Ok, why do YOU hate the cops... - Page 29

chris934 · 07-31-2008, 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gillespie

Police are held accountable for their actions. Case in point: the cop in the video.

No, we should not allow them to do as they please simply because they're fulfilling a dangerous job. Nobody gets that level of freedom.

I can't comment on the rest of your post, as its mostly personal stances and opinions on matters of crime and such. I will say that there are many examples around the world at this very moment of what happens in a society absence of law and order. I assure you that the cops fulfill a very important - and thankless, a lot of the time - role in American society. Humans are not pretty creatures when given carte blanche to do as they please with no repercussions.

I am sorry that you were mugged, and that your house was broken into. Police presence cannot stop crime everywhere at all times, especially opportunistic crimes such as what you've experienced. That does not mean they're useless and unneeded. Saddling them with even stricter standards and controls than they're already placed under would render them impotent. Police officers need a degree of autonomy to operate effectively. Don't punish the many thanks to the actions of the few. Don't pander to the lowest common denominator.

I would say that when our government and police ignore the Constitution (the highest law in this country in case you forgot) we are living in a nation without law and order. The police are only needed if they will follow the constitution.

**Gillespie** · 07-31-2008, 11:34 PM

When and which part(s) of the Constitution are they (the government as a whole and all the state and county police agencies) ignoring?

I'm not insulting you by asking that, I simply want to explore your statement further. I am open to being educated (just ask Sordavie). And I'm bored and need something to mull over.

chris934 · 08-01-2008, 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gillespie

When and which part(s) of the Constitution are they (the government as a whole and all the state and county police agencies) ignoring?

I'm not insulting you by asking that, I simply want to explore your statement further. I am open to being educated (just ask Sordavie). And I'm bored and need something to mull over.

The Government is ignoring so many things it would be impossible to list here but i will state one. INCOME TAX. You as an American citizen are not required to pay income tax! The Federal income tax is a direct unapportioned tax and there for unconstitutional. The 16 Amendment (that put the income tax inplace) was not ratified by Enough of the states. The supreme court even said that the 16th amendment gave the government no new tax rights. Because Income as described in the amendment dealt with PROFITS gained from business not money earned from your own personal work. And yet the IRS continues to arrest people for not paying income tax even though the supreme court has never ruled that it was allowed.

As for the police its harder to pinpoint any thing and it all depends on what side of an argument you are on. Personally i believe that drug laws are unconstitutional as that right is reserved for the states and anyone enforcing these laws are violating the constitution. The law against Marijuana for example Requires you to have a tax stamp when processing, selling or possesing marijuana. and yet THEY DONT PRINT ANY STAMPS. though this is a complicated issue and i dont really have the time to explain it all. I personally believe that the Tazer has ushered in a new era of cruel and unusual punishment. While the tazer is useful as it has allowed police to use brutish force against many people (im not saying some didnt deserve it) because it causes no permanent injury.

Also if anyone of you have been arrested before you will be familiar with this. THE POLICE DONT HAVE TO GIVE YOU PHONE CALL UNTIL THE DETECTIVE SAYS SO! yes im not kidding. I was held for 24 hours in the city jail (for loitering of all things) and was not given a phone call. No one knew where i was. The police can keep you for as long as they want with no phone call, because the "detective" (who apparently has the authority do deny you your civil rights) gets to make the decision on whether or not your phone call will "jepordize" the case (yea because me calling my mother so she could stop worrieing would jepordize any case right?) And by the time the detective has made that decision he has already issued you a bond and you are allowed to leave.

These are just a couple. The government is the main problem because the police are simply enforcing the governments laws(supposedly). The Patriot act (passed by our wonderful congress) gives the president the ability to command almost dictitorial powers. Under the Patriot act the president can declare a general state of emergency without declareing a reson and congress cannot address it for 6 months. Im not kidding. Go and read the patriot act yourself if it doesnt make you sick you have a stronger stomach then me.

Just a couple to think about

Atomic Dog · 08-01-2008, 12:31 AM

A police officers job is to enforce the law. If you're concerned about breaches of the constitution (i.e. the suspension of Habeus Corpus) take it up with your state representatives and demand they act on it. Don't put that burden on law enforcement. They're just enforcing laws that your elected representatives have chose for society.

chris934 · 08-01-2008, 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atomic Dog

A police officers job is to enforce the law. If you're concerned about breaches of the constitution (i.e. the suspension of Habeus Corpus) take it up with your state representatives and demand they act on it. Don't put that burden on law enforcement. They're just enforcing laws that your elected representatives have chose for society.

Yea I know. I said that in my post friend. (and people were bitching at me for not reading the posts well enough! lol)

Atomic Dog · 08-01-2008, 12:36 AM

Nice try at the low-blow. I read your post, just didn't feel like editing mine...

Note the times. Simu-posting FTL!

chris934 · 08-01-2008, 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atomic Dog

Nice try at the low-blow. I read your post, just didn't feel like editing mine...

Note the times. Simu-posting FTL!

So i was supposed to read your mind? WOW.

(It wasnt a low blow BTW i was only pointing out the inconsistancies)

Atomic Dog · 08-01-2008, 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris934

So i was supposed to read your mind? WOW.

(It wasnt a low blow BTW i was only pointing out the inconsistancies)

Read my mind? WTH are you smoking? I didn't imply that...I just didn't appreciate the jab made at me simply because I posted something at the same time you did.

Whatever.

I'm over your posts. :P

**Gillespie** · 08-01-2008, 12:44 AM

Let me consider your post,Chris, and read up on the things you've discussed. I'll come back later.

chris934 · 08-01-2008, 03:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atomic Dog

Read my mind? WTH are you smoking? I didn't imply that...I just didn't appreciate the jab made at me simply because I posted something at the same time you did.

Whatever.

I'm over your posts. :P

Sorry my bad i didnt realize it was at the same time. But its cool that your being so mature.

Switchcraft · 08-01-2008, 04:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris934

The Government is ignoring so many things it would be impossible to list here but i will state one. INCOME TAX. You as an American citizen are not required to pay income tax! The Federal income tax is a direct unapportioned tax and there for unconstitutional. The 16 Amendment (that put the income tax inplace) was not ratified by Enough of the states. The supreme court even said that the 16th amendment gave the government no new tax rights. Because Income as described in the amendment dealt with PROFITS gained from business not money earned from your own personal work. And yet the IRS continues to arrest people for not paying income tax even though the supreme court has never ruled that it was allowed.

You should probably search the forums for tax protester arguments that fall along this vein. The 16th Amendment was ratified by enough of the states, and the same case that you correctly claim the Supreme Court said the 16th Amendment gave no new tax authority (Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, it's a good read) affirmed the constitutionality of a personal income tax (see Revenue Act of 1913) under Article I, Section 8 powers. This is misdirection anyway...there was a personal income tax for wages well prior to the 16th Amendment. The 16th Amendment affected property taxes, and incomes from things like rent and interest earned. Taxes on wages were actually considered indirect taxes and not subject to the apportionment rule.

Quote:

As for the police its harder to pinpoint any thing and it all depends on what side of an argument you are on. Personally i believe that drug laws are unconstitutional as that right is reserved for the states and anyone enforcing these laws are violating the constitution.

I don't disagree that our drug laws are ridiculous, but since your earlier argument was all about what the Supreme Court says is Constitutional, why is it that when the Supreme Court has plainly said that Congress can prohibit the growing of marijuana (see Raich v Gonzales among others) you still say that's not Constitutional? If your metric is what the Supreme Court says, then you should stick with that. If your metric is your own personal interpretation of the Constitution, why demand the Court's approval for any of your arguments?

Quote:

The Patriot act (passed by our wonderful congress) gives the president the ability to command almost dictitorial powers. Under the Patriot act the president can declare a general state of emergency without declareing a reson and congress cannot address it for 6 months. Im not kidding. Go and read the patriot act yourself if it doesnt make you sick you have a stronger stomach then me.

I would love to see your citation for this general emergency provision that bars congress from addressing it. PATRIOT ACT is here. Hint: you won't find it. Which leads me to wonder why you said "Im not kidding" when you obviously haven't read it.

chris934 · 08-01-2008, 04:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Switchcraft

You should probably search the forums for tax protester arguments that fall along this vein. The 16th Amendment was ratified by enough of the states, and the same case that you correctly claim the Supreme Court said the 16th Amendment gave no new tax authority (Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, it's a good read) affirmed the constitutionality of a personal income tax (see Revenue Act of 1913) under Article I, Section 8 powers. This is misdirection anyway...there was a personal income tax for wages well prior to the 16th Amendment. The 16th Amendment affected property taxes, and incomes from things like rent and interest earned. Taxes on wages were actually considered indirect taxes and not subject to the apportionment rule.

I don't disagree that our drug laws are ridiculous, but since your earlier argument was all about what the Supreme Court says is Constitutional, why is it that when the Supreme Court has plainly said that Congress can prohibit the growing of marijuana (see Raich v Gonzales among others) you still say that's not Constitutional? If your metric is what the Supreme Court says, then you should stick with that. If your metric is your own personal interpretation of the Constitution, why demand the Court's approval for any of your arguments?

I would love to see your citation for this general emergency provision that bars congress from addressing it. PATRIOT ACT is here. Hint: you won't find it. Which leads me to wonder why you said "Im not kidding" when you obviously haven't read it.

I wont address your arguments about drugs at this time(its already going in a different thread feel free to argue there) Its kind of late and it will take me a while to find the facts for my other statements so i ask that you refer to the film

America: From Freedom to Fascism. located at this link

http://www.moviesfoundonline.com/ame...to_fascism.php

Their facts are my own. Its not that im not interested in this argument i just dont have the time to site all the sources tonight. Most of the first part of the movie deals with the federal reserve/The income tax. I will let them speak for me.

Switchcraft · 08-01-2008, 05:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris934

I wont address your arguments about drugs at this time(its already going in a different thread feel free to argue there) Its kind of late and it will take me a while to find the facts for my other statements so i ask that you refer to the film

America: From Freedom to Fascism. located at this link

http://www.moviesfoundonline.com/ame...to_fascism.php

Their facts are my own. Its not that im not interested in this argument i just dont have the time to site all the sources tonight. Most of the first part of the movie deals with the federal reserve/The income tax. I will let them speak for me.

Yeah, people have referenced that movie in here before. I suggest you read this link and think about what the phrase "There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of..." means. Because the argument that "there is no law" is ridiculous. That's the law. It's not made by the IRS, it's made by Congress. Personal income taxes were ruled Constitutional long before the 16th Amendment was around. Don't ever let a movie tell you what the laws really are or aren't, especially one trying to make a point about anything. The real laws are easy enough to find on their own, with the added benefit of no outside hysteria.

mentholated · 08-01-2008, 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Switchcraft

You should probably search the forums for tax protester arguments that fall along this vein. The 16th Amendment was ratified by enough of the states, and the same case that you correctly claim the Supreme Court said the 16th Amendment gave no new tax authority (Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, it's a good read) affirmed the constitutionality of a personal income tax (see Revenue Act of 1913) under Article I, Section 8 powers. This is misdirection anyway...there was a personal income tax for wages well prior to the 16th Amendment. The 16th Amendment affected property taxes, and incomes from things like rent and interest earned. Taxes on wages were actually considered indirect taxes and not subject to the apportionment rule.

I don't disagree that our drug laws are ridiculous, but since your earlier argument was all about what the Supreme Court says is Constitutional, why is it that when the Supreme Court has plainly said that Congress can prohibit the growing of marijuana (see Raich v Gonzales among others) you still say that's not Constitutional? If your metric is what the Supreme Court says, then you should stick with that. If your metric is your own personal interpretation of the Constitution, why demand the Court's approval for any of your arguments?

I would love to see your citation for this general emergency provision that bars congress from addressing it. PATRIOT ACT is here. Hint: you won't find it. Which leads me to wonder why you said "Im not kidding" when you obviously haven't read it.

You're both equally uninformed:

Quote:

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10990
allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of
highways and seaports.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10995
allows the government to seize and control the communication media.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10997
allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and
minerals.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10998
allows the government to seize all means of transportation, including personal cars,
trucks or vehicles of any kind and total control over all highways, seaports, and
waterways.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10999
allows the government to take over all food resources and farms.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11000
allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government
supervision.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11001
allows the government to take over all health, education and welfare functions.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11002
designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11003
allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial
aircraft.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11004
allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new
housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new
locations for populations.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11005
allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways and public storage
facilities.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11051
specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives
authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased
international tensions and economic or financial crisis.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11310
grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive
Orders, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to
control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and
assist the President.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11049
assigns emergency preparedness function to federal departments and agencies,
consolidating 21 operative Executive Orders issued over a fifteen year period.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11921
allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish
control over the mechanisms of production and distribution, of energy sources,
wages, salaries, credit and the flow of money in U.S. financial institution in any
undefined national emergency. It also provides that when a state of emergency is
declared by the President, Congress cannot review the action for six months. The
Federal Emergency Management Agency has broad powers in every aspect of the
nation. General Frank Salzedo, chief of FEMA's Civil Security Division stated in a
1983 conference that he saw FEMA's role as a "new frontier in the protection of
individual and governmental leaders from assassination, and of civil and military
installations from sabotage and/or attack, as well as prevention of dissident groups
from gaining access to U.S. opinion, or a global audience in times of crisis."

National Security Act of 1947
allows for the strategic relocation of industries, services, government and other
essential economic activities, and to rationalize the requirements for manpower,
resources and production facilities.

1950 Defense Production Act
gives the President sweeping powers over all aspects of the economy.

Act of August 29, 1916
authorizes the Secretary of the Army, in time of war, to take possession of any
transportation system for transporting troops, material, or any other purpose related to
the emergency.

International Emergency Economic Powers Act
enables the President to seize the property of a foreign country or national. These
powers were transferred to FEMA in a sweeping consolidation in 1979.
^^They also list FEMA Camp locations.

**Apophis** · 08-01-2008, 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mentholated

You're both equally uninformed:

What conspiracy site did you copy and paste from?

A quick search and some actual first-person READING tells me your source might want to do a little fact checking.

Executive Order 10990 re-establishes the federal safety council.

Executive Order 10995 deals primarily with the government's use of the radio spectrum and telecommunications to make sure THEY were all on the same page and that there was some planning in the management of such.

If you keep reading the actual executive orders you can see that these "abridged" descriptions are not accurate at all.

07-31-2008, 11:34 PM	#422 (permalink)
Gillespie Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Colorado Springs, CO Posts: 1,067	Re: Ok, why do YOU hate the cops... When and which part(s) of the Constitution are they (the government as a whole and all the state and county police agencies) ignoring? I'm not insulting you by asking that, I simply want to explore your statement further. I am open to being educated (just ask Sordavie). And I'm bored and need something to mull over. __________________ <ArmA Information/SOPs> <ArmA Admin Team> <TG Req. Reading>

08-01-2008, 12:31 AM	#424 (permalink)
Atomic Dog Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Michigan Age: 31 Posts: 4,106	Re: Ok, why do YOU hate the cops... A police officers job is to enforce the law. If you're concerned about breaches of the constitution (i.e. the suspension of Habeus Corpus) take it up with your state representatives and demand they act on it. Don't put that burden on law enforcement. They're just enforcing laws that your elected representatives have chose for society. __________________ \| ArmA SOPs \| PCS SOPs \| TG Primer \| 4th Wiki \|

08-01-2008, 12:36 AM	#426 (permalink)
Atomic Dog Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Michigan Age: 31 Posts: 4,106	Re: Ok, why do YOU hate the cops... Nice try at the low-blow. I read your post, just didn't feel like editing mine... Note the times. Simu-posting FTL! __________________ \| ArmA SOPs \| PCS SOPs \| TG Primer \| 4th Wiki \|

08-01-2008, 12:44 AM	#429 (permalink)
Gillespie Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Colorado Springs, CO Posts: 1,067	Re: Ok, why do YOU hate the cops... Let me consider your post,Chris, and read up on the things you've discussed. I'll come back later. __________________ <ArmA Information/SOPs> <ArmA Admin Team> <TG Req. Reading>

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links