So, the Atlanta women who’ve been harassed and threatened for a year over doing their civil service job properly and 100% above board, proven on multiple cameras and verified by actual thorough investigations, no, WE should not “go after them”…YOU should not go after them. You need to stop this criminal right wing terrorism against innocent citizens, not do more.


Now- Tina Peters- SHE needs to be “gone after” by any citizen that can get their hands around her treasonous little chicken neck, don’t you agree? SHE is in hiding, under active investigation, fbi raids are occurring now looking for her and the data from the voting machines she tampered with, subverted the security on, and handed over to Trumpster criminals and anyone else who wanted to subvert democracy.

Of course, you aren’t ridiculously hypocritical, so you want to go after her and anyone helping her with everything we’ve got.

RIGHT!?

So this is it then. Personally I am glad that it turned out as it did since obviously everonye is still alive. That being said, if you ask yourself the question above and then back down like he did, you are likely not cut out for civil service while wearing a gun.
High standards, but that's the price of authority.

You know I won't click on your links since you sent me to that virus hosting site. How about name an instance and I'll investigate myself, I certainly won't trust your sources....especially when it comes from a Trump tweet. Get real, I expect another "professional opinion" like the doctor that supports hydroxy, and alien DNA in medicine, lizard people, and demon sperm as the cause of all gynecologic issues, not facts...he hates facts, they never agree with his uninformed opinion.....but he loves the uneducated, they'll believe his insane bullshit and never check for themselves.

HOLY FUCKING SHEEP SHIT YOU MORON.... I checked first then read it....it doesn't say this was fraud, much less democratic fraud, it makes no mention of political affiliation, but based on recent history chances are great that, if it's fraud, it's Republicans. How long were these few dead people dead before the election? Could they have been alive when the vote was mailed in? Doesn't say. How many cases are considered fraud by the election board? None I could see.

What it did say was many didn't receive their ballot in time to vote, or at all, because Trump and friends hobbled the mail services causing delays that suppressed thousands of votes. It also said most votes that were disqualified had issues with either the signature, something Trump claims isn't being checked, or the section for someone to deliver the ballot for the voter, something else he claimed isn't checked. Kinda blows his claim that fraud is rampant and unchecked when his evidence is the votes that didn't pass the checking they did of them. His solution, suppress tens of millions more votes. Evidence of Republican vote suppression, not democrats vote fraud.
A vote denied is a vote stolen.

This article actually makes the point that any possible vote by mail fraud will be caught, not that it's a problem.

This is Trump and friends interfering in the election by your estimation, Bob. If it's fraud because people didn't get their ballots, or they were delivered too late to count, and they didn't get them because the post office is slowing down at Trump's order, that's Trump and co. committing election fraud.

Not true, mail in ballots are exactly the same as absentee. There's never been a distinction made before this election. There are multiple states that have had universal mail in voting for decades.
There is no difference in the processes, despite what Trump and Fox have told you. They're liars, you know it. The only difference is you don't have to lie about your ability to get to a polling place with universal mail in voting. The article Trump had you link to proves it conclusively....those votes were disqualified because they did check signatures and more.
Trump's entire family votes mail in, even though they have no reason to. They're all registered in multiple states too....from what Trump says, that's proof they're committing vote fraud.

Lest you forget, the CDC stated unequivocally that mail in, not in person voting is the ONLY safe way to hold an election this year.
Lest you forget, Trump has said unequivocally that if every eligible voter voted, Republicans would disappear instantly. The ONLY way for Republicans to win is to disenfranchise millions of voters. That is why, when logic and reason say the post office should be expanding operations to prepare for weeks of high mailings, but instead they are cutting hours, removing 10%+ of their sorting capacity and removing an unknown number of mail collection boxes, already creating massive backlogs in normal mail service of weeks to months, making them incapable of fulfilling huge numbers of contracts they have which will cost them package delivery business they desperately need to survive when they should be ramping up. Only a brain dead slug can't see that's intentional, especially when Trump goes on TV and says it is, intentionally done to suppress the Democratic and independent vote because if they vote, he'll lose.

Trump refuses to fund even normal operation at the USPS because it would make delivering ballots easier.
You know he agreed to fund the post office, including money needed to greenlight universal mail in voting, if Democrats give him tens of billions for tax cuts and pet projects for himself, right? So, he's saying he will allow election fraud for a price? Or is it more likely he's willing to give up a dishonest and failing political ploy for a bribe?
You know this is tax payer money meant to fund civil services, right, not some handout? It seems you think funding essential civil services is a gift in your mind, not an obligation. So you'll stand behind Biden if he halts all funding for police and military until they get their act together, right? (Not that he plans any such thing, I'm making a point about your hypocrisy as a defense for intentional election disruption and massive voter suppression as a campaign strategy.)

The international community disagrees. When only 10% of votes are cast this election, the world will declare the election a fraud, so will 90% of Americans. Talk about dividing the nation for one man's gain. That's why we think you're Russian, Americans care more about the nation than their cult leaders.

The check and balance comes at registration, and again when the vote is counted....just like absentee votes. Trump is lying when he claims they aren't validated.

Trump disrupting mail service in any way possible to deny voters a chance to vote safely, also closing thousands of polling places (mostly in democratic leaning areas) from lack of staff IS election rigging....he has said specifically on television it is done to sway the election results by suppressing a majority of votes, leaving only the method he polls best with, unsafe in person voting which the CDC said clearly is a recipe for disaster and will kill people. He doesn't care a whit that hundreds more Americans will die and thousands be disabled because he forces them together to fulfill their civic duties, not his problem because he's mailing his vote in (so he has time to go golfing, watch TV, and tweet all day, not because he can't vote in person btw).

When the average cop lightens up on the public, I will lighten up on them...but not before.
I grew up having total respect for police, their repeated actions have caused me to reconsider that.
I do not respect liars or bullies, and I've never once met a cop that wasn't one or the other if not both.
If I leave my civil service job once a week or more to play around with my kids, using departmental equipment and authority, while complaining I need more assistance and overtime to complete my duties, I should be fired for dereliction, imo.
Cops have squandered their benefit of a doubt and public good will, they have to earn it back, not just demand it. It's the pessimism of reality that jaded me, personal experiences, not just internet reports of bad behavior.

*quality

Unbelievably, on some days and in some places, this is my very sad life.
And no, I'm not a lawyer.
I just have to live in a web of civil service nightmares sometimes.
Kafka knew what he was talking about.

Congratulations! Your video, QI - Being Outed In The Civil Service, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 33 Badge!

Your video, QI - Being Outed In The Civil Service, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

It is easy to call two 16 year old KIDS you don't know disgusting and depraved.

What they did is terribly wrong and they should be punished. The question is does the punishment fit the crime?

Personally I think we as a society would be better off if after their juvenile detention they were given an option at some sort of public service i.e. military or civil service that if performed adequately for a number of years would expunge their records and names from the registered sex offenders list. Give them some hope, make them learn a lesson, make them give back to the world/country.

When I was 16 I spent most nights playing Everquest and I never drank even when at a party... so these kinds of things didn't come up.

a civil service component that is nonmilitary isnt the worst idea, but he should formulate more complete thoughts and then make a speech .. and also go away

No one has the right to disobey a lawful order. You cannot have a rule of law that way. If it is an unlawful order, that is a different story. If you want to protest, you also have to be willing to take the heat, and to be civilly disobedient and risk arrest. What you're hoping for is to gain public support and enact some change in the mind of the public, which will hopefully led to a change in the system. That's the way it works. I don't buy that someones highfalutin ideals gives anyone the inherent right to defy the police. That's called anarchy. I feel the authorities here were not being entirely unfair, and did let them stay for a few days before asking them to leave. Why should people have the right to form impromptu tent cities and live in the public space for weeks on end? That's not a protest, that's called squatting.

I am speaking here of western style democracies. Totalitarian regimes are a different story. I believe God gives us certain inalliable rights, and if an authority is suppressing those rights, I believe we have right under God to transgress the earthly authority in those cases.

>> ^Kofi:
What you are saying is that if it is legal it is right. Legal positivism. If it is illegal then the police have the duty to respond with whatever power is within their means, not just what is appropriate.
Lets take that principle to its logical conclusion.
If the government says "You are not allowed to continue with the activity that you are doing. Therefore we are asserting our duty to protect the community at large and are going to forcefully prevent you from continuing in your unlawful act" Does this seem reasonable?
Google "Laws for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service"
This is the logical conclusion. What the protesters represent is a cause higher than that of the law. They are going about it in a peaceful manner with the minimal violation of laws and others rights (rights pertaining not to life, limb or property but of occupying public land. PUBLIC land).
If this is still unsatisfactory please ask why it is ok for police to do this and not ok for the lethal crackdowns we saw in Egypt, Syria, Yemen and Tunisia.
>> ^shinyblurry:
I'll preface this with the statement that I feel that police brutality is on the rise and unchecked power is never a good thing, however
This video is not shocking. What is shocking to me is that people seem to think they can defy the police and get away with it. They had no right to be there, and they were told to leave and refused to go. So therefore, the police had the right to use reasonable measures to force them to leave. Were some cops using more force than necessary here? Probably so, but the protesters made the conscious choice to resist which gives a police officer the right to use force at their discretion. If you are going to use civil disobedience as a protest, you should expect to be arrested. If you are going to openly defy the police, you should expect a response. In civil society there is a rule of law. I don't see why anyone is shocked at the police enforcing the law on people who are breaking it. It doesn't matter how peacefully they were protesting; their right to protest became null and void when they decided to refuse to obey a lawful order.

What you are saying is that if it is legal it is right. Legal positivism. If it is illegal then the police have the duty to respond with whatever power is within their means, not just what is appropriate.

Lets take that principle to its logical conclusion.

If the government says "You are not allowed to continue with the activity that you are doing. Therefore we are asserting our duty to protect the community at large and are going to forcefully prevent you from continuing in your unlawful act" Does this seem reasonable?

Google "Laws for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service"

This is the logical conclusion. What the protesters represent is a cause higher than that of the law. They are going about it in a peaceful manner with the minimal violation of laws and others rights (rights pertaining not to life, limb or property but of occupying public land. PUBLIC land).

If this is still unsatisfactory please ask why it is ok for police to do this and not ok for the lethal crackdowns we saw in Egypt, Syria, Yemen and Tunisia.

>> ^shinyblurry:

I'll preface this with the statement that I feel that police brutality is on the rise and unchecked power is never a good thing, however
This video is not shocking. What is shocking to me is that people seem to think they can defy the police and get away with it. They had no right to be there, and they were told to leave and refused to go. So therefore, the police had the right to use reasonable measures to force them to leave. Were some cops using more force than necessary here? Probably so, but the protesters made the conscious choice to resist which gives a police officer the right to use force at their discretion. If you are going to use civil disobedience as a protest, you should expect to be arrested. If you are going to openly defy the police, you should expect a response. In civil society there is a rule of law. I don't see why anyone is shocked at the police enforcing the law on people who are breaking it. It doesn't matter how peacefully they were protesting; their right to protest became null and void when they decided to refuse to obey a lawful order.

@dag, good point. Jury duty is also a civil service. I doubt voting should be considered a civil service. Still you bring up a good point.

I like the civil service idea. I'm pretty liberal, too and the idea of "picking and choosing" illegal immigrants to give loans that even some Americans are not capable of getting (didn't register with selective service, dishonorable discharge, etc) doesn't seem right to me.

However, I'm all for helping folks who want to live in this country to do so, thusly, to expedite her citizenship, a military term of enlistment (or similar program that I may be unaware of) would work out great in this case.

@Nordlich
You generalize to an extreme point of your own view. People elect officials who make the laws. Those officals can make whatever laws they want for years after they are elected without any input from the people... Sometimes we vote directly to constitutional amendments; however, this is rare and only a lot of money can get the amendment to the ballot anyways. Secondly, you not respecting is fine so long as you deal with the consequences should a dispute arise. Society has been around before you, and it will be around after only because it follows laws as a whole.
Oh--and if you truly do not respect authority, then you do not respect the 1st amendment. And since you do not respect authority, you must love the cop because he did not respect those in authority over him--those who wrote his laws! Is Mr. No Respect Copperson your hero?

@Crosswords
You do realize he did not "get away with something so blatant as that," right? A ten day suspension (In law enforcement) is not getting off scot-free as you imply. It may seem like a slap on the hand, but even that is a weak assessment. Every termination in Civil Service takes three things, time, progressive discipline and documentation, or sans that, a lawsuits will follow and the wrongfully terminated cop, even at fault, will sue and win and the taxpayer will be left with the liability. A teacher with tenure is just as equally protected as law enforcement and most other jobs do not have cameras to catch people in the first place so that point is mute. What you should have said is that only a cop deals with people every day and because of that environment, would attempt something so blatant and dumb.

Out of the millions of cumulative hours law enforcement work --actually billions probably--constantly around criminals, I would say that the percentage of incidents is darn good... Yes, there are some mental cops, childish cops, arrogant cops... And yes, I am glad they have cameras and that the cameras are subject to public record. I just wish people would stop foaming at the mouth and scapegoating the good cops because of the bad cops. The average citizen is far worse than the average law enforcement official in my personal experience.

Lastly, I love how this guy is suing the taxpayers... The department seems to have laws against what the officer did and since they offically disciplined him, looks like Suer Mc Suerson won't get a dime from them... Still, they will probably settle out of court because that is cheaper for corporations and departments... I would not disagree with suing the cop himself... but, that's another debate.

The "police civil service board" re-instated Wiley Willis (the arresting cop) today with full back pay based on a "technicality". It appears a polygraph test was not properly reported and the claim was made that Willis' "bill of rights" had been violated. Based on this the cop was given his job back and all back pay since he was terminated.
http://www.ktbs.com/news/officer-with-garbarino-the-night-she-was-injured-wins-reinstatement/

now how fucked up is that?!
the "good-old-boy" network is alive and well in this southern town.