Pages:
Author

Topic: Police State? - page 9. (Read 25882 times)

hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
April 23, 2013, 10:15:09 PM
No? Police aren't the enforcement arm of the government?
I said police are a-political.  They regulate the law, they do not work for a political party.
Again, it's been shown here that you're terrorist lover. I don't like terrorists even when they wear blue costumes, or funny robes. And police don't "regulate" the law, they enforce it. Do I need to define enforce?

You need to define political for him.
Oh, indeed I might.
You are arguing that police action to find and arrest a bomber is "terrorism?"
Which part do you object to, that the tanks and paramilitary dress were meant as intimidation, or that said intimidation was for political means?
legendary
Activity: 2912
Merit: 1386
April 23, 2013, 10:12:22 PM
Just as a refresher, in case anyone doesn't know:

Quote
ter·ror·ism 
/ˈterəˌrizəm/
Noun
The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

I'd say this meets that definition:


Ergo, statists are terrorist lovers. Carry on.
You are arguing that police action to find and arrest a bomber is "terrorism?"

WTF?
full member
Activity: 199
Merit: 100
April 23, 2013, 10:10:18 PM
No? Police aren't the enforcement arm of the government?
I said police are a-political.  They regulate the law, they do not work for a political party.
Again, it's been shown here that you're terrorist lover. I don't like terrorists even when they wear blue costumes, or funny robes. And police don't "regulate" the law, they enforce it. Do I need to define enforce?

You need to define political for him.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
April 23, 2013, 09:55:30 PM
No? Police aren't the enforcement arm of the government?
I said police are a-political.  They regulate the law, they do not work for a political party.
Again, it's been shown here that you're terrorist lover. I don't like terrorists even when they wear blue costumes, or funny robes. And police don't "regulate" the law, they enforce it. Do I need to define enforce?
hero member
Activity: 924
Merit: 501
April 23, 2013, 09:37:28 PM
No? Police aren't the enforcement arm of the government?

You keep putting words in my mouth, terrorist lover.   I said police are a-political.  They regulate the law, they do not work for a political party.

America is not run by "A" political party.  It is run by a bunch of Nancy crybaby's who can't agree that we should stop when lights turn red.  Not unlike the circular argumentative logic you so poorly try to employ.


terror also has been employed by governments against their own people to suppress dissent;
Yeah, you're not helping your case here, bub.

Once again, for the hard of comprehension.  I agree there are Police States but the definition above does not say "been employed by the US government".  You are about as enlightened as a slug.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
April 23, 2013, 09:32:12 PM
Quote
ter·ror·ism  
/ˈterəˌrizəm/
Noun
The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.


Where did you get that silly definition?

http://bit.ly/11xjDQ0

But we can use yours just as well.
Terrorism = "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion"  and for people who's native language is NOT english:  "the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal "

Here's a concise encyclopedia description:

Systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective. It has been used throughout history by political organizations of both the left and the right, by nationalist and ethnic groups, and by revolutionaries. Although usually thought of as a means of destabilizing or overthrowing existing political institutions, terror also has been employed by governments against their own people to suppress dissent; examples include the reigns of certain Roman emperors, the French Revolution (see Reign of Terror), Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union under Stalin, and Argentina during the “dirty war” of the 1970s. Terrorism's impact has been magnified by the deadliness and technological sophistication of modern-day weapons and the capability of the media to disseminate news of such attacks instantaneously throughout the world.
Yeah, you're not helping your case here, bub.

Police don't have political aims, moron, they are anti-political.  Now the FOP might be political but police officers are civil servants and prevented from being "political".
No? Police aren't the enforcement arm of the government? When the politicians make a decision, it's not the police who make it stick by using force and intimidation? The police motto is "To protect and serve" Whom? Not you.
hero member
Activity: 924
Merit: 501
April 23, 2013, 09:07:29 PM
Quote
ter·ror·ism  
/ˈterəˌrizəm/
Noun
The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.


Where did you get that silly definition?


Terrorism = "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion"  and for people who's native language is NOT english:  "the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal "

Here's a concise encyclopedia description:

Systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective. It has been used throughout history by political organizations of both the left and the right, by nationalist and ethnic groups, and by revolutionaries. Although usually thought of as a means of destabilizing or overthrowing existing political institutions, terror also has been employed by governments against their own people to suppress dissent; examples include the reigns of certain Roman emperors, the French Revolution (see Reign of Terror), Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union under Stalin, and Argentina during the “dirty war” of the 1970s. Terrorism's impact has been magnified by the deadliness and technological sophistication of modern-day weapons and the capability of the media to disseminate news of such attacks instantaneously throughout the world. The deadliest terrorist attack ever occurred in the United States on Sept. 11, 2001 (see September 11 attacks), when members of al-Qaeda terrorist network hijacked four commercial airplanes and crashed two of them into the twin towers of the World Trade Center complex in New York City and one into the Pentagon building near Washington, D.C.; the fourth plane crashed near Pittsburgh, Pa. The crashes resulted in the collapse of much of the World Trade Center complex, the destruction of part of the southwest side of the Pentagon, and the deaths of some 3,000 people.  Thank you Mr Webster.


Police don't have political aims, moron, they are anti-political.  Now the FOP might be political but police officers are civil servants and prevented from being "political".  Of course you already knew that, didn't you mr rhodes scholar?  No terrorism here (how could there be, it's our word!).  Next.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
April 23, 2013, 09:05:27 PM
Quote
ter·ror·ism 
/ˈterəˌrizəm/
Noun
The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
hero member
Activity: 924
Merit: 501
April 23, 2013, 08:58:08 PM
How does an APC = terrorism?  The APC is the tool designed to DEAL with the terrorists.  Are you 5?

OH NOES POLICE STATE IN ACTION:
http://www.npr.org/2013/04/23/178651009/justices-say-u-s-improperly-deported-man-over-marijuana

hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
April 23, 2013, 08:54:02 PM
Just as a refresher, in case anyone doesn't know:

Quote
ter·ror·ism 
/ˈterəˌrizəm/
Noun
The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

I'd say this meets that definition:


Ergo, statists are terrorist lovers. Carry on.
hero member
Activity: 924
Merit: 501
April 23, 2013, 06:44:57 PM
>Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Egypt;
>I wonder what we should call them now?  

Festering shitholes?

edit:
Saudi Arabia is a pretty place from what I see in pictures.  If you like camels.
newbie
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
April 23, 2013, 06:44:34 PM
and the US as a plutocracy.

Which is not a what?  

Which is not a Police State.


 Roll Eyes

edit_the terms are not mutually exclusive

Bored of semantics...god save the queen Kiss
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
April 23, 2013, 06:43:25 PM
Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Egypt; none are communist and in the old days before the word "tyranny" meant normal, we used to call all of them "tyrannies."

I wonder what we should call them now?  
"States"? Wink
hero member
Activity: 924
Merit: 501
April 23, 2013, 06:42:58 PM
clap, clap, clap, clap, clap...
legendary
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
April 23, 2013, 06:41:35 PM
TBH I think I'll stick with calling them police states and calling the UK and US "states."  
hero member
Activity: 924
Merit: 501
April 23, 2013, 06:41:09 PM
and the US as a plutocracy.

Which is not a what? 

Which is not a Police State.
newbie
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
April 23, 2013, 06:40:00 PM
ROFL, so the difference between the US and China is simply "communism".

OMFG you dolt, are you out of diapers?


China could be classified as an authoritarian state and the US as a plutocracy.



Then we can agree that you regard all countries as police states? 

I'll quote:

States operate by tyranny.

If the few rule the many, a police state is the result. Always.

myrkul is against the entire idea of a state. Its a legitimate point of view but has little bearing on whether or not its meaningful to call the US a "police state."  

Since you regard all states as "police states" I guess we can move on.  I can't help but wonder what adjective you want to use for states like China but that is another day's discussion.
I believe "communist" is a valid adjective. i.e.: "Communist police state." Those do tend to be the worst of the crop.

Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Egypt; none are communist and in the old days before the word "tyranny" meant normal, we used to call all of them "tyrannies."

I wonder what we should call them now?  


Syria - Fractured state (civil war)
Iran - Religious Oligarchy
Saudi Arabia - Monarchy
Egypt - Transitional state
hero member
Activity: 924
Merit: 501
April 23, 2013, 06:38:27 PM
No, it doesn't. If there was only one state in the world it could still be a police state.

America is not a police state.  Here is the definition:

"a country in which the activities of the people are strictly controlled by the government with the help of a police force".



See you in internet court...you're going to internet jail

Once again we have a know-it-all.  I can most certainly find you, that is not an issue (for me).  Where I live, in Colorado Springs, the law actually allows me to prosecute you in civil court and if I can establish that what you said caused me personal damage I could bring my case to the district attorney who could put you in jail because, you see, in Colorado LIBEL IS CRIMINAL.

And we have APC's.  (And the Air Force Academy, and Ft Carson, and Peterson Air Force Base and NORAD). So fuck you.
legendary
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
April 23, 2013, 06:34:55 PM
Then we can agree that you regard all countries as police states? 

I'll quote:

States operate by tyranny.

If the few rule the many, a police state is the result. Always.

myrkul is against the entire idea of a state. Its a legitimate point of view but has little bearing on whether or not its meaningful to call the US a "police state."  

Since you regard all states as "police states" I guess we can move on.  I can't help but wonder what adjective you want to use for states like China but that is another day's discussion.
I believe "communist" is a valid adjective. i.e.: "Communist police state." Those do tend to be the worst of the crop.

Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Egypt; none are communist and in the old days before the word "tyranny" meant normal, we used to call all of them "tyrannies."

I wonder what we should call them now?  
newbie
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
April 23, 2013, 06:34:37 PM
..snip...

But there are over 100 states in the world and if all of them are "police states" then the term is meaningless.  It implies that tyranny is normal and we should expect it.

That is the implication, yes.  Roll Eyes

OK.  I guess we need a new word to describe what used be called "tyrannies" now that we are using "tyranny" for normal states.  I'm sure the people of Syria will be delighted to know that they no longer live in a tyranny and await the new description of their state with bated breath.

Tongue

Syria remains a tyranny, something the US has never been.

I have the full backing of the Syrian people.  Grin




Terrorist lover.

LOL, you are calling me a terrorist lover.  I should sue you for libel, fucking idiot.

See you in internet court...you're going to internet jail
Pages:
Jump to: