Obama remark on black scholar's arrest angers cops

[hugo]

Fukkin pictures! Geez Hugo...

 

Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. The pictures saved me a thousand words each thus conserving my energy for more worthwhile things.

[emkay64]

I understand your meaning and the point you were making. It just made me sick is all.

[hugo]

I understand your meaning and the point you were making. It just made me sick is all.

 

Sorry, I will give warnings and leave it where you have to click in the future.Since I now have TJ on ignore, and everyone else is capable of comprehending the written word, I doubt I will need to use photos in the future.

 

Sometimes I forget everyone ain't an insensitive bastard like myself.

 

I will send you a coupon good for a free bendy class.

[wez]

Hey TJ.. how in the f ck would your magic question asking Hugo to speculate on what Milton would or wouldn't do with a cop prove anything other than the fact that you're a dipsh t?

 

 

 

hey eddo.. you should quote me..

[hugo]

Warning If you are pregnant or eating do not look at image below:

 

[attach=full]2447[/attach]

 

She should have been responsible and not entered the chipmunk impersonation contest.

[hugo]

Video: Fox News' Judge Andrew Napolitano: Gates arrest "violated the federal Constitution" | Mofo Politics | Hoping Obama Fails

 

Judges don't get any more conservative than that guy.

[hugo]

This is what we are fighting for; Andrew Napoltano:

 

Reason: Let's talk about natural law and positivism. Sketch the two camps and why you believe what you do.

 

Napolitano: Scholars and lawyers and jurists and people interested in this have always debated what is the source of our rights. There are many, many schools of thought, but they basically fall into two categories. One says that our rights come by virtue of our humanity because we are created in God's image and likeness. Because God is perfectly free, he has instilled in us all the yearnings for freedom that we have: freedom of thought, freedom to develop one's personality, freedom to express oneself, freedom of movement, freedom of religion, freedom of association, etc. That school of thought is known as the natural law. Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration; James Madison, who wrote the Constitution; and virtually all the Founding Fathers, even though some were deists and some were atheists, they were to a person believers in the natural law.

 

�The other school of thought is sometimes called positivism, sometimes called legal realism. It basically says that the law is whatever the lawgiver says it is. As long as the lawgiver follows its own rules, whatever it says is the law. So positivism would say the majority in a democracy always rules. There are no minority rights because there are no brakes on the majority will. If the majority wants to get rid of the First Amendment, the majority rules; there is no First Amendment. Therefore, there's no protection for freedom of speech. If the majority wants to take property belonging to person A and give it to person B because the majority rules, the majority can do that because, again, there are no natural rights that would allow person A to keep his property against the will of the government.

 

The attraction to positivism is it is pure democracy. The majority literally always rules. Or whoever is in power always rules. Positivism didn't rear its head successfully, in my view, until the administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, when we took a decided step toward a centralization of power in Washington and ultimately toward many socialistic programs that we now have because FDR was the ultimate positivist who believed whatever law he signed was a good law and there were no brakes on that.

 

[The FDR era] began, in my view, the dark part of American history where the federal government believed that it could solve any problem that was national in scope, irrespective of whether it was a federal problem. A federal problem is one arising under the 18 specific enumerated powers given to the federal government under the Constitution. A national problem is something that exists in New Jersey and California and Texas and Illinois. But just because it's national doesn't mean it's federal and therefore can be addressed by the federal governmen

[hugo]

Declarations of independence: Positive vs. negative rights

People have the right to be individuals and associate with whom they choose, but not to the coerced support of others

TIBOR R. MACHAN

After so many years of Americans aspiring to live up to the principles of the Declaration of Independence, with much success, critics of America have changed their tune. It used to be that this country failed to be true to those principles but as that has gradually - and at times abruptly - changed, critics had to find something else to beef about.

 

 

And, sure enough, they found it, in that highly questionable doctrine of "positive rights" first laid out in 1944 in President Franklin D. Roosevelt's so-called Second Bill of Rights. The tact now is to say, yes, the founders did promote the doctrine of individual negative rights - which are prohibitions barring people from intruding on others, recognizing everyone's rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness (property) - but these aren't really the rights in need of government protection. What needs to be protected, they argue, are the entitlements everyone has to material support from government, for which others must pay through taxes. In short, these new "rights" amount to nothing less than the imposition of involuntary servitude on taxpayers!

 

 

But this is a hoax. No such rights exist. Indeed, the entire point of rights talk is to set borders around each of us, borders that may only be crossed with permission. For example, someone needs to ask your permission to enter your home or drive your car. If somebody asks you to stop saying or writing certain things - you must consent or they must desist. Those are examples of the negative, or freedom, rights all humans have because of their nature as moral agents. A moral agent requires the freedom to exercise moral choice, for better or for worse.

 

 

Only if a person invades another's realm is there justification for interference (in self-defense). This is an individualist social-political outlook closely associated with the American founding but it is now being drastically undermined.

 

 

These days, no sooner does one speak up in support of individualism than one will be accused of wanting to isolate individuals, to destroy human community life. This is plain wrong and either a misunderstanding or an out-an-out attempt at distortion. Just because adults require independence of mind and a sphere of personal authority, which is secured by protecting their basic rights, it doesn't mean people do not greatly benefit from community life. There is little that's more satisfying than the associations people forge with their fellows: marriage, family, companies, teams, choruses, orchestras and myriad others.

 

 

Alas, there is one way of forming communities that is unsuited to people: coercively, when they are herded into groups they do not choose based on their own understanding and goals - that is, by violating their rights. Prisons are such involuntary communities, and the only reason they are supposed to exist is to house people who refuse to live peacefully with their fellows.

 

 

None but the crudest defense of individualism omits that when individuals come together, much of what makes their lives worth living stems from their togetherness. And, yes, as children we are involuntary members of one community, the family, at least until we grow up and have free choice. That, indeed, is what parents and guardians ought to aim for when they raise children, to prepare them all for becoming competent, loving, responsible and adventurous independent adults.

 

 

Yet forcibly grouping people immediately undermines this by depriving the young of their opportunity to hone their skills at making decisions for themselves, decisions that are usually quite unlike the decisions others need to make. That's because we all are unique in many respects, while at the same time also much alike. As one of my favorite philosophers, the comic actor Steve Martin, put it in his novel "The Pleasure of My Company": "People, I thought. These are people. Their general uniformity was interrupted only by their individual variety."

 

 

Of course, much of this is evident from the history of the more Draconian and brutal attempts to make us all one, from ancient Sparta to societies in the 20th century. But, sadly, too many people hold on to the vision of human associations without remembering that the "human" must be very closely heeded when one embarks on community life.

 

 

Human beings, more than anything else in the world, are individuals, with minds of their own, which, however much they learn from others, must get into operation from their own initiative. While other beings are pretty much hardwired to do the right thing by their nature, our nature is that we must learn what that right thing is and then embark on doing it of our own free will. This, mainly, is the source of individuality.

 

 

Forgive me for bringing in a bit of personal history, but I do have some experience to draw upon here, having lived under communism for much of my early years. And my father was an avid fascist, supporting the Nazis. Neither of these political systems offer a promising community life; nor do communities that try to go just a bit in those political directions.

 

 

Human communities are, indeed, marvelous but only when they do not quash the human individual. When they do, when they try to compromise the principles of individualism, look out. They will try to lie and cheat and bamboozle since only in doing so can coercive community life be made credible. They will emphasize the fabulous goals and forget about the vicious means by which they propose to reach them, like conscript armies or schools or any other collective endeavors we are forced to join.

 

 

The American founders knew that the central public good is securing for us our rights. Everything else in society is to be done by individuals and voluntary groups, not the government. This false doctrine of entitlements, of positive "rights," fundamentally undermines their project.

[Ahhlee]

Please tell me those pictures were photoshopped so I can sleep tonight.

[timesjoke]

Please tell me those pictures were photoshopped so I can sleep tonight.

 

Unfortunately not Ali, I remember the stacy wilson event very clearly. Her stalker attacked her as she got on a bus, I did a short story on it back when it happened for my church newspaper.

[ImWithStupid]

Please tell me those pictures were photoshopped so I can sleep tonight.

 

 

I'm pretty sure the one on post #215 is photoshopped, unless she is buried in a rock on her left side.

[hugo]

That pic in post 255 is the one that gives me nightmares.

[Ahhlee]

Are you seriously going to tell me #222 is a REAL decapitated head???????

 

FUK!

[timesjoke]

Are you seriously going to tell me #222 is a REAL decapitated head???????

 

FUK!

 

Yes, that is the remains of stacy wilson I was talking about. You can find pictures of her all over the place. She was getting on a bus when a stalker grabbed her, put a rope around her neck then dragged her out to the street where he chopped off her hand then her head.

[RoyalOrleans]

Yes, that is the remains of stacy wilson I was talking about. You can find pictures of her all over the place. She was getting on a bus when a stalker grabbed her, put a rope around her neck then dragged her out to the street where he chopped off her hand then her head.

 

What?

 

No sodomizing?

[hugo]

What?

 

No sodomizing?

 

They just don't make crazed axe murderers like they used to.

[RoyalOrleans]

They just don't make crazed axe murderers like they used to.

 

Ohhh... no. What is the world coming to when we can't count on the crazed lunatics to make us fear the dark?

 

The advent of the .50 caliber handgun?

[hugo]

TURNER?S TWO CENTS: Top Cops Criticise Crowley

By Cameron Turner

(July 28, 2009)

 

Police unions in Cambridge, Massachusetts and elsewhere should be content with President Obama?s conditional retraction of his original comments on the arrest of Dr. Henry Louis Gates.

 

Personally, I think Mr. Obama was accurate when he said the Cambridge cops ?acted stupidly? when they arrested Dr. Gates at his own house on a clearly trumped-up disorderly conduct charge. But, as President, Mr. Obama should have been more diplomatic in his phrasing. On the other hand, the President was mad because an American citizen was wrongfully arrested ? under circumstances that hinted at possible racial bias. Every American should all feel angry when that happens.

 

Mr. Obama lost no time in re-phrasing his criticism. In an ABC News interview and then in a brief appearance in the White House press room, the President acknowledged that both Dr. Gates and Sgt. Crowley became overly emotional. But, Mr. Obama stood firm (appropriately) on his assertion that Gates should not have been arrested. He even called Crowley and Gates personally and invited them to discuss the incident over a beer at the White House.

 

The President has gone the extra mile to cool this thing out. Now, it?s time for the police to be accountable.

 

President Obama does not owe America?s police an apology. But Sgt. Crowley, the Cambridge Police Department and their backers should apologize to Dr. Gates and to the American People. Why? Because Sgt. Crowley was wrong and he alone bears the legal responsibility for this terrible and unnecessary incident which may have worsened complicated police-community relations nationwide.

 

 

COPS SAY CROWLEY WAS WRONG

 

Sgt. Crowley?s conduct has been publicly criticized by police professionals from across the U.S., including active and retired chiefs and cops-turned educators. For example:

 

-- Miami Police Chief John Timoney told New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd: ?There?s a fine line between disorderly conduct and freedom of speech. It can get tough out there, but I tell my officers, ?Don?t make matters worse by throwing handcuffs on someone. Bite your tongue and just leave.? ?

 

-- San Jose, California?s retired police chief, Joseph McNamara, told the Los Angeles Times: ?The law is clear. You can?t be guilty of disorderly conduct simply because you are saying bad things to a police officer.?

 

-- Jon Shane, 17-year veteran of the Newark, N.J. police department who teaches at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City, tells TIME magazine, ??a police officer can't go out and lock you up for disorderly conduct because you were disrespectful toward them. The First Amendment allows you to say pretty much anything to the police. You could tell them to go (expletive) themselves and that's fine."

 

-- Norm Stamper, ex-chief of the Seattle PD, told the L.A. Times that Sgt. Crowley ?lured (Gates) outside?and cuffed him up.? Stamper added that Dr. Gates? anger at Crowley was typical of ?a true American? with ?a healthy skepticism about authority.?

 

Dr. Richard Weinblatt, a former North Carolina police chief who oversees the education of would-be police officers as director of Central Ohio Technical College?s Institute for Public Safety, studied Crowley?s arrest report and concluded that the sergeant provoked Dr. Gates by continuing to question him after he established that Gates was inside the house legally. Weinblatt wrote on his blog (http://richardweinblatt.blogspot.com): ?While perhaps the Professor was overly agitated, it was the police presence that was creating the agitation. Remove the police presence, and the agitation is gone.?

 

Weinblatt believes that Sgt. Crowley lost sight of his duty as a peace officer.

 

?We in policing are supposed to be professional problem solvers?We are supposed to deescalate situations even if it means walking away,? Weinblatt writes. ?While I believe in officer discretion, I do not believe that it was executed wisely here. I feel that (Sgt. Crowley) should have seen that the big picture of what we do and why we are here was forgotten for the heat of the moment. We in law enforcement are supposed to be above that.?

 

Weinblatt believes that Sgt. Crowley?s actions will damage the public image of police, making it harder for cops to do their jobs. He closes his blog by lamenting: ?Officers nationwide will have to contend with folks that have yet another seed of discontent with law enforcers. All because the big picture was not heeded here.?

 

Defending Crowley at this point is stubborn, thin-skinned and, perhaps, agenda-driven. So, instead of sweating the President for an undeserved apology, police unions in Cambridge and elsewhere should admit that Sgt. Crowley messed up and then go about reassuring the public that emotional, unprofessional reactions will not be accepted from our men and women in blue.

 

Thanks for listening. I?m Cameron Turner and that?s my two cents.

 

THINK! IT AIN?T ILLEGAL?YET!

[timesjoke]

There is so much wrong with all of that I will simply make a couple small comments and move on:

 

"Mr. Obama stood firm (appropriately) on his assertion that Gates should not have been arrested. He even called Crowley and Gates personally and invited them to discuss the incident over a beer at the White House. "

 

Obama did not come up with the Beer summit, that idea was from Crowley, the police officer, not Obama.

 

 

 

As far as a couple liberal cops speaking to defend Obama's racist comments or to defend Gates' racist comments.....sure, just like Carter has said anyone who does not agree with Obama is a racist but does Carter's words mean we are racists as he claimed?

 

No.

 

 

And neither is Crowley or anyone else just because a retired cop or a Miami chief says so, they were not there, none of them were so they can't say how it should have been done. These couple guys are flying in the face of thousands of police chiefs and policemen on the street that all support Crowley.

 

 

They are certainly entitled to their opinions, but telling all cops they have to run away anytime a person plays the "race card" is simply bad policy.

 

 

 

And bad for all of society. How much better are we getting along as a Nation with a race pimp in office?