View Full Version : Now for this I will protest.....
gimmethesimplelife
8-25-17, 9:46pm
Just came home and found out that Trump pardoned Arpaio. I am beyond mortified and so ashamed. This time however, I don't care how dangerous or risky it is, or if I lose money that I could make working banquets....this is just wrong and I can't live with myself this time if I don't protest. There are a number of messages on my phone....once I am done with this post I will check my messages - probably some are in regards to protests over the pardon I am guessing. Count me in. I didn't marry a Mexican national for nothing - count me in!!! (or as Hillary Clinton said more than once: DEAL ME IN!) Rob
I'm sure you can't read this, but it sure doesn't take much to get you going. Also not sure what marrying a Mexican national has to do with anything.
Why haven't you moved to Mexico yet. I know you use your mother as a excuse, but Mexico is not that far. Wouldn't taking her with you be the thing to do.
flowerseverywhere
8-27-17, 9:56am
So how is the situation going? I have been reading a lot about Arpaio and his actions through the years.
One editorial i read said said it was setting a precedent for Trump to pardon his buddies, family and even himself.
Some of of the cases I read about include mentally ill people, and many dying in custody.
ApatheticNoMore
8-27-17, 10:52am
I know you use your mother as a excuse, but Mexico is not that far. Wouldn't taking her with you be the thing to do.
it kind of depends on if she even wants to move to Mexico doesn't it? Because otherwise no, of course no.
So how is the situation going? I have been reading a lot about Arpaio and his actions through the years.
One editorial i read said said it was setting a precedent for Trump to pardon his buddies, family and even himself.
Some of of the cases I read about include mentally ill people, and many dying in custody.
One of his worst actions, IMO, is the failure to investigate sex assault crimes, including those against children, in a town in his jurisdiction. Instead, monies and labor were redirected to his continued arrests of undocumented immigrants for the sole crime of being here illegally. That is not a county sheriff's job, and despite being ordered by a federal judge to stop, he continued.
$20 Million+ taxpayer dollars later, here we are.
He's 85 years old, and my understanding is his max term would have been 6 months in prison. One letter to the editor in today's paper said the silver lining is that "Granting and acceptance of a presidential pardon is an implied admission of guilt." (Burdick v. United States, 1915).
So despite escaping incarceration, he cannot claim innocence.
I hope he's buried in civil suits.
He and his brutal squad of goons should have been stopped years ago, before they systematically terrorized thousands of people. And please don't call him "Sheriff Joe." That makes him sound like some kindly. avuncular figure from Mayberry. He was a vicious criminal with absolutely no regard for the rule of law or human life.
That makes him sound like some kindly. avuncular figure from Mayberry. He was a vicious criminal with absolutely no regard for the rule of law or human life.
The voters seemed to like Sheriff Joe. They kept him in office a lot of years. Was it a case of the feds refusing to control the border and the locals stepping in, however brutally? If he was a monster, he seems to have been a popular monster for quite a long time.
Read some Stephen King, we like a lot of monsters. He reminds me of the character in under the dome
The voters seemed to like Sheriff Joe. They kept him in office a lot of years. Was it a case of the feds refusing to control the border and the locals stepping in, however brutally? If he was a monster, he seems to have been a popular monster for quite a long time.
I guess oppression, rape, and systematic police brutality don't bother some people.
I guess oppression, rape, and systematic police brutality don't bother some people.
At least a majority of Maricopa County voters. Is there that much fear (justified or unjustified) of illegals there that they applied the omelet theory of law enforcement for twenty-odd years?
At least a majority of Maricopa County voters. Is there that much fear (justified or unjustified) of illegals there that they applied the omelet theory of law enforcement for twenty-odd years?
We simply have a hard-core set of voters - citizens who vote in every election - that will vote straight R no matter what. Even experienced law enforcement professionals who campaigned and/or ran against him, laying out the facts of what was really happening, didn't seem to sway these voters. I sincerely wish those who blindly kept voting for Arpaio would now shoulder the burden of paying the $20 Million in costs for his trial and judicial settlements and let those of us who never voted for him keep that tax money.
To me the moral of this debacle is that a sheriff of a county of 4.2 million people needs to be an appointed position, not an elected one.
To me the moral of this debacle is that a sheriff of a county of 4.2 million people needs to be an appointed position, not an elected one.
Probably the wrong take-away.
Sheriffs in the USA are typically elected positions, partially to establish an independent check over the power of local government, responsible directly to the people. Removing this would be unwise, it seems to me - having a County Council appoint a Sheriff would make the Sheriff part of the problem.
We had a problem with our last Sheriff. One year later, we had a new Sheriff in town as the result of an election. The entire tone and focus of a Sheriff's Department can be changed with a single election.
And then.....Ontario has its provincial police who may not be perfect but cannot be controlled by a political party with any ease. They simply obey the law as it is written. It has boggled my mind to have an elected officerl to enforce the law but I know that in many cases it has worked out very well in the US. Just saying....
And then.....Ontario has its provincial police who may not be perfect but cannot be controlled by a political party with any ease. They simply obey the law as it is written. It has boggled my mind to have an elected officerl to enforce the law but I know that in many cases it has worked out very well in the US. Just saying....
The US has an interesting system of overlapping jurisdictions. For instance, Maricopa County in Arizona is *huge*. 9224 sq. miles. That's about the size of Rwanda, or Macedonia. Within Maricopa County, are some major cities: Phoenix, Scottsdale, Chandler for example. Those cities can, and do, have their own police departments, with primary jurisdiction in their incorporated area.
Sheriffs typically handle law enforcement in the hinterlands, the low-population rural areas. They also serve the County Court in some functions. Small towns in rural areas often choose to contract with the Sheriff to provide primary law enforcement functions in their area, rather than trying to set up their own small department.
My County has a Sheriff, with a handful of officers. The one incorporated town in the County is quite small, and has had no interest in developing their own law enforcement arm. As a result, our Sheriff is responsible for the entire county, and also runs the Dispatch Center, which multiple agencies contract out to to handle our calls.
I am an elected official in my area of the County, and the district I am responsible for has the legal power to create our own police force, but we also have decided that would be a poor use of funds and time.
Does sound much more complex than I imagined. Thanks for the clarification. Our community did have a regional police service but chose to go the provincial police route with many of the regional officers incorporated into the provincial system. Either way the municipality's pension liabilities and members' benefits were covered both ways for the police.
At least a majority of Maricopa County voters. Is there that much fear (justified or unjustified) of illegals there that they applied the omelet theory of law enforcement for twenty-odd years?
I'd question whether it's fear or simply hatred.
To me the moral of this debacle is that a sheriff of a county of 4.2 million people needs to be an appointed position, not an elected one.
Because some things are too important to trust to the voters?
Because appointments, say to the Supreme Court, are made in a wise and apolitical fashion?
I'd question whether it's fear or simply hatred.
I think the one often leads to the other. But I don't think you can chalk it up to simple racism. I also think a guy like this doesn't come out of a vacuum. He comes to power because people believed the federal government was indifferent to the consequences of an uncontrolled border for various reasons, and unwilling to act.
Because some things are too important to trust to the voters?
Because appointments, say to the Supreme Court, are made in a wise and apolitical fashion?
Because these positions need to be filled by professionals, not by an ideologue pandering to the most fearful of our society.
I'd suggest it happen in the same way that Arizona state judges are selected: they are not elected. Their peers in the legal community nominate them, or you as an attorney can nominate yourself, for an opening. A judicial commission, again comprised of highly knowledgeable and experienced professionals, then forwards names of finalists to the governor for his or her selection. Judges are then appointed, although once in their position, they are then on the ballot for voters to re-appoint them or not.
AZ Judges do not have to pander to anyone because they do not have to campaign for election or re-election. Using this system has resulted in our state judiciary being composed of very good judges, which of course makes them a target of our Republican legislature because they will not lay down and do their bidding.
I think the one often leads to the other. But I don't think you can chalk it up to simple racism. I also think a guy like this doesn't come out of a vacuum. He comes to power because people believed the federal government was indifferent to the consequences of an uncontrolled border for various reasons, and unwilling to act.
The rise in Arpaio's popularity correlated directly with the beginning of the 2010/2011 recession. Originally Arpaio said he would not use resources to pursue undocumented immigrants who had not committed any crimes but because a scapegoat was needed for the economic downturn and the anti-immigrant voices were so vocal, he quickly realized the popularity of this pursuit.
And btw, President Obama had the highest number of border guards to date, so the federal government was not "unwilling to act." The biggest challenge is the lack of prosecution of employers who hire these people, most of whom turn a blind eye to their status but they remain unafraid of consequences because no one wants to challenge big business.
The biggest challenge is the lack of prosecution of employers who hire these people, most of whom turn a blind eye to their status but they remain unafraid of consequences because no one wants to challenge big business.
I would agree with this completely. SO is an HR director for a mega hotel corp. A couple years ago they purchased a hotel from a much smaller hotel company. When transitioning the employees he had to fire 3/4 of the kitchen staff because their documents were fake. His company is big enough and high profile enough that it would matter if it was in the news that they had undocumented workers. The previous owners of the hotel, not so much.
Because these positions need to be filled by professionals, not by an ideologue pandering to the most fearful of our society.
I'd suggest it happen in the same way that Arizona state judges are selected: they are not elected. Their peers in the legal community nominate them, or you as an attorney can nominate yourself, for an opening. A judicial commission, again comprised of highly knowledgeable and experienced professionals, then forwards names of finalists to the governor for his or her selection. Judges are then appointed, although once in their position, they are then on the ballot for voters to re-appoint them or not.
AZ Judges do not have to pander to anyone because they do not have to campaign for election or re-election. Using this system has resulted in our state judiciary being composed of very good judges, which of course makes them a target of our Republican legislature because they will not lay down and do their bidding.
Appointing officials merely involves substituting one type of politics for another and one type of accountability for another.
The rise in Arpaio's popularity correlated directly with the beginning of the 2010/2011 recession. Originally Arpaio said he would not use resources to pursue undocumented immigrants who had not committed any crimes but because a scapegoat was needed for the economic downturn and the anti-immigrant voices were so vocal, he quickly realized the popularity of this pursuit.
And btw, President Obama had the highest number of border guards to date, so the federal government was not "unwilling to act." The biggest challenge is the lack of prosecution of employers who hire these people, most of whom turn a blind eye to their status but they remain unafraid of consequences because no one wants to challenge big business.
I don't buy the "its the racism, stupid" line of argument. The voters were returning the guy to office long before 2010. They wouldn't be doing so if they were happy with the federal response.
I do agree that there should be stricter enforcement of checking immigration status at the time of hire. That alone would probably be all the wall we need.
I really think that making the immigration process reasonable and easier would be a huge step, but that doesn't seem as popular as other options. My 2 Canadian friends had a huge process to move here even married to US citizens and speaking the language. Especially since people are obviously willing to work!
Without immigrants, we'd be losing population. Most of our undocumented are hard working people without benefits or protection. I read about an oncology nurse with 20 years of experience--and with children who were born here--deported. So much for only kicking out lawbreakers. We should think about having a robust guest worker program, at the very least. Our current "plan" is cruel and short-sighted.
I read about an oncology nurse with 20 years of experience--and with children who were born here--deported. So much for only kicking out lawbreakers.
I wonder why the nurse didn't go through the legal process to prevent this?
I recall a member here some years ago was deported from Australia, or maybe it was New Zealand. It seems that lots of countries require immigrants to do it properly.
So much for only kicking out lawbreakers.
Isn't anyone here illegally a lawbreaker by definition? Apart from immigration law, living and working here for many years would seem to require an ongoing program of fraud and identity theft.
I can understand feeling sympathy for a person currently in a bad position due to their earlier choice to come here in contempt of our laws, but at what point should sympathy outweigh the rule of law?
The Rule of Law is apparently quite elastic. Just ask "Sheriff Joe."
I agree we need immigration reform badly. I remember reading that back in the 50s there was a guest worker program that many Mexican farm workers used to come and go into the US to work seasonally here. I have no clue if there is anything of that sort in effect now.
I have no problem with immigrants. It's the illegal part I have issue with. These people are knowingly breaking the law. Why shouldn't they be dealt with? Mexico, for example, probably wouldn't take kindly to folks from the US just crossing their border without the formalities being dealt with. Why should the US be expected to bend get backwards for people here illegally? It's not like they're refugees.
gimmethesimplelife
8-31-17, 3:21pm
So how is the situation going? I have been reading a lot about Arpaio and his actions through the years.
One editorial i read said said it was setting a precedent for Trump to pardon his buddies, family and even himself.
Some of of the cases I read about include mentally ill people, and many dying in custody.Hi, Flowerseverywhere!
I've been to two protests since the pardon, the first went OK and was mostly peaceful, the second not so great.....the police seemed hell bent on playing to stereotype and things were moving towards escalation but of course all this is on smartphone video. One cop was screaming at a protester to stop the filming and the protestor begged the cop to continue with his illegal behavior so that she'd never have to work again and could devote her life to curbing police power. Another cop swooped in after this young woman's remark and said something to the power tripping cop who turned red and seemed very mad but quickly moved on. I'm guessing the cop was told that there were multiple sources of video and that his behavior was pushing the line and fodder for liberal media outlets, plus potential litigation for lying to young woman in regards to the legality of filming the police to begin with?
At any rate, right now things are tense but yet strangely subdued in the 85006 - a very heavily Hispanic area for which this pardon was a direct blow to the gut. Hope has arrived in the guise of a judge in Maricopa County raising issues in regards to this pardon - I'm hoping Bae can explain it better than I can, or I can come back later today when I have time to read the story quietly in saner surroundings (am at the Convention Center about to go back to work) and post the contents of the story. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
8-31-17, 3:24pm
The Rule of Law is apparently quite elastic. Just ask "Sheriff Joe."BINGO! DIRECT SCORE for common sense! Laconic but yet gets the point across very well. Rob
Teacher Terry
8-31-17, 3:38pm
People come here from Mexico because they do not have enough jobs and they are living in poverty. Also they do jobs that Americans do not want to do. We would have a labor shortage without them. They are desperate people wanting to feed their families. Easy to say come the right way when you are not the one with hungry kids.
People come here from Mexico because they do not have enough jobs and they are living in poverty. Also they do jobs that Americans do not want to do. We would have a labor shortage without them. They are desperate people wanting to feed their families. Easy to say come the right way when you are not the one with hungry kids.
And I think 20-some years ago, when many of our undocumented workers came here, the situation was even more desperate in Mexico, so I absolutely understand why so many braved la Migra, coyotes, and police brutality to cross the border, where work was available, to support their families.
Illegal is illegal. Mexico wouldn't be happy if Rob just went across the border and decided to stay without the proper documentation. They'd either throw his butt in jail or deport him. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
I'm also tired of hearing that they take the jobs that Americans don't want. Maybe if the pay was higher they would take the jobs. Or we pay them to much not to work and they aren't hungry enough themselves.
Illegal is illegal. Mexico wouldn't be happy if Rob just went across the border and decided to stay without the proper documentation. They'd either throw his butt in jail or deport him. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Would they? I don't know the ins and outts of mexican law so mayne it's as tough as US law bit i tend ro doubt that it is. At least as long as someone is self sifficient.
gimmethesimplelife
8-31-17, 7:10pm
Would they? I don't know the ins and outts of mexican law so mayne it's as tough as US law bit i tend ro doubt that it is. At least as long as someone is self sifficient.Tradd has a point. Mexico is a bit sticky with immigration law. It didn't used to be - in not long off days if you were American, no questions were asked as you were assumed to have money that the country desperately need you to spend. Now things have changed. Mexico is not the starving completely third world country it was 30 years ago. It has a growing middle class (unlike America!!!!!) and though some desperately poor remain, the percentage is not as high as it once was. Mexico is also sick of being bashed and treated poorly by the US and is now in the process of updating it's border. At Tijuana/San Yisidro, for example, as a US citizen, you have to show a passport and you are run for criminal background checks as Mexico is tired of hosting US fugitives after being bashed so much by the US. This POE is the only one doing this so far but the Mexican government is supposedly spreading this to all ports of entry over the next few years. Mexico is not quite the easy country to enter with no questions asked as it once was - the last time I crossed with my husband at Nogales, not only were our bags X-rayed but they were also searched - something fairly new. No passport check or questions asked to date, however. And the customs people were not nasty like US CBP is - it was so much more pleasant to deal with them than the fear of power tripping US CBP.....Rob
The Rule of Law is apparently quite elastic. Just ask "Sheriff Joe."
How so? Outside Rob's reality, no one is saying the pardon was illegal. Capricious and petty, certainly, but not illegal.
gimmethesimplelife
9-1-17, 9:06am
How so? Outside Rob's reality, no one is saying the pardon was illegal. Capricious and petty, certainly, but not illegal.I didn't say that the pardon was illegal per se - it's a new one as to date no President that I am aware of has stepped in to pardon someone before the criminal justice system was done with the person as was the case with the Arpaio pardon. I find this very scary as it seems to be a ticket out for well connected criminals - I'm worried a precedent will be set but at least by accepting this pardon Arpaio has confirmed his guilt. I'd agree this pardon was capricious and petty and I'd go so far as dangerous to the functioning of society too but illegal....that needs to be determined by the courts. Rob
I didn't say that the pardon was illegal per se - it's a new one as to date no President that I am aware of has stepped in to pardon someone before the criminal justice system was done with the person as was the case with the Arpaio pardon. I find this very scary as it seems to be a ticket out for well connected criminals - I'm worried a precedent will be set but at least by accepting this pardon Arpaio has confirmed his guilt. I'd agree this pardon was capricious and petty and I'd go so far as dangerous to the functioning of society too but illegal....that needs to be determined by the courts. Rob
What does "done with the person" mean? The appeals process? Some sort of ritual humiliation?
gimmethesimplelife
9-1-17, 9:24am
What does "done with the person" mean? The appeals process? Some sort of ritual humiliation?In this case I mean that Trump swooped in and pardoned before Arpaio faced sentencing for his crime - the criminal justice system had not completely finished with this case just yet. Rob
PS I also find US Citizenship even less viable for the long term if this pardon is allowed to stand as that tells me that whoever is President can circumvent the criminal justice process before it's even through with an individual going through it. Very scary third world dictator kind of stuff and I believe myself and those close to me and those I care about in the 85006 deserve much better. No budging on this human rights stance.......Rob
In this case I mean that Trump swooped in and pardoned before Arpaio faced sentencing for his crime - the criminal justice system had not completely finished with this case just yet. Rob
PS I also find US Citizenship even less viable for the long term if this pardon is allowed to stand as that tells me that whoever is President can circumvent the criminal justice process before it's even through with an individual going through it. Very scary third world dictator kind of stuff and I believe myself and those close to me and those I care about in the 85006 deserve much better. No budging on this human rights stance.......Rob
Apart from a bit of spectacle for your enjoyment, what would that have accomplished?
I also find US Citizenship even less viable for the long term if this pardon is allowed to stand as that tells me that whoever is President can circumvent the criminal justice process before it's even through with an individual going through it.
I think you just need a little perspective, this sort of thing happens more often than you might realize. On President Clinton's last day in office he pardoned 140 people, one of which had been indicted but had fled to Switzerland to avoid prosecution and 16 members of a terrorist organization which had engineered over 120 bombings in the US. I don't recall you being upset about that.
ToomuchStuff
9-1-17, 10:42am
I didn't say that the pardon was illegal per se - it's a new one as to date no President that I am aware of has stepped in to pardon someone before the criminal justice system was done with the person as was the case with the Arpaio pardon. Rob
Ever hear of Richard Nixon? (the Justice system wasn't done with him, and presidential pardons are part of the "system")
I didn't say that the pardon was illegal per se - it's a new one as to date no President that I am aware of has stepped in to pardon someone before the criminal justice system was done with the person as was the case with the Arpaio pardon.
You need to expand your awareness.
Apart from a bit of spectacle for your enjoyment, what would that have accomplished?
https://www.google.com/amp/amp.nationalreview.com/article/450934/trump-arpaio-pardon-unmerited-unnecessary-impulsive
We've entered strange times when even the national review agrees with rob...
gimmethesimplelife
9-1-17, 8:05pm
Per ksl.com, the officer involved in the Salt Lake City, UT incident has been placed on leave as the video of the incident spreads. It is not said if the leave is paid or unpaid and at this point if it is paid - OMG! Talk about bad PR causing a powder keg situation!!! At any rate, at least at the moment this officer has been sidelined to where he can't cause harm - at least not behind a badge at the moment. Now it is for the court of public opinion to cause tourism/revenue loss to the Salt Lake City area so that area officials are forced to knuckle under and abide by the rule of the law and treat this cop the way he legally and so richly deserves. I'm doing my bit as are others in the 85006......Rob
Per ksl.com, the officer involved in the Salt Lake City, UT incident has been placed on leave as the video of the incident spreads. It is not said if the leave is paid or unpaid and at this point if it is paid - OMG! Talk about bad PR causing a powder keg situation!!
There are often due process steps required before you can hang someone, or even place them on leave without pay. And often union contracts as well.
Now it is for the court of public opinion to cause tourism/revenue loss to the Salt Lake City area so that area officials are forced to knuckle under and abide by the rule of the law and treat this cop the way he legally and so richly deserves.
Yes, let's punish the entire area for the actions of one man.
gimmethesimplelife
9-1-17, 8:24pm
There are often due process steps required before you can hang someone, or even place them on leave without pay. And often union contracts as well.
Yes, let's punish the entire area for the actions of one man.Bae, I see your point and I understand too that you have a valid point here. That said, however, the country you believe in unfortunately has sunk to the point where this is the course of action that is necessary for the rule of law to be applied/administered/upheld. I don't like this but I'm not someone who ducks and runs from ugly truths.....and this truth IS VERY UGLY. So it is - and so are so such actions necessary. Unfortunate, granted, but necessary, especially if there are to be no further victims of the Salt Lake City PD any time soon. Call it the American Way or the New Normal. Rob
I wonder which these excuses the cop will use to justify his actions.
"If she had just complied none of this would have happened ".
"This drugged out thug nurse had no respect for the law"
"She was breathing in an aggressive manner"
"She probably comes from a broken family"
"Let all the facts come out, before we go jumping to conclusions".
"Police officers have a hard job "
"Of course she is going to want a police officer around if a crime is being commited though ".
Of all the cases of questionable police actions this one seems pretty clear cut. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out.
Now what do you call someone who judges a group of people from the actions of a few? Who hates an entire group? Is that racist, a bigot, intolererant, or just insane.
gimmethesimplelife
9-2-17, 8:12am
I wonder which these excuses the cop will use to justify his actions.
"If she had just complied none of this would have happened ".
"This drugged out thug nurse had no respect for the law"
"She was breathing in an aggressive manner"
"She probably comes from a broken family"
"Let all the facts come out, before we go jumping to conclusions".
"Police officers have a hard job "
"Of course she is going to want a police officer around if a crime is being commited though ".
Of all the cases of questionable police actions this one seems pretty clear cut. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out.What's good about this particular case is that society at large seems to be siding with the nurse and not the cop - and not just in the 85006 but in "nicer" areas - I think that's wonderful for society but bad for the police going forward as more and more people who would tend to auto-side with the police and question nothing are seeing straight through the police on this one, which may make it harder for the police to get away with their BS going forward - I'm not talking the whole country "getting it" but more and more people who would have prior to this auto-sided with the police "getting it". This gives me a little hope for society going forward.
This has made the news in Austria, too, and my cousin Astrid has been in touch with me via text worried for my Mother and myself....that we may become victims next. It's impossible so try and soother her as what she's saying about America? She's right and I knew that years ago. No level of looking the other way or being patriotic is ever going to change knowing this for me - I'm fortunate that way I guess. Whatever. At least more people are becoming aware of the true nature of American police through this mentally unstable psycho officer's actions in Salt Lake City - and this means more people standing up to the police, more people recording the people, more people suing the police, more people auto-siding against the police, more people questioning anything the police might say or do, more people auto-distrusting the police - just more people dishing out to the police what they have so richly earned.
I don't think there's anything that Trump can do about this one and any heavy handed effort of his to regain more complaince of the general public to the police is going to backfire at this point - too many people out there know the truth of American police at this point. About time but better late like this than never happening at all......Rob
gimmethesimplelife
9-2-17, 8:15am
Now what do you call someone who judges a group of people from the actions of a few? Who hates an entire group? Is that racist, a bigot, intolererant, or just insane.I'd say intelligent if we are discussing terror of dealing with psychotic American police. This comes from someone having witnessed police brutality taking place right in front of them - no way am I EVER going to unsee this and no way will I EVER be able to trust any American police officer. I know the truth about American police....once you know this, you can't "unknow" it. Rob
I'd say intelligent if we are discussing terror of dealing with psychotic American police. This comes from someone having witnessed police brutality taking place right in front of them - no way am I EVER going to unsee this and no way will I EVER be able to trust any American police officer. I know the truth about American police....once you know this, you can't "unknow" it. Rob
You judge the majority of good police officers who are risking their lives daily and helping thousands, against the small minority that are bad.
I have a few friends that are retired police officers and you couldn't know better people. Obviously the 85006 is full of bigoted trash due to their hatred. Looking at the crime statistics of the 85006 I'm sure most there would rather not see the police as many are thieves and thugs.
I havent even looked into the gay men and waiters who have done terrible things. Society should go after them also.
I'd say intelligent if we are discussing terror of dealing with psychotic American police. This comes from someone having witnessed police brutality taking place right in front of them - no way am I EVER going to unsee this and no way will I EVER be able to trust any American police officer. I know the truth about American police....once you know this, you can't "unknow" it. Rob
and boo hoo, you were evidently tramitized at a early age. Get some counseling.
Damn police.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/meet-houston-police-chief-helped-163856147.html
I'd say intelligent if we are discussing terror of dealing with psychotic American police. This comes from someone having witnessed police brutality taking place right in front of them - no way am I EVER going to unsee this and no way will I EVER be able to trust any American police officer. I know the truth about American police....once you know this, you can't "unknow" it. Rob
658 people I worked with died on 9/11. I'd visited the office just shortly before the planes hit. Should I ever trust a Muslim again? If I decide I don't trust Muslims and avoid them at all turns, and don't talk to them willingly, what does that make me? If I rail against them, what does that make me?
gimmethesimplelife
9-2-17, 1:34pm
658 people I worked with died on 9/11. I'd visited the office just shortly before the planes hit. Should I ever trust a Muslim again? If I decide I don't trust Muslims and avoid them at all turns, and don't talk to them willingly, what does that make me? If I rail against them, what does that make me?Bae, please don't drop dead of shock here. It strikes me that you quite likely have a point here. I will think it over - I am about to take off for a banquet event and will think your post here over when my shift is over. Rob
ToomuchStuff
9-2-17, 2:16pm
658 people I worked with died on 9/11. I'd visited the office just shortly before the planes hit. Should I ever trust a Muslim again? If I decide I don't trust Muslims and avoid them at all turns, and don't talk to them willingly, what does that make me? If I rail against them, what does that make me?
Uhm, using his words....
I'd say intelligent if we are discussing terror of dealing with psychotic Muslims. This comes from someone having witnessed Muslim brutality taking place right in front of them - no way am I EVER going to unsee this and no way will I EVER be able to trust any Muslim. I know the truth about Muslims....once you know this, you can't "unknow" it. Rob
FIFY
Teacher Terry
9-2-17, 4:25pm
Of course public opinion is going to side with the nurse. This is clear cut. I think some cops are good people that get burned out by what they see. Some are psychopaths and they want the power. Some communities as a whole do not tolerate police abuse which is good and some turn a blind eye. When I lived in WI I felt very differently about police in general then I do now. It is based on what is happening locally.
Damn police.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/meet-houston-police-chief-helped-163856147.html
Nice variation on my last response option.
https://www.google.com/amp/amp.nationalreview.com/article/450934/trump-arpaio-pardon-unmerited-unnecessary-impulsive
We've entered strange times when even the national review agrees with rob...
A lot of conservatives are saying the pardon was at least in part a petty swipe against Republicans like Jeff Flake who have been less than forthcoming with support for the president.
gimmethesimplelife
9-3-17, 11:33am
A lot of conservatives are saying the pardon was at least in part a petty swipe against Republicans like Jeff Flake who have been less than forthcoming with support for the president.I've never had kind words for Jeff Flake until recently, but I do respect him a great deal for standing up to Trump and expressing his view that the wall is "out there" as an idea. Gives me some hope as I'd pegged Jeff Flake as someone with a high enough net worth to not live in the real world - and I was wrong this time and I will admit this here and now. Even Jeff Flake can see how "out there" - his words, not mine - the wall is as an idea. Bravo to the man for getting it! Rob
I've never had kind words for Jeff Flake until recently, but I do respect him a great deal for standing up to Trump and expressing his view that the wall is "out there" as an idea. Gives me some hope as I'd pegged Jeff Flake as someone with a high enough net worth to not live in the real world - and I was wrong this time and I will admit this here and now. Even Jeff Flake can see how "out there" - his words, not mine - the wall is as an idea. Bravo to the man for getting it! Rob
I would suspect you'd have as much to object to from a Flake presidency as you would from Trump's. Ideas like limited government, diffused power, individual responsibility would not go down well with the view that governments "rent" citizens.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.