I didn't think I 'switched back' to anything. It's been my position all along that the only one in the wrong was the cop, and that his behavior of not talking, while rude in normal society, is prudent, proper behavior when dealing with law enforcement, and the advice given by numerous high priced lawyers.

Part of living in a 'free' society is we must accept the restraints it puts on law enforcement, and the loss of some ability to keep us 'safe'. The founding fathers understood that clearly, and made sure it was clear they intended it to be that way. To paraphrase Franklin, 'those that would give up essential liberty for a little temporary 'safety' deserve neither'. In a free country, in the contest between a citizen's rights and law enforcement's ability to do their job, the citizen should always come out on top, even though that's more dangerous.

Is he really on the 'watch list'? Would that be just because he's an activist? If so, that kind of inclusion is exactly what's made the 'watch list' a bad joke rather than a real tool against terrorism.

Without people putting their freedom in jeopardy to do this kind of 'audit', an audit the cops unsurprisingly failed miserably, the right to not self incriminate (and many others) would be gone...these officers believed it already WAS gone because apparently no one had ever stood up to them before. The camera was necessary because without the proof of the entire interaction, he would NEVER have been released without charges. It sucks ass that we need people to do this, but obviously we do. If we didn't need this kind of public 'testing' (because the cops act properly), this video would be pretty boring and uninteresting.
That's why I don't see him or his behavior as being a 'tool'. Others make cops 'nervous' all the time, people without the resources and knowledge to come out of the situation on top who end up in jail for not breaking any law, but just making cops nervous just because of how they look, or because of their personality, or other factors beyond their control. Hopefully this public 'shaming' will stop others from being accosted over nothing.

I have seen a number of the skits from her show and while they often have something clever to them, they generally seem to lack a punchline. However, I find her entertaining in interviews (eg her appearance on Comedians in Cars).

So I thought maybe I just didn't care for her skits... Standup and sketch comedy are very different and being good at one doesn't mean you're any good at the other. A few weeks ago I found Women Who Kill on youtube and watched the whole thing. Amy was funny in that. Unfortunately, it's because she's basically performing Bonnie McFarlane's act.

I got to discover Marina Franklin, though, so that was a plus.

How dare you quote Ben Franklin.

Slavery is irrelevant to the plight of the black man today.

All people have equal chance at freedom for the last 50 years.


Most poor folks would rather take government handouts than lift themselves out of poverty. If I was in that position I suppose I would also take the handout.



Democratic policies and Democratic control of major cities have destroyed the black community


Out of the 10 poorest cities
Five cities have been led by Democrats for more than 45 years.
Two other cities, Miami, El Paso, have never had Republican mayors. Not ever.

Poverty
Rank City Democrat
Since
1 Detroit, MI 1961
2 Buffalo, NY 1954
3 Cincinnati, OH 1984
4 Cleveland, OH 1989
5 Miami, FL forever
6 St. Lewis, MO 1949
7 El Paso, TX forever
8 Milwaukee, WI 1908
9 Philadelphia, PA 1952
10 Newark, NJ 1907

Democratic policies and Democratic control of major cities have destroyed the black community.

If you want to help end racism and help black communities turn around then stop voting democrat.

"I think the best way of doing good to the poor is not making them easy in poverty but leading them or driving them out of it."
... Ben Franklin

Same thing to me.
Constitution based republic...according to Bob's definition that's a bit redundant.
Strong democratic tradition/tendencies = representative democracy (in my eyes). Not a true democracy, because the founding fathers did not trust the masses to get it right every time because masses are reactionary, but did trust those educated gentlemen they elected to do the right thing (a mistake, but understandable considering the morals of the time).
I did ignore the 'federal' part, but I thought it didn't need saying, since we were only talking about the federal government. Of course, our government is a confederation/federation of the states. An important part of that is the agreement by all that that rules of the federation always override the rules of the constituent parts.

Sure thing...I learned some new things from that book. For instance, Franklin was often carried in by prisoners (on a kind of early work release program) in a 'sedan chair'. Not the picture I have in my mind of him.

You're seemingly bothered by the semantic difference between "gives" and "grants" or "guarantees". Guarantees would have been a better word, but the idea that this is "indoctrination" in ...what exactly?...seems silly and totally reactionary.
Read "Miracle In Philadelphia", it gives a GREAT idea of what went on, along with tons of details mostly unknown.
EDIT: For instance, did you know that Ben Franklin was often carried in on a 'sedan chair' (or it's non-covered equivalent) carried by prisoners on 'work release'?!
While the bill of rights does use that wording, it's the government that secures those rights FOR you...or to say it another way, 'gives' you (security in them).
"Power", in the form of the continental congress, "Gave" you those rights (EDIT: by codifying them in our laws and our basic outline for government/governing). I say they are certainly NOT "god given inalienable rights" which is proven by the fact that many people do NOT have them around the world. If they were truly "god given inalienable rights", they could not be removed or ignored by anyone, could they?
It may be poor wording, but indoctrination? Come on. What are the Texas School Boards "history" text books then? Now THEY re-write history.

“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.” - Benjamin Franklin

You were warned.

But Americans would rather watch Fox News and be afraid of terrorists than curtail the rampant abuses perpetrated by police every day.

Number of people killed by Police in the US since 9/11 = 5,000, over 350 per year

Number of American civilians killed worldwide from Terrorist attacks in 2011 = 17

Yeah, give the cops more power and bigger guns.

I love that you always end your comments with your signature. That takes dedication.

-Benjamin Franklin

@ messenger-The solution lies in a combination of radical reform of policy, and that can only happen if people stop following the programming of the people who pay for elections firstly. Then, you educate the hell out of people at a grass-roots level of just how deep the rabbit hole goes i.e., the insidious cabal of those who would profit from incarcerating more and more people to prop-up their money-making scam of larger and stronger law enforcement infrastructure, the inhumane prison industry which is billions of dollars annually. Profiteers who breed future criminals in prisons, and ghettos. It takes people actually giving a fuck about their society instead of thinking that they are safe ans secure with more police.

YOU ARE NOT

Police are made-up of dangerous, self-loathing and damaged individuals who are recruited for the sole purpose of building the infrastructure I described with protecting and serving very, very low on their not-so-hidden agenda.

The power-keepers and their fanatical putsch should be glaringly obvious to anyone with a TV, the internet, and an I.Q. above 100.

"They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."-Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanac.

Heed the words of a brilliant statesman and thinker, and of similar, modern contemporaries.

I don't have much hope for it, I have expatriation written all over my forehead in big red letters. Hardly a place to go anymore, the entire world is jumping on board to the 'occupy everything with police and military' route.

Cops are criminals, plain and simple. Continue to believe to the contrary and watch how fast the shit gets non-linear.

@bmacs27: GOD I fucking hate when people use the word "CLEARLY!" CLEARLY this blah blah blah and CLEARLY...Stop it...makes you sound like a pretentious idiot.

Look-All this ineffectual spit-poppin' on this thread:

Guy goes to school to pick up his kids and is harassed by bullshit rules and bullshit police. SIMPLE

THAT'S COMPLETE BULLSHIT-HE GOD FUCKED UNDESERVEDLY


The incident is complete bullshit, and a symptom of the insanity of shit like homeland security that relentlessly inept citizenry (insert blog-bitcher here) have let complete agenda-oriented cabals of politicians and their keepers, hustle you for.

Didn't Ben Fucking Franklin warn that anyone who sacrifices freedom for security deserve neither??

Ya buncha fucking idiots...

I'm not saying Franklin is wrong, but the reality is that the definitions of liberty and security change over time and.its another example of trying to address a complex subject with a simplistic saying.

The founders were extremely intelligent and wise, but they aren't divine and they certainly can't predict the future.

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

― Benjamin Franklin, Memoirs of the life & writings of Benjamin Franklin

"Make the United States safer". Oh, ffs. Anyone else immediately think of Ben Franklin when you hear this bullshit line? I'll trade a 9/11 and a Boston bombing every decade for the governement staying the hell out of my phone and my computer. (Omg, am I starting to sound like goptea'er?). This crap that Obama spewed the other night, roughly "you can't have both 100% security and 100% privacy", is the ol' statue-of-liberty play. He's implying that these programs provide 100% security. You can dismiss everything he says after that because his premise is FALSE. You can dismiss everything he said before that as well, but that's another rant.

And Mika, you can't demand a "yes or no" answer when you just don't want to hear the explanation. There is a very good reason why you weren't paid as much as Joe, and you should thank your lucky stars they still let you read the intros. And stop with the huffing and tsk'ing and eyerolls. You're starting to look and sound llike one of those shrill FOX "analysts".

Willie, what a dumb question. Of course there is a difference between state secrets that do not inpinge on our freedoms and rights of privacy and those that do, you knob. Some would even say the ultimate purpose of maintaining state secrets is to assist in protecting the very American freedoms and rights that are being grossly abused by these programs. The difference between Manning and Snowden is that Manning exposed warcrimes and other abuses being committed on brown people, and Snowden exposed an invasive, Orwellian-level spying and data-mining infrastructure being used on Americans by our own government. So yeah, a little different. So what? Both heroes. And it infuriates me when our government goes after them and tries to paint them as treasonists. They have committed no crimes against America because the government is not America. It's straight-up self-preservation, and has nothing to do with protecting the citizens of this country and the tenets on which this country was founded. What Manning and Snowden did, however, does.

There was once a time when democracies around the world, whether imminent, new, or struggling, could look to the US for inspiration. Now, we could learn much today from a country like Turkey. They get it. It took a few whacks with police batons, and lots and lots of tear-gas, but they get it now. They get beat down, and get smarter and angrier. We just get dumber and dumber no matter what this government says or does.

“The IQ and the life expectancy of the average American recently passed each other in opposite directions.”
― George Carlin

“Go back to bed, America. Your government has figured out how it all transpired. Go back to bed, America. Your government is in control again. Here. Here's American Gladiators. Watch this, shut up. Go back to bed, America. Here is American Gladiators. Here is 56 channels of it! Watch these pituitary retards bang their fucking skulls together and congratulate you on living in the land of freedom. Here you go, America! You are free to do what we tell you! You are free to do what we tell you!”
― Bill Hicks

No, but absence of evidence is absence of evidence. Do I need more periods for that to make sense? Reports/leads. are. not. factual. evidence.
Are you suggesting that they should have had the right to invade any home or neighborhood that a tipster mentioned to them, because you seem to be. And you call me a nutjob? Hmmm.
To address your previous rant...
Because one person may have posed a danger to some does not suspend the rule of law, which requires EVIDENCE, not a guess, that there is actually 'imminent danger' of harm or destruction of evidence or escape...they could not have had that for random searches in Boston, if there were any.
I agree, your ignorance is embarrassing. Searching based on hunch or guess is unreasonable. Simple enough?
It's funny that you have apparently pegged me into some hole you dislike, because you know far less about me that we know about the bombers activities in the hour being discussed and have already made numerous quick false assumptions, but that's your prerogative.
I understand the fourth amendment, it has been widely interpreted by many. You seem to believe that anyone with a different interpretation from yours must be a brain dead idiot that needs a spanking. I simply feel that anyone that wants to freely give up the rights that many paid dearly to secure should instead move to somewhere that already governs the way they would like. They do exist, and I meant it about Australia, it seems great but it's not the USA.
edit: please don't take that as 'if you don't like it then get out!', it is a reasonable idea for those unhappy with the way the current system is working out, especially given the difficulty of changing it.
I take your argument to the logical conclusion, which is that if you think dangerous criminals in the area makes random searches legal, then you think the police may enter your home at any time, you have said nothing to dispute that, just called it dumb and BS. If one murderer is dangerous and worthy or house to house search, is another somehow not? Please explain and cite where the law draws the line.
Please attempt to make a rational argument and not a third grade name calling session. I made no flights from logic that I can see and freely stated I was commenting based on the 'facts' in the description, and did not resort to name calling.
Recall what one of the smartest founding fathers famously said (and quadrophonic kindly reminded me of) "Those that would sacrifice essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither." Benjamin Franklin

I don't see it that way, in my opinion US citizens are quite capable of using their intellect. The big problem I see is that your government doesn't seem to care anymore what the populace is for or against. Recently there was a new gun law that should be passed by the congress, I think you know which one I am talking about. The one 80% of the people were for and more than half of the congressmen voted for, which still didn't pass. It shows perfectly that the people aren't to blame, it's your out of touch politicians. It seems like there only are 2 principles you can count on from US politicians (or at least these are the reasons they tell the public), one would be the war on terror and the other the economy.

If you are interested in german politics, we are fighting our criminal mastermind-politicians quite effectively. The Bundespräsident (obviously not the Bundeskanzlerin) resigned in 2012 for some minor favors he had (like not having to pay for a hotel he was staying in while he was president). There was a giant out leash from the public and he quickly had to go (http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/02/17/german-president-christian-wulff-resigns-amid-scandal/).

But even more interesting, just yesterday there was a ruling by the highest german court, if the new terror-file used by our intelligence agency and the police was constitutional. It wasn't, so the judges had to change it. And the decision wasn't driven by the need to stop terror, but by german history. You see the problem is, our police and our intelligence agency are separated for historical reasons. When Hitler was just made chancellor of germany he used the Gestapo as an agency that was police and intelligence in one, to get rid of his political enemies.

I know that was very long, I just wanted to make my point using my own country as the best (or worst, depends on the view ) example there is for the world. Cause the world could still learn a thing or two from us, since we learned a thing or two from our last dictatorship and how to avoid it happening again (at least I really hope so).

Uh and since I love quotes, just recently I read this one "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin.