Has everything to do with NATO creep.

As usual you are just using leftest talking points.

NATO was created to keep Communist Russia in check. Russia is no longer Communist.

Also Putin asked to be enter into NATO but was turned down. -- Guess America need an enemy for feed the military industrial complex.

In Communist Russia, Snow Shovel You.

What, too soon?

First, regarding your statement and this video, it's not a matter of "that cop should act perfectly." It's more that the officer had no reason to handcuff a guy who is not a threat has already been searched and is sitting there doing nothing.

But in general, the bigger problem is not with this specific cop's actions; it's that this kind of behavior is indicative of a systematic problem in law enforcement and society's lack of concern for how their abuse of power is not being kept in check. It's becoming more and more acceptable for police to separate individuals from their civil rights and with less and less reason, motivation, or consequences.

The explanation is really not just that "Hey, cops are human, bro. They totally make mistakes. They can't all negotiate perfectly. They can't all have compassion. They aren't all like super-patient. They can't all only shoot guilty people." That's quite a bit of a naive opinion.

The issue is that cops are no longer just making mistakes and bad judgement calls. At least that kind of thing could be chalked up to human error or inadequate training.

They're now intentionally deciding to do things to people they know they really have no legal explanation for and that they will face no consequences for.

If you're really defending that, then what you're really saying is cops should be able to do whatever they want, to whomever they want, whenever they want, just because they want to, and everyone else should shut up and take it because everything any cop does is acceptable because of the very fact that they're a cop. And besides, it's not going to happen to "the vast majority of people," so who cares, right?

Bullshit. Maybe in communist Russia or China, but not in the land of the "free."

Hey stupids, you're not in America. In communist Russia, cops can and will fuck your shit up, even with cameras and an audience.

Don't put your head in an alligator's mouth then be surprised when it bites down.

Just noticed your postes wern't private, thought I'd post my reply.

LOL I concede I am an ape!

This is long but addresses many of your questions I think. Also your assumption on my thinking was correct...can't remember what it was but I agree.

now on to the LONG post.

A) Willpower while it has limitations, it is not Limited to a finite value. Just ask any smoker who has quit. Or, a recovering alcoholic.

B) Repeat criminals do not appear to have willpower issues, they make conscious decisions to defy the law, and ether justify it to themselves or simply have contempt for the law. Some may feel the law is wrong or simply does not apply to them.

C) If all it took for a human being to lose their humanity, self respect, morality and honor was to be at the losing end of life why have we not seen a violent uprising of the homeless and downtrodden. The addicts who HAVE lost everything and wander the streets trying to survive would therefore be the most justified to go on a rampage would they not?

D) As for American laws relating to firearms, I am a Canadian and therefore will not argue those laws, as I have little knowledge in that area.
As for Canada, the process of licensing requires a full background check, questioning of witnesses towards your character and ultimately is up to the discression of the license issuer, as I mentioned before.

Are there flaws? Yes. But that is a result of the system. Ideally the system would prevent or remove firearms from any individual before violence occurs. However in order for that system to function flawlessly one must live in a system similar to Communist Russia during Stalins reign. Where every action or spoken word is monitored and reported to the government, by agents, or even by family.

Canadian restrictions to licensing are as stringent as the LAW curently allows them to be without infringing ( too much) on an individual's rights.

E) A piece of plastic does not guarantee the holder to be law abiding. However, the process involved to acquire said item does involve scrutiny. And the desire to legally go through that process as opposed to acquiring firearms illegally and with much less effort does say something towards the individuals intentions.

F) Firearms training and safety cources do indeed instill responsibility, confidence in the use, and the safe possession of firearms. Personally I believe everyone eligible should be trained in the safe responsible use of firearms. Whether they choose to own or not. ( we have sex Ed in school, why not gun Ed )

G) As for F*** heads, they will always be F**** heads. One purpose of licensing is to prevent them from acquiring firearms legaly. Thankfully most of humanity does not fit into this category. ( however they do seem to be breeding at an alarming rate)

H) As for the Katana, not only was it a weapon, it was a symbol of honor for samurai and was passed down through generations with a reverence bordering on a relic. Spend time and look up the 7 virtues of the Bushido code.

Regarding Nukes, while their application is abhorrent to any rational human, think about how many were actually used for their intended purpose. TWO!, out of how many thousands. And both were released by human hands. Possession does not equate to application.

I) Yes firearms were designed for military use, but for us to cover everything we use in our lives that started out or were improved by the military (essentially to make it easier to kill the enemy) would require more effort and space than is practical in an Internet disscussion.

J) The legitimate use of firearms.
The big Taboo, Killing:
The military uses firearms, and other tools to kill the enemy. This enemy is defined by the state who are elected officials. I won't go into depth as to why, as that is best served by a political debate. Suffice it to say that guns could be perceived to actually combat evil.

Hunting: another form of killing, however for most, the game is hunted as a food source. The only distinction I make between wild game, and beef in the store is who does the killing ( and I could use a uphenism for the word kill, but let's call a a spade a spade )(also keep in mind hunters are the leaders in protecting the ecology, ducks unlimmited was and is a group of hunters)

Defense: when another human desires you harm what recourse do you have? You can try to run, try to hide, hope you don't get caught. Call the athorities (provided it is not them who desire you harm) and hope they arrive in time, or fight back. Should you fight back, hopefully you are more powerfull than your attacker, or that they do not have a weapon of some kind.

Simply the presence of a firearm in a potential victims hands, can dissuade an nefarious individual from attempting an attack. Should that fail, and you need to shoot, I would much rather the criminal be injured or killed than myself or a loved one.

Sporting use: primarily enjoyment, competitions, black powder heritage days and cowboy action shoots promote an awareness of history and promote thought on how life was in days gone by.

Bonding: the passing of knowledge between two individuals engaged in an activity both find enjoyable. In the case of parent/child, or mentor/student, the teaching of the responsibilities of firearm use and the skills involved is important. If more people knew how to safely handle/store firearms, accidental deaths would be greatly reduced.


In closing, while I applaud the idealistic and utopic view that any form of killing is wrong and can/should be prevented, this is simply not the way life works.

Trying to persuade others to view the world as you do is the essence of debating, however, forcing your ideals upon another human being is the essence of tyranny. Irregardless of how honorable the intentions

So if you read all that I thank you! I'm prepared to say we agree to dissagree and leave it at that but I'm open to more dialog if you wish.

I wish you lived in my area so I could take you to the range to see first hand what it's all about.

Big Ape signing off

They tried that in communist Russia and it didn't work out very well

>> ^dag:

Is nothing sacred?!!
That's the point.
>> ^shinyblurry:
I'm not defending the mormon church, I am just commenting that the level of discourse in society is at an all time low, that this is socially acceptable. Obviously it isn't a winning issue with videosift, but I think that its wrong to treat people this way.
>> ^UsesProzac

What is so fucking hard about saying "I don't know."

The dilemma for you is, if you don't know, then how can you say that I don't know either? You assume that I don't, because you don't (and perhaps you assume that I can't). Obviously, it would be a trivial thing for God to reveal Himself to me in such a way as that I could know it, and Him, for certain. You seem rather closed minded to the idea for someone who doesn't know.

You want to believe in a creator? more power to you. I got zero problem with that. The problem comes when we have people of different faiths or non-faiths. We all have to live together on this mudball. So when a faith tries to claim moral authority, it tends to end in tears and bloodshed.

Bloodshed comes when evil men seize power over others and use something like religion as a pretense. Men have never been short of excuses for killing. Millions of Christians were exterminated under the atheistic state in communist Russia. The problem is when men claim moral authority and are a law unto themselves, instead of submitting to the God from whence all law and authority is derived.

Being a moral person is simple survival 101. I have a better chance of survival if I work together with people instead of against them. We can all do more, be more productive, and live happier lives if we're all healthy. We live happier, more productive lives if we don't steal from or kill each other.

There's your basic morality right there and it did not require god. It's that simple people.

Some people feel it is happier and more productive to steal from or kill each other. Who is right?

Scripture says that God has written His laws on our hearts. Everyone has a conscience that tells them right from wrong. Even psychopaths know right from wrong, they just ignore it.

I won't say god is dead however, BECAUSE I DON'T FUCKING KNOW! I don't have any grand insights into the inner workings of creation and what created life, the universe, and everything so I simply can't say and neither can you because in that regard, you're just like me.

I can't tell you how God did it, exactly, but I know that He is. I can tell you that because He has revealed Himself to me, personally. God gives revelation of His existence to anyone who wants to know Him. To those whose minds and hearts are closed to all the ways He tries to reach them, He keeps knocking, but it is their choice ultimately to open the door.

Revelation 3:20

Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me.

You could know God, but the question is, why don't you want to? Ask yourself why you are keeping that door shut.

>> ^VoodooV:

In Communist Russia... Lake tow car...? I don't know. I give up.

In communist Russia, dog walks YOU!

>> ^smooman:

one step closer to a police state?
shut
the
fuck
up
spend some time in china, laos, iran, or (to a lesser extent) russia, or get yerself a time travel machine, head back to italy or germany leading up to wwii or communist russia. compare them with us and tell me how close we are to a police state stupid fuck

Your lung cancer is bad?


shut

the

fuck

up

Spend some time with testicular cancer, brain cancer, prostate cancer, renal cancer, or (to a lesser extent) Leukemia, or get yerself a time travel machine, head back to the 1340s for some Black Death or the 1980s for AIDS. Compare them with your lung cancer and tell me how bad you have it, stupid fuck.

See how dumb that sounds?

>> ^smooman:

one step closer to a police state?
shut
the
fuck
up
spend some time in china, laos, iran, or (to a lesser extent) russia, or get yerself a time travel machine, head back to italy or germany leading up to wwii or communist russia. compare them with us and tell me how close we are to a police state stupid fuck


How much time did you spend in China, Laos, Iran or Russia? Just curious.

>> ^smooman:

one step closer to a police state?
shut
the
fuck
up
spend some time in china, laos, iran, or (to a lesser extent) russia, or get yerself a time travel machine, head back to italy or germany leading up to wwii or communist russia. compare them with us and tell me how close we are to a police state stupid fuck


Yeah, you maybe right surely not a POLICE state; but how about a CORPORATE state?

http://www.alternet.org/story/148202/disney,_chevron_and_monsanto_contracted_with_blackwater_for_intelligence,_training_and_security_services

one step closer to a police state?

shut

the

fuck

up

spend some time in china, laos, iran, or (to a lesser extent) russia, or get yerself a time travel machine, head back to italy or germany leading up to wwii or communist russia. compare them with us and tell me how close we are to a police state stupid fuck

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Thanks - that was an interesting debate. I have to admit that I found myself agreeing a lot more with Horowitz than Albert. Participatory Economics is a snazzy title - but reads like a rebadging of a planned economy. This line by Albert, in particular pushed me firmly into the Horowitz camp:

"You are correct in one thing here. I am a market abolitionist. I believe markets are an abomination, perhaps the single worst artifact of human creativity." With that, he just drove over the cliff to loo-loo land, for me.

>> ^qualm:

>> ^dag:
Don't get me wrong- Communism as a philosophy had a lot going for it- but in practice, as a government --- complete shit.
I suspect the same would be true if we ever got a Libertarian government. Neither philosophy takes into account the human ability to fuck up nice ideas.

Sort of, dag. The first project of the bolsheviks after their revolution was to begin attacking and dismantling the spontaneously created communal/communist democratic farms and gardens, pig iron smelters etc. That wasn't a part of Karl Marx.
I like this - it's very funny in parts: http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/zdebatehorowitz.htm
http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/zdebatehorowitz.htm
Michael Albert debates David Horowitz about Socialism
The question: 'Is Socialism Still on the Agenda?' was put by the New Left Review in 2001. Michael Albert wrote an essay, and a debate ensued between Albert and some other left commentators on the subject. Months later, Horowitz discovered the essay and wrote a brief note to Albert. An extended many-part email debate ensued, that ended up being about participatory economics. What follows below is that exchange...
Re That poster of the Russian octopus: There are old maps from the 50's out there which without irony depict the land mass of communist Russia and China collectively as a very large definite octopus shape, the rest of the land cowering. One for every school...