I’m a Republican. I’m a soldier (27 years as an Army officer, so far). I support war when necessary.

The Iraq war wasn’t necessary.

Ron Paul 2008!

www.csicop.org/si/2001-11/i-files.html

Please don’t do this anymore. If you must, link to the blog and then add any additional (original) comments you might have.

Cops today are trained a lot differently than in years past. They no longer have the duty, or desire to attempt to build a good image in the eye of the citizenry. In fact that is not even a consideration except as an after the fact effort to correct bad press.

Today when a law abiding citizens are stopped on a routine traffic stop they are just as likely to be jerked from their car, slammed to the ground, and handcuffed as a preemptive measure to insure a cop’s protection than they are to be address you with the same respect that seem so eager to demand.

When a cop approaches your car today, you will probably notice that they do so with one hand on their gun as they all but hug the car. And they stop just behind the back of your head so it is impossible to even make eye contact with them. The reason is obvious, but not always justified.

I believe that current training techniques, too much viewing of new cop television shows (which seem to be the rage) has given today’s cop a bad image and even encouraged them to violate the legal rights of law abiding members of society.

The passage of the Patriot Act has worsened the situation by taking away the obligation of all the different law enforcement agencies to maintain correct, current, and accurate records in their NCI database. This includes city, county, state, and federal agencies. This stupid law included in the Patriot Act alone has lead to the injury and even death of many innocent people.

Bad hiring practices alone allow many unsuitable individuals to become employed as law enforcement officers; and corruption remains at an all time high.

A backlash is coming soon; and when it does I don’t think I would like to be a cop. The idea that their atrocious trampling of the civil rights of individual citizens can go unanswered is pure stupidity.

Now at fifty-four years of age; disabled from several crippling beatings from corrections and law enforcement officers (which were uncalled for) I seldom leave the house for fear that I’ll be pulled over and get my ass unjustly kicked on the way to the grocery store.

Yes, today’s cops deserve every nasty little incident that comes their way. I say do away with the cops and allow everyone legal ownership of guns and things will work out for the best. Law enforcement is at best an after the fact remedy for the growing problem of crime. Better that a citizen be allowed to own and carry a weapon and defend their self, family, and friends rather than depend on the new era of cops.

PS: Cops or no less susceptible to the psychological influence of bad television programming and many other current forms of psychological influence than anyone else.

PPS: Edited from original text for clarity.

Elmo

If Roe v. Wade was overturned, as Ron Paul and other Christians would like to see, what would happen to all those seeking abortions? Answer - they would still get them…1920’s style - in some store front backdoor clinic or by some quack in their own bedrooms.

If I didn’t know better then I would think that statement says “having abortion legal lowers the death rate of those that would BREAK THE LAW if it wasn’t legal.” I thought that law was in place to help the victim, not to protect the law breaker. I know the law breaker has rights, but if the logic of that statement was extended then drugs would be illegal because if the FDA regulated the production of Meth then there wouldn’t be as many explosions and all the batches would be somewhat regular so there wouldn’t be as many people OD’ing. And I’m sure that the number of people driving under the influence wouldn’t increase to offset these things.

I’m also APAULED (misspelling intended as a pun) at the number of personal attacks on Ron Paul (refering to him as a Christian Fundamentalist Nut and such). I would suggest reading “Freedom Tide” by Chad Connelly. It’s a short book. It can be purchased at executivebooks.com as well as other online places. Even if you disagree with the first part of the book, the last part should scare you a little. Time has proven that our system (a capitalistic representative democracy) is better than communistic socialism. Once again, just speaking logically. I don’t know the economics or the politics of it too well but since I am unaware of a socialist nation lasting for over 200 years, then logically, our system seems superior. If that is the case, then why are 10 of Karl Marx’s planks of communism instituted in our country to very degrees (of which the Federal Reserve Bank is one)? Once again, using logic, our country made it for over 100 years (137 if you count the founding of our country as 1776) without the Federal Reserve Bank. I admit that I am ignorant on why it was created, but I do remember history saying that we were already a prosperous nation by 1913. We were doing pretty good without it. I also remember learning in economics in college that The Fed helps to control inflation and stablize the economy. I do not remember learning that it was a privately owned organization. Why do we allow a privately owned organization to control inflation? Also, if it helps to stabilize the economy so much then why did the Great Depression not happen until over 10 years after the Fed was created?

I admit that I am ignorant on most of this. I haven’t studied it to me because the answers seemed to fall into my lap using simple logic. I admit that I could be missing a HUGE piece of information that would make all your points valid, but I have yet to see it. I also realize that Ron Paul is no longer an issue. Time proved you right that he was just a passing phase. His ideas are stood before he arose though and will live on.

Also, on the separation of church and state issue. Since, the worst thing you could say on that is “Ron Paul is a liar because the Constitution never mentions God” let me ask you this: How can the first amendment be used to say things like “It’s unconstitional for a state supreme court (AL) to display a copy of the 10 commandments”? Remember that the 1st amendment only says that “CONGRESS shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” I also remind you that establishment of religion meant having a “National Religion” the same way we have a National Bird and such. This was an amendment opposing things like The Church of England. How can that be applied to a state judicial system? These “Christian Fundamentalist Nuts” out there don’t want a theocracy. We really just want things to be the way the founding fathers wanted them to be. I know you’ll say “so we should have slaves because Washington has slaves and so did most of the others.” Washington new better though. I am not condoning his actions but he did free all of his slaves. He just didn’t have the balls to do it while he was alive. He waited until his death when he wouldn’t need them anymore anyways. Even Washington WANTED slavery abolished, he just didn’t have the courage to make it happen.

But that is really a side issue. Once again, I just don’t see the logic in stretching the 1st amendment to the lengths it has been stretched. Logically speaking, the more you stretch something, the thinner it gets. Christian Fundamentalists don’t want a theocracy. They just don’t want to see the Constitution stretched to the point where it is so thin that it loses its strength. For instance, Freedom of the Press being stretched so far that it compromises national defense or (what Christians are seeing) “Freedom of Religion” being stretched to “Freedom from Religion.” Most cases (generalities aren’t good for logic, but I believe you’ll agree with me on this) of what Christians are claiming to infringe on their 1st amendment rights (like Judge Roy Moore of AL not being able to display the 10 commandments or a Christian teacher being able to lead a prayer in school) are not being brought up by other religious people (Muslims or Hindus) but by religiousless people (atheists) like Madeline O’Hare. Those people are using the first amendment to restrict the free exercise of Roy Moore’s religion and the Christian teachers religion.

Show me the logic.

Concerned Christian Mathematician

I do agree with you though: to equate words and basic freedom of expression with violence is intellectual cowardice of the worst kind. But Universities have nothing to do with either education of free speech. And why should they? They have a steady flow of Stafford-Loan bearing sheep to be fleeced! Sheep like yourself, Matt.

Political science major! LOL
….You wrote….
Hope the Peace kids are learning a early life lesson here which is most people are ignorant even the people in charge.

ALWAYS QUESTION AUTHORITY!

Thinking we all know who the smart kids are and the other students who will be pumping gas for a living.
……….

Question authority like you did, Matt?

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/FREEMAN.INTERVIEW.HTM

You’re nothing more than one lone minister in the clergy of oppression.

I’ll give you another 50 years. You might have the basic concept of individual liberty figured out by then. Here’s the basic idea:

Dumbed down so you can understand it:
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

If you ever get around to reading adult-sized books, you might want to start with “The Shadow University”, so you can avoid putting your foot in your mouth when discussing free speech.

-M.J. (the smart one)