Federal air marshal rapes woman in Seattle

imported post

Then again, there are some in law enforcement, including myself, that do not really consider federal air marshals "law enforcement." So, bash away at the scumbag FAM.

However, please do count me in with those that consider the term "libtard" ridiculous in the extreme. Aside from the fact that use of such a silly word makes one appear uneducatedand prejudiced, there are those of us old enough to remember that until quite recently, it was the conservatives who supported the concept of cops as knowledgeable professionals when it came to firearms, and the so-called "liberals" (especially the young, radical "hippies," protesters, activists and other socialists) that railed against law enforcement as the armed minions of a tyrannical government. Anyone here recall the '60s and '70s?

imported post

Bo wrote:

Then again, there are some in law enforcement, including myself, that do not really consider federal air marshals "law enforcement." So, bash away at the scumbag FAM.

However, please do count me in with those that consider the term "libtard" ridiculous in the extreme. Aside from the fact that use of such a silly word makes one appear uneducatedand prejudiced, there are those of us old enough to remember that until quite recently, it was the conservatives who supported the concept of cops as knowledgeable professionals when it came to firearms, and the so-called "liberals" (especially the young, radical "hippies," protesters, activists and other socialists) that railed against law enforcement as the armed minions of a tyrannical government. Anyone here recall the '60s and '70s?

Click to expand...

Just QFT.

Born before the end of WW II, I definitely remember the '60s and '70s, and spent a bit of that time frame in 'Nam.

imported post

gogodawgs wrote:

Hank T,

I agree with you on your post above.

On the OP, while the topic technically falls within the rules, it is easy to see that it can move towards LEO bashing, not allowed.

The rules also ask us to police ourselves. I think that in this case that is what many have expressed on this topic.

Click to expand...

I would think if he broke the law, that would make him NOT a "Law Enforcement Officer".

imported post

Bo wrote:

However, please do count me in with those that consider the term "libtard" ridiculous in the extreme. Aside from the fact that use of such a silly word makes one appear uneducatedand prejudiced, there are those of us old enough to remember that until quite recently, it was the conservatives who supported the concept of cops as knowledgeable professionals when it came to firearms

Click to expand...

I'm fine with being considered prejudiced -- against those who would capriciously take our rights away without logical reasoning grounded in actual facts instead of emotional pablum. Sheeple, libtards, morons, etc etc... call them what you will.

Among people who would do that, the thought that only LE should have access to firearms is a standard talking point. I enjoy exposing such people to ridicule.

It is not and was not ever my intention to bash LE and in fact I absolutely support "the concept of cops as knowledgeable professionals when it came to firearms." Where did I say I didn't?

imported post

tai4de2 wrote:

I'm fine with being considered prejudiced -- against those who would capriciously take our rights away without logical reasoning grounded in actual facts instead of emotional pablum. Sheeple, libtards, morons, etc etc... call them what you will.

Among people who would do that, the thought that only LE should have access to firearms is a standard talking point. I enjoy exposing such people to ridicule.

Click to expand...

But your attempted association of the libtard talking point that only LE should have gunswith theheinous actions ofone LEO in a specific case is .....really strained.

It'sillogical. And very weak.

Torefute your supposed "ridicule," all a libtard would have to say is "I believe that only LE should have guns but that doesn't mean I support some wacko LEO who would rape some woman with it!"

You "expose" nothing.

Try to come up with something better to criticize the libtards with. Something more defensible.

imported post

BO

I fully agree on the libtard comments, it really does make the user *look* uneducated.

Who coined the term?>>> Could it have been a Shock Jock talking head who is payed to degrade a particular Party?!?!?!?

NO never... nothing like that would every happen.

And not from a talking head, that expects complete belief of their message and that their message be carried without question like a good little automaton.

The use of the term libtard is a perversion of the word "retard" which in and of its self is a derogatory term of "retardation", a mental handicap.

So in essence by the use of it you are degrading those with a mental handicap for political gain... Wow don't you all feel proud, having a poke at those with a handicap to make yourselves feel politically superior. Our ancestors would be proud of how "All men are created equal" is equated today.

How about Blind Sunset days? Where you take blind people out to watch the sunset?

Maybe go rearrange the furniture at the center for the blind?

Or taking the Deaf to a concert?

Not political enough? Let's take both to a political rally.

Now that we're having fun at the mentally handicapped expense there's no end to what we can do fo fun to make ourselves feel superior.

Congrats.

Yeah so it's a thread jack... It valid to the thread's content.

imported post

How can normal citizens be trusted with guns if the "heros" and "best of the best" of our society can't?

imported post

kwikrnu wrote:

How can normal citizens be trusted with guns if the "heros" and "best of the best" of our society can't?

Click to expand...

Spoken by one who's recent actions can only be described as bizarre.

To point out the obvious, every occupation and social group has its good and bad; its role models and oddballs; its heros and its idiots.

imported post

Citizen wrote:

All generalizations are bad.

Click to expand...

Including that generalization?

imported post

alienbogey wrote:

Citizen wrote:

All generalizations are bad.

Click to expand...

Including that generalization?

Click to expand...

I think that was Citizen's point, maybe.

MD

imported post

HankT wrote:

I comply with the rules of any discussion forum. It's the obvious correct thing to do. I likefollowing the rules of a forum. And it's always interesting to see those that do not slowly move toward being banned.Like CV6 most recently. Like S357 before him.

Click to expand...

Rules, rules, and more rules ... ... I think we are over-ruled today ! I beleive it is one reason america is in the state it is ... ... "too many rules"

How many times have you heard what I call the polite threat "We must be compliant or else"

You'll be banned ...

You'll lose you job ...

You'll get [incert whatever you like]



So many ruleslaw becomes misunderstood and unclear

So many rules you're not sure if you broke one or not.

imported post

Bersa.380 wrote:

HankT wrote:

I comply with the rules of any discussion forum. It's the obvious correct thing to do. I likefollowing the rules of a forum. And it's always interesting to see those that do not slowly move toward being banned.Like CV6 most recently. Like S357 before him.

Click to expand...

Rules, rules, and more rules ... ... I think we are over-ruled today ! I beleive it is one reason america is in the state it is ... ... "too many rules"

How many times have you heard what I call the polite threat "We must be compliant or else"

You'll be banned ...

You'll lose you job ...

You'll get [incert whatever you like]



So many ruleslaw becomes misunderstood and unclear

So many rules you're not sure if you broke one or not.

Click to expand...

Not many rules on OCDO. And they're easy to comply with.

I agree that at other places, as a general observation, that people make too many rules.

imported post

Federal agents......

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=-LIpAxjPt9U

imported post

Good point. Very simply valid.

But some people simply want to control a given forum with their rather whiny attempts at creating a politically correct environment that--surprise--doesn't talk about stuff they don't agree with

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Political Correctness was invented by liberals. It allows them to smear or silence any disagreement through shouting down their opponents and the banning of words and thoughts.

The fact is that Dems (liberals) are at the forefront of every Anti-gun legislative effort from 1886 onward and still are, because Liberalism needs coercion to operate. If you can't steal someone else's money through taxes or outlaw someone else's gun through legislation, you can't get anything done. Liberalism is a network of coercive, statist principals that naturally end up in seizing others property, telling others how to run their lives, playing one group off against another, etc. It is the pattern of Liberalism.

Though this board is highly PC toward certain concepts, I am surprised that Liberals would even visit.

imported post

Wheelgunner wrote:

Political Correctness was invented by liberals. It allows them to smear or silence any disagreement through shouting down their opponents and the banning of words and thoughts.

The fact is that Dems (liberals) are at the forefront of every Anti-gun legislative effort from 1886 onward and still are, because Liberalism needs coercion to operate. If you can't steal someone else's money through taxes or outlaw someone else's gun through legislation, you can't get anything done. Liberalism is a network of coercive, statist principals that naturally end up in seizing others property, telling others how to run their lives, playing one group off against another, etc. It is the pattern of Liberalism.

Though this board is highly PC toward certain concepts, I am surprised that Liberals would even visit.

Click to expand...

I should realize some people will never get it...Wheelgunner. As if the right know their as* from their head. You believe in a failed party just like Democrats believe in a failed party...two peas in a pod. I hope you enjoy that comfey seat on your political Titanic.

Since the only people I have seen sporting a commie flag is a bunch of Tea Partiers I question who is actually in the photo. You lose the arguement the second you start throwing commie flags and Hitler around...understandable given that's all you have left given reason was thrown out the window some time ago on your side and the Democrat side.


[align=left]**President Obama anti-gun agenda if you please, Wheelgunner?[/align]
[align=center]http://www.reformed-theology.org/html/issue11/dont_blame_liberals.htm[/align]
[align=center]Don’t Blame Liberals for Gun Control [/align]
[align=center]by Richard Poe[/align]
[align=left]
[font="Arial, Helvetica"]NEWSMAX.COM - [/font]Anti-gun crusaders seem worried about the advent of a Republican administration. Heaven knows why. Republicans, in recent years, have managed to do nearly as much damage to the Second Amendment as Democrats.[/align]
In 1969, journalist William Safire asked Richard Nixon what he thought about gun control. "Guns are an abomination," Nixon replied. According to Safire, Nixon went on to confess that, "Free from fear of gun owners' retaliation at the polls, he favored making handguns illegal and requiring licenses for hunting rifles."
It was President George Bush, Sr. who banned the import of "assault weapons" in 1989, and promoted the view that Americans should only be allowed to own weapons suitable for "sporting purposes."
It was Governor Ronald Reagan of California who signed the Mulford Act in 1967, "prohibiting the carrying of firearms on one's person or in a vehicle, in any public place or on any public street." The law was aimed at stopping the Black Panthers, but affected all gun owners.
Twenty-four years later, Reagan was still pushing gun control. "I support the Brady Bill," he said in a March 28, 1991 speech, "and I urge the Congress to enact it without further delay."
One of the most aggressive gun control advocates today is Republican mayor Rudolph Giuliani of New York City, whose administration sued 26 gun manufacturers in June 2000, and whose police commissioner, Howard Safir, proposed a nationwide plan for gun licensing, complete with yearly "safety" inspections.
Another Republican, New York State Governor George Pataki, on August 10, 2000, signed into law what The New York Times called "the nation’s strictest gun controls," a radical program mandating trigger locks, background checks at gun shows and "ballistic fingerprinting" of guns sold in the state. It also raised the legal age to buy a handgun to 21 and banned "assault weapons," the sale or possession of which would now be punishable by seven years in prison.
Gun control crusaders argue that the Republicans are simply yielding to grassroots pressure, to gain political advantage. But polls show little evidence of such pressure.
A Gallup/CNN/USA Today survey taken in June 1999 – only two months after the Littleton massacre – showed that the number of Americans who favored stricter gun laws had declined by 20 percent since 1990.
Public support for gun control has dwindled even further since then. An Associated Press poll released on the one-year anniversary of the Littleton shootings shows that Americans favor strict enforcement of existing laws over new gun laws – the exact position of the National Rifle Association (NRA) – by 42 to 33 percent.
That same month, a survey by the Pew Research Center showed that only 6 percent of Americans believed that tougher gun laws would prevent future school shootings.
Meanwhile, a Tarrance Group poll has shown that only 5 percent of Americans want gunmakers and gun dealers held responsible for misuse of firearms.
Clearly, the pressure for gun control is not coming from the grassroots. It comes from those layers of society that the left calls the "ruling classes" – academics, Hollywood stars, Washington insiders and multibillion-dollar media conglomerates.
The latter are particularly influential in pushing anti-gun propaganda. A study by the Media Research Center released in January 2000 showed that television news stories calling for stricter gun laws outnumbered those opposing such laws by a ratio of 10 to 1.
The blame for this media bias is traditionally assigned to "liberal journalists." And, indeed, most journalists do hold left-of-center views. A 1996 survey of working journalists by the Roper Center and the Freedom Forum showed that 89 percent had voted for Bill Clinton in 1992. Only 4 percent identified themselves as Republicans and only 2 percent as conservatives.
Yet, their "liberal" views probably have less impact on the media’s anti-gun bias than most people assume. Rank-and-file reporters have little power to influence the political spin even of their own stories.
When I worked at the New York Post in the mid-1980s, I found the newsroom filled with liberals. They grumbled constantly about the paper’s conservative slant. But they went along with it, because it was company policy.
Liberal news organizations are no different. Political bias comes from the top. Rank-and-file reporters simply do what they are told.
[align=left]Those of us who cherish our Second Amendment rights are keeping our fingers crossed about George W. Bush. But the monolithic commitment America’s "ruling classes" have shown toward gun control makes one wonder whether even a president is free to buck the current. [/align]
[align=left][/align]

imported post

Sylvia Plath wrote:

Wheelgunner wrote:

Political Correctness was invented by liberals. It allows them to smear or silence any disagreement through shouting down their opponents and the banning of words and thoughts.

The fact is that Dems (liberals) are at the forefront of every Anti-gun legislative effort from 1886 onward and still are, because Liberalism needs coercion to operate. If you can't steal someone else's money through taxes or outlaw someone else's gun through legislation, you can't get anything done. Liberalism is a network of coercive, statist principals that naturally end up in seizing others property, telling others how to run their lives, playing one group off against another, etc. It is the pattern of Liberalism.

Though this board is highly PC toward certain concepts, I am surprised that Liberals would even visit.

Click to expand...

I should realize some people will never get it...Wheelgunner. As if the right know their as* from their head. You believe in a failed party just like Democrats believe in a failed party...two peas in a pod. I hope you enjoy that comfey seat on your political Titanic.

Click to expand...

I just re-read Wheelgunner's post again, and I fail to see where he says he is a Republican or mentions conservatives.

He is talking about left-liberals, this is a discussion about left-liberals, and he pretty much nails it on the head when he speaks of it needing coercion to work.

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

Sylvia Plath wrote:

Wheelgunner wrote:

Political Correctness was invented by liberals. It allows them to smear or silence any disagreement through shouting down their opponents and the banning of words and thoughts.

The fact is that Dems (liberals) are at the forefront of every Anti-gun legislative effort from 1886 onward and still are, because Liberalism needs coercion to operate. If you can't steal someone else's money through taxes or outlaw someone else's gun through legislation, you can't get anything done. Liberalism is a network of coercive, statist principals that naturally end up in seizing others property, telling others how to run their lives, playing one group off against another, etc. It is the pattern of Liberalism.

Though this board is highly PC toward certain concepts, I am surprised that Liberals would even visit.

Click to expand...

I should realize some people will never get it...Wheelgunner. As if the right know their as* from their head. You believe in a failed party just like Democrats believe in a failed party...two peas in a pod. I hope you enjoy that comfey seat on your political Titanic.

Click to expand...

I just re-read Wheelgunner's post again, and I fail to see where he says he is a Republican or mentions conservatives.

He is talking about left-liberals, this is a discussion about left-liberals, and he pretty much nails it on the head when he speaks of it needing coercion to work.

Click to expand...

If Wheelgunner is anything than a Conservative by his comment I will be shocked. You may not be aware of this but Conservatives in general are Repubilcans. Well, some of them claim to be (I). Republicans are cut from the same cloth as Democrats, bot are parasites.

If Wheelgunner or anyone else on here doesn't think liberals or left leaning people should be on this chat then get a petition going on here and ban liberals

imported post

Sylvia has a intuitive point in this discussion. You must admit the truth and understand her point of view. I would recommend also that you be aware that the definition of the terms of the right left paradigm's are changing in our generation right now. The resulting definitions are many years away and are to a degree unknown. As the generation of baby boomers dies off the definitions will change to a degree.

I always tell people that I am a 18th Century Classical Liberal. Most of my Republican friends think that I am one of them, they are mistaken. Most of my Democrat friends think I am one of them, they are mistaken. Both think then that I must be a moderate, however, I am not in the middle on any issue. The best way to describe myself, is that I am a radical and an extremist. I have radical views on the issues, on some issues I am radically to the left and on another I am radically to the right. How can that be? Well most of you on this board understand because you also believe in personal liberty. I am radically in favor of personal liberty, even when it does not fit into the paradigm's box that currently exists in our political spectrum.

Now, if you don't understand what I just typed, I would suggest that you examine and open your mind. I will tell you this, it is difficult. I know.

imported post

When people ask me what party I associate with I tell them I don't. "But you have to pick a side if you want your vote to count!" they say.

WHAT? Hell no I don't!

I tell them I believe in the Constitution and vote for whoever supports it best, regardless of party.

imported post

The whole left and right thing is a joke. And so isthis fake idea we are supposed to be moderated somewhere in between? Tomahawk's point is right on though. Extreme leftist of China, Russia, Vietnam, Germany, (yes I consider them leftist), Cuba, Cambodiadid it all by coercion.

But when groups in U.S. resist this coercion they are labeled "extremist"?