could they be angry?
-------------------------
" I've seen Conservative reactions like that a LOT more often in situations where they are caught breaking the law"

No need to be so disgruntled. Again, you have ignored human nature. When people are caught doing something wrong - by a cop, a teacher, a parent, a spouse, a friend - they will often become angry and blame the other person. Prejudice acts in that way (I am making an assumption here that you know about this.) The person lacks something or is frustrated, and insists his life is bad because of the blacks, the Jews or the evil rich. The person is refusing to look at his own character, his own weaknesses, his own failings, his own lack of self-restraint.

"There is not a political alignment which treats police more like shit than another, the main difference is what situation people tend to treat cops like shit."

I respectfully disagree. There are probably times when Conservatives have unreasonable attitudes toward police for no reason, but it is extremely rare, of course. It is the Left-wingers who have paroxysms of rage on an emotional and irrational basis.

One obvious reason is that Conservatives tend to respect established authority - as citizens in a civilized society should. Liberals, in contrast, reject authority and must constantly rationalize and quantify and over-define when they cannot express and realize their immediate impulses, their pressing desires, their lust for anarchy, and their need to flout all convention, profane their country, and display common decency to fellow citizens.

"I hope you realize that being pulled over randomly for drunk driving checks is not the same as being pulled over and having police tell you that they want to search your car for drugs because you are of a different ethnicity or race than the immediate area that you are in."

Invalid. Invalid. Invalid.

It is not necessarily because of race and ethnicity. Haven't you ever thought that there are pattern that they police, because of their experience, can recognize? For example, I was occasionally pulled over when I first got my license. Just asked for license and registration. No "apparent" reason, but even at 16 (how old are you?), I knew why and did not get angry: There are many of that age who drive recklessly, take the parents' car without permission, and otherwise are careless. You can play word games and obfuscate as much as you want, but talk to an insurance adjuster first, please - about rates for teenage drivers. Then ask him why. The police were letting us teens know, "we are keeping an eye on you." (But play word games with the "how can you know that," "maybe they were ....[blah, blah, blah, blah], and redirect the OBVIOUS content).

The white guy on this thread was pulled over in a black neighborhood. I suspect that the police has some experience. You and the other Left-wingers can scream "racism," but that is to deny truth, of course. And if people are driving an old car in a rich neighborhood late at night, the police should ignore it on the grounds of Left-winger "fairness" and to prove they are not biased in order to capitulate to Left-winger rage?

As a teenager, should I have insisted my parents get a lawyer and sue police for pulling me over unnecessarily?

As I wrote before, a relative of mine is a cop, and I did a "ride-along." In conversation, I asked him if there were many people in the country illegally. He said, "wanna see?" Then pulled the car in an alley, shut off the lights, and left the motor running. Within 3-5 minutes, he hit the gas with the siren, behind a car. 5 "illegals" in the car.

How did he do that? It was the only car he pulled over. He KNEW. He might have made a mistake, but I certainly could not have done that. Stop the Left-winger dreck.

"screaming at you for being a teenager and having a switchblade was a dumb fucking thing for him to do."

You have no sense of reality. Unfortunate. It was the BEST thing, and I actually appreciated it. If he went by the book, as Left-wingers probably would have recommended, I would have wound up in a court. Probably would have been on some kind of suspended sentence or probation, and I would have had a police record for possessing a lethal weapon. This policeman couldn't just let it go, of course; that would be irresponsible. If I had been a repeat offender, he probably would have made a formal arrest. But I had no record of anything. (Go ahead and start: Claim that another policeman could have done the same thing, and he could not have really known with that kind of method, blah, blah, or contrive something else in order to give in to your propensity to contradict and cavil.)

My parents would have been angered and humiliated if he "went by the book," too.

---------------
THE FOLLOWING IS WHY I CLAIM THAT YOU ARE NOT DEALING WITH REALITY:

" sure you could have spent a few months in jail or the juvenile system"

You say that so very lightly, so easily, and for the policeman being very certain that I was not a potential criminal and deciding to administer some really light "on the spot justice," you say it "was a dumb fucking thing for him to do."

A "few months in jail?" "In the juvenile system." Do you even think before you write? Why would any adult write something like that? The unreasonableness and perversity of such a blithe and cavalier remark actually puzzles me, as it would any person with common sense.

"depending on what state you were living in, you should have been carrying something legal, like a USMC Ka-BAR in Oregon and California."

Unrelated. Irrational statement. I was 16 years old. Please think before you write.

" I have not gotten any flak, ever... from a police officer about having a 7 inch fixed blade on my hip."

And you "should have," "should have," "should have." Have you ever taught or been around young people? Have you? Or WILL you in the near future?

Thank you for the correction. I meant that the Republicans held the House. I chose the word "held," of course.

Yes, it is possible that with the help of the courts,the Left-wingers in Michigan might be able to FORCE the government to COERCE workers into having to pay union EXTORTION that the implacable THUGS and bullies collect against the will of the workers. It is the way that the LEFT operates: Get the COURTS to impose execrable laws against the will of the people.

"By the way, the only liberty and freedom offered by right to work laws are for the big business owners that can now slash worker pay and benefits in order to increase their bottom line."

Not true. Unions can still form. Why do Left-wingers dissemble, dissimulate and deceive? Unions can form and bargain collectively as usual. And if unions are the paragons of virtue for the "working man," then about what are union advocates so pusillanimous about letting them decide for themselves?

Why do the union THUGS and bullies feel the need to get the FORCE of the GOVERNMENT behind them, hectoring workers and extorting wages?

"As far as the Republican party not having a good leader, maybe you guys should have thought about that before all clamoring to get behind Romney."

Romney was what was left after the dust settled. It was unfortunate.

" did yourselves even more damage by not compromising on a deal for the tax rates due to increase at the beginning of the year"

The rich are already paying MORE than their "fair share." They SUPPORT almost half of the population that CONTRIBUTES NOTHING.

"It is, and it is not to be contentious. I do not capitulate on this."

It is not, and you are either delusional for believing that or a liar who knows that claim is false.

"A perverse insistence that I eschew on moral, ethical and rational grounds."

You apparently don't know much about Conservatives on the West coast of the United States if you think that is a perverse insistence.

"Please define your terms."

Well the proper definition of Redneck is as follows:

redneck |ˈredˌnek|
noun informal, derogatory
a working-class white person, esp. a politically reactionary one from a rural area: rednecks in the high, cheap seats stomped their feet and hooted | [ as modifier ] : a place of redneck biases.

"The officer did nothing to deserve it?"

Other than his or her job, not a thing.

"Then why could they be angry?"

Because, although they were breaking a traffic law, they did not think that what they were doing was wrong and they thought that the police officer was harassing them. Essentially, it is a disconnect with reality.

"No need to be so disgruntled."

I did not know that stating facts was being disgruntled. I guess I learn something new every day.

"Again, you have ignored human nature. When people are caught doing something wrong - by a cop, a teacher, a parent, a spouse, a friend - they will often become angry and blame the other person."

I'm not refuting this or claiming something contrary to this. I'm claiming that of the people I've witnessed freaking out at police officers when they are pulled over, the overwhelming majority have been people who are Conservative.

"I respectfully disagree. There are probably times when Conservatives have unreasonable attitudes toward police for no reason, but it is extremely rare, of course."

It is no more rare or common with Conservatives than it is with Liberals.

"It is the Left-wingers who have paroxysms of rage on an emotional and irrational basis."

Not really, it's the Left-wingers who have been featured on the News more often when they have their little tantrums, especially pertaining to protests... and the funny thing about that, even though a lot of police who handle protests don't deserve that kind of treatment, there is a long history of law enforcement officials preemptively responding to protests THAT WERE PEACEFUL AND NOT DISRESPECTFUL TO THE POLICE WHO HAD TO HANDLE THEM with violence as well as police attempting to cause violent situations within protests in order to have a "legitimate" reason to put a halt to the protest, violently or not.

"One obvious reason is that Conservatives tend to respect established authority - as citizens in a civilized society should."

Bullshit. Conservatives are just as critical of established authority as Liberals when it is not an established authority that they agree with, this doesn't just apply to police, this applies to political leaders.

"Liberals, in contrast, reject authority and must constantly rationalize and quantify and over-define when they cannot express and realize their immediate impulses, their pressing desires, their lust for anarchy, and their need to flout all convention, profane their country, and display common decency to fellow citizens."

You're projecting, a lot.

"Invalid. Invalid. Invalid."

If by invalid you mean that it is actually relevant to the conversation, then yes it is. But I would further question your mastery of the English language.

"It is not necessarily because of race and ethnicity."

Hold onto that thought... Here it is, Oppressed1's words were exactly thus:

"No shit cops exact words. ' Son we know you have drugs in the car, youre the only white kid in this area for ten miles.'"

They pulled him over EXACTLY BECAUSE OF RACE AND ETHNICITY.

"Haven't you ever thought that there are pattern that they police, because of their experience, can recognize? For example, I was occasionally pulled over when I first got my license. Just asked for license and registration. No "apparent" reason, but even at 16 (how old are you?), I knew why and did not get angry: There are many of that age who drive recklessly, take the parents' car without permission, and otherwise are careless."

Wow... They pulled you over and asked for your license and registration for no apparent reason other than the fact that you were 16. That is a perfect example of the police you grew up with harassing you and you seem almost happy about it like it is a daily routine in life that everyone should experience. So tell me turbo, how would pulling over a teenager for no reason deter reckless driving, driving the parents' car without permission, or being careless behind the wheel? If you weren't driving recklessly or being careless you are not going to associate being pulled over with the action of driving recklessly or being careless. IF you are driving your parents' car without permission, there is no way for the officer to know UNLESS your parent reported the car missing OR if you do not have a license... and if you don't have a license and are driving then your taking your parents' car without their permission will probably be the lesser of your immediate worries.

"You can play word games and obfuscate as much as you want, but talk to an insurance adjuster first, please - about rates for teenage drivers. Then ask him why. The police were letting us teens know, 'we are keeping an eye on you.'"

You know what would have let you teens know that the police were keeping an eye on you...? Pulling you over and giving you a ticket when you actually did something illegal.

You know WHY cops aren't supposed to pull you over without reason, regardless of your age so long as you can legally drive? It is because people have lives, and sometimes people need to be someplace. This is true for everyone. Maybe being pulled over makes you late for work and your boss is an asshole. Maybe your grandma is in the hospital and you're driving over to visit her in her final days. Maybe you're just going to grab lunch. The problem is that police almost never have any idea where you're going, why you're going there, and if when you get there is important or not. I knew kids in high school that needed jobs to help the family out with bills. Tell me, is it worth it if one of those kids were on their way to an interview to one of those jobs, was late because a cop decided to pull them over just to let them know that the cops were keeping an eye out on them and that being late prevented the kid from getting that job?

"The white guy on this thread was pulled over in a black neighborhood. I suspect that the police has some experience."

If I was a betting man, I'd be betting that those police would find one white guy with drugs in the car for every 75 to 100 that they pull over for no reason other than the guy behind the wheel is white and driving in a minority neighborhood.

"You and the other Left-wingers can scream 'racism,' but that is to deny truth, of course."

Wouldn't go so far as to scream racism with this particular case. I'd settle for stereotyping though. The simple fact is that the police had no reason to pull him over other than the fact that he was white in a minority neighborhood.

"And if people are driving an old car in a rich neighborhood late at night, the police should ignore it on the grounds of Left-winger "fairness" and to prove they are not biased in order to capitulate to Left-winger rage?"

That depends. If said person in said old car in said rich neighborhood at said late time at night was driving around in a way that was suspicious... implying that they were slowing down in front of houses, stopping for a period of time, then moving down to the next house and so forth or some such behavior, then yes. If they are just driving through, no.

"As a teenager, should I have insisted my parents get a lawyer and sue police for pulling me over unnecessarily?"

As a teenager you shouldn't have had to expect the police to pull you over for doing nothing illegal. If it was a common occurrence then you should have filed a complaint at the police station because an officer was harassing you for driving legally. Now if that officer pulled you over for doing nothing illegal, or for something relatively minor, and then performed a cavity search on the side of the road where anyone passing by could see, then yes, you should have insisted your parents get a lawyer and sue that police, that specific officer if possible.

"As I wrote before, a relative of mine is a cop, and I did a 'ride-along.' In conversation, I asked him if there were many people in the country illegally. He said, 'wanna see?' Then pulled the car in an alley, shut off the lights, and left the motor running. Within 3-5 minutes, he hit the gas with the siren, behind a car. 5 'illegals' in the car."

There some reason why the words ride-along and illegals are in quotes? Are you trying to imply sarcasm because putting quotes around single words like that when you're not actually quoting those words like that is typically used to express sarcasm, like making hand quotes in the air when saying a word sarcastically. All caps are better for emphasis on internet sites when putting things in bold is difficult or not possible.

"How did he do that? It was the only car he pulled over. He KNEW. He might have made a mistake, but I certainly could not have done that. Stop the Left-winger dreck."

No, he did not know. He suspected. There is a HUGE difference between the two both legally and in terms of definition.

"You have no sense of reality."

It is a misdemeanor at best, there is no reason for a cop to scream at a kid for a misdemeanor unless that cop personally knows the kid, like if that cop was the kids father or some other family member.

"If he went by the book, as Left-wingers probably would have recommended, I would have wound up in a court."

Court would have been a possibility, but the conjecture about, "as Left-wingers probably would have recommended," is pointless and baseless opinion that you are projecting into the story for dramatic effect.

"Probably would have been on some kind of suspended sentence or probation, and I would have had a police record for possessing a lethal weapon."

Kids have gotten worse for less, and if you were 16 when this happened it would have been expunged from your record once you turned 18... you know, because you were a juvenile and carrying a switchblade is a misdemeanor... like jaywalking or having small amounts of pot on your person.

"This policeman couldn't just let it go, of course; that would be irresponsible."

You were 16 years old with a switchblade that, we assume given the details you've revealed in this story, wasn't discovered on your person because you got into a fight or did something violent that a police officer discovered. The guy should have told you that carrying a knife like that was illegal and why then called your parents to tell them what he found and to have them pick you up. Screaming at you for carrying a switchblade, a misdemeanor for someone without a record, was melodramatic and unprofessional.

"My parents would have been angered and humiliated if he 'went by the book,' too."

So? You were carrying an illegal blade, which is a misdemeanor, and were caught... Do you think that they are joyful and proud that their son got caught with an illegal blade, or did they never find out?

"You say that so very lightly, so easily"

You actually caught a sentence of mine that was incorrectly written for conveying the idea that I meant. This doesn't happen often, and I apologize for the mishap. My original sentence did come off as implying that you could likely have been put jail or a juvenile detention center for a period of a few months and I did not mean to imply that.

I meant to infer that you could have spent a night or two in jail, probably to scare the bejesus out of you, and might have been in the juvenile system, meaning you'd have someone check in on you at home twice a month for a few months to check up on you.

"Unrelated. Irrational statement. I was 16 years old. Please think before you write."

Not unrelated or an irrational statement, though I find it pathetic that you're driving home the fact that you were 16 when you got caught carrying an illegal blade but are ignoring that I pointed out I have been carrying a legal knife on my hip regularly and in a legal manner since I was 13... being 30 now, that kinda implies that I use to carry it around when I was 16 too, and 17, and 18...

"And you 'should have,' 'should have,' 'should have.'"

Okay... why should I have gotten flak from a police officer? It is a legal blade to carry in the States I have lived in, unlike the scrapper you got caught with, and it made an excellent, if not grossly overbuilt, work knife. Should I have gotten flak because I was just a kid with a knife that was, and still is, legal for me to carry, or should I have gotten flak because you got flak from an officer as a kid for carrying an illegal knife and it rubs you the wrong way that since I was 13, three years younger than you when you got caught carrying an illegal blade, I have routinely carried a legal knife that is probably a better quality knife than your poor little switchblade was, and never got harassed because it was a legal blade?

"Have you ever taught or been around young people? Have you? Or WILL you in the near future?"

Right back at you rerun, and though I am certain the answer is the opposite of this, if how you are online is any indication of what you are like in real life, I can only hope that the answer has been and will continue to be no. Let me sum up what your argument/story pertaining to the knife looks like and your reaction to the fact that I have never been harassed in all of my teenage years since I started carrying a legal knife at the age of 13...

"A cop yelled at me because I was carrying an illegal knife and it was scary but I didn't go to jail, but you were younger than me when I got yelled at and were carrying a legal knife and were never yelled at! It's not fair, you should have been yelled at too! WAAAAH!"

As for me, yes I have been around AND taught young people, ranging in age from 2 years old to 23 and I probably will in the near future. This has nothing to do with not EVER getting flak from a police officer about legally carrying a blade that is actually legal to carry, but there you go.

By they way, would you like to see a picture of my Ka-BAR?

"You apparently don't know much about Conservatives on the West coast of the United States if you think that is a perverse insistence."

Invalid. I speak to Conservatism, not to just some people who have been branded with the term "Conservative," most likely by people who do not even understand the term, in a very limited area such as Washington State or Oregon.

"although they were breaking a traffic law, they did not think that what they were doing was wrong and they thought that the police officer was harassing them."

Reality is necessary here:

1. Breaking the law is breaking the law. Not my feelings about whether or not I broke it.

2. What they thought is not relevant. The actions are what is important and meaningful.

{I'm not refuting this or claiming something contrary to this. I'm claiming that of the people I've witnessed freaking out at police officers when they are pulled over, the overwhelming majority have been people who are Conservative.}

Invalid on a number of counts:

1. One person's person opinion of A) someone else "freaking out," B) branding a person as Conservative when the person likely has a quality or two that you declare to put him in the category of "Conservative" (is not in favor of same-sex marriage or thinks abortion should not be legal, etc.) You never explained how these people are Conservative.

2. The denial of human nature that I have already outlined and explained. How humans handle frustration from being considered in the wrong, losing money, and so on.

{it's the Left-wingers who have been featured on the News more often when they have their little tantrums}

2 points:

1. It is not true about Left-wingers being on the news for such things. The Liberals control the mainstream media and they do not reveal defects and perversities of Left-wingers. The Leftist media exaggerates and distorts what the police do, like making it a national issue because a couple of college students were pepper-sprayed: The Leftist press screamed "fascism," "Nazis," "stopping free speech," and "brutality."

2. Glad you admit that Left-winger have "little tantrums."

" Conservatives are just as critical of established authority as Liberals "

No. Conservatives recognize the established authority that is needed to preserve our culture, traditions and principles, and those are the very ones that Left-wingers try to assault and destroy. Take the family: Left-wingers want the STATE to take over the role of parents. Conservatives try to protect the tradtional authority in the home, and it should be immune from Left-winger attacks on it, but the Liberals keep trying to make incursions into the homes of the citizens. Church is another area that Left-wingers attack with a vehemence and mock and profane those who put God's authority over the altruistic, benevolent, all-loveing State that the Left-winger exalt above all else.

"They pulled him over EXACTLY BECAUSE OF RACE AND ETHNICITY."

Apparently you have reading comprehension difficulties. I already wrote about that. I provided examples of how, for example, my relative policeman was able to immediately tell if there were some "illegal" people. I was pulled over as a teenager because teens have more problems with traffic violations and accidents (here come the word games), so I asked you if my parents should hire lawyers because I was pulled over for just being a young driver. Maybe there is a good reason. Maybe it is the efficient way to do things. Does that mean that they were ageists? That they were prejudice against young people? That they disliked my youth? Or could it possibly mean - is there even the remotest chance - that they were simply being efficient?

But do the Left-winger thing and start the accusations of racism.

{how would pulling over a teenager for no reason deter reckless driving, driving the parents' car without permission, or being careless behind the wheel? }

Another perfect example of why it is bootless to try to use reason or plain common sense in exchanges. I simply will not answer such a question. Hey,, why do you brush your teeth? Explain how it is good. And if you choose to provide an answer to that, I will keep pressing for documentation, proof, and find sources that show otherwise and challenge you to disprove them, declaring you to be wrong if you give up in disgust.

" I knew kids in high school that needed jobs to help the family out with bills. Tell me, is it worth it if one of those kids were on their way to an interview to one of those jobs, was late because a cop decided to pull them over just to let them know that the cops were keeping an eye out on them and that being late prevented the kid from getting that job?"

Absurd and a usual tactic of a Left-winger: Present an extremely rare case as something commonplace, and be sure to add all sorts of hyperbole and sentimentality to the philippic. Contrive an example of an impoverished and dedicated and hard-working youngster, only trying to help his impecunious and strapped family, getting pulled over by a policeman, then failing to get employed because he was late for a job interview.

What a freakin' imagination! What an obscurant.

"If I was a betting man, I'd be betting that those police would find one white guy with drugs in the car for every 75 to 100 that they pull over for no reason other than the guy behind the wheel is white and driving in a minority neighborhood."

The spring before last, when I arrived in Sarasota, Florida, I turned on the local radio. Two Brits were murdered for going into a black area. Murdered. They went in there at night. Who knows for what? Too bad the police were not checking more. But maybe they were given some FREAKIN' POLITICALLY CORRECT LEFT-WINGER CRAP for a directive! DEAD!

{Wouldn't go so far as to scream racism with this particular case. I'd settle for stereotyping though. The simple fact is that the police had no reason to pull him over other than the fact that he was white in a minority neighborhood. }\

Liberal nonsense. They were doing their duty. They were doing their jobs. The driver could have cooperated and been polite. The driver did not know why, and maybe they did not tell him. Maybe there were some criminals or people getting drugs who were in that area and that age and were white or something. Maybe they fit a description.

Why the f... not cooperate?

Jejune comment about the people driving through rich neighborhoods in an old car late at night. Why would they be driving through such neighborhoods? I know you will contrive some absurdity, so I do not expect any commonsensical response. Please don't even bother; you will only come up with something unreasonable. I only state as fact that the police have reason to be suspicious and will simply deny any contradiction because I know I am right on this.

"There some reason why the words ride-along and illegals are in quotes?"

With the first, it is a term used by the police. I signed a paper saying essentially that I would not sue if something happened to me. I did not want it to appear as just riding along.

For the second, I was acceding to Left-winger sensibilities and avoid Political INcorrectness. The term "illegal" is considered Politically Incorrect in the Leftist coterie. And I did not want to re-type the full term each time.

{No, he did not know. He suspected. There is a HUGE difference between the two both legally and in terms of definition.}

Word games. I should never have brought it up.

{It is a misdemeanor at best, there is no reason for a cop to scream at a kid for a misdemeanor unless that cop personally knows the kid, like if that cop was the kids father or some other family member.}

A response that again shows a lack of touch with reality. Sounds like some sophomoric discussion that one would hear in a second-rate college among some wannabe pseudo-intellectuals.

{Kids have gotten worse for less, and if you were 16 when this happened it would have been expunged from your record once you turned 18... }

Word games and not valid anyway. I had an FBI clearance in the military. They checked as far back as my teenage years. Nonsense.

{Kids have gotten worse for less, and if you were 16 when this happened it would have been expunged from your record once you turned 18... you know, because you were a juvenile and carrying a switchblade is a misdemeanor... like jaywalking or having small amounts of pot on your person.}

You completely avoided the overall concept. You are making something complicated for its own sake, to be contentious and attempt to engage in word games.

"The guy should have told you that carrying a knife like that was illegal and why then called your parents to tell them what he found and to have them pick you up. Screaming at you for carrying a switchblade, a misdemeanor for someone without a record, was melodramatic and unprofessional."

Invalid. He saved my parents the embarrassment. He confiscated the knife.

{I meant to infer that you could have spent a night or two in jail, probably to scare the bejesus out of you, and might have been in the juvenile system, meaning you'd have someone check in on you at home twice a month for a few months to check up on you.}

Even if you wrote that, I would have given the same response, of course.

{ ignoring that I pointed out I have been carrying a legal knife on my hip regularly and in a legal manner since I was 13...}

I ignore absurd statements. I already said why. THIRD TIME: I was 16. You present all this crapola about what is legal, definitions of what can be carried and on and on and on. I wrote I was 16. This is PRECISELY what I refer to when I say that you are not incorporating human nature into what you write and conclude and observe.

{it rubs you the wrong way that since I was 13, three years younger than you when you got caught carrying an illegal blade, I have routinely carried a legal knife that is probably a better quality knife than your poor little switchblade was, and never got harassed because it was a legal blade?}

Projection. Nothing like that. In my neighborhood, I used to walk around with a machete from around age 14. This is not a pissing contest. Used to shoot guns from a young age, but it has nothing to do with these concepts. Nothing. Nothing in the least. Please do not inject any pseudo-psychology into the "discussions."

{It's not fair, you should have been yelled at too! WAAAAH!" }

No, I do not care if you had a knife and no problems. Not in the least. You created that fabrication. I do not mind that the police treated me as they did. I repeatedly told you that I respected them and APPRECIATED what they did. I grew up in a very tough town where there were gang fights. People used to come in from the Bronx in motorcycle gangs and start fights, for example. I kept a tire iron under my driver's seat, "just in case." That was the kind of town it was and twice I managed to back down some people who were rousting my girlfriend and me "for kicks" because I had the tire iron.

The police were great. Rough at times, but it was a rough town.

You have no idea. WAAAH? Funny.

[ Although if she did toss a cigarette butt out of her window she needs it stuck in a cavity. DON'T MESS WITH TEXAS! and Don't let Texas Troopers mess with you. ]

F ing AMEN ! Just So ! RIGHT ON ! Agreed ! YES ! +^d

( thats an affirmative )

Um, do you have the same cavities as these women? And a field search is probably a bit modified from where there are lights 'n stuff.

A field search is called a pat down, but in order to create a little hysteria let's go ahead and call it a cavity search, OK ?

When you grow a vagina, get back to me and we can have a reality based discussion on this.

"When you grow a vagina, get back to me and we can have a reality based discussion on this."

Invalid response. It means that only people who are like another in question are legally capable of giving an opinion. This is the sophism used by many Left-wingers regarding things like abortion, racism, and a plethora of other issues: The Leftists deny the reasoning, speech and even the humanity of the "other" in order to get their own way. In effect, such statements are designed to render the person's statements meaningless and ostracise that person.

Seems that when a liberal folk get in the weeds they tend to toss out childish remarks, Oh look we have one here........

Which bozos are those, the folks over at RT, or the cops ?

The latter