"$hitty, cowboy, small d!ck compensating cops are roaming the streets in everyones hometown"
He didn't say EVERY COP... he just said there are some EVERYWHERE. I think someone has struck a nerve. I don't think he was "attacking" your profession Puro.
That attacked every police department in the country, that is an attack on the profession. There are good officers out there and there are departments full of good officers. His statement was based on ignorance and a vast generalization that has no validity.
Ok, I am done debating this topic though. Without some kind of proof or facts or figures that can be cited to show that every department in the country has bad cops that are a threat to the public then it is purely a bias, and or ignorant, opinion that doesn't even deserve a responce.
Without some kind of proof or facts or figures that can be cited to show that every department in the country has bad cops that are a threat to the public then it is purely a bias, and or ignorant, opinion that doesn't even deserve a responce.
with out proof, facts, figures, statistics that there are "$hitty, cowboy, small d!ck compensating cops are roaming the streets in everyones hometown" the entire argument is a logical fallacy. it is a hasty generalization.
however, that one line was used to make a point and is now being singled out. the argument here is this:
do bad cops influence the daily lives of US citizens more than Iran?
not "are all cops bad or what percentage" this is also a logical fallacy. Its a "red herring" The fallacy gets its name from fox hunting, specifically from the practice of using smoked herrings, which are red, to distract hounds from the scent of their quarry. Just as a hound may be prevented from catching a fox by distracting it with a red herring, so an arguer may be prevented from proving his point by distracting him with a tangential issue.
back on track here... for arguments sake, lets just say that 1% of all the departments in the US had one ( 1 ) bad cop. that minuscule number of bad cops have more influence over the daily lives of the citizens of the US than Iran does. on the other hand, if Iran gains power and maybe a nuke then uses it on us Iran will have way more influence on the US than the minuscule number of bad cops.
if the line in question is offensive because of the language i cant help here. we have no right to be "not offended"
I don't see how this debate could ever be settled. First everyone would have to agree on the definition of a bad cop and what constitutes affecting a persons daily life. If your mad are you affected? Do you have to suffer physical,mental or monetary damage?Guidelines and parameters would have to be set up. Then once this is defined how would you ever figure out how Iran or N korea affect an Americans daily life. We have no way of knowing how many Americans are engaged in military and non-military activity based on a real or perceived threat from these countries. For instance how many military or CIA personnel are involved in covert measures regarding these countries. Then how many family members of those personnel do not know where their loved ones are or are suffering mental and physical stress because they have not heard from loved ones for months because they are not allowed to contact anyone back home? These countries don't have to have a nuclear weapon to affect us. Afghanistan does not have nukes but you can damn well bet every soldier who has been killed there 's family has been affected !!! As well as their friends too. How many soldiers watch the de-militarized zone between N.Korea and S.Korea , how many U.S. ships patrol that region? How many airmen? Each soldier,sailor,airman and marine is personally affected by these countries as well as their familys. Same thing for the Persian Gulf area and middle east . I cant possible imagine that if their was a one percent bad cop population out there that they would have anywhere near the impact on american lifes as Iran or N korea. How many men and women are killed in military exercises and training and accidents and deployment to these areas? I will be willing to bet that more are killed being patriots to their country than by rogue cops in any given one year even in peacetime.
Without some kind of proof or facts or figures that can be cited to show that every department in the country has bad cops that are a threat to the public then it is purely a bias, and or ignorant, opinion that doesn't even deserve a responce.
with out proof, facts, figures, statistics that there are "$hitty, cowboy, small d!ck compensating cops are roaming the streets in everyones hometown" the entire argument is a logical fallacy. it is a hasty generalization.
however, that one line was used to make a point and is now being singled out. the argument here is this:
do bad cops influence the daily lives of US citizens more than Iran?
not "are all cops bad or what percentage" this is also a logical fallacy. Its a "red herring" The fallacy gets its name from fox hunting, specifically from the practice of using smoked herrings, which are red, to distract hounds from the scent of their quarry. Just as a hound may be prevented from catching a fox by distracting it with a red herring, so an arguer may be prevented from proving his point by distracting him with a tangential issue.
back on track here... for arguments sake, lets just say that 1% of all the departments in the US had one ( 1 ) bad cop. that minuscule number of bad cops have more influence over the daily lives of the citizens of the US than Iran does. on the other hand, if Iran gains power and maybe a nuke then uses it on us Iran will have way more influence on the US than the minuscule number of bad cops.
if the line in question is offensive because of the language i cant help here. we have no right to be "not offended"
I don't see how this debate could ever be settled. First everyone would have to agree on the definition of a bad cop and what constitutes affecting a persons daily life. If your mad are you affected? Do you have to suffer physical,mental or monetary damage?Guidelines and parameters would have to be set up. Then once this is defined how would you ever figure out how Iran or N korea affect an Americans daily life. We have no way of knowing how many Americans are engaged in military and non-military activity based on a real or perceived threat from these countries. For instance how many military or CIA personnel are involved in covert measures regarding these countries. Then how many family members of those personnel do not know where their loved ones are or are suffering mental and physical stress because they have not heard from loved ones for months because they are not allowed to contact anyone back home? These countries don't have to have a nuclear weapon to affect us. Afghanistan does not have nukes but you can damn well bet every soldier who has been killed there 's family has been affected !!! As well as their friends too. How many soldiers watch the de-militarized zone between N.Korea and S.Korea , how many U.S. ships patrol that region? How many airmen? Each soldier,sailor,airman and marine is personally affected by these countries as well as their familys. Same thing for the Persian Gulf area and middle east . I cant possible imagine that if their was a one percent bad cop population out there that they would have anywhere near the impact on american lifes as Iran or N korea. How many men and women are killed in military exercises and training and accidents and deployment to these areas? I will be willing to bet that more are killed being patriots to their country than by rogue cops in any given one year even in peacetime.
I don't think I could have stated that any better, Gene.
Well stated GMill and I will concede, given that perspective, you are probably correct. However the "masters of war that hide behind walls, and hide behind masks...ain't worth the blood that runs in their veins" are an entire other topics completly.
Well stated GMill and I will concede, given that perspective, you are probably correct. However the "masters of war that hide behind walls, and hide behind masks...ain't worth the blood that runs in their veins" are an entire other topics completly.
Oh yes, and appeasement is soooo much better. Ask Neville Chamberlain how that works out...
Well stated GMill and I will concede, given that perspective, you are probably correct. However the "masters of war that hide behind walls, and hide behind masks...ain't worth the blood that runs in their veins" are an entire other topics completly.
Oh yes, and appeasement is soooo much better. Ask Neville Chamberlain how that works out...
Very well put G-Man.
Spreading your military too thin in many areas works out well too...Ask the Roman Empire how that panned out.
Well stated GMill and I will concede, given that perspective, you are probably correct. However the "masters of war that hide behind walls, and hide behind masks...ain't worth the blood that runs in their veins" are an entire other topics completly.
Oh yes, and appeasement is soooo much better. Ask Neville Chamberlain how that works out...
Very well put G-Man.
Spreading your military too thin in many areas works out well too...Ask the Roman Empire how that panned out.
Once again, where in that did I say we should attack any other country? That is the problem with liberals, they think the only option to war is to buy off the enemy. Thats why Obama was drafting an "incentives" package for N. Korea.
Well stated GMill and I will concede, given that perspective, you are probably correct. However the "masters of war that hide behind walls, and hide behind masks...ain't worth the blood that runs in their veins" are an entire other topics completly.
Oh yes, and appeasement is soooo much better. Ask Neville Chamberlain how that works out...
Very well put G-Man.
Spreading your military too thin in many areas works out well too...Ask the Roman Empire how that panned out.
Once again, where in that did I say we should attack any other country? That is the problem with liberals, they think the only option to war is to buy off the enemy. Thats why Obama was drafting an "incentives" package for N. Korea.
Luckily, conservative rebels like Reagan and Ollie North know nothing about buying or selling things to settle probems.
Well stated GMill and I will concede, given that perspective, you are probably correct. However the "masters of war that hide behind walls, and hide behind masks...ain't worth the blood that runs in their veins" are an entire other topics completly.
Oh yes, and appeasement is soooo much better. Ask Neville Chamberlain how that works out...
Very well put G-Man.
Spreading your military too thin in many areas works out well too...Ask the Roman Empire how that panned out.
Once again, where in that did I say we should attack any other country? That is the problem with liberals, they think the only option to war is to buy off the enemy. Thats why Obama was drafting an "incentives" package for N. Korea.
Luckily, conservative rebels like Reagan and Ollie North know nothing about buying or selling things to settle probems.
Well if it wasn't for good ol Carter Reagan wouldn't have had the problems to begin with.
umm.... seriously? this is like 30 year old stuff right here.
liberals do have a way of saying there is only one way to fix things.... but so do conservatives.
ill give an example of each. first the conservatives...
there could have been other ways to handle Iraq than invade. maybe buying them off was an option.(im not sayingit would work or not), maybe a serious blockade, maybe there were other options. im sure that there wasnt only one option-- to go to war.
now for the liberals: health care. there are other options other than government take over. whenever a conservative says "the government should not run health care" the standard response is: "well, are we gunna leave it the way it is?" ...like those are the only two options.there are other options. maybe TORT reform, maybe individual health care savings accounts, maybe an entire host of other options that could happen.
the point is that both sides have a tendency to say that their way is the only way to do anythings and that the other sides way is the only other way to do it and its 100% evil.
the point is that both sides have a tendency to say that their way is the only way to do anythings and that the other sides way is the only other way to do it and its 100% evil.
hrmmm....I'm not sure this only exists in politics.
the point is that both sides have a tendency to say that their way is the only way to do anythings and that the other sides way is the only other way to do it and its 100% evil.
hrmmm....I'm not sure this only exists in politics.
You are right Brandon, my wife and I have the same arguement in the bedroom! HA!
the point is that both sides have a tendency to say that their way is the only way to do anythings and that the other sides way is the only other way to do it and its 100% evil.
hrmmm....I'm not sure this only exists in politics.
You are right Brandon, my wife and I have the same arguement in the bedroom! HA!
I seem to have learned it at a very early age....making myself "right" and therefore everyone else wrong!
the point is that both sides have a tendency to say that their way is the only way to do anythings and that the other sides way is the only other way to do it and its 100% evil.
hrmmm....I'm not sure this only exists in politics.
You are right Brandon, my wife and I have the same arguement in the bedroom! HA!
Yeah, but to Kuzi's point, you were probably trying to "Invade" her....
the point is that both sides have a tendency to say that their way is the only way to do anythings and that the other sides way is the only other way to do it and its 100% evil.
hrmmm....I'm not sure this only exists in politics.
You are right Brandon, my wife and I have the same arguement in the bedroom! HA!
Yeah, but to Kuzi's point, you were probably trying to "Invade" her....
EVERY CHANCE I GET!!! I like the "Divide and Conquer" tactic personally! ~
Well stated GMill and I will concede, given that perspective, you are probably correct. However the "masters of war that hide behind walls, and hide behind masks...ain't worth the blood that runs in their veins" are an entire other topics completly.
Oh yes, and appeasement is soooo much better. Ask Neville Chamberlain how that works out...
Very well put G-Man.
Spreading your military too thin in many areas works out well too...Ask the Roman Empire how that panned out.
Once again, where in that did I say we should attack any other country? That is the problem with liberals, they think the only option to war is to buy off the enemy. Thats why Obama was drafting an "incentives" package for N. Korea.
Luckily, conservative rebels like Reagan and Ollie North know nothing about buying or selling things to settle probems.
Well if it wasn't for good ol Carter Reagan wouldn't have had the problems to begin with.
I think the others are right, we've argued this one to death. But the one thing I will concede is my opinion Carter may be the worst president ever...with a certain bit of space held out for Johnson (#15) and Hoover.
But the one thing I will concede is my opinion Carter may be the worst president ever...with a certain bit of space held out for Johnson (#15) and Hoover.
uh... am i missing something... the 15th president was Buchanan. and Johnson was 36th.
i would put hoover in the top 3 worst. maybe top 10...
Best president ever?
WILLIAM HENRY HARRISON
he died before he had time to mess everything up more. the nature of government ("government" being a general entity, not to be confused with "our government") is to grow and gain more power and implement larger and more complex bureaucracy . every single president since Washington has done just this to one degree or another. this is why the president who does the least will be the best.
Ok, if the government can't budget enough money for the "Cash for Clunkers" program, what makes them think they can tackle the healthcare industry? And why do they expect us to pay for everyone else's new vehicle? Along with their Cable TV, House, Insurance...etc..etc...
i understand your point, but i feel that those are unrelated.
I'm not saying the CARS program is related to healthcare, but seriously hurts my faith in the budgeting ability of this administration. If they can't budget enough to cover this program, how can we expect them to budget enough money for something the size of the Healthcare package?
a stronger point would be to point out all the government programs that fail in comparison to all of those that succeed.
My line of thinking was that this was the first government program from this administration that failed, and failed in less than a week. The other programs they have put into effect haven't had time to actually fail.
But the one thing I will concede is my opinion Carter may be the worst president ever...with a certain bit of space held out for Johnson (#15) and Hoover.
uh... am i missing something... the 15th president was Buchanan. and Johnson was 36th.
i would put hoover in the top 3 worst. maybe top 10...
Best president ever?
WILLIAM HENRY HARRISON
he died before he had time to mess everything up more. the nature of government ("government" being a general entity, not to be confused with "our government") is to grow and gain more power and implement larger and more complex bureaucracy . every single president since Washington has done just this to one degree or another. this is why the president who does the least will be the best.
LOL----Here is to my Bachelors Degree in U.S. History. I was referring to James Buchanan, but was thinking in my mind of Andrew Johnson. Lyndon I was giving a pardon to, although he doesnt particularly deserve one. Ahhhh, Harrison, didnt his mother teach him not to give 3hr speeches in the snow?
As far as cash for clunkers, I think its a nice idea from an emissions and fuel usage standpoint....however, when did it become the governments job to help support and fund everything that is "nice". Using this logic I should be able to trade in my old Ninentendo for a brand new Ipod Touch since it uses less electricity. Any takers?
As far as cash for clunkers, I think its a nice idea from an emissions and fuel usage standpoint....however, when did it become the governments job to help support and fund everything that is "nice". Using this logic I should be able to trade in my old Ninentendo for a brand new Ipod Touch since it uses less electricity. Any takers?
when has it been the governments job to do anything but defend the individual rights of the citizens?
Apparently they think it is their right and their duty more and more every year Kuzi and I dont know why......Why in gods name Ron Paul isnt in office right now I will never know. I still have his sign in front of my yard at the house.....lol
Exactly right. Its a shame too because he is one of the few who would EVER answer a direct question and give his truth answer instead of hiding behind politcal jargon....plus I spent a few warm Florida evenings holding a sign for that guy in the campaign for liberty marches around this area....all for 5% of the vote, lol. At least Nevada had it right in their primary.
The CARS program probably has done more to help the automakers than the billion dollar bailouts of GM and Chrysler. Regardless of how you feel about the program itself at least the automakers and public received a benefit from the program together rather than the wasted bailout money IMHO ...Not saying either was a good idea just saying at least one benefited everyone except of course the taxpayer ...If the Govt was he_ll bent on spending on SOMETHING at least the average Joe and business got a boost ...
Comments
I don't see how this debate could ever be settled. First everyone would have to agree on the definition of a bad cop and what constitutes affecting a persons daily life. If your mad are you affected? Do you have to suffer physical,mental or monetary damage?Guidelines and parameters would have to be set up. Then once this is defined how would you ever figure out how Iran or N korea affect an Americans daily life. We have no way of knowing how many Americans are engaged in military and non-military activity based on a real or perceived threat from these countries. For instance how many military or CIA personnel are involved in covert measures regarding these countries. Then how many family members of those personnel do not know where their loved ones are or are suffering mental and physical stress because they have not heard from loved ones for months because they are not allowed to contact anyone back home? These countries don't have to have a nuclear weapon to affect us. Afghanistan does not have nukes but you can damn well bet every soldier who has been killed there 's family has been affected !!! As well as their friends too. How many soldiers watch the de-militarized zone between N.Korea and S.Korea , how many U.S. ships patrol that region? How many airmen? Each soldier,sailor,airman and marine is personally affected by these countries as well as their familys. Same thing for the Persian Gulf area and middle east . I cant possible imagine that if their was a one percent bad cop population out there that they would have anywhere near the impact on american lifes as Iran or N korea. How many men and women are killed in military exercises and training and accidents and deployment to these areas? I will be willing to bet that more are killed being patriots to their country than by rogue cops in any given one year even in peacetime.
Very well put G-Man.
liberals do have a way of saying there is only one way to fix things.... but so do conservatives.
ill give an example of each. first the conservatives...
there could have been other ways to handle Iraq than invade. maybe buying them off was an option.(im not sayingit would work or not), maybe a serious blockade, maybe there were other options. im sure that there wasnt only one option-- to go to war.
now for the liberals: health care. there are other options other than government take over. whenever a conservative says "the government should not run health care" the standard response is: "well, are we gunna leave it the way it is?"
...like those are the only two options.there are other options. maybe TORT reform, maybe individual health care savings accounts, maybe an entire host of other options that could happen.
the point is that both sides have a tendency to say that their way is the only way to do anythings and that the other sides way is the only other way to do it and its 100% evil.
i would put hoover in the top 3 worst. maybe top 10...
Best president ever?
WILLIAM HENRY HARRISON
he died before he had time to mess everything up more.
the nature of government ("government" being a general entity, not to be confused with "our government") is to grow and gain more power and implement larger and more complex bureaucracy . every single president since Washington has done just this to one degree or another. this is why the president who does the least will be the best.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CASH_FOR_CLUNKERS?SITE=OHALL2&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT